Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren't to Blame: They Rely on "Science"..

[Silhouette]

*pile of shit*

Not a pile of shit...

Again...I don't think substituting dogma for science as an official policy at the APA qualifies them to weigh in on any amicus brief to the US Supreme Court.

For that matter, my mere opinion would hold equal weight to theirs. If "science" is based on opinions instead of numbers and facts, then by virtue of equality, my opinion is equal to the opinion of the APA. They have stripped themselves of any prestige by turning their backs on the scientific method.

"Small samples"? "Preference to words over numbers"???! Really?

 

[daws101]

*pile of shit*

Not a pile of shit...

Again...I don't think substituting dogma for science as an official policy at the APA qualifies them to weigh in on any amicus brief to the US Supreme Court.

For that matter, my mere opinion would hold equal weight to theirs. If "science" is based on opinions instead of numbers and facts, then by virtue of equality, my opinion is equal to the opinion of the APA. They have stripped themselves of any prestige by turning their backs on the scientific method.

"Small samples"? "Preference to words over numbers"???! Really?

 

[Silhouette]

So, spamming then?

 

[Silhouette]

There are many Academics and Psychologists... ALL Leftists, who are not only questioning the "Harm" to Children in Adult/Child Sex, but going further and Advocating for it... They been named and linked many times here. Until 1994 NAMBLA Marched in Gay Parades and was directly Allied with the ILGA. Gays demanded an end to Age of Consent Laws at the same time their people in the APA were changing their status... These are Facts... Gays know them... Some of their Deviant Advocates know them also... But they Lie... Like our Lying still in the Closet President. Leftist have to Lie and Abuse the Courts to get what they want.

I'm pretty sure NAMBLA has an arm in the American Psychological Association. The agency is not even bashful about promoting the LGBT Agenda as if they were an unquestioned set of bylaws...read the OP again. If you are a researcher or scientist, your jaw will fall on the ground of the techniques they espouse.. They are NOTHING AT ALL like science and read more like directives from Warren Jeffs, Jim Jones or that Applewhite idiot in California's "Heaven's Gate" cult.

 

[mdk]

 

[daws101]

There are many Academics and Psychologists... ALL Leftists, who are not only questioning the "Harm" to Children in Adult/Child Sex, but going further and Advocating for it... They been named and linked many times here. Until 1994 NAMBLA Marched in Gay Parades and was directly Allied with the ILGA. Gays demanded an end to Age of Consent Laws at the same time their people in the APA were changing their status... These are Facts... Gays know them... Some of their Deviant Advocates know them also... But they Lie... Like our Lying still in the Closet President. Leftist have to Lie and Abuse the Courts to get what they want.

I'm pretty sure NAMBLA has an arm in the American Psychological Association. The agency is not even bashful about promoting the LGBT Agenda as if they were an unquestioned set of bylaws...read the OP again. If you are a researcher or scientist, your jaw will fall on the ground of the techniques they espouse.. They are NOTHING AT ALL like science and read more like directives from Warren Jeffs, Jim Jones or that Applewhite idiot in California's "Heaven's Gate" cult.

get kicked off another site again?

 

[Silhouette]

You have a problem with older discussions that are still contemporary debates? I suppose next you'll be complaining if I post on the older "Should Churches be forced to accommodate gay marriage" thread with over 200 people voting in the poll with 80% saying "no way Jose" as the Oregon Christian bakers or Ms. Davis vs The Gay goes to SCOTUS?

 

[daws101]

You have a problem with older discussions that are still contemporary debates? I suppose next you'll be complaining if I post on the older "Should Churches be forced to accommodate gay marriage" thread with over 200 people voting in the poll with 80% saying "no way Jose" as the Oregon Christian bakers or Ms. Davis vs The Gay goes to SCOTUS?

keep up the one asshole obsession.

 

[mdk]

You have a problem with older discussions that are still contemporary debates? I suppose next you'll be complaining if I post on the older "Should Churches be forced to accommodate gay marriage" thread with over 200 people voting in the poll with 80% saying "no way Jose" as the Oregon Christian bakers or Ms. Davis vs The Gay goes to SCOTUS?

That isn't what the poll asks but, when has lying about that poll ever stopped you before?

