Profound insights from MAD on Gay Marriage

[_guy sajer]

But since you did, I must say that I find you repulsively in violation of Romans 1:32.

Cool, thanks.

For the record, I find you to be a pretentious prick with a vastly overinflated opinion of himself, a lousy researcher, a flaming hypocrite who doesn't live up to the standards he demands of others, and a morally deficient homophobe.

Sticks and stones...Confirms my suspicion that you are not the scholar you claim to be. Isn't this what you guys accuse Juliann of doing? ...neener neener......lol

A real researcher doesn't decide the issue before doing the research.

Indeed. That is what the UN does.(A Global Warming reference).

I doubt seriously that's true of you. A fudie-type religious world view pre-determined your position on this issue, and you cherry picked the evidence to support your already reached conclusion (and yes, I'd bet all the $$ I have that the good proctologist is a evangelical homophobe with an agenda, much like you).

If I have cherry-picked, then you should be able to find some counter-vailing evidence. Lo and behold! You looked, and found only evidence to support my pov (so far).....lol

The article I cited is not the last word on the issue (though I suspect you'll trumpet it as such).

Your suspiscion is unfounded. If you knew me at all, you;d know that I give the example of Troy all the time in defense of science. That city was said to be mythological....until it was found.

Now, here's your final lesson on doing research: A good researcher looks to the "preponderance of evidence" before deciding the matter. A single study rarely decides the issue, there are almost certainly counter arguments and contrary evidence.

Agreed. I've looked. I have amassed a preponderance of evidence. I have carefully the evidence given by the other side. So far, the court of science rules against the homosexual lifestyle choice.

I'd love to see you try to navigate the peer review process. You'd be crucified.

A good debater never revels his supposed level of scholarship. Hard is the fall from on high. Besides, it's very bad scholarship and bad science to judge evidence based on the college degree of the one presenting it. In fact, it's not scholarship or science at all.

If you want to bandy about degrees and schooling, I think there is a good chance I've got you beat. Stick to the facts of the case please.

I may not be the scholar I claim to be, but dozens of peer-reviewed publications say differently. You on the other hand can point to a few google searches to document your research prowess.

I gave you my honest assessment of you. It provides useful context to understand my reaction to you. I've also never, ever said anything about Julianne, seeing how I don't read or participate in the MADD board. Is this conclusion another result of your careful research habits?

Like hell you've amassed a preponderance of evidence. You've cited a few cherry-picked documents out of what I've demonstrated is a potentially very large empirical literature. Remind me, how many of your citations were peer reviewed? You've not researched the academic literature at all, let alone thoroughly. How the hell can you say you have a preponderance? Are you really this thick?

Wow, so you believed in Troy all along? Yup, forget going to school, let's hand this guy his Ph.D. now.

I have simply said you'd be crucified in the peer review process; I never said anything about a degree or lack thereof. Do you actually read what people write? By the way, you would be absolutely crucified; this says nothing about your degree credentials, but it speaks to your shoddy research methods.

If you have me beat in terms of degrees, this doesn't say a lot about the quality of our education system.

You keep chiding me for not providing conter-evidence desipte the fact that I've never tried to argue your point was wrong; only that your research methods suck. Plus, I made it clear that I posted only the first citation I saw and that I made no attempt to look at futher studies, while warning that this is unlikely to be the last word on the issue. Again, do you even read what people write? Do you comprehend it?

I see NO evidence that you have honestly looked at the counterarguments. Your conclusion about the court of science and homosexuality is premature; we haven't even scratched the surface in terms of issues and evidence. How can you honestly claim to know anything about research? Your research is clumsily amateurish.

So the UN has not done any global warming research. And your basis for concluding this (other than your bias) is precisely what?

[_bcspace]

I may not be the scholar I claim to be,

An admitted liar?

but dozens of peer-reviewed publications say differently.

Then why don't you reference them?

You on the other hand can point to a few google searches to document your research prowess.

