Atlanta Fire Chief - fired for being Christian.

[lilpixieofterror]

What I said was that scientists have found that when doing anonymous surveys on large numbers of people they can trust what those people, on average, say about their levels of happiness. It turns out most people don't seem to lie about their levels of happiness in anonymous scientific surveys, even if they do lie to their friends or family. And as long as the survey contains a sufficiently large sample size it makes no significant difference to the collective results even if some of the people do lie.

So that means that you don't actually have any evidence that all of them are 'lying' beyond the fact they are making claims that disagree with The Great Starlight^TM, so therefore, they can't be trusted, to give accurate information about what they actually believe because X people were lying, so they must all be lying. Just lovely, so do you always try to impress people with your deck stacking or do you just think that those who dare disagree with you; are not smart enough to catch onto your little games?

I absolutely did not say that you should always trust what everyone says about everything! Or that you should naively believe what people say at face value. I would never ever say that, nor anything like that because I value critical thinking and skeptical analysis of evidence.

So I can't trust what people say, when they tell me their own actions and feelings? When should I trust what people say, about their own actions and feelings? When they agree with The Great Starlight^TM they are to be trusted, but when they disagree with The Great Starlight^TM, that is the point I should start to question their beliefs and claims?

The observable evidence is that there are three kinds of results from people who have undergone ex-gay therapy:
1. People who afterwards say it didn't work for them, who constitute the vast majority.

Most people who are treated for depression, end up falling right back into depression. From what I could find, 5 is the average amount of times depression sufferers relapse right back into their same patterns. Therefore, treating depression doesn't work and we should stop trying to treat it. Again, your logic, not mine.

2. People who afterwards say it did work for them, but then later admit that they lied, who appear to constitute the majority of the of the remainder.

So you have 100% evidence, that 100% of everybody, who has ever gone though any sort of ex gay therapy, has lied about it and 100% of them were lying about it. Wow, where did you come up with this evidence or are you showing that you're a Google Scholar that doesn't' actually have any evidence? The majority say X, so what? The majority of depression sufferers end up suffering from depression their whole life so we should just stop trying to treat it. Again, your logic, not mine.

3. People who afterwards say it did work for them, and have continued to make this claim to the present day, who constitute the tiniest, tiniest, fraction of a percent, if indeed they exist at all.

So what? It only takes ONE case, to dispel the myth that human sexuality is a set condition, that can never be changed. Besides, I took your logic and applied it. Most people, who suffer from depression, will end up dealing it their whole life. This isn't something I made up, but something backed up by the scientific evidence (5 relapses into depression, is the lifetime average). Likewise, depending on the studies you believe, 50-90% of all those who undergone rehab for drug or alcohol addition, end up right back to their additions. Again, this is not something I made up, but is a scientific backed fact. Therefore, since the vast majority of people, who suffer from depression and addition, suffer from their afflictions, their entire life, we should stop trying to help and just let them be. Again, your logic, not mine. Do you not like it when your own logic is so easy to turn against you and pwns your arguments, so badly? Perhaps you should stop using them or would that require you to admit to a mistake and that is beyond your ability to admit to?

As I mentioned, of all the people who claim they fall into category 3 that I've heard or seen interviewed, 100% of them appeared to be clearly bisexual and simply misunderstood what 'bisexual' meant and belonged in category 1 with the never-cured group. However, a lot of other people think that people in category 3 actually belong in category 2 because they believe they are lying and have simply not yet admitted to the fact that they are lying. I am, however, open to the possibility that they are not lying and am quite happy to admit that in one case in 10,000 the person might have actually changed sexuality. Since there are serious detrimental side-effects associated with such treatments, it is obviously not reasonable to recommend treatments with such low success rates and such serious side-effects.

Yep, the No True Scotsman Fallacy is under way. In which anybody who claims to have 'turned straight' were not 'truly gay' to begin with, but were in denial of their own sexuality. How great, to outright dismiss anything that proves you wrong by using such obvious flawed logic.

You are alleging that a fourth category exists:
4. People who afterwards say it did work for them, and later relapse, and continued to the present day to claim that it initially successfully changed their sexual desires but then their sexual desires subsequently changed back.

Yep, and number 5 doesn't exist...

5. Which is that people can actually change their sexual orientation, but it is very hard to do and human sexuality is more complex, than we think.

