fair enough. i was honestly not aware that they made that much progress. still wouldn't **** someone with hiv. would you?
nah, you shouldn't feel obligated to do so. and you're right to take it with a grain of salt until you or someone else does. but yea, "it sounds homophobic therefore i won't bother looking into it" sounds a bit closed minded to me.

never once claimed to believe any of it. i just wanted someone to spell out precisely why it's wrong.

the saddest part of this thread to me is the fact that it seems the only appropriate reaction to hearing something that sounds homophobic is to mentally shut down, as if that solves anything.


that's just a strawman though, since i never suggested causation, with the hypothetical example above.

but if 45 out of 50 men were serial killers, then it would be literally true that MOST men are serial killers. unless you interpret the word 'most' differently than i do. cause to me, it means the majority. and 45 out of 50 is a clear majority.

nope. all i have questioned is arguments that seem less than convincing to me. mostly because i know that if i don't play devil's advocate here, nobody will. it's just not socially acceptable to do so. people are too afraid of appearing hateful. but for the record, i never said 'homophobia doesn't cause mental illness' or anything remotely close to that.

if you say so... that just doesn't seem self evident to me. i mean would you extend that logic to a scenario where 15 are homos, 1 is homophobic, and the rest are complacent? you'd expect homosexuals to be just as affected by 1 man's homophobia as they would if it were a relatively popular sentiment? that just sounds counter-intuitive to me.

or to bring it back to the real world... a gay man living in san fran vs a gay man living in saudi arabia.. you think they would be equally closeted and repressed?

I'd just like to point out to the people accusing JWB of being homophobic, that he has claimed to be bisexual, multiple times. At least as far as I remember.

yea i already tried that once

apparently that doesn't matter lol

#internalized

You say your kinda gay and batlord likes it in the butt.. Why don't you guys kill two birds with one stone for MBs entertainment?

Lots of straight husbands are the worst misogynists.

don't get it
so you assume that just cause i'm bi it means i'll sleep with any male? that's pretty homophobic man. you might wanna check your privilege, son.

analogyfail... straight husbands aren't women, chula

It's tumblr speak. I doubt it really exists irl but it's when someone hates the group they identify with because of society and blah blah blah.

No.. I assume that because you have a penis and started a thread about banging animals. :D

Not at all.

Lots of people who are gay and have an affection for their same sex hate homosexuals.

Lots of men who are straight and have an affection for women hate females.

Just saying that the way you are expressing yourself in this thread comes across somewhat homophobic. IMO.

Knowing JWB he just likes to create these kinds of discussions because they are interesting to have, not because he is homophobic.

that's just called self-hatred

either way, i don't dislike the lgbtqssvat++% community. but non-PC facts can be true about a group of people without me hating them.

for instance, it could be true that the american media is controlled by 6 major corporations, all of which are run predominately by people of a jewish persuasion. i'm not saying that is true, it could be or it could not. but if it were true, then me pointing it out doesn't mean i hate jews or i'm an antisemite. in fact, i think if any race of people are going to run the media, it should be the jews. because i think they're witty and they speak with funny accents, so they make for good entertainers. so it's really a win win for everybody. that doesn't make me a nazi sympathizer. plus, god promised the jews they would be successful and **** so really it's just god keeping his promise. so if you want to take it up with anybody, take it up with the big man.

It's probably just the way he types.

New thread idea: MB member who's most unlike his e-persona in real life.

humans are animals. check your ****ing privilege man

....

one is self hating

the other is hating your spouse

there is a difference son.

that's like comparing a black person who hates black people to a white racist that dates black people

stop confusing me with your senile logic

Sorry. Carry on. Son.

honestly i think most of you people are brainwashed and i like pushing you out of your comfort zone

plus, maybe if they were single they wouldn't hate women so much

I know JWB is bi and I didn'T call him homophobic for the record, I think it has more to do with the common fallacy of applying linear relationships in social mechanisms.

I don't think it's a constant for all m, where m is the number of homophobes. I said it was not linear (it's also not one dimensional). The difference between Saudi Arabia and San Francisco is one's a country with systemic national support of homophobia (with regards to both policy and religion) and the other is a city in a state in a country. The number of violent/abusive homophobes is certainly a factor, but the availability of support (from legalization of gay marriage to local family/friend support) goes a long way to reduce the marginalization that could lead to isolation and persecution that could lead to mental illness.

Further, the impact of having a violently homophobic father on mental illness would be more than that of someone who had a supportive family but got beat up once by a homophobe. A single homophobe in each of these cases has a different impact based on their relationship to the victim.

right... i understand that the relationship wouldn't necessarily be linear, but there would be some relationship, no? what he's saying is the stats are more or less the same in european countries which have a very different cultural attitude towards gays than america. which is surprising, if there is any relationship at all. yes the gay kid with the homophobic dad scenario can still pop up in the more progressive countries, but if anything you'd expect that scenario would at the very least be more common in less progressive countries/regions.

btw he might just be bull****ting about the stats for all i know. he's basically an online troll. that's why i brought it up here cause i figured someone who cares more about this topic might be more up on the stats than i am.

