Now on ScienceBlogs: HeartlandGate: Anti-Science Institute's Insider Reveals Secrets
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
It is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to describe the creation process, or even to ascertain whether such a process can take place. The Creator does not create at the whim of a scientist.
Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism, (General edition, second edition, El Cajon, CA: Master, 1985), p. 5.
« Save the footprints, New Jersey! | Main | I'd like to see a magazine cover like this »
More articles by PZ Myers can be found on Freethoughtblogs at the new Pharyngula!
Category: Pointless polls
Posted on: December 4, 2009 12:30 PM, by PZ Myers
Good thing it's an easy one. I was up way too late last night with all those young people in the Twin Cities, so I can't think too hard right now.
Should New Jersey legislators legalize same-sex marriages?
Yes 50%
No 50%
Not sure 0%
I suspect we can tip this one way or the other rather easily.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/126410
HTML commands: <i>italic</i>, <b>bold</b>, <a href="url">link</a>, <blockquote>quote</blockquote>
Comments
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
December 4, 2009 12:39 PM
88.6% Yes already.
Posted by: Asylus | December 4, 2009 12:46 PM
Should New Jersey legislators legalize same-sex marriages?
Yes 93.49% (201)
No 6.51% (14)
Not sure 0.00% (0)
Total Votes: 215
---
That was tipped rather quickly...
Posted by: cm | December 4, 2009 12:46 PM
93.69%.
I will not be satisfied here with anything other than somehow crushing the NO into 0%, even though that is mathematically impossible.
JERSEY IN DA HOUSE!
Posted by: DKB | December 4, 2009 12:51 PM
Yes 94.21% (228)
No 5.79% (14)
Not sure 0.00% (0)
Posted by: Rox | December 4, 2009 12:52 PM
Bwahaha!
Pharyngulated.
Posted by: MetaEd | December 4, 2009 1:01 PM
@cm 2843 Yes and 14 No would do it to the two digits of precision being reported on the site.
Posted by: cm | December 4, 2009 1:03 PM
@MetaEd, then crush, crumble, and chomp, baby.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
December 4, 2009 1:04 PM
I'm just hoping it doesn't end up like what happened in Albany this week. This is getting more than a little frustrating.
Posted by: Ten Bears | December 4, 2009 1:10 PM
Should The State be making decisions as to who should be married?
Posted by: otrame
|
December 4, 2009 1:23 PM
MAJeff, I'll tell you what I told ProfMT on Youtube: We will not stop fighting until gay people have the same rights as straight people. It just saddens me that it will apparently take longer than we had hoped. But it will happen.
Want to see something funny? Ask an "I'm not homophobic, but..."-type exactly how two guys or two girls getting married will impact their marriage. Don't be distracted by the "marry your pets" argument. Slap a "legal contract" card down and insist that they answer your question. Did that last week with someone who was spouting off in a doctor's waiting room (she most definitely started it). Of course it helped that I am a straight white grandma rapidly approaching elderly. 8-)
Never did get an answer. Because, as I pointed out, there is none.
Posted by: Frank Lovell | December 4, 2009 1:23 PM
As of 1:20 EST on 12/4/09:
Yes..........97.97%...(916)
No...........1.82%....(17)
Not sure...0.21%....(2)
Posted by: Vicki | December 4, 2009 1:29 PM
98.14% yes, as of my vote just now.
There is no way the paper is going to publish this, though: they know that an actual poll--you know, phone calls to people in the state--wouldn't be that unbalanced.
Posted by: Brock | December 4, 2009 1:29 PM
I voted "yes", just in case anyone from yesterday's thread had a doubt ;)
Posted by: Dawn | December 4, 2009 1:39 PM
Voted. I think this is a nicely pharyngulated poll.
Should New Jersey legislators legalize same-sex marriages?
Yes 98.35% (1367)
No 1.44% (20)
Not sure 0.22% (3)
Total Votes: 1390
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls ]
Posted by: Colin Meier | December 4, 2009 1:39 PM
Did my bit. Interesting to see how it turns out in NJ.
I still can't believe we actually got it right, here in SA. Every so often there's a religious flare-up on changing the constitution to deny it, but it's normally done for publicity, and nothing has ever come of it.
Posted by: tsg | December 4, 2009 1:44 PM
If it doesn't pass now, it won't for a while. Christie takes office in January and has promised to veto it.
