Gay Pride Parades

[El Nino]

Something like sex with contraception would be on the same level with homosexual sex, that is, having sex purely for pleasure.

So, our early ancestors had sex specifically for the purpose of procreation? As in, they were thinking about having kids and made the conscious decision to have sex, as opposed to being tricked by the mechanisms of their bodies into engaging in acts they enjoyed that consequently resulted in the birth of a child?

Here's what I think. I think straight people have sex purely for pleasure. Randomly, they ended up with kids as a result. Now, out of guilt due to social conditioning which attempts to control sexual behavior, they need to justify their pleasure, and so they point to the end result of that behavior, which is procreation. But I really don't think that straight people, whether in modern times or prehistoric times, engaged in sex expecting and wanting a kid each and every time. Procreation is a consequence of sex, but it is not the primary motivation for most people when they choose/chose to have sex.

And as for the second point, no it isn't, because liberation requires redefining the role and usage of sex, which is what the acceptance of homosexuality and sexual deviance entails. It's a liberation in that we're opening the door to more uses of sex to become accepted.

What does a person's sex life have to do with the decision to adopt and/or raise a child? When a straight couple has a child, you could say that their sexual behaviors directly contribute to that child's existence. But when someone adopts a kid, his/her sex life has nothing to do with that kid having been born. It doesn't matter if an adoptive parent is straight, gay, bi, lesbian, trans, intersex, or even asexual. An adoptive parent's sex life is not connected to the birth of the adopted child. In fact, the role of an adoptive parent is to assume a role abandoned by the biological parents, whether by choice or by some uncontrollable circumstance. Any adoption is a redefinition of the traditional role of a parent because the traditional roles of parenthood belong to the biological parents. However, sometimes the biological parents die, or are otherwise unfit to raise their own children. In that case, the situation calls upon society to redefine that role.

 

[Dre89]

I never said they intended to have a kid everytime. I also never said heteros don't have sex just for pleasure, that's why I equated gay sex with contraception sex.

I'm confused as to why you brought up adoption.

 

[Ocean]

you did originally.

Gays though are also pushing for marriage and adoption rights. That's not about protection, that's about sexual liberation, redefining the traditional concepts of marriage and parenthood to suit their needs. So it's not just a matter of them protecting themselves.

 

[Deleted member]

How do I feel about Gay Pride Parades?

While I do feel that they should be allowed (it's an American right), I do not support them, nor will I attend one of my own will. Being a gay man myself, what I see being displayed in those parades is not what I stand for, nor does it bring me any sense of pride from seeing it. In fact, it brings me shame to see it broadcasted on television in front of my parents who just shake their heads and call gays "disgusting" and "freaks". People will believe what they see, and that is their impression of how gays act.

How would they react when they found out that their own son was gay? Surely, they would be shocked, because I don't walk around the house wearing drag, nor have I ever been seen wearing short shorts while making out with a mostly naked man on a street corner. Yet, am I supposed to be acting that way? Maybe I'm not gay, and there's just something wrong with me.

You see my point?

Surely, these parades aren't helping gays come out of the closet.

 

[Excellence]

Seikend, you're not displeased with gay pride parades as much as you are with the image of gays. You said it yourself, you're more ashamed of the gay community, which is probably because you can't identify with what they portray and that is okay. The gay community as a whole may not be what you want it to be but but regardless that's the way it is.

Do I support gay pride parades: No. I don't care if they're held and I don't care if they're missed.
Am I gay, lesbian, transgender or bi: Nope.
Do I support gay rights: Nope, I support human rights.

 

[El Nino]

I never said they intended to have a kid everytime. I also never said heteros don't have sex just for pleasure, that's why I equated gay sex with contraception sex.

My point is that straight sex without contraception is still motivated in part or in full by pleasure.

I'm confused as to why you brought up adoption.

As Ocean said, you brought it up initially.

How do I feel about Gay Pride Parades?