That option is hand waved away because they were not 'true' gays to begin with. How great! Anybody who disagrees with The Great Starlight^TM is hand waved away, with made up excuses like, "Well, they were never gay to begin with!" because you're so incapable of even having to admit that it is possible. When you're done digging around your own flawed logic, perhaps you could explain to everybody what your evidence is of this or is the no true Scotsman fallacy, all you can produce?

As I said, I have seen no mention of, nor any evidence of such people, and I have read a lot of material from studies on this subject. You're also apparently alleging not simply that one person in a million might fall into this category, you're implying that a huge proportion of people of people who go through ex-gay therapy fall into this category. You appear to think that the treatments are usually initially successful but then people commonly relapse. That idea has no basis in reality whatsoever, and the empirical data directly contradicts it - as I've said repeatedly, all the studies on the subject I've seen do not indicate anyone ever successfully treated and then relapsing nevermind your wild imaginings of it being a particularly common outcome!

Sorry but you made the claim and it isn't my job to refute your claims, but your job to prove it. Also, nice strawman, I never said if they were initially successful or not. You made that claim up too because you're too stupid to deal with your flawed logic. I care about your flaws of logic, that is where my argument sits. Your claim is that so many people, show relapse, therefore they don't work. Your logic would have to conclude that psychology is a waste of time because there is so few mental or emotional conditions, that show much improvement. Depression sufferers, tend to suffer for depression their entire lives. Drug and alcohol abusers, seem to relapse into their old habits at alarming rates. Most psychological conditions, seem to show very little actual 'curable' rates and it seems even treatment, is mixed results (at best). Therefore, we should stop trying and throw it all out the window. Again, this isn't my logic, but your own. Not my fault you're so incapable of refuting it and need to prop up endless strawman, in a sad attempt to deny where your own logical implications point to.

By all means, if you can find any people who claim to have had their sexual desires successfully altered followed by a subsequent relapse, I would be extremely interested to read such accounts.

Why bother? You've already made up your mind (that part is clear) that they were lying or not 'truly gay' to begin with.

Your imagination is an interesting place. I do feel a bit bad for not responding to him, as I am obviously deeply sympathetic for anyone who struggles with depression whoever they may be, but after pondering the issue for a while I decided that any amount of drawing him into a discussion or directly interacting with him might do more harm than good. His testimony was that online discussions with atheists was what had caused his issues in the first place, so I felt extremely reluctant as an atheist to have an online discussion with him.

So you need to just stop doing it because you don't know if you'll push somebody to the brink or not. You're the one that tried to argue that people who disagree with you, should just shut up and stop talking because they might end up pushing somebody to the brink. Your logic would therefore conclude that you should shut up about your atheism yourself, since you could end up pushing somebody to the brink.

I find your approach extremely disingenuous though. When a Christian makes a claim about atheists bullying them, then they are "brave" and it is absolutely unthinkable to question their claims in any way. Whereas any claims coming the other way and the troll-brigade here comes out in force to say how gay people ought to harden up, and how if gay people are hurt by bullying then it's really the gay people's fault, etc.

You love these burning strawman, don't you? Not my argument either, idiot. My argument has been made, several times and either you're dishonest, too stupid to understand it, or both. My argument is quite sound and based on your own conclusions.

1. Atheism is anti theism.
2. Some people could be pushed to the brink of suicide, due to anti theism.
3. Therefore you should shut up about your atheism.

This is precisely the logic you used before where you did this:

1. Being against homosexual behavior, is being anti gay.
2. Some people could be pushed to the brink of suicide, due to being anti gay.
3. Therefore, you should shut up about being against homosexual behavior.

What's the problem? Do you not like it when somebody uses your logic against you? I am just taking your arguments and using them against you. Since people can be pushed, to the edge, you need to shut up about your atheism. Again, your logic, not mine.

I don't believe I made any. I believe they only exist in your imagination. I said not a single word to him, and was quite careful in how I phrased my comments about what he had said. I believe you, however, are manufacturing fake outrage, and I am fast getting sick of it.

Your own words on post #323:

I am getting sick of this lie being repeated. It's totally false and no one here has provided the slightest bit of scientific evidence whatsoever even remotely suggesting any truth to it. We've had a grand total one person claim they felt suicidal after they voluntarily and repeatedly sought out people on the internet to talk to who they strongly disagreed with. I got told off earlier in this thread for using anecdotes, but apparently I'm expected to 100% believe this anecdote at face value?

What does that bolded and underlined phrase say? Do you not remember saying that phrase?

