Originally posted by lord xyz
I think that is true, more people are bisexual than anything else. I myself am slightly bisexual, I prefer women, but for some reason, male sex can get me going, not all the time, but sometimes...
That's hott.
I'm the opposite...I prefer men, but sex with women also gets me going.....just not as quickly as sex with men.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Apparently, it needed to be repeated as you do not seem to understand the meaning of significant.Significant does not merely connotate "something that should be considered."
Nor is a significant factor simply one "large enough to warrant mentioning."
Rather, a significant factor warrants mentioning because it is large, i.e. "of a greater size or quantity; to a greater degree" than other factors.
Such a factor would be "highest in rank, quality, or importance; principal." Hence, primary.
Let's make this perfectly clear- I certainly don't need any correction from you, a biased amateur dogmatically mis-using a dictionary like a spoiled teenager. Your interpretation of the use of 'significant' here is completely wrong, that is my professional opinion. Good God, how can you be so dense in this area?
Seriously, like I said, only a fool would read that something being 'a significant factor' makes it the most important factor. That's ridiculous. Maybe if it said THE significant factor it would work like that, but it does not. In saying 'A' significant factor, the automatic implication of using the indefinite article is that there are other such significant factors also. In absolutely no way whatsoever does a significant factor have to be the largest. It can be one amongst several significant factors and a different one could be larger. Significance is not an exclusive property; it does not have to apply to only one factor. The primary synonym for 'signifcant' is 'important'. They are saying this factor is important. They never used the word 'most'. Basic English there.
In this context, the difference between a significant factor and an insignificant one is that the insignificant ones, as I say, don't merit mentioning. They are irrelevant. That is kinda the point of significant vs. insignificant, hmm?
The APA was specifying that this is a signifcant factor precisely to make the point that it is NOT insignifcant, that you cannot ignore it. In absolutely no way at all were they saying it was the primary factor. Not even close. They don't even have any idea what that would be.
Now, stop your baised interpretations that you are twisting to suit your own views. That is juvenile. Your approach to this has been entirely incorrect, and if you still cannot understand I recommend taking some form of readig comprehension class because you are failing here on a very basic logical level.
Geez, this really was feeble. SUCH hypocrisy from you, accusing others of twisting and mis-stating things when you are doing the same yourself. This crashes your credibility into the ground, it really does.
Think again.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Do you call them fools in the comments section?
They have excuses. The entire point they are with me is due to extenuating circumstances.
Someone trying to present cogent debate in a matter such as this and is clearly making an error due to inherent bias rather than a factor out of his control is a different class- a fool.
Originally posted by lord xyz
I never said I wanted to have sex with men...
You're probably not bisexual then... You're 14 and still going through puberty, most sexual thoughts will give you an erection. If you're still getting turned on by two dudes going at it by the time you're in your late teens then you could very well be gay/bisexual.
Originally posted by Robtard
You're probably not bisexual then... You're 14 and still going through puberty, most sexual thoughts will give you an erection. If you're still getting turned on by two dudes going at it by the time you're in your late teens then you could very well be gay/bisexual.
Two dudes can be hot. Sometimes.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Two dudes can be hot. Sometimes.
Then you're probably a latent bisexual. If you believe in Kinsey's work, you're probably a "2" maybe "3" Bardock, going off of what you've said and are saying.
0- Exclusively heterosexual
1- Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2- Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3- Equally heterosexual and homosexual
4- Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5- Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6- Exclusively homosexual
Originally posted by Robtard
Then you're probably a latent bisexual. If you believe in Kinsey's work, you're probably a "2" maybe "3" Bardock, going off of what you've said and are saying.0- Exclusively heterosexual
1- Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2- Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3- Equally heterosexual and homosexual
4- Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5- Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6- Exclusively homosexual
Awesome.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
You know why Adam irritates you so much, Ush? Because the two of you are exactly the same. You're both self-assured and unwilling to assume anyone else could be right.
But this is not a matter of opinion, and is also the area where I am both professionally qualified and experienced.