While I do feel that they should be allowed (it's an American right), I do not support them, nor will I attend one of my own will. Being a gay man myself, what I see being displayed in those parades is not what I stand for, nor does it bring me any sense of pride from seeing it. In fact, it brings me shame to see it broadcasted on television in front of my parents who just shake their heads and call gays "disgusting" and "freaks". People will believe what they see, and that is their impression of how gays act.

How would they react when they found out that their own son was gay? Surely, they would be shocked, because I don't walk around the house wearing drag, nor have I ever been seen wearing short shorts while making out with a mostly naked man on a street corner. Yet, am I supposed to be acting that way? Maybe I'm not gay, and there's just something wrong with me.

You see my point?

Surely, these parades aren't helping gays come out of the closet.

This may or may not help you, but regardless what what images are broadcast over the airwaves, you are more influential in your parents' lives than what they see on TV. You are their son, and you coming out is going to change them in some way, be it positive or negative. In my experience, people are most influenced by the people directly involved in their lives, not celebrities or news reports or pride parades. No pop culture element can move people to the extent that those deeply connected to them can move them. Generally speaking, people don't change because of what they see on TV. They change because some deep personal experience made them change.

 

[Deleted member]

This may or may not help you, but regardless what what images are broadcast over the airwaves, you are more influential in your parents' lives than what they see on TV. You are their son, and you coming out is going to change them in some way, be it positive or negative. In my experience, people are most influenced by the people directly involved in their lives, not celebrities or news reports or pride parades. No pop culture element can move people to the extent that those deeply connected to them can move them. Generally speaking, people don't change because of what they see on TV. They change because some deep personal experience made them change.

While what you say is true, people are still influenced a lot by what they see in the media. The information that we gather can be passed on to others to the point of where people gain the stubborn mentality of "I grew up being told this, therefore, it must be true". Even if it's very possible, it's still pretty difficult to change someone's views if that's the case. To see a great example of this, I suggest you have a look at this Straight Man in a Gay World episode of 30 Days. It's 46 minutes long, but it's really a great episode I think everyone in this thread should watch, regardless of your views on this issue.

And the statement at the end of my previous post still stands. If your parents have a negative reaction to the gay parades they see on tv, therefore developing a thought process to how they think gays act, it won't make it any easier for a guy to come out to them.

 

[El Nino]

I'll try to get to that video when I have more time.

If your parents have a negative reaction to the gay parades they see on tv, therefore developing a thought process to how they think gays act, it won't make it any easier for a guy to come out to them.

Do you think that when a person has a negative reaction to something they see on TV, is it really due to the thing that they are watching, or is it because they already have their mind made up on the issue and so are predisposed to have a negative reaction regardless?

Another point to consider is that a lot of homophobia comes from straight males who feel that male homosexuality compromises their own masculinity. In this view, gay males fail to correctly represent the appropriate image of men, and thus they bring down all men. That is, gay males "misrepresent" men in a way that is harmful to all men. LGBT activists have long responded to this by accusing homophobic straight males of being insecure about their masculinity. To what extent does the gay fear of the pride parades as being "misrepresentations" of the community constitute a form of hypocrisy? Do you think that this view may be the result of a similar form of insecurity among LGBT people?

 

[Dre89]

That's interesting. It's often the most masculine men who hate gays, yet you think this is a result of insecurity about their masculinity. So you think the most masculine men are the most insecure about their masculinity?

 

[Deleted member]

I'll try to get to that video when I have more time.



Do you think that when a person has a negative reaction to something they see on TV, is it really due to the thing that they are watching, or is it because they already have their mind made up on the issue and so are predisposed to have a negative reaction regardless?

Another point to consider is that a lot of homophobia comes from straight males who feel that male homosexuality compromises their own masculinity. In this view, gay males fail to correctly represent the appropriate image of men, and thus they bring down all men. That is, gay males "misrepresent" men in a way that is harmful to all men. LGBT activists have long responded to this by accusing homophobic straight males of being insecure about their masculinity. To what extent does the gay fear of the pride parades as being "misrepresentations" of the community constitute a form of hypocrisy? Do you think that this view may be the result of a similar form of insecurity among LGBT people?