 

[daws101]

 

[konradv]

Inspired by the famous "churches" thread here at USMB and excellent points by "Where_r_my_Keys"

 

[Syriusly]

There are many Academics and Psychologists... ALL Leftists, who are not only questioning the "Harm" to Children in Adult/Child Sex, but going further and Advocating for it... They been named and linked many times here. Until 1994 NAMBLA Marched in Gay Parades and was directly Allied with the ILGA. Gays demanded an end to Age of Consent Laws at the same time their people in the APA were changing their status... These are Facts... Gays know them... Some of their Deviant Advocates know them also... But they Lie... Like our Lying still in the Closet President. Leftist have to Lie and Abuse the Courts to get what they want.

I'm pretty sure t.

I'm pretty sure that you only recycle here at USMB.

A thread from 2 years ago- well done!

 

[Syriusly]

You have a problem with older discussions that are still contemporary debates? I suppose next you'll be complaining if I post on the older "Should Churches be forced to accommodate gay marriage" thread with over 200 people voting in the poll with 80% saying "no way Jose" as the Oregon Christian bakers or Ms. Davis vs The Gay goes to SCOTUS?

If you post a thread that is new,
I will mock your thread true
If you post a thread that is old
I will mock your thread for its mold.

 

[Silhouette]

I know you're hoping this topic be aborted
But for your strawmen off topic, you have been reported..

 

[Skylar]

Inspired by the famous "churches" thread here at USMB and excellent points by "Where_r_my_Keys":

Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 435 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That thread has more than 33,000 views and sports one of the largest poll turnouts EVER at USMB. See how over 80% of the quiet majority voted..

Meanwhile this topic:

Upon the irrational premise that Sexual Abnormality is NORMAL. What's that based upon? 'WE ARE NOT "ABNORMAL PEOPLE"... therefore our sexuality is not Abnormal!' Their truth is Subjective... .
They claim that their position rests in "SCIENCE!" that they TRUST science... and, that opposition of their need is based upon RELIGION!, which they do NOT TRUST.
Yet the purely scientific position, which incontestably demonstrates that Homosexuality; not only deviates from the standard intrinsic to human physiology, but it deviates as far FROM that standard as can be deviated, where all participants are HUMAN. And they could not care less, they do not trust science... because their trust of science is Subjective... .

Judges are relying on the APA. It helps that gays stormed the American Psychological Association back in the 1970s and took over its ranks. The impact of that was GIGANTIC. And that is because virtually ALL "scientific" entities that have to do with the human mind or physiology take their walking orders from the APA. Gays began filling the ranks of the board of directors of the APA. The association used to abide by a ruling scientific principle called "the Leona Tyler Principle". It said that any position the APA took on a topic publicly HAD to be backed by hard science.

After gays took over the board of directors in the APA, that ruling scientific principle that had been the mooring of that institution for many many years was *disappeared*. There wasn't even an up or down vote on it by the Board. It just vanished. And in fact, a recent search for it on the APA search engines comes up with nothing.

This new relativism came to a head not too long after this coup by the gay cabal of the APA. It happened when Congress formally censured the APA at a hearing that had to do with protecting children from sexual predators. The neo-APA was arguing/urging its position which had become "sometimes it may be OK for adults to have sex with kids"...yeah...no kidding.. I think it was the first time ever that Congress voted to censure a "scientific" group's testimony.

Instead of the ruling principle based in science, that was subsequently *disappeared* by gay militants in the APA, we have this which is PRECISELY the relativism you are talking about. I just searched this today and my jaw fell in disbelief on how you NAILED IT...

Read, if you dare...straight from the APA approved books links. The "experts" call (CQR) research. It is "qualitative" (subjective group agreement) and not relying on numbers...silly numbers get in the way of "socially agreed conclusions" of the group-think. It is the ANTITHESIS of a ruling scientific principle.

You just can't make this stuff up:

Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena
Edited by Clara E. Hill, PhD Consensual Qualitative Research A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena
"
This lively and practical text presents a fresh and comprehensive approach to conducting consensual qualitative research (CQR). CQR is an inductive method that is characterized by open-ended interview questions, small samples, a reliance on words over numbers, the importance of context, an integration of multiple viewpoints, and consensus of the research team. It is especially well-suited to research that requires rich descriptions of inner experiences, attitudes, and convictions.

