A New Study is a Shock for the Right Wing

[swansont]

@ Swansont,

 

While I understand your argument. The other response you are listing (JohnC) seems overly disappointing. It is more like a collection of misquoted, out of context, unrelated words construed to look mildly on topic.

 

I'm sure conservapedia (never heard of it and I am not looking it up) is supporting whatever his views are, but was it authored by a monkey or does it have similar criteria to Wikipedia (name similarity and all).

 

Conservapedia is a "Wiki encyclopaedia with articles written from a Christian fundamentalist viewpoint", which, to those familiar with it, is famous for substituting ideology for facts whenever it's convenient. IOW, it seems to be a pretty good proxy for current right-wing thinking. (They view Wikipedia as left-leaning, but then, reality has a liberal bias.) Undoubtedly authored by monkeys who deny that they are descended from monkeys (or rather, apes, but evolution is another topic they know to be wrong despite not understanding what it actually says)evolution

 

Given that you refuse to visit the Conservapedia site, how can you make any judgement about anything being misquoted and/or out of context?

 

 

 

The entire Simpsons reference was also bewildering, were they talking about gay parenting? There is no context. The Simpsons has run a long time, and you could likely find many interesting quotes, but are they relevant or on topic? I could post the first word of that video on youtube and claim I was talking about the IBM motto. What does the Simpsons video have to do with the price of tea in China?

 

It's a pop-culture quote.

[barfbag]

@ Swanson,

Given that you refuse to visit the Conservapedia site, how can you make any judgement about anything being misquoted and/or out of context?

 

Okay. I'll bite.

 

Let's start with the quote "gay parents are great for children". Asserted to be from OP and in Quotes implying it is being quoted (unless I misunderstand the use of quotes).

 

So that is how I can,

make any judgement about anything being misquoted and/or out of context?

 

 

Anyways. Next thread. This is borderline trolling now, although post 48 was a blatant troll.

 

I'm sure you saw the above without having me find it for you.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

The study at best is what I call a "Trupic Falsum". While in some form the premise may be true in the particular, it is false in assuming its a general rule. there is no improvement on nature, a biological Father and Mother is the best for any child, a homosexual couple could indeed be an asset to a childs growth, but the standard parents, or step parents, must be correctly viewed as the norm. The right wing would correctly ignore this study, An any attempt to give credence to homosexual parenting over normal parenting, is an excercise in mootness.

[ydoaPs]

The study at best is what I call a "Trupic Falsum". While in some form the premise may be true in the particular, it is false in assuming its a general rule. there is no improvement on nature, a biological Father and Mother is the best for any child, a homosexual couple could indeed be an asset to a childs growth, but the standard parents, or step parents, must be correctly viewed as the norm. The right wing would correctly ignore this study, An any attempt to give credence to homosexual parenting over normal parenting, is an excercise in mootness.

...facts be damned.

[dimreepr]

I don't think I ever made any suggestion or inference about my stepparent being a bad parent. My stepparent had no biological connection to me, her only connection was through marriage. And that disappeared as a consequence of my father's death. I infer no blame or criticism, I just stated the facts. My only view is that that was a consequence of nature. Watch any wildlife program - we are no different, i.e. the lion cubs killed by the new lion after the death or other disappearance of the previous male lion. I'm not suggesting we go as far as killing, but the driving force is going to be there - we are no different. The relationship to a child by one or more stepparents will doubtless work, but if they split for whatever reason the situation may be different. Doubtless that remark will cause some upset, but as the driving force that makes us to anything, nature will prevail.

 

 

Perhaps you should look up the word ‘adoption’.

Edited July 22, 2014 by dimreepr

[swansont]

there is no improvement on nature

 

Am I to assume you typed this on a natural communication device?

[Delbert]

 

Perhaps you should look up the word ‘adoption’.

Yes, and I believe there's an element of it in the animal kingdom. But it is probably a transient thing. What springs to mind is Emperor penguins that have lost their own chick. They fight over and apparently try to foster any chick that becomes detached from is parent - sometimes killing the chick in the process. But from what I understand any chick that does get effectively 'captured' by one of these frustrated penguins, will not survive. Presumably because these foster parents are almost certain to separate (if they haven't already), presumably because they've lost their own chick. Now, I'm not fore one moment saying that's a direct comparison to human situations, but it seems to me the natural connection is important. Perhaps it's something to do with the desire to pass on one's own genes.

[dimreepr]

Yes, and I believe there's an element of it in the animal kingdom. But it is probably a transient thing. What springs to mind is Emperor penguins that have lost their own chick. They fight over and apparently try to foster any chick that becomes detached from is parent - sometimes killing the chick in the process. But from what I understand any chick that does get effectively 'captured' by one of these frustrated penguins, will not survive. Presumably because these foster parents are almost certain to separate (if they haven't already), presumably because they've lost their own chick. Now, I'm not fore one moment saying that's a direct comparison to human situations, but it seems to me the natural connection is important. Perhaps it's something to do with the desire to pass on one's own genes.

