The Health Risks of Gay Sex

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes you will be happy, here are your words,

'You can logically distinguish between the two because one is a consensual act between adults, and the other is a non-consensual act perpetrated against a minor. (implication of rape)

Only you and Dr Diggs can't see the difference' - Rank Outsider

I will ask you once again, where has Doctor Diggs ...[text shortened]... pe?

and yes i will be happy to refrain from terming you anything other than Rank Outsider.

are you happy continuing to support and trust the doctors work.....even if i pointed out that the main study he quotes statistics from (jay and young), was not only collected from an informal questionnaire laid out in a gay lifestyle magazine (compared to playboy), but was also done in a pre-knowledge of aids in 1979....

but most of all...the survey had a response rate of less than 1%... which makes it statistically irrelevant.

it got a response of around 27 gay 'porn reading' men. considering the men most likely and eager to respond are more likely to be statistical outliers as they are usually the ones eager to brag or more likely to exaggerate. the methods used in the survey are not recognized as methods to accurately acquire scientific data, they usually used in lifestyle magazines such as cosmopolitan. there was no random.

the report is a joke, now why would the good dr use such a shoddy report. he will have been educated in the methods of deducing the validity of reports, why did he ignore that education??

Originally posted by stellspalfie
are you happy continuing to support and trust the doctors work.....even if i pointed out that the main study he quotes statistics from (jay and young), was not only collected from an informal questionnaire laid out in a gay lifestyle magazine (compared to playboy), but was also done in a pre-knowledge of aids in 1979....

but most of all...[b]the surv ...[text shortened]... ducated in the methods of deducing the validity of reports, why did he ignore that education??

sorry can you point me to the extract where Dr. Diggs claims that its representative of all homosexuals, thanks.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sorry can you point me to the extract where Dr. Diggs claims that its representative of all homosexuals, thanks.

blimey...............it....doesnt....matter.....what.....he.....claims......the.....statistics......are............meaningless.


you should take that giant chess brain of yours to night school and get an education to go with it.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
blimey...............it....doesnt....matter.....what.....he.....claims......the.....statistics......are............[b]meaningless.


you should take that giant chess brain of yours to night school and get an education to go with it.[/b]

so lets get this, Dr Diggs has not claimed that the figures are representative of homosexuals as a whole and what he has in fact done is simply state that according to one survey the figures for fisting were 22 percent, thanks, which, for that particular survey, were true.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so lets get this, Dr Diggs has not claimed that the figures are representative of homosexuals as a whole and what he has in fact done is simply state that according to one survey the figures for fisting were 22 percent, thanks, which, for that particular survey, were true.

no...did you read what i wrote. the method and quantity of answers of the survey means the results are meaningless, it is a void survey. the few people who answered the survey (about 40 people) were deemed as outliers, meaning so far from the statistical norm that their answers are not trustworthy.

it was a dead survey, gone, caput, curled up its toes, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible....its a non survey!!!!!!!

Originally posted by stellspalfie
no...did you read what i wrote. the method and quantity of answers of the survey means the results are meaningless, it is a void survey. the few people who answered the survey (about 40 people) were deemed as outliers, meaning so far from the statistical norm that their answers are not trustworthy.

it was a dead survey, gone, caput, curled up its toes, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible....its a non survey!!!!!!!

FAIL, it was a survey and the numbers returned were 22 percent, you cannot deny this FACT.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
FAIL, it was a survey and the numbers returned were 22 percent, you cannot deny this FACT.

ahhh i see youve been misunderstood all along - you didnt post the good doctors work to prove a point about homosexual sex......you posted it to point out that one of the surveys within his report had a response. could you explain why you feel this is something that required a debate. lots of surveys get responses.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
ahhh i see youve been misunderstood all along - you didnt post the good doctors work to prove a point about homosexual sex......you posted it to point out that one of the surveys within his report had a response. could you explain why you feel this is something that required a debate. lots of surveys get responses.

I have no idea what you are havering about.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have no idea what you are havering about.

what does getting void results back on a failed survey prove?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
FAIL, it was a survey and the numbers returned were 22 percent, you cannot deny this FACT.

I'm not sure anyone has outrightly denied your FACT but because it is so
unbelievable we are questioning the sample size and whether the sample itself
is representative. It could be that your FACT is 22% but it is UNFACTUAL to
claim it is a STATISTIC.