I've yet to reference a google search. CFR

Like hell you've amassed a preponderance of evidence.

I've only given you the tip of the iceberg as that seems to be all you can handle so far.

You've cited a few cherry-picked documents out of what I've demonstrated is a potentially very large empirical literature.

CFR

Remind me, how many of your citations were peer reviewed? You've not researched the academic literature at all, let alone thoroughly. How the hell can you say you have a preponderance? Are you really this thick?

If I haven't, I must be very brave. Unfortunately for you, I have a preponderance.

Wow, so you believed in Troy all along?

Yes. It's actual discovery predates my birth by many decades.

I have simply said you'd be crucified in the peer review process; I never said anything about a degree or lack thereof.

Then I am quite sure I would not be crucified in the peer review process.

Do you actually read what people write?

Yep. I've proven it numerous times in this very thread.

By the way, you would be absolutely crucified; this says nothing about your degree credentials, but it speaks to your shoddy research methods.

Whatever it may be, it is obviously orders of magnitude greater than yours. You don;t even have the mental stamina to debate this issue, relapsing into invective over and over again.

You keep chiding me for not providing conter-evidence desipte the fact that I've never tried to argue your point was wrong; only that your research methods suck.

You haven't even argued that very well.

Plus, I made it clear that I posted only the first citation I saw and that I made no attempt to look at futher studies, while warning that this is unlikely to be the last word on the issue.

I told you I present my weakest arguments first. If my weakest argument trips you up, how can you possibly hope to debate me?

Again, do you even read what people write? Do you comprehend it?

Again, yes.

I see NO evidence that you have honestly looked at the counterarguments. Your conclusion about the court of science and homosexuality is premature;

Apparently it is you who doesn;t read and comprehend. Did you not see above that I agree with the preponderance so far and freely admitted that other science may yet be in the offing?

This is why I cannot respect your arguments or scholarship.

So the UN has not done any global warming research. And your basis for concluding this (other than your bias) is precisely what?

And your basis for thinking I said the UN has not done any GW research is?

[_Zoidberg]

bcspace, you have added yet another false assumption to the already mile-long list. I am not a "him". Besides, I'm not the one citing proctologists here. Your ad homs are not original, not funny, and not grounded, as well as your research.

If you really think that investigators will be wooed over to the Church by your behavior here, keep dreaming.

[_barrelomonkeys]

bcspace, you have added yet another false assumption to the already mile-long list. I am not a "him". Besides, I'm not the one citing proctologists here. Your ad homs are not original, not funny, and not grounded, as well as your research.

If you really think that investigators will be wooed over to the Church by your behavior here, keep dreaming.

You got that right! It was odd when I went to my local ward (rather hopeful for something? Not certain what?) and continually thought.. I wonder which one is Juliann? Eeeeeeek!

;)

[_bcspace]

bcspace, you have added yet another false assumption to the already mile-long list. I am not a "him".

No such assumption was made. There was no feminization of the Assman on Seinfled. Your title sticks.

Besides, I'm not the one citing proctologists here.

Nothing wrong with citing a proctologist.

Your ad homs are not original, not funny, and not grounded,

Darn! I do have some laughing in my email though so I think am alright.

as well as your research.

I research well yes.

If you really think that investigators will be wooed over to the Church by your behavior here, keep dreaming.

Oh I have no such illusions. But I do know that my arguments in this same fashion have wooed them over before and I do know that they have also innoculated existing members from antiMormon psuedo-science such as yours.

[_guy sajer]

I may not be the scholar I claim to be,

An admitted liar?

Nope, merely a rhetorical device.

but dozens of peer-reviewed publications say differently.

Then why don't you reference them?

I have in other threads. Here's a few journals in which I've published, you can do follow up research if you want: American Political Science Review, Public Administration Review, American Review of Public Administration, International Journal of Economics and Finance, Contemporary Economic Policy, World Development, Journal of Development Studies, Administration and Society, Journal of Development Studies, plus many others.

