From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 2 of 4
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 18:06:21 GMT

In article <1b4mtqINNi05@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU () writes:
    >Show me any study that can positively demostrate the above
    >statements as concrete fact. And that is just my point, all
    >studies are biased by the reseacher and their subjects. I
    >have been evolved in studies where the subjects have later
    >claimed that they were not quite honest in their responses.

"All studies are biased ..."?

How do you KNOW this? Have you been a participant and/or observer in
ALL studies?


No? Oh, "[you] have been evolved [sic] in studies" -- that is, you
speak based on a [very small] subset of all studies.

So how do we know that you aren't biased and wrong, and that all
studies ARE correct?


    >We must be careful about what we are trying to extract
    >informationally from some given studies results. I have
    >respect for the Kinsey reports but in no way have can I
    >conclude that it applies to the everyday existence of people.

As Kinsey was studying the overall sexualality of people, it certainly
does apply to the everday existence of people. What you write is
nonsense.

    >So as far as the questions: Well, do, or do not, male
    >homosexuals on the average, have close to TWO orders of
    >magnitude more sex partners than hetersexuals? Do you NOT
    >accept that many many people find this disgusting?
    >
    >They are not answerable in any concrete way, if you are
    >attempting to apply a studys particular results to the entire
    >population of homosexual individuals.

Why not?

    >And this is what really becomes our problem, the application
    >of study results that only reflect a 'very' small subset or
    >group chosen in a way that will obviously introduce bias
    >results.

Sex you. I.e., what is the BASIS for your statement, other than a desire
to live with your preconceptions?


    >One need only look at the constant studies that come through
    >talking about health issues- is red wine good or bad? is
    >butter good or bad? is maragine good or bad? is oat bran good
    >or bad? If I can't trust a study that is attempting to
    >determine if oat bran or red wine are good/bad for me, how
    >would I ever trust a study that attempts to answer questions
    >about human behavior.

Good and bad can range from arbitrary personal value judgements
to valid medical judgements. You seem to not be able to understand
that a scientific report, say, on butter comsumption and the
incidence of various heart diseases is very valid -- but NOT when
interpreted through three paragrapghs in the local paper.

    >I have known many married men who 1) were gay, 2) were
    >bisexual, 3) were curious about male to male sexual contacts,
    >even if this only results in talk about it. There is much
    >more in the way of male to male sexual contact then one may
    >know about. How would one know? Since many would want to keep
    >it a secret.

And I haven't. So whose viewpoint is more valid, and why?



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)