20+ innocent people are dead because a 46 year old homosexual/pederast was texting (hitting on) a 14 year old boy while driving a passenger train.
Add 20+ more to the "body count".
Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 3
- Thread starter aCultureWarrior
- Start date
- Status
20+ innocent people are dead because a 46 year old homosexual/pederast was texting (hitting on) a 14 year old boy while driving a passenger train.
Add 20+ more to the "body count".
Fortunately the CDC does, hence the reason the FDA made a blanket policy on homosexual acts when it comes to donating blood.
Oral Sex and HIV Risk
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/behavior/oralsex.html
And you're saying something similar has never happened with a straight pilot/driver/conductor?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
20+ innocent people are dead because a 46 year old homosexual/pederast was texting (hitting on) a 14 year old boy while driving a passenger train.
Add 20+ more to the "body count".
Keep in mind that when we're talking about homosexuals we're talking about a very small portion of the population (between 1-2 percent) who engage in a behavior (a changeable one at that) being responsible for so much death, hence the reason it is called a "death culture".
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
20+ innocent people are dead because a 46 year old homosexual/pederast was texting (hitting on) a 14 year old boy while driving a passenger train.
Add 20+ more to the "body count".
Keep in mind that when we're talking about homosexuals we're talking about a very small portion of the population (between 1-2 percent) who engage in a behavior (a changeable one at that) being responsible for so much death, hence the reason it is called a "death culture".
And keep in mind you've found exactly one instance of a homosexual bearing responsibility out of the hundreds, if not thousands, of commercial transportation accidents around the globe in the past 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Keep in mind that when we're talking about homosexuals we're talking about a very small portion of the population (between 1-2 percent) who engage in a behavior (a changeable one at that) being responsible for so much death, hence the reason it is called a "death culture".
I've shown 3 recent cases that deal with homosexuals given the huge responsibility of being responsible for other peoples lives in the area of public transportation.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4318155&postcount=7813
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4318265&postcount=7815
With the government and lamestream media being notorious for cover-ups, who knows if we'll ever know the truth behind the Amtrak wreck and what role homosexual activist Brandon Bostian played in it.
Add the amount of death from disease, suicide, murder (being murdered or murdering others), drug overdoses, alcoholism, etc., we're definitely talking about a death culture when we're talking about homosexuality.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Keep in mind that when we're talking about homosexuals we're talking about a very small portion of the population (between 1-2 percent) who engage in a behavior (a changeable one at that) being responsible for so much death, hence the reason it is called a "death culture".
I've shown 3 recent cases that deal with homosexuals given the huge responsibility of being responsible for other peoples lives in the area of public transportation.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4318155&postcount=7813
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4318265&postcount=7815
With the government and lamestream media being notorious for cover-ups, who knows if we'll ever know the truth behind the Amtrak wreck and what role homosexual activist Brandon Bostian played in it.
Add the amount of death from disease, suicide, murder (being murdered or murdering others), drug overdoses, alcoholism, etc., we're definitely talking about a death culture when we're talking about homosexuality.
Admittedly I didn't see the other two examples, but you're still far short of having enough examples to suggest homosexuals are higher risk pilots/engineers/drivers than are heterosexuals.
You are correct that the gay culture in some pockets puts its participants at high risk of drug problems and disease. But how does that affect you? If they choose to put themselves at risk with no effect on others that don't engage in activity with them, why do you care? They feel the risk is worth the reward. And seeing how AIDS is hardly lethal anymore with the effective treatments developed recently, the only real life threatening risk to the vast majority would be drug problems, not disease. Drugs aren't a problem for homosexuals, they're a problem for people
Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Add the amount of death from disease, suicide, murder (being murdered or murdering others), drug overdoses, alcoholism, etc., we're definitely talking about a death culture when we're talking about homosexuality.
As I'd pointed out with serial killers: If homosexuals aren't disproportionately represented, then there would be 98-99 incidents of manslaughter/premeditated murder by heterosexuals for every 1-2 cases caused by homosexuals in public transportation.
Based on the new guidelines by the FDA on blood donations, all homosexuals would be put in the same "pocket".
