Play Nice Society, Religion & Politics Thread

[Tedeski]

Of course it is easy to find a reason, that is another reason why it is so dumb that people are asking for exemptions.

Don Tedeski

Twice removed!

 

[Kummerspeck]

These are articles from clinical pyschologists and studies practicing in the area. How is that MY opinion?

Because at the moment you're just talking about studies and not showing where your assertions come from.

 

[Number37]

How is that MY opinion?

Examples:

because the dream that was established in THEIR mind coming as it does from heterosexual sources

but I'm now firmly of the view there is a causal link. /QUOTE]

if you were to press me I would have said that more likely there is greater genetic influence but that's just personal view.

I especially like this one:

On my readings today it's pretty clear that the environment of a same sex marriage as place to start a family will dramatically influence sexual orientation for that child.

 

[mtooler]

Examples:




I especially like this one:

So, just checking, forming an opinion based upon clinicians writings is a big no no?

 

[BarneyBent]

So, just checking, forming an opinion based upon clinicians writings is a big no no?

I believe he’s taking issue with the fact that no articles have actually been cited.

Not that it should matter. After all, if he doesn’t have anything against homosexuality, he wouldn’t be using increased rates of homosexuality as an argument against gays having children.

 

[Number37]

Oh look you don't want to hear or read what I say because it annoys or offends you. A scientific proposition has no emotive value. It's something provable or not. The fact you resort emotive reaction says you're not interested in science at all and only want to hear things that are consistent with your beliefs.

That's perfectly fine I'm not out to pursuade you or anyone else. Take it or leave it either is fine by me. Won't stop me posting what my abalysis is of the subject.

You haven't put up any scientific propositions. You've stated that you've read some things and formed an OPINION based on what you read.

My area or work at one stage was forensic accounting. We deal solely with the pursuasiveness of different types of information to form sound justifiable hypotheses. I'm yet to have a judge fail to accept my forensic report in court. Different sure but I understand the value and credibility of sources

Your forensic accounting uses deductive reasoning.
Your same sex argument uses inductive reasoning.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Examples:




I especially like this one:

Troll - my time is more important. No offence

 

[Number37]

So, just checking, forming an opinion based upon clinicians writings is a big no no?

Nope, that's not what I said.

 

[BarneyBent]

Troll - my time is more important. No offence

You can’t just keep calling people who call you out on your nonsense “trolls”. Cite your damn sources so we can actually discuss them.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I believe he’s taking issue with the fact that no articles have actually been cited.

Not that it should matter. After all, if he doesn’t have anything against homosexuality, he wouldn’t be using increased rates of homosexuality as an argument against gays having children.

I'm IT challenged otherwise I would have provided half a dozen links. I back my ability to analyse most any issue and resolve to degrees of pursuasiveness that subject. Tax law is about data aim proof and you do not give an opinion.

Why don't some of you people actually do some independent analysis (like this or my brain institute nurture v nature citation) rather than be lazy throwing shit at others. So lame

 

[Angry Red Bull]

You can’t just keep calling people who call you out on your nonsense “trolls”. Cite your damn sources so we can actually discuss them.

Ah er yes I can especially if it bothers you

 

[Kummerspeck]

I'm IT challenged otherwise I would have provided half a dozen links.

You have a 140 IQ and can't copy and paste from the address bar?

Why don't some of you people actually do some independent analysis (like this or my brain institute nurture v nature citation) rather than be lazy throwing shit at others. So lame

****, I knew the 'do your own research' was coming. Just looking at that Queensland Brain Institute reference you made, your statement that traits were roughly 50% genetic and 50% environmental is off. That was an average number. Different traits have different levels of influence. Indeed, if you click through to the MaTCH website provided in the article put out by QBI, the number of research papers that addressed homosexuality used by QBI was...one. Out of 2748. Not really a strong basis to make any of your claims on.

 

[Number37]

I'm IT challenged otherwise I would have provided half a dozen links. I back my ability to analyse most any issue and resolve to degrees of pursuasiveness that subject. Tax law is about data aim proof and you do not give an opinion.

Why don't some of you people actually do some independent analysis (like this or my brain institute nurture v nature citation) rather than be lazy throwing shit at others. So lame

Tabula rasa. Educate us.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

You have a 140 IQ and can't copy and paste from the address bar?


****, I knew the 'do your own research' was coming.

Yes I know I struggle with mundane things. Kinda like an aversion that's been built

 

[Number37]

Tax law is about data aim proof and you do not give an opinion.

Can I take issue with your advice re:dividends?

I reckon there might be a rider in the private ruling that touches on Part IVA.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Can I take issue with your advice re:dividends?

I reckon there might be a rider in the private ruling that touches on Part IVA.

Deleted

 

[mtooler]

I'm not a fan of the swans having a float at the mardi gras, just in case anyone was wondering.

 

[GotTheGoodes]

Answered now sf destructed

If you want to argue that the arrangement circumvents application of Div 7a then they would need to be successful in arguing that a dividend declared and reconised in accts at it's value was incorrect at it's value even though ultimately paid at that value. They have zero chance.

Dunno about zero chance....

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Dunno about zero chance....

