The Only Gay In WIT

attention18

Some times i feel like i am the only gay in WIT.I know there are others but not as many as there should be for a college the size of WIT.Is there a reason for so few gays?

bp_me

Have you gotten involved with the LGB society? Not everyone is openly gay.

attention18

i am in the LGB club

bp_me

Well then I cant help you beyond that. What was your expectation? Were you expecting every other person to be gay/bi/willing to experiment?

How many should there be amoung 6000 full time students?

Sully

I think the major thing about gay and lesbians is the fact that not all of them are as open as yourself. A lot of people keep themselves to themselves, and wont be "open gay" - if you get me. I found out a friend of mine was bi the other day, and that person only tells close friends and wont really make it public knowledge. However, that friend has found going to the gay bar in town to attract that kind of group.

I guess people are afraid if they will come out that people will either bully, harras or shun them. Pitty really. *shrrugs*

Have you not met anybody through the club?

attention18

"How many should there be amoung 6000 full time students?"

I dont know.Its said that 1 in 10 guys are gay so about 300 gay guys

bp_me

I'ld agreee with Sully, the likely hood is that there are lots of gay/bi people in the WIT, but most are not that open about it. They are probably afraid of being shunned by their class (and from experiences I have heard, not unjustified fears either). It's a shame so many of us are still so close minded.

I suggest you have a look over on the LGB board here on boards also, and see if there is anything relevant to Waterford.

Do the forum still run the gay club? Bubbles or something wasnt it? Havent seen it advertised in a while.

The_Minister

attention18 wrote:

"How many should there be amoung 6000 full time students?"

I dont know.Its said that 1 in 10 guys are gay so about 300 gay guys

1) if it was 1 in 10 it would be 600.
2) Kinsey skewed the study horribly, by using a massive amount of prison convicts and sex offenders. The real figure is far less than 1 in 10.

The_Minister

The_Minister wrote:

1) if it was 1 in 10 it would be 600.
2) Kinsey skewed the study horribly, by using a massive amount of prison convicts and sex offenders. The real figure is far less than 1 in 10.

So everybody who goe to WIT is male?

Tar.Aldarion

I think it is about 3-4% for men and lower for girls, amybe 1%.

The_Minister

Deleted User wrote:

So everybody who goe to WIT is male?

sigh.
6000 go there according to a previous poster
10% of 6000 is 600.

bp_me

The_Minister wrote:

sigh.
6000 go there according to a previous poster
10% of 6000 is 600.

Its reckoned there are somewhere around 6000 full time students with a roughly 50/50 male female split, and the OP appears to be only concerned with the males.

The_Minister

bp_me wrote:

Its reckoned there are somewhere around 6000 full time students with a roughly 50/50 male female split, and the OP appears to be only concerned with the males.

Ah. Now I get you.

neon_glows

the internets a good resource, why dont you try online dating or maybe LGB have a bebo section, you cud hook up with someone there.

Boston

attention18: The LGB clubs and the like aren't for everyone, you'll meet other Gay men in most walks of life.

bp_me wrote:

Well then I cant help you beyond that. What was your expectation? Were you expecting every other person to be gay/bi/willing to experiment?

How many should there be among 6000 full time students?

Studies of the Irish college student put the percentage at about 18% so about a 1000.

attention18 wrote:

"How many should there be among 6000 full time students?"

I don't know.Its said that 1 in 10 guys are gay so about 300 gay guys

The figure of 1 in ten comes from a combination of the figures for males and females. Homosexuality is about twice as prevalent amongst males as females.

The_Minister wrote:

1) if it was 1 in 10 it would be 600.
2) Kinsey skewed the study horribly, by using a massive amount of prison convicts and sex offenders. The real figure is far less than 1 in 10.

What do you base your "Real figure" on? The thing about Kinsey's study is that is the only one of it's kind on a decent scale. It's recognised that it's has it's problems but it's still the main study reference for a reason

Tar.Aldarion: Pulling figures out your arse? The figures you mentioned are even lower than most religious zealots quote.

neon_glows: Maybe he doesn't want just sex?

The_Minister

LiouVille wrote:

What do you base your "Real figure" on? The thing about Kinsey's study is that is the only one of it's kind on a decent scale. It's recognised that it's has it's problems but it's still the main study reference for a reason

Tar.Aldarion: Pulling figures out your arse? The figures you mentioned are even lower than most religious zealots quote.