It's that "Love thy neighbor as you'd love yourself" thing that Jesus talks about.
Besides that, I hate seeing invaluable institutions (marriage, the traditional family, the military, education, the Church, youth mentor organizations, etc.) destroyed.
AIDS is still a huge problem amongst homosexuals. While they have medications that prolong the shortened lifespan of those who contract AIDS, homosexuals are still dying from AIDS related diseases.
I've shown that isn't the case. Those who engage in homosexual behavior disproportionately have drug issues.
Add the amount of death from disease, suicide, murder (being murdered or murdering others), drug overdoses, alcoholism, etc., we're definitely talking about a death culture when we're talking about homosexuality.
As I'd pointed out with serial killers: If homosexuals aren't disproportionately represented, then there would be 98-99 incidents of manslaughter/premeditated murder by heterosexuals for every 1-2 cases caused by homosexuals in public transportation.
Based on the new guidelines by the FDA on blood donations, all homosexuals would be put in the same "pocket".
It's that "Love thy neighbor as you'd love yourself" thing that Jesus talks about.
Besides that, I hate seeing invaluable institutions (marriage, the traditional family, the military, education, the Church, youth mentor organizations, etc.) destroyed.
AIDS is still a huge problem amongst homosexuals. While they have medications that prolong the shortened lifespan of those who contract AIDS, homosexuals are still dying from AIDS related diseases.
I've shown that isn't the case. Those who engage in homosexual behavior disproportionately have drug issues.
TracerBullet
New member
Just more lies.
"Brandon Bostian's phone records show calls were made, text messages were sent and data was used the day of the crash, the National Transportation Safety Board said, but it remains unclear if the phone was used while the train was in motion.
Investigators won't be able to make that determination until after a time-consuming analysis comparing time stamps from Bostian's subpoenaed phone records with those from an on-board data recorder, video and other sources, the NTSB said." Ref
No one can show he was even using his phone much less texting a 14 year old.
TracerBullet
New member
he hasn't even found one instance.
Speaking of lies:
Yet another homosexual activist has been caught fabricating a homosexual study.
Major Gay Marriage Study Was Fabricated, Author Admits
5-20-15
A study purporting to show that people’s views on gay marriage could change simply by meeting gay people has been retracted following revelations that its data was fabricated.
The study was published last December in Science, and prior to publication drew a great deal of attention from the American media. Vox, for instance, described the findings in the study as “kind of miraculous.” As it turns out, that’s exactly what they were, because they were apparently made up.
According to the study, people from communities hostile to gay marriage could have their opinions shift dramatically after spending just a few minutes speaking with a gay person who canvassed their neighborhood promoting gay marriage. Not only that, but this could have a spillover effect, making not just the people themselves more pro-gay but also other people who lived in the same household.
The study, among other things, lent support to the notion that those opposed to gay marriage simply don’t know or interact with open homosexuals. More broadly, it was seen as an important development in the science of how people can be convinced to change their minds on ideologically-charged issues.
The study began to fall apart when students at the University of California at Berkeley sought to conduct additional research building off of it, only to find major irregularities in how its research was apparently conducted. For example, thermometers used to measure participants’ attitudes produced consistent, reliable information, even though they are known for producing relatively unreliable numbers.
Also, the data recovered had an exceptionally consistent distribution, with not a single one of the 12,000 supposed participants providing anomalous or unusual results. In other words, the study’s data was too perfect to be believable.
Donald Green, a professor at Columbia University and a co-author of the paper, made the decision to retract it after having a confrontation with co-author Michael LaCour, a graduate student at UCLA. While LaCour maintained that he hadn’t fabricated the data, he was also unable to produce the original source files supposedly used to produce it. When he failed to write-up a retraction, Green took the initiative and did so himself...
Read more:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/20/major-gay-marriage-study-was-fabricated-author-admits/
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3292028/posts
Homosexual activist/co-author of fabricated research: Columbia University Professor Donald Green.
Yet another homosexual activist has been caught fabricating a homosexual study.
