I congratulate you on your numeracy.
So gay!!!
- Thread starter TroutBum
- Start date
I congratulate you on your numeracy.
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
We can probably (hopefully) conclude Walker read the study right? Not just those quotes? In the context of the full study, he might have very accurately concluded his statement of fact, that there is 'no serious debate' that children raised by either homosexual or heterosexual parents are "as likely" to be "healthy, successful, and well adjusted" was just that--a fact by whatever definition applies to a 'Finding of Fact.' But of course, that study is presumably one of many he consulted to arrive at that finding of fact and weighed in whatever measure Walker felt appropriate. It seems that you want to find any type of doubt or contrary finding and then conclude that by virtue of its existence the legal factual finding is not 'beyond serious debate.' Maybe the appeal will see it your way. But they'll be looking at Walker's citations and his larger argument which, as I've said, you could do as well.
Hopper
Banned
Eric, you have, in the past, claimed to teach statistics at the college level. I would suggest you take your argument about how 200 becomes 100,000 to your colleagues on the stat staff and see what they tell you.
Hopper
Banned
Maybe the appellate court will simply look at the legal standards that apply, as did the appellate court in the Florida case, whose commentary I have already quoted. Here's a part I did not quote:
III. CONCLUSION
"We exercise great caution when asked to take sides in an ongoing public policy debate, such as the current one over the compatibility of homosexual conduct with the duties of adoptive parenthood. See Reno, supra; Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253, 281 (1984). The State of Florida has made the determination that it is not in the best interests of its displaced children to be adopted by individuals who "engage in current, voluntary homosexual activity," Cox, supra, and we have found nothing in the Constitution that forbids this policy judgment. Thus, any argument that the Florida legislature was misguided in its decision is one of legislative policy, not constitutional law. The legislature is the proper forum for this debate, and we do not sit as a superlegislature "to award by judicial decree what was not achievable by political consensus." Thomasson v. Perry, 80 F.3d 915, 923 (4th Cir. 1996). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED."
The gay advocates seem to want the courts to act as a "superlegislature" and grant them what they could not achieve by political consensus. Unfortunately for them, that aint the court's job.
Once again: " any argument that the Florida legislature was misguided in its decision is one of legislative policy, not constitutional law." You and I can argue about what is best, correct, wise, or fair until the cows come home. That said, those questions are not even at issue in the appellate court.
When I present an argument about 200 becoming 100,000, I will indeed do that. I won't bother to present arguments about self-selection bias, the difference between a population and a sample, the difference between random selection and targetted selection, and other such concern about the Spitzer study, because it would bore them to tears. They are so glaringly obvious even you can't bring yourself to defend them.
Hopper
Banned
Let me ask you once again, Eric: Are you claiming that the blog authors' claim (based upon a 37 out of 100,000 calcuation) that there was only a .04% success rate, is iN ANY WAY correct or appropriate from a statistical standpoint? And I mean a properly applied statistical standpoint, not one you may want to invent on the spot.
Hopper
Banned
These attempts at sophistry get irritating, Eric. I can address questions of sample size, etc., to each and every statistical analysis EVER done on ANY topic. So what?
Say a guy makes 100 out of 200 free throws. Is it indisputable that he is, and always will be, a "50% free throw shooter?" Of course not, but I wouldn't be misleading or making claims without a basis if I argued that he had a 50% success rate when shooting free throws.
I could NOT claim to have a basis, or to be anything OTHER THAN misleading, if I argued that, since he only made 100, and he could have shot one billion, he only made 100 out of one billion.
Say a guy makes 100 out of 200 free throws. Is it indisputable that he is, and always will be, a "50% free throw shooter?" Of course not, but I wouldn't be misleading or making claims without a basis if I argued that he had a 50% success rate when shooting free throws.
I could NOT claim to have a basis, or to be anything OTHER THAN misleading, if I argued that, since he only made 100, and he could have shot one billion, he only made 100 out of one billion.
Dude, everyone knows that if one guy makes 100 out of 200 free throws that extends to the entire population. Can we change the parameters of the example though? Let's say he made 190 out of 200. I'd much rather be known as a 95% free throw shooter.
Hopper
Banned
I did get off my ***, well, not literally, but you know what I mean, eh, to look at ''finding 70," Biley (thanks for the link, which made it all possible--possible because it was easy to click on, I mean). You conveniently left off the VERY FIRST sentence of that finding, though. That sentence says: "The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment." It is a factor, and it was presumably this claim that Meese had in mind (assuming he had finding 70 in mind to begin with, which I am not disputing at this point, but I am simply "assuming" it).