Posted by: Lana | December 4, 2009 1:59 PM
@10
Good work, otrame! I'm another straight white grandma who just doesn't get the arguments against same sex marriage. They're just silly.
Posted by: littlejohn | December 4, 2009 2:01 PM
Yes: 98.41%
But this thing really isn't Pharyngulated yet, because the vote total is currently very low. A counterinsurgency by godbots could easily undo our good work.
We'd better push the vote totals well into five figures before we declare victory. Already, just a handful of votes will push Yes over 99.
I'm going to head back.
Posted by: aleks | December 4, 2009 2:09 PM
Yes 98.49% (1889)
No 1.36% (26)
Not sure 0.16% (3)
Posted by: Kevin | December 4, 2009 2:31 PM
The Washington Post poll on pretty much the same topic, when I last saw it was 77% for, 22& against, 1% undecided.
Posted by: Kevin | December 4, 2009 2:33 PM
@My own earlier post:
It was about DC, though, not NJ.
I need an edit button.
Posted by: Squiddhartha | December 4, 2009 2:38 PM
Isn't every day 'Pick on New Jersey Day'?
Posted by: R. Schauer
|
December 4, 2009 2:38 PM
Thanks, PZ...at 53, those words may me feel young again. -LMAO-
Posted by: Crewvy
|
December 4, 2009 2:46 PM
The comments below the poll,few as they are, are a breath of fresh air for a change.
Posted by: mattand | December 4, 2009 2:47 PM
Based on my experience, if you're from SE Pennsylvania, the answer is "yes".
Posted by: MJ
|
December 4, 2009 2:51 PM
Yes 98.63% (2521)
No 1.25% (32)
Not sure 0.12% (3)
We're almost there!
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | December 4, 2009 2:56 PM
98.6 as of me!
The whole problem here is that marriage is seen by most people as a religious institution with some civil implications, as opposed to a purely civil contract. That allows the Mormon and Catholic churches, the two big financial backers of anti-marriage-equality legislation, to holler "religious discrimination!" or "they want to force the Pope to gay-marry Siegfried and Roy in the Vatican!"
Posted by: Michael N. | December 4, 2009 2:57 PM
Hopefully we do better here in Jersey than our counterparts across the river.
Posted by: DKB | December 4, 2009 3:04 PM
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but to drive the displayed percentage to 0.00% at the current rate, we'd have to have 639,965 yes votes to 32 no votes (assuming they use rounding not truncation on the percentages). Remember that they are displaying two decimal places of a percentage. The ratio of no votes to total votes must drop below 0.000049999999.
Posted by: Zack | December 4, 2009 3:46 PM
When will the day come when questions like this will be seen the way they should... how much different is it to ask:
"Should New Jersey legislators legalize mixed-race marriages?"
"Should New Jersey legislators legalize slave marriages?"
Posted by: numsix | December 4, 2009 3:51 PM
@ #7 I love(d) that game!
Posted by: jojame | December 4, 2009 4:05 PM
This is bully behavior. PZ is basically breaking another kid's toy and laughing.
Posted by: strangest brew | December 4, 2009 4:06 PM
#09
"Should The State be making decisions as to who should be married?"
Well it certainly does not stop the religious from voicing their vitriolic bigotry!
What have they got to do with what goes on in other folks bedrooms or relationships?
Posted by: Shadow
|
December 4, 2009 4:17 PM
#09
From to point of view of the State (Secular/Civil) this shouldn't be an issue. If all the states (and federal) had guidelines limiting marriage to competent, consenting persons above the age of consent (adults) -- 2 in number (no polygamy/polyamory) -- that should be it.
The religious groups would howl, but it wouldn't force them to sanction said marriages.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
December 4, 2009 4:18 PM
No, idiot, this is showing that internet polls are basically meaningless.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
December 4, 2009 4:19 PM
That allegation is so fucking stupid. I don't know how many times I've seen theists throw out the word "bully" against us here and get it completely wrong. Do your homework, jojame, and quit being such a damn insolent homophobe.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 4, 2009 4:24 PM
Jojame complaining about bullying behavior? I thought that was all a right wing godbot/thug had. Pot. Kettle. Black.Posted by: tsg | December 4, 2009 4:45 PM
Your concern is noted.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 4, 2009 4:49 PM
Says jojame as the point sails by whistling far over his head.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 4, 2009 5:38 PM
Posted by: Hawk | December 4, 2009 6:04 PM
After much searching, I *finally* found an argument that I can follow for saying that gay marriage will destroy heterosexual marriages: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixkck8QnjY (lol)
Posted by: Age of Enlightenment | December 4, 2009 7:20 PM
This is so typical. Atheist are never open minded to evidence. If they looked at history, they'd know that it doesn't favor homosexuality.
