What's the difference? I go into alt.politicshomoloveuality and click on different articles. Some are in the same "thread" as other articles, some are not. Sometimes I go by the "threads" -- the subject lines - and sometimes I go by author, size or even just click on it because it's right on top. There's nothing separating all the different articles, unless you personally decide, in your own mind, to separate them a certain way. By size.. by author... my subject line... by order of arrival... Interesting. Your inability to grasp the fact that not everybody sees the world exactly like you is being exposed... again... Honey nuts, you really need to get over yourself. Viewing everything in isolation is not the only way someone might go about reading a usenet group, and certainly NOT the only way a reasonable person might see things. Again, this is nothing more than yet another example of your inability to perceive the world in terms other than yourself. Many other cultures have an extremely different view of the priesthood than you do. Get over it. Really? Now do something exciting and type out an exhaustive list of those similarities! That my "issue" was some old discussion. Your "conclusion" simply wasn't supported by the raw data, or at least no more so than it supported plenty of other conclusions. I made the charge that you were unable to distinguish between raw data and conclusions, and to back up that charge I raised the fact that you have a history of defending slop (most notably, Spitzer). Not that any of this wasn't ALREADY explained to you... Again, nice invention. You invented this. You made this up. It's simply what you want to believe, and nothing more. Congratulations. Wrong, again. This is what I was responding to: Of course the Vatican is :-) - estimates are that 25 to 50 percent of priests are gay! It is primarily because in some Catholic-dominated cultures, the only acceptable way for a guy to not get married to a woman was to become a priest. No "Various social pressures" in that. Nope. Nope. Once again, your conclusion is so off base from the "raw data" that you should be embarrbutted. And I'm sure you would be, if it weren't for your, um, your "talent" for inventing arguments and applying them to others. Whatever the cultural status of a priest, it is the same for heteroloveuals & homoloveuals. Quoting myself: Brecht Forum: Upcoming Events NYCBEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Brecht Forum: Upcoming Events NYC Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't... In other words, in many cultures, those where a priest has status, all young men have an incentive to become priests, but only heteroloveual males also have an incentive for not becoming a priest. Not that *This* is-was my final conclusion. "Homphobia" is at the root to ALL of the potential scenarios, and I'm not sure what (if any) benefit there is to stepping beyond this blaringly obvious fact. To the specific item you just brought up? No. No answer. I mean, besides the one I just quoted (above). But other than a direct answer, there was no answer. A number of the subjects of his telephone poll were recruited by people with a vested interest in the outcome of his poll-dubbed-study. Again, Spitzer's study wouldn't pbutt muster at *Any* reputable polling firm. This is a fact. Calling it a "Study" is a joke. Admittedly, Spitzer faced huge obsticals and likely conducted the best "study" he or anyone else could have conducted. My true issue with Spitzer is in his "judgment" to carry out such a study, knowing the obsticals, knowing what the lunatics would make of it, when a more rational person might have refused under the conditions he faced. But, again, your defense of Spitzer demonstrates that you are unable to distiguish a real study from an unscientific telephone poll, in addition to your inability to separate raw data from a conclusion. Your cite never mentioned it. You did, but not your cite. Actually, you came up with the 'they became priest to hide from heteroloveual marriage' stuff. Your cite didn't.
|
