Huge anti-gay marriage protest march in Paris

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ad hominem fest, no comment needed.

are you not a bit embarrassed that you will not acknowledge mistakes? does it not make you feel bad inside?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
are you not a bit embarrassed that you will not acknowledge mistakes? does it not make you feel bad inside?

embarrassed? I did not make any mistakes that I am aware of and once again the thread is brought down to the level of personalities, sigh.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
we try to discourage materialism, its tough though. so we have you save up half and we'll pay half rule for most things non essential. luckily for us my eldest is a total nerd and is more into rocks and gardening than clothes and electronic gadgets. she's not a teenager yet though, she'll probably end up wanting designer shovels, rakes and jimi choo-wel ...[text shortened]... r parenting/religion but isnt the concept of buying designer clothes counter to your beliefs?

yes it is, we are counselled to live simply but ones kid gets enough peer pressure at school without them making fun of his clothes.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
embarrassed? I did not make any mistakes that I am aware of and once again the thread is brought down to the level of personalities, sigh.

you said earlier that you thought the paper outlined in the article was about gay adoption. the article was about children with one gay parent. the author citing that there were not enough data on gay adoption to do a study.

is this not a mistake on your behalf?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes it is, we are counselled to live simply but ones kid gets enough peer pressure at school without them making fun of his clothes.

interesting.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
you said earlier that you thought the paper outlined in the article was about gay adoption. the article was about children with one gay parent. the author citing that there were not enough data on gay adoption to do a study.

is this not a mistake on your behalf?

no i did not author the paper i merely cited it because of the statistical evidence.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
interesting.

why?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no i did not author the paper i merely cited it because of the statistical evidence.

as we have discussed you thought the statistical evidence was referring to adoption. that is clearly a mistake.


as we have also discussed the statistical evidence proved nothing due to the errors made in the study which i have explained to you several times.
the statistics showed that a child from a broken marriage in which one parent is gay does worse than a child from a non broken hetrosexual home. the study failed to compare broken hetrosexual homes with broken homes with one gay parent. so how does this support your argument? especially considering you thought this study was about adoption???


the site also misrepresented the meaning of the data. you say the data itself was accurate as if thats all you need to know. this is a mistake in itself its impossible to understand the statistics outside of the context they were intended. if you wanted to show the statistics and ignore the articles interpretation you should have either linked to the paper itself or mentioned that you do not agree with the conclusions drawn by the article writer.

when providing 'evidence' its a big no no, in academia to link to in accurate articles no matter how accurate the data is.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
as we have discussed you thought the statistical evidence was referring to adoption. that is clearly a mistake.


as we have also discussed the statistical evidence proved nothing due to the errors made in the study which i have explained to you several times.
the statistics showed that a child from a broken marriage in which one parent is gay does s a big no no, in academia to link to in accurate articles no matter how accurate the data is.

one can only work with the data that one is presented with. I am not and never have been an academic. Academia, pah! all reading from the same cook book.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
one can only work with the data that one is presented with. I am not and never have been an academic. Academia, pah! all reading from the same cook book.

regardless if you are academic or not it is still and error. im sure you would be quick to correct me if i wrongly represented a section of the bible and argued that it was fact, because the atheist website i found it on said so.

'one can only work with the data one is presented with' doesnt work either, you could have actually looked at the paper itself as its free to read on the internet. choosing an article because it was easy to find is also a poor excuse. do you trust any site that pops up? nope.

whats interesting is that you dont seem to care that you misunderstood the paper. or that the article misrepresented the data. you offered them up as 'evidence' yet distance yourself from responsibility when they are found to be wrong.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
regardless if you are academic or not it is still and error. im sure you would be quick to correct me if i wrongly represented a section of the bible and argued that it was fact, because the atheist website i found it on said so.

'one can only work with the data one is presented with' doesnt work either, you could have actually looked at the paper it ...[text shortened]... up as 'evidence' yet distance yourself from responsibility when they are found to be wrong.

well if you found it interesting then fine.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
well if you found it interesting then fine.

it is interesting as you profess to be a man of god but here you are in arguing to protect your ego. you have no defense, you know you dropped a clanger using the article yet you are too stubborn, or you ego is to big to allow your self to admit error. your refusal to admit error has become more important than your religious beliefs, which is why i found the fact you put aside your religious teaching to preserve the ego your children regarding the materialism of not being bullied for wearing the wrong clothes.

protect ego first, be a christian second.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
it is interesting as you profess to be a man of god but here you are in arguing to protect your ego. you have no defense, you know you dropped a clanger using the article yet you are too stubborn, or you ego is to big to allow your self to admit error. your refusal to admit error has become more important than your religious beliefs, which is why i foun ...[text shortened]... f not being bullied for wearing the wrong clothes.

protect ego first, be a christian second.

another ad hominem fest, sigh, will it ever change?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
another ad hominem fest, sigh, will it ever change?

your default deflection of any criticism to cry 'ad hominem'. crying this doesnt take away the truth of whats being said.

you have made several mistake, you. its impossible to draw attention to this without mentioning you. your repeatedly ignoring the criticism only provides more criticism, what purpose does it serve to ignore the criticism??? cry 'ad hominem' from the roof top, it doesnt stop you from being wrong.


so why not tackle the issue rather than saying its not your fault. you provided the link, you cited it as evidence, you misunderstood the paper, you trusted the stats without examining them from their source. all your mistakes.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
another ad hominem fest, sigh, will it ever change?

the other really strange thing is im not even suggesting here that your original assertions are wrong. you can still argue homosexuals shouldnt adopt. the issues here do not support or disprove anything. all im trying to achieve here is an understanding that if we provide incorrect information and cite it as evidence, that like any other sensible adults we are prepared to admit it and retract the statement or evidence. that way we know there is a level of honesty and desire to be clear within the debate. otherwise this is nothing more than people with their fingers in their ears talking at the other person with no desire to engage in an honest debate.

in the past i have defended both you and galveston on here and in private conversations as you both seemed willing to engage in any debate, i mistook this for a shared sense of openness and honesty. as times going on im starting to see the truth in what ive been told by others and that i was naive.