• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Just Plain Wrong

Tucker Case said:
Assuming a normal distribution, that is. If the distribution is a true bimodal distribution, for example, you could actually end up with a situation where the 50% of the total population involved in the distribution actually falls outside of two standard deviations from the mean of that distribution.
Click to expand...

True, I was assuming a normal distribution in my discussion. It would be entirely different if we were looking at skewed distributions.
 
ecofarm said:
It occurs naturally in a significant percentage of the population?
Click to expand...
Have you got evidence that backs this up?

(Im sorry everybody, I couldnt stop myself)
 
All this statistic stuff is nice, but I'm not sure how normality relates to whether homosexuality is bad.
 
MadLib said:
All this statistic stuff is nice, but I'm not sure how normality relates to whether homosexuality is bad.
Click to expand...

It doesn't.

The argument that normal = good and abnormal = bad is called the naturalistic fallacy and is a common form of illogical argument.
 
Empirica said:
Have you got evidence that backs this up?

(Im sorry everybody, I couldnt stop myself)
Click to expand...

Here you go:

There are approximately 6 billion people on the planet. It is estimated that homosexuals make up 4%-6% of the population. Lets go with the average of that... 5%. Simple mathematics then dictates that 300 million people are gay. I would say that's a pretty significant number.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Here you go:

There are approximately 6 billion people on the planet. It is estimated that homosexuals make up 4%-6% of the population. Lets go with the average of that... 5%. Simple mathematics then dictates that 300 million people are gay. I would say that's a pretty significant number.
Click to expand...

damn, I would expect to be hearing far more shrieks of "Marvelous" and seeing far more guys with better fashion sense!
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Here you go:

There are approximately 6 billion people on the planet. It is estimated that homosexuals make up 4%-6% of the population. Lets go with the average of that... 5%. Simple mathematics then dictates that 300 million people are gay. I would say that's a pretty significant number.
Click to expand...

And to put that in perspective, imagine if every single person you met in the United States was gay.

Which is also known as "a conservative's worst nightmare come true."
 
Cardinal said:
And to put that in perspective, imagine if every single person you met in the United States was gay.

Which is also known as "a conservative's worst nightmare come true."
Click to expand...

I thought a conservative's worst nightmare come true would be Zombie gays that raise taxes, take away our guns, and win the war on Christmas?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Based on how you have defined normal and abnormal, from a purely objective standpoint, no, there cannot.

Let me tell you what I say to clients when I first meet them about the word "normal". I explain that there are several words that I do not like using when conducting therapy. Normal is one of them. I explain that normal "is the cycle on a washing machine", that there is no normal except what our own experiences tell us that normal is and that is not universal. Using the term normal, unless you are using it in statistical terms, is ALWAYS a value judgment of some sort. This is why no anti-GM debater can answer the question and why I enjoy watching them squirm so much with it. They haven't figured out that arguing "normal" is a losing proposition, unless you argue it from a statistical standpoint... which doesn't suit their purposes. They want to make a value judgment, withOUT making a value judgment, which is not possible. This is why the "normal" question is such a failure and why I enjoy watching the outrage of anti-GM folks when I confront them. Their is no defense for my position on this, unless one does one of the following three things: 1) use normal in a statistical sense; 2) admit to using "normal" as a means to a value judgment; 3) admit that defining normal is context is relative to the individual. As you can see, each of these three responses are loser positions if one is trying to prove the lack of normalcy of homosexuality towards the anti-GM position. Yet, anti-GM folks STILL try to argue this. And I'll just keep forcing them to try to define it, and laughing when it sinks their position no matter how they respond.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply.
 
Cardinal said:
And to put that in perspective, imagine if every single person you met in the United States was gay.

Which is also known as "a conservative's worst nightmare come true."
Click to expand...
That would really suck whether you were conservative or a liberal.
 
Hatuey said:
Considering you live in Carollton, Texas - would you say that polar bears are "abnormal"?
Click to expand...

If I were to look out my window and see a polar bear, yes I would consider that abnormal.
 
Empirica said:
That would really suck whether you were conservative or a liberal.
Click to expand...

Come to think of it, you're right. Every supermarket would be Whole Foods. :-(
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Based on how you have defined normal and abnormal, from a purely objective standpoint, no, there cannot.

Let me tell you what I say to clients when I first meet them about the word "normal". I explain that there are several words that I do not like using when conducting therapy. Normal is one of them. I explain that normal "is the cycle on a washing machine", that there is no normal except what our own experiences tell us that normal is and that is not universal. Using the term normal, unless you are using it in statistical terms, is ALWAYS a value judgment of some sort. This is why no anti-GM debater can answer the question and why I enjoy watching them squirm so much with it. They haven't figured out that arguing "normal" is a losing proposition, unless you argue it from a statistical standpoint... which doesn't suit their purposes. They want to make a value judgment, withOUT making a value judgment, which is not possible. This is why the "normal" question is such a failure and why I enjoy watching the outrage of anti-GM folks when I confront them. Their is no defense for my position on this, unless one does one of the following three things: 1) use normal in a statistical sense; 2) admit to using "normal" as a means to a value judgment; 3) admit that defining normal is context is relative to the individual. As you can see, each of these three responses are loser positions if one is trying to prove the lack of normalcy of homosexuality towards the anti-GM position. Yet, anti-GM folks STILL try to argue this. And I'll just keep forcing them to try to define it, and laughing when it sinks their position no matter how they respond.
Click to expand...
Unless of course they had some sort of essentialist or realist philosophy or perspective, like the vast majority of people in the pre-modern West and outside the West.
 
Last edited:
Hey, I got one__Something that makes you do a double-take is most likely 'abnormal'__Other than a really hot dude.(straight)
 
Empirica said:
Hey, I got one__Something that makes you do a double-take is most likely 'abnormal'__Other than a really hot dude.(straight)
Click to expand...

Really attractive people would be abnormal using that definition (along with many other potential definitions). Why would you make an exception?
 
Isn't some of the problem the word normal? Which has conflicting connotations. People tend to use it to both express what is right or proper or natural and also simply what is the common experience.
 
So let's say that homosexuality is "abnormal." And?

Even if it is abnormal, that doesn't equal immoral. It's sad that people still believe that their sexual hang ups should be other people's code of ethics.
 
Tucker Case said:
Really attractive people would be abnormal using that definition (along with many other potential definitions). Why would you make an exception?
Click to expand...
For the same reason you did__I think?

Are you sure you got what I said?
 
Wessexman said:
Isn't some of the problem the word normal? Which has conflicting connotations. People tend to use it to both express what is right or proper or natural and also simply what is the common experience.
Click to expand...
Normal is normal___Not like slick willy's infamous defense "that all depends on what is is".
 
Empirica said:
Normal is normal___Not like slick willy's infamous defense "that all depends on what is is".
Click to expand...
Normal can mean both a sort of ideal and just an average. I could even go as far to say that it is quite normal to be fat and yet not normal to be fat, at the same time, by using the different connotations or meanings of the word normal. At least how it is frequently used.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
Isn't some of the problem the word normal? Which has conflicting connotations. People tend to use it to both express what is right or proper or natural and also simply what is the common experience.
Click to expand...

The word isn't the problem, the way it is used in people's arguments is. When people use it as the basis for a moral argument, they are engaging in a logical fallacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom