Thursday, January 5, 2012

Andrei The approaching night

My co blogger Lucia Maria has come in for a bit of stick for this comment
Contraception should be outlawed. It turns women into sexual playthings that can be discarded when something younger and prettier comes along. It takes away women's power to withhold sex unless the man says "I do". And it allows men to stay at a level of stunted development where they never have to grow up.
Apart from the banning aspect I agree with it, more or less.

Fifty years ago the oral contraceptive was approved for general use - and this unleashed a cultural revolution. The genie is out of the bottle. we can't put it back.

The problem is that the first generation who could control their fertility in this manner are approaching retirement age - which means that there are shortly to be large numbers of elderly folks and not enough young working age folks to support them because these people did not have enough children in their prime years and nor have the children they did have produced them in sufficient numbers.

The problem has been swept under the carpet in Northern Europe, and Australasia to some extent by immigration but the crunch is coming.

This is the true source of today's problems in Greece and Italy. It is also recognized as a major issue in Japan, Korea and Russia.

But we are still in a state of denial.

In the short term it's been a hell of a party for some - in the long term it is a civilization ender.

63 comment(s):

ZenTiger said...

I would argue that the demographic issues you point out are a possibly consequence of contraception, although I'd also include many other factors that have reduced the average family sizes - which would remain if Natural Family Planning methods were used in place of contraceptive medicines.

Whilst this dimension is notable, I think the nub of this argument is that people are not aware of the theological, spiritual and moral arguments against contraception advanced by the Catholic Church and so eloquently and thoroughly covered in John Paul II's Theology of the body.

I guess it's up to us to post on these and discuss them. Often, I'm not looking to find agreement on such topics, but to at least get across the point that there is so much more to the topic than "condoms bad", as the main stream media like to portray.

Andrei said...

There is always a lot more behind my posts than is in them Zen.

It comes back to one thing though - we are from a generation that has turned its face against God.

And that always has consequences

ZenTiger said...

There is always a lot more behind my posts than is in them Zen.

Yes, for those that have had exposure to the arguments, this will be more evident.

I am realising that I might need to get my A into G and write a few basic posts on the topic, so that between yourself, Lucia and myself we cover off the topic enough to get the information out there :)

Redbaiter said...

Thee cultural Marxists and their assault on motherhood as a respectable and fruitful employ has a lot to do with it.

macdoctor said...

Contraception and the inevitable disassociation of sex from marriage as a consequence, is the primary cause of the failure of the family unit in society today. It is not the only cause, of course, but it is the underlying one. Fatherless families, child abuse and abortion all have their roots here.

The root spiritual problem is control. Contraception is just another way we attempt to control our lives, preferring our way to God's.

Like, Andrei, I agree the genie is out of the bottle and can't be replaced. Banning is not answer. I'm not sure what is.

Big Bruv said...

I know Lucia is a religious extremist (and an idiot) but she now ranks as an evil person as well.

This is just another reason why I hate religion.

Andrei said...

Where's the evil in that Big Bruv?

You might come across as a bit of an extremist (and an idiot) yourself.

Big Bruv said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Big Bruv said...

Where is the evil in wanting contraception banned? Is that a serious question?

Contraception has been the great emancipator for woman. In many parts of the world (those areas not poisoned by the evil Catholic church) it has eased poverty and greatly improved the quality of life for millions.

Indeed, the only places where things have not improved are places like Africa where the Catholic church would rather see people die via the ravages of AIDS than they would have those same people use contraception.

dad4justice said...

Take two, don't know where other comment went but who cares. Hey big bruv you know about evil eh?

dad4justice said...

And Aids eh?

Lucia Maria said...

Contraception is not a great emancipator for women, Big Bruv. Far, far from it. Only men and women who would have preferred to be born men and those who hate their femininity would think that.

What the heck is wrong with abstaining during fertile times if you don't have space for children at this point of time? Can you not control yourself? Do you need your woman sexually available at all times?

No one wants to see people dying of the ravages of AIDS, a sexually transmitted disease, one that would not harm the numbers it does if people limited sex to within marriage and kept it in their pants.

Must be way too hard for some.

Lucia Maria said...

I should add that some men get how harmful contraception is - unfortunately alot think because they are men and being a man is a good thing, and men don't have children, and contraception prevents children and therefore makes a woman like a man when they have sex, that therefore contraception is good too. Very manly. Weird how some men like manly women. You guys might want to check out my post on the link between porn and homosexuality.

Big Bruv said...

Lucia

Are you really that stupid?

The rhythm method is hardly a roaring success among Catholics is it?
Most of the people in this world do not have the hang ups you Catholics seem to be infested with when it comes to sex, we see it as natural, fun and part of living.
Perhaps if you guys loosened up a bit you might not have so many problems with the Priests and
their love affair with boys.

You claim that nobody wants to see people dying of AIDS. Well I have to say that is a lie, the Catholic Church have for some time now been of the opinion that it is better to die of AIDS than use condoms.

I don't care how you spin it that is evil.

dad4justice said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lucia Maria said...

Andrei,

Thanks for the support. I saw that "bit of stick" and decided not to respond at this point. I'm reading a book on all this and more by Judith Reisman, so will most likely start posting more on this subject when I've finished. But I'm pretty much hopping mad at the moment. Restraint is always called for when this happens to me.

Big Bruv said...

Lucia

You cannot respond as you know you have no answer that can justify your stance.

Lucia Maria said...

Big Bruv,

I'm a genius, so people calling me stupid is always a bit of laugh. Try another insult.

"...the Catholic Church have for some time now been of the opinion that it is better to die of AIDS than use condoms."

Prove it. Seriously.

dad4justice said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Big Bruv said...

Lucia

You need proof of that???

Remind yourself what the church's attitude is toward condoms and contraception is?

dad4justice said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Big Bruv said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
dad4justice said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Andrei said...

I hate deleting comments but the last three have gone because they do not address the issues of this post which is contraception and the social consequences arising from it.

dad4justice said...

big bruv can mention my name but I post his and you delete my post?

Ok hardly fair. Hey big bruv I run ChCh demo come help me out.

Haha.

Man this internet is sick give me real people anytime.

Peter Joseph Burns.

Big Bruv said...

Fair dues Andrei, you were right to remove those posts.

I cannot help it if some lunatic insists on chasing me around the blog though.

Anyway, I have said my piece. A very good night to you all.

ZenTiger said...

Big Bruv, the Churches attitude to condoms and contraception is not something that should be taken alone.

The attitude is:

1. No sex outside of marriage
2. Faithfulness to your spouse
3. No contraception (but Natural Planning is fine)

Those three things are important together. And let's face it, only Catholics are going to listen to it, and even then, the number of Catholics that actually follow the teachings of the Church are proportionally less.

On top of this, condoms ultimately do not provide 100% protection over the long term - so it's a false hope you will avoid pregnancy or disease if you sleep around.

Andrei said...

Big Bruv there are many illnesses that afflict Africans and condoms are not the solution to them.

Clean water would go a long way as would the judicious use of DDT but the hard work and money required to address the health issues of the third world are not of interest to Western Liberals - only the supposed magic panacea of condoms.

Funnily enough there are many religious - nuns in particular actually doing the work on the ground to alleviate some of the suffering these diseases cause.

dad4justice said...

Hey big blouse here is a night read
http://dad4justice.blogspot.com/2012/01/for-as-long-as-i-am-alive-i-will-regret.html

James said...

Another point Bruv could have raised is the not to veiled inference made that Womenwhere put on this Earth as breeding machines who's role is to pump out more stock and how shocking it is that they have said no to this cow-like classification and decided to take control of their lives and bodies as human beings worthy of the name should do. The stench of a certain time in German history wharfs about that idea....ironically as the same person who implied it also refers to that period as a reason why voluntary Euthanasia is to be reviled....

ZenTiger said...

That's your assumption James. Lucia suggests in other posts that Natural Planning techniques and sexual restraint from both partners can control fertility.

Whether you think that idea is feasible or not is one thing, but you don't need to assume that this means Lucia is suggesting women would not have control.

If anything, sexual restraint implies a great deal more restraint than you believe women (and men) are capable of. The flaw then you accuse Lucia of, is her belief that we are capable of such restraint.

No, contraception and abortion is needed because we are all out of control rutting animals....

Andrei said...

You didn't have a mother James?

She was a breeding machine then? Really? Or was there more to your mother than that?

If women don't have babies then soon there are no more people - no point railing about it, it's the way things are.

Nobody is saying that women have to have babies - just noting that if they don't then there is no future.

Can you see a way around this?

James said...

Andrei...it was YOU who implied the breeding machine context...I was the one opposed to it as I believe Women are independent moral beings with a right to live in the pursuit of their own happiness the same as Men.

The real problem is not Women's control over their breeding..is the incentives of the welfare state and the flow on cause and effect that has on both the desperate poor who breed for cash and the put upon rich who limit their breeding through a lack of cash...caused by it being taxed away to fund the reckless breeding of the aforementioned poor.

The elimination of the wealth redistributing welfare state is the prime object we must focus on to solve the problem of declining birth rates.

XChequer said...

@ Lucia

Thought I had heard the name Reisman before and had to google it - unlike you, I am demonstrably no genius and have to refer back to stuff instead of relying on the degrading grey matter :-)

What came up was that she had been commissioned to study at American University to determine whether Playboy, Hustler and other more explicit materials are linked to violence by juveniles.

Her work has not been without controversy however given what happened when she presented

"The report drew contemporary criticism in regards to its cost and its quality.[9][11] Sex crime researcher Avedon Carol commented that the report was a "scientific disaster, riddled with researcher bias and baseless assumptions."[12] The American University (AU), where Reisman's study had been academically based, refused to publish the completed work, citing concerns by an independent academic auditor. Criminologist Robert Figlio of the University of Pennsylvania[13] stated "The term child used in the aggregate sense in this report is so inclusive and general as to be meaningless."

Now granted the above is from Wikipedia so we must take this with a grain of salt however I've stayed up till 2am working on checking the sources and they do seem to be in order.

One suggests that you'd be playing with fire citing anything from her given the lack of evidentialism in her work.

XChequer said...

Actually, I just came upon this pearler - Judith Reisman: An objective of the gay rights movement is to advance the rights of pedophiles

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpzOiIbOKxg

Classic stuff this.

Heine said...

I'd like proof that Lucia is a genius. From what I have heard from her on this blog not to mention her bigoted comments over at Redbaiter Russels pit of stench, she is a very angry woman who chooses a god image to project her own bigotry onto others.

Reggie said...

"project her own bigotry onto others"

. . . and you don't?

You spew you own secular-progressive bigotry here semi regularly knowing full well that the hosts allow you to get away with it, you coward. Grow up.

And if you are back in NZ now, please stay away from any involvement in political parties (except perhaps Labour or the Libertarianz).

I.M Fletcher said...

XChequer - actually after Resiman made the claim -

"The research was an investigative analysis of PLAYBOY, PENTHOUSE and HUSTLER over the period of December 1953 to December 1984 to examine for nonviolent, violent, and criminal image portrayal and scenario involvement of children. The research reported the findings of 14,854 images of crime and violence and 6,004 images of children (with the predominate group being girls between ages 3 to 11 years) as part of the overall sexual and violent scenario. There were 989 sexual scenarios which included children actively involved with adults; and each magazine portrayed children as unharmed and/or benignly affected by the child/adult sex."

Playboy in Holland took offence and promptly sued her - AND SHE WON.
Yes, she won a law suit against Playboy - IN HOLLAND OF ALL PLACES.
You can't get a more sexually liberal country than that.

Was she wrong to point out that Playboy et al portray underage children as sexual objects? Do you not think this encourages paedophiles?

I.M Fletcher said...

ps, if women think that the Pill has liberated them, then they've had the wool pulled over their eyes.

The Pill was invented by men, and it largely gives men the ability to have sex with as many women as they want without having to commit to any because of less danger of the women falling pregnant. It's funny and ironic how women are still falling for this and actually see it as being somehow liberating for them

What a mind job has been pulled on them.

Psycho Milt said...

I love the underlying assumption that sex is something men do to women. Maybe the church should start issuing copies of the Joy of Sex to its congregations, it sounds like there's a desperate need for it.

ZenTiger said...

Not quite Milt. That was specifically around the discussion of how contraception can change the dynamics of a relationship, and an example of how men might exploit that. So an example in that specific context doesn't mean the entire range of ideas was intended to be covered or spoken for.

I take your point though that it takes two to tango, and in that regard the "sexual revolution" had a lot of people enjoying their liberties free from apparent consequences.

For a few, STDs, different levels of emotional attachment, and the need for abortion has meant that it's not as free and easy as portrayed on the brochure.

As for Catholic sex lives, your assumptions may be incorrect. You might be confusing us with the Protestants :-)

Heine said...

Reggie, your opinion is based on a book of fairytales of which the Catholic side has taken further by discriminating against women and gays. Not my problem you lot are dying out and you and Lucia are doing a damn fine job desecrating religion without anybody elses help.

Why all the fascination with other peoples sex lives anyway... you meddling christians. The only other people that were so interfering in our lives in our generation was communist/socialist Governments.

I.M Fletcher said...

Heine, as Lucia points out in a newer thread, yes, although what the Pope says is aimed at all of humanity to a certain extent, he is mainly saying these things with respect to being head of the Catholic Church and are these are things that Catholics must follow.

Atheists are free to follow them or not, but more often than not, Atheists are the ones who get upset at what the Pope says. I wonder why? He is saying it more for the benefit of his flock. Atheists don't seem to get upset at what the leaders of other faiths say. Islam, which is far more puritanical that Christianity) says it's OK to hang gays and kill women for dating outside it's religion, yet you don't see huge outcries agasint Islam

Reggie said...

Clint, your opinion comes from the Frankfurt school but you've been to subliminally mindfucked to not see it.

"Why all the fascination with other peoples sex lives anyway"

I'm not. But I do draw the line when it comes to the state teaching homosexual propaganda to children, or asymmetrical laws regarding homosexuality, transgenderism or any other fashionable "lifestyle", or the redefinition of marriage - one of the cornerstones of civil society.

You on the other hand, if your blog was anything to go by was constantly obsessed with pornography (which is why I'd never bother to read your infantile drivel, as well as deleting comments you didn't "approve" of)
Take a look in the mirror, you're a cross-dressing left-wing manchild who is intent on living his entire miserable life in a perpetual state of adolescence.

"were so interfering in our lives in our generation was communist/socialist Governments."

You, you silly little fool are part of the free-est generation in human history . . and again, your permanent state of adolescence is testament to that.

I.M Fletcher said...

It's been said before - Christianity seems to be the final group that it's OK to discriminate against.

Reggie said...

"Islam, which is far more puritanical that Christianity) says it's OK to hang gays and kill women for dating outside it's religion, yet you don't see huge outcries agasint Islam"

Because left-wing halfwits like Clint have been inculcated into sneering and deconstructing critical aspects of their own culture - just like Lukacs and Marcuse et all wanted them too.

XChequer said...

Thanks for that I.M. You'd be right.........if, in fact, you were right. Which you're not. Firstly by Reisman's own definition of paedophilia i.e. paedophilia is a longing for boys - not girls.

Secondly, one suggests that Mrs Reisman engage a better dutch translator as the passage that she refers to is Section 9 of the presiding judges summary judgement to which he doesn't actually say say that Mrs Reisman is right - only she has the right to say it by virtue of research (dodgy or not) and that the purpose of the lawsuit brought was NOT to determine the validity of her research. Oh, and for the record, Playboy actually won the lawsuit.

Thirdly, as to whether I think she is wrong to point out the use of children in pornography. No. I don't think she is wrong. Given her history and reason for engaging in this research (you do know her history don't you?) it would be churlish to say she is not performing a valuable public service - if in fact she was. Which she isn't. Cause her evidence is false, her methodology is false and her conclusions are false. All her assertions are based on a premise that almost everyone else says is wrong. She can't even get peer reviewed! The only people prepared to support her are the far right conservative who fit the Patricia Bartlett jelly mold and truly believe everything Fox News says.

By the way, all this was done with a few hours research on the inter-webby-jobby. I see most of the talk about Mrs Reisman has come from her website - her own, objective, non-biased website. Can I suggest that you look farther afeild when researching answers and not just the first page Google throws up to you.

Wanted to leave you with this pearler so you know who you are dealing with when you defend the validity of this womans research. This is her opinion on Jews as babykillers:

"Everyone knows Jews do lead the abortion industry, and I'll thank B'nai B'rith from the bottom of my heart if they can prove otherwise," Reisman, a Jew, said in 1995. "

ZenTiger said...

What's your view on Kinsey's reasearch Xchequer? Do you accept that he was a bit of a nutjob with his own agenda to push, which partly explains the obvious errors in his research?

I.M Fletcher said...

Sorry, but Reisman WON.

Judge Bentinck ruled in Playboy's favor, only on the count of EO's use of three images of Playboy magazine covers and three other Playboy images, without permission; a copyright violation. All other claims and demands by Playboy were dismissed.

The only things ruled in Playboy's favour were the use by Reisman or 3 cover images which she didn't have the right to display, and a few other images - it's copyright stuff. All other claims by Playboy were dismissed - in other words, they lost.

ZenTiger said...

Some other Yes/No questions for you xChequer:

1. Are you pro-choice?
2. Do you believe abortion kills babies?

XChequer said...

I.M

Taken from the judges summary:

"Playboy and associates, being publishers themselves, possess ample access to the media to combat any opinion they deem incorrect."

Please note the use of the word "opinion" - not research or fact.

Given that EO, the Dutch broadcaster (also known as the Association for the Promotion of Evangelism Trough Radio And Television Broadcasting) paid out on those copyright breaches then yes, Playboy won. Did they win all counts - no. Which alleviated the necessity to print or show a retraction. In no way is this a vindication of Mrs Reisman. That they only one one count is still "a win". As shown by the judges above statement, everyone is allowed their opinion. Your statement was "Yes, she won a law suit against Playboy - IN HOLLAND OF ALL PLACES.
You can't get a more sexually liberal country than that."

The lawsuit was the ability to say what you believe - not whether it's right.

Redbaiter said...

I don't know why you bother with secular progressive idiots and hate merchants like Heine, Big Bruv and James.

They are a small group of bigots who get no traction anywhere.

Just leave them to their intolerance and their fanaticism and their ignorance.

Who needs their shallow braindead tripe?

You guys give them far too much oxygen.

XChequer said...

Hi Zen.

How do I regard Kinsey? Well not being a sociologist or a cultural anthropologist, I can't really claim too much about him except to say that I saw the movie and thought that Laura Linney is a really nice girl. Was his actual science water tight? I don't think so. All his data comes from volunteers so will be skewed with bias. Was he an expert in this field to begin with? No, he was a biologist. Are there some questions lurking about some ambiguous morality on the fringes and tainting his work that I'm not particularly comfortable with. Yes.

Do I believe in pro-choice? When the health of the mother is threatened, yes. Am I comfortable with young women just using abortion as casual contraception, no. Do I believe that abortion kills babies. No. A baby isn't a baby util it is delivered. Was your question more like "does abortion kill foetuses?" and "does the foetus have a soul" to which my answers are "yes" and "no" respectively.

I.M Fletcher said...

Xchequer -

---
In paragraph nine of the ruling, Reisman's findings are referred to as:


"the uncontested factual findings of Dr. Reisman"

---

I.M Fletcher said...

XChequer, as far as abortion though, you do agree that if the foetus is left alone and not interfered with that (in most cases) a baby will result. I don't see how you can therefore say that abortion does not kill babies. Does it really matter where along the timeline it happens?
In one case, a baby is the result: in the other case there is human surgical interference and no baby results. One instance, life: the other no life because of human interference.

What gets me is that I think some people compare abortion with baking a tray of cookies. Like, if there is something wrong with the batter (or even if there isn't) then that can be thrown out and you can get some more batter and end up with more cookies. This is true to a certain extent, but if you've had children at all (and especially more than one), you'll know that one child is not like another. They are each unique. Therefore, killing that foetus destroys the life of that unique child and there will never be one exactly the same as the one you lost, even if you subsequent ones.

XChequer said...

Ahhhh, I see what you mean. I've just emailed a dutch friend to question the translation that comes bog standard with Google.

Besides, all that means is that they (the parties) are not contesting the claims made by Reisman in that lawsuit - the main point of the lawsuit being that the EO's airing of this view would commercially hurt Playboy as they were inherently named in the article.

As far as the abortion thing, I suspect I may have a different opinion than you. I do have a child and agree about most of your post. I don't agree (obviously) with the strict orthodox catholic view about abortion. I only answered Zen's questions with the yes or no so I was convicted of evading the questions - even if they were very leading in nature.

I do, however, agree with you as to the "tray of cookies" analogy. Too many young people get pregnant with no thought to health, the baby (if they bring the child to term) or society in general. I certainly do wish there were less of them. It speaks to a weakness of character in society that we permit so many with no real good cause.