The stats that Tar is quoting are not "out there" in terms of what various studies have found, several reliable ones have found results in that area (the problem is that results tend to jump alot from test to test, based on different factors). His ones are slightly lower than the average that I have seen, but not by too much.

Kinsey was a pioneer, and he should be respected for it, but his work in this area holds little merit. Any scientist or social researcher who used population samples as flawed as Kinsey's would be laughed out of respectable circles today. It's not that his study isn't ideal, it's that there are such huge flaws in it that it is bollocks (no offence to Kinsey, it was a difficult task). The population sample is grossly unrepresentative, with, as said above, large numbers of prisoners included, which renders any results obtained meaningless. Studies that use correct methods today get far lower percentages than ten.

Boston

The_Minister wrote:

The stats that Tar is quoting are not "out there" in terms of what various studies have found, several reliable ones have found results in that area (the problem is that results tend to jump alot from test to test, based on different factors). His ones are slightly lower than the average that I have seen, but not by too much.

Personal Bias tbh. As I've said I've seen studies of Irish College students which indicate up to 18% on average are homosexual. Problem with all these studies is not the environment they are conducted in (prison is as good as any when you look at the reasons he used prisoners), but that each of them define homosexuals in a different manner, often taking anybody in the middle and lumping them into groupings dictated by personal bias.


One more thing about kinsey and prisons. America, last I checked, was the country which per capita had the highest prison population. So it can be argued that the person population is perfect environment for these kinds studies as they are so representative of america as a whole. Of course it can be also argued that people in prison act in a way they may not normal act.

lukaszx

i suggest going on www.gaydar.co.uk and search somebody by city

CiaranC

LiouVille wrote:

Personal Bias tbh. As I've said I've seen studies of Irish College students which indicate up to 18% on average are homosexual. Problem with all these studies is not the environment they are conducted in (prison is as good as any when you look at the reasons he used prisoners), but that each of them define homosexuals in a different manner, often taking anybody in the middle and lumping them into groupings dictated by personal bias.


One more thing about kinsey and prisons. America, last I checked, was the country which per capita had the highest prison population. So it can be argued that the person population is perfect environment for these kinds studies as they are so representative of america as a whole. Of course it can be also argued that people in prison act in a way they may not normal act.

Wasnt being openly gay a crime punishable by prison at the time of the study? That alone makes the sample unrepresentative.

Sangre

LiouVille wrote:

Personal Bias tbh. As I've said I've seen studies of Irish College students which indicate up to 18% on average are homosexual. Problem with all these studies is not the environment they are conducted in (prison is as good as any when you look at the reasons he used prisoners), but that each of them define homosexuals in a different manner, often taking anybody in the middle and lumping them into groupings dictated by personal bias.

There is just no way nearly 1 in 5 people are gay.

Boston

CiaranC wrote:

Wasnt being openly gay a crime punishable by prison at the time of the study? That alone makes the sample unrepresentative.

You've no idea how the study was conducted do yea? Openly gay wasn't a requirement.

Sangre wrote:

There is just no way nearly 1 in 5 people are gay.

Depends how narrow or wide your definition of gay is tbh.

The_Minister

LiouVille wrote:

Depends how narrow or wide your definition of gay is tbh.

Wants to place either penis or fingers in someone of the same sex.


Part of the problem with using prisons is that prisoners tend to have higher chances of havin had homosexual experience, which was one thing that biased the figures a bit. That and he used a higher % of prisoners then even the good old USA has.

Most modern studies hit the figure around 5% or lower in men and about two % or lower in women. 18% is highly unlikely.

Boston

The_Minister wrote:

Wants to place either penis or fingers in someone of the same sex.

Thats how you define gay and you seriously believe figures are as low as 5% -2%. Even kinsey had a stricter definition than that. You talk about desires (wants) kinsey based his results on past sexual history, which is allot more valid.

Part of the problem with using prisons is that prisoners tend to have higher chances of havin had homosexual experience, which was one thing that biased the figures a bit. That and he used a higher % of prisoners then even the good old USA has.

Kinsey wasn't just studying homosexuality, he was studying sexuality in general.

Most modern studies hit the figure around 5% or lower in men and about two % or lower in women. 18% is highly unlikely.

5% is about as realistic as 18% tbh. Being honest you seem pretty clueless given you're definition of what makes someone gay. 5% is probably right for what you specified.

Tar.Aldarion

Tar.Aldarion: Pulling figures out your arse? The figures you mentioned are even lower than most religious zealots quote.

What the hell are you talking about?
I googled and those are what I found from the first few studies.

