Originally posted by robbie carrobie nope, tragically my reference library does not extend to Jay and Young, pp. 554-555
Would it make any difference to you if I told you that the results were based on a questionnaire that was distributed, inter alia, in a gay pornographic magazine (from which the majority of responses came), that the responses were entirely self-selecting, the response rate was very low and the 16 page survey asked questions of an extremely personal nature at a time when gay tolerance was much lower than it is today.
It was also carried out more than 20 years before the article written by Dr Diggs you cite.
Do you think this is empirical evidence of actual gay practice which is representative of the homosexual community as a whole?
Originally posted by Rank outsider Would it make any difference to you if I told you that the results were based on a questionnaire that was distributed, inter alia, in a gay pornographic magazine (from which the majority of responses came), that the responses were entirely self-selecting, the response rate was very low and the 16 page survey asked questions of an extremely personal nat ...[text shortened]... evidence of actual gay practice which is representative of the homosexual community as a whole?
nope, perhaps its the most accurate evidence to date. Dr. Diggs himself stated that it may be problematic to gain accurate data, as an accountant, you of course know that you can only work with the figures you have at your disposal. Whether its empirical or not, its the best data he may have had at hand and may well be, in view of any contrary data to be representative of practice in the actual gay community. If you have any evidence to the contrary then please feel free to produce it.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie I did not raise them, if you have any reason to state why he should not be considered a professional health practitioner , then please do so now.
You said
Originally posted by robbie carrobie yeah because lets face it, he fell in the Clyde and came up with a doctorate in his inside pocket. Haters gonna hate!
You therefore raised the matter of his qualifications.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie [b]yeah because lets face it, he fell in the Clyde and came up with a doctorate in his inside pocket. Haters gonna hate!
You therefore raised the matter of his qualifications.[/b]
it was in response to someone else attacking not only his qualifications, his political views and his religious views, all essentially irrelevant to the actual contents of the study that he produced, ad hominem extraordinaire, double hyper concentrated and shameful. Again, have you any reason to state why he should not be considered a professional health practitioner?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie it was in response to someone else attacking not only his qualifications, his political views and his religious views, all essentially irrelevant to the actual contents of the study that he produced, ad hominem extraordinaire, double hyper concentrated and shameful. Again, have any reason to state why he should not be considered a professional health practitioner?
Originally posted by Rank outsider Who attacked his qualifications?
he's just another right wing religious nut obsessed with homosexuality.
while not directly calling into question his qualifications, it intimates that he has motives outwith his work as a medical practitioner, so granted his qualifications may not have been called into question, but his character certainly was, which is really the point.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie nope, perhaps its the most accurate evidence to date. Dr. Diggs himself stated that it may be problematic to gain accurate data, as an accountant, you of course know that you can only work with the figures you have at your disposal. Whether its empirical or not, its the best data he may have had at hand and may well be, in view of any contrary data ...[text shortened]... ual gay community. If you have any evidence to the contrary then please feel free to produce it.
Well, that's a load of cobblers.
The authors of the study stated that they:
“do not claim to have a scientific or representative sample of lesbians and gay men
So the study is not representative, is subject to numerous biases, yet you claim it should be relied upon as being representative.
The reality is that it fits your view of what gay men are like and therefore you accept its findings without question.
Originally posted by Rank outsider Well, that's a load of cobblers.
The authors of the study stated that they:
“do not claim to have a scientific or representative sample of lesbians and gay men
So the study is not representative, is subject to numerous biases, yet you claim it should be relied upon as being representative.
The reality is that it fits your view of what gay men are like and therefore you accept its findings without question.
well if the claim is that its not representative then so be it, then why are you bitchin about it as if it is. Is this the best that you can do is to state that a certain piece of data may or may not be representative of the gay or lesbain community, it hardly negates any of the doctors finding and is in fact another irrelevancy, either refute the assertions that he is making or stop introducing irrelevances. Do you have any evidence to the contrary that 22 percent do not practice fisting? If so then please produce it.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie Its not a question of does and don't,
Why wont you answer this question?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by wolfgang59
Robbie, you are obviously a "man of the world" could you tell me
what homosexuals do that heterosexuals do not?
Originally posted by wolfgang59 Why wont you answer this question?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by wolfgang59
Robbie, you are obviously a "man of the world" could you tell me
what homosexuals do that heterosexuals do not?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie he's just another right wing religious nut obsessed with homosexuality.
while not directly calling into question his qualifications, it intimates that he has motives outwith his work as a medical practitioner, so granted his qualifications may not have been called into question, but his character certainly was, which is really the point.
So, as I said, you raised the matter of his qualifications. And no one else has attacked them.
I think we have good grounds to question whether he has motives outside of pure medical ones. He is affiliated to the Massachusetts Family Institute which states:
In keeping with the Judeo-Christian values that our society was founded upon, MFI believes that all sex outside of heterosexual marriage is detrimental to families and that includes homosexuality.
Looks like my telepathy is in good working order, by the way.
The Health Risks of Gay Sex
09 Feb '13 19:49
Back to Top