16 Sep 15
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFwhy don't you comment on what is provided FMF, i have posted a link to a study cited in his lecture, were the conclusions that he drew on the basis of this study academically and scientifically bereft? Do you think it morally justified to comment on a lecture that you have not even viewed?
Yes, I reckon it is close to zero. If his theory is academic or scientific he should cite his sources. He mentions 26 studies. How many of them did he provide details of. As long as it's not all of them, I'd say it is "...is an example of demonstrating close to zero academic or scientific integrity". I assume, on some level, you agree with me but may be reluctant to say so.
16 Sep 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhich part of that study was he citing?
why don't you comment on what is provided FMF, i have posted a link to a study cited in his lecture, were the conclusions that he drew on the basis of this study academically and scientifically bereft? Do you think it morally justified to comment on a lecture that you have not even viewed?
16 Sep 15
Originally posted by biffo konkerDid he provide a link to it or specify what he was citing from it?
It means google cannot find them.He said 'We have 26 studies' .He did not say where from.
He does name drop 'The New England Medical Journal' but that was on another subject altogether.
16 Sep 15
Originally posted by FMFHe used the study to draw certain conclusions about the presence of a genetic predisposition based on data drawn form the study. If you want to know what that specifically was then i suggest you watch the video.
Which part of that study was he citing?
Do you think it morally justified for you to make comments on a video presentation that you have not seen?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
16 Sep 15
1 edit
An Interview with Nicolaus Cummings,
Phd. Past President of the American Psychological Association
Part II The Political History of the American Psychological Association
He says he respects the right to be oriented to same sex. He does not oppose same sex marriage. He does not think the other side of the debate is heard in the APA.
Says open dialogue is needed and funding of research is cherry picked.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
16 Sep 15
1 edit
It speaks for itself. Particularly his review of the history of the Gay movement in San Fransisco. This is the man who moved that the APA drop homosexuality as a mental illness. He is the one who started that.
He speaks of the 10 of thousands of gay people who came damaged in their psychology for help. They saw gay and lesbian patience in droves. And some wanted to change.
Some of the things spoken here I found shocking in the rampant promiscuity promoted in those day in San Fransisco.
He was trying to help many of them to have a more normal homosexual life. The point is that regardless, the wounds and damages were very significant.
2011 NARTH Conference Dr. Nicholas Cummings
16 Sep 15
Originally posted by sonshipI think we must be careful with findings that seem to confirm things we want to believe. Confirmation bias is insidious and our ego and emotions really don't want us to bother looking for it in our own reasoning.
It speaks for itself. Particularly his review of the history of the Gay movement in San Fransisco. This is the man who moved that the APA drop homosexuality as a mental illness. He is the one who started that.
He speaks of the 10 of thousands of gay people who came damaged in their psychology for help. They saw gay and lesbian patience in droves. And [i ...[text shortened]... 011 NARTH Conference Dr. Nicholas Cummings
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKxYBch2LVM[/b]
Even with a scientific study, other likely possibilities that lead to the same result must be eliminated. Otherwise, the conclusion drawn is not objective.
For example, isn't is possible that gays want to change because people in their lives have treated them horribly because they were gay? I'd think you'd have to check for that before assuming that the root cause of the 'wounds and scars' was being homosexual or acting homosexual.
Myself, I think that the human need to be loved and accepted is so strong that people will betray their own inner nature at times, or forgo their own desires, if that's what it takes to gain acceptance from their families and friends. It's not easy to be true to yourself it means cutting out 10, 20, 30+ people you really care about out of your life.
Have any studies been done that take social and family bias against homosexuality into account? Maybe they could interview gays that had a relatively easy time with social acceptance and see how many of them abandon the lifestyle. If it's a lot less compared to gays that have had several social repercussions on account of their lifestyle, then the theory deserves consideration.
16 Sep 15
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am not asking you in which part of the video did he make a reference to one study, I'm asking which part of that study was he citing. So what about these other 25 studies. Are they peer reviewed? Do they have any academic merit? Why are the studies and links to them kept secret?
He used the study to draw certain conclusions about the presence of a genetic predisposition based on data drawn form the study. If you want to know what that specifically was then i suggest you watch the video.
16 Sep 15
5 edits
Originally posted by FMFHe cited that part which stated that the percentages were much lower than previously thought in the Australian study. It had been previously suggested that a biological element resulted in fifty percent of self identifying homosexual twins being likely to engage in homosexual behavior. The Australian study puts it at twenty percent and sites the reason being that the previous studies were based on a certain homophile bias from the sources used to compile the data. But you would know that if you watched the video and read the pdf link that i cited, but you didn't and must ask these tedious questions. Please don't ask me any more until you do, you are in no position to comment on something that you have not examined and are arguing from a position of ignorance.
I am not asking you in which part of the video did make a reference to one study, I'm asking which part of that study was he citing. So what about these other 25 studies. Are they peer reviewed? Do they have any academic merit? Why are the studies and links to them kept secret?
There were also other studies mentioned by name and may i suggest that you get off your intellectually lazy a$$ and do your own research,
16 Sep 15
Originally posted by sonshipcharging people for Christian counseling reeks of exploitation of the vulnerable.
I read this.
[quote] Our standard rate is $100 per fifty-minute session. Sliding scale rates are available on a case by case basis and are determined in person. Services can be paid for by check, cash, money order or Visa/Mastercard. We do not accept insurance payments, but we’ll be glad to provide you with statement to submit to your insurance company. ...[text shortened]... the ones wanting serious help from off the street yahoos who want to come in and argue for free.
16 Sep 15
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDr. Joseph Davis,the guy in the video, can call himself Dr because he has a PhD in Apologetics from the Westminister Theological Seminary.🙄
A Master's degree in christian counselling??? I wonder if those Galilean fishermen had a master's degree in christian counselling, I suspect not.
16 Sep 15
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipYeah, and pickpockets are really philanthropists simply helping people to understand the importance of protecting their personal property.
I read this.
[quote] Our standard rate is $100 per fifty-minute session. Sliding scale rates are available on a case by case basis and are determined in person. Services can be paid for by check, cash, money order or Visa/Mastercard. We do not accept insurance payments, but we’ll be glad to provide you with statement to submit to your insurance company. ...[text shortened]... the ones wanting serious help from off the street yahoos who want to come in and argue for free.
16 Sep 15
2 edits
Originally posted by biffo konkerHe has a degree in philosophy, divinity and history as well. Why he is wearing a lab coat I dunno.
Dr. Joseph Davis,the guy in the video, can call himself Dr because he has a PhD in Apologetics from the Westminister Theological Seminary.🙄
BS in Philosophy and History, Towson University
MDiv, Oral Roberts University
PhD in Apologetics, Westminister Theological Seminary
http://www.seu.edu/academics/faculty/jhdavis/
If he is Davis then who is Joe Dallas?