As for 'definition of gay', I tend to use the dictionary version.
What is yours?
And do you believe the amount of gay people is near as high as 18%?
Maybe your definition will help clear up why you would think that...

Boston

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

What the hell are you talking about?
I googled and those are what I found from the first few studies.

I see, the intraweb, excellent.

As for 'definition of gay', I tend to use the dictionary version.
What is yours?

I like kinseys way of defining it, but I'm not in the business of doing studies and as such I don't have a need to label people and just accept whatever they tell me they are.

And do you believe the amount of gay people is near as high as 18%?
Maybe your definition will help clear up why you would think that...

I never said anything about believing it, I merely quoted it. It was a survey by the irish times conducted about 3 years ago. Some/allot of people have a simple black and white view of sexuality in which gay = anybody thats had any type of sexual contact with a member of the same sex. Now believe it or not there a huge number of people he fall into that group. So yea how you define it makes a difference.

dlofnep

Sorry but Tal.Aldarion is making sense. 18% of people are not gay. I'd say maybe 5%. I know alot of people, maybe 400 over school, family and working in numerous places - And I can safely say, I've only ever known maybe 3 or 4 gay people. Maybe 5 if you include 1 or 2 people who come across as gay.

Tar.Aldarion

LiouVille wrote:

I see, the intraweb, excellent.

Where else?
I'm not in the mood to conduct a study or read a biased book either.

I like kinseys way of defining it, but I'm not in the business of doing studies and as such I don't have a need to label people and just accept whatever they tell me they are.

As in, 4, 5, and 6 on the scale would be counted?
3 as well?
Or just the way he defines it.
Anyway, no matter...

Labels are handy, the more accurate they are, the better you can learn abut somebody quickly.
It's better to have one definition for something, say a 'man', so when it is said, one can learn something about a person and can ask a question.

I never said anything about believing it, I merely quoted it. It was a survey by the irish times conducted about 3 years ago. Some/allot of people have a simple black and white view of sexuality in which gay = anybody thats had any type of sexual contact with a member of the same sex. Now believe it or not there a huge number of people he fall into that group. So yea how you define it makes a difference.

Well, somebody believing something doesn't make it true, a lot of people appear to have a wrong definition of gay then.
If somebody calls a pescetarian a vegetarian or somebody calls me the king of England, I don't care how many people believe it, it is not true to me.

A Primal Nut

I go to college and just from observation I would say 18% isn't true regardless of definition. There are 27 men in my course and none are openly gay. There's no way more than one or two are secretly gay or have had gay experiences. It's not a great reflection of society but it's surly less than 10%. The study which showed 10% is just wrong.

Boston

dlofnep wrote:

Sorry but Tal.Aldarion is making sense. 18% of people are not gay. I'd say maybe 5%. I know alot of people, maybe 400 over school, family and working in numerous places - And I can safely say, I've only ever known maybe 3 or 4 gay people. Maybe 5 if you include 1 or 2 people who come across as gay.

You're persuming you're in a position to determine sexuality, and that all gay people are out to the world and that the environments you speak of are ones which Gay people feel free to express themselves.

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Where else?
I'm not in the mood to conduct a study or read a biased book either.

Why read a book when you can just google the answers you want.

As in, 4, 5, and 6 on the scale would be counted?
3 as well?
Or just the way he defines it.
Anyway, no matter...

Kinsey defined some as being Gay if they where in exclusively same sex relationships for the previous 3 years. I'm paraphasing but thats pretty much it. Of course this isn't a perfect definition, and isn't the one from which the 1-10 figure comes from. Why don't you go look it up, you like the internet so much, theres a site.

Labels are handy, the more accurate they are, the better you can learn abut somebody quickly.
It's better to have one definition for something, say a 'man', so when it is said, one can learn something about a person and can ask a question.

Labels are tools of oppression, used by peopel without the ability to think and judge for themselves.

Well, somebody believing something doesn't make it true, a lot of people appear to have a wrong definition of gay then.
If somebody calls a pescetarian a vegetarian or somebody calls me the king of England, I don't care how many people believe it, it is not true to me.

Who are you to tell someone what they are or arn't? Do you walk up to people that call themselves catholic and ask how many tiems they go to church?

I go to college and just from observation I would say 18% isn't true regardless of definition. There are 27 men in my course and none are openly gay. There's no way more than one or two are secretly gay or have had gay experiences. It's not a great reflection of society but it's surly less than 10%. The study which showed 10% is just wrong.

