Truth Wins Out has created a petition to demand that Apple remove its bigoted Exodus International iPhone app:
Exodus International, the notorious “ex-gay” organization, has just released an iPhone app that, according to its website, is “designed to be a useful resource for men, women, parents, students, and ministry leaders.” The Exodus website further boasts that its app received a 4+ rating from Apple, meaning that it contains “no objectionable content.”
No objectionable content? We beg to differ. Exodus’ message is hateful and bigoted. They claim to offer “freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ” and use scare tactics, misinformation, stereotypes and distortions of LGBT life to recruit clients. They endorse the use of so-called “reparative therapy” to “change” the sexual orientation of their clients, despite the fact that this form of “therapy” has been rejected by every major professional medical organization including the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Counseling Association. But reparative therapy isn’t just bad medicine — it’s also very damaging to the self-esteem and mental health of its victims.
This new iPhone app is the latest move in Exodus’ dangerous new strategy of targeting youth. In light of the recent wave of LGBT youth suicides, this tactic is particularly galling as it creates, legitimizes, and fuels the ostracism of LGBT youth by their families. According to a study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, LGBT teens who experienced negative feedback from their family were 8 times more likely to have attempted suicide, 6 times as vulnerable to severe depression, and 3 times more likely to use drugs (Caitlin Ryan, San Francisco State University, June 2009).
Apple doesn’t allow racist or anti-Semitic apps in its app store, yet it gives the green light to an app targeting vulnerable LGBT youth with the message that their sexual orientation is a “sin that will make your heart sick” and a “counterfeit.” This is a double standard that has the potential for devastating consequences.
Apple needs to be told, loud and clear, that this is unacceptable. Stand with Truth Wins Out — demand that the iTunes store stop supporting homophobia and remove the Exodus app.
Dish dish dish! :D
[...] ?????-???????" ??????, ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ????????? ?????? ????? [...]
@ Makyui
That is not a response to the criticism. Saying it isn’t an insult is just stupid. I am complaining about the prejudice, I could care less about a random internet dweeb who thinks illogically, as most seem to do.
The point was simple – just because it offends does not make it an offense. Yes, because a non-profit organization is clearly taking all their monies while putting them in concentration camps.
You cannot be without such intentions if it is a SCAM by definition. This example fails since it would be the case that 100% would die, provided that the magical water does not work. Is there such evidence that this is ALWAYS or MOSTLY the case for Exodus International? Please, don’t give me this FUD. Correlation does not IMPLY causation. This is a fundamental logical principle. For example, if homosexuals seem to experience sexual diseases and death (and this happens), does that mean that homosexuality is bad?
Your reading comprehension skills are horrible. I only said that it would refute the claim that it ALWAYS harmful. That does not mean that it could not USUALLY be harmful. Learn to read please.
If the evidence was that compelling, it should’ve been shut down a long time ago. Of course there are some possible explanations for why this hasn’t occurred. Care to provide any?
Nowhere does it claim that it results in death. There are suicides but like anything, this is more complicated than just blaming the therapy sessions. Remember, correlation does not equal causation. It could be that they’ve committed suicide for different reasons or because their friends/family were not loving them. If this argument was valid, we could discredit any psychological therapy session just because the person in question decided to commit suicide. Furthermore, if you looked closely at the fine print, you’d notice a pattern:
“…have raised serious concerns about its potential to do harm.”
“…that it CAN do more harm than good”
“…and in fact they MAY be harmful”
This is just based on “possibility” and a few selected individuals who were harmed. In addition, this does NOT prove that Exodus International is engaging in harmful practices. You need to provide specific studies, not generalized claims. There are different methods that could be used to “resolve” homosexual tendencies. Not all of them are alike.
I think I will say no more as your ability to engage in rational and respectful discussion is poor on all accounts. You may have the last word… that I will likely have the displeasure of reading.
Wow!, I just skimmed through all these comments. It appears that an unusually large percentage of the commenters may have been home-schooled.
“I am complaining about the prejudice”
Oh, that’s right. Gil thinks that using descriptive labels that fundies themselves use on themselves is prejudice against fundies. Because fundies don’t actually know what prejudice is; they just get their panties in a twist when anyone dares to stand up against them or speak about them in a negative way.
“The point was simple – just because it offends does not make it an offense.”
Um. Yeah, it does. If someone finds it offensive, that makes it offensive by definition, even if only in the case of that one person.
