Posted: May 14, 2017 10:39 am
Keep It Real wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:Keep It Real wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:
The fact that these people want change their sexual orientation and are thus predisposed to look for a positive effect to the treatment.
Making it a biased study.
That's like saying studies into the efficacy of cancer treatments are biased because the patients want to get well.
Except that it isn't, as cancer isn't a harmless condition, meaning there are both people who are perfectly fine with their cancer and those who are not.
Really KIR, stopping pushing out these asinine analogies, it's not helping your case. In fact it makes you seem like a homophobe by constantly comparing homosexuality with all manner of mental and physical diseases.
Pathetic.
What's pathetic is your repeated failure to both read what your interlocutors actually post and adress that, rather than tilting at straw-men.
Keep It Real wrote: The vast majority of cancer patients want to get well
The point is that cancer is actually demonstrably harmful, where same-sex attraction isn't.
The point is that the studies you keep referring to consists largely, if not exclusively, of gay men who consider their homsexuality a problem. While there are plenty of gay men who don't.
Meaning that the study sample is not representative in the slightest and the results highly biased.
Keep It Real wrote: and I can't help it if your blinkered, indoctrinated, reactionary mind
Silly blind accusations like this won't fly on this site KIR, they only damage your own reputation.
Keep It Real wrote: judges me a homophobe - that's your problem/mistake..
Fortunately I'm not bothered by fantastical scenarios.
I did not judge you to be a homophobe.
I said your arguments make it look like you're one. By virtue of being indistinguishable from the arguments homophobes make.