[green.tea]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Let me try to explain this simply. You are trying to say that peer-review isn't reliable right? You haven't shown that. You have shown one example where maybe it wasn't credible. But that was due to those conducting the research, not inherent of peer-review. You are trying to claim that because it was a politicized topic it was treated differently, or something to that effect. Which isn't true. It was thoroughly investigated. In fact after it was investigated it was found that there was no fraud or scientific misconduct. You don't even know what you are talking about. So, to reiterate, even if you were correct you merely showed that peer-review can be bias. But the burden would still fall on you to show where the peer review of the cases we presented was bias. Because otherwise you have no reason to believe they were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climati...il_controversy

Absolute ****e. It was a clear cut case of withholding and misrepresenting data with political motive.

[green.tea]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by green.tea)
With absolutely no logical reason as to why. Apart from:

That whole thing was logical and all logic lol

Boys dont see women as role models despite what gender they think they are. Boys wanna be david beckham, not victora.

http://www2.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=62819

^ no lesbians

http://socyberty.com/men/james-bond-a-guys-role-model/

Might not be peer reviewed, but it is blatantly obvious.

Oh really? http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001884.htm

Trouble is when people dont have an in house role model research shows its bad. Anyone can, and most do have other role models but this doesnt prevent the problems.

No research shows it is bad when youth don't feel that they have any role models.

Uea was reliable once.

No reason to doubt yougov.

http://www.brandindex.com/about/faqs/why-data-reliable

Every reason to doubt blinkered left wing "academics" like you and the subject areas they dominate.

I'm failing to see how or why any of this was relevant...

[NYU2012]

(Original post by green.tea)
With absolutely no logical reason as to why. Apart from

Logic is a 'logical reason'. Do you not understand what formal logic is?

You cannot assert that P and then conclude W. That's not considered a 'valid move'. It needs no more explanation than that.

(Original post by green.tea)
Boys dont see women as role models despite what gender they think they are. Boys wanna be david beckham, not victora.

Do you not realize how ignorant this statement is and how much it only proves what we're saying?

Is David Beckham a role model to some people? Yes. Does he live in all these people's homes? No. Therefore, can a role model come from outside the family unit? Yes!

Secondly, there are, in fact, boys who have women as role models. You don't seem to understand what a role model actually is -- just because a woman is a boy's role model does not mean that the boy wants to perfectly emulate that woman.

(Original post by green.tea)
http://www2.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=62819

^ no lesbians

That's not relevant, nor does it prove anything. It merely shows that you're grasping at straws in an argument that you lost pages ago.

(Original post by green.tea)
http://socyberty.com/men/james-bond-a-guys-role-model/[

Might not be peer reviewed, but it is blatantly obvious.

Again, not relevant and nor does it prove anything that supports you. In fact, if you want to use that -- the role model does not even have to have any sort of physical interaction with the child -- a movie actor can suffice. Which means that a gay couple should be able to adopt, because the child can have an actor as a role model.

Everything you try to claim supports you, has not, in any case, actually supported you.

(Original post by green.tea)
Trouble is when people dont have an in house role model research shows its bad. Anyone can, and most do have other role models but this doesnt prevent the problems.

Actually, the research you've used says that not have a role model can be of detriment to the child -- nowhere has it claimed that the role model needs to be present inside of the household family unit.

(Original post by green.tea)
Uea was reliable once.

No reason to doubt yougov.

http://www.brandindex.com/about/faqs/why-data-reliable

Every reason to doubt left wing "academics" like you.

This has no relevance whatsoever.

Yes, clearly it's reasonable to doubt thousands of research studies and thousands of psychologists with PhDs. You are clearly much more intelligent than they are and clearly know all about this subject -- in fact, why don't you use your obvious brilliance to prove them all wrong? Just be warned, they may laugh in your face and not take you seriously.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by green.tea)
Absolute ****e. It was a clear cut case of withholding and misrepresenting data with political motive.

Wow that was a great way to back your opinion there. 'NO THATS WRONG'. I already said even assuming that were the case you have only showed that it was the case in that instance and it in no way shows an inherent bias in all politicized topics. You would have to show that the research that we provided had similar cases of bias (even though it was found that there wasn't any even there)

[green.tea]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
That whole thing was logical and all logic lol

Best do some more research to see if the research applies equally to tall and short kids. No logical reason why it shouldnt but the fruits of the state spending on psychology degrees has come to bear and we now know that z doesnt apply to t.

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001884.htm

You cant take an article about teachers and apply it to parents. Z doesnt apply to T.

No research shows it is bad when youth don't feel that they have any role models.

No it doesnt.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by green.tea)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html

Lol I'm glad you have found 1 person who has shared your view. Care to show me where the bias is? Considering the article didn't quite articulate how or where there is a bias. The person states that there are more liberals in social science, but that doesn't entail bias. All research is peer-reviewed, by many people and is open to criticism. You should notice how nobody, not even hard 'right-wing-ers' make the same accusations as you do. Lol

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by green.tea)
Best do some more research to see if the research applies equally to tall and short kids. No logical reason why it shouldnt but the fruits of the state spending on psychology degrees has come to bear and we now know that z doesnt apply to t.

