/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7350510
1. Who the fuck cares what people on Reddit think.
2. If we can agree that gays at least raise children better than single parents, and refuse as a society to make single parenting illegal, what the fuck is the problem?

The question of "Are children negatively affected by having two same-sex parents?" is generally quite homophobic in and of itself, and is not a question worth being scientifically investigated. Who says that two opposite-sex parents are the best parents or that they are the benchmark? If not an opposite-sex couple, who are same-sex parents being compared to? What is to be gained? Should we study the parenting abilities of single mothers or black or Asian parents in order to deem them unnecessary as parents?
There are many aspects of parenting worth investigation and scientific/sociological study, but studies based on value judgments about the abilities of same-sex couples to parent their children is not one of them.

>>7350514
You don't seem to understand. With respect to science, it's never valid to say you don't need evidence to purport a stance.

>Children of same sex parents are more likely to be sexually abused
I don't need a study to tell me this. Im quite liberal, but Ill argue till my face is blue that queers diddle little kids.

it's cause redditors dont understand the science they claim to love

>>7350614
>reddit is one person

>>7350519
> generally quite homophobic in and of itself, and is not a question worth being scientifically investigated.
Why not? Because it may make one group feel bad?
>Should we study the parenting abilities of single mothers or black or Asian parents in order to deem them unnecessary as parents?
We should study this to determine the detriments or benefits to the children, no one is saying it should be done to deem them bad parents, though it may be taken that way if the study has certain results.

>There are many aspects of parenting worth investigation and scientific/sociological study, but studies based on value judgments about the abilities of same-sex couples to parent their children is not one of them.

According to you, we should study parenting, but not how the parents influence it? That's ridiculous.

>>7350519
You pretty much take biology right out of the subject, which suit's your agenda quite nicely I'm sure but is not based in reality. Pretty sure what makes a man and a woman together the best option for a stable upbringing is the fact that a man and woman is what it takes to create a child. People like you seek to change all cultural norms not because they are broken, but to fill the empty spaces in the life you thought you deserved without work or suffering. Children are not the pet chihuahua's you fags want them to be.

>>7350792
>Pretty sure what makes a man and a woman together the best option for a stable upbringing is the fact that a man and woman is what it takes to create a child.
kek. see OP it's not just leddit

I don't need to see a study on this to know that a study on such a delicate social subject would be biased and flawed from all angles.
Language is faulty - don't elevate "there is a study on this subject which says X" to a proof that X is true. Unless you deal with a hard science, study results are slight suggestion, especially if it involves peoples reports.

>>7350796
Haha your like your own little church and state fence sitting competition. Which bandwagon next anon? Why not transparental phobia? Maybe we should get some studies done on why a pair of lamas are or are not just as effective role models as gay couples.

>>7350817
Fuck off back to /pol/

>>7350778
>implying that's what i said or intended
you suck at reading comprehension

>>7350510
>>reddit
nothing to explain

>>7350830
ur right i was jusst bumping my thread

>>7350519
>is not a question worth being scientifically investigated
leave

>>7350837
> thinks sociology is a science
back to /lit/ with your worthless degree

>>7350519
see pic

>>7350840
>sociology doesn't use the scientific method
I see, you just don't know what you're talking about.

Putting aside the whole controversial aspect, I too am sick of the "I could have told you that" response to supposedly pointless studies. The history of every branch of science is full of counterintuitive discoveries that contradict what "everyone" thought was "obvious." So yeah, maybe your intuition was right. Congrats. Other times it won't be.

>>7350849
Thank you for addressing the OP.

>>7350525
Treating a small sample as a whole is bad, but you're ignoring the fact that you don't always need to take data to make a stance on something. There are times where you can just reason through things.

>>7350519
>The question of "Are children negatively affected by having two same-sex parents?" is generally quite homophobic in and of itself, and is not a question worth being scientifically investigated.
reddit retards everyone, they actually believe this.

>>7350510
le

>>7350916

This is a very common attitude these days. Why research, say, race when to do so would be inherently racist? Better to just not know, assume we DO know, and shout down anyone who disagrees.

Our civilization no longer cares about what is true, only what is convenient.

>>7350974
how does researching and grouping based on race have anything to do with racism. You're the one inferring the racist thoughts to the data.

