Replies

It's the best answer you'll get.

No surprise there. When you can't dazzle with brilliance, baffle with BS.

Well, clearly I don't follow these things with the gusto you do, but I don't know. Do you have a link to the proceedings, with all of the various studies?

Sorry, I'm done doing your research for you. You clearly have no interest in the subject aside from beating the "gay is OK" drum.

Science may not be a democratic process, but over here on a couple of ping lists, it's definitely a lost process.

Yeah, whatever. Is that DNC talking point 21 or 25?

That's a pretty good way of saying "your studies are junk'....mine are cool". But if you can blow off a few hundred studies, then you are left with your original conclusion....it's whatever I say it is!

Not surprisingly, you completely misunderstood my point, which was--I think that ALL psychological and sociological statistical studies are of little worth. They are soft sciences trying to their darndest to look like hard sciences. Psychology and sociology are all about opinion--not fact. Certain opinions which are in the ascendancy today, will be in the trash tomorrow. To confuse such with science or medicine is a profound mistake.

No surprise there. When you can't dazzle with brilliance, baffle with BS.

You're not exactly a student of critical thinking, are you? But if those two asinine questions were not your doing, I withdraw the comment.

Sorry, I'm done doing your research for you. You clearly have no interest in the subject aside from beating the "gay is OK" drum.

Well I'll give you one thing. I certainly don't have the interest in the subject you do. But if I did, I would certainly not toss out 95% of the studies without ever looking at them, simply because they ran contrary to what your ping list told you to think.

Yeah, whatever. Is that DNC talking point 21 or 25?

Nah, not really. I tend to lump all extremists together, left or right. Some of them deserve each other.

Not surprisingly, you completely misunderstood my point, which was--I think that ALL psychological and sociological statistical studies are of little worth. They are soft sciences trying to their darndest to look like hard sciences.

I thought we were talking about homosexual tendencies here, not astrophysics. Since your talking points tell you its simply a choice and not anything physical, why wouldn't psychology play a role? If by hard science you mean biology, careful, you may get tossed out of here quicker than me.

To confuse such with science or medicine is a profound mistake.

So, in other words, if a medical doctor made a statement about the physiology of homosexuals you would consider those opinions?