.:`=-~rANdOm~`-=:. Game Servers
.:`=-~rANdOm~`-=:. Game Servers (Read Only) => Discussion => Topic started by: ursus on February 19, 2014, 09:10:24 PM
-
Article that links to it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/18/gay-life-expectancy-study_n_4810496.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/18/gay-life-expectancy-study_n_4810496.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular)
The actual study:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953613003353 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953613003353)
Stigma operates at multiple levels, including intrapersonal appraisals (e.g., self-stigma), interpersonal events (e.g., hate crimes), and structural conditions (e.g., community norms, institutional policies). Although prior research has indicated that intrapersonal and interpersonal forms of stigma negatively affect the health of the stigmatized, few studies have addressed the health consequences of exposure to structural forms of stigma. To address this gap, we investigated whether structural stigma—operationalized as living in communities with high levels of anti-gay prejudice—increases risk of premature mortality for sexual minorities. We constructed a measure capturing the average level of anti-gay prejudice at the community level, using data from the General Social Survey, which was then prospectively linked to all-cause mortality data via the National Death Index. Sexual minorities living in communities with high levels of anti-gay prejudice experienced a higher hazard of mortality than those living in low-prejudice communities (Hazard Ratio [ HR ] = 3.03, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 1.50, 6.13), controlling for individual and community-level covariates. This result translates into a shorter life expectancy of approximately 12 years (95% C.I.: 4–20 years) for sexual minorities living in high-prejudice communities. Analysis of specific causes of death revealed that suicide, homicide/violence, and cardiovascular diseases were substantially elevated among sexual minorities in high-prejudice communities. Strikingly, there was an 18-year difference in average age of completed suicide between sexual minorities in the high-prejudice (age 37.5) and low-prejudice (age 55.7) communities. These results highlight the importance of examining structural forms of stigma and prejudice as social determinants of health and longevity among minority populations.
More information on the links between structural stigma and life expectancy:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02779536/103/supp/C (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02779536/103/supp/C)
-
I'm going to miss you Prox. ;_;7
Metal Gear Solid 4 OST : HERE'S TO YOU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpSVCL4vxOY#)
-
I don't get why people use the word homophobia for a different meaning that it should be because homo means homosexual and phobia means fear and I'm sure nobody really is afraid of homosexuals any more then they are afraid of heterosexuals.
Now if the so called "homophobic" community consists of people who do physical and psychological harm to gays without being provoked then it is only logical to believe that homosexuals in that community would live shorter periods of time.
However if a community that follows traditional values is being considered "homophobic" then this is yet another top lel study of social science. Social science is one of the least accurate science there is. The things that social science investigates are really difficult to measure and identify properly not to mention how easily can social science be exploited to serve certain agendas. Whenever you look at any kind of social study be very highly skeptical of it. I mean I've seen a social study which claimed that atheists are smarter then those who believe in God or religion.
-
I don't get why people use the word homophobia for a different meaning that it should be because homo means homosexual and phobia means fear and I'm sure nobody really is afraid of homosexuals any more then they are afraid of heterosexuals.
Now if the so called "homophobic" community consists of people who do physical and psychological harm to gays without being provoked then it is only logical to believe that homosexuals in that community would live shorter periods of time.
A phobia (from the Greek: φόβος, Phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear") is, when used in the context of clinical psychology, a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational. In the event the phobia cannot be avoided entirely, the sufferer will endure the situation or object with marked distress and significant interference in social or occupational activities.
Really? That sounds about right to me. You've displayed a morbid fear of minority acceptance for some very cloudy reasons and exaggerated the danger it poses to a ridiculous extent.
However if a community that follows traditional values is being considered "homophobic" then this is yet another top lel study of social science. Social science is one of the least accurate science there is. The things that social science investigates are really difficult to measure and identify properly not to mention how easily can social science be exploited to serve certain agendas. Whenever you look at any kind of social study be very highly skeptical of it. I mean I've seen a social study which claimed that atheists are smarter then those who believe in God or religion.
I'm amazed that you're so afraid (see: definition of phobia above) of accepting the results of a study that you're willing to dismiss an entire field of science so you can feel morally justified.
-
Really? That sounds about right to me. You've displayed a morbid fear of minority acceptance for some very cloudy reasons and exaggerated the danger it poses to a ridiculous extent.
If you think I'm afraid of accepting homosexual marriage then I do not think you know what fear is.
I'm amazed that you're so afraid (see: definition of phobia above) of accepting the results of a study that you're willing to dismiss an entire field of science so you can feel morally justified.
I'm amazed at your lack of critical thinking skills. Social science isn't mathematics or physics where things can be described pretty accurately as well as promoting any kind of agendas is pretty much impossible.
-
Phobia in this case means extreme repulsion, rejection, or disgust. Hydrophobic people aren't "afraid" of water.
-
I'm amazed at your lack of critical thinking skills. Social science isn't mathematics or physics where things can be described pretty accurately as well as promoting any kind of agendas is pretty much impossible.
And? It's still a science. What field, exactly, are you a professional in that somehow puts you above social scientists? Also, mathematics can be used to manipulate statistics which in turn can be used to create propaganda.
Phobia in this case means extreme repulsion, rejection, or disgust. Hydrophobic people aren't "afraid" of water.
This. Did you even read the definition I posted?
-
And? It's still a science. What field, exactly, are you a professional in that somehow puts you above social scientists? Also, mathematics can be used to manipulate statistics which in turn can be used to create propaganda.
