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

[Silhouette]

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...
.

This is an interesting pretzel statement...even from you Skylar. You're clearly trying to outdo yourself. At once you're saying "The Court didn't cite any studies to come to its conclusion that stripping a child of either a mother or father for life (gay marriage; de facto) is "good for them".. Then in the next breath you are saying someone is foolish to disagree with the (armchair child psychology best guess) of five wholly unqualified people to pass final decree on a topic they know little to nothing about. Certainly no more or less than the average layman.

You're saying in essence, "even though the specific parameter of gay marriage rendering children either fatherless or motherless for life (no hope, where hope still does exist in single parents) wasn't covered professionally or debated, the SCOTUS' decree even as it may or may not harm children is the final word without deliberation on the thing that may or may not harm children." ie: it was never debated. They just made up out of thin air that depriving a child of a mother or father for life was "in their best interest".

A challenge to that fallacy will come... The Five unqualified laymen on SCOTUS in essence made a Kangaroo-Decree without the input or deliberation of child psychologists (who use actual scientific methods and surveys, unlike the APA-funded studies) or even the children themselves.

 

[Syriusly]

[
A challenge to that fallacy will come...

Any sort of an actual challenge from you would be a fascinating and novel development.

 

[Skylar]

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...
.

This is an interesting pretzel statement...even from you Skylar. You're clearly trying to outdo yourself. At once you're saying "The Court didn't cite any studies to come to its conclusion that stripping a child of either a mother or father for life (gay marriage; de facto) is "good for them".. Then in the next breath you are saying someone is foolish to disagree with the (armchair child psychology best guess) of five wholly unqualified people to pass final decree on a topic they know little to nothing about. Certainly no more or less than the average layman.

I'm saying what I've said: the Court cited its sources. You've never read the Obergefell decision. You have no idea what sources the Courts cited. And you refuse to find out.

Then, in your ignorance, you literally start making shit up. Show us the APA study that you insist the Court cited. You can't....because you're lying your ass off. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Your personal disagreement with the Court's findings is irrelevant. No one gives a shit if you agree or not. You're nobody. And you insisting that you know better than the courts isn't a legal argument. Its just noise.

 

[Skylar]

A challenge to that fallacy will come... The Five unqualified laymen on SCOTUS in essence made a Kangaroo-Decree without the input or deliberation of child psychologists (who use actual scientific methods and surveys, unlike the APA-funded studies) or even the children themselves.

Laughing.....and now you're back to your useless predictions of legal outcomes.

Show us ONE instance where you've ever predicted a legal outcome, and been right. You can't. As you no idea what you're talking about. Your record of failure is absolutely perfect. You keep citing your imagination as the law. And your imagination is meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish.

Get used the idea. We did years ago.

 

[Silhouette]

Have you taken a look at how the APA is "doing science" these days Skylar? Read the OP and get back to me. I was spoon fed on the scientific method since I was a toddler (dad was a PhD in physics). The APA has become a cult. Tie a rag under your jaw and over the top of your head because you're jaw is gonna drop open wide enough for a semi to drive into..

 

[daws101]

Have you taken a look at how the APA is "doing science" these days Skylar? Read the OP and get back to me. I was spoon fed on the scientific method since I was a toddler (dad was a PhD in physics). The APA has become a cult. Tie a rag under your jaw and over the top of your head because you're jaw is gonna drop open wide enough for a semi to drive into..

 

[Silhouette]

Wow, the LGBT payroll blogger morale must really be sinking. Y'all aren't even hiding your infantile retorts anymore. Not even cloaking them. I know. The OP is shocking. What could you say in the APA's defense anyway? When a professional organization announces to the world "we are discarding the scientific method in favor of what our tiny leadership is auditing us to approve of"...there really isn't much more to say is there? It's not every day the scientific method is completely discarded for cult values masquerading as "hard science".

 

[Skylar]

Have you taken a look at how the APA is "doing science" these days Skylar? Read the OP and get back to me. I was spoon fed on the scientific method since I was a toddler (dad was a PhD in physics). The APA has become a cult. Tie a rag under your jaw and over the top of your head because you're jaw is gonna drop open wide enough for a semi to drive into..

Sil, can you cite the APA in the Obergefell ruling? Of course not.

Remember, your entire argument is made up nonsense. You've never read the Obergefell ruling. You have no idea what sources they cite. And you refuse to check. All of your 'APA' nonsense is just silly, comforting lies you're telling yourself about a ruling you know jack shit about.

Laughably, just before you insist that anything you make up is the law and overrules the Supreme Court.

Back in reality, you're nobody. Your agreement or disagreement with the findings of the Supreme court is meaningless. And nothing you make up has any relevance to the law. There's a reason why every legal prediction on any case has always been wrong: you keep offering us your imagination as the law. And then insisting that the courts are bound to what you imagine.

Nope. They're not. You can't get around that.

 

[Skylar]

Wow, the LGBT payroll blogger morale must really be sinking. Y'all aren't even hiding your infantile retorts anymore. Not even cloaking them. I know. The OP is shocking. What could you say in the APA's defense anyway? When a professional organization announces to the world "we are discarding the scientific method in favor of what our tiny leadership is auditing us to approve of"...there really isn't much more to say is there? It's not every day the scientific method is completely discarded for cult values masquerading as "hard science".