Lol you don't seem to understand how logic works.

You cant take an article about teachers and apply it to parents. Z doesnt apply to T.

Hm? You never specified parents. We are talking about male vs. female role models. Clearly young boys can and do use women as role models. So your claim was false. As far as parents we have already discussed how a parent is not a necessary role model. How many times do we need to keep repeating the same things?

No it doesnt.

Great reasoning there. Except it did. If you even read the articles that you posted, they say how the kids lacked any role models, not just parental ones, it was either that or they had bad role models. Anyway this is still irrelevant as we are talking about homosexual couples adopting. And they are not lacking in parental role models.

[thomaskurian89]

No.

Mother nature has decided that gay people will not have kids because she doesn't want them to raise kids.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by thomaskurian89)
No.

Mother nature has decided that gay people will not have kids because she doesn't want them to raise kids.

That's called the naturalistic fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

Just because gay people cannot have children (which, technically they can), does not mean that they should not be allowed to raise them. Appeals to the naturalness or unnaturalness of whether or not gay people can have children is fallacious if you're attempting to base an argument off of such a position. Using your logic, mother nature didn't make skyscrapers, so thereby she didn't want them, thereby we should not have them. But, of course, that would be a fallacious argument.

Also, 'mother nature' has no intentionality -- so there is no 'she doesn't want'.

[green.tea]

(Original post by NYU2012)
Logic is a 'logical reason'. Do you not understand what formal logic is?

You cannot assert that P and then conclude W. That's not considered a 'valid move'. It needs no more explanation than that.

Your research is only on gay adoption prior to today. My logic would say, if i trusted the research, that theres no reason it still doesnt apply. But since I cannot assert that P and then conclude W youd better do some more. But by the time you publish it it wont apply again. So you can never use it in an argument again.

Do you not realize how ignorant this statement is and how much it only proves what we're saying?

Is David Beckham a role model to some people? Yes. Does he live in all these people's homes? No. Therefore, can a role model come from outside the family unit? Yes!

Secondly, there are, in fact, boys who have women as role models. You don't seem to understand what a role model actually is -- just because a woman is a boy's role model does not mean that the boy wants to perfectly emulate that woman.

Nope.

Her bravery in making unaided flights made her famous and a role model for Women pilots at a time when very few women learned to fly, let alone made arduous trips across continents.

http://www.biographyonline.net/adven...y-johnson.html

Couldve picked blokes.

Again, not relevant and nor does it prove anything that supports you. In fact, if you want to use that -- the role model does not even have to have any sort of physical interaction with the child -- a movie actor can suffice. Which means that a gay couple should be able to adopt, because the child can have an actor as a role model.

As applies to people who still have problems due to lack of in house role model. For the millionth time. Think up something new, if your capable of thought at all.

Actually, the research you've used says that not have a role model can be of detriment to the child -- nowhere has it claimed that the role model needs to be present inside of the household family unit.

clearly wrong

Yes, clearly it's reasonable to doubt thousands of research studies and thousands of psychologists with PhDs. You are clearly much more intelligent than they are and clearly know all about this subject -- in fact, why don't you use your obvious brilliance to prove them all wrong? Just be warned, they may laugh in your face and not take you seriously.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html

[green.tea]

(Original post by NYU2012)
That's called the naturalistic fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

Just because gay people cannot have children (which, technically they can), does not mean that they should not be allowed to raise them. Appeals to the naturalness or unnaturalness of whether or not gay people can have children is fallacious if you're attempting to base an argument off of such a position. Using your logic, mother nature didn't make skyscrapers, so thereby she didn't want them, thereby we should not have them. But, of course, that would be a fallacious argument.

Also, 'mother nature' has no intentionality -- so there is no 'she doesn't want'.

I won the argument there actually. Tampering with something the intricacy of which we dont fully understand can have unforeseen consequences.

[green.tea]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Hm? You never specified parents. We are talking about male vs. female role models. Clearly young boys can and do use women as role models. So your claim was false. As far as parents we have already discussed how a parent is not a necessary role model. How many times do we need to keep repeating the same things?

Well it only applies to the primary schools in the article. Cant apply it to T.

[WantCakeGetCake]

(Original post by green.tea)
Well it only applies to the primary schools in the article. Cant apply it to T.

Research wouldn't be published if it wasn't reliable and replicable. I don't think you realise how rigorous proper research is, as opposed to a poll by YouGov...

[NYU2012]

(Original post by green.tea)
Your research is only on gay adoption prior to today. My logic would say, if i trusted the research, that theres no reason it still doesnt apply. But since I cannot assert that P and then conclude W youd better do some more. But by the time you publish it it wont apply again. So you can never use it in an argument again.

That's not at all what's being claimed. Can you not follow logic at all?

And what is this with time you're brining up? I never mentioned time? What are you even talking about?