Excellent. highly recommend you not use it then

 

[BarneyBent]

I'm IT challenged otherwise I would have provided half a dozen links. I back my ability to analyse most any issue and resolve to degrees of pursuasiveness that subject. Tax law is about data aim proof and you do not give an opinion.

Yeah, and you know a lot less about biopsych than you do about tax law. I actually know what I’m talking about here which is why I’d really love to see some sources.

IT challenged isn’t an excuse, you can literally give authors, dates and publication. Easy.

Why don't some of you people actually do some independent analysis (like this or my brain institute nurture v nature citation) rather than be lazy throwing shit at others. So lame

Mate, what about your Brain Institute citation requires analysis? It’s been well established that both play a role, you’re brandishing this article as if it’s something new or meaningful. If that’s the extent of your research into this then Jesus Christ. There’s nothing to analyse there.

The issue is that you’re suggesting that all things are the same ratio of nature vs nurture, including orientation. That is not supported, and is a horrible misreading of the science. If you think that, then there’s no telling what else you may have misread.

One of the major issues you actually get with twin studies and assessing level of genetic influence is that sexuality is a spectrum - self-reported sexuality is often a gigantic over-simplification. A lot of people like both, but to such varying degrees that they just settle one one and don’t explore that other side. A lot of people also assume they’re straight when they’re not (e.g. a good family friend came out as gay when he was about 50 and had been married and divorced - had a study been done before he came out he would have been considered straight).

To give an example of how this can mess up these studies, women, generally, are under far less social pressure to be exclusively straight, and the rate of women who are not exclusively straight is much, much higher than for men. Men TEND to be more black and white in the orientation, but is that just because there’s so much pressure not to express non-straight orientations? I don’t know the answer to that, just trying to highlight a fundamental limitation to studying orientation like this.

Incidentally, that’s exactly why we want you to cite your sources. People citing statistics they don’t realise they don’t understand is a huge problem - there’s a whole field dedicated to preventing things like this called science communication.

Not that any of this is actually relevant unless you think homosexuality is something to be prevented, which apparently you do. Can you see why people call you a bigot?

 

[BarneyBent]

Ah er yes I can especially if it bothers you

It doesn’t bother me, it’s embarassing for you.

 

[Number37]

Deleted

Pt IVA is to Div 7A as WADA is to the AFL anti-doping tribunal. i.e. it will come over the top.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Paul cameron Cambridge university press survey in 2005 "children of homosexuals and transexuals more apt to be homosexual . And I quote:

"Do the sexual inclinations of parents influence those of their children? Of 77 adult children of homosexual partners who volunteered for three different investigations, at least 23 (30%) were currently homosexual.: twelve 55% of 22 daughters and 3(21%) of fourteen sons of lesbians; five (29%) of seventeen daughter and three (17%) of eighteen sons of gays; none of six sons with both a gay and lesbian parent. At least 25 (32%) were currently heterosexual. Of ten with transexual parents, one of nine daughters was currently lesbian, one was currently heterosexual and one was transexual. The sons sexual preference was not reported. These findings suggest that parents sexual inclinations influence their childrens"

If you know anything about statistical sampling and hypothesis testing you will know that the critical factor in conclusively determining an hypothesis is standard deviation from mean. If the population mean of prevalence of same sex attraction is approx 3% then the sample ought reflect same. If it doesn't and instead produces results ten times or more population mean incidence, then the hypothesis is proved. That children of same sex relationships produce disproportionately greater same sex attraction offspring....and that is so despite what in statistical terms is a low sample size simply because of the extent of deviation.

I don't know but my choice of the descriptive "dramatically influences" is probably understated than overstated.

I will go one further to prove my point which is merely a scientific conclusion

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Pt IVA is to Div 7A as WADA is to the AFL anti-doping tribunal. i.e. it will come over the top.

The reason div7a is inapplicable is because you declare a dividend and nothing more. Ie it's an ordinary commercial dealing with little to no contrivance. Can it be said that a choice to declare that dividend attracts Part iva? No you can't because it's a simple choice always available to taxpayers. Like wages or interest on loan or FBT cash out etc etc. You aren't forced by part iva to take the path producing highest tax outcome. If that were the case every single transaction would be part iva because most if not all have a tax impact. the concept of ordinary commercial dealings is invented to prevent such an anomalous outcome. A dividend declaration has no contrivance and is well within that definition accordingly

 

[Number37]

The reason div7a is inapplicable is because you declare a dividend and nothing more. Ie it's an ordinary commercial dealing with little to no contrivance. Can it be said that a choice to declare that dividend attracts Part iva? No you can't because it's a simple choice always available to taxpayers. Like wages or interest on loan or FBT cash out etc etc. You aren't forced by part iva to take the path producing highest tax outcome. If that were the case every single transaction would be part iva because most if not all have a tax impact. the concept of ordinary commercial dealings is invented to prevent such an anomalous outcome. A dividend declaration has no contrivance and is well within that definition accordingly

You stated yourself that the purpose of declaring the dividend was to avoid paying tax, did you not?

If the purpose of the arrangement is to avoid paying tax it will get caught by Pt IVA every day of the week, & twice on Sunday.