You see, you don't know all 27 people intimately, you've no idea what the past sexual history of every member of your class is. Wrt being openly out, it's complicated, just because no one is out, doesn't mean they don't exist.

btw through my life, school and college I've found the 1 in 10 figure to be acurate, even a little low. I bet most of the lads in my old school thought their where no Gay guys. Their was however 5 Bi-sexuals out of a class of 40. People look a round for the buch lesbian or the Fab Gay guy. My experience is that these people are a minority be far.

Most of you are completely closed minded on the issue. You're convinced that the world is how you see it.

Time Magazine

LiouVille wrote:

America, last I checked, was the country which per capita had the highest prison population. So it can be argued that the person population is perfect environment for these kinds studies as they are so representative of america as a whole.

Louville, you know me. I'm always respectful when I get into debates and the like. But for fuck's man, that actually made me laugh.

Do you not think you're more likely to be in prison in the States if you're, for example:

1. Black
2. Poor
3. Male

They represent nothing like a fair demographic sample. There are two main reasons you're in prison, (i) you committed a crime, and (ii) you didn't successfully defend yourself. Both of these isolate certain groups.

Furthermore, the only use for prisons in terms of social studies is how much it f*cks you up, no pun intended. Prison does not breed normal social practice. And almost by definition inmates' nature are not that of social norms/averages.

Tar.Aldarion

LiouVille wrote:

Why read a book when you can just google the answers you want.

Well, don't you reek of a everybody is against the gays complex...
If I read that correctly.
mm, you sound like this guy damien I saw post...

Kinsey defined some as being Gay if they where in exclusively same sex relationships for the previous 3 years. I'm paraphasing but thats pretty much it. Of course this isn't a perfect definition, and isn't the one from which the 1-10 figure comes from. Why don't you go look it up, you like the internet so much, theres a site.

No, it's far from perfect, very far, as in down right shabby.
I already know his definition, thanks for the inane comment.

Labels are tools of oppression, used by peopel without the ability to think and judge for themselves.

Too stupid an opinion to require a countering one.
All labels are for evil purposes eh.

Who are you to tell someone what they are or arn't? Do you walk up to people that call themselves catholic and ask how many tiems they go to church?

I am in no place, the definition of a word is what decides something.
Surely if you tell me you are a god I must accept that, in fact, i should accept whatever you say, and language is obsolete, as all it is is labels.

America, last I checked, was the country which per capita had the highest prison population. So it can be argued that the person population is perfect environment for these kinds studies as they are so representative of america as a whole.

I laughed out loud.

Boston

Ibid wrote:

Furthermore, the only use for prisons in terms of social studies is how much it f*cks you up, no pun intended. Prison does not breed normal social practice. And almost by definition inmates' nature are not that of social norms/averages.

The important thing to remember is that the study was into sexuality. Kinsey specifically looked for people who had been convicted of crimes of a sexual nature. He wanted to explore and study the sexual nature of rapist, and pedophiles, and other sexual deviances. Prisons provided him with these people.

As for poor, most Americans are poor.
As for black, last I looked white Americans aren't a majority.
Point conceded about the males.

Hey, Kinsey's study has it's limitations, of which the prison issue is minor*, but show me something else as that will actually stand up against in. The study was independently funded, anonymous,extensive and largely unbiased.

*I'm amazed people have latched onto it, since there where fundamental flaws in how the results where formulated.

Time Magazine

LiouVille wrote:

most Americans are poor

That's just not true. First of all America is one of the richest nations in the world. Second of all if you're talking about relative poverty, which I'm referring to, my point is that the poor are way over-represented in prisons.

As for black, last I looked white Americans aren't a majority.

In this case I can only tell you to look again. Regardless, analogous to my first point, blacks are over-represented in the prison population.

Boston

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Well, don't you reek of a everybody is against the gays complex...
If I read that correctly.
mm, you sound like this guy damien I saw post...

It's just I die a little when I read an engineer of all people dismiss the knowledge that books hold in favour of the internet. "Why would I read a book, it's o nthe internet lol".

No, it's far from perfect, very far, as in down right shabby.
I already know his definition, thanks for the inane comment.

You didn't seem to, since you mixed up a scale with a definition.

Too stupid an opinion to require a countering one.
All labels are for evil purposes eh.

I'm a man, you are a man, we are the same. Now for the next lession children...

I am in no place, the definition of a word is what decides something.

A definition you've yet to provide. When you grow up and enter the real world you will learn to accept people for what they are. And not try to impose your opinions upon them.

I laughed out loud.