You on the other hand can point to a few google searches to document your research prowess.

I've yet to reference a google search. CFR

I'm referring to how your found your evidence. I doubt that you used actual academic search engines.

Like hell you've amassed a preponderance of evidence.

I've only given you the tip of the iceberg as that seems to be all you can handle so far.

Oh sure, right, that's the ticket. List your sources, if you have them, let us judge if they're so numerous and impressive

Remind me, how many of your citations were peer reviewed? You've not researched the academic literature at all, let alone thoroughly. How the hell can you say you have a preponderance? Are you really this thick?

If I haven't, I must be very brave. Unfortunately for you, I have a preponderance.

Right, you keep claiming this. And we should believe you . . . just why? Frankly, I doubt it.

Wow, so you believed in Troy all along?

Yes. It's actual discovery predates my birth by many decades.

So what was your point?

I have simply said you'd be crucified in the peer review process; I never said anything about a degree or lack thereof.

Then I am quite sure I would not be crucified in the peer review process.

Au contraire. Anyone who cites an anecdotal polemic by a biased fundie with an agenda as "evidence" (even if this is the bottom tier of evidence) is obviously lacking in research savvy. You WOULD BE CRUCIFIED.

Do you actually read what people write?

Yep. I've proven it numerous times in this very thread.

And you lead us to question it by your demonstrative inability to comprehend what they say.

By the way, you would be absolutely crucified; this says nothing about your degree credentials, but it speaks to your shoddy research methods.

Whatever it may be, it is obviously orders of magnitude greater than yours. You don;t even have the mental stamina to debate this issue, relapsing into invective over and over again.

See what I mean? I've never even tried to debate the issue, a point I keep making and that you routinely miss. I only use "invective" for prententious pricks. It's a way of showing frustration for dealing with someone who is clueless.

You keep chiding me for not providing conter-evidence desipte the fact that I've never tried to argue your point was wrong; only that your research methods suck.

You haven't even argued that very well.

In your mind. I'm confident in my conclusion.

Plus, I made it clear that I posted only the first citation I saw and that I made no attempt to look at futher studies, while warning that this is unlikely to be the last word on the issue.

I told you I present my weakest arguments first. If my weakest argument trips you up, how can you possibly hope to debate me?

It tripped me up? WTF? How could it trip me up given that I've never even tried to argue the point, only the methods? Comments like this lead reasonable people to believe you're delusional.

Again, do you even read what people write? Do you comprehend it?

Again, yes.

Again, no.

I see NO evidence that you have honestly looked at the counterarguments. Your conclusion about the court of science and homosexuality is premature;

Apparently it is you who doesn;t read and comprehend. Did you not see above that I agree with the preponderance so far and freely admitted that other science may yet be in the offing?

Good, I'm glad you've admitted it. Tell me, what studies have you read that came to contrary conclusions or which argued differently? What's the points of contention among studies? What are the similarities? What were the methods? What are still unresolved issues? What were the most salient findings? Someone with a grasp of the issues as you claim to have should be able to rattle these off.

This is why I cannot respect your arguments or scholarship.

Believe me when I say that I couldn't care less. I don't seek your approval, and it's worth nothing to me. My peers have given their approval, and that's all I care about.

By the way, I HAVEN'T MADE ANY FRIK'N ARGUMENTS VIZ THIS ISSUE. Is this such a hard concept to grasp.

[quote="bcspace"][quote]So the UN has not done any global warming research. And your basis for concluding this (other than your bias) is precisely what?[quote]

And your basis for thinking I said the UN has not done any GW research is?[quote]
The reference you made in a prior post about the UN, which I interpreted to suggest that the UN has not done thorough research on global warming. Did I misinterpret?

[_Who Knows]

My impression of bcspace in 1975:

"There is no compelling reason to give blacks the priesthood.

Blacks are inferior. They pose a risk to society, as evidenced by their high rate of crimes and drug use."

