Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Should the Census ask about sexual orientation?
Topic Started: Mar 9 2010, 05:38 PM (1,387 Views)
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
kenny
Mar 10 2010, 02:00 PM
If someone sees conversations as a competitive game he must win just take the high road.

Don't play with him.
Let him go play with himself.
I agree, which is why I backed away.

I think he's just a nutter, as he shows in his hysterical and aggressive attacks on people who don't share his world view.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quagmire
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
:rolleyes2:

sad, really.

Edit: so much for backing away. :lol:
Edited by Quagmire, Mar 10 2010, 03:03 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quagmire
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
ivorythumper
Mar 10 2010, 03:00 PM
kenny
Mar 10 2010, 02:00 PM
If someone sees conversations as a competitive game he must win just take the high road.

Don't play with him.
Let him go play with himself.
I agree, which is why I backed away.

I think he's just a nutter, as he shows in his hysterical and aggressive attacks on people who don't share his world view.

So why do you respond to my posts? You may not have noticed, I never respond to yours, since I know it will ALWAYS end up with the same assinine game. I only respond when you directly talk to me. If you wouldnt, then we wouldnt engage at all. If I'm just a nutter, you have no reason to engage me, right? Give it a try. It works well.

Edit: calling me hysterical is another lie. See a pattern?
Edited by Quagmire, Mar 10 2010, 03:06 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Quagmire
Mar 10 2010, 03:06 PM
ivorythumper
Mar 10 2010, 03:00 PM
kenny
Mar 10 2010, 02:00 PM
If someone sees conversations as a competitive game he must win just take the high road.

Don't play with him.
Let him go play with himself.
I agree, which is why I backed away.

I think he's just a nutter, as he shows in his hysterical and aggressive attacks on people who don't share his world view.

So why do you respond to my posts? You may not have noticed, I never respond to yours, since I know it will ALWAYS end up with the same assinine game. I only respond when you directly talk to me. If you wouldnt, then we wouldnt engage at all. If I'm just a nutter, you have no reason to engage me, right? Give it a try. It works well.

Edit: calling me hysterical is another lie. See a pattern?
Quag: I retract calling you a nutter. However, you do seem unduly aggressive and are quick to call someone a liar when they simply disagree with you
Quote:
 
Edit: calling me hysterical is another lie. See a pattern?

That is not a lie, it was a statement of judgment that you're a nutter, and I gave the rationale that you have hysterical and aggressive attacks on people who don't share your world view. I may be wrong that you are nutter, and but hysterical and aggressive attacks are certainly my perception of your style, which I can state without being a liar.

Quote:
 
ivorythumper
Mar 10 2010, 01:16 PM
You're frothing there, pal.
More lies.

That cannot be a lie. It can be a misperception, but it is also obviously an analogous use of "frothing".

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
I already told you I don't think it's relevant data. Sound social policy does not depend on what percentage of the population is in what arbitrary category.
I've said nothing about social policy, so I dont know why you offer me this. If you're implying I've said anything about social policy, that would be another lie.
That is not a lie. You advocate the government collecting data on homosexuals. You already mentioned the useful of the data to politicians in forming opinions ("What I mean is when someone (be it a politician, a voter, or just someone formulating an opinion) about a topic such as gay marriage for instance,"). The government is necessarily concerned with social policy. That is what a government does.

You asked "If the percentage of gays in the population was making a marked increase or decrease, dont you think thats relevant data?" Relevant to what, if not social policy? Why else should the government be collecting that data? That is what I am missing in your argument.

The fact that you do not understand the implications of your own ideas does not mean someone else is lying when they bring up the obvious point about it.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
That is a simple disagreement, which sane and emotionally balanced people can do so civilly. You don't seem to be capable of that, and so have to attack me as illiterate and a liar.
More lies. I've exhibited my capability to civilly disagree with countless other posters on this forum. You've exhibited this sort of tedious conflict with countless others. You do the math.
Again, not a lie, just a perception. Are you even unable to acknowledge the indisputable fact that you did question my literacy and you did call me a liar? How exactly does that demonstrate a capacity to civilly disagree with someone who you REALLY disagree with?
Quote:
 
Quote:
 
I asked you if "You think that census data could/should/would be used by politicians in deciding social policy, right?"