Just because 22% of a group do such and such does not mean that you can say
statistically 22% of those type of people do such and such. Statistics have
certain laws (for instance it would be interesting to get the standard deviation associatted with the sample size)

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I'm not sure anyone has outrightly denied your FACT but because it is so
unbelievable we are questioning the sample size and whether the sample itself
is representative. It could be that your FACT is 22% but it is UNFACTUAL to
claim it is a STATISTIC.

Just because 22% of a group do such and such does not mean that you can say
[i]statistically[/i ...[text shortened]... nstance it would be interesting to get the standard deviation associatted with the sample size)

it was not claimed to be representative, that is the point. Its a statistic of the survey which produced it.

Well, that was illuminating...

Originally posted by Rank outsider

As I have a few moments to spare, let me extend the chess analogy.

Suppose you asked for a view from a player rated 800 ELO on the next best move. You will get a move of 800 ELO.

Suppose you ask 10 800 ELO players what the next best move is? You get a move of 800 ELO (well, maybe a bit higher as it may reduce the number of really bad errors).

If a 2200 ELO player turns up, and you have any sense at all, you will ignore all the 800 players and go with the 2200 player.

So, if you obtain your evidence on gay sexual activity from one hopelessly biased source, you have one piece of hopelessly biased evidence. Which you should probably ignore.

If you then trawl homophobic websites that are clearly making statistics up, and obtain more such data, you just end up with a larger pile of worthless evidence. You are not improving your knowledge base and you cannot apply 'ranges' or 'averages' to this and claim increasing accuracy or relevance.

If, on the other hand, you can find one reliable source, you should just chuck the rest away and see if you can find more to corroborate it.

Dr Diggs doesn't do this, because he doesn't want to.

I note that robbie has blanked this post out completely. When he has no answer, he either says something like [1] "it's not about me", [2] "strike three, you're out!" or, as in this case [as is so often the case] [3] he just blanks the post out completely.

Originally posted by FMF
As I have a few moments to spare, let me extend the chess analogy.

Suppose you asked for a view from a player rated 800 ELO on the next best move. You will get a move of 800 ELO.

Suppose you ask 10 800 ELO players what the next best move is? You get a move of 800 ELO (well, maybe a bit higher as it may reduce the number of really bad errors).

If a s in this case [as is so often the case] [3] he just blanks the post out completely.

he ran out of argument when he removed the subject of the health risks of gay sex from a debate about the health risks of gay sex. choosing instead to defend a basic mathematical equation that shows nothing other than somebody somewhere filled in a questionnaire.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes you will be happy, here are your words,

'You can logically distinguish between the two because one is a consensual act between adults, and the other is a non-consensual act perpetrated against a minor. (implication of rape)

Only you and Dr Diggs can't see the difference' - Rank Outsider

I will ask you once again, where has Doctor Diggs ...[text shortened]... pe?

and yes i will be happy to refrain from terming you anything other than Rank Outsider.

Responding as promised.

You asked:

I will ask you once again, where has Doctor Diggs implied that there is no moral distinction between homosexuality and child rape?

However, I am not going to respond to something I didn't say. To remind you, the original quote from Dr Diggs was:

But now social activists are saying that there should be no fence, and that to destroy the fence is an act of liberation.

If the fence is torn down, there is no visible boundary to sexual expression. If gay sex is socially acceptable, what logical reason can there be to deny social acceptance of adultery, polygamy, or pedophilia?

The polygamist movement already has support from some of the advocates for GLB rights. And some in the psychological profession are floating the idea that maybe pedophilia is not so damaging to children after all.

You have introduced the concept of morality, as if it is synonymous with social acceptance. Rather than have a long and tedious debate about the difference, can we just agree to stick with exactly what I said.

I said:

You can logically distinguish between the two because one is a consensual act between adults, and the other is a non-consensual act perpetrated against a minor.

And in my summary, posted a few pages back I said that Dr Diggs was a man who:

4) Thinks that you cannot (in any way) distinguish logically between consensual gay sex and child rape in terms of social acceptability.

I stand by every word of this. It is not my problem if Dr Diggs cannot see the logical difference, due to his religious beliefs or whatever. Almost every civilised person in every civilised country can see this logical difference.

Even if you believe that gay sex is socially unacceptable, only a true homophobe would think that there is no logical distinction that can be drawn between this and child rape in terms of its relative acceptability. I have given one, it is logical and would be shared by every sane person on the planet, even those that believe that gay sex is socially unacceptable.

And only a true homophobe would want to go into print to imply that accepting gay sex is the slippery slope towards accepting child rape.

Either that, or Dr Diggs is phenomenally stupid. Which I don't think he is. In many ways, I wish he was.

But I'll leave you to make that call.