But don’t worry … I’m sure the “fake but accurate” and “speaks to larger truths” excuses are soon to be expressed …
A study claiming that gay people advocating same-sex marriage can change voters’ minds has been retracted due to fraud.
What’s more, the funding agencies credited with supporting the study deny having any involvement.
The study was published last December in Science, and received lots of media attention. It found that a 20-minute, one-on-one conversation with a gay political canvasser could steer voters in favor of same-sex marriage. Not only that, but these changed opinions lasted for at least a year and influenced other people in the voter’s household, the study found.
Donald Green, the senior author on the study, retracted it on Tuesday shortly after learning that his co-author, UCLA graduate student Michael LaCour, had faked the results. Science posted an official “editorial expression of concern” — a very big deal in the science world — on Wednesday afternoon. […]
The problems came to light after three other researchers tried, and failed, to replicate the study. David Broockman, of Stanford, Joshua Kalla, of the University of California, Berkeley, and Peter Aronow of Yale found eight statistical irregularities in the data set. No one of these would by itself be proof of wrongdoing, they wrote, but all of them collectively suggest that “the data were not collected as described.”
I’m only surprised that Broockman, Kalla and Aronow haven’t been denounced as homophobe-apologists along with demands for their firing for daring to question the study in the first place.
And it looks like there’s some back-peddling from media same-sex marriage cheerleaders.
I don’t know, I become more questioning of same sex marriage the more I listen to advocates.
1) I cannot believe that the results were faked. It seemed perfectly reasonable — obvious, even — that a 20-minute conversation with a gay advocate would outweigh 6,000 years of scripture and doctrine.
b) What do you suppose will be the ratio of airtime devoted to the fraudulent study, versus the minutes devoted to explaining the fraud? Will it be higher or lower than the ratio between the page number of the retraction and the page number of the original print story?
iii) How many outlets will give serious airtime or column inches to an examination of how easily peer reviewers, editors, and media personalities fall for hoaxes that conform to their personal preferences and beliefs?
mu) Is “back-peddling” the act of trying to sell a door-to-door salesman some piece of crap you bought from the previous one?
Funny, after 20 minutes of conversation with a SSM advocate, I always get called a “homophobe” or a “hater”, even though I neither fear nor hate gays. I usually have some religious aspersions added, even though I never bring up religion, and, in fact, have no problem with gays who want to get married go right ahead and do so.
It’s when they want State sanction/recognition of their status that the issues start arising, since the State has the right to define the requirements and conditions for the issuance of a State license/receipt of State benefits. If I want to hunt or fish, the State has the right to define a minimum age that I must be, the minimum training I must undergo, periods during which I may hunt or fish, and how many of whatever animals I am allowed to gather in and take home. If I wish to operate a medical or legal business, the State has the right to specify the minimum education I must have, tests that I must pass, certifications I must receive, etc. If I want to drive, the State can set all kinds of conditions if I wish to drive on State roads (age, glasses (if needed), written test, practical test, insurance, seat belt, exhaust loudness, speeds dependent on location, etc.). If I wish to carry a concealed weapon, the State can set minimum training, minimum age, off-limits areas (such as bars/restaurants, schools and government buildings), and many more.
So why is it that when marriage comes up, the State isn’t allowed to set any conditions?
“It’s a Constitutional Right”? So is Keeping and Bearing Arms, except that the Second Amendment is actually there, while marriage never appears, which makes it a State issue.
“Equality”? Nonsense. The conditions set by the State never mention either “love” or “sexual attraction” and are applied as evenly as human nature will allow. As the argument goes, Nathan Lane could marry Ellen DeGeneres, and no one would officially care. Gays had gotten married through all of history.
“Fairness”? See “Equality”.
“It’s For The Kids”? There are studies (real ones, not this faked-up crap) that prove that kids in same-sex marriage homes end up verifiably worse – mentally, physically and emotionally – than kids in traditional nuclear families. http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/are-children-with-same-sex-parents-at-a-disadvantage/
(Please note the utter lack of any mention about religion.)
