Woke is alive and well

[Stirlingsays]

No matter how many times you repeat it, you haven’t at all produced scientific evidence supporting your claim that children adopted by gay couples are at greater risk of abuse. There are no studies concluding that, and the body of research on adoption outcomes generally points in the opposite direction. 'Common sense' is usually what people fall back on when they can’t evidence the claim they’re making.

Of course scientific studies are never perfect - that's such a basic argument. Yes, every study has limitations, potential biases, funding influences, methodological weaknesses etc etc.. But that doesn’t mean we can simply dismiss any findings we dislike, or assume the opposite conclusion is therefore true.

There's a reason you've had to get Grok hopping between parts of all different studies over many decades to try and prove the point - because the studies which actually address the point of adoption outcomes, you know the thing we're actually discussing, all point the other way.

You were showed multiple evidences of studies.....which was what you asked for.

You don't accept them, yet pushed your own, which were basically studies with multiple problems as Grok explained.

You aren't interested in common sense, as Kirk showed, because common sense goes against your ideological convictions.

If that child had been given to an opposite sex attracted couple, it was more likely to be alive today.

Opposite sexually attracted couples are obviously less likely to be sexually attracted to a male child than two gay men.....both are unlikely....one is more unlikely than the other.

As I stated, if two straight men were raising a female child, the risk factor would also be elevated over opposite couples.....It's horrible to mentally address it and the risk of death is very low, but it's still bloody obvious.

But you can't push logic into someone who is ideologically minded.

 

[ASCPFC]

Ireland and NI do seem to be even more left wing than Britain.

It's depressing for their future.....because the left take a bad situation and just make it worse both socially and economically.

Bang on. We're f***ed for the future. Our collective heads are in the sand. It won't take me to say I told you so. We all actually know it yet just carry on. The price of living is through the roof and will only get worse. I should be well off but I'm not. Our politics is awful. Realistically, the politicians decide more on government than the people do. They do back room deals which turn election results on their heads. Whilst we pretend to have consensus politics. Which we do not.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Bang on. We're f***ed for the future. Our collective heads are in the sand. It won't take me to say I told you so. We all actually know it yet just carry on. The price of living is through the roof and will only get worse. I should be well off but I'm not. Our politics is awful. Realistically, the politicians decide more on government than the people do. They do back room deals which turn election results on their heads. Whilst we pretend to have consensus politics. Which we do not.

Sounds like workers like you are holding the state up as the elites worsen the situation.

It's hard to know what's for the best, lots of people are leaving these isles because it's increasingly difficult to make a go of things.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

You were showed multiple evidences of studies.....which was what you asked for.

You don't accept them, yet pushed your own, which were basically studies with multiple problems as Grok explained.

You aren't interested in common sense, as Kirk showed, because common sense goes against your ideological convictions.

If that child had been given to an opposite sex attracted couple, it was more likely to be alive today.

Opposite sexually attracted couples are obviously less likely to be sexually attracted to a male child than two gay men.....both are unlikely....one is more unlikely than the other.

As I stated, if two straight men were raising a female child, the risk factor would also be elevated over opposite couples.....It's horrible and it's very low, but it's bloody obvious.

But you can't push logic into someone who is ideologically minded.

Again, none of the studies you cited looked at the actual topic being discussed - you had to work backwards to make it fit, well rather Grok did for you. All the bluster in the world isn't going to change that.

By your logic, a female child is safer with two gay blokes than a heterosexual couple...

Do you consider yourself ideologically minded?

 

[Stirlingsays]

Again, none of the studies you cited looked at the actual topic being discussed - you had to work backwards to make it fit, well rather Grok did for you. All the bluster in the world isn't going to change that.

No, in the past this wasn't allowed to happen, so the evidence had to be found indirectly....and it was despite your denials.

Once the law changed no objective researchers are going to touch this with a barge pole because any result against the liberal consensus would see them hounded out of their jobs.

The only people carrying out studies like this are the ones you highlighted which Grok pulled up as coming from advocacy groups and self selected participants......That kind of bias is obviously going to give results that smooth brains will lap up.

By your logic, a female child is safer with two gay blokes than a heterosexual couple...

Safer from sexual abuse.....probably.

I would have to look into it.

Do you consider yourself ideologically minded?

Yes, but not when it comes to matters like this.

My attitude on this is the majority opinion in most of the world, which is far more socially conservative than Europe....that was lost in Europe when the boomers took over. However, on this common sense point it was even the majority opinion here up until very recent times....I suspect there is still significant disquiet with this law on this amongst the public even now..

If you want to call that ideological then you can all everything ideological.

I call it common sense.

 

[georgenorman]

Again, none of the studies you cited looked at the actual topic being discussed - you had to work backwards to make it fit, well rather Grok did for you. All the bluster in the world isn't going to change that.

By your logic, a female child is safer with two gay blokes than a heterosexual couple...

Do you consider yourself ideologically minded?

Less safe as men are more likely to abuse children than women are.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Less safe as men are more likely to abuse children than women are.

I would have thought the same, but I'm just walking Stirling down a silly little path of his 'logic'.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Less safe as men are more likely to abuse children than women are.

Actually you are probably right there.....then again orientation matters

I should look into it but it's dark and depressing.

 

[Stirlingsays]

I would have thought the same, but I'm just walking Stirling down a silly little path of his 'logic'.

Really? So you support the idea that two men would be a higher risk?

But have argued that this it isn't true that two gay men are a higher risk than one man, one women.

But apparently it's me who has the problem with logic.

 

[Spindle]

Less safe as men are more likely to abuse children than women are.