That's a good point. I never thought about that, but that may very well also be the case. Though what a person sees on television is still imprinting an image in their head of how gay people supposedly act.

About gay males misrepresenting masculinity, which view are you referring to? Gay pride parades with men crossdressing, wearing near to nothing, etc., or just that some straight males feel that men should only be with women? Honestly, the latter is formed most likely from what those homophobic males grew up hearing from family or what they read in the bible(homosexuality is a sin; again, the video I linked to earlier is a good example to watch). The former, however, is why I believe gay pride parades misrepresent what they stand for, because I definitely don't behave that way, and I'm sure other homosexual men feel the same way.

I believe that the LGBT community throwing out accusations that straight, homophobic men are just insecure about their masculinity is the wrong thing to do. It only adds fuel to the fire because it infers that homosexuality is a choice, which it isn't. Saying they're insecure about their masculinity is just egging them on, or saying that they are just afraid of "crossing over" to the gay side.

 

[Dre89]

That accusation is also a straw man of higher level arguments, and doesn't account for women's anti homosexuality.

If the community thinks it can make comments like that, then that opens the door for the opposition to say it's just a disease, and point out psychological factors such as a lack of a male role model, or dislike of the opposite sex (which studies have apparently shown to be true).

 

[El Nino]

That's interesting. It's often the most masculine men who hate gays, yet you think this is a result of insecurity about their masculinity. So you think the most masculine men are the most insecure about their masculinity?

I suspect that they are. It's like the societies that evolve in male prisons. If you're not alpha, then you're the b*tch. The fear of slipping down the hierarchy and being perceived as un-masculine is what causes insecurity. And if you step up or front, then you need to back it up.

About gay males misrepresenting masculinity, which view are you referring to? Gay pride parades with men crossdressing, wearing near to nothing, etc., or just that some straight males feel that men should only be with women? Honestly, the latter is formed most likely from what those homophobic males grew up hearing from family or what they read in the bible(homosexuality is a sin; again, the video I linked to earlier is a good example to watch).

I think you're right about the correlation between family traditions, religion and homophobia. However, those aren't the only factors at play, and it varies by culture. Among the ethnic/racial minorities in the U.S., each one experiences homophobia for different reasons. The black community is usually associated with both a hyper-masculine culture and strong influence by the Christian church. Latin culture is also hyper-masculine, with Catholicism as the main religion. Asian cultures tend to have strong extended families and strong traditions, and the tendency is to promote conformity. Middle Eastern cultures are strongly influenced by Islam.

Homophobia in each of those communities is different, and it isn't just the Bible or family tradition. Not everyone sits down and tries to come up with a good reason to be against homosexuality. A lot of non-religious people can be homophobic, but their views might be more influenced by emotional gut reactions rather than their adherence to some sort of doctrine. Some people just don't find homosexuality appealing, and so they react against it. I can understand this reaction up until the point when they try to pass laws based on it.

But another emotional gut reaction is the insecure reaction when a guy might feel threatened when he sees another man in a dress or makeup. Hyper-masculine men are under a lot of pressure to maintain their status as alphas in society. A man who acts like a "woman" crosses an imaginary line, and it puts the entire concept of masculinity at risk. It's possible to define masculinity in terms of homosexuality, but I think most people don't. A guy who takes it is not considered masculine by traditional standards. As a hyper-masculine male, if you are in secure, you might feel the urge to take him down a notch. That would help you keep your status as alpha.

There's a lot of group-think that goes on in hyper-masculine subcultures. A lot of guys like to identify with other guys and hang out in packs because it re-affirms their own sense of masculinity. Because of this type of thinking, a male who acts in a feminine way is a threat to the group identity.

The former, however, is why I believe gay pride parades misrepresent what they stand for, because I definitely don't behave that way, and I'm sure other homosexual men feel the same way.