You are obviously a religious zealot who should be sent to re-education camp and then shot afterwards just because.
You forgot ‘homophobe’ and ‘hater’.
Really? Odd, because the more I read/hear from certain gay marriage advocates the less I find myself supporting it.
Must be all the “shut up hater” cries. Leads me to believe they aren’t that serious about it and are just using it as an excuse to crush people.
minority proclaiming majority status
The Bolsheviks, originally also[1] Bolshevists[2] or Bolsheviki[3] (Russian: ??????????, ????????? (singular); IPA: [b?l????v?ik]; derived from ??????????? bol’shinstvo, “majority”, literally meaning “one of the majority”) were a faction of the Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) which split apart from the Menshevik faction[4] at the Second Party Congress in 1903
I also get a lot of aspersions cast my way whenever I point out that there are likely to be more left-handed blondes than there are in all of the GLBLTQRSXYZ conglomerations combined. In an era when there would be no real shame or embarrassment involved in admitting one’s sexual preference, and even when you include everyone who refuses to state, 96.6% of Americans are straight. A mere 2.3% came out as gay, lesbian or bisexual.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr077.pdf
I don’t have the cite –heard it on Rush Limbaugh some time ago, so if you want to go dig through his archives for it, be my guess, but of the 1.6% who identify as homosexual, less that half want to get married.
One half of one percent. I think that might be a new record for minority tyranny.
fyi
CCTV Video of Twin Peaks/Waco Shooting Shared With AP Reporters – Gunfire Began Outside, Bikers Running For Cover, Police Entered Restaurant With “Assault Rifles”,
Every conversation I’ve had with an SSM proponent has, in fact, changed my opinion — of the wisdom of having a conversation with this nimrod.
The bullshit about “oppression” is precisely that — bullshit. It isn’t oppression when I cannot meet the State’s requirements involving getting a license to operate a restaurant. It isn’t oppression when I am not allowed to operate a passenger bus or taxi service, because I don’t have that kind of driver’s license.
It all boils down to “do you meet the requirements set by State Law or not?” If not, you don’t get the license, and whining that you REALLYREALLY want it anyway is not sufficient reason to overturn State Law, especially when it has been voted in as an amendment to the State Constitution.
[…] via Protein Wisdom […]
“nimrod” a perfect example of shifted meaning in the language.
Nimrod was a great hunter according to the Bible. Bug Bunny called Elmer “nimrod” sarcastically and it has now become an insult as a dolt. Bugs as influential as Shakespeare in the English language.
Of course Nimrod also built the Tower of Babel ( what a maroon) so disfavor with God might also have some influence on the use. It can also mean “tyrant” so that fits with McGehee’s description of a SSM proponent.
Bugs Bunny called Elmer “nimrod” sarcastically, and it has now become an insult as a dolt.
bgbear, I posit that it’s just a matter of time before “Einstein” assumes the meaning of “idiot,” for precisely the same reason.
State has the right to…
Drumwaster, I could get on board with the State’s power to limit the number of animals a hunter takes in a season, and I’ll cede the State’s legitimate authority to regulate the vehicles and drivers who use the roads it builds and maintains. But I don’t see where the State has any legitimate reason to mandate minimum ages for hunters, nor licenses for guild members, nor limits on the carrying of arms. Sure, the State has claimed those rights, and programmed its citizens to believe those powers are legitimate, but that doesn’t necessarily make it so.
Tangential, I know, but I reflexively jump in when I see the State granted powers it has no legitimate claim to.
You will note that nowhere did I say that there should be any limits on any of those activities, merely that the State has the right to set requirements for licensing of those activities. If people wish to do any of those things without bothering with a license, they take the risk that the State will get involved and shut them down for lack of the appropriate licenses.
