What is offensive language?

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by S485122

Obviously not everyone thinks so ! Perhaps you should have said "A large majority thinks..." or "Most people think ..." ?

Yes, that is clearly what I meant. I was using a little known thing called "hyperbole".

The difference is that religious extremists preach about fidelity, abstinence, against homosexuality... They advocate severe punishment of those who transgress. And then they are caught at it.

Yes. They seem to give all religionists a bad name. From my reading of the New Testament, some of the most scathing rebukes Jesus gave were to the hypocrites.

But you might be surprised that Democrats, just as often as Republicans, preach fidelity in marriage. What is a bit more surprising is that when Republicans are caught they are censured by their fellow Republicans and called on to step down. Can the same be said for Democrats? When a Democrat cheats on his wife, are there any political consequences?

Finally, is it a good thing when someone is not for fidelity in marriage??

That said, I think you are partially right, the distinction between red and blue states is not clearly cut. The colour of a state only represents which party obtained a majority, it does not take into account those who voted for the opposition, nor does it take into account those who did not or could not vote (remember the problems with voter registration in Florida ?) Also just changing an election majority would not instantly diminish poverty, divorce and so on

Thanks.

On the other hand R.D. Silverman is right as well, the points he makes do correspond with the political mindset of those leading the different states and are backed up by the statistical data he presented.

So you think those states are run by uneducated people? I'm going to call you on this one. Show me that these people are *uneducated*. (Note: That is different than being very slightly *less* educated than some other state.)

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

At least I'm not relatively intolerant or uneducated. :-p

I realized this morning this came off completely different than how I intended it. I was laughing at myself, and not accusing others of those things. I just thought it was humorous that Silverman called me a religious nut job.

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Is the USA showing any signs of going that way too?

The United States is a very large country. There are places where a gay man would feel extremely comfortable, and other places where he would be subjected to ridicule.

But for the most part, Americans pride themselves on being tolerant of others. But it isn't the kind of tolerances where they will lay down and let you walk all over them. They try to be fair. We also have a tradition of free speech, and that can sometimes be uncomfortable. A majority of Americans are religious, and we also have a tradition of religious tolerance. That means that you will see prayers at sporting events. This can be uncomfortable for those opposed to all things religious in a secular setting. But, for the most part, you won't see anyone cram religion down another person's throat. So, for example, *most* people would be extremely outraged if, say, a gay person was bullied, even though a majority of Americans are against gay marriage.

You might know that I'm Mormon, and spent two years in Alabama and Mississippi knocking on doors teaching others about my church. Mormonism is viewed by some protestants as a cult. As you can imagine, there were a few uncomfortable experiences I had. But for the most part, people are ok (even in those scary :-p red states) with others sharing their beliefs. If you have any questions on any aspects of that experience, feel free to ask.

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

Yes, that is clearly what I meant. I was using a little known thing called "hyperbole".

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

So you think those states are run by uneducated people? I'm going to call you on this one. Show me that these people are *uneducated*.

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

So you think those states are run by uneducated people? I'm going to call you on this one. Show me that these people are *uneducated*. (Note: That is different than being very slightly *less* educated than some other state.)

give me names I was able to find a few emails before lol. I'll find biographies and show you lol.

[only_human]

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

I'm curious about that one. If you find a good scientific comparison of this over time I'd be interested in reading it.

I was talking about the treacly fingers of religion getting involved in secular government. I don't need to present a scholarly comparison, just look around. It's ridiculous that Pastafarianism needed to be created to highlight how blitheringly inappropriate it was to promote Intelligent Design in school as a theory deserving equal consideration as other theories. It's ridiculous that Bush's daily Iraq briefings had cover pages with prominent bible quotes. It's ridiculous how the Muslim religion is besmirched constantly and how so many red state denizens think that the U.S. President is a Muslim. It's also ridiculous that that should matter -- with proper separation of church and state, a person's private religion should not bear heavily on secular government actions.

[science_man_88]

I'll admit nothing in politics seems good anymore ( in the news tellers eyes it seems , but I'm slightly convinced). Anyway about church and state separation, maybe the reason it hasn't happened truly is:

politician +religion = trying what the people want, but according to ones own religious beliefs.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

From another post: "So you think those states are run by uneducated people? I'm going to call you on this one. Show me that these people are *uneducated*.

You use the word "uneducated" in an absolute sense, as in "totally
uneducated" whereas my claims made it clear that the comparison was
RELATIVE. We were comparing red vs. blue states.

What data would you like? Comparitive scores on standardized high school
tests? Comparitive High School Droput rates? Comparison of SAT/ACT
scores? Comparititive rates of college attendence? Comparitive literacy
rates?

Comparison of percentages of people who have: high school diplomas,
college degrees, or graduate degrees?