But whatever, the people on this site is so tedious. Nerd of Redhead will demand I get evidence for God because he's to lazy to find out. Raven and Lynna will spew anti-Christian bigotted comment. Janine will show herself as nothing more than a lonely lesbian toad. The rest are just PZ's fanboy. Great site you have...
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
December 4, 2009 7:28 PM
*gack*
If that was enlightened, I'd hate to know what you thought before your personal "enlightenment".
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 4, 2009 7:41 PM
No, it's because you make the claim that your imaginary deity exists. Parsimony requires non-existence as the default position. Ergo, the burden of proof is upon you. And to date, no conclusive evidence has been presented by anyone, just a lot of very bad philosophy. Nice try at being a fool. You succeeded admirably.Posted by: Rey Fox | December 4, 2009 7:41 PM
"But whatever, the people on this site is so tedious. "
So fuck off.
Posted by: Rev. bigDumbCHimp | December 4, 2009 7:47 PM
I wonder why?
There's evidence for God?
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 4, 2009 7:54 PM
Janine will show herself as nothing more than a lonely lesbian toad.
Hummm... I will admit to being open about my orientation. So are many of the other regulars here. But I would venture that very few of my posts screams I AM A DYKE!. But I have to admit to being surprised that anyone can detect my amphibian traits over teh intertoobz. Also, I cannot say I am ever said anything about the company I keep. But I will say this, I would rather be alone than to share the company of the misnamed Age Of Enlightenment.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
December 4, 2009 7:57 PM
That doesn't make homosexuality false, or a choice. I'm not sure you're making the point you think you are making.
Tedious is making positive truth claims about reality without backing those claims up with evidence. There are no good reasons to think that deities are real you small-minded xtian insect. If you think there are, produce them.
Grow a brain. Ass.
Posted by: Age Of Englightenment | December 4, 2009 8:14 PM
Wolton: Delusional accomondationist
Jadehawk: a rebelious mid-western girl who will know her place eventually.
SC: a liberal whiner
David Marjanovic: a wannabe intellectual crying for attention.
tsg: echochamber
Brownian: Aka Thomas the angry coot.
Knockgoat: British kook
MAJeff: typically b*tchy gay
With all these collection of wierdos and yet none of you have produce evidence that homosexuality is right. I use to be an agnostic but then I read the Bible I found out that homosexuality and evolution are false liberal ideology. The world would work better if we followed the Bible's teaching. I'd tell you that God loves you but don't want to see you in hell but you'd just brush me with same argument. Why do even bother coming here. This will be the last you see of me.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 4, 2009 8:21 PM
Age Of Darkness, you clearly have no idea who we are if you think that Jadehawk is from the mid-west of the United States.
And she will know her place? You misogynistic sack of toxic sludge.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 4, 2009 8:25 PM
Did I hear a niner in there?
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 4, 2009 8:26 PM
SC, I had no idea you were a liberal? I thought that you were more radical than that.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 4, 2009 8:27 PM
And you have produced no evidence it isn't anything other than genetics/development. What a loser.As I said, what a loser. You don't think we haven't read the babble? We know why it is a book of mythology. You are too dumb to realize that.Tell all you want, but you are just showing yourself to be a delusional fool, as you have presented no evidence that your deity is anything other than imaginary. Welcome to science.I doubt that. Shitheads like you just can't stay away, but should.Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 4, 2009 8:31 PM
You've got these people all wrong, dude. Haven't read this thread, but my guess would be that you're getting everything else wrong too.
Posted by: David B
|
December 4, 2009 8:42 PM
A couple of things I'd like to say.
Regarding post 49
'With all these collection of wierdos and yet none of you have produce evidence that homosexuality is right.'
I don't think that anyone is claiming that it is right - just morally neutral.
And people exploring their humanity with consenting adults is not wrong, whether their genetics and/or environment in the womb and/or element of personal choice leads them to explore homosexual relationships is not wrong.
No more right or wrong than people exploring their humanity with consenting adults when they find themselves attracted to the opposite sex is wrong.
And then 'Tis Himself post 35
'No, idiot, this is showing that internet polls are basically meaningless.'