But this isn’t about offense, anyway. You just decided to pull some weirdo s**t out of your a*s that had nothing to do with what I was saying, and ignore everything else I said. When I said that intent isn’t magical, I was saying that just because you didn’t intend to kill people when you got drunk and swerved over three lanes of traffic into a crowd of people, it doesn’t magically mean that people didn’t die from your negligence. Yanno, kind of like it doesn’t matter if Exodus wasn’t deliberately trying to kill people, because people still died as a direct result of their negligence and irresponsibility, which you keep pretending isn’t real.
Idiot.
“Yes, because a non-profit organization is clearly taking all their monies while putting them in concentration camps.”
LOL I like how you think that gay people are only harmed when they’re put in concentration camps (and actually, yeah, they kind of are). It’s as though you think they aren’t human beings or something.
“You cannot be without such intentions if it is a SCAM by definition.”
Bullshiiiit, dumbfuck. My intention was to fleece idiots from their money, not kill children. You’re saying that anytime someone starts up a scam operation, their intention is to kill children?
“This example fails since it would be the case that 100% would die, provided that the magical water does not work.”
What the bloody hell are you talking about? You realize my hypothetical isn’t far from the scammy s**t faith healers and unscrupulous homeopaths do in the real world, right? But their mortality rate isn’t 100%. So they aren’t real scams? It’s only a real scam if 100% of children die from it?
Why are fundie idiots so focused on 100% results only when it’s something that they disagree with? Do you only take medicine when it has 100% success rates? Good luck with that.
“I only said that it would refute the claim that it ALWAYS harmful.”
Yeah, except that no one said that it is always, 100% harmful (even though it pretty much is harmful by definition, what with the guilt and the self-loathing that’s inherent to the practice, but hey why would things like self-esteem matter to gay people?). The fact that 100% of people don’t die from gunshot wounds doesn’t mean we shouldn’t discourage people from wanting to shoot themselves.
Idiot.
“If the evidence was that compelling, it should’ve been shut down a long time ago. Of course there are some possible explanations for why this hasn’t occurred. Care to provide any?”
LOL what a privileged, ignorant thing to ask. It might possibly be for the same reason that it took over a hundred years to go from “It’s illegal to keep slaves” to “People of Color are equal human beings except we’ll still pretty much treat you like second-class citizens, sorry about that.”
Or perhaps for the same reason that, yanno, people are still allowed to try and treat their diabetic kids with magic water and wishes, and senators are allowed to “trump” science with “The bible says so.”
In other words, the US is still Moron Country where the people who hate us are still in power and know how to manipulate their “flocks” who are desperate to please Jesus. Idiot.
“There are suicides but like anything, this is more complicated than just blaming the therapy sessions.”
Because it’s not like ex-gay survivors have come forward and outright stated that they’ve attempted suicide as a direct result of their ex-gay therapy or anything. I mean, why should we give a s**t about that?
“Furthermore, if you looked closely at the fine print, you’d notice a pattern:”
You are such an idiot, and your overt smugness despite the fact that you clearly have no f*****g clue about scientific literature is laughable. ALL scientific literature avoids languages of absolute certainty, you moron. If you read a paper on the toxicity of Black Mamba venom, you’ll notice that even then they use words like “may” and “can” with regards to deadliness, even though you will very likely die if you were envenomed.
But hey, according to your logic, anything that isn’t 100% certainty doesn’t mean s**t, which means you can go dancing with Black Mambas all you want, no problem! You can’t say it’s really harmful!
“In addition, this does NOT prove that Exodus International is engaging in harmful practices.”
Yeah, the fact that doctors are saying that Exodus is engaging in harmful practices doesn’t prove that Exodus is engaging in harmful practices. Gotcha.
“You need to provide specific studies, not generalized claims.”
Oh, okay. Here you go. Not that you’ll read it without completely misconstruing it or anything.
“You may have the last word… that I will likely have the displeasure of reading.”
Okie-doke. Not like you’re the only one reading this anyway. Jeez, what an arrogant thing to say.
Actually wait. Hang on. I take one thing back.
“Yeah, the fact that doctors are saying that Exodus is engaging in harmful practices doesn’t prove that Exodus is engaging in harmful practices.”
Technically, this is true. Doctors saying stuff doesn’t prove anything.
Unfortunately for whatever point Gil was trying to make, however, scientific understandings of reality don’t deal in proofs. They deal in objective, verifiable evidence.
And the evidence points to Exodus and other “reparative” therapy goons doing more harm than good, with no real evidence that they actually work.
So yeah. Shove it.
This pissed me off so much that I wanna through my mac book pro out the window and never purchase anything from apple. They need to get it together and get rid of this app. They don’t allow anti-racist and anti-semetic apps but they allow a gay “curing” app. As if being gay can be cured! Psh! Ignorants fools!
I can’t find the app. so where the hell is it? Hopefully apple will stop being bigoted and get rid of it! Or else windows will be back in reign and I don’t wanna see that happen so apple WAKE UP and make the people happy!
Like I expected, your response is a pain to read. Remarks like “Shove it” and persistent name-callings are childish. Your reasoning sucks as well because I have not labeled myself a fundamentalist and I consider that a bigoted term. If you’ve been debating on the internet for as long as I have, you’d realize that the word is meant to connote a person who is self-commited to blind religious irrationalism. This is not a position that I hold so it is a BS label to use. However, I will give you credit for providing sources and for that reason I will respond to your arguments.
If pointing out the facts is smug, then I’m happy to be guilty as charged. I’m quite aware of how science works, thank you. However, terms like “may” are only possibilities, not probabilities or actualities. It is possible for science to be factually certain. For example, water is composed of H2O. In other cases, it may be a factual theory (e.g, evolution) where the facts are best explained by a certain process but it is of course always possible for another theory to prove more cohesively explanatory. However, in other cases there may only be probable facts. I did NOT claim that science must be “absolutely” certain to begin with. All I did was point out how your source sticks to possibilities, not probabilities or actualities.
If I pointed to a study that claimed that Exodus International MIGHT or CAN be beneficial, would that prove that it IN FACT is likely to be beneficial? No, you’d complain about it just as I am doing. It appears you just looked online for something that would seemingly support your position without actually reading or critically analyzing what was actually being said. Next time, provide a source that claims it is likely and generally true of most, if not all, sex-change programs.
Never implied that.
I only said it was MORE COMPLICATED than just pointing to suicide statistics, not that the above has never been the case. Again, you’re brilliant at magically extrapolating claims that were otherwise not said. Next thing I know, you’ll claim that I think the moon is made out of cheese and then complain about how I am the greatest moron of all times. -_-
FYI, to prove something is to simply “demonstrate the truth or or existence of something through evidence or argument”. This is compatible with what you’ve said there.
Thanks, that is a well-detailed report. It will take some time to read this thoroughly and I will refrain from being certain that I have accurately represented the article in its entirety but just some reading of the article reveals this:
This is hardly proof that Exodus International is LIKELY to be harmful. In fact, I think this shows that the evidence is very weak. If this is a correct reading, then I think I can safely conclude that claims of harm are just blown out of proportion.
The number rule in medicine, Gil, is:
First, do no harm.
As this site, beyondexgay.com, exgaywatch.com, boxturtlebulletin.com, and others have thoroughly documented:
Exodus frequently harms people who have subsequently come forward, identified themselves, recorded the harm that was done, submitted to clinical scrutiny, and undergone years of professional therapy to undo the damage done by Exodus.
http://www.truthwinsout.org/category/videos/survivors/
Meanwhile, after 35 years in existence, Exodus still refuses to allow its programs to be objectively evaluated for safety. Exodus still refuses to require a minimum level of academic and professional certification. And Exodus still refuses to monitor its local programs and refuses to allow states to monitor them — not only for success or failure, but also for safeguards against molestation.
As a result, we have documented numerous cases of Exodus leaders molesting their clients. We have documented other instances in which Exodus’ flagship program and its unlicensed employees (mis)managed client medications.
http://www.truthwinsout.org/category/videos/scandals/
When Exodus hires evangelical researchers to assert feeble claims of success, here’s what happens:
http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2009/09/4247/
Instead of evaluating evidence, Gil, you cherry-pick and misquote facts to rationalize a supposedly tolerable level harm — and to excuse a failure-to-change rate of nearly 100 percent.
Not to nitpick but that’s a moral rule.
Hmm, I will have to evaluate these sources. However, I would prefer scientific peer-reviewed sources as they are generally more trustworthy. I am skeptical of such testimonies for the same reason that I am skeptical of “ex-gay” or “gay” testimonies. Each of them can be emotionally, socially and psychologically biased. For example, suppose that I am convinced that Exodus International is an EVIL organization. I could easily invent a story that would fulfill my agenda, if it is accepted without verification.
