|
On October 22 2011 04:20 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 04:00 Myles wrote:On October 22 2011 03:56 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 03:44 iamahydralisk wrote:On October 22 2011 03:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 03:19 iamahydralisk wrote:On October 22 2011 02:27 NeThZOR wrote:On October 22 2011 02:25 Rhine wrote:On October 22 2011 01:21 NeThZOR wrote:
EDIT: And yeah, they most likely will turn out messed up. Their views on sexuality that is. Links? Why do you think so? I have provided numerous citations in this thread that development is mostly independent of parental orientation. I think so because of personal conviction. So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?" Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress. People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom. What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference. An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong. I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs. By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol. What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others. Dude, there's been research on it. When you can form a hypothesis and test it, it isn't an opinion. As he said, saying you like cats more then dogs is an opinion. Saying that this causes that is not - that's making a factual statement. We aren't talking about cats and dogs, we're talking about gay people. You quoting some research on the topic doesn't mean that you have the right to define other people's opinions. I think a completely natural and logical assumption that substituting mom with uncle bob will effect a child's view on sexuality and I don't think I or other people deserve to be condescended upon by people for having this opinion. If I posted some research contrary to yours, would that entitle me to call you stupid and degrade your opinions and put my own opinions forward as fact? Please answer the question directly and don't talk about cats and dogs or twist my words. Thank you.
Actually when you can provide conclusive research on a subject you are well within your right to call people who has an opinion that goes against the results of the research wrong. People can chose to be of the opinion that the earth is flat, that doesn't mean they are right. Opinions that goes completely against actual facts are per definition wrong
|
|
|
On October 22 2011 05:00 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 04:42 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 04:17 sevencck wrote:On October 22 2011 03:56 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 03:44 iamahydralisk wrote:On October 22 2011 03:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 03:19 iamahydralisk wrote:On October 22 2011 02:27 NeThZOR wrote:On October 22 2011 02:25 Rhine wrote:On October 22 2011 01:21 NeThZOR wrote:
EDIT: And yeah, they most likely will turn out messed up. Their views on sexuality that is. Links? Why do you think so? I have provided numerous citations in this thread that development is mostly independent of parental orientation. I think so because of personal conviction. So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?" Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress. People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom. What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference. An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong. I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs. By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol. What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others. Can I point out that you're obliviously doing exactly the same thing right now? What he made was a value judgement, and a correct one. He's made a judgement that one value (ignorance as a personal conviction, lol), isn't as good as another value (universal tolerance). One of those things is better than the other. Period. You can either see this or you can't. Someone also raised a valid point that the realm of subjectivity and opinion has no place in a discussion of empirically demonstrable facts. Don't pretend to hold up the notion that everyone's views and opinions are equally valid, while denouncing those opinions that fly in the face of that same premise. It's called a contradiction. I think it's laughable that you're calling this sort of thing an emipiral fact, you've obviously never been to university. There are rules for research and you need criteria, such as validity, you need it to be representative and consistent, even if these requirements were met, it would still not be an empirical fact. An empirical is like 2+2=4, not the load of rubbish you're coughing up and presenting as fact. If you went to college or university and presented this as a rock hard empirical fact, the professors would be laughing for ages. sevencck, B.A., B.Sc. (Hons), currently working on Ph.D Let me just add that you don't need to have attended university to have an educated, inclusive, or evolved view. I hope we can put that ugly university comment behind us now. 1. You, the champion of people's rights to their opinion from 5 minutes ago, has now decided that my opinion sucks and I should be laughed at for my ignorance. Not that this is relevant, I just thought I'd point that out. 2. There does indeed exist a realm of empirical fact in this topic, because you can conduct empirical studies on the psychological effect of children that have been raised by a gay couple in a given society. Does this mean that it's fact in the same way that 2+2 = 4? No, since no study is perfect. Is that relevant? No, because it remains an unbiased empirical study, which operates in the realm of objective factual truth, and is better than the ignorant convictions of people. I doubt a professor of clinical psychology would laugh if I told him his empirical studies weren't factually oriented. These types of studies exist within the realm of objective, empirical, factually oriented truth. It is entirely different than subjective philosophical conjecture, though to be honest I prefer the latter to the former. I find it more stimulating and fundamental to philosophically outline and critique a view. The point is, people have asked you to provide any empirically based study that gays can't make decent parents, and you have yet to do so.
I honestly am not very interested in the subject, due to me not being a homosexual. Ask yourself this, who are the people most likely to conduct these studies, it's either gays or homophobes and I'm neither. Ask yourself another question, what is the most likely conclusion of the results carried out by these select groups?
|
On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post.
Why was he banned for an opinion that he backed up with a nice an mannered explanation?
Really mods?
|
On October 22 2011 05:15 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 05:00 sevencck wrote:On October 22 2011 04:42 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 04:17 sevencck wrote:On October 22 2011 03:56 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 03:44 iamahydralisk wrote:On October 22 2011 03:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 03:19 iamahydralisk wrote:On October 22 2011 02:27 NeThZOR wrote:On October 22 2011 02:25 Rhine wrote:
[quote]
Links? Why do you think so? I have provided numerous citations in this thread that development is mostly independent of parental orientation.