Really? Thats kidna sad. Was it the arrangements of the letters that made you laugh?

Boston

In this case I can only tell you to look again. Regardless, analogous to my first point, blacks are over-represented in the prison population.

Honestly I find that surprising. What are the figures derived from, voting register? I've read stuff that contradicts that, but given that it is the states it could have been crap I read.

Ibid wrote:

That's just not true. First of all America is one of the richest nations in the world. Second of all if you're talking about relative poverty, which I'm referring to, my point is that the poor are way over-represented in prisons.

Well side steping the "poor majority/minority" debate, I'd argue that sexuality and economic status are not related, and that you've yet to show other wise.

Time Magazine

LiouVille wrote:

Honestly I find that surprising. What are the figures derived from, voting register? I've read stuff that contradicts that, but given that it is the states it could have been crap I read.

The census, I presume.

Well side steping the "poor majority/minority" debate, I'd argue that sexuality and economic status are not related, and that you've yet to show other wise.

I wouldn't argue that economic status and sexuality are related, I don't know anything about it. Nonetheless, it may have a bearing, either way. My point? That you can't use people in prison as a sample of society. The assumption that it has an impact is no less plausible than its counterpart, which by assuming it's a fair sample, you're invoking.

Boston

A no, I'm saying its the only place he had access to certain types of people, and for those individuals its as valid a palce as any. There a criteria for deciding if a given sample is representative (fair)or not, and I've no means of determining that, since I've no idea how many inmates where used to come to the figure of 1-10. All I know is that he did take the sex histories of prisons, and some of the reasons.

dlofnep

LiouVille wrote:

You're persuming you're in a position to determine sexuality, and that all gay people are out to the world and that the environments you speak of are ones which Gay people feel free to express themselves.

Why wouldn't I be in a position? Look, I'm sure you'd like to believe the percentage of gay people is higher so you feel like less of a minority, but get a grip man - Gay people make up a tiny percent of the population. I assess on what I see, day to day, people I meet. Gay people are not common.

Boston

dlofnep wrote:

Why wouldn't I be in a position?

Have you conducted a survey of the peopel you know? Or are you pretending you can tell by looking at someone.

Look, I'm sure you'd like to believe the percentage of gay people is higher so you feel like less of a minority, but get a grip man

I'm not Gay. Bravo pall you're really good at this.

Gay people make up a tiny percent of the population. I assess on what I see, day to day, people I meet. Gay people are not common.

What ever helps you sleep at night.

dlofnep

LOL @ you trying to be a psychologist. So what if you're not gay - Your undieing love for the gay cause is a bit misleading. Big dips.

I don't need to conduct a survey because I already know their sexual orientation. You go ask 100 random people on the street if their gay and see what the results are.

Boston

dlofnep wrote:

I don't need to conduct a survey because I already know their sexual orientation. You go ask 100 random people on the street if their gay and see what the results are.

You never asked but you know. I didn't realise I was in the presense of a mind reader.

Tar.Aldarion

LiouVille wrote:

It's just I die a little when I read an engineer of all people dismiss the knowledge that books hold in favour of the internet. "Why would I read a book, it's o nthe internet lol".

Don't think I don't know the wonderous nature of books. At 20, I have read just over 2, 000 and I hope to read many more.
I said that because;
A) I have done a course on statistics, any such book will be biased and not have correct samples. It will not be accurate.
I would find a book of the statistics of peoples sexuality very boring.
C) In the end, studies on the internet may just be as innacurate as those of a book, especially based on some peoples definition of a word.
D) Everybody conducts their own study by living their life and how many gay, bisexual and straight people they run in to, that they can confirm of course.

You didn't seem to, since you mixed up a scale with a definition.

No I didn't, you misread, I am asking what people on the scale do you include as homosexual, or are you holding strictly to his definition, which blatantly includes people that are not homosexual.

I'm a man, you are a man, we are the same. Now for the next lession children...

You say labels are the only tools of oppression, used by people without the ability to think and judge for themselves.
Do you not see why that is a stupid comment, as language is just labels abd that 100% of people use them?
Sure some people do as you say, uing a label against people, that does not mean all labels are tools of oppression, far from it.

A definition you've yet to provide.

One whose sexual attraction and desire is for people of the same sex, is how I would put it.

When you grow up and enter the real world you will learn to accept people for what they are.

I grew up a long time ago.
Since when do I not accept people for who they are?

And not try to impose your opinions upon them.

