2 edits
-Removed-Really?
Fair enough. I take your word for it. It's not my experience, and I would have put myself on the slightly prudish side of conversations on sex.
Don't get me wrong, it is not a mainstay of our conversations, and most of this information was generated in conversations about gay stereotypes. And that is difficult to discuss without finding out if it is a stereotype.
-Removed-Didn't mean to suggest you were prudish. I just thought I tended that way.
I suspect I edited my post as you were typing yours.
As I said, the context of most of these conversations was gay stereotyping. And you need to bear in mind that I am a lobbyist by profession and that as a result a fair few of my friends are debaters by nature. So you can't really have a conversation about gay stereotyping with gay people without both:
A Establishing what the stereotype is.
B Establishing that it is a stereotype.
But, having said that, I am pretty sure I do know which sexual practices most of my close male friends have indulged in and which not. Just as I think I know which of them have had affairs and which not. But this is a picture which, in many cases, has been built up over more than a decade of knowing them.
Of course, I may be deluded in all this, and they may just tell me what they want me to hear. But I don't think so.
1 edit
-Removed-I would not call you a homophobe or a bigot based on this, or indeed anything I have seen you post on this site. That would almost be almost as bad as calling someone a closet JW and telling then to come out (I have a long memory 😉).
I would not call the use of these terms stereotyping without more context. Based on nothing else but what you have described, I would call the use of these terms lazy, unjustified and offensive.
If the context was that any Christian who accepted the Bible's prohibition of homosexuality is a homophobe and bigot, then yes this is stereotyping and I am sure it exists. So if this was the case, then yes you have been stereotyped in this sense.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadno its not about me at all, please read the thread title and the report that it was taken from, others have managed to do so, why cant you.
No report was linked to in the OP. Did you quote him out of context and expect us to somehow know what the context was? Yes, the thread is largely about you and your homophobia. What else could it be about?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf, as you say, we in the same boat, the evidence put forward by both of us is equally valid, therefore the most conservative estimate is actually 0%.
so we are in the same boat, you have no way of knowing whether the data is legitimate or not and yet state that its flawed, how vewy vewy intwesting meester Bond! In the face of a lack of evidence to the contrary 22 percent shall remain the most conservative estimate of the harmful practice of fisting among homosexuals.
You're not an idiot, and yet every time we discuss a subject you choose to argue in this quite deliberately blinkered and boorish manner, and you have the gall to insist that you are not about point-scoring?!
The statistics you have presented have been shown to be flawed. The site you are getting these statistics from is motivated by a desire to demonstrate that the behaviours concerned are harmful, thus even if the data were collected in a scientific manner, selection criteria employed by that website would bring the data into question. Persisting on trumpeting these numbers therefore is not reasonable argument.
Let's be clear what's going on here; you are fishing around for data to back up your own prejudices and placing undue faith in what you have found. It's a distasteful practise which a reasonable person ought really strive to avoid. And ultimately, what business of yours is it anyway?
Originally posted by avalanchethecatNo they have not shown to be flawed at all, why? no one has claimed they were exhaustive, no one has claimed that they were wholly representative of gays collectively, no one has claimed that the conditions they were obtained under was scientific, no one has claimed the practice is exclusive to homosexuals, all that was cited was that in a single survey, the percentage returned of those gays who engage in fisting was 22 percent. That is not flawed, its a simple statement of fact. Now you can argue that its not representative, not scientific etc etc, but that is not the claim being made, its simply used as a reference to demonstrate that the practice occurs. What is more, depending upon whom you ask and i have cited several references, the average of those who homosexuals who practice 'fisting', ranges from anything between a negligible 1 percent to 37 percent. Its not zero percent at all and has never been zero.
If, as you say, we in the same boat, the evidence put forward by both of us is equally valid, therefore the most conservative estimate is actually 0%.
You're not an idiot, and yet every time we discuss a subject you choose to argue in this quite deliberately blinkered and boorish manner, and you have the gall to insist that you are not about point ...[text shortened]... le person ought really strive to avoid. And ultimately, what business of yours is it anyway?
I repeat it again and I will be very much pleased if you left me out of this, its not about me. I don't bring you personally into the argument do I, I respect your right to argue objectively on the basis of the evidence alone, why wont you give me the same respect?
2 edits
I suggest we look at some of the other claims, i will reproduce them here, for the sake of convenience. The proposition has been put forth that gays are more likely to be promiscuous (especially males) and that this not only leads to a greater health risk, it differs in practice from that found among heterosexuals, who are less promiscuous. True or false?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieClearly false
I suggest we look at some of the other claims, i will reproduce them here, for the sake of convenience. The proposition has been put forth that gays are more likely to be promiscuous (especially males) and that this not only leads to a greater health risk, it differs in practice from that found among heterosexuals, who are less promiscuous. True or false?
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePeople are people RC. Promiscuous people are promiscuous, regardless of their sexual persuasion. Do you really believe that gay people are having more sex than heterosexual people? Some of them will be. Some won't.
clearly? false? evidence?
Why do you care so much about what gay people are doing anyway? What motivates this crusade of yours?