Hold on a second...
If it can also be shown that an increase in IE market share leads to an increase in web developers targeting IE, then I might be able to get behind that last graph.
A research paper by two American academics has concluded that one of the key factors in the increasing support among straight men for same-sex marriage comes down to how much pornography they consume. The research, published in the peer-reviewed academic journal Communication Research, is based on a six-year study of 500 US …
"Support for same-sex marriage did not prospectively predict pornography consumption, but pornography consumption did prospectively predict support for same-sex marriage," the abstract reads. "Education was also positively associated with support for same-sex marriage."
And by the
transvestite...er...transitive property of equality (or something like that...it's been a loooong time since high school), one could surmise that pr0n makes you smart...or that only smart people use pr0n, or...oh bother! It's beer-thirty, already.
Perhaps surprisingly, there is actually a well established correlation between intelligence and libido.
I suppose this means that Viagra could be a study aid? Then again, taking an exam while afflicted with a monumental boner is bound to be rather uncomfortable and distracting, so it may be a zero-sum game.
Statistics* show that Firefox browsing NRA members are the most unlikely to go on murderous rampages.
*NRA poll - 200 out of 500 Firefox browsing NRA members agreed with the statement "just cos I have the god given right to kill people doesn't mean that on any particular day of the week I would go on a murderous rampage"
PS the other 300 shouted - "get off of my property ya commie homo Firefox browsing pinko liberal" while
liberally spraying fully automatic assault rifles everywhere in accordance with their 2nd amendment rights to kill every damn thing that moves . No one knows if they agreed with the statement so we put them down as "don't know"
Enough, our "assault" rifles are NOT fully automatic. "Mine certainly isn't" Full auto has been illegal in the US for anyone except a very few owners of very expensive, old register hard to get weapons. And no, gang members need not apply. "You could get a very nice car for what it costs to even START in in that hobby, assuming you ever got past the Federal background checks."
And for the record. My shooting friends and me are Liberal Democrats, so take your phobia, and your bigotry and stick it.
Open legs lead to open minds
Or do open minds lead to open legs?
Or are both trends the result of other causes?
Or is the apparent connection a quirk of the tiny sample?
The only potential "discovery" I can see in this "research" is a prude is a prude.
I do wish data miners would stop presenting themselves as anything other than halfwits.
@P.Lee, "Most of the people I hear about who support gay marriage seem very closed-minded on the issue"
Yup, it's called "making a decision" or "having an opinion". You could say a similar thing for most of the people who are against equal marriage. Or about most of the people who want tax cuts. Or about most of the people who enjoy football.
Or most anything where you have to state a preference one way or another.
Few of us have absolutely no opinion about whether or not we should all have equal rights and responsibilities under the law, and I think equally few of us can be persuaded from one stance to another *over a short period of time* such as during a 15 second TV interview, or even over a few weeks of debate.
Changing "closed-minds" as you put them, takes a long time, whether you're trying to change them towards or away from intolerance.
This is absolute BS. Without a mechanism you have nothing more than a pretty graph from SPSS that highlights a coincidence (at best). There is a strong correlation between opposition to gay marriage and c**tishness. Marriage predates Christianity ergo they have no claim over the usage of the word.
All you need to do is chose the _CORRECT_ scale.
Correlation coefficient is the probability of two functions being linearly dependent on each other. So, for example, if you have y = x^2 and you try to compute the correlation coefficient directly off the values from that you will get that the two variables are independent when in fact they are not. So you have to chose the correct scale/conversion - root, log, exp, etc before you compute it. And here be dragons...
When there is no obvious reasons to use a particular one you can pretty much chose anyone you like ending up with a graph of AOL vs Good Cholesterol. Just like in this case.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Shall I prod it? I think I shall ...
So, typically anonymous Xtian Coward, please tell me which version of Genesis you believe in/have faith in? The one that starts at Gen 1:1, or the one that begins at Gen 2:4? They are clearly quite different versions of the creation myth, and can't both be completely true & accurate accounts of creation, now can they?
Flaw in the Bible, starting right from the git-go. Whodathunkit?
Another Xtian who has never actually read it's own "good book" for content, but rather trusts it's shamen to explain said book to it in a way that benefits the shamen, at the expense said Xtian. There is a reason the early Xtian leaders though of themselves as shepherds, and the congregation as flocks.
PDFO, ignoramus sheep. There are educated adults typing here.
See this is problem with westerners. They think everything that they align with religion has a religious source. However, in other parts of the world not controlled/influenced by your religions, your presumptions are highly likely to be incorrect. In other parts of the world there are different religions that have different social impact.
DISCLAIMER: I am assuming you are a westerner because you cite religion and religious books.
"There are educated adults typing here." FYI, I am not one of them. ;)
"See this is problem with westerners. They think everything that they align with religion has a religious source. However, in other parts of the world not controlled/influenced by your religions, your presumptions are highly likely to be incorrect. In other parts of the world there are different religions that have different social impact."
Ah, never heard of Israel ,have we?
or . . . .
(or are they in the West this week?)
"Oh, lookie! An Xtian!"
Am I missing something here, or is Jake yelling at the wall?
To jake: The OP is a homophobe and a jerk, but there's no indication whatsoever of Christianity - or of any religious bent whatsoever. Or in your shriveled mind are the two one and the same? Wait, don't answer that - let me guess.
It's people (and I use the term loosely) like you who give atheists and the non-religious the reputation of being intolerant, arrogant, childish twits. Congratulations, genius - you yourself have probably done more harm to your own 'cause' than all the typically-anonymous 'Xtian Cowards' in the world put together. Look, I'm an archaeologist - I've discovered a primordial, nearly-sentient Richard Dawkins!
On the bright side, I suppose you have done one good thing - you've given the most intolerant on the Christian right, the unsurest of the fence-sitters, and the most open-minded and accepting of progressives something to agree on: None of them would like you.
Since you seem fond of acronyms, let me add a couple more for you. And please, take this personally: STFU and FOAD.
Hopefully it was cathartic.
I have no cause, other than the (probably) impossible hope of encouraging people to think for themselves. Sarah Bee was known to accuse me of tilting at windmills ...
I'm not here because I want you to like me. Narcissism in the online world is an ugly thing.
As a side note ... what part of my tilting at Xtians in this case really gets your goat? I can do the same for any other religion you specify ... And for the same reason.
"I'm not here because I want you to like me. Narcissism in the online world is an ugly thing."
Nope, you're here because you think you're great and want to tell everyone that in as supercilious a way as possible. Your narcissism is indeed ugly.
"As a side note ... what part of my tilting at Xtians in this case really gets your goat?
Dunno about the other guy, but in my case it's the repeated use of Xtian wherever you can. Think you score points against something by not spelling it correctly? Childish. Or do you think that by repeating it enough others will pick it up and you can claim credit for adding to the language? (The repeated use of "manglement" in other posts seems to be the same behaviour. Tiresome.)
"I can do the same for any other religion you specify ... And for the same reason."
Yep, and the reason's been pointed out above.
"Think you score points against something by not spelling it correctly?"
What's wrong with "Xtian"? The OED says it's correct, from about the 1630s. The modern "Christian" is actually incorrect. Really. Look it up. And here I thought I was being polite ... educated Englishmen used to know their Greek.
"repeated use of Xtian wherever you can"
Uh. No. Fewer that 0.01% of my posts here on ElReg contain that ASCII string.
Manglement is manglement. It's a descriptive term for a particular set of leaches.
I scare you, don't I, AC 14:23 ... Afraid I'll start you thinking for yourself?
"What's wrong with "Xtian"? The OED says it's correct, from about the 1630s. The modern "Christian" is actually incorrect. Really. Look it up. And here I thought I was being polite ... "
The hell you did. The sole purpose of your post - as evidenced by the opening "Shall I poke it?" - was to offend. And when called out on it you reply with a 'defense' that is itself obviously tailored to be absurd, condescending, and insulting.
