Adelaide's Premier Development and Construction Site
https://mail.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/
https://mail.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1219
The maths isn’t ‘interesting’ - it’s entirely unremarkable. It’s just basic maths.Maximus wrote:That's some interesting maths you have going on there, Matt (and everyone else who is celebrating an "overwhelming majority"). So, 61.6% becomes 89% or 100%, depending on which way you slice it? We all know statistics can be used to 'prove' anything, but the simple fact is, of those who voted, 61.6% voted yes and 38.4% voted no.
There is absolutely no way the results of this survey can be compared to the results of an election. In an election, your vote reflects your views on hundreds of different issues, and many people who vote for the same candidate or party will have wildly differing views on many of those issues. It is entirely reasonable, therefore, to expect quantitatively close results, where the difference between a couple of percentage points can be the difference between 'falling over the line' and 'a landside'. In this survey, however, your response reflected your view on a singular binary issue. For all its faults, and with a statistician's hat on, this postal survey was a remarkable exercise in that respect. It is extremely rare to gain such an insight into the entire population's view on a singular issue.
In any case, more people believe that SSM should be legalised than not. And I have not heard one single person suggest that this result shouldn't be respected. Even the man so many of you love to hate, Tony Abbott, stated yesterday, "I congratulate the yes campaign on their achievement. The people have spoken and, of course, the Parliament should respect the result." But the simple, unarguable fact is that 38.4% of Australians will be unhappy about SSM being legalised. No one is suggesting this is 'right' or 'wrong', but it's a simple fact.
Respect is a two-way street. We respect the results of the survey and therefore legalise SSM, but how do you respect the views of the 4.87 million people who voted no? I'm sure many of you would argue that the no voters don't deserve respect, but not everyone feels this way. I was pleased to see that Labor's Jason Clare, who holds the seat of Blaxland, where the no vote was highest, said yesterday, "Good people with good hearts can have different views on this important issue." Many of the no voters (and we will never know how many) voted no for reasons that have nothing to do with homophobia or intolerance or bigotry. They simply have a different belief -- whether that is based on religion or something else. I think the religious and other protections being debated now are probably a reasonable way to respect the no vote as we move to legalising SSM.
I actually think Rev has made more sense than most in recent times. Which part of:
...don't you understand? He's only stated it about hundred times or more. Perhaps you could try 'winning' with some dignity (although I didn't realise this was a competition).rev wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:04 pmBottom line, for me anyway as has been my stance throughout ... is not whether it gets legalized or not, but if it does get legalized, will there be sufficient protections in place for religious institutions (and their schools), and anyone else, to refuse services to same sex weddings.
As sad as this is, it’s something of a relief that events like this are so rare that they do still make news.
suicides are kept under wraps for a good reason, it's actually against media guidelines to report on themtimtam20292 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:21 pmI would think that most people's attitude would change once they realised the reason of the train delay. Mine certainly would.
I thought it was more the details of the method itself that were against guidelines?GoodSmackUp wrote:suicides are kept under wraps for a good reason, it's actually against media guidelines to report on themtimtam20292 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:21 pmI would think that most people's attitude would change once they realised the reason of the train delay. Mine certainly would.
Mine always does, it’s hideous.timtam20292 wrote:I would think that most people's attitude would change once they realised the reason of the train delay. Mine certainly would.
Matt, I never meant to suggest your maths was wrong; it's clearly correct. I was simply making the point that statistics can be used to 'prove' anything, and in this case I think "89%" or "100%" is misleading with respect to the base 61.6% vs 38.4% result. I also never said this was a "close" result; simply that it wasn't an overwhelming majority and I don't believe it's statistically valid to analyse the result in the same way as that of a general election.Matt wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:49 pmThe maths isn’t ‘interesting’ - it’s entirely unremarkable. It’s just basic maths.
Parts of the ‘no’ brigade tried to push for referendum rules, where a majority in a majority of states was needed to change the law - every state voted yes.
Parts of the ‘no’ brigade were looking to sink it by encouraging MPs to vote according to their electorate rather than by the total votes cast - 89% of electorates voted yes.
On any measure it’s a comprehensive result.
61.6% of a yes or no question is not close.
As for respect, my reply was in response to the words selfish, hypocritical, moron, and twat being flung.
Spare me.
For the 38.4%, their lives go on unchanged.
When I do eventually get married, none of them will even know about it, much less have their lives somehow lessened by it in any way whatsoever.
My point was that these were the parameters that various people on the 'no' side had suggested be used to gauge the result of this thing. Polling as a straight 'yes' vs 'no' has been pretty steady at roughly 60% for years now, so the Lyle Sheltons of the world had suggested splitting by electorate (or state, referendum style) in the hope of finding another way of sinking it.Maximus wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:35 amMatt, I never meant to suggest your maths was wrong; it's clearly correct. I was simply making the point that statistics can be used to 'prove' anything, and in this case I think "89%" or "100%" is misleading with respect to the base 61.6% vs 38.4% result. I also never said this was a "close" result; simply that it wasn't an overwhelming majority and I don't believe it's statistically valid to analyse the result in the same way as that of a general election.
My comments about respect were not directed at you. They were general comments about needing to respect the views of the 7.82 million people who responded yes and the 4.87 million people who responded no. There is clearly disrespect on both sides of the debate. On this forum alone, the words/phrases "beyond pathetic", "ranting drivel", "lame as fuck", "intolerant, violent thugs" and "are you being stupid on purpose" have all been used by yes campaigners in relation to no campaigners. Clearly, similar things have also been said in the opposite direction.
This is clearly a very personal issue for you, but I don't understand why you need to be quite so aggressive about it. All I have ever tried to do over the past couple of weeks is ensure open-minded, factual and respectful debate. Yes, I have my own point of view about things, but I'm not trying to change your mind or tell you or anyone else that you are wrong. I'm happy for you that it now looks like you will achieve the outcome you had been hoping for, and I hope you have a wonderful wedding and marriage, whenever and wherever that may occur.
