Jump to content
Guest svfrey

Proposition 8 is a load of horseshit

Recommended Posts

Evidently the ACLU is suing to get the ban lifted. http://www.ktla.com/content_landing_page/?LA-SF-City-Attorneys-Challenge-Gay-Marri=1&blockID=126014&feedID=171

 

It seems like a conflict of rights to me. The court will have to evaluate whether the gay marriage ban is discriminatory to such an extent that it outweighs the right of the American citizenry to have its voice heard by its supposed representatives.

 

The entire point of the injunction that's being pursued is that a significant revision of state's constitution requires legislative approval, rather than a simple majority ballot proposal, meaning the 'supposed representatives' voices were never heard in the first place.

 

Not to mention the point of the court is to prevent the majority from infringing the rights of a few. It's literally the difference between constitutional democracy and tyrannical mob rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Umm... who cares? I mean, whats the point thats even supposed to make? That notoriously unreliable exit polls within the margin of error that show otherwise somehow means that it was rigged or something? Please. You'll have to do better than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it shows that investigation is needed to ensure that the results are legitimate. Exit polls are not "notoriously unreliable." The exit polls were not wrong in 2004. There was widespread election fraud, and if you would take even a few minutes to look into it, that would be blatantly obvious to anybody.

Edited by Hellfish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it shows that investigation is needed to ensure that the results are legitimate. Exit polls are not "notoriously unreliable." The exit polls were not wrong in 2004. There was widespread election fraud, and if you would take even a few minutes to look into it, that would be blatantly obvious to anybody.

That's somewhat true, but there have also been systemic problems with exit polling itself which necessitated changes in how they were conducted this year. In the past, exit polls overrepresented democratic voters, young voters, and white voters. The polls were also not very effective at counting early and absentee votes. So while there was fraud, the actual scope of the fraud is tough to determine because the exit polls also had problems.

 

Exit polls in general are not "notoriously unreliable" but they are unreliable enough that they are a poor metric for determining where or to what extent voting fraud occurred.

 

http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/10/24/01

 

And, while there were changes in how the polls were conducted this year, that's not a guarantee that they were done perfectly, or even better than before...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a hard time believing sampling issues can account for this:

 

Election2004ExitPolls_15021_image002.png

I wasn't trying to say that sampling problems were the only cause of disparity. But that was one among several problems (also including fraud and poor extrapolation formulas) that resulted in the difference between exit polls and actual vote counts.

 

The problem is that it's very difficult to determine how much any one problem influenced the difference; so it's not proper to say that the difference between exit polls and official votes is the amount of fraud that occurred. Exit polls are not designed, nor are they able, to act as a standalone check on official vote counts. Exit polls are designed to provide rough same-day estimates for the benefit of the news media, and sometimes, when used in conjunction with other data, can indicate approximate levels of improper counting/fraud at the official polls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between exit polls and actual vote counts does not necessarily indicate fraud, even if very large.

 

The nature of exit polls makes the sampling self selected. Polls are a form of data gathering used in the social sciences. Any qualified social scientist will tell you that a self selected data set is not a reliable cross section of a population. Some people are just more likely to answer polls than others. Self selected samples are only useful for making the broadest generalizations. The use of this methodology pretty much guarantees the occasional major error in prediction. If Candidate A's supporters are much more likely to answer polls than Candidate B's, then Candidate A will have better exit poll numbers than Candidate B.

 

And don't bother suggesting it can be corrected for: it can't. There is no way to find out if the people who ignore pollsters are on one side of the fence or not, because we don't know who those people are. We can guess, but since they don't volunteer to be polled, we don't know with any certainty how they will behave in a given election.

 

The use of polls, and particularly exit polls, is a terrible way to verify an electoral result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman, sworn before God.

 

But my view of marriage is only relevant to me. If two men, two women, or a quartet of midgets wants to call themselves "married," so be it. I do not have to recognize those marriages as equivalent to mine, but it would be arrogant self-righteousness of me to become "morally outraged" at the thought of others who don't share my faith calling themselves "married."

 

Marriage is a personal and religious institution. As such, I do not support the involvement of government in that union. I do not need government approval or recognition of that union. I support policy changes to eliminate marriage "licenses" altogether and reform "benefits" awarded to "legally married" individuals (tax filing status, inheritance, hospital visitation, etc.) to be more in line with "members of household" or interpersonal contracts.

 

In light of my disrespect for illegitimate authority in this arena, and (to a lesser degree) out of respect for those whose "marriages" are viewed as inferior in the eyes of unjust laws, I've made some personal decisions. I've decided that, should I marry, I will not seek permission from civil authorities. I will marry in a private, religious ceremony of some sort. I will never seek government approval for that decision.

 

If government has any role in marriage, it should just be to enforce voluntary contracts between consenting adults and not make moral judgments regarding those contracts. But for a country first settled by those seeking religious freedom, it's saddening how little tolerance the "majority" actually has for other perspectives on religious institutions.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fuck you. exactly what the "3rd world" needs is teenage americans coming over to visit them in their horrid lives and build them a school or shit like that... the only people who benefit from that bullshit is the kids who get to write their college essays about how much they realized "we are all the same" or some other banality, what they really learn is how good they personally are for "helping" and how superior our nation is to all the mess we have (if not mostly, at least a good chunk) created.

 

and yes, the groups who promote hate are pricks despite whatever good they might also happen to do. if the klan builds a school or cleans a park that doesn’t in anyway make up for the men they have lynched.

 

 

this is why plebs shouldnt be introduced to science: a little bit of knowledge is much more dangerous than ignorance because with complete ignorance one might at least realizes ones own incompetency where as people who have no idea what they are talking about can now throw around idea they have only the slightest understanding of, like evolution.

 

evolution by means of natural selection acts on populations not individuals. just because one has a trait which makes it less likely for that individual to reproduce doesnt mean that that trait is selected against. In a extreme example: very very few ants mate, an overwhelming majority are born as sterile workers who support the colony (and thus allow for those who do mate to mate) if all ants were born as queens or mates that population would die because they need the support of the infertile workers. in an example closer to home, naked mole rats live in extremely organized social groups with one female and one to three males mating, the rest of the males do not mate with the female but rather, again, serve other vital functions for the preservation of the group (and thus, the genes which code for their birth).

 

this is, of course, in no way to suggest that homosexual behavior is like our non-mating, but still extant (and not at all selected "the fuck out"), relatives, but rather to simply point out that just because an individuals propensity to mate or not does not nessicarily indicate positive or negative selection for those genes. additionally, many mammals engage in homosexual behavior though in most cases, not to the exclusion of heterosexual behavior: dogs arent "gay" or "straight", they're horny.

 

but there is something much more important than all of that: besides your notion of biological science being utterly and completely incorrect, you're assumption that there ought be a "scientific basis" for homosexual behavior for it to be ok is an absurdly violent notion.

 

 

 

why some guys* like dick and others don’t isn’t really that interesting of a question to me. if you dont understand then maybe its worthwhile for you to peruse it, but the answer is pretty simple: some guys like guys for the same reason some guys like girls, it feels good.

 

*privileging the male experience, i know, but it is probably appropriate in this instance and saves me one longwinded phase.

 

 

tldr: suck dick gear.

 

 

absolute ass whooping of the original argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...