And then you follow that up by deliberately misinterpreting "repeated use" to mean "in anything you post on this forum" rather than the rather obviously intended "in this post" or perhaps "in the context of Christianity". Unless far more than .01% of your posts are about Christianity, the statistic is meaningless - and, per your own "I thought I was being polite" statement above, why would you try to contest the statement to begin with?
You're a jackass. An inconsistent, obnoxious, self-defeating, arrogant jackass - hell, you can't even make a neutral statement ("...contain that ASCII string") without wrapping it up in "look-at-me-I'm-so-smart-because-I-referred-to-this-technically" rather than just saying, "use the word" or "contain that term". Hint, boy-genius: Most people here know what an ASCII string is. We're not impressed. Your feigned precision does not give your argument more weight.
At any rate, I suppose now I'm the one talking to the wall, so I might as well shut up before I'm accused of hypocrisy. But hope springs eternal - I was once, a long time ago, somewhat like you (though thankfully not quite that bad) and at some point I either wised up, or grew up, or both, realizing that I was essentially copying the worst aspects of the people I hated the most. With any luck, Jake, you're not too far gone either - and maybe, just maybe, a few dozen or hundred more browbeatings from people who in many ways agree with you will eventually result in the message sinking in.
In the meantime, it's just as well that you're not here because you want people to like you; I'm pretty sure that not many people do. But that does make me wonder why you bother showing up at all - what pleasure or satisfaction do you derive from showing up and being hated? Do you think you're performing some noble act of self-sacrifice? Having come to the conclusion that most other people are idiots, do you take their disdain for you as proof of your own correctness?
Oh well - enjoy, I guess. But the longer you go on like this, the more embarrassed you'll be when you wake up, blink, and actually see yourself when you look in the mirror. And the more horrified you'll be when you realize that your friends and family never actually agreed with you, but had just given up on trying to get through, and tolerated you behind gritted teeth and rolled eyes.
Believe me. I know.
most intolerant on the Christian right ... and the most open-minded and accepting of progressives
For the most part I agree with your post, but you've got a couple things wrong: progressives aren't, as a whole, a very accepting bunch. If they were then you wouldn't see near the level of scorn thrown at conservative Christianity that we do. If I had a dollar for every time I've been belittled or dismissed simply for the crime of being a Christian I could retire right now. And I'm not even against the current hot button topic (yeah, my religion has some things to say on the issue, but it has no place in either your bedroom or the legal system). In order to be called accepting you have to be accepting of people who disagree with you. That's not something that progressives do very well.
Nor are Christians, as a whole, a particularly intolerant bunch. Those of you outside our community get to see a vocal minority, but the fact of the matter is that most of us realize that Christ gave us an example of tolerance. He spent most of his time on Earth with the kinds of people that vocal minority are so quick to condemn.
Not to say that there aren't truly open minded and accepting progressives or intolerant Christians. They're just not the rule.
AC because I've been flamed to death just for being a Christian often enough to have learned my lesson.
progressives aren't, as a whole, a very accepting bunch. If they were then you wouldn't see near the level of scorn thrown at conservative Christianity that we do.
Hence my specifically stating 'the most open-minded and accepting of' and 'the most intolerant of', rather than just 'progressives' and 'Christians'. And the entire point of the post was to call out Mr. Jake on his automatically correlating 'homophobe' with 'christian' despite a complete lack of evidence to suggest that the target of his ire had any particular religious bent whatsoever.
That point, unfortunately, appears to have been lost entirely - but as far as the inability to pound some sense into him goes, I can at least take some solace in the knowledge that I am surely far from alone in my failure.
Now now. A lot of Christians, beginning at least with St Augustine, would totally agree that Genesis is a collection of myths. They might just disagree with you on the significance of myths.
Genesis goes wrong at word 3, because Elohim is a plural form. It has to be either borrowed from a pre-Hebrew myth, or it reflects an original 'in the beginning, the God's...', which is quite likely.
I love asking Jehovah's witnesses how the first sentence of the Bible goes, because I am a smartarse. But a theologically educated smartarse.
"Is there another kind of predicting?"
Indeed there is. Retrospective prediction - where the oracle contrives the prediction after the event, looks back and says "there, told you so". Commonly exhibited by both "climateologists" and more traditional politicians.
Shirley the study could also demonstrate a relationship between people who are conservative types who abhor pornography (and therefore won't admit to watching it in a survey/interview) and, being conservative types, abhor gay marriage (and therefore won't support it)?
A more accurate conclusion to the study, I believe, would be "conservative prudes who say they don't watch porn have a tendency to be opposed to gay marriage as well".
Which more or less tells us what we already know. Ultimately though, the study seems fairly broad and nonsensical - conducting a survey about what many perceive to be sensitive personal stuff will only ever produce a result that demonstrates people's refusal to be truthful in such matters - the way the questions are presented will, as always, have a large impact on the result of the study, and people have a tendency to give answers that show them in the light they want to be shown in, rather than how they actually are.
The acquittals of Simon Walsh and Michael Peacock might seem to support this hypothesis in Britain, but I believe there’s a better Internet-related explanation. In the past, communities would be based on physical locality. People would want to be physically surrounded by other like-minded individuals. With the move to virtual communities, especially now we have mobile connectivity, it matters less what others around you are doing.
I think I caught Peter Tatchell on the telly saying how parliament’s vote to legalise same-sex marriage shows that we give gay love the same value as straight love. The truth may be less affirming. Is it consensual? Yes? Just get on with it, we’re not that interested any more.
A little googling shows Paul j Wright is a nobody - I can't find any other paper he has written at all, or even any mention of him. Ashley k Randall has done a little more, but only got her PHD in 2012. It looks to me like two newcomers to the field confronted with the great problem of graduate researchers trying to establish themselves by studying something a little controversial.
Has anyone here - including the author of this article - actually read the study in question, or is this all based on an undoubtedly farcical distillation of the paper created for the Examiner? If I had a dollar for every time a mass media outlet has mistaken the data of a study for its conclusion, either deliberately in order to poke fun at dumb scientists, or in error out of confusion, I'd be able to start my own university.
Does everybody here really think that these guys really did all of this work and got PhDs without understanding the difference between correlation and causation? Or is it perhaps just a tiny bit more likely that the people reporting on the study couldn't be arsed to do a good job of it, and instead went for the low-hanging fruit of mocking researchers for discovering the obvious?
Even if the whole point of the study *was* to find a correlation, that doesn't mean that it's pointless: It's easy to say, "Yup, makes sense there is one" - it's another entirely to prove it, and to do so in a rigorous way that might be useful to other researchers - or to do so on the off chance that there's a counterintuitive result.
Is it possible that the study is indeed a load of bull? Sure. Is it the most likely option in this situation? I doubt it.
Either way, I am consistently depressed by the utter failure of people to comprehend some of the most basic principles of science - that in what way is as important as is, and in the utility of actually rigorously testing and proving the "obvious". And, doubly so, as these blinkered attitudes are often evident most in those who consider themselves respectful of logic and reason - and who exhibit the same fallacies of false 'common sense' as the pop-culture demagogues they disdain.
I'm sure you're correct. However, I often get the feeling that studies are set up for the very purpose of being media-bait, knowing that the media will seize on the wrong conclusion.
For example, "porn watchers tend to be well-educated" leads to a couple of incorrect conclusions:
1) porn watching results from having a good education
2) a good education is what leads you to the conclusion that watching porn is good.
When in fact it could be that educated people tend to be at university, universities are in cities, cities tend to create anonymity, anonymity reduces inhibitions which would prevent you form watching porn; or, universities are full of hormonally charged, inexperienced people who have recently left an environment with parental guidance; or even that watching porn/supporting gay marriage is a moral issue and quite independent of how many facts you know about engineering or comp-sci.
"But, generally, a better all-round level of education stimulates more progressive approach to resolving morality issues..."