But that might best be left to another soapbox another time.

dad4justice said...

So big bruv writes up a post on his aids infected blog calling Lucia a sick bitch.

I want to fix this prick and I will do it because NZ does not need such faggot filth.

Heine said...

I.M Fletcher, thank you for your polite reply. I usually get nice replies here but the irony that people like Peter "D4J" Burns and Russel "Can't find his penis" Redbaiter say my old blog is "Aids infected" is quite hilarious.

Reggie - my blog didn't delete comments (don't lie) nor are we "obsessed with porn"... if anything, we are open minded about it being in our society, unlike you it seems who wants to cover your head in a blanket and ignore the outside world.

If I'm left wing as you claim, then you're somewhere in the sea outside Pyongyang. I'm a right wing liberal - as in I treat every human as an equal economic unit. Not my fault you compartmenalise people into groups, but Labour does that too and they sure need new members. Want to join them?

Heine said...

I just find it a bit silly to preach to people these "rules as decreed by a rich old man in Rome" when everybody else is doing the opposite. Surely the Catholic Church is mindful that to stay relevant and actually HAVE a flock in the next 50 years, that telling everybody they are sinners and will go to hell isn't exactly a good thing?

ZenTiger said...

Heine, the rules are not decreed by a rich old man in Rome.

As for staying relevant, that is the nub of the issue. To be extreme, let's say that cannibalism became the norm - could you understand that if that was viewed as immoral by Catholics, they would be entitled to hold on to that view?

Current society sees more and more kids raised to single parent families. Whilst those parents may perform heroically, the statistical outcomes are not good. The moral forces that undermine things such as this have caused a sea-change of opinion in society that is ultimately destructive. Changing morals to fit the circumstances (moral relativity) is exactly why the Church does not change on some things.

However, it does change on others that are not directly related to faith and morals. Those changes are just slower than people might like.

As for telling people that they will go to hell - you interpret that as a threat, but what if you said to some-one: drink that arsenic and you will die a painful death.

Are you threatening them or warning them?

ZenTiger said...

@XChequer:

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions on abortion. The reason I asked was because of your final point about Reisman:

Wanted to leave you with this pearler so you know who you are dealing with when you defend the validity of this womans research. This is her opinion on Jews as babykillers:

"Everyone knows Jews do lead the abortion industry, and I'll thank B'nai B'rith from the bottom of my heart if they can prove otherwise," Reisman, a Jew, said in 1995. "


A quick read of the internet about Reisman, and I find most blogs quoting a few of the same things from the same source, and mainly in the realms of personal attacks, such as this one. A case of destroy the person to avoid the argument.

I presume you found this quote and repeated it, thinking it was "the final straw"?

Let's break down your summation though:

1. Your opening line was a "look at how bad she is" statement.

2. You described her evil as being about her calling Jews baby-killers.

3. People who attack Jews are either lauded or reviled, but "baby-killers" is normally universally hated.

4. What Judith actually said though was to the effect of "Jews lead the world in abortion rates."

5. You yourself believe that abortion is not baby-killing, yet think it adds weight to your argument to use it in this context and call her something you don't believe yourself.

6. As a self-identifying Jew, she is probably entitled to speak of her own race this way, without it being interpreted as a purely "hate Jew" motivated attack. A bit like a Maori decrying the high child abuse rates by Maoris in NZ.

In summary, Reisman complaining about high abortion rates does not make her a "baby-killer" and I think it important for our readers to understand that these kind of character defamations abound on the internet and in news articles and are often absorbed without any critical thought, the mud sticking if it is repeated frequently enough.

In hindsight, do you really think that this proves a lack of immorality?

ZenTiger said...

On Kinsey:

All his data comes from volunteers so will be skewed with bias.

Thanks for your frank reply about Kinsey. The above line was noteworthy to me. I think it worth further description to our readers. From wiki [emphasis mine]:

Academic criticisms were made pertaining to sample selection and sample bias in the reports' methodology. Two main problems cited were that significant portions of the samples come from prison populations and male prostitutes, and that people who volunteer to be interviewed about taboo subject are likely to suffer from the problem of self-selection. Both undermine the usefulness of the sample in terms of determining the tendencies of the overall population.

Heine said...

Fair point, but it's stretching it a little far to associate drinking poison and not reading and following a book that nobody can prove is based on facts.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.