However, if any of the remarks I have made have caused hurt to anyone, I do sincerely apologize. That was never my intention.

So you're going to follow your own advice and stop talking about atheism, correct? After all, you want to silence others, for their disagreements because they just 'might' push somebody over the edge, so why shouldn't you be muzzled, for the same reason? Again, your logic, not mine. You personally haven't caused me any hurt because I care about your logic and not about some silly emotionalism. So either address your logic flaws or admit you can't. What will it be?

[lilpixieofterror]

Okay I'm done with this thread. The level of trolling and nastiness is getting too high for me to tolerate. Those examples are just from this last page alone and could be multiplied by 50 if I went back further in the thread. I've also said my piece, so people with ears to hear can hear.

So let me get straight...

Saying it is ok to strip people of their rights of free speech, is a-okay, in the book of Starlight, but insulting Starlight, is wrong?

Got to love hypocritical double standards.

[lilpixieofterror]

Have a good night starlight!

He's just angry that people are not buying his snake-oil and actually asking him to back up his conclusions vs just assuming they are true, from the onset. I don't play his little games, sweeping the rug out right from under him, is a much better use of my time. In this case, this means pointing out all his flaws of logic and bald assertions.

[RumTumTugger]

He's just angry that people are not buying his snake-oil and actually asking him to back up his conclusions vs just assuming they are true, from the onset. I don't play his little games, sweeping the rug out right from under him, is a much better use of my time. In this case, this means pointing out all his flaws of logic and bald assertions.

or that he can't hide the fact that he is indeed a hypocritical troll.

[Mountain Man]

Are you a lawyer, by any chance?

You mean, acceptable within a given biblical context. Not ANY context.

The inconsistency is between the bible and reality. It's not persuasive to everyone to say "the bible is inerrant because it says so in the bible!"

And there's a problem with this? Where?

I thought Christians accepted Christ as their savior, and believed in the resurrection. Not that Christians believed every interpretation anyone has ever made of every part of the bible. If the bible was divinely inspired, that the divine is an addle-minded schizo.

It'd be great if this came even close to addressing my arguments.

[Mountain Man]

No wonder you have such a hard time understanding scripture. You seem to read something and then see whatever you want to see whether it actually says that or not.

The link says quite clearly that the intent is to "further define the line between an atypical sexual interest and disorder" and that in order for something to be considered a disorder, it has to have the following symptoms:



So if someone is sexually attracted to children but doesn't find this personally distressing and doesn't hurt anybody else or break the law then the DSM is quite clear that this person, according to the APA, does not have a disorder but merely an "atypical sexual interest". Pedophiles are following the trail blazed by the homosexual community.

This post continues to crack me up. It's golden. It needs to be archived for the ages or something.

"No wonder you have such a hard time understanding scripture."

Irony mastered.

Any volunteers for messaging him to explain in words of one syllable why he's 100% wrong about something so basic as what an extremely clear 1.5 page document says?

I don't think you'll find any volunteers because I'm sure everybody here would just love to see you tie yourself in knots trying to explain your addled thinking on this one.

[Mountain Man]

Okay I'm done with this thread. The level of trolling and nastiness is getting too high for me to tolerate. Those examples are just from this last page alone and could be multiplied by 50 if I went back further in the thread. I've also said my piece, so people with ears to hear can hear.

The beauty of this little rant is that it comes right on the heels of him taking his own shots at me.

[lilpixieofterror]

The beauty of this little rant is that it comes right on the heels of him taking his own shots at me.

Of course, he reached step 5, run away and declare victory because repeating his talking points wasn't working. Both him and phank are so typical of the ultra progressive movement though. Don't address what your opponents say; repeat talking points. Don't try to understand your opponents; just pretend they are stupid because they dare to disagree with you. Assume the unwashed masses are too stupid to take care of themselves and need your wisdom to guide them down the right path. Most important, do not admit you could be wrong; that would require admitting that you're not all knowing and that your beliefs may not be as factually as you proclaimed them as being.

With all of their arrogance, you seriously expect them to read people they disagree with? If that did that, they might have to admit their opponents might have good points and we can't have that. You might even start to agree with them; oh the horror! So thus, you got the Dimwit way, "Just shut up and stop expressing opinions I disagree with." Sums both of the dimwits up, quite well.

[Mountain Man]

Don't address what your opponents say; repeat talking points.

Also known as, "Don't answer the question they asked, answer the question they 'should' have asked."