I wanted to draw a parallel about insecurities among both heterosexual and homosexual people. Some straight men are threatened by the gay men because they feel that it undermines the concept of masculinity, and some LGBT people seem threatened by members of their own communities because they feel that "flamboyance" makes other people see them in a bad way. I'm asking if the stance again flamboyance among some LGBT people can be a form of intolerance as well.

I believe you when you say that you don't behave like the way people do at gay pride parades. In fact, most of the people IN the gay pride parades don't behave that way in public everyday either. Most of them just want to have fun, while getting a little political message in on the side.

So, the question is, for anyone who is a minority (racial, ethnic, religious or sexual), whether you are going out to the convenience store or taking part in a political rally, are you expected to represent your community all the time? Do you ever get to take a break and act like a moron for two seconds just because it's fun? Or maybe it doesn't matter what people "should" or should not do. Should people just accept that the world is unfair to minorities, and everyone should behave well and make social progress before anyone starts celebrating?

Edit: And is the problem here a problem with the pride parade itself, or is it more a problem because the pride parade is the only main source of visibility for the LGBT community? Should they stop having the parades, or should they just increase the community's visibility by expanding it in other ways?

That accusation is also a straw man of higher level arguments, and doesn't account for women's anti homosexuality.

It doesn't account for women's anti-homosexuality, and that's because there are different reasons for homophobia among different people. I'm not saying that all people who are against homosexuality are against it for the same reason. I'm saying that some people are against it for reasons of insecurity.

If the community thinks it can make comments like that, then that opens the door for the opposition to say it's just a disease, and point out psychological factors such as a lack of a male role model, or dislike of the opposite sex (which studies have apparently shown to be true).

I think this thread shows that "the community" is not one unified entity, and neither is the anti-homosexuality side. You may hang around intellectuals and academics, but I don't, and the homophobia that I am most familiar with is certainly not intellectualized or even rationalized. The people I run into everyday are more influenced by their emotions and by their cultures.

And I don't see how speculations about the numerous potential causes for homophobia can be taken as support for the notion that homosexuality is a disease. Regardless of how homosexuality came to be, homophobia is the reaction against it.

Regarding your last two points:

1) lack of male role model: most likely an effect rather than a cause. It seems more reasonable to me to think that a high portion of gay males (I presume this is about males) would just find it hard to relate to traditional male role models, especially if those role models promote a form of sexuality that doesn't appeal to them.

2) dislike of the opposite sex: I see this one thrown at lesbian women more than gay men, but it can be used against either. Again, most likely an effect rather than a cause. Heteronormative cultures promote heterosexuality, and most LGBT people try a straight relationship at least once. But the constant pressure of social expectations and trying to act straight can push people into unfulfilling physical relationships that border on self-abuse. This might lead to latent forms of misandry or misogyny.

 

[Battlecow]

Real talk: gay people shouldn't be allowed to adopt. The nuclear family is a construct critical to our society and culture, and replacing the tried-and-true father-mother thing rips the **** out of all of the parenting techniques and skillz that humanity (or at least western civilization) has been building up since way back when. Single parents work badly enough (If they end up with kids, all right, do your best, but we shouldn't let them adopt either) without throwing an additional weird role into the mix.

It's kind of tragic, but homosexuals are destined to miss out, every one of them, on what's generally considered to be a crucial part of the "normal" human's life cycle and personal growth. True parenthood, along with all of its societal benefits, is unobtainable for them, and without any sort of established culture of their own, they lack any sort of traditional or cultural substitute for it. Kind of like growing up without parents- doable, but there's a disconnect from mainstream society.

Adoption is cool beans when you've got a mother and father in on it though. Works like a mother****ing charm.

 

[Dre89]

El Nino- No it's not an effect rather than a cause. Studies have shown many gays had absent fathers, and no substitute male role-model. It wasn't just that they didn't consider males their role models, they were literally absent from their life.

This is pointless anyway, because we know whilst sexuality is not a conscious decision, it is subject to psychological factors.