>he actually believes that it takes to be a genius to understand how misused and flawed social science is today
(http://imageshack.com/a/img62/4593/jwo.gif)
This. Did you even read the definition I posted?
Just because some people might have different opinions or preferences on things it doesn't mean they're afraid of them, gamefreak.
-
Just because some people might have different opinions or preferences on things it doesn't mean they're afraid of them, gamefreak.
I'll pretend you didnt just go full retard.
-
>he actually believes that it takes to be a genius to understand how misused and flawed social science is today
(http://imageshack.com/a/img62/4593/jwo.gif)
So, in what way is the study flawed? If you're so certain, why not review it yourself?
Just because some people might have different opinions or preferences on things it doesn't mean they're afraid of them, gamefreak.
Fair enough. I'm referring, though, to the fact that the way in which you defend your opinion so aggressively mimics the behavioral patterns of a phobia.
Also, on a side note: If you believe that acceptance of homosexual individuals and other minorities will lead to inevitable moral decay and degeneracy (The specific consequences of which you haven't made clear at all) then with what science would you prove this? If you were to actually answer my request to substantiate that claim, how would you do so? Would you do it with physics? Because it sounds to me like a social sciences matter, a field from which you refuse to accept any results.
-
So, in what way is the study flawed? If you're so certain, why not review it yourself?
Also, on a side note: If you believe that acceptance of homosexual individuals and other minorities will lead to inevitable moral decay and degeneracy (The specific consequences of which you haven't made clear at all) then with what science would you prove this? If you were to actually answer my request to substantiate that claim, how would you do so? Would you do it with physics? Because it sounds to me like a social sciences matter, a field from which you refuse to accept any results.
Whenever you look at any kind of social study be very highly skeptical of it. I mean I've seen a social study which claimed that atheists are smarter then those who believe in God or religion.
Where exactly did I said that people should refuse to accept any results from social science?
-
There's a fine line between being a respectful cultural conservative and a hateful instigator of discussions pitted against minorities.
-
There's a fine line between being a respectful cultural conservative and a hateful instigator of discussions pitted against minorities.
Are you saying that I am?
-
I really don't understand why ursus would create another somewhat relevant topic,
Can't wait for this thread to get locked.
-
I really don't understand why ursus would create another somewhat relevant topic,
Can't wait for this thread to get locked.
I don't see anything bad about him making topics like this, after all, these forums could definitely benefit from a few extra threads being made daily as long as it isn't a blatant bait thread.
-
I in no way shape or form took the time to read these topics throughly, but either way (whether not this applies or not, like I said I did not read the topic that in depth) people are entitled to their own opinions on topics, whether you think they are wrong, inhuman, or what not. Otherwise we probably wouldn't be allowed to even make topics like this, in fear that "oh his opinion is fucked up blah blah blah *madness insures*"
Whether someone might just be trying to cause a fuss, most of these things aren't worth arguing with people with differing opinions because most of these people (and probably even you yourself with certain things) have something called belief perseverance which is when one clings to their own initial bias, and refuse to change it for a new one even after their own has been discredited. It's almost a more scientific way of saying "you can't handle being wrong" though sometimes it's not that simple. Sometimes these biases people get come from their cultures and how they were raised, so sitting there saying "wow this person is an asshole, I can't believe they think this way" yeah I mean it's a normal thing to do, but if you take the time to think about the persons background, that might not always be justified. Now I don't think it's right for a person who is fully aware that his extremely differing opinion to come and make a problem of things, probably fully aware of it, however he is free to express his opinion if he so chooses to.
Like I stated above, this might not have that much relevance to what is happening, but I still thinks it's good to keep in mind when trying to argue with someone about what they believe in.
-
The way I see it is that this is a forum intended to connect people and allow them to communicate share ideas etc etc. I wouldn't want to silence anyone simply because they have an opinion that's maybe far different from the majority. I also don't see this types of threads as an issue honestly. There are still intelligent discussions being held and while sometimes it does get off topic and sometimes it does get pretty, well, juvenile (meme reactions...) I still think it's worth keeping them up. I don't see the point of locking threads because we can't agree on something which I feel has often happened in the past. We don't need to agree so long as we can accept the fact that we have differing opinions without bashing one another. Sure there's probably a lot of sarcasm and maybe a few potentially insulting accusations thrown, but I don't think that's a big deal unless it becomes too personal and that there are no longer any other points made or discussions held aside from general hate towards one another. In the previous thread there was a point I felt that it was heading that direction but then it kind of settled and we spoke more reasonably. It got slightly more heated every now and then but so what? Obviously people feel very strongly about their opinions regarding these topics and will show that.
Really though, I think these types of discussions can be good. I think it's important that no one comes to these discussions feeling they need to force their opinion on anyone, however. That and to be prepared for strong opinions and to deal with this in a mature manner. Even in the last discussion where a lot of us went back and forth a lot and had it's negative moments I still feel it was better than a lot we've had in the past. Also, when I say that no one should come into the discussion convinced they're going to change opinions or that they should, that doesn't mean we can't disagree and provide arguments and counter-arguments and explain why an idea or reason may or may not be applicable for so and so reason.
I'm not going to lie though, stuff like this and all the other image macros and whatnot has no place in a discussion if it's going to be taken seriously.
>he actually believes that it takes to be a genius to understand how misused and flawed social science is today
(http://imageshack.com/a/img62/4593/jwo.gif)
I would say that maybe no one wants to take it seriously now but Prox kind of did start the first discussion thread saying you wanted a discussion on it so...