Okay I found Dr. Jeffrey Satinover and Dean Byrd. Guess where I found them. Not on the Scholarly Portal at my university... no, silly me, I was stupid to think they'd use peer reviewed journals to publish their papers like any academic with credentials.
On the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality website .
++http://www.narth.com/docs/masquerades.html
++http://www.narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf
Particularly amusing are the accusations of bias in the first link. Well gee wiz, you work for the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, and you're accusing other people of bias just on the basis of being homosexual or having links with the gay community. I'd love to see people take apart these two links and find all the logical fallacies. So much attack the messenger it gets dull in seconds for me to bother though.
Brian
"The Bad Science" behind gay activists
Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
Congratulations, you get a cookie! ^_^brianeyci wrote:Okay I found Dr. Jeffrey Satinover and Dean Byrd. Guess where I found them. Not on the Scholarly Portal at my university... no, silly me, I was stupid to think they'd use peer reviewed journals to publish their papers like any academic with credentials.
On the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality website .
++http://www.narth.com/docs/masquerades.html
++http://www.narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf
Particularly amusing are the accusations of bias in the first link. Well gee wiz, you work for the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, and you're accusing other people of bias just on the basis of being homosexual or having links with the gay community. I'd love to see people take apart these two links and find all the logical fallacies. So much attack the messenger it gets dull in seconds for me to bother though.
Brian
That smackdown in the previous post was probably the most entertaining thing I'll read all day.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
- Justforfun000
- Sith Devotee
- Posts: 2503
- Joined: 2002-08-19 01:44pm
- Location: Toronto
- Contact:
What are you talking about? NARTH is a very respected organization. It's full of scientists and they are all outraged at the mainstream medical community for suppressing research that shows how truly harmful and changeable homosexuality is.Okay I found Dr. Jeffrey Satinover and Dean Byrd. Guess where I found them. Not on the Scholarly Portal at my university... no, silly me, I was stupid to think they'd use peer reviewed journals to publish their papers like any academic with credentials.
On the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality website .
++http://www.narth.com/docs/masquerades.html
++http://www.narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf
Particularly amusing are the accusations of bias in the first link. Well gee wiz, you work for the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, and you're accusing other people of bias just on the basis of being homosexual or having links with the gay community. I'd love to see people take apart these two links and find all the logical fallacies. So much attack the messenger it gets dull in seconds for me to bother though.
Why, they reference tons of peer reviewed studies showing quite clearly....well....they would be peer reviewed favourably if they read them correctly...I mean you can't have ALL things covered when you're showing statistics..I mean c'mon, we all know that most true homosexuals are the ones that live in villages together and have that terribly promiscuous lifestyle. The rest don't really count because they are just confused.
There really isn't any proof that there is such a thing as a homosexual anyway, they just think they are gay. It's a phase. They know this because NARTH sponsors groups to change them back to normal. Excuse me..I mean to the natural essence of their sexual being that they have simply forgotten. Why, they have SCORES of people that have altered their behaviour and now NEVER think of the same sex anymore. It's so successful that they don't even return for any further follow ups. We wish them well even though we have no idea where most of them are now or what they are doing...but I'm sure they are living happy hetero lives.
Hopefully people will soon realize that the people in NARTH are the true pioneers in the medical field that recognizes the wisdom of the past and their bang on assessment of gays as mentally challenged. After all, they can't be very smart to pretend to be something that's just naturally wrong, can they? But Jesus will...I mean, proper therapy will brainwash them..ack....that is I mean..will enlighten them to their divine self and keep them on the straight and narrow.
What a great organization. Amen.
You have to realize that most Christian "moral values" behaviour is not really about "protecting" anyone; it's about their desire to send a continual stream of messages of condemnation towards people whose existence offends them. - Darth Wong alias Mike Wong
"There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. However, there is something very wrong with not choosing to exchange ignorance for knowledge when the opportunity presents itself."
"There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. However, there is something very wrong with not choosing to exchange ignorance for knowledge when the opportunity presents itself."
As far as I'm concerned, psychologists can suck their own balls. Making endless flow charts and labels and diagrams and names for disorders that have no relation to real life. Freud is the worst offender, and this penis envy thing is degrading and archaic leftover from a mysognist past.
Psychologists should leave medicine to psychiatrists and sit in their ivory towers writing essays all day. Then everybody'd be happy.
If you're wondering how to tell right off the bat whether an article's scholarly or not, the first thing to look for is tone of voice. If I wrote an essay with a sentence like this,
And take a look at the documentation format. APA. I wonder if they get the irony of having to use APA in the same paper that they say the APA "catered to as small but vocal special-interest group and has allowed activism to masquerade as science." People who say MLA is the lazy man's way can stuff it IMO, APA's unwieldly and annoying and I would never want to write a paper in APA.
Brian
Psychologists should leave medicine to psychiatrists and sit in their ivory towers writing essays all day. Then everybody'd be happy.
If you're wondering how to tell right off the bat whether an article's scholarly or not, the first thing to look for is tone of voice. If I wrote an essay with a sentence like this,
if the professor was nice he'd give me a C, but more likely I'd fail. I didn't add the exclaimation mark either, it's actually there.NARTH wrote:The committee members were hardly an unbiased group!
And take a look at the documentation format. APA. I wonder if they get the irony of having to use APA in the same paper that they say the APA "catered to as small but vocal special-interest group and has allowed activism to masquerade as science." People who say MLA is the lazy man's way can stuff it IMO, APA's unwieldly and annoying and I would never want to write a paper in APA.
Brian