BC- You can't just say the nuclear family is a necessity without proving it. Also, no one is suggesting they remove it, just add a few new family types, it's not as if those gays are going to go make nuclear families if gay ones are illegal anyway.

Besides, statistics show that the nuclear system has actually forced western civilisation into a decline, demographically speaking.

Furthermore, about gays being disconnected, they're disconnected because they've never been accepted. The point is if they push for acceptance, the disconnection will gradually fade away.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Real talk: gay people shouldn't be allowed to adopt. The nuclear family is a construct critical to our society and culture, and replacing the tried-and-true father-mother thing rips the **** out of all of the parenting techniques and skillz that humanity (or at least western civilization) has been building up since way back when. Single parents work badly enough (If they end up with kids, all right, do your best, but we shouldn't let them adopt either) without throwing an additional weird role into the mix.

...Actually the whole "single parent" idea throws this entire hypothesis out of whack. The Nuclear Family as a social contract has been essentially demonstrated as unnecessary. These parenting skills can apply just as well to any household. Hell, you're not even bringing up the perfectly stable, totally whack (in reference to the nuclear family) idea of both parents having full- or part-time jobs, which leaves the child without an effective parent most of the time... Or hell, even just the mother working and the father staying at home and taking care of the kids!

Now, if you think you have adequate reason to believe that the nuclear family is a necessary social construct, or even that being raised by two men or two women is dangerous for a child, be it their upbringing, or their social life, or whatever, I welcome you to provide studies showing that this is the case. Otherwise this is just a completely unfounded hypothesis with no basis in reality.

 

[Battlecow]

Do you have convincing, thorough studies showing that gay parents work just as well as straight ones? The onus probandi is on you, not on me, because you're the one trying to change the way things have always been done. No child needs 24/7 attention; the presence of parent figures who can teach them what they need to know and fulfill the roles of parents is enough.

On the first google I found this about single parenting:
"
SINGLE PARENT FAMILY – EFFECTS AND ECONOMICS

Twice as likely

Children growing up in a single-parent family are twice as likely to have a child before the age of 20 than those raised in a two-parent family. 45.

One and a half times as likely

Children growing up in a single-parent family are one and a half times as likely to be out of school and out of work in their late teens and early 20s as those who grow up in a two-parent family. 46.
When single moms work evenings, only slightly more than 35 percent eat with their children at least five days a week. 47.

Children who live with only one parent or with a parent and stepparent, experience more disadvantages in terms of psychological functioning, behavioral problems, education, and health"

Basically, it's common knowledge that single parenting is much harder and worse for the kid than having a mother and father. So no, your argument doesn't work.

So yeah. I'm right, you're wrong. Get at me.

 

[ballin4life]

I think there might be some correlation causation going on with the single mothers ... but yeah I think there are plenty of terrible parents of all types.

 

[Battlecow]

Of course good parenting is more important than any particular family configuration. There might be a corrcaus thing with the single parenting, but come on; it's only common sense that having both a fatherly and a motherly influence on your life is beneficial. Even if you don't accept that as true, you have to admit that it's tougher to raise kids when you don't have anyone to help you do it.

 

[ballin4life]

Of course. But to what extent does that conclusion has any impact on the case of 2 homosexual parents?

 

[Battlecow]

Well, so far my argument is that I believe the nuclear family to be, as Cadet put it, "a necessary social construct," or rather, a helpful one (obv. it's not absolutely necessary). The lack of the cool yin-yang mother-father influences in homosexual couples with kids leads a kid to turn out worse than he would have if he was raised traditionally. Ergo, gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt because they're not fit parents. If someone wants to prove otherwise, they should find studies; otherwise they can debate it with me on a philosophical level. Cadet said that the nuclear family had been proven unnecessary; I think that he's missing the point, which is that it's still helpful and beneficial.

I haven't brought up the social ostracism that gaybies undergo yet, because I really don't know the extent to which it happens, but I imagine there's quite a bit of awkwardness inherent in the unusual situation.