 

 

 

That’s a very tenuous argument, whether it’s true or not; penguin behaviour doesn’t translate to human behaviour, otherwise we’d all be walking round the shops with precariously balanced children on our feet.

[swansont]

@ Swanson,

Okay. I'll bite.

 

Let's start with the quote "gay parents are great for children". Asserted to be from OP and in Quotes implying it is being quoted (unless I misunderstand the use of quotes).

Yes, it's a quote from the OP.

 

Here's the OP. Emphasis added.

 

In the biggest study of on the subject, it turns out that gay parents are great for children (better, in fact, than straight parents). Oh, and being a jerk to gay people is, unsurprisingly, bad for children.

 

 

Will somebody think of the children?!

 

 

I don't see how anyone can assert that it's not a direct quote. (well, I can, but see below)

 

 

So that is how I can,

 

Anyways. Next thread. This is borderline trolling now, although post 48 was a blatant troll.

 

I'm sure you saw the above without having me find it for you.

 

 

If you're admitting to trolling, that's one thing, but if you are accusing me someone else of it, that's another. Not a fan of making the accusation, personally, because it's an admission that you don't think the other person is sincere in what they say. It's also possibly a cover for "I have no response to your position, so I will employ a diversionary tactic"

 

Conservapedia exists (I provided a link) and the entry being quoted exists, so that's not trolling. There are right-wing folk who are on the record as believing that. And the assertion that it's a Simpsons quote has an actual video reference included. Not seeing the trolling.

[iNow]

If you're admitting to trolling, that's one thing, but if you are accusing me of it, that's another. Not a fan of making the accusation, personally, because it's an admission that you don't think the other person is sincere in what they say. It's also possibly a cover for "I have no response to your position, so I will employ a diversionary tactic"

Just a head's up... Your numbering as a member of staff may be different than ours, but non-staff members see post #48 as the one submitted by John Cuthber yesterday with the Simpson's video "think of the children!!"

 

mea culpa - I realized that partway through but forgot to edit out the "me". Fixed now.

[dimreepr]

Just a head's up... Your numbering as a member of staff may be different than ours, but non-staff members see post #48 as the one submitted by John Cuthber yesterday with the Simpson's video "think of the children!!"

 

 

That’s what I’m seeing although, “This is borderline trolling now, although post 48 was a blatant troll”, is equally ridiculous either way.

Edited July 22, 2014 by dimreepr

[barfbag]

gay parents are great for children

 

 

Yes. I was mistaken. I forgot the OP had made such a ridiculous assertion.

 

I would need to see more of that Simpsons scene though to agree it was concerning Gay Parenting. I am not up on my Simpsons Education. Until then I will still consider that off topic trolling.

 

Even though I am no Simpsons expert I can still find a video of them on a variety of topics including trolling as I said that post seems to be.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqeQmkI7tFI

 

Any study comparing parenting skills between Gays and Straights must include the many bad parents who fell into parenting by accident, where Gays must often be well off enough to Adopt or Surrogate (in male-male couples) and most frequently enter into parenting roles by choice.

 

The results are thus always predictable, AND IN NO WAY SHOCKING.

 

The OP and title of this thread indicate right wingers should be SHOCKED by this tainted survey.

 

It is weird to even see so many "Shocked" individuals here. I thought this was common sense.

Edited July 22, 2014 by barfbag

[John Cuthber]

Yes, and I believe there's an element of it in the animal kingdom. But it is probably a transient thing. What springs to mind is Emperor penguins that have lost their own chick. They fight over and apparently try to foster any chick that becomes detached from is parent - sometimes killing the chick in the process. But from what I understand any chick that does get effectively 'captured' by one of these frustrated penguins, will not survive. Presumably because these foster parents are almost certain to separate (if they haven't already), presumably because they've lost their own chick. Now, I'm not fore one moment saying that's a direct comparison to human situations, but it seems to me the natural connection is important. Perhaps it's something to do with the desire to pass on one's own genes.

I will see your unsupported opinion and raise you some evidence

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2629258/Gay-penguins-adopt-abandoned-chick-wildlife-park-claims-best-parents-had.html

@ Swansont,

 

While I understand your argument. The other response you are listing (JohnC) seems overly disappointing. It is more like a collection of misquoted, out of context, unrelated words construed to look mildly on topic.

 

I'm sure conservapedia (never heard of it and I am not looking it up) is supporting whatever his views are, but was it authored by a monkey or does it have similar criteria to Wikipedia (name similarity and all). The entire Simpsons reference was also bewildering, were they talking about gay parenting? There is no context. The Simpsons has run a long time, and you could likely find many interesting quotes, but are they relevant or on topic? I could post the first word of that video on youtube and claim I was talking about the IBM motto. What does the Simpsons video have to do with the price of tea in China?