It's shit like this that makes me ashamed to identify with conservatives.

This is fucking ridiculous.

>>7350525
It's two separate issues.

>In the absence of evidence should we assume things are equal? and if so is there a cause to collect evidence that supports our belief?

Of you answer no to the first question then we should investigate everything. However it's not unreasonable to expect people to answer yes to the first question.

On one hand we risk believing false things without question and on the other hand we risk wasting resources collecting evidence to disprove every retarded thing groups of people believe.

I don't believe the answer to be so black and white. People should decide these things on a case by case basis.

>>7351035
>In the absence of evidence should we assume things are equal?
That's not what's going on here, though. They said they don't need a study to know there is no evidence. I find this claim rather interesting, and seemingly easy to discredit. They are claiming there is NO evidence. If any evidence exists at all then it follows necessarily that they are incorrect. What would even constitute evidence in this case? Is a correlation enough to cast a small amount of doubt (not to outright disprove, but to at least question)?

>and if so is there a cause to collect evidence that supports our belief?
This is absolutely ridiculous. Are you suggesting it's not worth our time to question any "common wisdoms" of the people?

>on the other hand we risk wasting resources collecting evidence to disprove every retarded thing groups of people believe.
I don't mean to pull the THINK OF THE CHILDREN card, but we are dealing with the lives of people. I think there is a reasonable moral impetus to ask questions like this.

>>7350510
you dont. avoid them like the plague

also change your life so you have better things to do than worrying about them.

if you are confronted by a specimen for some reason, give political-type answers. i.e. they are, literally speaking, convictionless and most definitely very little controversial.
the plan is to get them to leave not upset. then you proceed to do useful things.
for reference I recommend Peter Thiel and also Putin. both push their oppinions quite a bit while remaing noncontroversial in their answers.

>inb4 putin meme

>>7350510
Taking the picture in your OP at face value I'm annoyed. It says they're not negatively impacted. Okay. What would pass the threshold of 'negatively impacted' and who decides this?

Anyway. This either implies that there were no detectable differences between the active and control groups or that those detected were considered by the authors as not negative differences. But I think it would be safe to surmise that these children would be more accepting of same sex relations. Who hates their parents really?

Now, the authors, presumably in a piece trying to convince people who are against same sex relationships, are claiming that making kids more open to them is not a negative impact.

This alone leads me to suspect that the results are inherently dubious.

>>7350841
>using "the scientific method" is necessary and sufficient for science
>implying "the scientific method" exists
try again dork

>>7351106
This is the thing, no one said sociology was a science. The original nigga said "investigated scientifically". That means investigating using research methods analogous to the sciences (i.e. the scientific method).

>>7351106
>implying "the scientific method" exists
lol

>>7350792
If you want to get all biological up in this bitch, living in enclosed family units with only two parents around is a very new phenomenon. The most natural way of living in all cultures has always been the tribe unit, where children are essentially raised by the community as a whole.

Are you against adoption too, because it's "unbiological"? I don't see any problem with letting people define their own, modern tribal structures. In any case it should be significantly better for any kids to have any parents around rather than none.

>social "science"

>>7351100
>It says they're not negatively impacted.
reading comprehension failure detected

>>7351240
You're dumb.

lesbian households have the lowest reported rate of abuse (essentially 0%); next smallest is gays, then straights, then single parent

>>7351470
Yeah but that's because they are probably more scrutinised, or feel they're more scrutinised.

People with a clip-art eye picture in the room behave better. The more you know.

All that matters is the child's genes anyway. As long as the parent's aren't abusive and provide a safe and healthy environment for it, genes will determine the rest. "The gays" aren't corrupting children with their evil degenerate lifestyles or whatever /pol/ calls it nowadays.

>>7350525
I have not tested it yet but from previous knowledge it seems really safe to assume my book will fall if I drop it with nothing but air to catch it.