I think so because of personal conviction. So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?" Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress. People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom. What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference. An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong. I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs. By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol. What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others. Can I point out that you're obliviously doing exactly the same thing right now? What he made was a value judgement, and a correct one. He's made a judgement that one value (ignorance as a personal conviction, lol), isn't as good as another value (universal tolerance). One of those things is better than the other. Period. You can either see this or you can't. Someone also raised a valid point that the realm of subjectivity and opinion has no place in a discussion of empirically demonstrable facts. Don't pretend to hold up the notion that everyone's views and opinions are equally valid, while denouncing those opinions that fly in the face of that same premise. It's called a contradiction. I think it's laughable that you're calling this sort of thing an emipiral fact, you've obviously never been to university. There are rules for research and you need criteria, such as validity, you need it to be representative and consistent, even if these requirements were met, it would still not be an empirical fact. An empirical is like 2+2=4, not the load of rubbish you're coughing up and presenting as fact. If you went to college or university and presented this as a rock hard empirical fact, the professors would be laughing for ages. sevencck, B.A., B.Sc. (Hons), currently working on Ph.D Let me just add that you don't need to have attended university to have an educated, inclusive, or evolved view. I hope we can put that ugly university comment behind us now. 1. You, the champion of people's rights to their opinion from 5 minutes ago, has now decided that my opinion sucks and I should be laughed at for my ignorance. Not that this is relevant, I just thought I'd point that out. 2. There does indeed exist a realm of empirical fact in this topic, because you can conduct empirical studies on the psychological effect of children that have been raised by a gay couple in a given society. Does this mean that it's fact in the same way that 2+2 = 4? No, since no study is perfect. Is that relevant? No, because it remains an unbiased empirical study, which operates in the realm of objective factual truth, and is better than the ignorant convictions of people. I doubt a professor of clinical psychology would laugh if I told him his empirical studies weren't factually oriented. These types of studies exist within the realm of objective, empirical, factually oriented truth. It is entirely different than subjective philosophical conjecture, though to be honest I prefer the latter to the former. I find it more stimulating and fundamental to philosophically outline and critique a view. The point is, people have asked you to provide any empirically based study that gays can't make decent parents, and you have yet to do so. I honestly am not very interested in the subject, due to me not being a homosexual. Ask yourself this, who are the people most likely to conduct these studies, it's either gays or homophobes and I'm neither. Ask yourself another question, what is the most likely conclusion of the results carried out by these select groups?
Fair enough, but you don't have to belong to a certain group of people to be interested in their rights as humans. I'm not a homosexual either, but I don't want to be part of a society where they have to suffer a more difficult process of self actualization due to other people stubbornly holding on to their stupid "convictions." I doubt if we can conclude that studies being carried out on the subject are by gays exclusively, I'm sure there are valid objective non-biased (government funded and regulated) studies being carried out.
|
On October 22 2011 05:05 Badboyrune wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 04:20 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 04:00 Myles wrote:On October 22 2011 03:56 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 03:44 iamahydralisk wrote:On October 22 2011 03:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 03:19 iamahydralisk wrote:On October 22 2011 02:27 NeThZOR wrote:On October 22 2011 02:25 Rhine wrote:On October 22 2011 01:21 NeThZOR wrote:
EDIT: And yeah, they most likely will turn out messed up. Their views on sexuality that is. Links? Why do you think so? I have provided numerous citations in this thread that development is mostly independent of parental orientation. I think so because of personal conviction. So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?" Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress. People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom. What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference. An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong. I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs. By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol. What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others. Dude, there's been research on it. When you can form a hypothesis and test it, it isn't an opinion. As he said, saying you like cats more then dogs is an opinion. Saying that this causes that is not - that's making a factual statement. We aren't talking about cats and dogs, we're talking about gay people. You quoting some research on the topic doesn't mean that you have the right to define other people's opinions. I think a completely natural and logical assumption that substituting mom with uncle bob will effect a child's view on sexuality and I don't think I or other people deserve to be condescended upon by people for having this opinion. If I posted some research contrary to yours, would that entitle me to call you stupid and degrade your opinions and put my own opinions forward as fact? Please answer the question directly and don't talk about cats and dogs or twist my words. Thank you. Actually when you can provide conclusive research on a subject you are well within your right to call people who has an opinion that goes against the results of the research wrong. People can chose to be of the opinion that the earth is flat, that doesn't mean they are right. Opinions that goes completely against actual facts are per definition wrong
Rather odd how one statement can turn the whole discussion into something irrelevant to the OP.
I think this subject matter needs to be interpreted by the dichotomy between, for example, evolutionism and creationism. Both are opposed to one another, but then again the one cannot disprove the other as well. If you look at it that way, some things come into light. For instance, if you base your view on a study which could not have been conducted for a very long time, given that gay marriages haven't been and still isn't legal in most parts of the world; 'conclusive' evidence really is not the order of the day here. And even if so, your scientific beliefs cannot disprove my philosophical beliefs, and vice versa. Now don't get me wrong, I am a strong believer in science, but it just does not make sense to me when a study is not based on realistic assumptions and conditions. This is where the actual study breaks down in my view, and I rather stick with what I believe in. And that is that, and nobody can take that away from me.
|
On October 22 2011 05:16 OhMyGawd wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post. Why was he banned for an opinion that he backed up with a nice an mannered explanation? Really mods?