Not all of them, I think. Those that allow multiple voting, or getting some bit of software to keep adding votes - well, I see the fun in it, and demonstrating the worthlessness of them by skewing the result over what it should normally be.
But those that take precautions to minimise multiple voting - then having a lot of atheists taking the trouble to vote sends a real message, I think.
A message saying that there are a lot of people who are fed up with being discounted in the political process, and are prepared to take the trouble to say so.
Which is, IMV, a good idea, and not meaningless at all.
David B
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 4, 2009 8:44 PM
Reporting back: I was unable to falsify that hypothesis.
There are over 5000 votes on the OT poll, btw.
remind me?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 4, 2009 8:45 PM
tommy boy
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
December 4, 2009 8:47 PM
lol, I think SC might be insulted to be considered so conservative as to be merely liberal
Posted by: steve | December 4, 2009 8:52 PM
@ revbdc #46
The evidence is all around you, why can't you see it?
/sarcasm
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 4, 2009 8:52 PM
So, Jadehawk, what kind of a man is it going to take to show you your place? And when did you become a midwesten american?
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
December 4, 2009 8:55 PM
well, the point is that the polls are not representative of anything, and thus meaningless.Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
December 4, 2009 9:03 PM
well, ok, i will admit to being in need of a navigator; my sense of direction is atrocious, so someone who can show me directions to my place or any other would be lovely :-palso, I think you need to start eating lutefisk and/or spam before they let you apply to become a midwesterner...
Posted by: SC, OM | December 4, 2009 9:05 PM
Liberal?! Them's fightin' words.*
*By which, of course, I mean a Liberal, however defined. Anarchists are indeed in that tradition; in fact, we're extreme democrats. It's difficult to say whether we're closer to liberals or socialists, but I suppose ultimately we're most akin to democratic socialists (hence my appreciation for KG, aside from just adoring him). But I speak only for myself, a fan of anarchists without adjectives. If you'd like suggestions for literature, I'd be happy to oblige. Then, y'know, the fightin'. And such. Naturally.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 4, 2009 9:10 PM
So, Jadehawk, all you need is a GPS? I have Google Maps on my Blackberry. It is free and it works very well.
Posted by: Rorschach | December 4, 2009 9:10 PM
lunatic @ 42,
Didnt favor witches either, history.
Moron.
Love the personal observations from that one, got the heart of a stalker...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 4, 2009 9:12 PM
Nah, that's to be an honorary Yuper. (You can't be a true Yuper unless you were born there.) I don't know what the ND customs are...Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
December 4, 2009 9:14 PM
good point.so what I need is not a man, but a battery powered gizmo ;-)
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 4, 2009 9:18 PM
so what I need is not a man, but a battery powered gizmo ;-)
My magic wand has a plug. Oh, wait, that is not really what you meant. Is it?
Posted by: SC, OM | December 4, 2009 9:19 PM
Why don't all cars have a built-in compass?
Posted by: Rorschach | December 4, 2009 9:23 PM
*rotflmao*
TMI
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
December 4, 2009 9:35 PM
It's because of a liberal fascist Marxist counter-revolutionary nihilist reactionary Commie plot to keep people clueless about which direction they're going.
Posted by: tsg | December 4, 2009 9:42 PM
What -at --at----at?
Is he talking about me --e--e--e?
Luckily I care not for what a fundie thinks of me. They've already shown themselves as not putting much thought into anything.
Ah, yes. This I will believe when I don't see it. (See? I'm an atheist. That's funny!)
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
December 4, 2009 9:46 PM
also, I think you need to start eating lutefisk and/or spam before they let you apply to become a midwesterner...
Oh, HELL NO!
Posted by: SC, OM | December 4, 2009 9:48 PM
Ah. Claro. O no.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | December 4, 2009 10:04 PM
I use to be an agnostic but then I read the Bible I found out that homosexuality and evolution are false liberal ideology.
Epistemology fail.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 4, 2009 10:09 PM
About the only trait that the Age Of Darkness got right was that MAJeff is bitchy. And that is what I love about him! But he hardly seems typical.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
December 4, 2009 10:13 PM
About the only trait that the Age Of Darkness got right was that MAJeff is bitchy. And that is what I love about him! But he hardly seems typical.
From Angels in America:
Mrs. Pitts: Would you say you're a...typical homosexual?
Prior: Ma'am, I'm stereotypical!
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
December 4, 2009 10:38 PM
Age of Idiocy:
I'd sure like to see actual evidence you're right. About anything.