[Sparko]

What really irks me is when LBGT try to equate themselves with minority racism. I don't know of any LBGT's who were slaves, beaten routinely by their masters, made to ride in the back of the bus, put in internment camps in WW2, made to live in reservations while the government took their land away, etc.

When people like Starlight try to equate the two, it is basically trivializing the history of racism and slavery in the world.

It's like spoiled brats complaining about how bad they have it because they don't have a free cell phone or something.

[Bill the Cat]

What really irks me is when LBGT try to equate themselves with minority racism. I don't know of any LBGT's who were slaves, beaten routinely by their masters, made to ride in the back of the bus, put in internment camps in WW2, made to live in reservations while the government took their land away, etc.

When people like Starlight try to equate the two, it is basically trivializing the history of racism and slavery in the world.

It's like spoiled brats complaining about how bad they have it because they don't have a free cell phone or something.

yeah-that.jpg

[lilpixieofterror]

Also known as, "Don't answer the question they asked, answer the question they 'should' have asked."

Yep and if they don't ask the questions they 'should have asked' call them 'homophobic bigots'.

[lilpixieofterror]

What really irks me is when LBGT try to equate themselves with minority racism. I don't know of any LBGT's who were slaves, beaten routinely by their masters, made to ride in the back of the bus, put in internment camps in WW2, made to live in reservations while the government took their land away, etc.

When people like Starlight try to equate the two, it is basically trivializing the history of racism and slavery in the world.

It's like spoiled brats complaining about how bad they have it because they don't have a free cell phone or something.

Some of them have had some pretty nasty treatment against them, in the past, but I find three things I don't care for when it comes to the 'modern rights movements':

1. They don't discuss things and attempt to shut people up. This could stem from the 'spoiled brat' thing, extreme arrogance, or a little of both. One of my biggest issues with the LGBT activist isn't them protesting or anything like that. It is with them trying to shut up all discussion and bullying people who dare to disagree with them. They have become what they hate, bullying jerks that attack anything that disagrees with their own beliefs.
2. How people were treated in the past, doesn't justify you seeking special treatment today. I didn't enslave your people, that was done centuries before my birth. I didn't lock anybody up in prison for 'being gay', that was done decades my birth. Why I or anybody alive today should have to 'pay' for stuff that happened long ago is just silly nonsense.
3. They are mostly cowards. There is real oppression going on, right now, in many areas of the world (such as Sudan), but that requires real courage and bravery vs trying to shut up a bunch of westerners, who might call you dumb (at the worst). You might have to face the possibility of being killed vs somebody not bowing down to you, due to your own smug superiority complex. Perhaps that is why they choose to troll internet forums and attempt to shut down all discussion. They are delicate little flowers, that can't stand criticism of any type, let alone real opposition.

These are just a few of the problem (and there's more too). Most of them are just entitled elitist, who seem to like feeling superior to other people, without actually being superior in any way. It is quite sad and rather pathetic,if you really think about it.

[Mountain Man]

What really irks me is when LBGT try to equate themselves with minority racism. I don't know of any LBGT's who were slaves, beaten routinely by their masters, made to ride in the back of the bus, put in internment camps in WW2, made to live in reservations while the government took their land away, etc.

When people like Starlight try to equate the two, it is basically trivializing the history of racism and slavery in the world.

It's like spoiled brats complaining about how bad they have it because they don't have a free cell phone or something.

It's the same insidious tactic used by pro-abortionists. They only talk about rights, never right and wrong.

[Starlight]

What really irks me is when LBGT try to equate themselves with minority racism. I don't know of any LBGT's who were slaves, beaten routinely by their masters, made to ride in the back of the bus, put in internment camps in WW2, made to live in reservations while the government took their land away, etc.

~twitches~
Must... resist... feeding... troll...

Sparko, the camp gay people were put in during WW2 was Auschwitz.

Marriages between African-Americans in the US were recognized in ~1866 by ex-slavery states, with the others having recognized them since the beginning. One hundred and thirty years later, zero US states recognized marriages between gay people.

Laws preventing racial minorities for having sex with each other are unprecedented, but until recently in most countries in the world gay people would be jailed for having sex with each other.

In many countries, gay people face censorship, job loss, and the possibility of violent reprisal, for simply admitting to being gay.

It's like spoiled brats complaining about how bad they have it because they don't have a free cell phone or something.

The spoiled brats would be Christians in a majority Christian nation wailing at how they are getting persecuted for being Christians by other Christians. Ironically that is the exact original reason for this thread.