I was curious about this too, so I read through the thread and discovered the reason.
|
On October 22 2011 05:05 Badboyrune wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 04:20 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 04:00 Myles wrote:On October 22 2011 03:56 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 03:44 iamahydralisk wrote:On October 22 2011 03:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 03:19 iamahydralisk wrote:On October 22 2011 02:27 NeThZOR wrote:On October 22 2011 02:25 Rhine wrote:On October 22 2011 01:21 NeThZOR wrote:
EDIT: And yeah, they most likely will turn out messed up. Their views on sexuality that is. Links? Why do you think so? I have provided numerous citations in this thread that development is mostly independent of parental orientation. I think so because of personal conviction. So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?" Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress. People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom. What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference. An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong. I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs. By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol. What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others. Dude, there's been research on it. When you can form a hypothesis and test it, it isn't an opinion. As he said, saying you like cats more then dogs is an opinion. Saying that this causes that is not - that's making a factual statement. We aren't talking about cats and dogs, we're talking about gay people. You quoting some research on the topic doesn't mean that you have the right to define other people's opinions. I think a completely natural and logical assumption that substituting mom with uncle bob will effect a child's view on sexuality and I don't think I or other people deserve to be condescended upon by people for having this opinion. If I posted some research contrary to yours, would that entitle me to call you stupid and degrade your opinions and put my own opinions forward as fact? Please answer the question directly and don't talk about cats and dogs or twist my words. Thank you. Actually when you can provide conclusive research on a subject you are well within your right to call people who has an opinion that goes against the results of the research wrong. People can chose to be of the opinion that the earth is flat, that doesn't mean they are right. Opinions that goes completely against actual facts are per definition wrong
This is complete bullshit, you're twisting my words and you have no concept of science. In additon, they weren't saying 'wrong' the words stupid and other degrading words were used. Anyway, I'll explain to you:
You cannot compare 'hard science' (ie. the world is round) with intagible things such as (Does having homosexual parents effect your view on sexuality). The one is real science and the other is pseudo-science. Anyway, you've obiously not got a clue about science, basically a waste of time teaching you but whatever.
|
United States5162 Posts
On October 22 2011 05:15 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 05:00 sevencck wrote:On October 22 2011 04:42 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 04:17 sevencck wrote:On October 22 2011 03:56 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 03:44 iamahydralisk wrote:On October 22 2011 03:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 03:19 iamahydralisk wrote:On October 22 2011 02:27 NeThZOR wrote:On October 22 2011 02:25 Rhine wrote:
[quote]
Links? Why do you think so? I have provided numerous citations in this thread that development is mostly independent of parental orientation.
I think so because of personal conviction. So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?" Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress. People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom. What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference. An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong. I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs. By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol. What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others. Can I point out that you're obliviously doing exactly the same thing right now? What he made was a value judgement, and a correct one. He's made a judgement that one value (ignorance as a personal conviction, lol), isn't as good as another value (universal tolerance). One of those things is better than the other. Period. You can either see this or you can't. Someone also raised a valid point that the realm of subjectivity and opinion has no place in a discussion of empirically demonstrable facts. Don't pretend to hold up the notion that everyone's views and opinions are equally valid, while denouncing those opinions that fly in the face of that same premise. It's called a contradiction. I think it's laughable that you're calling this sort of thing an emipiral fact, you've obviously never been to university. There are rules for research and you need criteria, such as validity, you need it to be representative and consistent, even if these requirements were met, it would still not be an empirical fact. An empirical is like 2+2=4, not the load of rubbish you're coughing up and presenting as fact. If you went to college or university and presented this as a rock hard empirical fact, the professors would be laughing for ages. sevencck, B.A., B.Sc. (Hons), currently working on Ph.D Let me just add that you don't need to have attended university to have an educated, inclusive, or evolved view. I hope we can put that ugly university comment behind us now. 1. You, the champion of people's rights to their opinion from 5 minutes ago, has now decided that my opinion sucks and I should be laughed at for my ignorance. Not that this is relevant, I just thought I'd point that out. 2. There does indeed exist a realm of empirical fact in this topic, because you can conduct empirical studies on the psychological effect of children that have been raised by a gay couple in a given society. Does this mean that it's fact in the same way that 2+2 = 4? No, since no study is perfect. Is that relevant? No, because it remains an unbiased empirical study, which operates in the realm of objective factual truth, and is better than the ignorant convictions of people. I doubt a professor of clinical psychology would laugh if I told him his empirical studies weren't factually oriented. These types of studies exist within the realm of objective, empirical, factually oriented truth. It is entirely different than subjective philosophical conjecture, though to be honest I prefer the latter to the former. I find it more stimulating and fundamental to philosophically outline and critique a view. The point is, people have asked you to provide any empirically based study that gays can't make decent parents, and you have yet to do so. I honestly am not very interested in the subject, due to me not being a homosexual. Ask yourself this, who are the people most likely to conduct these studies, it's either gays or homophobes and I'm neither. Ask yourself another question, what is the most likely conclusion of the results carried out by these select groups?