Sigh. Empty, meaningless statement. If you were actually capable of keeping to your word, that would nice. Really nice. Make our day - go away.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
December 4, 2009 10:43 PM
Jadehawk, OM @ 62:
Noooo, don't even mention the evil that is lutefisk. *shudder* The town I live in (ND) has a festival celebrating the stuff every November. I'm always away from home on that day.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
December 4, 2009 11:07 PM
Aww, the troll didn't even get around to saying something nasty about Patricia or Sastra.
Coward.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
December 4, 2009 11:33 PM
tsg,
Love it.Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | December 4, 2009 11:44 PM
RevBDC@51
LOL!
Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | December 5, 2009 12:31 AM
AOE,
Seriously, you need to re-think your exit strategy. I mean, the pooh-flinging-drama-queen exit officially quit being effective when the inter-tubes were born. Mostly because it can be potentially recorded and stored for the rest of your natural life. Thank you for the entertainment none the less.
I would like to point out to you a dilemma you may potentially introduced for yourself. While I know that I greatly enjoy the depth of thought that folks like you espouse and will lament your departure, you've now set yourself up to become a proven liar. You see, I know you said "This will be the last you see of me." but there's a little problem with that statement when you are sitting in that computer chair reading this right now. If you are, you are Lying.
Now I know we could get into the really deep philosophical discussion about what you really said and what you really meant just like any other theological argument. You know, the typical... wellll, I said you wouldn't SEE me and if I don't comment then I'm not lying... but we both know what your last little foot-stomp out the door was intended to convey ... I'm Offended And Leaving And Never Coming Back !!1!
Now herein lies my own dilemma. I'll never know if these words I'm taking the time to type will reach their destination. But lucky you, you have the options of responding and proving to us you're a liar or remaining silent after having read this and thereby proving it only to yourself. Of course there's always the lowest of lows.. Sockpuppetry & Morphin'.
Oh well, be careful out there and don't trip over any of your rationalizations and fall down hurting yourself. Beware IP logs too. Toodles !
(is it wrong that the fact this blog has a couple of straight white grandmas and an amphibious dyke hanging around speaking up for human equality totally turns me on ? i think not. and don't even get me started on the whole bunny-with-a-whip thing)
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | December 5, 2009 4:33 AM
Hey, Janine and MAJeff gets recognition for being gay but I don't? Am I too normal of commenter for the fundie to think that I'm gay lol.
I also hope Jadehawk knows her place. If she can't figure out that she's in front of a computer or in her home, how will she ever survive a hiking expedition?!Posted by: RC | December 5, 2009 5:04 AM
New law to ban divorce in California...in response the ban of gay marriages.
Awesome.
http://rescuemarriage.org/
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | December 5, 2009 5:32 AM
yuck spammer. . .
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
December 5, 2009 5:38 AM
aww, a concerned spambot! :-D
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
December 5, 2009 7:36 AM
A ADORE the "rescue marriage" effort. It's the petition drive to place an initiative to ban divorce on the California ballot, led by John Marcotte. It's obviously a satirical effort to make the point that the folks talking about "defending marriage" don't give a shit about actual policy that could improve family life in the United States and are only interested in attacking gay folks.
I almost wish I were living in California so I could sign it.
Posted by: Walton | December 5, 2009 11:46 AM
I'm amused to be described as a "delusional accommodationist". I am certainly far more accommodationist than many of the regulars here, but I wouldn't have said it was one of my defining characteristics - nor is it the one for which I'm most frequently criticised.
Moving on...
Posted by: Walton | December 5, 2009 11:50 AM
Sorry, blockquote fail at #89. Everything from "Hang on" onwards is me.
Oh, and "Age of Enlightenment" is a fairly obvious Poe. S/he knows all the regulars by name yet made several obvious, and probably deliberate, errors. And the whole "I used to be an agnostic/atheist but then I read the Bible and found out that homosexuality and liberalism are sins..." thing is too stereotypical/cliché, and too transparent in its incoherence, to be for real.
Posted by: Acronym Jim | December 5, 2009 3:18 PM
Well, technically if you're going north on the I-5 it's to the left. And it's really difficult to get to if you're going south.
Posted by: Acronym Jim | December 5, 2009 3:28 PM
Then again, you may need a man or Janine's magic wand to help you find your "place."
Posted by: ursulamajor | December 5, 2009 9:37 PM
I'm sure most of you have seen this guy....love him!
http://survivingtheworld.net/Lesson29.jpg