The Confessional Thread

[Kartoffelbrei]

Originally Posted by Wpnfire

For a while I thought that LGBT couples were not as good parents and care takers of children as were straight couples.

Recently, I realized that this is not true, and that research shows that gay or lesbian couples are just as good as raising children as straight couples are.

I still find non-straight couples disturbing, but I guess...I just fear what I don't understand really.

Hmm... Fearing homosexuality is a bit homosexual..
No offense.

Why should there be any difference?
There are good parents and bad parents,
no matter if gay, straight, hybrid or penguin..
no...there are no bad penguin parents

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by Kartoffelbrei

Why should there be any difference?
There are good parents and bad parents,
no matter if gay, straight, hybrid or penguin..
no...there are no bad penguin parents

Well I have no problem with gay parents, but from a purely objective point of view you can't just say that there wouldn't be any difference without evidence. It seems that there is such evidence, but to assume without it that they were just as good at parenting would be premature. Science doesn't work on assumptions.

[Kartoffelbrei]

Originally Posted by The Batlord

Well I have no problem with gay parents, but from a purely objective point of view you can't just say that there wouldn't be any difference without evidence. It seems that there is such evidence, but to assume without it that they were just as good at parenting would be premature. Science doesn't work on assumptions.

Hmm. But science is nothing more than a lottery, when it comes to things like that. Assume you check out 100 straight parents, and 100 gay parents, and let's say all of the 100 gay parents suck, than the rating would be: 0% of gay parents are good at parenting.
All I say is something objective: I say, there are good parents, and bad parents, and it doesn't matter what their sexual orientation is...WHY should it?
How does your sexual orientation differ your character? You can be gay, and still be a right-wing conservative sob, that beats his children, because he thinks it's the right thing to do. Or you can be a soft-fluffy gay and overhug your children, so they become weak and soft and fluffy. Yeah, all of that is possible, but such studies are only correct if you check EVERY single one. Otherwise those stories are nothing more than an assumption.

My example: Imagine, that you want to make a study about how people feel about Marilyn Manson. You are out on the streets and ask people about it. You really want to be objective, but subconsciously, you start asking those, that look a bit like they would like the music (dark clothing, black make up, dark hair) and Voilà!, your whole study is a lot of bull****.

Studies don't prove ANYTHING, unless you ask all the people in the world, or at least all the people in a country. You can't just ask 1000 people and think it's a study now. Oh, have you heard about the study by "very important sciency study thing studying very sciency science stuff"? they asked 100000 hillbillies if gay people should marry. They said no. All of them. So gay marriage should be illegal, because 100% of the people think they shouldnt marry. Science sucks monkey ass. (except physics)

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by Kartoffelbrei

Hmm. But science is nothing more than a lottery, when it comes to things like that. Assume you check out 100 straight parents, and 100 gay parents, and let's say all of the 100 gay parents suck, than the rating would be: 0% of gay parents are good at parenting.
All I say is something objective: I say, there are good parents, and bad parents, and it doesn't matter what their sexual orientation is...WHY should it?
How does your sexual orientation differ your character? You can be gay, and still be a right-wing conservative sob, that beats his children, because he thinks it's the right thing to do. Or you can be a soft-fluffy gay and overhug your children, so they become weak and soft and fluffy. Yeah, all of that is possible, but such studies are only correct if you check EVERY single one. Otherwise those stories are nothing more than an assumption.

What? With the right sample size chance stops becoming an issue. People will fall in line with the statistics regardless of what one person in the study might think that doesn't fall in line with expectations. If I flip a coin six times I might come up with six heads. Statistically speaking I should get three tails and three heads, but with such a small number of flips my experiment would still be affected by chance. But if I flipped that same coin a thousand times I would get about five hundred heads and five hundred tails give or take.


Sample size determination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stratified sampling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sampling (statistics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Wpnfire]

Originally Posted by The Batlord

What? With the right sample size chance stops becoming an issue. People will fall in line with the statistics regardless of what one person in the study might think that doesn't fall in line with expectations. If I flip a coin six times I might come up with six heads. Statistically speaking I should get three tails and three heads, but with such a small number of flips my experiment would still be affected by chance. But if I flipped that same coin a thousand times I would get about five hundred heads and five hundred tails give or take.

Exactly. The law of large numbers basically.

[djchameleon]

Originally Posted by The Batlord

What? With the right sample size chance stops becoming an issue. People will fall in line with the statistics regardless of what one person in the study might think that doesn't fall in line with expectations. If I flip a coin six times I might come up with six heads. Statistically speaking I should get three tails and three heads, but with such a small number of flips my experiment would still be affected by chance. But if I flipped that same coin a thousand times I would get about five hundred heads and five hundred tails give or take.


Sample size determination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stratified sampling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sampling (statistics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seriously? Screw Statistics.

There are lies damn lies and then there are statistics. You are putting your faith in the wrong thing bro.

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by djchameleon

Seriously? Screw Statistics.

There are lies damn lies and then there are statistics. You are putting your faith in the wrong thing bro.

Oojay?

[Scarlett O'Hara]

Originally Posted by djchameleon

Seriously? Screw Statistics.

There are lies damn lies and then there are statistics. You are putting your faith in the wrong thing bro.

Most statistics are pulled out of thin air on the internet. You need to do checks and find out what the significant difference is using various methods. The 95 or 99% confidence level can help but you can get false positives so the most important aspect is to have a decent sized sample size (dependent on the type of data you are measuring). Even peer reviewed journal articles can have flaws with their data because not all researchers are well versed in statistics and can take parts of their data instead of the true results. This is sometimes because they want to create certain results so they can get more government funding.

[djchameleon]

Originally Posted by Vanilla

Most statistics are pulled out of thin air on the internet. You need to do checks and find out what the significant difference is using various methods. The 95 or 99% confidence level can help but you can get false positives so the most important aspect is to have a decent sized sample size (dependent on the type of data you are measuring). Even peer reviewed journal articles can have flaws with their data because not all researchers are well versed in statistics and can take parts of their data instead of the true results. This is sometimes because they want to create certain results so they can get more government funding.

Exactly, Statistics can be easily manipulated and like you say it's based off of a collection of data and vary depending on how it's computed. At best it is just a really technical estimation.

Originally Posted by Carpe Mortem

You're not racist, man. Just avoiding other racists. ****, if you're not black and go somewhere surrounded by black folk they're gonna be staring at you. And some of them might hate you for not being one of them. Not a comfortable situation to be in.

Yeah that's why I don't drive through suburbs because I get stares from white folks and it definitely isn't the silly **** I am wearing on that day that is causing them to stare at me. They are just racist. Stares are hurtful and I know they are just being hateful of me because I'm not one of them.

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by Vanilla

Most statistics are pulled out of thin air on the internet. You need to do checks and find out what the significant difference is using various methods. The 95 or 99% confidence level can help but you can get false positives so the most important aspect is to have a decent sized sample size (dependent on the type of data you are measuring). Even peer reviewed journal articles can have flaws with their data because not all researchers are well versed in statistics and can take parts of their data instead of the true results. This is sometimes because they want to create certain results so they can get more government funding.

Well I was talking about actual scientific studies, not just random statistics.