I really feel bad for you BC. It's got to be quite a bit of work to go on justifying your hate, to such extents. I pity your children, and truly hope, for their sakes, that none of them turn out to be gay. Children, and all humans for that matter, don't deserve such scorn.

Good luck to you.

[_guy sajer]

bcspace, you have added yet another false assumption to the already mile-long list. I am not a "him". Besides, I'm not the one citing proctologists here. Your ad homs are not original, not funny, and not grounded, as well as your research.

If you really think that investigators will be wooed over to the Church by your behavior here, keep dreaming.

Well, with bcspace's extraordinary assessment skills, he think he might have noticed that your avatar is an image of a female reproductive organ. by the way, I quite like it.

[_Zoidberg]

Well, with bcspace's extraordinary assessment skills, he think he might have noticed that your avatar is an image of a female reproductive organ. by the way, I quite like it.

Thanks. MAD didn't like it:) I like bc's methods, too. He has now edited his signature to say "her" and is claiming he has never made an assumption of my masculinity. He's truly applying Church practices to even the most mundane aspects of his life.

In fact, I won't be surprised if we see this anime face introduced to us next month as the new apostle.

[_bcspace]

I may not be the scholar I claim to be,

An admitted liar?

Nope, merely a rhetorical device.

But the delivery is so far from the point that one becomes a liar anyway.

Then why don't you reference them?

I have in other threads.

Then it should be easy to do it here. Surely you are organized enough to have them handy?

Here's a few journals in which I've published, you can do follow up research if you want: American Political Science Review, Public Administration Review, American Review of Public Administration, International Journal of Economics and Finance, Contemporary Economic Policy, World Development, Journal of Development Studies, Administration and Society, Journal of Development Studies, plus many others.

Hard is the fall then.

I've yet to reference a google search. CFR

I'm referring to how your found your evidence. I doubt that you used actual academic search engines.

CFR

I've only given you the tip of the iceberg as that seems to be all you can handle so far.

Oh sure, right, that's the ticket. List your sources, if you have them, let us judge if they're so numerous and impressive

First prove the original claim that the preponderance of evidence is against me.

If I haven't, I must be very brave. Unfortunately for you, I have a preponderance.

Right, you keep claiming this.

Only because it is claimed otherwise. However, feel free to test the theory. Do you have any evidence against claims? Of course not else you would've present ed them by now. Instead, you are frantically googling away in hopes of finding something you can't and making inane posts to buy time.

Yes. It's actual discovery predates my birth by many decades.

So what was your point?

Stop selectively quoting and I'll tell you.

Au contraire. Anyone who cites an anecdotal polemic by a biased fundie with an agenda as "evidence" (even if this is the bottom tier of evidence) is obviously lacking in research savvy. You WOULD BE CRUCIFIED.

As would those who ignore the fact that it was an 'anecdotal polemic by a biased fundie' in who's work the citation was made. You're really into it up to your neck now.

See what I mean? I've never even tried to debate the issue, a point I keep making and that you routinely miss. I only use "invective" for prententious pricks. It's a way of showing frustration for dealing with someone who is clueless.

Read: "I have no evidence to support my claims. This is all I have left."

The reference you made in a prior post about the UN, which I interpreted to suggest that the UN has not done thorough research on global warming. Did I misinterpret?

Well now you've added the word "thorough" so yes you have. Why don't you quote what I originally said with the surrounding text so you can see the context? It's because you know you've made another miscalculation.

Believe me when I say that I couldn't care less. I don't seek your approval, and it's worth nothing to me. My peers have given their approval, and that's all I care about.

Ah! A white tower fantasy scholar!

By the way, I HAVEN'T MADE ANY FRIK'N ARGUMENTS VIZ THIS ISSUE. Is this such a hard concept to grasp.

Then stay on topic. You're just delaying. If you think you have better research, for or against, then present it. Then perhaps I'll show you what else I have. But as long as you can't get past your current missteps with more simple citations, you are not worthy of further discussion (adopting your same white tower attitude).