If someone wishes to take their underage son/daughter out on a hunting trip, that is their right, and no one says that the State has to be told, just like driving on your own land. However, if the State is forced to take official notice (due to an accident or overrunning the limits set forth), there will obviously be some sort of legal penalties for their malum prohibitum actions. It is the same issue with same-sex marriage: if two men or two women wish to get married, let them send out invitations, find a willing officiant, hire a hall and pay for the catering, and the State has absolutely NOTHING to say about any of that. It is only when the parties to that ceremony want to claim State-granted benefits or protections under the law (such as tax deductions, implicit inheritance, et alia) that the conditions set by the State to receive a license become relevant. And almost every one of those conditions can be handled or received through other legal means (power of attorney, trusteeship, etc.)
The only exception I can think of would be that granted to married couples regarding taxation, and that is more a case where the State is looking to continue on to the next generation by encouraging people to have kids and raise them while choosing to stay put, and after all, same-sex couples cannot have kids.
You will note that nowhere did I say that there should be any limits on any of those activities, merely that the State has the right to set requirements for licensing of those activities.
Trust me — I’m not accusing you of advocating for such limits. I just don’t understand from whence the State derives the power to prohibit a father from taking his kid pheasant hunting, or the power to prevent a grown woman from cutting somebody’s hair without a license.
I’m totally on the same page with you as regards the State’s role in enforcing marriage contracts, or contracts demanded of third parties who may or may not want to be involved in gay weddings.
My mother cut my hair quite a bit when I was in elementary school, and never had a license to do so. I think the limitation is when you open a shop and start inviting the public in that the State might take official notice. If she just goes from home to home, or invites them into her home one at a time, the State has no jurisdiction.
I fully expect medical practitioners to start doing this when the current official fiasco falls to shreds.
From my own personal opinion, the only occupations that the State should be able to control are the ones actually hired by the State – police/prison guards, firemen/paramedics, judges and military. Let the free market handle the rest, and hammer the bejayzus out of those who set out to defraud.
Hear, hear!
hammer the bejayzus out of those who set out to defraud –
Yes, and I’d like to see more private organizations like UL to take over standards & practices of different professions.
No, NOT getting a cert from them would keep you from practicing, but potential clients would then be aware of your possible shortcomings and steer clear.
idiotcracy news
The Texas-based company was accused of perpetuating racial stereotypes against the Hispanic community after it made a pun in Spanish on its Twitter account: “I hate tacos’ said no Juan ever #TacoTuesday #DaveandBusters.”
havel
>The post-totalitarian system touches people at every step, but it does so with its ideological gloves on. This is why life in the system is so thoroughly permeated with hypocrisy and lies: government by bureaucracy is called popular government; the working class is enslaved in the name of the working class; the complete degradation of the individual is presented as his ultimate liberation; depriving people of information is called making it available; the use of power to manipulate is called the public control of power, and the arbitrary abuse of power is called observing the legal code; the repression of culture is called its development; the expansion of imperial influence is presented as support for the oppressed; the lack of free expression becomes the highest form of freedom; farcical elections become the highest form of democracy; banning independent thought becomes the most scientific of world views; military occupation becomes fraternal assistance. Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything. It falsifies the past. It falsifies the present, and it falsifies the future. It falsifies statistics. It pretends not to possess an omnipotent and unprincipled police apparatus. It pretends to respect human rights. It pretends to persecute no one. It pretends to fear nothing. It pretends to pretend nothing.
Individuals need not believe all these mystifications, but they must behave as though they did, or they must at least tolerate them in silence, or get along well with those who work with them. For this reason, however, they must live within a lie. They need not accept the lie. It is enough for them to have accepted their life with it and in it. For by this very fact, individuals confirm the system, fulfill the system, make the system, are the system.<
Why won’t you let the state wet it’s beak? Just a little, you know? As a show of respect.
The problem is, of course, that when the government plays “just the tip” with you, it’s never ever just the tip.
it’s the whole winnebago