What else can I say? Significant does not mean the most important. More than one factor can be significant. Facts, not opinions, and Adam is simply wrong.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
But this is not a matter of opinion, and is also the area where I am both professionally qualified and experienced.What else can I say? Significant does not mean the most important. More than one factor can be significant. Facts, not opinions, and Adam is simply wrong.
It means important though. At least can. Not only noticeable.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
But this is not a matter of opinion, and is also the area where I am both professionally qualified and experienced.What else can I say? Significant does not mean the most important. More than one factor can be significant. Facts, not opinions, and Adam is simply wrong.
You think he's wrong and he thinks you're wrong. But that doesn't make me wrong.
Again, as I have explained, in the context in the sentence the APA was simply saying that it was a factor worth noting. it was not an irrelevant- more precisely, not an insigificant- factor.
In counter to Adam saying that what they meant was that it was THE primary factor, the best explanation of what they meant in contrast to that is that it was enough of a factor to be worth mentioning. That is their use of 'signifcant'.
Having just said that 'important' is the primary synonym of significant, you hardly needed to remind me of that.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
You think he's wrong and he thinks you're wrong. But that doesn't make me wrong.
That's pretty facile. A man can believe the Moon is made of cheese and another man that it is made of rock, but to make the two views equivalent is idiocy. The man who thinks it is made of cheese is obviously the one in the wrong.
I don't have to think anything. I KNOW he is wrong and anyone who disagrees is simply being unreasonable.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Again, as I have explained, in the context in the sentence the APA was simply saying that it was a factor worth noting. it was not an irrelevant- more precisely, not an insigificant- factor.In counter to Adam saying that what they meant was that it was THE primary factor, the best explanation of what they meant in contrast to that is that it was enough of a factor to be worth mentioning. That is their use of 'signifcant'.
Having just said that 'important' is the primary synonym of significant, you hardly needed to remind me of that.
I did not mean to lecture you, just state something that I thought might be worth mentioning in some context or another.
Also, I don't recall their wording exactly, nor do i find it looking for it now right away. I just mean it could very well be in between the two of your opinions. Possibly.
Not really.
Quote was:
"There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play A significant role in a person's sexuality."
Which Adam said meant:
"It would appear that the American Psychological Association primarily attributes the cause of sexual orientation to "biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors,"
Which is just plain wrong. Never at any point did they make it out it was the primary factor, or that they have any idea what the primary factor is. There is a vitally important logical difference between the use of an indefinite and a definite article in this case.
The whole piece quoted made it very clear that the expressed belief was that it was a combination of several factors. Many people deny that genetics is a factor at all, so the APA was simply stating that they believed it did indeed have a role to play. If they had not specified the role was 'significant', those not wanting to believe that genetics was a factor might have been able to interpret that was to mean it might have a tiny, irrelevant effect.
A simple clarification to try and prevent mis-interpretation. But for Adam to take that and say it meant the APA thought it was PRIMARILY down to genetics is simply to mis-interpret it in the other direction. It is simply not what they said at all.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Not really.Quote was:
"There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play A significant role in a person's sexuality."
Which Adam said meant:
"It would appear that the American Psychological Association primarily attributes the cause of sexual orientation to "biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors,"
Which is just plain wrong. Never at any point did they make it out it was the primary factor, or that they have any idea what the primary factor is. There is a vitally important logical difference between the use of an indefinite and a definite article in this case.
The whole piece quoted made it very clear that the expressed belief was that it was a combination of several factors. Many people deny that genetics is a factor at all, so the APA was simply statung that they believed it did indeed have a role to play. If they had not specified the role was 'significant', those not wanting to believe that genetics was a factor might have been able to interpret that was to mean it might have a tiny, irrelevant effect.
A simple clarification to try and prevent mis-interpretation. But for Adam to take that and say it meant the APA thought it was PRIMARILY down to genetics is simply to mis-interpret it in the other directtion. It is simply not what they said at all.
Yes. I did not argue that Adam is right. I said it could be between his view that it is the primary factor and yours that it is just not an insignificant one.
It could be read as "biology is an important factor" and might have been meant. I don't know. But to be fair, neither do you, right?