The Stacy study would present "serious debate" about any claim by Walker that "The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment," as would, needless to say, many, many other studies done in the field of child development.
If I wanted to "defend" Meese, who I don't really care about, but I will defend him anyway, in the context of this suit, I don't think Walker can legitmately find "as a fact" anything that is not virtually "beyond doubt." Why? Because there must be no rational reason whatsoever to uphold a legislative (or voters) decision before a court can overturn it on the basis of the equal protection clause as it has been applied to gays (as opposed to, say, races). In that context to call it a "fact" is, in effect, to say there is no rational reason (and it is hence "beyond doubt") to believe otherwise.
Last edited:
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
It was in no way meant to be misleading on my part, and I wouldn't be surprised Meese, a skilled attorney, would look for any leg he could stand on to make his case. But I'm not surprised to see that you continue to use the Stacey study to unilaterally throw out any studies done on the subject, while assuming that there are 'many, many, many' other studies done in the field of child development which indicate that there is a sharp distinction between gender in raising children. Of course, to back his own claim, Walker cited studies. So again, the obvious presumption is that Walker had facts in evidence which aren't arbitrary, but included in his opinion, which you apparently really, really, really don't want to look at. You'd rather just say there a many, many, many studies which contradict those studies and rest your case that Walker's finding couldn't possibly be 'beyond serious debate.'
Hopper
Banned
It's been said over and over, Biley. The question is NOT whether Walker has some evidence which supports his personal view. That's irrelevant. I never said, and am not saying, that he has no evidence for his view, either. You seem to keep thinking that this is simply a question of whose belief is "better." It aint.
Because you were composing your response as I was editing mine, you may have missed this:
"If I wanted to "defend" Meese, who I don't really care about, but I will defend him anyway, in the context of this suit, I don't think Walker can legitmately find "as a fact" anything that is not virtually "beyond doubt." Why? Because there must be no rational reason whatsoever to uphold a legislative (or voters) decision before a court can overturn it on the basis of the equal protection clause as it has been applied to gays (as opposed to, say, races). In that context to call it a "fact" is, in effect, to say there is no rational reason (and it is hence "beyond doubt") to believe otherwise."
I could add that Walker's basic finding of fact is nothing more than the part you omitted. He flatly states that: "The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment." What he goes on to say after that is a merely one possible "illustration" of this supposed fact. It is some "elaboration," not the fact itself.
Because you were composing your response as I was editing mine, you may have missed this:
"If I wanted to "defend" Meese, who I don't really care about, but I will defend him anyway, in the context of this suit, I don't think Walker can legitmately find "as a fact" anything that is not virtually "beyond doubt." Why? Because there must be no rational reason whatsoever to uphold a legislative (or voters) decision before a court can overturn it on the basis of the equal protection clause as it has been applied to gays (as opposed to, say, races). In that context to call it a "fact" is, in effect, to say there is no rational reason (and it is hence "beyond doubt") to believe otherwise."
I could add that Walker's basic finding of fact is nothing more than the part you omitted. He flatly states that: "The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment." What he goes on to say after that is a merely one possible "illustration" of this supposed fact. It is some "elaboration," not the fact itself.
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
Yeah, but he doesn't say it's 'beyond doubt.' He says it's beyond 'serious debate.' Walker chose his words very carefully. I would assume those words will be scrutinized just as closely on appeal. As will the context of his word choices relative the total opinion. Ultimately, I would guess his stipulation of 'Fact' will be confirmed or rejected on the basis of how those words correspond to the legal reasoning for why he stipulated as such.
The argument as to whether it is ACTUALLY beyond serious debate doesn't seem that relevant. But as I previously stated, his job is to weigh the evidence he has in front of him. A reasonable person COULD conclude that given those facts there was not actual 'serious debate' as to the truth. Flimsy arguments to the contrary, sure. Widely refuted studies that draw specious conclusions, sure. A mountain of much more credible evidence from peer reviewed studies, probably. I'm not weighing in on what Walker saw, only speculating that this is what he did see, and thus worded his Finding of Fact to reflect that.
Hopper
Banned
I could, for example, claim that "there is no difference between cats and dogs." Then, to "illustrate" my claim, and give some support for it, I could go on the point out that "both dogs and cats have 4 legs, and, furthermore, they both have tails" This would hardly "prove" my original claim, although it would give some "support" to it.
If my claim were simply that cats and dogs both have 4 legs and tail, sure. But that wasn't my claim. My claim was that there was NO difference between them.
Last edited:
Hopper
Banned
I've said it before, many times, in this thread, Biley, and I have said (or let courts say why, when I quote them) why this is NOT the issue. There's no new way to say it. Either you understand, or you don't. Given the content of the statement I have cited above, you don't.