Save of course that you hallucinated all that. And the APA made no such announcement.

Sil....why lie? What's the point of this? Even you don't buy your delusional nonsense.

 

[Silhouette]

Can you make one post without an ad hominem?

 

[Silhouette]

Save of course that you hallucinated all that. And the APA made no such announcement.

Sil....why lie? What's the point of this? Even you don't buy your delusional nonsense.

From the OP link to the APA site: (I'll enlarge the text of the antithesis of the scientific method for you, since you are playing dumb..)

*******
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....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,

*******

For those who are a little unsure about what this means, it is that the APA tacitly condones a situation where a central authority hand picks people inline with the cultural agenda of the APA (LGBT) ONLY as researchers..ONLY funding them after interviewing prospects who will adhere to "ethical standards" (dogma)..and then, they are encouraged to take small samples from open-ended questions (dilution & pollution of the raw data where large samples are inarguably the best way to achieve results closest to reality), relying on...and here's the best part..."words over numbers"...!!!!! That's code for "relying on approved theology over facts". And don't forget "auditing" where studies are scrutinized for loyalty to the fold.

It's a cult, and nothing less.

 

[Skylar]

Can you make one post without an ad hominem?

Can you make one post without lying?

 

[Skylar]

Save of course that you hallucinated all that. And the APA made no such announcement.

Sil....why lie? What's the point of this? Even you don't buy your delusional nonsense.

From the OP link to the APA site: (I'll enlarge the text of the antithesis of the scientific method for you, since you are playing dumb..)

*******
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....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,

*******

That's not an announcement from the APA.

Next lie please.

For those who are a little unsure about what this means, it is that the APA tacitly condones a situation where a central authority hand picks people inline with the cultural agenda of the APA (LGBT) ONLY as researchers.

And now we've gone from an 'announcement from the APA' to 'tacit approval' based on a link. In just one post, you've completely backpedalled.

Sil, even YOU can't keep your lies staight. How do you expect us to keep up with you just making this shit up as you go along?

Why? What's the purpose in this? You know you're full of shit. We know you're full of shit. And you know we know. So why keep repeating the same, debunked, silly, little lies to yourself over and over?

As no one, not even you, are believing you.

 

[Silhouette]

*******
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....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,

*******

That's not an announcement from the APA.

Next lie please.

.

http://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4313031.aspx That address I'll spell it out for people here. It is www dot apa dot org backslash pubs backslash books backslash 4313031 dot aspx

They are hosting the book for sale. One might conclude that they therefore, condone its contents...

 

[Skylar]

*******
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....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,

*******

That's not an announcement from the APA.

Next lie please.

.

http://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4313031.aspx That address I'll spell it out for people here. It is www dot apa dot org backslash pubs backslash books backslash 4313031 dot aspx

They are hosting the book for sale. One might conclude that they therefore, condone its contents...

For the third time, this is not an announcement from the APA. This is a single study from a pair of researchers.

Which you know, but once again flagrantly misrepresent.

Why lie? Its not like you haven't told the same, stupid little lies a dozen times already. There's a supposed 'mayo clinic' study you love to misrepresent, omitting the parts that explicitly contradict your argument. And your 'princes trust' doesn't even mention mothers or fathers, nor measures the effects of any kind of parenting. Despite you laughably protraying it as supporting parenting methods.

You know it. We know it. This is just theater at this point, Sil. With your performance and your audience being by for the benefit of same person: yourself.

 

[Silhouette]

The link is to the APA website. They are hosting the CQR methods book. Ergo, they do not disapprove of it. What part of logical deduction don't you understand? Quite a lot apparently..

The scientific method being trounced by a cult is hosted by the APA website. Period. There's no getting around that. And, it says what it says...

 

[Skylar]

The link is to the APA website. They are hosting the CQR methods book. Ergo, they do not disapprove of it. What part of logical deduction don't you understand? Quite a lot apparently..

Its one of dozens and dozens of links to a myriad of studies by dozens of different researchers using various methodologies and techniques. You lied and claimed it was an announcement by the APA.

If your claims had merit, you wouldn't have had to lie. Yet you can't help yourself.

 

[Silhouette]

And you believe that small samples that are audited by peer-pressure in the cult-owned APA before they used as "statistical models" and "conclusions" are the way normal science is conducted eh? Small samples..you know...just like your statistics and science instructors told you would build the most accurate conclusions....


NOT.

 

[Syriusly]

And you believe that small samples that are audited by peer-pressure in the cult-owned APA before they used as "statistical models" and "conclusions" are the way normal science is conducted eh? Small samples..you know...just like your statistics and science instructors told you would build the most accurate conclusions....


NOT.

Holy Thread Resurrection Batman!

The Joker- er I mean Silhouette- has brought a thread back to life with a jolt of pure Bullshit!

 

[Silhouette]

Well there are links in the OP you know. So if you want to claim it's "pure bullshit"...you'll have to debunk the direct quotes from those links with some finesse and a healthy dose of spin. Cuz...damn...