Major Gay Marriage Study Was Fabricated, Author Admits
5-20-15
A study purporting to show that people’s views on gay marriage could change simply by meeting gay people has been retracted following revelations that its data was fabricated.
The study was published last December in Science, and prior to publication drew a great deal of attention from the American media. Vox, for instance, described the findings in the study as “kind of miraculous.” As it turns out, that’s exactly what they were, because they were apparently made up.
According to the study, people from communities hostile to gay marriage could have their opinions shift dramatically after spending just a few minutes speaking with a gay person who canvassed their neighborhood promoting gay marriage. Not only that, but this could have a spillover effect, making not just the people themselves more pro-gay but also other people who lived in the same household.
The study, among other things, lent support to the notion that those opposed to gay marriage simply don’t know or interact with open homosexuals. More broadly, it was seen as an important development in the science of how people can be convinced to change their minds on ideologically-charged issues.
The study began to fall apart when students at the University of California at Berkeley sought to conduct additional research building off of it, only to find major irregularities in how its research was apparently conducted. For example, thermometers used to measure participants’ attitudes produced consistent, reliable information, even though they are known for producing relatively unreliable numbers.
Also, the data recovered had an exceptionally consistent distribution, with not a single one of the 12,000 supposed participants providing anomalous or unusual results. In other words, the study’s data was too perfect to be believable.
Donald Green, a professor at Columbia University and a co-author of the paper, made the decision to retract it after having a confrontation with co-author Michael LaCour, a graduate student at UCLA. While LaCour maintained that he hadn’t fabricated the data, he was also unable to produce the original source files supposedly used to produce it. When he failed to write-up a retraction, Green took the initiative and did so himself...
Read more:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/20/major-gay-marriage-study-was-fabricated-author-admits/
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3292028/posts
Homosexual activist/co-author of fabricated research: Columbia University Professor Donald Green.
Except that I wasn't talking about Bostian texting a 14 year old boy.
TracerBullet
New member
Yet you still try to palm off fake research from anti-gay sources. Why?
Science Fiction: Michael LaCour's Gay Rights Canvassing Hoax Shows the Limits of Peer Review
May 21, 2015
In June of 2013, Columbia University political scientist Donald Green was approached by UCLA graduate student Michael LaCour with some remarkable findings about canvassing work done by Los Angeles LGBT Center: Empathetic conversations between gay canvassers and local residents were able to make lasting converts to the cause of marriage equality. Straight canvassers also had an impact but on a much smaller level. LaCour’s findings stood in contrast to a large body of scholarship that shows canvassing rarely changes public opinion in any sustained way. The journalistic rule to be wary of a story that seems too good to be true is one that academics could benefit from as well.
“I thought they were so astonishing that the findings would only be credible if the study were replicated,” Green recently told the website Retraction Watch. LaCour and Green’s article, “When Contact Changes Minds: An Experiment on Transmission of Support for Gay Equality,” was published in the December 2014 issue of the prestigious journal Science. It immediately caught the attention of journalists and political activists, serving as the basis for an episode of This American Life, and articles in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg Politics, and other publications. According to Ira Glass, host of This American Life, the study seemed to show that the canvassers of the LGBT Center had “invented something new, a new tool to change people’s opinions.”
Unfortunately, it increasingly looks like what was invented was not a new tool of persuasion but rather the evidence of the study itself. Challenged by subsequent researchers who have not been able to replicate the findings of the 2014 article and evidence that LaCour made false claims about funding for his research, Green has asked Science to retract the article.
In trying to make sense of this fiasco, it’s important to realize that the implicit trust Green placed in LaCour was perfectly normal and rational. While science includes gatekeeping measures to weed out inferior research, in their day-to-day collaborative activities scientists have to assume that the people they are working with are not pathological liars, that they won’t simply make up data. This is the kind of social cohesiveness that led one professor to tell This American Life, “I trust anything Don Green publishes.” In this particular case, that trust was misplaced but some level of collegial confidence is the necessary lubricant to allow research to take place.