Comparison on a state-by-state basis of college rankings? i.e. the top
colleges are all in blue states? (with a small number of exceptions, e.g. Duke)

I can pretty much guarantee that those who disagree with my claims
will not like what this data shows.

Another bit of evidence: (Brian will appreciate this) Look at the states
where [by majority vote!] the voters have chosen to deny rights to gays/
lesbians by codifying in their state constitutions a denial of those rights.
Although some blue states have done this, the majority are red states.
Now look at the states that have affirmed equal rights for gays/lesbians.
AFAIK, they are ALL blue. And for the record, in case you are wondering,
I am not gay. I am quite definitely straight. But what these states have done
is an abomination and is in direct opposition to one of the principals
which the U.S. is supposed to follow: Equal rights under the law for all.

As for CRGreathouse's allegation of cherry picking, I maintain that the
statistics presented are representative of the differences in attitude and
behavior between the two sets of states. If he would like additional
statistics, I am sure that they can be provided. Whether they are a
representative sample is not something that can be *proven* because
which statistics are used is a matter of opinion. There is no
definitive definition of what would constitute a "representative sample"

Would people like me to look up comparitive church attendence/membership rates? What other statistics are desired?

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

From another post: "So you think those states are run by uneducated people? I'm going to call you on this one. Show me that these people are *uneducated*.

You use the word "uneducated" in an absolute sense, as in "totally
uneducated" whereas my claims made it clear that the comparison was
RELATIVE. We were comparing red vs. blue states.

What data would you like? Comparitive scores on standardized high school
tests? Comparitive High School Droput rates? Comparison of SAT/ACT
scores? Comparititive rates of college attendence? Comparitive literacy
rates?

Comparison of percentages of people who have: high school diplomas,
college degrees, or graduate degrees?

Comparison on a state-by-state basis of college rankings? i.e. the top
colleges are all in blue states? (with a small number of exceptions, e.g. Duke)

I can pretty much guarantee that those who disagree with my claims
will not like what this data shows.

Another bit of evidence: (Brian will appreciate this) Look at the states
where [by majority vote!] the voters have chosen to deny rights to gays/
lesbians by codifying in their state constitutions a denial of those rights.
Although some blue states have done this, the majority are red states.
Now look at the states that have affirmed equal rights for gays/lesbians.
AFAIK, they are ALL blue. And for the record, in case you are wondering,
I am not gay. I am quite definitely straight. But what these states have done
is an abomination and is in direct opposition to one of the principals
which the U.S. is supposed to follow: Equal rights under the law for all.

As for CRGreathouse's allegation of cherry picking, I maintain that the
statistics presented are representative of the differences in attitude and
behavior between the two sets of states. If he would like additional
statistics, I am sure that they can be provided. Whether they are a
representative sample is not something that can be *proven* because
which statistics are used is a matter of opinion. There is no
definitive definition of what would constitute a "representative sample"

Would people like me to look up comparitive church attendence/membership rates? What other statistics are desired?

Want more evidence?

In 1972 Congress finally approved sending an Equal Rights Amendment
to the states for approval. It does not take a crystal ball to guess
which states did not aprove it:

Idaho
Kentucky
Missisippi
Alabama
Utah
Nebraska
Tennesee
Georgia
S. Dakota
Florida
LA
Missouri
Nevada
North Carolina
Oklahoma
S. Carolina
Arizona
Utah
Illinois (surprise!)
Virgina

Five of these initially approved, then rescinded. It is no surprise that
almost every southern/bible belt state did not approve.

The surprises are that Illinois (a blue state) did not approve and that Texas
and Kansas (red states) did.

There were EXTENSIVE religious right extremist attacks against the
amendement.

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

From another post

I'm not sure why you quoted me; I'm agreeing with you there.

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

As for CRGreathouse's allegation of cherry picking, I maintain that the
statistics presented are representative of the differences in attitude and
behavior between the two sets of states. If he would like additional
statistics, I am sure that they can be provided. Whether they are a
representative sample is not something that can be *proven* because
which statistics are used is a matter of opinion. There is no
definitive definition of what would constitute a "representative sample"

There are standard ways of addressing this, but I have no time this week to address it. I may next week depending on schedule. But this should be covered by any good intermediate-level applied statistics book.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

I'm not sure why you quoted me; I'm agreeing with you there.



There are standard ways of addressing this, but I have no time this week to address it. I may next week depending on schedule. But this should be covered by any good intermediate-level applied statistics book.

Please. I have taken a lot of statistics. (from masters of the subject such
as Lindley, H. Raiffa, Mosteller).

The issue is not, e.g. latin-square design but rather WHICH TOPICS
are relevant. What is the sample space of possible items to be included
in statistical comparisons? I see no way to define this.