Stupid post of the day

[pozzolane]

And you accept this statement. Without a lick of evidence, not one single bit...not even a hint of evidence...to support it.
Just because it's tacked onto the end of this abstract, it must be true. Never mind that all the information we are given completely contradicts it.

I think I'll save a copy of this post of yours to toss back at you.
Because you do realize you have completely and totally discredited yourself here, right?

:nono:

Well I'm not the one that concluded so. The very authors of the paper conclude at the end that their results are not justification for an absolute conclusion that homosexuals have a higher mortality rate. And they do so because they understand that if they did conclude otherwise, it would be dishonest.

What do you think the last few sentences of an abstract are? What do you think an abstract is? It's a synopsis that briefly covers the entire paper. Intro, methodology, results, and conclusions. So the last few sentences of an abstract are a synopsis of the conclusions in the study. This paper has concluded that they do not have sufficient evidence to justify a conclusion that homosexuals have a higher mortality rate. Meaning your evidence is extremely shaky at best. And quite possibly plain false or misleading.

 

[YahuShuan]

Well if you don't live like a Gentile you won't get the "diseases of the Gentiles". It is Yahuweh putting this upon you who get diseased, just like He said He would. And you who are not already diseased, keep watch, things are coming for you, for all who have disobeyed and denied Him and repent not, you WILL pay. Aids was just a warning. And you are saying "we do not listen".

So be it.

 

[elohiym]

Well I'm not the one that concluded so. The very authors of the paper conclude at the end that their results are not justification for an absolute conclusion that homosexuals have a higher mortality rate.

Huh? Where on earth did you learn to read?

The study absolutely concludes that Danish homosexuals have a higher mortality rate.

Danish men and women in same-sex marriages still have mortality rates that exceed those of the general population.

"[T]he claims of drastically increased overall mortality in gay men and lesbians appear unjustified."

Although further study is needed, the claims of drastically increased overall mortality in gay men and lesbians appear unjustified."

Do you understand the difference between a factually higher mortality rate and "claims of drastically increased mortality?" The study supports a conclusion that homosexuals have higher mortality rates than the general population.

 

[pozzolane]

Do you understand the difference between a factually higher mortality rate and "claims of drastically increased mortality?"

What does "drastically" mean? Scientific papers do not use sloppy wording like that just for that purpose. They are concluding that their results aren't conclusive. And of course they are. They always do that.

The study supports a conclusion that homosexuals have higher mortality rates than the general population.

No it doesn't. Even if it was strong enough evidence to draw a conclusion at all, at best it could only be that Danish homosexuals have a higher mortality rate. But why? Is it their homosexuality, or are other factors at play here? What does the study say on that?

Elohiym, let me clarify for you so you understand. Scientific studies, and especially statistical ones, never make absolute conclusions. It would be outright dishonest. And for reasons that should be obvious.

The study (?!) absolutely (?!) concludes that Danish homosexuals have a higher mortality rate.

 

[elohiym]

What does "drastically" mean?

You tell me.

Scientific papers do not use sloppy wording like that just for that purpose.

Well, that paper did use that wording.

They are concluding that their results aren't conclusive.

No they aren't. They are concluding that their findings that mortality rates are higher in Danish homosexuals does not justify claims that mortality rates are drastically higher in all homosexuals.

That doesn't change the fact that their study can be used to support an argument that mortality rates in homosexuals are higher in some populations. Nobody is claiming that mortality rates are drastically higher in all homosexuals here.

Elohiym, let me clarify for you so you understand. Scientific studies, and especially statistical ones, never make absolute conclusions. It would be outright dishonest. And for reasons that should be obvious.

You misunderstand what I meant. Let me clarify for you. The study absolutely did state that mortality rates were higher in a given population of homosexuals. Your initial statement, the one I was addressing, implied that the study absolutely didn't do that.

 

[pozzolane]

You tell me.

I wouldn't know. It's a vague description. It would be like the authors saying there testing method was "very good". Well what qualifies as "very good"?! What qualifies as "good"?! What's the boundary that separates "good" from "very good"?!

It's not a wise way to word something you intend to be taken in a specific way. Considering you just derided me on being unable to read, I would expect you to understand that.

Well, that paper did use that wording.

And I just explained why your specific interpretation of that wording is unwise.

No they aren't. They are concluding that their findings that mortality rates are higher in Danish homosexuals does not justify claims that mortality rates are drastically higher in all homosexuals.