The publication of so dubious an article is likely to embarrass the many parties involved; not just Green but also the LGBT Center, the journal Science, and the fellow social scientists who greenlit the article during the peer review process, among others. While the publication of the article is an embarrassment to the journal Science, it is paradoxically a vindication of the discipline itself.
Read more: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121872/michael-lacours-gay-rights-canvassing-hoax
The study on gay marriage that was too good to be true
May 21, 2015
It was the study that some said could rewrite the political rule book. Forget focus groups, road-to-Damascus moments and negative campaign advertising. What if you could change people's minds on an issue such as gay marriage simply by ... talking to them?
Radical. But also too good to be true, now that the study - widely circulated in the US - has been retracted by one of its authors after his co-author allegedly admitted to fabricating data.
In a memo to the respected academic journal Science, which published the paper, Columbia University professor Donald Green said he was "deeply embarrassed" at holes in the research found by peers at other US colleges.
The outcome has disappointed marriage equality campaigners in Australia and abroad.
Australian Marriage Equality director Rodney Croome said supporters of same-sex marriage should not be discouraged from telling their stories and trying to persuade opponents.
The bulk of the work behind the study - When contact changes minds - was undertaken by a PhD student at the University of California Los Angeles, Michael LaCour. Its findings were striking: that 20-minute conversations with voters opposed to gay marriage could turn them into enthusiastic supporters of marriage equality.
The research also contended that, if the person conducting the interview was gay or lesbian, the voter was likely to remain convinced about same-sex marriage when interviewed again nine months later - rather than reverting to their original views.
"Contact with minorities coupled with discussion of issues pertinent to them is capable of producing a cascade of opinion change," Mr LaCour and Professor Green concluded.
The study was reported by news agencies including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and radio program This American Life. Its implications were enormous, bucking widely accepted wisdom that most people do not really change their minds, or that, if they do, the process is slow or beyond the sphere of political influence.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/the-stu...-was-too-good-to-be-true-20150521-gh6fi7.html
Nothing new to see here folks, just a bunch of homosexual activists trying to influence public opinion on same sex marriage by making stuff up.
Homosexual activist and fraudulent researcher Michael LaCour
I want to borrow an article from your thread that talks about a homosexual pedophile that worked as a night counselor at an environmental science camp near San Jose, CA.
Amnesty Granted To Child Molesting Camp Counselor Known As ‘Papa Bear’
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) knew last year that an illegal alien California camp counselor known as “Papa Bear” was being investigated on child molestation and child pornography charges but did nothing about it, Iowa U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley claims in a letter sent to DHS Sec. Jeh Johnson on Wednesday.
Edgar Covarrubias-Padilla was arrested May 7 and charged with four felonies including child molestation and the distribution of child pornography. According to local news reports, authorities believe that Covarrubias-Padilla also produced child pornography.
Covarrubias-Padilla recently worked as a night counselor at Walden West, an environmental science camp near San Jose. Besides the recovery of 600 child porn images from his computer, Covarrubias-Padilla has been accused of sexually abusing a 10-year-old boy. The Santa Clara County sheriff’s office told Grassley’s office that it had received over 100 phone calls and 50 emails from parents concerned that their child may have been victimized. Covarrubias-Padilla worked at two other camps over the past two years.
In his letter to Johnson, Grassley stated that whistleblowers with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) — a DHS sub-agency — claim that the federal authorities knew as early as Nov. 17 that Covarrubias-Padilla was being investigated for child sex abuse charges.
Yet, nothing was done about his DACA status until his recent arrest, Grassley claims.
The whistleblowers claim that on Oct. 8, 2012, Covarrubias-Padilla applied for amnesty protection under President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. His amnesty and work eligibility were scheduled to last through this month, at which point he would have been allowed to re-apply for the program.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/21/a...-molesting-camp-counselor-known-as-papa-bear/
Homosexual pedophile/child pornographer Edgar Covarrubias-Padilla
TracerBullet
New member
Science Fiction: Michael LaCour's Gay Rights Canvassing Hoax Shows the Limits of Peer Review
May 21, 2015
In June of 2013, Columbia University political scientist Donald Green was approached by UCLA graduate student Michael LaCour with some remarkable findings about canvassing work done by Los Angeles LGBT Center: Empathetic conversations between gay canvassers and local residents were able to make lasting converts to the cause of marriage equality. Straight canvassers also had an impact but on a much smaller level. LaCour’s findings stood in contrast to a large body of scholarship that shows canvassing rarely changes public opinion in any sustained way. The journalistic rule to be wary of a story that seems too good to be true is one that academics could benefit from as well.