On what basis is that charge made? You’ve introduced other sources that I had not addressed. If I have “cherry-picked” or misquoted any facts, then I’d appreciate some clarification. For the record, I do not claim that Exodus has a success rate as I am not knowledgeable enough to claim that it has any.
Aww, Gil, no fair. I thought you said you’d give me the last word. :c
“Remarks like “Shove it” and persistent name-callings are childish.”
:’(
“If you’ve been debating on the internet for as long as I have, you’d realize that the word is meant to connote a person who is self-commited to blind religious irrationalism. This is not a position that I hold so it is a BS label to use.”
Fundamentalist:
1 : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles
These are the definitions I use when I use the word, including the word “fundie”. Or maybe you’re saying that literal biblical interpretation is irrational, in which case we can agree on something!
Sorry, saying that something is “irrational” is not a bigotry, especially when it actually is irrational. Disagreement with one’s religious beliefs isn’t a prejudice or a persecution, and the religious idiots who say otherwise are giant spoiled babies, a*s-deep in their privilege and entitlement.
“However, terms like “may” are only possibilities, not probabilities or actualities.”
Uh, yeah, and in medical science that’s pretty much how it works. Jeeezus Gil, if there was a paper that said cyanide “may” result in your death, does that mean people are exaggerating when they say taking it will kill people?
“It is possible for science to be factually certain.”
Yeah, no s**t, and I never said otherwise. Factually certain is not the same as absolutely certain, ESPECIALLY in medical science, and, yes, that is what you’re asking for.
“All I did was point out how your source sticks to possibilities, not probabilities or actualities.”
Right, Gil. When it’s a claim you don’t like, that’s when you interpret the words to mean “this actually doesn’t happen a lot” even though they’re used all the f****n’ time in scientific reports. I gotcha.
“If I pointed to a study that claimed that Exodus International MIGHT or CAN be beneficial, would that prove that it IN FACT is likely to be beneficial?”
That depends. Would it also say that the benefits outweigh the risks and that it’s medically responsible to apply the therapy or transfer the patience to said therapy? Oh wait, you ignored that part and just paid attention to what you wanted to, because you thought it would be easier to argue against. Sorry, Gil, I actually DID read the study, so you aren’t getting away with that.
“sex-change programs”
Uh, was that a typo or a Freudian slip? Because f**k you.
“Never implied that.”
The hell you didn’t. First you said that a single patient who found benefits trumped the failures (because if it isn’t ALWAYS harmful then what the hell are people complaining about?), and then you said language that wasn’t couched in certainties meant that claims of harm were full of s**t. And now you’re saying that because APA says that research into the harms of ex-gay therapy isn’t very rigorous (because of sample sizes and HOW THE SAMPLES WERE PICKED), this actually means that there isn’t any evidence and that it doesn’t actually hurt anybody. You are an a*s.
“I only said it was MORE COMPLICATED than just pointing to suicide statistics, not that the above has never been the case.”
Yeah, and you said that because you want to ignore the people who came out and ACTUALLY SAID that Exodus DIRECTLY LED to their attempts at suicide, so that you could claim that there’s no evidence that Exodus causes people to kill themselves. Bull. s**t.
“Next thing I know, you’ll claim that I think the moon is made out of cheese and then complain about how I am the greatest moron of all times.”
Nope, sorry. Keep practicing your fortune-telling, though, it’s pretty much skill and luck so you’re bound to get there.
“This is compatible with what you’ve said there.”
That’s a layman’s definition, yeah, which some people get pretty particular about, so I’m trying to make a habit of avoiding it. If no one complains, then all rightie.
“just some reading of the article reveals this”
See, that’s exactly what I figured you were going to do, so I’m just going to say that it helps if you READ THE REST OF THE SENTENCE instead of cherry-picking the part you like:
“Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE. However, studies from both periods indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. The lack of rigorous research on the safety of SOCE represents a serious concern, as do studies that report perceptions of harm(cf. Lilienfeld, 2007).”
When you actually get down to the meat of the study (and read it with some honesty instead of just finding the words that look pretty to you), you’ll find that despite the lack of studies looking SPECIFICALLY into the harms of the therapy (and that accessible studies tend to have shitty sample sizes with recruitment biases because usually the ministries themselves picked the samples hmm gee), what data they’ve found indicates that there are people who claim benefits and people who claim significant harm, like depression, low sexual arousal, low self worth, suicide, isolation, etc.