If you looked things up more often you might understand them better.

It is not trolling to point out that there is at least one reasonably representative group of Right wingers who will be shocked by the revelation that gay couples raise children successfully because they believe the exact opposite.

 

Also, since you had already pointed out that you didn't understand the "think of the children" line, it's not trolling to explain to you that it's origins lie in popular culture

(hence the Simpsons reference) and that it's used a a bogus debating tactic by the right wing.

That use by the Right is the reason why it's legitimate for someone to include it in the original post.

Do you understand irony?

 

So would you please either explain in what way it's trolling or apologize.

(by which I think we mean this sort of thing, from wiki)

"In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community"

 

you may wish to consider that people have posted views in accord with mine, so I'm not sowing discord.

I'm not starting an argument, I'm trying to finish it by providing evidence that one side of the debate is right- there really are some Right wingers who will be shocked.

The explanation of the origin of the phrase, it's use in popular culture and it's misuse in some debates is relevant- since you pointed out that you didn't understand it.

Providing that clarification in the thread is not off-topic.

It isn't inflammatory to point out that you are taking a joke and trying to build it up as some massively important point.

If anything, pointing out "it's just a joke" should be a calming influence.

Edited July 22, 2014 by John Cuthber

[barfbag]

extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community

 

@ John C,

 

Was the "Think of the Children" Simpsons episode to do with Gay Parenting? Otherwise it is just a common sentence applicable in thousands of ways. I've probably used it, and i bet it was used in almost every language since the dawn of speech.

 

Now you suggest this sentence arose from pop culture as if "Think of the children" is such an abstract thought.

 

Show me that the topic of the Simpsons was gay parenting and I will revoke the allegation that it was an off topic troll.

[John Cuthber]

I did have a brief look to see if I could find out what the context of the quote was, but I didn't succeed.

 

I rather doubt that it is about gay parent

Nor do I think it's likely that the topic of discussion was gay parenting on either of the other two times that character said it.

 

However, as you might guess, she isn't a serious character- this is, after all, the Simpsons.

She is a parody of the religious Right.

And, as I cited the wiki page as saying, it's a phrase often misused by the religious right to "justify" the sort of trash that they believe (e.g. the stuff in that conservapedia quote).

 

The irony is that, in fact, if you "think of the children" you will discover that they do just fine with gay parents.

So, it is relevant, it's just that you didn't understand it.

 

In the meantime

"Show me that the topic of the Simpsons was gay parenting and I will revoke the allegation that it was an off topic troll."

is a straw man.

Nobody ever said, or even implied that the Simpsons were on about any particular topic.

[swansont]

I thought this was common sense.

 

But this is where the part about "Right Wing" is important. Context matters.

 

It is weird to even see so many "Shocked" individuals here.

 

Who here was shocked?

 

 

And the Simpsons bit was satire. If you don't get it, fine. Some of us did. Nothing more to see here, move on. These aren't the 'droids you're looking for.

[John Cuthber]

 

. These aren't the 'droids you're looking for.

If the 'droids were not discussing gay parents then that's off topic.

[MonDie]

[snip]

 

It seems very clear to me, in this study, however limited in scope suggests lesbians are better parents.

 

[/snip]

 

+1

 

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/635/abstract

"80% of children had a female index parent while 18% had a male index parent."

 

Maybe the true implication is that more moms is better than more dads!

 

---

 

I think anyone who actually wants to be a parent has an advantage over those who don't. LGBT parents are considerably less likely to accidentally become pregnant and have a child they are not ready for. So most LGBT parents enter into parenting better prepared.

......and yes, the GOP will be outraged.

 

I don't know about Australian adoption, but U.S. couples have to meet rigorous standards before they can adopt. The sample was compared to "population normative data", not another sample of adoptive parents.

 

[snip]

 

LGBT parents are considerably less likely to accidentally become pregnant and have a child they are not ready for.

 

[/snip]

(A) Which is why much (but not all) of the male portion of the sample probably consisted of adoptive parents.

 

"A cross-sectional survey [...] was distributed in 2012 to a convenience sample of 390 parents from Australia who self-identified as same-sex attracted [...]"

 

(B) On the other hand, some of them might be parents who came out (and probably divorced) after having their kids heterosexually.

 

(C ) However, the sample's notable lesbian-bias could denote the fact that lesbian couples, being the child-bearing sex, can get children more easily, in which case neither A nor B is largely true of the sample.

 

TLI

Edited July 25, 2014 by MonDie

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Branch regarding Political Conservatism and mild Insanity has - totally unexpectedly - been split off into a new topic