“I thought they were so astonishing that the findings would only be credible if the study were replicated,” Green recently told the website Retraction Watch. LaCour and Green’s article, “When Contact Changes Minds: An Experiment on Transmission of Support for Gay Equality,” was published in the December 2014 issue of the prestigious journal Science. It immediately caught the attention of journalists and political activists, serving as the basis for an episode of This American Life, and articles in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg Politics, and other publications. According to Ira Glass, host of This American Life, the study seemed to show that the canvassers of the LGBT Center had “invented something new, a new tool to change people’s opinions.”
Unfortunately, it increasingly looks like what was invented was not a new tool of persuasion but rather the evidence of the study itself. Challenged by subsequent researchers who have not been able to replicate the findings of the 2014 article and evidence that LaCour made false claims about funding for his research, Green has asked Science to retract the article.
In trying to make sense of this fiasco, it’s important to realize that the implicit trust Green placed in LaCour was perfectly normal and rational. While science includes gatekeeping measures to weed out inferior research, in their day-to-day collaborative activities scientists have to assume that the people they are working with are not pathological liars, that they won’t simply make up data. This is the kind of social cohesiveness that led one professor to tell This American Life, “I trust anything Don Green publishes.” In this particular case, that trust was misplaced but some level of collegial confidence is the necessary lubricant to allow research to take place.
The publication of so dubious an article is likely to embarrass the many parties involved; not just Green but also the LGBT Center, the journal Science, and the fellow social scientists who greenlit the article during the peer review process, among others. While the publication of the article is an embarrassment to the journal Science, it is paradoxically a vindication of the discipline itself.
Read more: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121872/michael-lacours-gay-rights-canvassing-hoax
The study on gay marriage that was too good to be true
May 21, 2015
It was the study that some said could rewrite the political rule book. Forget focus groups, road-to-Damascus moments and negative campaign advertising. What if you could change people's minds on an issue such as gay marriage simply by ... talking to them?
Radical. But also too good to be true, now that the study - widely circulated in the US - has been retracted by one of its authors after his co-author allegedly admitted to fabricating data.
In a memo to the respected academic journal Science, which published the paper, Columbia University professor Donald Green said he was "deeply embarrassed" at holes in the research found by peers at other US colleges.
The outcome has disappointed marriage equality campaigners in Australia and abroad.
Australian Marriage Equality director Rodney Croome said supporters of same-sex marriage should not be discouraged from telling their stories and trying to persuade opponents.
The bulk of the work behind the study - When contact changes minds - was undertaken by a PhD student at the University of California Los Angeles, Michael LaCour. Its findings were striking: that 20-minute conversations with voters opposed to gay marriage could turn them into enthusiastic supporters of marriage equality.
The research also contended that, if the person conducting the interview was gay or lesbian, the voter was likely to remain convinced about same-sex marriage when interviewed again nine months later - rather than reverting to their original views.
"Contact with minorities coupled with discussion of issues pertinent to them is capable of producing a cascade of opinion change," Mr LaCour and Professor Green concluded.
The study was reported by news agencies including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and radio program This American Life. Its implications were enormous, bucking widely accepted wisdom that most people do not really change their minds, or that, if they do, the process is slow or beyond the sphere of political influence.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/the-stu...-was-too-good-to-be-true-20150521-gh6fi7.html
Nothing new to see here folks, just a bunch of homosexual activists trying to influence public opinion on same sex marriage by making stuff up.
Homosexual activist and fraudulent researcher Michael LaCour
Yet you still try to palm off fake research from anti-gay sources. Why?
TracerBullet
New member
Can you tell us why you aren't going off about this guy?
- Status