And not only does the high drop-out rate in the system potentially indicate harm going on, and not only do the people who claim benefits often admit/acknowledge harm later, those same benefits can be gotten in gay-affirming therapies without the nasty baggage of self-loathing and guilt and hating one’s parents, which means the harm is completely unnecessary.
Add to that the lack of evidence that ex-gay therapy actually works, what you’ve basically got is a giant clusterfuck of pseudoscientific sadomasochism with little gain. Which is why REAL medical doctors who know what the f**k they’re doing and aren’t blinded by their irrational religious convictions say that ex-gay therapy is a crock of s**t.
So thank you, have a nice day, and kiss my a*s.
“If this is a correct reading, then I think I can safely conclude that claims of harm are just blown out of proportion.”
Yeah, f**k you, pal. You go on and keep minimizing and ignoring people’s pain for Jesus, there.
LOL Mayyui, this has been fun to read……
I am going to print it out and use it as a teaching aid for the kids I work with.
Gil, keep talking :) its like a written version of the Victoria JAckson interview; Gils half baked defenses, and Makyuis slicing rebuttals are a PERFECT example of why the tide has turned on this issue!
Gil, please, please….I am enjoying you almost as much as the news of the dropping of the app! :) She is not only countering your every point, you are giving any kid who reads this a perfect exampl of why “ex gay” therapy is crap, since Makyui is pointing out, with elegance, and a well deserved “f**k you, pal” the holes in your “science”
:)
As a matter of fact, I do think a literal dogmatic and blind commitment and reading of the Bible is irrational. For example, Wikipedia describes its common usage on the internet rather accurately: “The term has since been generalized to mean strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity”. I cannot support that attitude, hence the reason why I thought that label was inaccurate.
A person may also cause harm but what does that prove? I did not deny the actual “possibility” but I also do not see that as justifying any meaningful conclusion. If scientists use “may” to mean “probably” or “will” (mark of horrible communication skills) then they are using the wrong term but as far as I know, they do not work this way. Say someone jumps off a cliff. No one is going to say “Well… that MIGHT cause harm” because we know that it WILL cause harm. Perhaps they MEANT to say “will” or “probably” but otherwise, we cannot assume that without warrant.
I am NOT asking for absolute evidence and no one claimed that you denied factual certainty.
No, I only asked a question and said that it would show how it is not ALWAYS harmful. Never claimed that you said this, but I wanted to more importantly know if you thought such a person existed.
Wrong again. Never said that it needed to be certain, only that it should be probable or factually certain. Your sources just failed to meet this request.
All I argued was that the evidence was lacking. That does not mean that such evidence cannot be discovered in the future but it shows that you can’t make baseless claims. It could hurt somebody, but is that the norm? Thanks for playing the “I’ll make things up” game.
Wow, I just said that it COULD happen but without proper evidence, it cannot be substantially asserted. LIke I said, correlation does not equal causation. It is possible for someone to incorrectly perceive that another had faulted them. You’re aware of this, right? There are too many variables for this to be as simple as you claim.
*sigh* I figured this would be your response. Unfortunately, what you so kindly put in bold just boldly speaks of your foolish reading skills. This was your mission: Provide GOOD evidence. This is what you did: Well, it MAY cause harm. Like the article had pointed out, Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes. How then could they turn around and argue that they’ve found data that clearly shows this to be the case? Well, they don’t. There’s data to suggest that it MAY cause harm but this is different than saying that it clearly DOES (or usually) causes harm. Learn to recognize the difference. If there are such people, the evidence is not clear enough to indicate that SOCE’s are at fault. After all, correlation does not imply causation.
Let’s see how much crack you’ll take in order to make a response. Your “f**k you” comments are entertaining, to say the least.
You lying little piece of s**t. I can’t believe that you pulled that when the quote was posted TWICE, and once by you. You’re not supposed to read half of the sentence, stop at the part that doesn’t interest you anymore, and then ignore the rest.
“Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so.”
They aren’t saying there is no sign of harm, you hogfrenching reprobate. They’re saying that they can’t pin down a specific number because there weren’t any studies at the time that were explicitly designed to measure it. There’s a big f*****g difference. And you completely ignore the rest of the f*****g study so that you can dishonestly continue to trot out this fractured sentence, because clearly that’s all you can do to argue your point. GEE WHIZ I WONDER WHY.
“I am NOT asking for absolute evidence…”
b******t. See “Show me how Exodus is always harmful” and “What if one person benefits?”
“No, I only asked a question and said that it would show how it is not ALWAYS harmful. Never claimed that you said this…”
b******t. You propped it up as our position and then made arguments against it.