 

[Dre89]

Following on from BC's post, it can be argued that there is nothing for the child to gain from gay adoption, only stuff to lose. The adoption thing is more about giving gays something they want, rather than something good for the child (not that I'm saying that gay parents will necessarily be bad).

We should probably get this back on to the parades though.

 

[Battlecow]

The parades are annoying and probably harmful to the cause, but they shouldn't be banned or anything, obviously. They're fairly harmless.

 

[El Nino]

El Nino- No it's not an effect rather than a cause. Studies have shown many gays had absent fathers, and no substitute male role-model. It wasn't just that they didn't consider males their role models, they were literally absent from their life.

And out of all the men and boys who grew up without fathers, how many of them are gay?

Because if that theory is correct, rather than looking at homosexuals, we should be looking at all boys whose fathers were absent from their lives, and we would expect to find that a significant portion of those boys are gay. But I don't think that's what we'll find. The only major social phenomenon I can recall being linked to absent fathers is gang culture in the lives of young men. How many of them are gay?

I'm not going to ask you to cite those studies because I think I've already read summarizations of others that reached similar conclusions, and I recall two issues that came up for me at the time were sampling error and inappropriate sample size. Furthermore, there's a difference between a "study" and a scientific experiment. Studies show correlation, but they don't necessary show causation because causation has to be proved. To do that, you need to conduct an experiment. And any experiment on this subject would violate every single code of ethics on human experimentation.

 

[Battlecow]

So studies can't tell you whether or not two things are linked? Lol.

Correlation does not prove causation, but if studies show that 95% of goldfish will die when you make them eat arsenic, It's not unreasonable to assume that arsenic is poisonous. Common sense right thur.

 

[Dre89]

Thur lol.

I like your posting style, you cow of battles.

El Nino- I'm not saying there's going to be a 100% corrleation, nor am I saying that is the only cause of homosexuality. But what I will say is that homosexuality is "caused" psychologically, as are all other types of sexuality.

To be honest though, whether homosexuality is a choice, is psychological, or biologically determined makes no difference in anything, so I don't understand why it's a big issue.

 

[Battlecow]

I learned that I had a gay friend today

which is nice because I've hated literally every gay person I've met IRL in recent memory. I was starting to think that I was some sort of secret subconscious homophobe, but apparently I just had the bad luck to meet a bunch of douches.

 

[El Nino]

Thur lol.

I like your posting style, you cow of battles.

El Nino- I'm not saying there's going to be a 100% corrleation, nor am I saying that is the only cause of homosexuality.

No, but you are saying that Factor A (absent fathers) causes Phenomenon X (boys becoming gay).

Hypothetical analogy: Smoking causes AIDS. Evidence: 50% of people with AIDS are smokers. How do you study this? Don't look at people with AIDS. Look at people who smoke. Because if smoking causes AIDS, a lot of people who smoke would have AIDS.

If you look at smokers and find that a significant portion of people who smoke also develop AIDS, you may have grounds to form a scientific hypothesis, even though you don't have grounds for a conclusion yet. But if you jump to the conclusion, you may miss out on the reality. And that reality might be:

Smoking is popular among intravenous drug users who share needles. Meaning, smoking is only associated with AIDS because of other social factors.

So studies can't tell you whether or not two things are linked? Lol.

Correlation does not prove causation, but if studies show that 95% of goldfish will die when you make them eat arsenic, It's not unreasonable to assume that arsenic is poisonous. Common sense right thur.

To prove causation in the above mentioned scenario, you would need a control group of goldfish and an experimental group. The experimental group is fed arsenic, and the control group is fed a placebo. All other environmental factors are kept uniform. If the experimental group dies, then you can conclude that arsenic caused them to die.

If you fed a goldfish arsenic, and then the aerator in the tank stopped working and there was no oxygen in the tank, it'd be hard to say which factor caused it to die. That's why environmental factors have to be controlled.