By 'impose' my opinion you mean 'have' an opinion.
My opinion is not an opinion, it is fact.
I am not the King of England, even if I say I am - you are not either, I guess I am imposing that on you?
I do not fit into teh definition of the King of England, therefore I am not he.
Homosexuality refers to having complete attraction for only the same gender as yourself, some would argue that having nearly complete attraction for the same sex also falls under this, but that is what bisexuality means, and that is what a lot fall under.

Really? Thats kidna sad. Was it the arrangements of the letters that made you laugh?

No, laughing is a merry occasion, not a sad one. The arrangement of the letters formed a sentence that made a statement contradicting sense, this caused an electrochemical reaction in my brain which activated my motor neurons and the phenomenon known as laughter occurred.
Have you done statistics, read books on it like I have?
I guess not, or you would never say something so ridiculous.

You never asked but you know. I didn't realise I was in the presense of a mind reader.

Oh, a kind of bad solipsist arguement, I imagine dlofnep can use his senses to determine whether a lot of people are gay, without asking whether or not they are.
I don't need top ask my gf if she is gay, nor my friends, nor my family, I know if they are or not. Evidence dictates, girlfriends, looks, exclamations, glances, language etc. one does not have to be a mind reader or ask, as readerge is only 5% of the way we communicate.
But however, feel free to go on with your, 'but how do you know for sure?!' arguement...

Boston

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Don't think I don't know the wonderous nature of books. At 20, I have read just over 2, 000 and I hope to read many more.
I said that because;
A) I have done a course on statistics, any such book will be biased and not have correct samples. It will not be accurate.
I would find a book of the statistics of peoples sexuality very boring.
C) In the end, studies on the internet may just be as innacurate as those of a book, especially based on some peoples definition of a word.
D) Everybody conducts their own study by living their life and how many gay, bisexual and straight people they run in to, that they can confirm of course.

I'm betting you didn't do to well in that statistics course.

No I didn't, you misread, I am asking what people on the scale do you include as homosexual, or are you holding strictly to his definition, which blatantly includes people that are not homosexual.

I answered that question.

You say labels are the only tools of oppression, used by people without the ability to think and judge for themselves.
Do you not see why that is a stupid comment, as language is just labels abd that 100% of people use them?
Sure some people do as you say, uing a label against people, that does not mean all labels are tools of oppression, far from it.

Label, when thats all people allow themselves to see others as, are the tools of the grossly ignorant and uninformed.

One whose sexual attraction and desire is for people of the same sex, is how I would put it.

So if you're sexually attracted to members of the same sex you're gay? Maybe would disagree.

Homosexuality refers to having complete attraction for only the same gender as yourself, some would argue that having nearly complete attraction for the same sex also falls under this, but that is what bisexuality means, and that is what a lot fall under.

Allot of gay people have had sex with member of the opposite sex, allot of straight people have at some point felt compelled to "experiment". Completely is a really purist line of thought. Few people are 100% anything, let alone gay/straight.

Have you done statistics, read books on it like I have?
I guess not, or you would never say something so ridiculous.

I'm an engineer, final year. Iv'e done far more Statistics than you. You're working off a flase premises pal. You've no idea how many prison samples where used in the study. You're whole arguement is that none should ahve been used. Read a book ffs.

Oh, a kind of bad solipsist arguement, I imagine dlofnep can use his senses to determine whether a lot of people are gay, without asking whether or not they are.

He admitts he has met very few Gay people, so whats he using as a reference? TV? Films. How many Gay people have you met?

I don't need top ask my gf if she is gay, nor my friends, nor my family, I know if they are or not. Evidence dictates, girlfriends, looks, exclamations, glances, language etc. one does not have to be a mind reader or ask, as readerge is only 5% of the way we communicate.

So you'd know if anyone in you're family where Gay, but you have to admitt that the same is hardly true in every family. You're on the loo kout for streotype, and what makes you truely ignorant is that you think all Gay people conform to them, and all straight people don't.

You've met me a couple times. Don't even pretend you'd pick me out as being into guys.

Tar.Aldarion

LiouVille wrote:

I'm betting you didn't do to well in that statistics course.

Well, if you want to know, I got 98, which is roughly what I have got in most exams I have ever done. But that doesn't matter to you, I like all the cheap shots for no reason.

I answered that question.

I did not say that you did not, but am addressing your wrong comment, missing the point on purpose?

Label, when thats all people allow themselves to see others as, are the tools of the grossly ignorant and uninformed.

You rearranged half the quote you just made from me, so?
As I just said that people do that, let us get on to teh point, it was about your comment which was totally inaccurate, as above.

So if you're sexually attracted to members of the same sex you're gay? Maybe would disagree.

Well you can add in 'only', which was left to be inferred.

Allot of gay people have had sex with member of the opposite sex, allot of straight people have at some point felt compelled to "experiment". Completely is a really purist line of thought. Few people are 100% anything, let alone gay/straight.

What you are saying is that you think most people are bisexual, that is fine, but if very few people are gay or straight, that does not matter, it wouldn't change the meaning of the word. Sure it is the purist line of thought, but that is what the word means.
A simple analogy, if there are very few dogs, but a lot of wolves, wolves and dogs don't suddenly have to be the same thing.
0 on the scale is hetero and 6 is homo.
In between is bisexuality and varying levels of such, which is what
most people fall into.

I'm an engineer, final year.

What type?

Iv'e done far more Statistics than you.

No you haven't. You do not know me well, you do not know I do other courses lectures in nuig like philosophy, maths, chemistry, biology, nutrition etc, for fun.
Also, stats is only done in one year of engineering, how have you done way more than any other engineer seeing as engieering is not a statistics heavy course?

You're whole arguement is that none should ahve been used. Read a book ffs.

Wait, where did I make any arguement about this? I just said ;

America, last I checked, was the country which per capita had the highest prison population. So it can be argued that the person population is perfect environment for these kinds studies as they are so representative of america as a whole.

was a ridiculous statemen, and it is.

He admitts he has met very few Gay people, so whats he using as a reference? TV? Films. How many Gay people have you met?


So you'd know if anyone in you're family where Gay, but you have to admitt that the same is hardly true in every family. You're on the loo kout for streotype, and what makes you truely ignorant is that you think all Gay people conform to them, and all straight people don't.

How would I know how many gay people I have met, nobody could know that.
Now we have you making ridiculous assumptions about me again. Where did I mention anything about a stereotypical gay?
In fact, most I have met are nothing like the stereotype.
I mentioned evidence that could lead to telling somebody about somebody.
Somebody checking out a girl, making sexual comments about
somebody, somebodies partner. Most of this communication relayed evidence puts people in at least a bisexual orientated sexuality. People can tell if some people are ga or not on evidence, obviousy you can't tell with a lot of people, that's got nothing to do with the point.
Making assumptions about people and then calling them truly ignorant for doing the same thing as you, when they did not, oh lovely.

You've met me a couple times. Don't even pretend you'd pick me out as being into guys.

No, I would have no idea, I don't know you well, wasn't paying attention to much, and was drunk. I don't care about peoples sexual orientation, unless I want them.

Boston

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

What you are saying is that you think most people are bisexual,

No I'm not. This thread is where I outline what I feel makes someone Bi-sexual. Read it and learn that there is more to sexuality than who you fuk.

that is fine, but if very few people are gay or straight, that does not matter, it wouldn't change the meaning of the word. Sure it is the purist line of thought, but that is what the word means.
A simple analogy, if there are very few dogs, but a lot of wolves, wolves and dogs don't suddenly have to be the same thing.

There are genetic differences between the two species. Are you saying gays are another species.

What type?

Same as yourself.

No you haven't. You do not know me well, you do not know I do other courses lectures in nuig like philosophy, maths, chemistry, biology, nutrition etc, for fun.

As part of my course I did chemistry and maths. I didn't take the philosophy option.

Also, stats is only done in one year of engineering, how have you done way more than any other engineer seeing as engieering is not a statistics heavy course?

Because, I've done stats for three years as part of my engineering degree where as you've done it for one. Computer engineering can be very statistics heavy btw, you should wake up and learn something about it.

How would I know how many gay people I have met, nobody could know that.
Now we have you making ridiculous assumptions about me again. Where did I mention anything about a stereotypical gay?
In fact, most I have met are nothing like the stereotype.

Yet you and whatshisface still claim you can tell if someone is or isn't gay. Contradict yourself much?

obviousy you can't tell with a lot of people, that's got nothing to do with the point.

Thats the entire point. You can't tell allot of the time if someone is gay unless they tell you.

Making assumptions about people and then calling them truly ignorant for doing the same thing as you, when they did not, oh lovely.

I never persume to know someone sexuality unless they tell me.

No, I would have no idea, I don't know you well, wasn't paying attention to much, and was drunk. I don't care about peoples sexual orientation, unless I want them.

You see, abso'ficken'lutely clueless.

Tar.Aldarion

LiouVille wrote:

No I'm not. This thread is where I outline what I feel makes someone Bi-sexual. Read it and learn that there is more to sexuality than who you fuk.

I know what a bi-sexual is,
One whose sexual attraction and desire is for people of the both sexes, with carying degrees of preference.

What do you mean you are not, you just said it.

There are genetic differences between the two species. Are you saying gays are another species.

Maybe reread things until you understand them, and look up 'analogy' that is so far from any semblance of the point to make me think you are just taking the piss altogether.

Same as yourself.

Then why are the courses layouts so different?
Stats was a pointless course in my eyes, the lecturer couldn't even answer why we were doing it, same with the chemistry lecturer.
What statistics topics topics did you study, that would require three years study?

As part of my course I did chemistry and maths. I didn't take the philosophy option.

Those subjects are not in my course, I go to other courses lectures. We don't get a choice of subjects like you...
We have to do the ones you mention.
Could people actually choose to not do maths?

Because, I've done stats for three years as part of my engineering degree where as you've done it for one. Computer engineering can be very statistics heavy btw, you should wake up and learn something about it.

Three years of first class honours and I must know nothing eh...
Maybe you should take your own advice.
Also, ever hear 'There are three types of lies: Lies, damn lies and statistics.'.

Yet you and whatshisface still claim you can tell if someone is or isn't gay. Contradict yourself much?

You can tell if some people are gay, you can't with a lot, not one contradiction that I see, as I said that all the way along.

Thats the entire point. You can't tell allot of the time if someone is gay unless they tell you.

Note the use of a lot of the time, thanks for admitting I am right.

I never persume to know someone sexuality unless they tell me.

Again so far from understanding the point, or even what you are discussing that I wonder are you totally sober.
You called me truly ignorant for applying stereotypes to homosexual people and heterosexual people to label them, saying I was making a truly ignorant assumption.
Whereas, you are the one making the ignorant assumption by assuming that I do such, do you understand me now?
The answer you gave when quoting has nothing to do with anything.

You see, abso'ficken'lutely clueless.

What are you talking about and what do you mean?
Use English, and expand a point.

Boston

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

I know what a bi-sexual is,
One whose sexual attraction and desire is for people of the both sexes, with carying degrees of preference.

Thats simple aye? Wonders why I took the time to go into it in a much detail as I did. Well done Tar.

What do you mean you are not, you just said it.

I don't follow what you mean by this.

Then why are the courses layouts so different?

Well come to third level education. I just been through the accrediation process. So I know whats required from the course. Also engineering in trinity is structured differently to the NUIG. I've done two years of mech, and Civil.

Stats was a pointless course in my eyes, the lecturer couldn'e even answer why we were doing it, same with the chemistry lecturer.
What statistics topics topics did you study, that would require 3 years study?

Hypothesis testing, Quality Control, Sampling, more sampling, then various probability distributions. More than enough for three years. tbh.

Those subjects are not in my course, I go to other courses lectures. We don't get a choice of subjects like you...
We have to do the ones you mention.
Could people actually choice to not do maths?

No, People couldn't. However in third year theres a choice of maths courses. You do the one specific to the type of engineering you're doing.

Three years of first class honours and I must know nothing eh...

Well yes, you just said Stats and engineering arn't related.

You can tell if some people are gay, you can't with a lot, not one contradiction that I see, as I said that all the way along.

So I'm right, neither you or anyone else i nthis thread is in a position to say that 1-10 is definitely wrong because you've not encountered that many gays.

Note the use of a lot of the time, thanks for agreeing.

Well you have flip sides to mine. Must be all the brow beetings I'm giving you.

Again so far from understanding the point, or even what you are discussing that I wonder are you totally sober.
You called me truly ignorant for applying stereotypes to homosexual people and heterosexual people to label them, saying I was making a truly ignorant assumption.
Whereas, you are the one making the ignorant assumption by assuming that I do such, do you understand me now?
The answer you gave when quoting has nothing to do with anything.

You say you can spot gays.

swiss

To try to flip back on topic somewhat, I left WIT last year, and I sympathise with the OP. I got the very distinct impression that there were a lot more gay people out there than were in the LGB society. My best guess is that a lot of gay or bi people in WIT weren't out, or weren't comfortable with the idea of going to the LGB society or its meetings.

They (gay people) are there however, I guess you have to coax them out of the woodwork somehow. Answers on the back of a postcard people.

Boston

LGBT societies will only ever attract a small minority of potential members, even at the best of times.