Wednesday, 28 November 2012

Fun Online Polls: The gay gene & Cut-price booze

Thanks to everybody who took part in last week's Fun Online Poll:

Is there a gay gene?

Probably yes - 41%
Probably no - 59%

So that puts me firmly in the minority. Clearly, we can't narrow anything down to a single gene, even simple stuff like eye colour requires the interaction of hundreds of different genes to come up with a result, but my thinking is, nobody (or hardly anybody) is actually brought up to be gay, and there are plenty of gays in countries where they are persecuted, executed etc, so there must be something innate in human nature to throw up a certain bare minimum number of gays (accepting that being straight or gay are merely two points on a vast spectrum, which also includes 'just not interested either way').
This week's Fun Online Poll is to establish whether people are aware of just how f-witted and/or duplicitous politicians are.

Guess here or use the widget in the sidebar.

If you want to cheat, I will save the hassle of Googling it; the answer is here.


Robin Smith said...

You need to do another poll for the people too. Who are even worse than politicians. They keep electing them.

We own land, give us money and we will vote for you.

Ok, thats a fair deal.

Mark Wadsworth said...

RS, fair point.

Dick Puddlecote said...

The poll at the Telegraph link isn't going too well for the government, is it?

Huge vote loser, this. For once, I'm truly surprised at how monumentally stupid our MPs are.

Mark Wadsworth said...

DP, I declined to vote in the Telegraph poll because it is a Hobson's Choice:

Yes, "buy one, get one free" deals fuel the problem

No, excess drinking will continue no matter the price.

The point is, there is very little "excess drinking", full stop, it's like trying to reduce parking offences by allowing traffic wardens to summarily execute offenders.

Bayard said...

Mark, I'm sure that would work. After all, no-one would re-offend.

In the Torygraph poll, the second option has to be correct, so long as a single person continues to drink in excess, then "excess drinking" has "continued", even if the sole excess drinker is a multi-millionaire and is getting bladdered on Chateau Lafite. The amount of excess drinking is not specified, nor is it stated in the poll that the excess drinking is causing any problems to anyone. It's like the "lager cheaper than water meme"; yes, there are some cheap and nasty lagers that are cheaper than some over-priced designer waters, so the statement is not false, it's just not true in the way they want you to think it's true, and that is the nub of all political rhetoric.

Mark Wadsworth said...

B, nope.

If somebody ran a poll asking "Would summary execution eliminate parking offences?" I would refuse to answer yes or no.

I can't answer "yes" even if it were true (which it isn't and because I don't think bad parking is so terrible a crime anyway) and if I answer "no" then they will just say "OK, but you agree that it would reduce parking offences and then maybe we should slaughter the offender's entire family".

The point is there is no such thing as 'excess drinking' on a social level, that is an individual decision and none of my concern.