“Never said that it needed to be certain, only that it should be probable or factually certain.
b******t, and you contradicted yourself in the same sentence, there, by the way.
God, you are so f*****g blatantly dishonest I can’t even. You trot out horrific logic like you’re so cool, and then every time it’s shown to be wrong you move the goalposts a little bit more and then claim that this was actually your position all along, when your words are all right f*****g here for anyone with half a chromosome to see that you’re lying. What GALL.
“A person may also cause harm but what does that prove?”
It proves that the person causes harm, nitwit.
“I did not deny the actual “possibility” but I also do not see that as justifying any meaningful conclusion.”
No, you said that because they didn’t say the word “must” or “will” that meant claims of harm were “exaggerated”. Because apparently “can” and “may” only means insignificant possibilities (even though they don’t). Of course you don’t think it “justifies any meaningful conclusion”, because you’ve already decided that we’re all just scared of Exodus’s obvious truth, and I highly doubt that any amount of data will be to your satisfaction. I’ve argued the exact same b******t with ilk like you before, and it always goes the same damn way. You’d just keep moving the f*****g goalposts like you have been all day, claiming that it’s not enough. How much is enough, then, Gil? What percentage? How did you come to that conclusion?
“It is possible for someone to incorrectly perceive that another had faulted them. You’re aware of this, right?”
Yeah, clearly, feeling horribly guilty about “falling from grace” and “letting God down” when they get a boner for another hot guy would be caused by the fact that they were late for work last night. Clearly.
“It could hurt somebody, but is that the norm?”
It not only hurts people unnecessarily, it hurts enough people that it’s a stated genuine concern in the medical world. And yes, you idiot, that IS the norm. It’s inherent to the “treatment”. That’s why people hand-picked by the ministries who claim benefits also later admit suffering. That’s why the head of Exodus himself says that it’s a constant shitfest, and why the founders of Exodus have apologized for the harm they caused. Did you know about that one, Gil?
That’s why the doctors are saying it’s crap that should be avoided by responsible and ethical doctors, and pointing to alternative therapies that aren’t harmful. That’s why they’re speaking out in droves against this s**t. That’s why survivors are speaking out about the HARM they endured during their “treatments”. You would see that if you bothered to actually look past your own biases and… well, LOOK.
“If there are such people, the evidence is not clear enough to indicate that SOCE’s are at fault. After all, correlation does not imply causation.”
Yeah, it’s clearly not enough for Gil that people are STATING OUTRIGHT THAT IT’S THE THERAPY THAT MADE THEM WANT TO HURT THEMSELVES. Clearly Gil knows better than they do, because Gil is just that f*****g awesome.
G******n.
“There’s data to suggest that it MAY cause harm but this is different than saying that it clearly DOES (or usually) causes harm.”
Why?
That data DOES show that it clearly causes harm. Unnecessary harm. Which can be avoided by going to gay-affirming therapies. I wonder f*****g why.
Here’s the thing, Gil. The fact that there aren’t scientific studies built specifically for pinning down an exact percentage of harm in the “treatment” is irrelevant to the fact that the docs are finding enough harm in this practice to warrant calling it a needless and harmful practice, and they do so in the f*****g research that you keep cherry-picking. You MORON. The fact that you ignore all that, clinging to meaningless wordgames while ignoring the rest of the data, and pretending that it doesn’t exist just shows what a disgusting, immoral, degenerate, dishonest, irrational a*****e you are.
I’m glad you find my “f**k you”s entertaining, because you deserve every single one. f**k you. f**k you.
f**k yooooooou.
“Not to nitpick but that’s a moral rule.”
Yeah, it’s a moral rule that ethical and legitimate doctors adopt when they become doctors, and it’s one of the expressed reasons why doctors have been standing up against ex-gay “therapies”. Dumbfuck.
“As a matter of fact, I do think a literal dogmatic and blind commitment and reading of the Bible is irrational.”
Good, then there is one thing we can agree on. But yet you call it bigoted hate speech? Oh, right, calling someone irrational when they ARE irrational is totally the same as calling someone a disgusting faggot.
Gene:
Glad you’re getting some enjoyment out of it, because daaaamn. I don’t even know why I’m continuing, because it’s pretty clear that he’s refusing to be reasonable about this, which means anything I say is just going to roll off him. At least some good use is coming out of it. Wish I could say he isn’t typical. “Afraid of the truth” my a*s.
