We were talking about Cameron.
About Bailey: I'd have to see the actual quote, in context, not some paraphrase in commercially-driven agenda-ridden claptrap. Point of fact: all... that is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of "volunteer studies" have "rather bad biases in them". In fact, the phenomena even has a name: "volunteer error".
You mean the politically active homosexual psychologist?
That would be the one. And we've been over his reliability before, and unless you've come up with some new information that anything he says about Cameron is incorrect...
Sorry, like I said, pinging someone for methodology is like the grammer police discrediting the substance of a post on FreeRepublic.
You'd like to think so, wouldn't you? Without proper methodology, all results are invalid: it's a little more important than quibbling over the use of "its". Scientists know this.
"Quitting the APA". Not going to argue it, can't prove it one way or the other. Now, about the Nebraska Psycological Association, the American Sociological Association and the court findings that "Dr. Paul Cameron...has himself made misrepresentations to this Court" and "There has been no fraud or misrepresentations except by Dr. Cameron"?
You insinuated the legitimacy of organizations who cite Cameron…i.e. NARTH et al who happen to be Christian related in therapy or politics. Keep up.
In fact, the phenomena even has a name: "volunteer error".
Thank you for agreeing that Bailey/Pillard is a biased discredited study. Glad to see YOU not defending the discredited Shidlo and Schroeder volunteer studies anymore. You are a hypocrite; you know that don't you?
That would be the one. And we've been over his reliability before, and unless you've come up with some new information that anything he says about Cameron is incorrect...
All your biased homosexual hack says is his methodology isn’t by the book BUT that doesn’t prove his study wrong does it? If all studies are to be held to the same standard…then you lose the discredited Bailey/Pillard, Hooker and Kinsey studies…as well as many others. The ONLY thing that proves his data and interpretations wrong is a study debunking his findings. So where is it? SHOW ME THE STUDY!
Without proper methodology, all results are invalid: …
SEE ABOVE..tit for tat
Now, about the Nebraska Psycological Association, the American Sociological Association
Lacky APA wannabes trying to finish the APA which hunts are irrelevant to proving his studies to be wrong.
and the court findings that "Dr. Paul Cameron...has himself made misrepresentations to this Court" and "There has been no fraud or misrepresentations except by Dr. Cameron"?
You mean the “opinion” of a “judge” who buys into the falsehood that you’re not a homosexual if you commit “homosexual pedophilia”?
”Cameron's sworn statement that 'homosexuals abuse children at a proportionately greater incident than do heterosexuals”
What part of Freund/Watson 1992’s DATA don’t you understand? Pedophilia is its own gender? That’s hysterical! The pathology is same-sex attraction. Obviously a dupe liberal judge buying into the APA propaganda that same-sex attraction isn’t its own pathology and some how not related to other paraphilic disorders is naive at best and politically motivated in reality. This objective point is obvious to those with common sense, if you’re a man and you sodomize boys…you be gay; just ask the alter boys.