16 Sep 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCan you provide the texts which lay out "the conclusions drawn from those studies" so that they can be refuted?
you have asked this three times previously and it was tedious then as it is tedious now, i have not asked anyone to refute any studies i have asked people to refute the conclusions drawn from those studies and i tell you truly it is really tiresome having to explain your stupidity away again and again.
16 Sep 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis personal remark did not address the question, which was: Do you think that environmental factors ~ solely and exclusively ~ could create homosexual behaviour [even if there was not the homosexual "biological element" that you have mentioned]?
sorry its enough dealing with your ignorance never mind your presumptions, you presume all you like i prefer empiricism and if you have any questions based on empirics ill be happy to answer them.
16 Sep 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhich of the 26 studies made this claim you mentioned about 46% of persons adopted by gay couples?
compelling viewing, 26 studies, up to 46 percent of the persons in adoption by gay couples engaged in homosexual behavior, a huge environmental factor.
16 Sep 15
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFLook do you have anything interesting to say or add to the subject? that is with regard to what was provided rather than what was not? I don't have access to the lectures research but then again i wouldn't need it to refute the conclusions that he made and you once again ask another stupid and tedious question and if you are incapable or unwilling to contribute anything of value i would be pleased if you went away and annoyed someone else for so far you have contributed not a single iota worth considering to the entire issue.
Can you provide the texts which lay out "the conclusions drawn from those studies" so that they can be refuted?
16 Sep 15
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFwhen you contribute something I find valuable, that is something other than, 'have you seen the studies', 'tell us about the studies', 'what about the studies', ad nauseum. . . then I'll comment. So far you have not contributed a single iota of text that has forwarded our understanding of the actual issues that were raised in the video.
This personal remark did not address the question, which was: Do you think that environmental factors ~ solely and exclusively ~ could create homosexual behaviour [even if there was not the homosexual "biological element" that you have mentioned]?
16 Sep 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobie1. Do you think the biological factors contributing to homosexual orientation, such as they are, can be absent in a person who then nevertheless goes on to live his or her life as a homosexual?
Look do you have anything interesting to say or add to the subject?. and when you contribute something I find valuable...
2. Presumably you don't think that it can be solely and exclusively environmental factors that determine the sexual orientation of a person who lives his or her life as a homosexual. Would that be right?
3. Where can we find the studies that you are asking people to consider? Do you know?
Am I right in understanding that your answer to all these questions in you "don't know"?
16 Sep 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieJoe Dallas is a qualified and certified 'Christian counsellor', he has a degree. He alleges he has numerous scientific papers to back up his claims regarding homosexuality and then charges people substantial sums of money to cure them. This is a fact.
I dont think thats quite accurate, he like any scientist looks at data and draws conclusions based on that data. He seems to be a logician or a doctor of some description but yes charging people for christian counsel is reprehensible.
16 Sep 15
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFthis contributes nothing to our understanding of the issues that were raised, i suggest that you watch the video if you wish to discuss its content.
1. Do you think the biological factors contributing to homosexual orientation, such as they are, can be absent in a person who then nevertheless goes on to live his or her life as a homosexual?
2. Presumably you don't think that it can be solely and exclusively environmental factors that determine the sexual orientation of a person who lives his or her life ...[text shortened]... now?
Am I right in understanding that your answer to all these questions in you "don't know"?
16 Sep 15
3 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobWell that is morally reprehensible as I have stated, but a separate issue from the claims that he made. He states his background is philosophy although he did wear a white lab coat like he was a biologist, he certainly gave the impression that he was a scientist of some description. He has a degree in christian counseling?
Joe Dallas is a qualified and certified 'Christian counsellor', he has a degree. He alleges he has numerous scientific papers to back up his claims regarding homosexuality and then charges people substantial sums of money to cure them. This is a fact.
16 Sep 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIn light of his morally reprehensible behaviour in exactly the same field, is Joe Dallas to be trusted with his interpretation of these studies that you have not seen and that neither he nor you are able to show us?
Well that is morally reprehensible as I have stated, but a separate issue from the claims that he made.
16 Sep 15
Originally posted by FMFanother question about personalities rather than the issues that were raised sigh. . . .
In light of his morally reprehensible behaviour in exactly the same field, is Joe Dallas to be trusted with his interpretation of these studies that you have not seen and that neither he nor you are able to show us?
16 Sep 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is easily said by you by way of some dismissive dodge-the-tricky-questions banter, but it's unlikely to be the opinion of someone who reads my post and who is interested in this topic.
this contributes nothing to our understanding of the issues that were raised...t.
16 Sep 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo it's about his morally reprehensible behaviour, and "morally reprehensible" is a descriptor that you have introduced into the discussion, not me.
another question about personalities rather than the issues that were raised sigh. . . .
16 Sep 15
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFSo you have nothing to say on the actual content of the video and remain content to call into question the trustworthiness of the lecturer based on some perceived moral reprehensibility with regard to him charging people for christian counseling.
No it's about his morally reprehensible behaviour, and "morally reprehensible" is a descriptor that you have introduced into the discussion, not me.
Can you tell us how the validity of the conclusions that he makes are effected in any way by his willingness to charge someone for christian counselling?