Reading your posts, maybe?
Bailey/Pillard used a biased sample unrepresentative of the population ergo invalid, ergo Hooker invalid, ergo Kinsey invalid.
It's plain that you rely on propaganda and lack even the first clue about science. Why continue to argue this? Last time you were arguing that Bailey/Pillard was useless because MZ twins had to have 100% concordance, and then it's "volunteer errors" and failing in that, it's "unrepresentative samples". You don't know what you're talking about.
It does not invalidate them, else they would not be done.
Biased samples don’t invalidate a volunteer study? Hehehe… A volunteer study’s validity completely depends on how the volunteers are recruited; Bailey recognized his error and fixed it using the registry studies.
Who are you? Donahue? I said what I said and I'm not going to argue against your lack of understanding.
In fact, here's a challenge to you: "reparative therapy never works" -- disprove that statement without use information given by volunteers.
Totally irrelevant but OK, have you ever heard of surveying?
Yep. So... "prove it". Show me the survey. Show me the organization that has the resources to conduct such a survey. NARTH, et al, claim that reparative therapy works - show me the proof on how successful it is.
HEREK IS A HYPOCRITE BECAUSE HE DOESN’T ATTACK THE METHODOLGY USED FOR THE PSEUDO SCIENTIFIC STUDIES THAT SUPPOSEDLY SUPPORT HIS PATHOLOGY
Big deal -- does that make him wrong in what he says about Cameron? Hell, you sit here defending Cameron's studies, denying or minimizing their weaknesses, and attempt to discredit studies you don't agree with. Hello, pot, you're black.
You are a simply a hypocrite that won’t apply the same standards of methodology to other studies that you depend on to demean Cameron.
You'd like to think so, wouldn't you? I don't see any reason to defend or disparage studies I don't use.
Ummm… Last time you claimed MZ twins weren’t always identical…and they absolutely are lest any environmental influences. You were claiming MZ twins with a genetic marker for a defect were some how comparable to a behavior THAT HAS NO GENETIC MARKER. What are you talking about? Stick to the subject.
and then it's "volunteer errors" and failing in that, it's "unrepresentative samples". You don't know what you're talking about.
Volunteer error or bias MEANS unrepresentative samples! If the opinions of volunteers are different from those of the population they are supposed to represent then the research is worthless. I claimed Bailey discredited his own study because of the biased sample, cited it and you panned it with some garbage excuse of commercialism.
Who are you? Donahue? I said what I said and I'm not going to argue against your lack of understanding.
What ever Josh…I’m not the homosexual trying to justify his own behavioral choices, you keep on trucking.
Yep. So... "prove it". Show me the survey. Show me the organization that has the resources to conduct such a survey. NARTH, et al, claim that reparative therapy works - show me the proof on how successful it is.
What does that have to do with proving to you information can be found without the use of volunteers? Too bad if it’s expensive, the fact still remains and BTW Cameron did a very successful study from a very large survey. Stop changing the subject.
Big deal -- does that make him wrong in what he says about Cameron?
NO…but it doesn’t make Cameron wrong either. There are many studies with methodology errors still accepted by the general “medical” community at large and the only way to make them WRONG is to debunk them…that’s all I’ve claimed from the very beginning.
Hell, you sit here defending Cameron's studies, denying or minimizing their weaknesses, and attempt to successfully discredit studies you don't agree with. Hello, pot, you're black.
I’m glad to finally see you’re coming around to my ORIGINAL point…thank you. DEBUNKING is the only way to make Cameron wrong. Now just get over it.