If the answer is 'no', then why should the government collect the data?
I told you. I gave an example. I copied and pasted the example so you could read it again. And yet you still sit there pretending otherwise. Lies.

That is not a lie. You have not demonstrated why the government should collect the data. You really have not even answered the question -- a simple yes or no is all that would be required. The fact that you gave another example -- which falls under the general category of something a private initiative could and arguably should do -- does not begin to address why the government should collect the data. Asking a question that continues to go unanswered does not make someone a liar.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
If the answer is 'yes', then why are you complaining about the language of social policy?
I'm not complaining about the language of social policy. I dont even know what you mean here. More lies.


How can asking a question that you don't understand the term of make someone else a liar? "Social policy" is what a government does. "The language of social policy" simply refers to the use of the term "social policy" to shorthand the work that a government does in enacting social policy. Individuals cannot enact social policy -- only a government. I don't see how my statement can be a lie.
Quote:
 
Quote:
 
I guess if you have to resort to personal attacks when people don't accept the Word of Quag about the value of the government collecting personal information relevant to policy making, then it really doesn't matter what anyone else has to say since they are presumably just interrupting your monologue.
Show any evidence that you read and understand the Word of Quag by speaking to it, rather than projecting your inventions onto me and we'll talk. Until then, all I see are lies.

Time and again I've quoted your actual words back to you. I can't claim that I understand the Word of Quag, but I certainly understand the common sense usage of the words that you use, and the fact that I do read them and even quote them back to you. How again can that be a lie?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Der Fuhrer
Member Avatar
Junior Carp
Ach der lieber!

Issen muchen liken syphillus. I t vill drrrrrrrriven you crrrrrrrrazzy!
miss me yet?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MIke Godwin
Member Avatar
Junior Carp
'Dolph, get a clue. If you're going to post, at least learn how to spell it right. It's Ach du lieber.

I came this close to closing down this thread because of that.

Carry on.
Now behave, it's the law, you know.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brenda
Member Avatar
..............
MIke Godwin
Mar 11 2010, 11:53 AM
'Dolph, get a clue. If you're going to post, at least learn how to spell it right. It's Ach du lieber.

I came this close to closing down this thread because of that.

Carry on.
I noticed it, too. Thank you, Mike, for telling Adolph to get it right. Standards must be upheld here. :lol2:
“Weeds are flowers, too, once you get to know them.”
~A.A. Milne
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Der Fuhrer
Member Avatar
Junior Carp
Ach du lieber! :doh:
miss me yet?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuantumIvory
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Quirt
 
The American Community Survey is a different animal. It isn't the census, and it's only sent to about 1% of households. And, as I've said before, you already make most of that data available to third parties. Most of it by consent, and some of it under tax law.


The ACS certainly is a "different animal", on that we can agree. But it is sent to 1 in 6 households not, as you contend, to "only" 1%. Also, you are mistaken that "it isn't the census". It is, in fact, part of the census (it takes the place of the old "long form") and is sent out every year and, to quote the U.S. Census Bureau,: "Both require your response."

Now, it was clever of you to post question number 10 which concerns what kind of fuel is used most in heating your residence to obviously demonstrate how innocuous the questions are. Well, lets look at some of those questions (48 in all...not including sub-questions) to see if they are as innocent as you would have everyone believe.

Here's a good one...question number 33: "What time did this person usually leave home to go to work LAST WEEK?"

Or number 34: "How many minutes did it usually take this person to get from home to work LAST WEEK?"

Or number 35: "LAST WEEK was this person on layoff from a job?"

I particularly like number 36: "LAST WEEK , was this person TEMPORARILY absent from a job or business?" (Nice of our Nanny to be concerned whether we missed work because we had the flu, isn't it?)

Here are some more really good ones:

Number 18 (a) (The feds get 3 for 1 here): "Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition, does this person have serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions? (b) Does this person have serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs? (c) Does this person have difficulty dressing or bathing?"

And number 19: "Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition, does this person have difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor's office or shopping?"