>>7351001
It's pretty obvious that that poster was taking the voice of someone else in that part of his post. Fucking retard

>>7351597

feminazis and feminists are a tiny minority

most lesbians are pretty normal people
most lesbians with kids are pretty normal people, but are statistically more successful (anybody can collect sperm in their vagina, but adoption agencies are a lot more selective)

why can't you accept that lesbian households have lower rates of abuse? you instantly start making up some shit about hurr durr they would abuse their kids more but they know they're being watched? Do you believe that? Do you listen to yourself? As if wanting to munch on some rug has much to do with beating your kids?

sincerely,
a cis-hetero-white male from a wealthy family

>>7350778
reddit is almost as close to functioning as one person as slashdot is

>>7351597

not a good answer

gay people grow up learning how to conceal and control their sex drives. they also cannot reproduce "by accident", meaning that all of their children are intentional.

lesbians are also more likely to pick a sperm donor than adopt; their investment in their child is thus increased by the time and energy spent creating it.

heterosexuals grow up having their sexualities cheered on and encouraged by everyone around them. they will assume without question that their offspring, accidental or intentional, are heterosexual.

they will also use their children as pawns in power struggles; each child has 50% of their parents' DNA, meaning that each parent will want the child that resembles themselves the most to be the most successful in life. this will lead to favoritism, misallocation of resources, and infighting.

for gay parents, having a child with any of their own DNA is more than many of them ever hope for, and there can only be 50% of a single partner's DNA in each child. instead of trying to force the child to take after their mother or father, both parents will encourage that child to express the traits they share with their parent by blood, and view traits that happen to be shared with the second, adoptive parent as small miracles or gifts from coincidence.

finally, for a habitual pedophile, a woman with sole custody of a child is a dream come true.

>>7350519

Eat shit faggot.

>>7351742
I merely meant it as a possible explanation; that there is perhaps a significant minority who have a social or maybe political need to prove they're good parents, and this is why they're less than average; not that they are probably more abusive otherwise. Your explanation was good too, though.

None the less, get gassed.

>>7350519
You're making the rest of us look bad. Please stop.

>>7351742
>feminazis
Rusty Limpah fanboi detected

>>7351244
reading comprehension failure compounded

>>7351077
If there is no study then there is no evidence unless you're taking the wild musings of the public as evidence. In which case you should also seriously start considering other retarded things like alternative medicine, spiritualism, psychics, and reading the book The Secret.

>>7350510
Well, homosexuality isn't 100% caused by genetics, I'm sure one day if we can cure or prevent it then a lot of gays will convert. And parents will choose straight kids. But of course "muh science" retards aren't going to try and create a preventative treatment for homosexuality because of "muh feelings" and "muh equality"

And if you are looking for an argument for not creating a cure for homosexuality you won't find it in the field of science. You'll find it in ethics, philosophy, politics, basically the humanities. Which kind of answers your question OP, you're trying to solve the problem you see on reddit purely from a scientific perspective.

>>7352441
I agree.

>>7352532
>Which kind of answers your question OP, you're trying to solve the problem you see on reddit purely from a scientific perspective.
The only thing I'm questioning is why someone would believe they can state a scientific "truth" without any evidence to back it up. Also, having no evidence of an event doesn't imply the event is not occurring. This is a basic logical fallacy. An implication is not equivalent to its inverse.

>>7352573
and I also understand that the person could be coincidentally correct anyway. I don't care if they are right or wrong, only that they think they don't require evidence because their feels.

>>7350510
I don't even know WTF you are trying to bitch about. And I DON'T FUCKING CARE!

>>7350510

>>7352584
>>7352585

>>7352587
Better?

>>7350510
Nothing you say correlates with the picture you posted OP. Did you post the wrong fucking picture?

>>7350525
>With respect to science, it's never valid to say you don't need evidence to purport a stance.

Wrong. Look up null hypothesis moron.
I found the problem OP. You don't actually know what science is.

>>7352589
see pic

>>7352593
>I don't need a study to tell me this

>>7352597
>>7350510
>I don't need a study to tell me this

No shit, because it is the null hypothesis. You don't need a study to tell you THE FUCKING NULL HYPOTHESIS. That doesn't even make any godamm sense.

>>7350510
>study just gives null hypothesis
>OP confuses it with a alternative hypothesis
>OP goes full autism

My sides

>>7351470

I find that strange and unlikely considering many lesbians are abusive to each other.


https://mainweb-v.musc.edu/vawprevention/lesbianrx/factsheet.shtml

> About 17-45% of lesbians report having been the victim of a least one act of physical violence perpetrated by a lesbian partner.