What does drastically mean?! However, I do agree with you that they are aware that their conclusions do not blanket all homosexuals.

That doesn't change the fact that their study can be used to support an argument that mortality rates in homosexuals are higher in some populations. Nobody is claiming that mortality rates are drastically higher in all homosexuals here.

That was the intent of MC. She used this one statistical report to blanket all homosexual activity. If you read back that would become clear. She argued that homosexuals are less healthy. And let's not forget that a younger death than the statistical average doesn't indicate the health status of the individual that died. Not everyone dies because of poor health. And this report doesn't make that distinction.

You misunderstand what I meant. Let me clarify for you. The study absolutely did state that mortality rates were higher in a given population of homosexuals.

No it didn't. It indicated that it was possible, but not that it's absolute. Big difference there.

Your initial statement, the one I was addressing, implied that the study absolutely didn't do that.

There is no such thing as an absolute in science, and especially in statistics. That's why they use the term "theory" for an explanation. You of all people (considering how hot under the collar you got in our previous abstinence thread battle on statistics reported there), should know this.

 

[elohiym]

There is no such thing as an absolute in science, and especially in statistics.

I understand that, which is why I clarified what I meant. I wasn't saying that there finding was absolute, but that they absolute did say something you said they didn't say. Read my post again.

Anyway. I've said all I have to say here.

 

[Lighthouse]

We aren't discussing *created* we are talking about how they are spread.



Originally Posted by Rusha Another question: Can two, disease-free, monogamous homosexuals sprout AIDS or any STD just by being gay?

What exactly do you believe is meant by *passed on*? How do you believe that diseases such as AIDS are spread?

Do you believe that being attracted to the same sex causes some type of mystical calamity that infests a gay person's body?

Explain to me how a person can catch AIDS without coming into contact with bodily fluids that are already contaminated with the virus.

What does "sprout" mean to you?

To me it means it appeared after not being there. In other words, it was created. By the mixing of various bacteria or by certain toxins getting into your bloodstream, and causing sickness.

Holy spontaneously spreading and infectious sexually transmitted diseases Batman!

Spontaneously spreading? How stupid are you?

I never said anything about spontaneous.

Here's a really good question for all of you who think it doesn't happen: where did diseases come from in the first place?

 

[MaryContrary]

Okay, yeah. I know you're banned and all and I don't normally respond to posts of folks that are banned, because I consider it rude (you can't defend yourself, after all) but...I just gotta make an exception this time.

Well I'm not the one that concluded so. The very authors of the paper conclude at the end that their results are not justification for an absolute conclusion that homosexuals have a higher mortality rate. And they do so because they understand that if they did conclude otherwise, it would be dishonest.

What, do you know these folks or something? How in the world can you assume so much without being blindly biased? Like I said, if you're comfortable assuming this, despite all the evidence that we actually have on hand speaking against it, then you have zero credibility.

That was the intent of MC. She used this one statistical report to blanket all homosexual activity. If you read back that would become clear. She argued that homosexuals are less healthy. And let's not forget that a younger death than the statistical average doesn't indicate the health status of the individual that died. Not everyone dies because of poor health. And this report doesn't make that distinction.

Again, you seem sure you understand everyone's intentions and motivations. And yet even when they should be obvious you hare off into the blue.
My intent was to express my opinion and support it with evidence. It's still an opinion, as I've been forced to point out again and again and again. Why you folks seem so dense on that point I can't comprehend. Unless you're aware you haven't got a respectable argument and so pretend I'm presenting as an established fact. So you can then rail about how dishonest I am being.
You know. Strawman.

And as much as people like you love to claim anyone throwing out strawmen hasn't got an argument, then I think it's established very early on here that you ain't got one.

 

[Rusha]

What does "sprout" mean to you?

To me it means it appeared after not being there. In other words, it was created. By the mixing of various bacteria or by certain toxins getting into your bloodstream, and causing sickness.

It means that something that isn't there suddenly appears out of no where.

There was no bacteria.
There were no toxins.

It just appeared ... THAT is what I am asking.

 

[Lighthouse]

It means that something that isn't there suddenly appears out of no where.

There was no bacteria.
There were no toxins.

It just appeared ... THAT is what I am asking.

Well, of course not. Not even evolutionists believe in spontaneous whatever it's called anymore. Why would a Creationist?