Question 25(c) (this one has 3 parts too, but I'll go straight to the last one): "How long has this grandparent been responsible for the(se) grandchildren?"

Question number 14 (a): "Does this person speak a language other than English at home? (b) What is this language? (c) How well does this person speak English? "


I'll stop there, but there are many more just like these. You might consider what the government is doing here as harmless and a "big yawn" in terms of civil liberties, but I see it as going down a road where we shouldn't be going.

Oh, and thanks for "educating" me Quirt; I'm sure I can't imagine how I've gotten along without your sagacious advice these 55 years. :smooch:



"I regard consciousness as fundamental. We cannot get behind consciousness." -Max Planck

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
Quag: I retract calling you a nutter. However, you do seem unduly aggressive and are quick to call someone a liar when they simply disagree with you



I remember when he first showed up here, and all he did was follow me around trying to slap me, then ending his posts with "Giggity".

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quagmire
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Larry
Mar 11 2010, 03:20 PM
Quote:
 
Quag: I retract calling you a nutter. However, you do seem unduly aggressive and are quick to call someone a liar when they simply disagree with you



I remember when he first showed up here, and all he did was follow me around trying to slap me, then ending his posts with "Giggity".

Bullsh1t
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuantumIvory
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
The Census and the Constitution

"This will be a test of Americans who believe in personal privacy, the constitutionally guaranteed right to be left alone..."
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. We cannot get behind consciousness." -Max Planck

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Dopplerpostenscheissenkopf.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
MIke Godwin
Mar 11 2010, 11:53 AM
'Dolph, get a clue. If you're going to post, at least learn how to spell it right. It's Ach du lieber.

I came this close to closing down this thread because of that.

Carry on.
I think you need to give him some leeway with the the German spelling - his first language is Austrian, after all, or Strine as it is commonly known.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
John D'Oh
Mar 14 2010, 07:01 AM
MIke Godwin
Mar 11 2010, 11:53 AM
'Dolph, get a clue. If you're going to post, at least learn how to spell it right. It's Ach du lieber.

I came this close to closing down this thread because of that.

Carry on.
I think you need to give him some leeway with the the German spelling - his first language is Austrian, after all, or Strine as it is commonly known.
OK, that was coffee-in-the-nose worthy.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
QuantumIvory
Mar 11 2010, 01:33 PM
Quirt
 
The American Community Survey is a different animal. It isn't the census, and it's only sent to about 1% of households. And, as I've said before, you already make most of that data available to third parties. Most of it by consent, and some of it under tax law.


The ACS certainly is a "different animal", on that we can agree. But it is sent to 1 in 6 households not, as you contend, to "only" 1%.
I miscalculated. Your number is wrong, too, it seems. The correct answer lies somewhere in between.

Quote:
 
The planned sample will be 3 million housing units and group quarters in the U.S., in every county, American Indian and Alaska Native area, and Hawaiian Homeland, and in Puerto Rico annually (250,000/month).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Community_Survey

I got 1% by dividing a 300 million population (rounded way down) by 3 million. However, there are multiple people in each dwelling. D'Oh! :doh:

However, there are roughly 130 million housing units in the United States.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

Therefore, the correct number is probably somewhere around 3%. Not 1%, but nowhere near 16% either.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuantumIvory
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
QuirtEvans
Mar 14 2010, 07:07 AM
QuantumIvory
Mar 11 2010, 01:33 PM
Quirt
 
The American Community Survey is a different animal. It isn't the census, and it's only sent to about 1% of households. And, as I've said before, you already make most of that data available to third parties. Most of it by consent, and some of it under tax law.


The ACS certainly is a "different animal", on that we can agree. But it is sent to 1 in 6 households not, as you contend, to "only" 1%.
I miscalculated. Your number is wrong, too, it seems. The correct answer lies somewhere in between.