Furthermore, there is an organic form of arsenic found in seafood, and this type of arsenic is much less harmful than inorganic arsenic. Goldfish food is often made from ground up marine fishmeal and/or shrimp. So, I'd guess that they can tolerate a moderate level of organic arsenic.

 

[ballin4life]

So studies can't tell you whether or not two things are linked? Lol.

Correlation does not prove causation, but if studies show that 95% of goldfish will die when you make them eat arsenic, It's not unreasonable to assume that arsenic is poisonous. Common sense right thur.

 

[Battlecow]

To prove causation in the above mentioned scenario, you would need a control group of goldfish and an experimental group. The experimental group is fed arsenic, and the control group is fed a placebo. All other environmental factors are kept uniform. If the experimental group dies, then you can conclude that arsenic caused them to die.

If you fed a goldfish arsenic, and then the aerator in the tank stopped working and there was no oxygen in the tank, it'd be hard to say which factor caused it to die. That's why environmental factors have to be controlled.

Furthermore, there is an organic form of arsenic found in seafood, and this type of arsenic is much less harmful than inorganic arsenic. Goldfish food is often made from ground up marine fishmeal and/or shrimp. So, I'd guess that they can tolerate a moderate level of organic arsenic.

I'm not saying it proves anything. I'm saying that if you can't experiment but have data from studies, it can be useful to use that data. Ballin's charming post tells us what we already knew about correlation and causation, but if it's not ridiculous that one thing could be causing another, cautious assumptions can and should be made.

Let's say a new drug- Flaucinaucinihilipillificatril- is introduced. It makes everyone who takes it as cool as Smash 64 players. Obviously, everyone who can afford it buys tons. A year later, studies show that an unusually high number (let's say 15%) of these drug-takers develop skin cancer. Obviously, we can't do a controlled experiment. Should we then let the use of Flaucinaucinihilipillificatril continue unabated? Of course not.

Neener neener I'm right you're wrong SUCK IT BALLIN'!

Also LOL at the goldfish thing, nice to know.

 

[ballin4life]

This:

So studies can't tell you whether or not two things are linked? Lol.

Correlation does not prove causation, but if studies show that 95% of goldfish will die when you make them eat arsenic, It's not unreasonable to assume that arsenic is poisonous. Common sense right thur.

is not the same as this:

I'm not saying it proves anything. I'm saying that if you can't experiment but have data from studies, it can be useful to use that data. Ballin's charming post tells us what we already knew about correlation and causation, but if it's not ridiculous that one thing could be causing another, cautious assumptions can and should be made.

Let's say a new drug- Flaucinaucinihilipillificatril- is introduced. It makes everyone who takes it as cool as Smash 64 players. Obviously, everyone who can afford it buys tons. A year later, studies show that an unusually high number (let's say 15%) of these drug-takers develop skin cancer. Obviously, we can't do a controlled experiment. Should we then let the use of Flaucinaucinihilipillificatril continue unabated? Of course not.

It depends. That might be considered a controlled experiment - with the two test periods being (Before) and (After). As long as Before and After are the same conditions, then we might be able to infer causation.

Of course, if there a massive hole in the ozone layer develops in the meantime, then probably not.

Neener neener I'm right you're wrong SUCK IT BALLIN'!

Well, it IS the Gay Pride thread AMIRITE?

 

[eschemat]

Yeah lol, Battlecow, I kinda thought that what you were saying sounded like begging the question

 

[El Nino]

There will be no sucking in the gay pride thread.

Only winning.

 

[1048576]

I think several people in this thread need to take a crash course in statistics. It's an issue that comes up a lot.

Who's to say that the gene for walking out on your son isn't also one of a combination of gay genes?

Put even more simply, who's to say ice cream doesn't cause homosexuality, and that kids raised by single mothers get more ice cream.

 

[Battlecow]

It depends. That might be considered a controlled experiment - with the two test periods being (Before) and (After). As long as Before and After are the same conditions, then we might be able to infer causation.

Of course, if there a massive hole in the ozone layer develops in the meantime, then probably not.

