Sayonara

I think you can take that as read.

You do have a reason to read the rules, because abiding by them is a condition of use of the site to which you agreed when you signed up. Not reading them would necessarily preclude that agreement. I suggest you take a peek. While common sense might "indicate proper behaviour", this does not make it a comprehensive directing influence as to how members should use this site. Each one of the rules of this community has been conceived and codified for a reason. Self-proclaimed immunity only attracts exasperation. We don't require you to source everything that you say, but if you are stating something as fact -- and basing your reasoning on that fact -- then I am sure you can see how referencing will help people to understand your perspectives more easily.

If an incongruity has arisen in this thread, then this thread is the best place to address it.

Previous threads: 2012 doomsday? End Of The World 2012? There are more but I can't be bothered looking because they are much the same thing.

Reminds me of "Zodiac".

That's not really an effective differentiation. To an outside observer, black and white holes appear the same. The only difference is what happens to attracted matter at the horizon. White holes will only "spew energy" in the sense you mean it when they die, and black holes emit Hawking radiation anyway (which you'd certainly hope we would notice).

Well, there is "escaping". In the form of alternate possibilities. You don't demonstrate causality by picking one example from memory, coming up with a conclusion, and dismissing all other proposed explanations. You have no more demonstrated "higher reasoning" than you have demonstrated that the dog had a great sense of humour.

I think this is a common reaction amongst straight men, and it is quite unhelpful because it seems to colour and restrict a lot of people's reactions to LGBT issues (not that I think that is happening with you; you seem to be fairly level headed about the whole affair). Personally I find it quite bizarre, because nothing that two men do in bed together is substantially different from the things that mixed couples can and will do in bed together. Also, we don't tend to go around defining and judging any other group based on our assumptions about one particular sexual act that isn't even exclusively performed by that group. It is really really odd.

Pishtosh. Everyone knows the Romulans are in this galaxy, and they don't yet have the technology to reach distant galaxies.

If anything this shows that not only does it happen, but it can even happen when things are going wrong.

What I was trying to say is that the sort of people who want to enter into a gay marriage arrangement are very likely to be in a group in which the members do not have any choice about their sexuality (or certainly don't feel they do, and who are we to contradict them?), so it is not helpful to make spurious remarks that imply they are just being a bit difficult. I could have explained the point in more detail and you are right to question it. It is not so much what has been said already in this thread which concerns me, but what is almost certainly around the corner. See the previous threads on this topic if you want to prepare yourself for the ordeal.

Well, yes. But ParanoiA and I are talking about the homosexuals who want to get married being mostly in the group who have no real choice about their sexuality. We are not talking about people somehow being magically conceptually incapable of choosing to get married. No, I disagree. When you make emotive and arbitrary value judgements based on factually incorrect information you are being bigoted, which our rules explicitly prohibit. I am not going to debate forum policy any further with a member of staff in a public thread so if you want to argue the toss, feel free to PM me. Agentchange is of course as free as anyone else to add rational and constructive ideas to the discussion, so in the interests of not discouraging him from doing so please don't use him as a puppet for your own agenda. This thread was started to discuss a perceived iniquity in the way that the state treats different groups of citizens with regards to their rights, and the way in which society perpetuates this scenario by suppressing the actualisation of equality. I for one am not going to leap to the defence of people who - in your words - "bash" those groups in this thread, nor am I going to hide the fact that I will take a dim view of staff members who undermine that position.

No it does not presuppose 0% choice, because of the words I used and because of the words I didn't use. Also please keep in mind we are talking about people who wish to enter gay marriage, not the entire spectrum of human sexual behaviour, which somewhat narrows our attention.

This thread is now developing in the same way as the other threads in which we have debated this matter in exhaustive detail; IOW, it is now at the point where it needs to be closely watched. Please stick to the issues and do not use logical fallacies. Emotive outbursts are not advised from members OR staff. I don't want to pick on people, but I think Agentchange needs to consider his own views with his objective and critical hat on, and YT - based on his experiences in prior threads on the same topic - might want to just not read this thread, unless he can bring himself to distinguish between "bashing" and debate. And for the last effing time, you CANNOT attribute consequences (and/or 'blame') deriving from choice to people who - in the vast majority - have no such choice. So just don't do it.

Yes, the video where the cameraman shows every conceivable angle (including a weirdly skewed "sneak up on the device" shot), except for any that might show a glimpse of what is behind the unexplained vertical board. It's very convincing.

You know you missed him really.

And... you're done. Thread is under review.

Unless ecoli's normal body temperature is over 100c, and nobody has told him that is weird yet.