Quote:
 
The planned sample will be 3 million housing units and group quarters in the U.S., in every county, American Indian and Alaska Native area, and Hawaiian Homeland, and in Puerto Rico annually (250,000/month).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Community_Survey

I got 1% by dividing a 300 million population (rounded way down) by 3 million. However, there are multiple people in each dwelling. D'Oh! :doh:

However, there are roughly 130 million housing units in the United States.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

Therefore, the correct number is probably somewhere around 3%. Not 1%, but nowhere near 16% either.
Whether it be 2, 3, or 4 million per year, do the number of households really matter? The most important point here is despite the number of households involved, this portion of the census (which you say is not a part of the census) is overreaching and, in my view, an invasion of privacy. You, of course, disagree. I only hope there are more of me out there than there are of you out there.
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. We cannot get behind consciousness." -Max Planck

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
QuantumIvory
Mar 14 2010, 07:27 AM
QuirtEvans
Mar 14 2010, 07:07 AM
QuantumIvory
Mar 11 2010, 01:33 PM
Quirt
 
The American Community Survey is a different animal. It isn't the census, and it's only sent to about 1% of households. And, as I've said before, you already make most of that data available to third parties. Most of it by consent, and some of it under tax law.


The ACS certainly is a "different animal", on that we can agree. But it is sent to 1 in 6 households not, as you contend, to "only" 1%.
I miscalculated. Your number is wrong, too, it seems. The correct answer lies somewhere in between.

Quote:
 
The planned sample will be 3 million housing units and group quarters in the U.S., in every county, American Indian and Alaska Native area, and Hawaiian Homeland, and in Puerto Rico annually (250,000/month).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Community_Survey

I got 1% by dividing a 300 million population (rounded way down) by 3 million. However, there are multiple people in each dwelling. D'Oh! :doh:

However, there are roughly 130 million housing units in the United States.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

Therefore, the correct number is probably somewhere around 3%. Not 1%, but nowhere near 16% either.
Whether it be 2, 3, or 4 million per year, do the number of households really matter? The most important point here is despite the number of households involved, this portion of the census (which you say is not a part of the census) is overreaching and, in my view, an invasion of privacy. You, of course, disagree. I only hope there are more of me out there than there are of you out there.
You are the one who started the discussion by challenging my 1% figure. And now you want to say that the number doesn't matter? Why bother challenging it in the first place? Why not just make that argument at the beginning?

Oh, and it doesn't really matter whether there are more like me, or more like you. What matters is whether there are more judges like me, or more judges like you. I'm fairly confident of that answer. :bluewink:
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuantumIvory
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Quirt
 
You are the one who started the discussion by challenging my 1% figure. And now you want to say that the number doesn't matter? Why bother challenging it in the first place? Why not just make that argument at the beginning?

Oh, and it doesn't really matter whether there are more like me, or more like you. What matters is whether there are more judges like me, or more judges like you. I'm fairly confident of that answer. :bluewink:


I got my number from the Census Bureau for the year 2000, but, again, that is not the most important point here. Are you now willing to admit that the ACS is, in fact, part of the census? And do you not find some of the questions at least a little bit disturbing?
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. We cannot get behind consciousness." -Max Planck

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
I don't find the questions disturbing, and I don't understand why anyone else does, either. Even the questions you cherrypicked as troubling don't bother me. If you want to understand what's happening in a population as a whole, you have to do some statistical sampling. I don't really worry how what time you left for work last week can be misused by the government.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
QuirtEvans
Mar 14 2010, 07:57 AM

I don't understand why

Exactly
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Copper
Mar 14 2010, 07:59 AM
QuirtEvans
Mar 14 2010, 07:57 AM

I don't understand why

Ex
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuantumIvory
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Quirt
 
I don't really worry how what time you left for work last week can be misused by the government.


Of course, the government would never misuse Census data:
Click
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. We cannot get behind consciousness." -Max Planck

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
QuantumIvory
Mar 14 2010, 08:19 AM
Quirt
 
I don't really worry how what time you left for work last week can be misused by the government.


Of course, the government would never misuse Census data:
Click
Under the Bush Administration? The horror!

However, the place to stop that is at the use of the data. There are plenty of good reasons to want and to have aggregated data.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuantumIvory
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Quirt
 
There are plenty of good nefarious reasons to want and to have aggregated data.

FIFY.
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. We cannot get behind consciousness." -Max Planck

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply