Ah yes, suseonline. I forgot that it was about the sisterhood. I forgot because I usually stop reading someone’s post as soon as I see the words “feminist”, “fabian” or “socialist”; for the same reason I choose not to use words such as “Nazi” or “fascist” when I criticise a conservative point of view. They’re emotive, unhelpful, and are merely the mark of an extremist with no argument.

onthebeach,

If you’re not going to provide the supposedly “real” evidence on this topic that contradicts the evidence I’ve provided, then I’m done with our interaction on this thread. The one thing I cannot stand is wasting precious posts and time on someone who cannot support their claims.

So far, all you, ttbn, and IamaleftietrollingOLOwithclevercharacaturesofconservatives have provided as a litmus test for whether or not a science is a real science or not, is whether or not you agree with it.

Hardly scholarly.

Provide me with evidence that is scholarly and not from an interest group such as the Templeton Foundation or James Dobson’s gay-hate-and-anti-abortion-group-disguised-as-a-family-oriented-group such as his Focus on the Family, and I’ll take what you say seriously. But until then, I can only place you in the same batshit crazy category that lunes like ttbn and runner belong to.

ttbn writes my desire for evidence off as “robotic” of me, but I am proud that I have managed to separate emotions from facts. I was once an anti-feminist, homophobic, creationist Christian before I started exploring reality. Now I’m in a position to be in on, or at least know about, any secret brother- or sisterhood that would exist had they actually existed.

Who knows, maybe you’ll get lucky and there’ll be a Gay-parenting-gate where a thousand emails will be hacked and you can pick out two single lines that sound suspicious when taken out of context.

You conservatives are utterly pathetic. But given the fact that you need to defend the status quo in the moral shifting zeitgeist of a world that is becoming increasingly educated and moral, is it any wonder?

AJ Philips,

Nice switch, trying to put the onus of proof onto me.

However it is you who has been caught out claiming conclusions that were NOT able to be made because of the restrictions inherent to the design and conduct of the 'studies' you linked to.

Then you went on to claim that unsupportable conclusions, those that could NOT be drawn because of restrictions, were somehow improved in value to become 'proved' where there was enough of them. That is nonsense, it would be more garbage in and more garbage out.

Sorry, ontthebeach. But there has been no switching of the burden of proof fallacy on my behalf (http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Shifting_the_burden_of_proof)

<<Nice switch, trying to put the onus of proof onto me.>>

Burden of proof for what , by the way?

<<However it is you who has been caught out claiming conclusions that were NOT able to be made because of the restrictions inherent to the design and conduct of the 'studies' you linked to.>>

Bzzzzt! You haven't been able to demonstrate this yet. You've merely asserted it. Please give a specific example or walk away with your tail between your legs as you usually do.

Provide me with just one fatal weakness in any of the studies I’ve cited and I’ll walk away now with my tail between my legs.

Can’t do it?

Didn’t think so. You conservatives are such a pack of losers.

<<Then you went on to claim that unsupportable conclusions…> >

Such as..? Oh, we don’t know, do we?

<<...those that could NOT be drawn because of restrictions>>

What restrictions? You’re just making this up as go go now.

<<...were somehow improved in value to become 'proved' where there was enough of them.>>

Not enough of what? You’ve just resorted to gibberish now because you have nothing left.

<<That is nonsense, it would be more garbage in and more garbage out.>>

What is nonsense? You don’t even know anymore, do you? You’ve just restored to prattling crap now because you have nothing left. Good luck with that. I already debunked your GIGO approach earlier. Yes, onthebeach, I used to work in the IT industry and probably understand GIGO better than you do.

runner, correct as usual.

Suseonline, What about left wing & feminist paedophiles being protected at a higher % rate than christian paedophiles?

Shadow Minister, 1, the exception does not prove the rule

http://www.henrymakow.com/2_moms.html

http://henrymakow.com/2014/12/mom-takes-on-lesbian.html

http://henrymakow.com/2015/02/the-first-child-kathleen-wynne.html

i have another 173,000,000 links to choose from

2, quite correct.

Cobber the hound, 1, have you ever been involved in the Men's Movement? been to a Men's Group or weekend retreat from the matriarchy? i can assure you that both straight AND gay men are involved & despite their "gaydar" they will flirt with you, knowing they are safe to do so.

2, runner said nothing hateful, just factual. GLBT lifestyle is abnormal, (as in 2 or 3% at best) period, acknowledging that fact is not proof of hatred.

phanto, very well said, if only Graham Young's blog had thumbs up & down buttons, we would not need to type a response every time.

ttbn, same here, i have seen many children including my own, neglected & abused by their own mothers who just were not thinking about any one, other than themselves. Have not even seen my grand children but if past performance is any guide then despite my son's best efforts they will have been hurt by the women around them. feminism = dead beat mother training. seeing children 4 & 6 years old with PTSD is not fun.

runner, have you seen any lesbian & secular abuse of children covered up? i have.

wearestardust, Rational discussion on these topics is going to continue to be impossible while those who want to limit the participation of straight people in society insist on not engaging in meaningful, honest, good-faith discussion. The refusal focus on family composition where it is relevant to child safety is one example of this tendency. Not reading what I said, even while quoting it, is another.

A J Philips, There are weaknesses in every social science study and data-gathering method. Exactly, leftists have been proven to be rigging them for half a century?

All studies have their weaknesses, which is why they need to be taken cumulatively, 173,000,000 times.

A J Philips, again, half truth or sophistry in action:- Goebbels did say it too, he also learned it from Lenin along with ALL the other senior national socialists who studied propaganda with the international socialists in Moscow.

"Deception Was My Job" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3qkf3bajd4

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Communist

Here’s another wonderful cherry-picked Communist passage: "Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!" (Psalm 137:9) the bible is full of examples of what NOT to do.

By the way, i have demonstrated that the science is “settled” 173,000,000 times. And how could you know if you refuse to read any of it? & only reply with sarcasm instead of facts.

More sophistry against ttbn this time. So as an atheist you will claim that "natural law" or science trumps cannon law one day, then say that natural law is useless the next day when it does not back your communist theories. How stupid do you think we are?

Toni Lavis, thank you for proving that biological fathers are better at parenting than mothers are. Now we can change the anti family law courts to protect children by awarding custody to fathers in all cases.

Neglect is neglect & you DO need to look at real stats to see children are almost always better off with a traditional family. Which BTW you are completely ignoring the fact that in the past there was almost no such thing as a single parent because they were part of an extended family who SUPPORTED them. They also usually remarried yet another widow. when will leftists stop lying?

AJ,

I have to assume that you are still in your teens, given the nonsense you talk, and your obvious belief that you can talk anyone into believing such garbage. One of these days you will look back with embarrassment at what you have been chuntering on with. Never mind: it's all part of growing up.