Caution: Homosexuality May Be Dangerous To Your Health

[The ClayTaurus]

OK... so what are you saying about the above statistics? That they're incorrect, or lies?

I'm saying they can't be trusted. There's no details behind any of the statistics. You'd need full access to exactly how they came up with those percentages, eg what the question they asked was, who they asked, who they ommitted, etc. etc. You'd need to look at their process of determining the statistic from the ground up to truely evaluate their validity. Otherwise, as my initial post said, it's tough to trust statistics from EITHER side, because both are heavily biased.

 

[007]

Sassyness has never killed anyone (Well...maybe Uday and Qusay [spelling?]). Don't assume that I'm girly in any way. That's like assuming all Southern people marry their cousins and have alcohol laden closets.

I had a problem with the site because it's ultmate agenda is going to be anti-homosexual and therefore biased.

I expected you to poo poo all these facts. They point out how destructive your lifestyle choice is, and you can't admit that.

You're pitiful.

 

[007]

I'm saying they can't be trusted. There's no details behind any of the statistics. You'd need full access to exactly how they came up with those percentages, eg what the question they asked was, who they asked, who they ommitted, etc. etc. You'd need to look at their process of determining the statistic from the ground up to truely evaluate their validity. Otherwise, as my initial post said, it's tough to trust statistics from EITHER side, because both are heavily biased.

Right clay. I should have figured you'd come to the support kag. You seem to think he can't defend himself.

And yes, all the above statistics are nothing more than lies, because you and kag say so. Along with the hundreds of other websites that all say the same thing.

That's pathetic man, and a little disingenious.

 

[Kagom]

I expected you to poo poo all these facts. They point out how destructive your lifestyle choice is, and you can't admit that.

You're pitiful.

Remember how you told me that something isn't true just because someone says it is? That's the case here.

This site says that it is true, but it has no back-up evidence or open statistics to show that it is true. Therefore, due to lack of evidence, it can only be shown as false until all full research and data is shown in reference.

 

[Kagom]

Right clay. I should have figured you'd come to the support kag. You seem to think he can't defend himself.

And yes, all the above statistics are nothing more than lies, because you and kag say so. Along with the hundreds of other websites that all say the same thing.

That's pathetic man, and a little disingenious.

I'm going to say this to you: those sites don't deserve credit because they are biased and trying to fit an agenda that is bogus. This site is just another extremity that has no real place other than to make people like you go "Glee! Someone hates homosexuals and now has 'facts' to show how evil they are!'"

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Right clay. I should have figured you'd come to the support kag. You seem to think he can't defend himself.

And yes, all the above statistics are nothing more than lies, because you and kag say so. Along with the hundreds of other websites that all say the same thing.

That's pathetic man, and a little disingenious.

It's not pathetic to not blindly trust statistics. Statistics are the easiest way to fleece a group of people. Just ask D about accidents due to speeding "statistics." Just look at the poll questions that the press uses to get "statistics" on anything political in this country.

I never condemned your particular statistics - I have no idea if they're valid or not. I just stated that without the background info, they're difficult to trust, as I would also say about any pro-homosexual statistics. Please try to not take it so personally.

You're getting caught up in thinking I'm defending Kagom or homosexuality. I'm not. I don't need to any more than I need to defend you. All I'm saying is, statistics rarely prove much because they are so easy to manipulate. Without the entire story behind them, I don't put much faith in them, and don't think others should either.

Do you have the background info on them? Do you know how they came up with those numbers? Or did you just see them and agree with them, and then decided they were therefore accurate? Do you understand how you can take a statistic and be misleading with it?

 

[Mr. P]

I have a statistic...
People that ride motorcycles are 100% more likely to be killed on one than those who don't. :gross2:

 

[007]

I'm going to say this to you: those sites don't deserve credit because they are biased and trying to fit an agenda that is bogus. This site is just another extremity that has no real place other than to make people like you go "Glee! Someone hates homosexuals and now has 'facts' to show how evil they are!'"

Let me tell you this, you and clay DISPUTING the validity of those facts, that can be echoed on hundreds of other sites, is LESS than honest, and has LESS clout in truthfullness. I post facts, you two post your opinions.

You openly admit you're a queer. I EXPECT you to deny anything I post that shows how dangerous and destructive your lifestyle is, even though, people already know this, and they also know how silly you look and sound.

Here's challenge for you then kag. Find statistics that say what you claim is true.

 

[007]

Do you have the background info on them? Do you know how they came up with those numbers? Or did you just see them and agree with them, and then decided they were therefore accurate? Do you understand how you can take a statistic and be misleading with it?

I'll extend the same challenge to you then clay. Find something to the contrary.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Let me tell you this, you and clay DISPUTING the validity of those facts, that can be echoed on hundreds of other sites, is LESS than honest, and has LESS clout in truthfullness. I post facts, you two post your opinions.

You don't know if it's fact or not, unless you have the details behind those statistics. Do you? It's not a matter of honesty; it's a matter of objectivity.

 

[007]

I have a statistic...
People that ride motorcycles are 100% more likely to be killed on one than those who don't.

You're so brilliant... :scratch:

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I'll extend the same challenge to you then clay. Find something to the contrary.

You're just deflecting now. You want me to go find contrary statistics that I have no details on to know their validity? What's the point? They'll be equally lacking in trustworthiness.

 

[007]

You don't know if it's fact or not, unless you have the details behind those statistics. Do you? It's not a matter of honesty; it's a matter of objectivity.

Find something to the contrary then. Here's your chance. Otherwise, what you and kag are saying is nothing more than lip service, and not even as credible as the facts in the article.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

You're so brilliant... :scratch:

He presents a perfect non-sequitor example of what I'm trying to say.

 

[007]

You're just deflecting now. You want me to go find contrary statistics that I have no details on to know their validity? What's the point? They'll be equally lacking in trustworthiness.

No, I'm calling you on your claim, and you're back peddling.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Find something to the contrary then. Here's your chance. Otherwise, what you and kag are saying is nothing more than lip service, and not even as credible as the facts in the article.

Do you have the background info on them or not? Answer that before you deflect for me to go off on some challenge for you.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

No, I'm calling you on your claim, and you're back peddling.

What claim? That you can't trust statistics? How is finding statistics going to prove my claim?

 

[007]

He presents a perfect non-sequitor example of what I'm trying to say.

But in your own words, how can we trust what he claims. We don't know how he came to that conclusion.

 

[Kagom]

Let me tell you this, you and clay DISPUTING the validity of those facts, that can be echoed on hundreds of other sites, is LESS than honest, and has LESS clout in truthfullness. I post facts, you two post your opinions.

You openly admit you're a queer. I EXPECT you to deny anything I post that shows how dangerous and destructive your lifestyle is, even though, people already know this, and they also know how silly you look and sound.

Here's challenge for you then kag. Find statistics that say what you claim is true.

Obviously I'm not going to agree with lies. These are lies simply because where the source is coming from AND because there is no evidence whatever. I'll say it's truth when I see data and facts.

I've told you that most of my claims are opinion or based on observations I've made. Anything that I said is a fact I've provided you with wonderful APA sites, but you disregard them because you believe they have an agenda when they don't have a reason TO have an agenda.

 

[007]

What claim? That you can't trust statistics? How is finding statistics going to prove my claim?

You're claiming the facts in the above article are false. So... prove they're false.