Yeah, it’s useful to know when you’re slamming your head against a brick wall.
Oh crud, look at that, I forgot to close a bracket. This place really needs a preview button.
Watching you throw a tantrum like a mentally challenged monkey is indeed entertaining. Your response is soaked with brutal hatred, frustration, bigotry, logical fallacies and just an overall refusal to read what is being argued. Why can’t you keep cool? Maybe you could release all this anger at some kind of zoo, I am sure they’d accept you for some “Insanely Angry Animal” show. No wait, I think you’re already in one. It’s nice to know that you’re putting up this neat charade for your fellow fans. There are better and less instinctively idiotic means of going about this but if you insist… I’ll just keep this short.
Instead of pointlessly responding point by point, I’ll just summarize my position. First off, I’ll admit that I came off as too strong in my original response and in some respect this “lash” at me is expected. Second, I think I am to blame for some communicative issues since you seem to not be comprehending the point that I want to make. Lastly, I do not believe that someone OUGHT to go to Exodus International. If there’s no evidence to show that it is effective, even if such a potential exists for some, I cannot accept that as a credible argument.
So, what exactly is my beef here? I just do not find the reasoning and the evidence compelling for this kind of a reaction. Like I admitted before, if this organization is truly harmful in general then I am not going to dispute that. Frankly, before this I hardly knew much about the organization but upon coming across this news I decided to do some research and look for clear evidence that it is harmful. I have no loyalty to this organization. Unfortunately I found none but I took this for granted at the beginning. Instead, I should’ve just asked for some evidence and refrained from any criticisms.
I’ll begin by noting that I do not deny that something MAY be dangerous. A house knife could be dangerous and I am sure there are cases where it has. Any person could be harmful at any point in their lives as well. However, this is not the kind of data that I am looking for. I want “scientifically rigorous” papers that demonstrate that it is generally harmful. Like I pointed out before – which you did not reply to – it is also true that homosexual acts can potentially cause death and other sexual diseases. What should we make of this, under your view? That it is generally harmful? I sure hope not. LIke Webster verifies, “Can and may are most frequently interchangeable in senses denoting possibility”. There you have it.
Your arguments are poor precisely because they only address a certain kind of question – namely, CAN a SOCE be harmful? The answer is yes, of course. However, the question I have is what evidence is there to show that it is USUALLY harmful. I am not asking for an argument that shows it to be always harmful. If you cannot provide these scientific studies, which you’ve admitted don’t exist, then I will just need to live with that fact and move on. I demand this precisely because hardcore scientific data is so vital and I love that kind of evidence. Like with anything, however, we need to consider all the variables and keep in mind that correlation does not imply causation.
If this level of evidence cannot be met, then let’s end this discussion. We will not get anywhere with that attitude of yours, though I’m happy to read links that would at least “suggest” or “hint” that it is generally harmful even if they’re not scientific papers. You seem to do that with one of the articles but I will not comment since we’re getting nowhere. I was going to give you the last word and I will still stay true to that. Bring me down to shame with evidence, that’s the best response that you can give. No more of your crap, and just don’t bother responding with “Nuh uh! You said this before but now you’re changing the story!” because quite frankly, you are guaranteed to have misunderstood me and even if it were true, I failed to communicate so let’s get that over with and focus on what I am saying now.
[...] made a terrific business decision,” said Wayne Desen, founder of Truth Wins Out, a non-profit gay-rights organization. “This was an offensive, obscene, [...]
LOL Gil, I can’t believe you just responded with Ha Ha You’re So Aaaaangry. Well, actually, that’s a fib, because I saw it coming from the moment you got here. You’re totally free to be shitty and deceitful and belittling from your throne of admitted ignorance, but if someone who has to regularly deal with the b******t you so gleefully pretend isn’t real calls you some foul language, suddenly it’s about civility and grace. Too bad there’s nothing civil about your posts.
It’s tone-trolling b******t, and it’s just one more steaming lump festering on your giant b******t pile.
“Your response is soaked with brutal hatred, frustration, bigotry, logical fallacies and just an overall refusal to read what is being argued.”
There is so much projection here I should rent you for movies, except I’d have to send you back because you’re so out of focus.
“Like I pointed out before – which you did not reply to – it is also true that homosexual acts can potentially cause death and other sexual diseases. What should we make of this, under your view? That it is generally harmful?”
What we do — and I didn’t reply to it because it was even stupider than the rest of your s**t — is we use our brains with honesty and integrity and examine the stuff that lead to that conclusion. Yanno, just like we did with Exodus, and just like what you DIDN’T do when I gave you what you were looking for.