Although less likely to go through a divorce, which is damaging to children also, unless they are lesbian in which case the divorce rate is 75%.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Really? So you support the idea that two men would be a higher risk?

But have argued that this it isn't true that two gay men are a higher risk than one man, one women.

But apparently it's me who has the problem with logic.

I think that argument is at least more logically coherent than the bullshit you were throwing together previously. But the obvious extension of that logic would be that children raised by single mothers or lesbian couples should be the safest possible households... I think you would recognise pretty quickly that reality is more complicated than that... because getting from broad demographic crime statistics to specific parenting outcomes in adoptive households requires enormous methodological leaps, as I've been explaining to you since yesterday.

Being 'male' or 'gay' are not remotely useful predictors of abuse in the home. Adoptive parents are a highly screened group; comparing them to base rate offending statistics for men in the general population is not a sensible or logical way to assess risk to adopted children.

 

[georgenorman]

I think that argument is at least more logically coherent than the bullshit you were throwing together previously. But the obvious extension of that logic would be that children raised by single mothers or lesbian couples should be the safest possible households... I think you would recognise pretty quickly that reality is more complicated than that... because getting from broad demographic crime statistics to specific parenting outcomes in adoptive households requires enormous methodological leaps, as I've been explaining to you since yesterday.

Being 'male' or 'gay' are not remotely useful predictors of abuse in the home. Adoptive parents are a highly screened group; comparing them to base rate offending statistics for men in the general population is not a sensible or logical way to assess risk to adopted children.

I think the point is that homosexual and lesbian couples are by definition deviants and such an environment is not ideal for children.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

I think the point is that homosexual and lesbian couples are by definition deviants and such an environment is not ideal for children.

I don't agree but you're entitled to your view.

If the concern is child welfare, then the relevant question to me is; 'what environments produce the best outcomes for children?' The data consistently points to things like stability, love, safety, and economic security - not the sexual orientation of the parents.

Plenty of heterosexual households are abusive or dysfunctional, and plenty of same-sex households are loving and stable. The determining factor for me is parenting quality, not whether those involved are gay.

 

[Stirlingsays]

I think that argument is at least more logically coherent than the bullshit you were throwing together previously. But the obvious extension of that logic would be that children raised by single mothers or lesbian couples should be the safest possible households... I think you would recognise pretty quickly that reality is more complicated than that... because getting from broad demographic crime statistics to specific parenting outcomes in adoptive households requires enormous methodological leaps, as I've been explaining to you since yesterday.

Being 'male' or 'gay' are not remotely useful predictors of abuse in the home. Adoptive parents are a highly screened group; comparing them to base rate offending statistics for men in the general population is not a sensible or logical way to assess risk to adopted children.

You just made yourself look stupid by firstly arguing against a position that there are differences of risk and then in a sentence to a different poster tacitly admitting that it made sense.

I on the other hand always accepted that there were differences in risk and that different set ups would offer different break downs. In real life there is no such thing as equality....it's a mental concept applied to humans for ideological reasons, it doesn't happen in nature.

Your last paragraph just makes you look dim again. In denial of the obvious.

Also, I didn't fully accept that lesbians or two straights would automatically be the safest configuration and without researching it, I said it would be worth looking into.
I'd suspect questions would arise here because they have the highest levels of mental instability with the highest reported break ups of any type. However, depending upon the stability of the couple they could represent the lowest sexual risk to a male child....it would need looking into.

The record of single mothers is awful in many regards and it is not a topic that is easily ignored. However, in terms of sexual abuse by those single mothers I suspect it's lower percentage wise than two gays with a male child.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

You just made yourself look stupid by firstly arguing against a position that there are differences of risk and then in a sentence to a different poster tacitly admitting that it made sense.

I on the other hand always accepted that there were differences in risk and that different set ups would offer different break downs. In real life there is no such thing as equality....it's a mental concept applied to humans for ideological reasons, it doesn't happen in nature.

Your last paragraph just makes you look dim again. In denial of the obvious.

Also, I didn't fully accept that lesbians or two straights would automatically be the safest configuration and without researching it, I said it would be worth looking into.
I'd suspect questions would arise here because they have the highest levels of mental instability with the highest reported break ups of any type. However, depending upon the stability of the couple they could represent the lowest sexual risk to a male child....it would need looking into.

The record of single mothers is awful in many regards and it is not a topic that is easily ignored. However, in terms of sexual abuse by those single mothers I suspect it's lower percentage wise than two gays with a male child.

You keep calling me dim while demonstrating you have zero understanding of how to analyse data - this is not a point of opinion.

 

[HKOwen]

You keep calling me dim while demonstrating you have zero understanding of how to analyse data - this is not a point of opinion.

You keep calling others " thick as mince " which is the apex of irony

 

[Stirlingsays]

You keep calling me dim while demonstrating you have zero understanding of how to analyse data - this is not a point of opinion.

To be honest I don't think you could be trusted to analyse anything related to your ideological beliefs.

You are probably too emotionally invested.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

To be honest I don't think you could be trusted to analyse anything related to your ideological beliefs.

You are probably too emotionally invested.

Yeah obviously you’re not ideological at all 🤣

Dim.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

You keep calling others " thick as mince " which is the apex of irony

This sort of post seems to be about all you do on here.

Maybe one day you’ll actually engage with a debate, but I understand trolling is easier for simple minds.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Yeah obviously you’re not ideological at all 🤣

Dim.

At all? I literally said the opposite in an earlier reply to you - laugh away.

The guy who came on here arguing that Tyler Robinson was a groyper thinks he can call others dim.

You're just an example of Dunning Kruger mate.