Though that makes me wonder - what if you have absolutely no education at all? IE, no input from society, no nothing. Is there a kind of inverse-tolerance bell curve, where societies with the least education and intergenerational tradition and societies with the most education and historical knowledge are more tolerant than some nadir of a knows-enough-to-be-dangerous culture?
Someone needs to do a study on that. Then newspapers can run stories saying, "Stupid scientists discover that the middle ages sucked." :P
"many men watch gay porn if it involves two women"
Doh! It's called "l e s b i a n".
Overall, this study supports the conclusions I've made for myself long ago. Basically, watching pr0n clearly showed to me that sexual orientation and preferences are quite solidly set and cannot be changed (without involving perhaps a brain trauma) just by watching something. Once you then realise that you cannot become homosexual through being influenced by something or someone you stop seeing homosexuality as a threat.
"watching pr0n clearly showed to me that sexual orientation and preferences are quite solidly set and cannot be changed"
Married men who use rent boys.
Clergy fancying kids.
Gay men with children.
Not so sure about that.
Maybe the fear you can become homosexual through being influenced by something or someone comes from the individuals true (and sometimes unknown) feelings and not what society has taught them (from religious beliefs?) from the age you learned to speak.
Sexual orientation is not the same as fertility. Gay men can father a child just as easily as heterosexuals.
None of the examples you use requires conversion from one sexual orientation to another.
I don't fear of becoming a homosexual, I am convinced that it cannot happen, but I put it to you that homophobia in general is caused by such fear.
Sadly no. Most "two women" porn aimed at guys has two straight women it it pretending to be gay, and after they do their routines for the camera, a guy saunters in and does both of them. (To show the "Natural" order of things of course)
I've hung out in a few Lesbian bars in my day, and these guys come rolling in thinking they are going to pick up two women who will go home and perform for them then show them a three way. Its always fun to see if they leave in horror before they get tossed out on their ear.
It seems that a lot of Lesbians don't meet their hetrosexist standards of approved appearance "IE: Bleach blondes with rubber boobs" REAL lesbian porn tends to leave straight men both turned off and a bit threatened.
So occasionally a few trick cyclists gather some data and draw conclusions which may or may not be stretching the truth.
At least they don't claim to represent God and have every single one of their conclusions based on a wild leap of faith in something totally unprovable.
< religious down vote in 3,2,1,....>
I remember one study used to tell us how bad pornography was, by noting that people who view more porn are less likely to support as severe penalties for rapists. Instead of drawing strange conclusions, though, isn't it simpler to expect that people with a more negative or judgmental attitude to sex will be less likely to support gay marriage, more likely to regard rape as a very serious crime (unless they blame the victim; look at the attitudes unearthed in India, which aren't dead here), and less likely to permit themselves to watch porn?
John, I'm not quite sure I understood all of your post ... I read it as implying that people with a reasonably open and positive attitude to sex will tend not to regard rape as a serious crime. I don't believe that was your intention - certainly, I would regard rape as very serious.
A lot of you talk about tollerance. I fail to see how anything I said was intollerant. I just said, I would like homosexuals to stay away from me. Is there anything bad about that? Is there anything wrong with disliking homosexuals? Yes. It's politically incorrect. Though it's OK to dislike children. BTW, where I live, those places (Israel, Saudi, etc) are west. I used to work in Hollywood. One director I used to work with said that over 80% of script writers are homosexuals. He was explaining his experiences at a then recent script writters conference. Do you think that perhaps popular entertainment and news media have an affect on your perceptions?
My main point was:
Limitations empower us to be creative: the limit of the lens on a camera, the limits (rules, instructions) a computer operates by, the limitations of time, etc. Those who understand that limitations are an intrinsic part of the universe limit themselves.
"I fail to see how anything I said was intollerant. I just said, I would like Jews to stay away from me."
"I fail to see how anything I said was intollerant. I just said, I would like black people to stay away from me."
"I fail to see how anything I said was intollerant. I just said, I would like Asians to stay away from me."
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019