Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 7277

The [gay parenting] study itself loses credibility as soon as u say it is attributed to only a small portion of the gay community affected by this study. That's the fuck Im talking about. As long as there is no study large enough to encompass, and thus represent the the homosexual people as a whole, any argument pertaining to homosexual parents having no effect on children is unnacceptable.

protoswarrior, BlizzForums 11 Comments [5/1/2004 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1
David D.G.

I don't know what study is being criticized here, so I don't know how big the data set is; but NO study is ever expected to include an entire population in its scope! It is the height of speciousness to assert that a study on gays is worthless because it does not include every single gay person who exists in its data set.


~David D.G.

2/1/2006 6:43:44 PM

llDayo

Might as well say there's no evidence that bombs can explode because we haven't seen all of them do so.

2/1/2006 6:50:29 PM

AnthonyR

You're in idiot.

That's the fuck I'm talking about

8/26/2008 7:03:09 AM

Freboy

The [Christian parenting] study itself loses credibility as soon as u say it is attributed to only a small portion of the Christian community affected by this study. That's the fuck Im talking about. As long as there is no study large enough to encompass, and thus represent the the Christian people as a whole, any argument pertaining to Christian parents having no effect on children is unnacceptable.

8/26/2008 7:50:38 AM

El Guapo

Protoswarrior doesn't seem to understand the whole point of frequentist statistics.

8/26/2008 2:07:27 PM

Typhon

Bad statistics, and almost certainly anti-homosexual, but not fundie per se.

That said, this claim fails to take into account that there are almost no cases where a research included the entire population being researched, or even most of it. That's just too high a standard to humanly meet.

And, if I may be just a tad pedantic - there is no "homosexual people". I really hope you meant that to be "people who are homosexuals", but it doesn't look that way.

8/26/2008 2:30:15 PM

El Guapo

@Typhon: Why the distinction? Is the word "homosexual" used as an adjective to describe people considered offensive?

8/26/2008 6:48:55 PM

GigaGuess

Great. So when will Straight Parenting be considered null, pending a complete population study? Oh, that's right, you have nothing to "earn" since any trailer trash can bark out a litter without anyone caring, so long as they don't starve to death. Honestly...you need a license to have a dog, but not to breed...

8/26/2008 9:19:08 PM

Typhon

@ El Guapo #690791

I'm very tired right now, so I might be missing something in your point, but I don't think you understood me:
It appears to me that he called homosexuals a people, not people as in the plural of person.

It appears to me he meant:
5 plural peoples : a body of persons that are united by a common culture, tradition, or sense of kinship, that typically have common language, institutions, and beliefs, and that often constitute a politically organized group

As opposed to:
1 plural : human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest

I hope I'm not talking nonsense... G'night :)

8/26/2008 10:21:54 PM

Godbuster

How can someone say that on a Blizzard forum with World of Warcraft being one of the gayest games out there (I work for SOE).

1/14/2010 6:24:10 PM

Big One

The study subjects are not in sufficient number to represent any usefull information (says you)

And you want to ban gay adoption based on the fact that there are no serious studies.

Sounds quite circular.

10/12/2011 8:43:17 AM
1