On Sep 19, 9:40 am, Martin Koolhoven
wrote:
> > I can onlyume that those studies had some of the other problems
> > mentioned.
>
> That's quite anumption.
It's common sense. I believe there were 4 different problems
pinpointed with these studies. And even limiting ourselves to these
two 2 problems, you'll note that the guy didn't say "Few studies
employed control groups BUT THOSE THAT DID HAD LARGE SAMPLES." So your
"some did" is mistaken. You don't know.
> > > You have a point. I guess it comes down to who you believe here. The
> > > one who are against ...s for religious reasons or the one who is
> > > willing to stand up for their rights. My money is on the last one.
>
> > In other words, you see the one side as liberators and the other side
> > (falsely) as oppressors, and for that reason you truth the data of one
> > side and not that of the other. Do I need to point out why that's
> > illogical?
>
> Yes please.
> I do see the religious right as the oppressors, since they have a long
> history of denying any ... rights. If they are the only ones coming up
> with arguements against ... marriage, I can't help but be sceptical.
Religious Right: " ... people have an interest in denying any data
that suggests there will be problems with ... marriages and ...
parenting. We can't help but be skeptical." You have a basic logic
problem. Just as conservative Christians expect that studies will jibe
with what they believe is objective reality, i.e. what's in God's
word, ...s who aren't conservative Christians expect the studies to
jibe with their beliefs. You can cry "oppressor" and they can cry
"libertine." That doesn't prove anything.
|