I said that you cannot use research on single-family homes (P) and conclude (W) the same applies to same-sex family homes because that's not a logical inference. This has nothing to do with when the research was published. Is logic really that complicated for you that you cannot understand even the most basic formal logic?

(Original post by green.tea)
Nope.

No what?

No boys don't have women role models? Yes, they do. You cannot just claim "nope" without any logical reason for so doing or without any evidential basis for so doing.

(Original post by green.tea)
http://www.biographyonline.net/adven...y-johnson.html

Couldve picked blokes.

Still not relevant. When you've read actual research and stop being so ignorant such that you think your ridiculous, petty, nonlogical arguments are acceptable, then come back.

Yes, they could have, but didn't. So what? That doesn't prove anything -- merely that they made choice X instead of Y. That merely demonstrates that that particular person made that particular choice -- that doesn't prove anything.

(Original post by green.tea)
As applies to people who still have problems due to lack of in house role model. For the millionth time. Think up something new, if your capable of thought at all.

I can't even tell what you mean by this. What applies to people who still have problems due to lack of in-house role model? And, yet again, no research has shown that the role model needs to be from within the household. Please reread the research you've presented.

(Original post by green.tea)
clearly wrong

Wow! Yet again you've superbly demonstrated that you're capable of logical argumentation!

No, it's not wrong. The research you've provided, from the Prince's Trust, merely says there needs to be a role model -- not anywhere did any of the research you presented claim that the role model must come from within the household. Do you even read the research you link to?

(Original post by green.tea)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html

Again -- irrelevant.

Unless you can prove that there exists bias within the research presented by the APA, no matter how many times you claim that there is, it doesn't actually prove that there is. It merely demonstrates that you have an unfounded belief. Secondly, so what if psychologists and sociologists typically lean politically left? Does that mean that the research produced is biased? No. Please try logic again.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by green.tea)
I won the argument there actually. Tampering with something the intricacy of which we dont fully understand can have unforeseen consequences.

(1) Unless thomaskurian89 is you, then that response wasn't addressed to you.


(2) Whether or not something has unforeseen consequences has absolutely nothing to do with whether that particular thing is natural. Please go back to logic 101.

The claim made was that "Mother nature has decided that gay people will not have kids because she doesn't want them to raise kids."

That's a fallacious argument because it makes an appeal as to whether or not gay people can have children naturally -- whether or not they can have children naturally is irrelevant and is a fallacious appeal to nature.

So no, in fact, you did not win that argument -- again, you've demonstrated that you do not understand proper argumentation or logic.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by green.tea)
Well it only applies to the primary schools in the article. Cant apply it to T.

You don't know what you are talking about do you? lol. It's ok. I think I'm done...You have sufficiently been shown wrong at every turn. So...unless you have something new to say, I think I'm gonna leave you to your ways. Maybe I'll come back tomorrow.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by green.tea)
I won the argument there actually. Tampering with something the intricacy of which we dont fully understand can have unforeseen consequences.

Considering homosexuals can and do adopt already and studies have been done, we can and have seen the 'consequences'. None have been significantly different than heterosexuals who raise children. Your argument is rubbish.

[green.tea]

(Original post by NYU2012)
That's not at all what's being claimed. Can you not follow logic at all?

And what is this with time you're brining up? I never mentioned time? What are you even talking about?

I said that you cannot use research on single-family homes (P) and conclude (W) the same applies to same-sex family homes because that's not a logical inference. This has nothing to do with when the research was published. Is logic really that complicated for you that you cannot understand even the most basic formal logic?

Theres no logical reason to think that research an lack of male role model doesnt apply any more than there is to think that research done on tall kids, or kids with hamsters or research done last year doesnt. Other than your cant apply b to c nonsense.

Still not relevant. When you've read actual research and stop being so ignorant such that you think your ridiculous, petty, nonlogical arguments are acceptable, then come back.

Yes, they could have, but didn't. So what? That doesn't prove anything -- merely that they made choice X instead of Y. That merely demonstrates that that particular person made that particular choice -- that doesn't prove anything.

People dont see the opposite gender as role models. Your argument is nonsense.

I can't even tell what you mean by this. What applies to people who still have problems due to lack of in-house role model? And, yet again, no research has shown that the role model needs to be from within the household. Please reread the research you've presented.

Princes trust.

No, it's not wrong. The research you've provided, from the Prince's Trust, merely says there needs to be a role model -- not anywhere did any of the research you presented claim that the role model must come from within the household. Do you even read the research you link to?

Did. Everyone can have film star role models if that worked thered be no problem.

Unless you can prove that there exists bias within the research presented by the APA, no matter how many times you claim that there is, it doesn't actually prove that there is. It merely demonstrates that you have an unfounded belief. Secondly, so what if psychologists and sociologists typically lean politically left? Does that mean that the research produced is biased? No. Please try logic again.

Proven that research done by leftist academics is unreliable

[green.tea]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Considering homosexuals can and do adopt already and studies have been done, we can and have seen the 'consequences'. None have been significantly different than heterosexuals who raise children. Your argument is rubbish.

You cant fully measure the effect of something on something you dont understand.