4 ms·

>...suppose for the sake of argument... No, I'm not going to assume your bigoted viewpoint. It absolutely is inconceivable to me. The only way you could think

>...suppose for the sake of argument... No, I'm not going to assume your bigoted viewpoint. It absolutely is inconceivable to me. The only way you could think this view has merit is through an extreme lack of empathy and a lot of ignorance. >...pro-gay echo chamber... Considering gay people to by like other people is not being "pro-gay." It's just being a decent human being. >...existing research... Keep in mind that we are talking about the falsification of research to malign gay people and take away their kids or prevent them from having kids. This isn't about science but about what types of views and actions Google finds acceptable and valuable on a team.

naasking 8y ago
> No, I'm not going to assume your bigoted viewpoint. It absolutely is inconceivable to me. The only way you could think this view has merit is through an extreme lack of empathy and a lot of ignorance. Uh, no, it's a simple recognition that homosexual family units are a new and unique phenomenon in human history, and so we don't actually know if it might have any unexpected effects. Of course we should give the benefit of the doubt, but recognizing this fact, questioning assumptions and doing research on this issue is NOT bigoted. > Considering gay people to by like other people is not being "pro-gay." It's just being a decent human being. Way to completely ignore the legitimate point I'm trying to raise. > Keep in mind that we are talking about the falsification of research to malign gay people and take away their kids or prevent them from having kids. I'm not talking about Google's panel specifically, I'm talking about the general point that being tolerant even of people who hate you can still actually benefit you in the end, so long as everyone is open to debate, acts in good faith and respects the scientific process.
- mike00632 8y ago
  >...homosexual family units are a new and unique phenomenon in human history... Families that drive cars are new to human history. Families where both parents have had orthodontic work are new to human history. It takes a special seed of bigotry to question whether LGBT people are inherently unfit to be parents. >... questioning assumptions and doing research on this issue is NOT bigoted. Making assumptions about people based on sexual orientation and falsifying research to further your mean-spirited assumptions is indeed bigotry. >"Considering gay people to by like other people is not being 'pro-gay.' It's just being a decent human being." Way to completely ignore the legitimate point I'm trying to raise. You're ignoring my point. Gays being treated like people is not an extreme left-wing ideology forwarded by activists. It's just a simple application of basic ethics and anyone who fails to do this does not belong on an ethics committee. >I'm talking about the general point that being tolerant even of people who hate you... A tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance.
  - naasking 8y ago
    > Families that drive cars are new to human history. Yes, and we rigourously studied child safety seats, distracted driving and crumple zones to improve safety, did we not? > Families where both parents have had orthodontic work are new to human history. Yes, and we studied the effects of fluoridation, anaesthetics, retainers, braces and other corrective measures, did we not? And we continue to do so. > It takes a special seed of bigotry to question whether LGBT people are inherently unfit to be parents. Except I never made that claim. While some people certainly do, that does not detract from the point that I made that these new circumstances could have some unexpected effects, and you should encourage such research. Furthermore, it doesn't diminish my point that people who stand against your lifestyle choices could prove beneficial by advancing our understanding of these issues, simply by being the combative jerks you see them to be. I'm sure you've heard of the replication crisis, where up to 50-75% of papers fail replication. The liberal echo chamber of academia is one factor that contributed to this outcome. More ideological disagreement would have resulted in publication and peer review that was more robust. > You're ignoring my point. Gays being treated like people is not an extreme left-wing ideology forwarded by activists. That point is has never been in dispute in this thread, so I don't even know why you keep bringing it up. > A tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance. Bullshit. A tolerant society cannot tolerate violence. Speech is not violence. And please, don't trot out that tired paragraph from Popper that nobody has actually read in full context, where he says exactly what I've just said: tolerance extends up to but not including violence and incitements to violence.

naasking 8y ago

> No, I'm not going to assume your bigoted viewpoint. It absolutely is inconceivable to me. The only way you could think this view has merit is through an extreme lack of empathy and a lot of ignorance. Uh, no, it's a simple recognition that homosexual family units are a new and unique phenomenon in human history, and so we don't actually know if it might have any unexpected effects. Of course we should give the benefit of the doubt, but recognizing this fact, questioning assumptions and doing research on this issue is NOT bigoted. > Considering gay people to by like other people is not being "pro-gay." It's just being a decent human being. Way to completely ignore the legitimate point I'm trying to raise. > Keep in mind that we are talking about the falsification of research to malign gay people and take away their kids or prevent them from having kids. I'm not talking about Google's panel specifically, I'm talking about the general point that being tolerant even of people who hate you can still actually benefit you in the end, so long as everyone is open to debate, acts in good faith and respects the scientific process.

mike00632 8y ago
>...homosexual family units are a new and unique phenomenon in human history... Families that drive cars are new to human history. Families where both parents have had orthodontic work are new to human history. It takes a special seed of bigotry to question whether LGBT people are inherently unfit to be parents. >... questioning assumptions and doing research on this issue is NOT bigoted. Making assumptions about people based on sexual orientation and falsifying research to further your mean-spirited assumptions is indeed bigotry. >"Considering gay people to by like other people is not being 'pro-gay.' It's just being a decent human being." Way to completely ignore the legitimate point I'm trying to raise. You're ignoring my point. Gays being treated like people is not an extreme left-wing ideology forwarded by activists. It's just a simple application of basic ethics and anyone who fails to do this does not belong on an ethics committee. >I'm talking about the general point that being tolerant even of people who hate you... A tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance.
- naasking 8y ago
  > Families that drive cars are new to human history. Yes, and we rigourously studied child safety seats, distracted driving and crumple zones to improve safety, did we not? > Families where both parents have had orthodontic work are new to human history. Yes, and we studied the effects of fluoridation, anaesthetics, retainers, braces and other corrective measures, did we not? And we continue to do so. > It takes a special seed of bigotry to question whether LGBT people are inherently unfit to be parents. Except I never made that claim. While some people certainly do, that does not detract from the point that I made that these new circumstances could have some unexpected effects, and you should encourage such research. Furthermore, it doesn't diminish my point that people who stand against your lifestyle choices could prove beneficial by advancing our understanding of these issues, simply by being the combative jerks you see them to be. I'm sure you've heard of the replication crisis, where up to 50-75% of papers fail replication. The liberal echo chamber of academia is one factor that contributed to this outcome. More ideological disagreement would have resulted in publication and peer review that was more robust. > You're ignoring my point. Gays being treated like people is not an extreme left-wing ideology forwarded by activists. That point is has never been in dispute in this thread, so I don't even know why you keep bringing it up. > A tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance. Bullshit. A tolerant society cannot tolerate violence. Speech is not violence. And please, don't trot out that tired paragraph from Popper that nobody has actually read in full context, where he says exactly what I've just said: tolerance extends up to but not including violence and incitements to violence.