Written to help researchers navigate their way through qualitative techniques and methodology, leading expert Clara E. Hill and her associates provide readers with step-by-step practical guidance during each stage of the research process. Readers learn about adaptive ways of designing studies; collecting, coding, and analyzing data; and reporting findings.

Key aspects of the researcher's craft are addressed, such as establishing the research team, recruiting and interviewing participants, adhering to ethical standards, raising cultural awareness, auditing within case analyses and cross analyses, and writing up the study.
Intended as a user-friendly manual for graduate-level research courses and beyond, the text will be a valuable resource for both budding and experienced qualitative researchers for many years to come.

Examine or adopt this book for teaching a course "

Let me just repeat the underlined parts above. The APA is advocating that their researchers rely on "words over numbers" in an "adaptive" style or "craft" and that they practice "auditing" each other to insure conformity to the non-scientific (words not numbers) principle of "doing research".

THIS is the data the activist-judges in the federal circuit are relying on "as fact". It is a cult dogma within a cloistered cabal and they have renamed it "science".

I urge that every person should read this book. It defines the root of the collective insanity we see justified today. You could literally rename this book "Where it all went wrong"...

You know who else "audits" (pressures its membership in real ways) for conformity to the dogmatic rule? Scientology.

We are dealing with a cult. They are as scientific and open-minded in their research as the Jim Jones Colony.

Show us where the Obergefell decision cites the APA. You can't. You're making this pseudo-legal horseshit up as you go along.

You disagree with the FINDINGS of the Supreme Court. And laughably insist that since you disagree with those findings, the Supreme Court's ruling is 'void', 'illegal' a 'mistrial', and all manner of meaningless nonsense.

But you're nobody. The validity of no court case is predicated on your agreement. Killing your entire argument.

Oh, and this is thread 43 you've dedicated to the same obsessive, block spam.

 

[Skylar]

You have a problem with older discussions that are still contemporary debates? I suppose next you'll be complaining if I post on the older "Should Churches be forced to accommodate gay marriage" thread with over 200 people voting in the poll with 80% saying "no way Jose" as the Oregon Christian bakers or Ms. Davis vs The Gay goes to SCOTUS?

If you post a thread that is new,
I will mock your thread true
If you post a thread that is old
I will mock your thread for its mold.

Sil Imagines the Supreme Court must
Believe her batshit about the Prince's trust
She'll hang herself with logic's rope
And tell us gays just beat the Pope
For no law is bound nor court resigned
To the wasteland of her Silly mind.

 

[Syriusly]

I know you're hoping this topic be aborted
But for your strawmen off topic, you have been reported..

LOL....I am sure that they pay as much attention to your reports as they do your posts.....

 

[Syriusly]

You have a problem with older discussions that are still contemporary debates? I suppose next you'll be complaining if I post on the older "Should Churches be forced to accommodate gay marriage" thread with over 200 people voting in the poll with 80% saying "no way Jose" as the Oregon Christian bakers or Ms. Davis vs The Gay goes to SCOTUS?

If you post a thread that is new,
I will mock your thread true
If you post a thread that is old
I will mock your thread for its mold.

Sil Imagines the Supreme Court must
Believe her batshit about the Prince's trust
She'll hang herself with logic's rope
And tell us gays just beat the Pope
For no law is bound nor court resigned
To the wasteland of her Silly mind.

Silhouette will take that fine poem as evidence the Gheys have now taken over the Poetry Society.....

 

[daws101]

You have a problem with older discussions that are still contemporary debates? I suppose next you'll be complaining if I post on the older "Should Churches be forced to accommodate gay marriage" thread with over 200 people voting in the poll with 80% saying "no way Jose" as the Oregon Christian bakers or Ms. Davis vs The Gay goes to SCOTUS?

If you post a thread that is new,
I will mock your thread true
If you post a thread that is old
I will mock your thread for its mold.

Sil Imagines the Supreme Court must
Believe her batshit about the Prince's trust
She'll hang herself with logic's rope
And tell us gays just beat the Pope
For no law is bound nor court resigned
To the wasteland of her Silly mind.

Silhouette will take that fine poem as evidence the Gheys have now taken over the Poestry Society.....

How could they take over what's already theirs?

 

[Skylar]

Rise from your Grave!