Who? I am not sure what you are talking about here. We have both discussed each other's ideas and I don't see anyone being told they are not "allowed" to disagree with anything. You can "defend" what you like, as long as it makes sense. Although for future reference there is such a thing as an indefensible argument. It is a mistake to assume that you are "clearly right", especially when your hypothesis has been completely undermined by a parallel hypothesis which your method can't distinguish observationally. You cannot be scientifically correct through fiat. I'm not "ignoring" it as such - I already said I think there is some evidence for decreased physical maturity in the population (this study is not direct evidence, but intuitively we would agree it could easily contribute in some way). But the study is not relevant to my arguments, which pertain to the declarations you made in this thread requiring celebrities to be representative of the general population. I am not required to discuss any given study simply because you mentioned it. It doesn't support what you are saying so much as provide one of many possible explanations (although no root explanation is given in the study, so really it doesn't tell us anything new). What you have is still correlation, and not causation. Actually I don't. Firstly I have mainly been talking about actors, because it's a simpler conversation. Secondly I am not so naive as to believe that labels back artists on the basis of a single quality. That would indeed be a gross oversimplification, if anyone had ever said it. You need to stop putting words in other people's mouths. I could not agree more, although I disagree with your use of the word "most" (not because I think that "most" does not apply, but because I don't believe you have surveyed enough artists to be able to use the word with statistical confidence). Nobody ever said they were supposed to be good looking. You are being obtuse. People are currently marketed into roles; if you already epitomise "rocker" you are more likely to be worth investing in in that capacity. What constitutes the "rocker" role is subject to society's whim, not biological responses to chemical agents. Yes, I have heard of Seal. Are YOU aware that he got that deal on the back of one song, after 11 years of being crap? He didn't even get nominated for a Grammy until three years later, after releasing his second album, which was far removed from the material which got him a record deal in the first place. Are YOU aware that despite being scarred by lupus, some people actually consider him to be very handsome? You may personally find that unlikely, because - shock horror - it's subjective. The guy is married to a supermodel, ffs. Don't try to evidence by example - it's not even one up from anecdote. If you can't resist though, you might want to pick an artist whose own label hasn't turned down his albums for not being commercially viable. I call strawman; that is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that there is supply and demand in the entertainment market, which comes from social expectations and fashions and which is provided for by the way in which labels and studios invest their resources. Yes, bands get rejected. No, they do not get rejected on the basis of one of them being "too mature". You are right to call that idea "ridiculous" (although I am sure you wouldn't if it supported your position), but it is not my claim, so don't attempt to undermine my arguments by associating them with it. I am thinking I will not put the effort in for much longer. I was hoping for a breakthrough in understanding about three posts ago, but the fact that intellectually dishonest tactics have arisen before specified disagreement is not exactly a good sign.

Here is the nub of your problem, which I am going to illuminate one more time before I stop having this cyclical conversation and go and do something more interesting. The apparent lack of high-profile alpha male actors is not necessarily indicative of the lack of alpha males in the same age range. I for example know a great many very alpha males (using your definition) in the 20-30 age range who could quite easily be trained as actors. And if such males exist, but are in the main not found to be actors, then we are not going to be criticised for observing that perhaps it is difficult to succeed as an actor in the current climate if one has such characteristics. So it is actually likely to be indicative of trends in the way roles are cast, which does not need to be "orchestrated" in order to operate similarly and simultaneously across the board. It only "goes in the face of logic and common sense" if you completely ignore the primary goal of selling filmed material in the entertainment industry. You say that your essay explains all of the issues I have raised, in which case your refutations to my points should have been accomplished with ease. Yet you have ignored many of them (for example, failing to clarify whether these observations were of a sudden event or a long term trend), and offered weak answers to others. I find myself wondering why you have started this thread. Were you looking for constructive criticism, or did you just hope to find people who would agree with you? If it is the latter then I am done here.

I think Mr Skeptic was having a little joke. Please refrain from making personal attacks against members.

No. You have used enough web forums to know what a strawman is, and I am not going to be drawn into an academically dishonest argument. The point made by insane_alien has nothing to do with any notion of "authority". It is simply the practical observation that one cannot object to a physical principle without first understanding what that principle is supposed to explain. Considering what you have said in your many discussions on the Michelson-Morley experiment, I would have thought you might easily grasp such an idea. If you wish to start a new thread relating to "authority" and "establishment" in physics, do so, but do not derail this thread further with what is ostensibly a separate issue.

No, they include what is to be understood by the use of terms which are conventional within physics at that level. What people 'believe' is their personal choice. Stop straw-manning please.

This is not an explanation of the claim; it is the same claim phrased differently. The basis of the claim would be evidence that casting agents are unable to fill such roles, as opposed to those roles being filled by people due to the decisions they make on the characteristics they want to prioritise, or those roles being in a minority for the mass market. If that's the only set of data you can use, fine, but you need to account for ALL factors which are acting on your subjects in such a way as to cause the effects you are trying to explain. Otherwise we can't look at the possible explanations and show which one has more validity.

It may also be partly due to something as innocuous as a marketing decision by a major publisher. "We need more pro-atheism books. There's a market and they're getting angrier!" sort of thing.