@Officer_Caleb was that to my joke or @Deleted User

Sure, I'll spend an hour googling the dozen factors so you can spend the entire time just discounting them or counter-googling with your own "studies" by the APA that are purely propaganda.

I’m not very good a picking up joke however it is an actual issue.

oh i was saying a baseless claim but cited "studies" with no proof they exist

"Look, this **meta-analysis** that says 'Homosexuals are not disproportionately abuse victims if you control for SES.'"

You've got to understand how tiring this all is.

@Deleted User If you dont trust the scientific community then I cant have this discussion with you

There are a thousand ways to quantify the Fallen State is not utopia but you have to first know we're in a Fallen State.

You trust the scientific community? That is pathetic.

Yeah?!?!??!

Do you not?

Stephen Jay Gould is a "scienceman" and when he makes an absolutely false statement, like how skulls were mismeasured, he's someone to **trust**?

No

I cannot describe how insanely pathetic that is.

To put your full faith into an institution.

You discredit a whole community because of a few persons?

*but make fun of those bible thumpers*

I believe in science as a valid institution, I don't however put my full faith into it nor do I ever have an appeal to authority fetish.

Wait do you believe in like general scientific knowledge?

/theory

Yes.

However I do not and will not believe in popularity and credentials as a replacement for data.

Im talking about scientific consensus

You must understand how tiring it is to read creative writing trying its best to sound true and hearing some sheep blabber on about how *it's from the most prestigious journal in the field*, *it's from the most popular academic in the field*, or *it's from the approved organization.*

Consensus is a false path.

The consensus of anthropologists believe in the blank slate of human nature.

ok?

They are innsufferable morons who have made the consensus based off of the last generation of prestigious intellectuals and academics in their field having the ideological bend to fudge data, lie, and the power to make everyone else believe those lies.

You're going to stay demoralized and easy to control if you can read this article and not see **it**: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_determinism

and by **it** I mean the ideologically-based, not factually-based assertions.

wait are you saying biological determination isnt real or is

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biological_determinism&action=history

?

Like it is 100% a real documented thing

to my knowledge at least

I think quote “Biological Determination” is a way of not having to take responsibility.

How are you not seeing the point I'm making.

make it clear to me then

I'm not trying to say BD is or isn't a thing, I'm saying that the superior Wikipedia of True Knowledge and Only Sourced Fact is how you start seeing the lies you've been fed.

When a sentence, or in the one case a full paragraph is uncited, then you see only the same book being cited, you might be in an ideologically-based article, not a fact-based one.

ok thank you