That's the problem with most stats research today though, it's oversimplified and confounding factors are ignored. Which makes it a great way to do research with political agendas to support obe's preconceived notions.

Another factor is the critical point at which the complacent people engage homophobes. Maybe 5/100 homophobes isn'T enough to warrant a response, but 20/100 homophobes, and complacent people start seeing their brothers and friends get assaulted over their orientation and they prop up more support groups.

Bottom line is that social issues and correlations are so spurious and subject to multiple factors that it triggers muh rant face when I see people casually interpret statistics.

Real People > Stats

right well i mentioned in my initial post that i saw some flaws in his logic, the one that really comes to mind is that if there was some correlation between homosexuality and mental illness, i.e. even if homosexuals are x% more likely to be mentally ill than heteros, it doesn't mean that homosexuality is a result of mental illness or vice versa. it could just be a correlation. i've only taken the intro required classes on psychology but i remember from that the textbook stressing that you can't draw causation from a correlation alone.

but my question/thought experiment for you is, say such a correlation exists. just hypothetically speaking, say that homosexuality is caused by that hormonal flush or whatever in the womb, and that same hormonal flush can also cause the child to be bi polar or some other mental illness. and as a result the statistics say homosexuals are more likely than straight people to develop these disorders. how would you ever differentiate between that and the disorders being caused by suppression and homophobia?

false. there are more statistics in the world than there are real people. you need to go back to school, chula :D

The most obvious way is to have a better understanding of the physiological mechanisms so you could measure it in the brain and compare brains of lots of people .

Psychologists already have a stress-diathesis model (two different people exposed to the same environmental stimulus - one might trigger a mental illness due to biological differences) which is part of the more general "biopsychosocial" model - that is, acknowledgement that influence in mental illness outcome depends on a combination of social, biological, and psychological factors.

These factors are separated by monozygotic twin studies, and those might inform you somewhat to the degree which illnesses (or homosexuality) may be social vs. biological in general, but to further correlate them would require some careful case by case statistics and intervention studies (but it would obviously be unethical to try to induce mental illness in people) to establish causation. You could start a homosexual support group and see if correlation between homosexuality and mental illness goes down in 20 years, but then you'd also be ignoring any biological changes and assuming them fixed.

F*ck that. I have enough trouble getting out of bed for f*cks sake. :D

rheumatoid arthritis

so in other words... you can't?

If you were able to establish a lot of these individual correlations and make useful inferences, and you had some mechanistic understanding of a specific mental illness that fit the paradigm, then you could synthesize a reasonable claim. Maybe it's already been done, I don't know. Rather than saying you can't or you can, all you can do is analyze the veracity of the claim (I. E. Think spectrum, not binary).

but pragmatically speaking... you can't?

I'm not sure what you mean. People work on these problems all the time in social and psychological sciences and we're at a time when neuroscience has been working to dispel some notions and support others.

i'm saying using the tools/data that we have available right now, you can't? cause it seems like you were making it so no matter what the stats regaurding homophobia and mental illness were, they'd still be explainable by the idea that homophobia causes mental illness. which seems a bit... unscientific.

I'm not sure where you get that impression.

alright.. so i'll ask this way.. is there a statistical result that you would say doesn't fit with the idea that homophobia causes the increased amount of mental illness in homosexuals?

one where just based on the statistics, it would seem to contradict this idea?

I"m confused. I thought your thought experiment was to presume that it was the case and ask if you could get at it at all. The tools are probably available, and the data might be too (depending on how sophisticated of a meta-analysis you could come up with). The real bottleneck is likely funding. There's probably not enough people that care to fund or work on it.

My negative point about statistics is that taking two observables and correlating them isn't enough (pirates and global warming anybody?). On the positive side, there are lots of advanced statistical methods (Bayesian methods, reverse inference) that would greatly supplement a simple correlation. Most psychologists and sociologists don't use them and have a poor understanding of how to interpret the null hypothesis in the first place. And no one of these methods would be enough alone, you'd need to synthesize positive results from several methods in a meaningful way.

well... my thought experiment was more prodding for a way to reach that conclusion through practical means like examining statistics... not doing the kind of in depth studies you were talking about. so since you resorted to such methods, i assumed that you were saying stats alone couldn't ever validate such a conclusion.

That's technically true when you say "stats alone" and that's true for any mathematics. Mathematics is often self consistent, and within its axioms you can prove things as true or false about numbers. But once you start qualifying those numbers and interpreting what they mean, then you introduce the possibility of improper framing and misinterpretation. Super simple example, but 1+1=2 is unquestionably true (we invented all those symbols such that the statement would be true).

When you start qualifying, you can come to false ststements, like 1 apple + 1 rock = 2 vegetables is not true despite 1+1=2 being true. Thus is an obvious example - it gets a lot more difficult to parse with abstract definitions (as in sociology and psychology) and probabilistic statements.

Here's a read you may find interesting:

"The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences"
https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/Math...ng/Wigner.html

Found this relevant post in r/dataisbeautiful:

Spurious Correlations