As I said very early, the judge could find as a "fact" that (1) the moon is made of green cheese, or (2) that brunettes are more attractive than blondes. He can find "as a fact" anything he wants. That doesn't settle the issue.
A court can't change opinion into facts (case 2, above) merely by calling them "facts"
Nor can it bind a higher court to accept as "fact" something which is not a fact (case 1, above).
What this particular judge wants, believes, or would implement as policy if he were dictator, is NOT the issue here.
I think the conversion rate for Spitzer's study it is an estimation, based on a few assumptions, and probably has an error margin of two degrees of magnitude in either direction. I think the conversion rate estimate for the Schroeder & Shidlo study probably has an error margin of about an order of magnitude, based on how that sample was collected. On the other hand, the conversion estimate for the Exodus study mentioned was very accurate, because it was a study of the full population.
So such a discussion is very important for understanding what the study in question does and does not indicate.
The author of the article does not make any such claim, either. He does use the size of NARTH and a probable client load to get his esitmate of 100,000 clients, which he claims is conservative. However, if you have a better estimate of the annual client load of repartative therapy clients by NARTH-affiliated psychiatrists, we can certainly substitute that. I have already looked at the NARTH site for that information, but was not able to locate it. If you can find it and send it on to OCRT, they will probably correct their numbers. So what's your estimate?
Hopper
Banned
Hopper said:
That's not what I asked you. Just answer the question, yes or no.
1.Then how does he get his .04% success factor?
2. To suggest that any such estimate is needed is the very kind of utter stupidity that I'm not even going to address, Eric. Take the suggestion that such an estimate is required to calculate a statistically accurate "success rate" to some COMPLETE CHUMP, and he too may think its relevant. If so, maybe he'll think it important to try to answer it. I don't.
Last edited:
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
You keep thinking I'm not getting it, but I think the problem is you keep not liking my reason. Your words: "I DON'T THINK Walker can find, as a fact, anything that is virtually beyond doubt." Well, I don't know what Walker can get away with as 'fact' under the legal guidelines. You seem to want to state that a fact can only be something that is incontrovertibly true. If Walker had said, "It is beyond doubt that gay parents are as good as heterosexual parents," that would be incontrovertibly false as a pure fact. For him to say, "It is beyond serious debate" may actually be "true" so long as he stipulates that, in his judgment, the opposing arguments are too frivolous to consider rationally.
What if he needed to stipulate Gravity was a fact? You could undoubtedly find somebody who doesn't think it is. They'd put up charts and graphs and spew numbers to prove their case. Meanwhile, legions of scientists would make the opposing claim. In that instance, no judge could say, as a finding of Fact, that it is "beyond doubt" gravity exists. Neither side can prove that incontrovertibly. But I would guess a judge could find, as a statement of fact, it is 'beyond serious debate' that gravity doesn't exist.
Gravity is an extreme example, but substitute gravity for Walker's estimation of the defense claims to have actual evidence and his semantically worded finding of fact starts to make more sense. Maybe not to your satisfaction, but not nearly as absurd as you want to portray it.
Hopper
Banned
Whatever Biley. If you truly want an example of how these things go, read the florida opinion and/or the appellate court's opinion in the Minnesota case (which the U.S. Supreme Court summarily denied, on the merits). If you just want to cling to some hope that this judge's "factual findings" will dictate the outcome, help yourself.
Define "IN ANY WAY correct or appropriate from a statistical standpoint". For all the meanings I can derive, saying it has a margin of error of a couple of orders of magnitude is a quite sufficient description of the accuracy of the process.
By deriving the estimate of 100,000 clients in a manner that in no way depends on the sample size of 200.
So, you think there is no importance at all to how often the attempt at reparation therapy actually works, and only a chump would care about how often the therapy is likely to work? Interesting point of view. Most scientists care about how often something works. Even NARTH pretends to care.
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
Let me try another tactic. Say it was your job to prove to me that it is NOT "beyond serious debate" that Gay Parents produce just as healthy children as heterosexual parents (the simplified #70.)
Now let me take a crack at it for you: You will cite studies, articles, expert testimony, whatever you have. But at the end of it, you can't actually prove that what you have introduces the level of "serious debate" needed to rebut the claim. The problem is you presuppose some level of credibility to those studies that the Judge did not. You might be right. Or you might not. We'll find out.
As to your other point, I don't see how it's germane to the specific example of whether or not Walker's statement on 70 is true or false. Don't change the argument. I never said anything about what effect the factual finding in 70 would have on the larger case.