Well, if a study showed that a great percentage of gay kids had absent fathers, the conditions would obviously be somewhat different in the "gay" and "not gay" test groups. Likewise, my drug example would obviously have somewhat different conditions before and after.

 

[El Nino]

Let's say a new drug- Flaucinaucinihilipillificatril- is introduced. It makes everyone who takes it as cool as Smash 64 players. Obviously, everyone who can afford it buys tons. A year later, studies show that an unusually high number (let's say 15%) of these drug-takers develop skin cancer. Obviously, we can't do a controlled experiment. Should we then let the use of Flaucinaucinihilipillificatril continue unabated? Of course not.

What if that 15% also used tanning beds? You wouldn't know if you just made the assumption that the drug caused the disease. Stopping the use of a drug would be premature and potentially dangerous, and it would take years to find out that you were wrong, that it was the tanning beds and not the drugs that caused the cases of skin cancer.

You would still need to back up your assertion with experimental evidence, most likely following the established ethical guidelines for clinical testing on human or animal subjects, a common practice for the research and development of any drug. If the drug is already in use, you can simply follow a group of people taking the drug and include a control group to be given placebos, and then monitor the outcome. Again, the use of the control group is very important. If 15% of the control group also develops skin cancer, then you don't have evidence that the drug is to blame. The cause may be something else already present in the environment that affects both groups.

Well, if a study showed that a great percentage of gay kids had absent fathers, the conditions would obviously be somewhat different in the "gay" and "not gay" test groups. Likewise, my drug example would obviously have somewhat different conditions before and after.

The problem is that the conditions would be too different, and they would be different across all fields and variables, such that any factor present in the environment could be the cause of the phenomenon. Without controlled conditions, you wouldn't know which factor caused what.

Almost 100% of gay men are biologically male. From that we can infer that the Y sex chromosome causes homosexuality. True or false?

 

[Battlecow]

Sigh. We can't do experiments, so we can rely cautiously on studies as indications of what might be true. OBVIOUSLY they don't prove anything irrefutably. You can stop telling me that conditions are different, because I understand that. The point is, if you can't take all factors into account, you should still stop use of the drug if studies show that those who take it get lots and lots of cancer and you can't do experiments. Your last point is a tired rehash of the point that y'all seemingly never tire of making: Correlation ≠ Causation. Yes, it's possible that all those takers of the drug had other factors which cancer'd them, but with the knowledge we have we CAN make tentative assumptions based on HOW wildly different circumstances are. For instance: a thousand men who lived on Venus get 15% more cancer than those living on earth. Does Venus' atmosphere cause cancer? It's hard to tell, because there's so much **** that could be causing cancer there. Let's say that a bunch of people riding in cars made by Toyota had brake failures: Do some Toyotas have faulty brakes? We can tentatively assume that such is the case.

 

[El Nino]

For instance: a thousand men who lived on Venus get 15% more cancer than those living on earth. Does Venus' atmosphere cause cancer?

Stop right there. Compare the difference between the above statement and this:

Studies have shown many gays had absent fathers, and no substitute male role-model. It wasn't just that they didn't consider males their role models, they were literally absent from their life.

Do you see the difference?

You stated your position as: If a certain number of people who do X all develop condition Z, then X might be related to Z.

Dre. stated his position as: If a certain number of people with condition Z have also done X, then X might be related to Z.

Your statement rests on examining the potential cause X. That is, looking at all people who do X (all guys on Venus or all guys without fathers) and seeing what percentage of that group has the condition Z (skin cancer or homosexuality).

Dre.'s statement examines people with condition Z and tries to infer potential cause X based on percentage of Z exposed to X.

If your hypothesis is that Venus causes skin cancer, looking at skin cancer isn't going to tell you that. You have to look at Venus, and you have to test Venus. The center of your experiment relies on isolating the cause, not the effect.

 

[Battlecow]

Aiight, I was arguing a theoretical point rather than actually agreeing with the absent fathers thing. Ballin's comic brought out the debater in me.