>>7352596
You are misunderstanding their stance. They're stating they don't need evidence to support their knowledge. The null hypothesis may be valid here (after observing data), but that isn't their stance at all. They're claiming they know the outcome of research before the research takes place.

>I don't need a study to tell me this
>I don't need a study to show me there exists no statistical relationship

Actually, that's exactly why you need a study. The null hypothesis can be a stance reasonably taken after conducting a study. Otherwise your "hypothesis" is just an opinion with no underpinnings in science. The null hypothesis literally depends on observed data as it's based in statistics.

>>7352600
>>7352604
I'm not sure if I'm being baited.

>>7352608
well as another anons have pointed out when it comes to adoption or even sperm doners gays and lesbians are much more careful and prepared for parenting. While lesbian relationships might be shittier(woman amirite!) parenting on average is probably "better" because it takes more effort just to get a kid in the first place

>>7351759

> implying gay parents never use kids in power struggles

However, the "gay parents can only have intentional kids" is a good point I haven't thought of before.

>>7352613
>Lack of a stance is a stance.
lel'd.

Where is your evidence that I'm not fucking your mom in the ass every night.

>>7352618
I don't have any, as I don't know who you are and I don't live with my mother. I know you're joking, but honestly you could be fucking my mom in the ass every night.

>>7352614

Fair enough. It is possible there could be no intersection between lesbians that want children and lesbians that are abusive, but it raises the question of why abusive lesbians never want children. I can't see why considering some abusive heterosexual couples want children.

>>7352613
>>7350510
Your understanding of science is laughably bad dude. You don't understand how burden of proof works in science. I'll explain why you're wrong kid:

By default science has to start with a "null hypothesis" or "default positions". In its most general sense, this just means that we start with assuming that there is no statistical correlation between things we wish to study.

Our job is then to make alternative hypothesis (aka ideas about correlations) and test them. We test to find the correlations. If we do find them, we set a new null hypothesis to encompass the new findings. That is literally how all science is done.

You see, not all hypotheses face the same burden of proof. That is where you are fucking up. The Null hypothesis by definition is as justified as you can be currently be. Saying "I believe in the null hypothesis" doesn't need further fucking justification. You don't need to go around debunking alternative hypothesis to justify the null hypothesis.

The null hypothesis about the relationship between "gays" and babies", IS THAT THERE IS NO FUCKING relationship. And you don't need any data to justify that. That is how the null hypothesis works kiddo. The null hypothesis = no correlation/relations. And the alternative hypothesis would then test for correlations (which it didn't find).

You might ask, "Well why can't the null hypothesis just assume inherit correlations?" Well....THEN YOUR HYPOTHESES BECAUSE UNFALSIFIABLE (so you're not doing science anymore) and you violate the rule of parsimony (aka your over estimating correlations, aka making up shit)

>>7352621
>I believe in things until they are proven false

You're brain is fucking broken.

>>7352649
>I believe in things until they are proven false

Your brain is fucking broken.

>>7352668
I didn't say I believe it, I just said that I can't really disprove it.

>>7352657
I appreciate you explaining the null hypothesis to me, but as I mentioned in the post you're responding to, it's ultimately irrelevant. The big guy on reddit stated they don't need evidence to KNOW there is no correlation. You do, actually. That's how science functions. We don't KNOW there is no correlation unless we have tested for it, but that doesn't mean we can't assume there is no correlation by default. You're right about the null hypothesis, but you misunderstand the redditor's stance, and what I detest about it.

I'm upset over statements which imply that a study is useless because the observed outcome seems intuitive to them.

>>7352704
looks like they removed the post from the subreddit

>>7352616

ah, I didn't phrase myself properly

i meant to argue that homosexuals have no evolutionary pressure to select a favorite child, or to try to force "their" traits to win against the traits of their partner via nurture. (because on a genetic level, the partner they would be competing with is absent.) however, the child still has 2 providers and caretakers.

straight ppl are more or less forced to compete with their partners for DNA supremacy through their children. its instinctive. they have to try to control the epigenome.

Meh, it's called hindsight bias.

As soon as something's proven, it was obvious all along. You mentally formulate a story where you had it all reasoned out perfectly beforehand, but had just never put all the pieces together.

There's no reason to put a lot of stock into people falling victim to it. It's a process that's really common, and unless you're aware of it, it's pretty hard to overcome on your own.