Or they might want to conduct actual research. If you have some a legitimate reason to doubt the research, like a conflict of interest, prior bias, or anything to corroborate that they went in with a conclusion already at hand, I'd be willing to listen. But again, you're throwing out unsubstantiated claims and hiding behind 'it's my opinion'.
|
On October 22 2011 05:15 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 05:00 sevencck wrote:On October 22 2011 04:42 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 04:17 sevencck wrote:On October 22 2011 03:56 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 03:44 iamahydralisk wrote:On October 22 2011 03:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 03:19 iamahydralisk wrote:On October 22 2011 02:27 NeThZOR wrote:On October 22 2011 02:25 Rhine wrote:
[quote]
Links? Why do you think so? I have provided numerous citations in this thread that development is mostly independent of parental orientation.
I think so because of personal conviction. So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?" Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress. People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom. What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference. An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong. I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs. By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol. What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others. Can I point out that you're obliviously doing exactly the same thing right now? What he made was a value judgement, and a correct one. He's made a judgement that one value (ignorance as a personal conviction, lol), isn't as good as another value (universal tolerance). One of those things is better than the other. Period. You can either see this or you can't. Someone also raised a valid point that the realm of subjectivity and opinion has no place in a discussion of empirically demonstrable facts. Don't pretend to hold up the notion that everyone's views and opinions are equally valid, while denouncing those opinions that fly in the face of that same premise. It's called a contradiction. I think it's laughable that you're calling this sort of thing an emipiral fact, you've obviously never been to university. There are rules for research and you need criteria, such as validity, you need it to be representative and consistent, even if these requirements were met, it would still not be an empirical fact. An empirical is like 2+2=4, not the load of rubbish you're coughing up and presenting as fact. If you went to college or university and presented this as a rock hard empirical fact, the professors would be laughing for ages. sevencck, B.A., B.Sc. (Hons), currently working on Ph.D Let me just add that you don't need to have attended university to have an educated, inclusive, or evolved view. I hope we can put that ugly university comment behind us now. 1. You, the champion of people's rights to their opinion from 5 minutes ago, has now decided that my opinion sucks and I should be laughed at for my ignorance. Not that this is relevant, I just thought I'd point that out. 2. There does indeed exist a realm of empirical fact in this topic, because you can conduct empirical studies on the psychological effect of children that have been raised by a gay couple in a given society. Does this mean that it's fact in the same way that 2+2 = 4? No, since no study is perfect. Is that relevant? No, because it remains an unbiased empirical study, which operates in the realm of objective factual truth, and is better than the ignorant convictions of people. I doubt a professor of clinical psychology would laugh if I told him his empirical studies weren't factually oriented. These types of studies exist within the realm of objective, empirical, factually oriented truth. It is entirely different than subjective philosophical conjecture, though to be honest I prefer the latter to the former. I find it more stimulating and fundamental to philosophically outline and critique a view. The point is, people have asked you to provide any empirically based study that gays can't make decent parents, and you have yet to do so. I honestly am not very interested in the subject, due to me not being a homosexual. Ask yourself this, who are the people most likely to conduct these studies, it's either gays or homophobes and I'm neither. Ask yourself another question, what is the most likely conclusion of the results carried out by these select groups?
So everyone at the American Psychology Association is either gay or homophobic. Got it.
Obviously there are going to be biased studies, but please don't assume that just because someone is researching homosexuality means they're either gay or homophobic.
|
On October 22 2011 05:15 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 05:00 sevencck wrote:On October 22 2011 04:42 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 04:17 sevencck wrote:On October 22 2011 03:56 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 03:44 iamahydralisk wrote:On October 22 2011 03:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 03:19 iamahydralisk wrote:On October 22 2011 02:27 NeThZOR wrote:On October 22 2011 02:25 Rhine wrote:
[quote]
Links? Why do you think so? I have provided numerous citations in this thread that development is mostly independent of parental orientation.
I think so because of personal conviction. So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?" Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress. People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom. What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference. An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong. I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs. By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol. What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others. Can I point out that you're obliviously doing exactly the same thing right now? What he made was a value judgement, and a correct one. He's made a judgement that one value (ignorance as a personal conviction, lol), isn't as good as another value (universal tolerance). One of those things is better than the other. Period. You can either see this or you can't. Someone also raised a valid point that the realm of subjectivity and opinion has no place in a discussion of empirically demonstrable facts. Don't pretend to hold up the notion that everyone's views and opinions are equally valid, while denouncing those opinions that fly in the face of that same premise. It's called a contradiction. I think it's laughable that you're calling this sort of thing an emipiral fact, you've obviously never been to university. There are rules for research and you need criteria, such as validity, you need it to be representative and consistent, even if these requirements were met, it would still not be an empirical fact. An empirical is like 2+2=4, not the load of rubbish you're coughing up and presenting as fact. If you went to college or university and presented this as a rock hard empirical fact, the professors would be laughing for ages. sevencck, B.A., B.Sc. (Hons), currently working on Ph.D Let me just add that you don't need to have attended university to have an educated, inclusive, or evolved view. I hope we can put that ugly university comment behind us now. 1. You, the champion of people's rights to their opinion from 5 minutes ago, has now decided that my opinion sucks and I should be laughed at for my ignorance. Not that this is relevant, I just thought I'd point that out. 2. There does indeed exist a realm of empirical fact in this topic, because you can conduct empirical studies on the psychological effect of children that have been raised by a gay couple in a given society. Does this mean that it's fact in the same way that 2+2 = 4? No, since no study is perfect. Is that relevant? No, because it remains an unbiased empirical study, which operates in the realm of objective factual truth, and is better than the ignorant convictions of people. I doubt a professor of clinical psychology would laugh if I told him his empirical studies weren't factually oriented. These types of studies exist within the realm of objective, empirical, factually oriented truth. It is entirely different than subjective philosophical conjecture, though to be honest I prefer the latter to the former. I find it more stimulating and fundamental to philosophically outline and critique a view. The point is, people have asked you to provide any empirically based study that gays can't make decent parents, and you have yet to do so. I honestly am not very interested in the subject, due to me not being a homosexual. Ask yourself this, who are the people most likely to conduct these studies, it's either gays or homophobes and I'm neither. Ask yourself another question, what is the most likely conclusion of the results carried out by these select groups?
Trying to invalidate multiple scientific studies that you have not even read by assuming bias in the ones conducting them is one of the stupidest post I've seen on this forum.
|
On October 22 2011 05:15 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:
I honestly am not very interested in the subject, due to me not being a homosexual. Ask yourself this, who are the people most likely to conduct these studies, it's either gays or homophobes and I'm neither. Ask yourself another question, what is the most likely conclusion of the results carried out by these select groups?
Gays or homophopes only? You have a strange view of science. This is false. The resaerch presented is about understanding how people think, the implications of a variety of factors and generally understanding all about people. The proper way to "do" science is to look for the truth, not for pre-determined conclusions that support one's argument. Most researchers are actually doing this and it is evident in the care and nuances in their results. It's not about a single study, it's about a body of work that points in pretty much the same direction, independently. You are basically saying "well these citations are biased because they don't support my view, and i'm sure all studies are just looking for pre-determined results."
That's not how it works. You can't just dismiss all the evidence because you don't like it. Sure there's always bias in any human work. But what is your reason for believing that decades of research into developmental psychology, neurology etc, is just false? If there are good arguments, then that's great to hear. Simply saying it so doesn't mean much.
Also, opinions are great and all, but we can't just say that an opinion is equal to the knowledge brought on by decades of work. That's the difference. You have a right to your opinion, and i'm not bashing you for it. But hiding behind "it's my opinion, and so is yours" is false. It's more than opinion.
|
On October 22 2011 05:16 OhMyGawd wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post. Why was he banned for an opinion that he backed up with a nice an mannered explanation? Really mods?
I assume this is why. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=17883#cmd02
Also post history has a lot to do with it. Though the only thing I could think he would be banned for would be the above bolded portion of his post.
|
On October 22 2011 05:24 Badboyrune wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 05:15 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 05:00 sevencck wrote:On October 22 2011 04:42 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 04:17 sevencck wrote:On October 22 2011 03:56 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 03:44 iamahydralisk wrote:On October 22 2011 03:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 03:19 iamahydralisk wrote:On October 22 2011 02:27 NeThZOR wrote:
[quote]
I think so because of personal conviction. So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?" Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress. People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom. What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference. An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong. I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs. By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol. What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others. Can I point out that you're obliviously doing exactly the same thing right now? What he made was a value judgement, and a correct one. He's made a judgement that one value (ignorance as a personal conviction, lol), isn't as good as another value (universal tolerance). One of those things is better than the other. Period. You can either see this or you can't. Someone also raised a valid point that the realm of subjectivity and opinion has no place in a discussion of empirically demonstrable facts. Don't pretend to hold up the notion that everyone's views and opinions are equally valid, while denouncing those opinions that fly in the face of that same premise. It's called a contradiction. I think it's laughable that you're calling this sort of thing an emipiral fact, you've obviously never been to university. There are rules for research and you need criteria, such as validity, you need it to be representative and consistent, even if these requirements were met, it would still not be an empirical fact. An empirical is like 2+2=4, not the load of rubbish you're coughing up and presenting as fact. If you went to college or university and presented this as a rock hard empirical fact, the professors would be laughing for ages. sevencck, B.A., B.Sc. (Hons), currently working on Ph.D Let me just add that you don't need to have attended university to have an educated, inclusive, or evolved view. I hope we can put that ugly university comment behind us now. 1. You, the champion of people's rights to their opinion from 5 minutes ago, has now decided that my opinion sucks and I should be laughed at for my ignorance. Not that this is relevant, I just thought I'd point that out. 2. There does indeed exist a realm of empirical fact in this topic, because you can conduct empirical studies on the psychological effect of children that have been raised by a gay couple in a given society. Does this mean that it's fact in the same way that 2+2 = 4? No, since no study is perfect. Is that relevant? No, because it remains an unbiased empirical study, which operates in the realm of objective factual truth, and is better than the ignorant convictions of people. I doubt a professor of clinical psychology would laugh if I told him his empirical studies weren't factually oriented. These types of studies exist within the realm of objective, empirical, factually oriented truth. It is entirely different than subjective philosophical conjecture, though to be honest I prefer the latter to the former. I find it more stimulating and fundamental to philosophically outline and critique a view. The point is, people have asked you to provide any empirically based study that gays can't make decent parents, and you have yet to do so. I honestly am not very interested in the subject, due to me not being a homosexual. Ask yourself this, who are the people most likely to conduct these studies, it's either gays or homophobes and I'm neither. Ask yourself another question, what is the most likely conclusion of the results carried out by these select groups? Trying to invalidate multiple scientific studies that you have not even read by assuming bias in the ones conducting them is one of the stupidest post I've seen on this forum.
You're a real genius though, comparing geography to psychology, I'm sure you must have been a real winner in school.
User was warned for this post
|
Who compared geography to psychology? Are you going to respond in any meaningful way or are you simply going to stick to your guns?
|
On October 22 2011 05:30 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 05:24 Badboyrune wrote:On October 22 2011 05:15 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 05:00 sevencck wrote:On October 22 2011 04:42 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 04:17 sevencck wrote:On October 22 2011 03:56 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 03:44 iamahydralisk wrote:On October 22 2011 03:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 03:19 iamahydralisk wrote:
[quote]
So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?"
Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress. People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom. What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference. An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong. I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs. By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol. What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others. Can I point out that you're obliviously doing exactly the same thing right now? What he made was a value judgement, and a correct one. He's made a judgement that one value (ignorance as a personal conviction, lol), isn't as good as another value (universal tolerance). One of those things is better than the other. Period. You can either see this or you can't. Someone also raised a valid point that the realm of subjectivity and opinion has no place in a discussion of empirically demonstrable facts. Don't pretend to hold up the notion that everyone's views and opinions are equally valid, while denouncing those opinions that fly in the face of that same premise. It's called a contradiction. I think it's laughable that you're calling this sort of thing an emipiral fact, you've obviously never been to university. There are rules for research and you need criteria, such as validity, you need it to be representative and consistent, even if these requirements were met, it would still not be an empirical fact. An empirical is like 2+2=4, not the load of rubbish you're coughing up and presenting as fact. If you went to college or university and presented this as a rock hard empirical fact, the professors would be laughing for ages. sevencck, B.A., B.Sc. (Hons), currently working on Ph.D Let me just add that you don't need to have attended university to have an educated, inclusive, or evolved view. I hope we can put that ugly university comment behind us now. 1. You, the champion of people's rights to their opinion from 5 minutes ago, has now decided that my opinion sucks and I should be laughed at for my ignorance. Not that this is relevant, I just thought I'd point that out. 2. There does indeed exist a realm of empirical fact in this topic, because you can conduct empirical studies on the psychological effect of children that have been raised by a gay couple in a given society. Does this mean that it's fact in the same way that 2+2 = 4? No, since no study is perfect. Is that relevant? No, because it remains an unbiased empirical study, which operates in the realm of objective factual truth, and is better than the ignorant convictions of people. I doubt a professor of clinical psychology would laugh if I told him his empirical studies weren't factually oriented. These types of studies exist within the realm of objective, empirical, factually oriented truth. It is entirely different than subjective philosophical conjecture, though to be honest I prefer the latter to the former. I find it more stimulating and fundamental to philosophically outline and critique a view. The point is, people have asked you to provide any empirically based study that gays can't make decent parents, and you have yet to do so. I honestly am not very interested in the subject, due to me not being a homosexual. Ask yourself this, who are the people most likely to conduct these studies, it's either gays or homophobes and I'm neither. Ask yourself another question, what is the most likely conclusion of the results carried out by these select groups? Trying to invalidate multiple scientific studies that you have not even read by assuming bias in the ones conducting them is one of the stupidest post I've seen on this forum. You're a real genius though, comparing geography to psychology, I'm sure you must have been a real winner in school.
you should probably stop flamebaiting and making south park quips and instead back up your claims
|
On October 22 2011 05:30 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 05:24 Badboyrune wrote:On October 22 2011 05:15 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 05:00 sevencck wrote:On October 22 2011 04:42 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 04:17 sevencck wrote:On October 22 2011 03:56 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 03:44 iamahydralisk wrote:On October 22 2011 03:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 03:19 iamahydralisk wrote:
[quote]
So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?"
Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress. People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom. What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference. An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong. I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs. By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol. What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others. Can I point out that you're obliviously doing exactly the same thing right now? What he made was a value judgement, and a correct one. He's made a judgement that one value (ignorance as a personal conviction, lol), isn't as good as another value (universal tolerance). One of those things is better than the other. Period. You can either see this or you can't. Someone also raised a valid point that the realm of subjectivity and opinion has no place in a discussion of empirically demonstrable facts. Don't pretend to hold up the notion that everyone's views and opinions are equally valid, while denouncing those opinions that fly in the face of that same premise. It's called a contradiction. I think it's laughable that you're calling this sort of thing an emipiral fact, you've obviously never been to university. There are rules for research and you need criteria, such as validity, you need it to be representative and consistent, even if these requirements were met, it would still not be an empirical fact. An empirical is like 2+2=4, not the load of rubbish you're coughing up and presenting as fact. If you went to college or university and presented this as a rock hard empirical fact, the professors would be laughing for ages. sevencck, B.A., B.Sc. (Hons), currently working on Ph.D Let me just add that you don't need to have attended university to have an educated, inclusive, or evolved view. I hope we can put that ugly university comment behind us now. 1. You, the champion of people's rights to their opinion from 5 minutes ago, has now decided that my opinion sucks and I should be laughed at for my ignorance. Not that this is relevant, I just thought I'd point that out. 2. There does indeed exist a realm of empirical fact in this topic, because you can conduct empirical studies on the psychological effect of children that have been raised by a gay couple in a given society. Does this mean that it's fact in the same way that 2+2 = 4? No, since no study is perfect. Is that relevant? No, because it remains an unbiased empirical study, which operates in the realm of objective factual truth, and is better than the ignorant convictions of people. I doubt a professor of clinical psychology would laugh if I told him his empirical studies weren't factually oriented. These types of studies exist within the realm of objective, empirical, factually oriented truth. It is entirely different than subjective philosophical conjecture, though to be honest I prefer the latter to the former. I find it more stimulating and fundamental to philosophically outline and critique a view. The point is, people have asked you to provide any empirically based study that gays can't make decent parents, and you have yet to do so. I honestly am not very interested in the subject, due to me not being a homosexual. Ask yourself this, who are the people most likely to conduct these studies, it's either gays or homophobes and I'm neither. Ask yourself another question, what is the most likely conclusion of the results carried out by these select groups? Trying to invalidate multiple scientific studies that you have not even read by assuming bias in the ones conducting them is one of the stupidest post I've seen on this forum. You're a real genius though, comparing geography to psychology, I'm sure you must have been a real winner in school. User was warned for this post
I wasn't comparing geography to psychology, I was comparing opinions with fact. And the fact of the matter is that fact trumps opinion every time. No matter what the one with the opinion thinks.
|
On October 22 2011 05:23 T3tra wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 05:15 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 05:00 sevencck wrote:On October 22 2011 04:42 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 04:17 sevencck wrote:On October 22 2011 03:56 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 03:44 iamahydralisk wrote:On October 22 2011 03:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 03:19 iamahydralisk wrote:On October 22 2011 02:27 NeThZOR wrote:
[quote]
I think so because of personal conviction. So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?" Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress. People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom. What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference. An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong. I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs. By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol. What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others. Can I point out that you're obliviously doing exactly the same thing right now? What he made was a value judgement, and a correct one. He's made a judgement that one value (ignorance as a personal conviction, lol), isn't as good as another value (universal tolerance). One of those things is better than the other. Period. You can either see this or you can't. Someone also raised a valid point that the realm of subjectivity and opinion has no place in a discussion of empirically demonstrable facts. Don't pretend to hold up the notion that everyone's views and opinions are equally valid, while denouncing those opinions that fly in the face of that same premise. It's called a contradiction. I think it's laughable that you're calling this sort of thing an emipiral fact, you've obviously never been to university. There are rules for research and you need criteria, such as validity, you need it to be representative and consistent, even if these requirements were met, it would still not be an empirical fact. An empirical is like 2+2=4, not the load of rubbish you're coughing up and presenting as fact. If you went to college or university and presented this as a rock hard empirical fact, the professors would be laughing for ages. sevencck, B.A., B.Sc. (Hons), currently working on Ph.D Let me just add that you don't need to have attended university to have an educated, inclusive, or evolved view. I hope we can put that ugly university comment behind us now. 1. You, the champion of people's rights to their opinion from 5 minutes ago, has now decided that my opinion sucks and I should be laughed at for my ignorance. Not that this is relevant, I just thought I'd point that out. 2. There does indeed exist a realm of empirical fact in this topic, because you can conduct empirical studies on the psychological effect of children that have been raised by a gay couple in a given society. Does this mean that it's fact in the same way that 2+2 = 4? No, since no study is perfect. Is that relevant? No, because it remains an unbiased empirical study, which operates in the realm of objective factual truth, and is better than the ignorant convictions of people. I doubt a professor of clinical psychology would laugh if I told him his empirical studies weren't factually oriented. These types of studies exist within the realm of objective, empirical, factually oriented truth. It is entirely different than subjective philosophical conjecture, though to be honest I prefer the latter to the former. I find it more stimulating and fundamental to philosophically outline and critique a view. The point is, people have asked you to provide any empirically based study that gays can't make decent parents, and you have yet to do so. I honestly am not very interested in the subject, due to me not being a homosexual. Ask yourself this, who are the people most likely to conduct these studies, it's either gays or homophobes and I'm neither. Ask yourself another question, what is the most likely conclusion of the results carried out by these select groups? So everyone at the American Psychology Association is either gay or homophobic. Got it. Obviously there are going to be biased studies, but please don't assume that just because someone is researching homosexuality means they're either gay or homophobic.
You may be less sceptical than me. As far as I know parents need to give their consent for these studies to be conducted? If this person had previously conducted tests that showed gay people in a negative light, would he get a green light for a test? No
Would a homophobe get a green light? No
Would gay rights groups want to fund this sort of research? Yes
Could it possible effect the outcome? possibly
Would conservative homophobic groups want to fund this sort of research? yes
Could it possible effect the outcome? possibly
Would the government be interested in spending money on this? maybe because of gay rights groups and conservative groups. Anyway, it's obvious that you're gonna get hunted down in this thread unless you're pro gay everything.
|
Marriage is widely considered a Christian institution
You gotta be kidding. Marriage existed long before Christianity. Marriage exists in non christian countries too. There's nothing exclusively Christian about it nor does anyone consider it Christian.
The idea that gay people want to be married is no more strange than idea that heterosexual people want to be married.
Anyway, it's obvious that you're gonna get hunted down in this thread unless you're pro gay everything.
It is not "pro gay". It is pro equal rights.
|
United States5162 Posts
On October 22 2011 05:40 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 05:23 T3tra wrote:On October 22 2011 05:15 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 05:00 sevencck wrote:On October 22 2011 04:42 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 04:17 sevencck wrote:On October 22 2011 03:56 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 03:44 iamahydralisk wrote:On October 22 2011 03:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 22 2011 03:19 iamahydralisk wrote:
[quote]
So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?"
Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress. People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom. What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference. An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong. I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs. By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol. What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others. Can I point out that you're obliviously doing exactly the same thing right now? What he made was a value judgement, and a correct one. He's made a judgement that one value (ignorance as a personal conviction, lol), isn't as good as another value (universal tolerance). One of those things is better than the other. Period. You can either see this or you can't. Someone also raised a valid point that the realm of subjectivity and opinion has no place in a discussion of empirically demonstrable facts. Don't pretend to hold up the notion that everyone's views and opinions are equally valid, while denouncing those opinions that fly in the face of that same premise. It's called a contradiction. I think it's laughable that you're calling this sort of thing an emipiral fact, you've obviously never been to university. There are rules for research and you need criteria, such as validity, you need it to be representative and consistent, even if these requirements were met, it would still not be an empirical fact. An empirical is like 2+2=4, not the load of rubbish you're coughing up and presenting as fact. If you went to college or university and presented this as a rock hard empirical fact, the professors would be laughing for ages. sevencck, B.A., B.Sc. (Hons), currently working on Ph.D Let me just add that you don't need to have attended university to have an educated, inclusive, or evolved view. I hope we can put that ugly university comment behind us now. 1. You, the champion of people's rights to their opinion from 5 minutes ago, has now decided that my opinion sucks and I should be laughed at for my ignorance. Not that this is relevant, I just thought I'd point that out. 2. There does indeed exist a realm of empirical fact in this topic, because you can conduct empirical studies on the psychological effect of children that have been raised by a gay couple in a given society. Does this mean that it's fact in the same way that 2+2 = 4? No, since no study is perfect. Is that relevant? No, because it remains an unbiased empirical study, which operates in the realm of objective factual truth, and is better than the ignorant convictions of people. I doubt a professor of clinical psychology would laugh if I told him his empirical studies weren't factually oriented. These types of studies exist within the realm of objective, empirical, factually oriented truth. It is entirely different than subjective philosophical conjecture, though to be honest I prefer the latter to the former. I find it more stimulating and fundamental to philosophically outline and critique a view. The point is, people have asked you to provide any empirically based study that gays can't make decent parents, and you have yet to do so. I honestly am not very interested in the subject, due to me not being a homosexual. Ask yourself this, who are the people most likely to conduct these studies, it's either gays or homophobes and I'm neither. Ask yourself another question, what is the most likely conclusion of the results carried out by these select groups? So everyone at the American Psychology Association is either gay or homophobic. Got it. Obviously there are going to be biased studies, but please don't assume that just because someone is researching homosexuality means they're either gay or homophobic. You may be less sceptical than me. As far as I know parents need to give their consent for these studies to be conducted? If this person had previously conducted tests that showed gay people in a negative light, would he get a green light for a test? No Would a homophobe get a green light? No Would gay rights groups want to fund this sort of research? Yes Could it possible effect the outcome? possibly Would conservative homophobic groups want to fund this sort of research? yes Could it possible effect the outcome? possibly Would the government be interested in spending money on this? maybe because of gay rights groups and conservative groups. Anyway, it's obvious that you're gonna get hunted down in this thread unless you're pro gay everything.
There's been plenty of people who said they don't want gay marriage and weren't hunted down. They were just stating their opinion. It's only the people who've tried to make unsubstantiated claims that have been refuted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