That’s the thing, Gil. You’re lying when you say you’re willing to look at the evidence, because when I gave it to you, you looked at half a sentence and two more words, and then decided the OPPOSITE of what the reports said, without reading the rest of it. Why? Because they fit your preconceived notions. Even though you had to cut the edges to make it fit.
And you’re doubly lying when you said that you’d be willing to look at non-scientific sources, because that’s also what I gave you, repeatedly, and that’s what this site is full of, all over, and you ignore it.
“Generally harmful” and “usually harmful” are such f*****g vague concepts that it both fits what I gave you and can be manipulated to claim that ANY evidence I could give you isn’t good enough. You know this, and that’s why you did it.
Everything else you’ve said is just b******t that I’ve already covered. You’re arrogant. You’re a bigot. You’re an a*****e. You’re a liar. And, by the definition you picked from Wikipedia, you’re a fundie. And you know it. And now, so does everyone else here. If you think that’s being bigoted and hateful, I really don’t give a s**t, because it’s now very clear that your rationale isn’t worth considering.
Why am I so angry? I’m angry because of people like YOU. So f**k. YOU.
Incredible, 100% of that response was just a goldenly concocted amount of bashing, flaming, venting and any other possible manner of misrepresenting my actual position. Fortunately, I never said “You’ve Lost Your Temper So I Don’t Have To Listen To You Anymore” but I do think that your barbaric thoughtlessness speaks for itself. I have already said what needs to be said in my last response but clearly you’re still keen on replacing substance with tantrums as nothing you said refutes my actual position. I’ll look at the non-scientific evidence, but will simply not bother to discuss it with you (as I mentioned in the last paragraph, if you could actually read) which is clearly not the same as “ignoring” it but a case of ignoring YOU.
Go ahead and say “f**k you” a million times if it makes you feel better. My scouter will just continue detecting this but without any power, you couldn’t even challenge a fly. Think I’m being arrogant? Well, if not thinking highly of an angry monkey is arrogant, then I think that’s just something I’ll have to live with. Normally I don’t use satire but in a public setting with a person like yourself, it is a useful device for countering any perceived “victory” through hate speeches and undermining the other’s honor.
Well, detecting this is more like it.
Why do wingnuts think anger is a bad thing? It’s so bizarre. It’s like they’ve been trained by their daddies that it’s never okay to say “f**k,” but it’s okay to subjugate entire classes of people.
Hahaha, like their idiot daddies did.
Haha, we’re both monkeys, Gil. Or do you think phylogenetics and evolution are pissed of at da trooth, too? :)
Cry moooore.
Oh, and hahaha, Gil, at what point did you use “satire?” As a humor writer, I’m dying to know.
*headdesk*
One more thing, Gil. I just attempted to read your most recent, wordy blog post, got bored after the first paragraph, skimmed the rest, and then had the brilliant idea that I should dare you to go here and register as a commenter, in order to test out your intellectual theories. Also, please let me know when you are doing this so that I may buy adequate popcorn and other refreshments for the viewing.
He used “satire” just like he used “logic”. Or like a chimp uses a toad.
Oh good lord, Evan, you didn’t. Those people would tear him apart.
I want him to go to there.
:)
Okay, but only if you share the popcorn.
No one said anger in itself is bad but there is a specific kind of anger that I mocked. Can you guess what that is? You’ll win a “Wow! You’re not Completely Stupid After All!” reward and best of all, you can use that to prove your worth in a debate! In all seriousness, you misrepresented me again :D I’m not surprised and then you barely read a paragraph from my blog post and suggest I present my “intellectual theories” to science blogs. I am familiar with that site but unfortunately, science and metaphysics are two different fields. But of course you wouldn’t know that because reading a paragraph is enough to delude yourself into think you do know.
Try again, guys!
Haha, Gil, those scientists would make mincemeat of you in both fields. It’s fun to watch your brain self-destruct without you even knowing it though. More popcorn for the idiot-watching, plz!
LOL
Oh Gil, your really funny! Seriously, I mean it.
Dont like a fact? you ignore it!
inconvenient quotes of data (real data)? Just use partial ones!
Hours and hours and hours to type (thats assuming you type at only 70 words per minute) yet so damnably little sense of humility or grace…
You insult and degrade a whole class of people, and, almost hilariously, don’t SEEM TO REALIZE IT…and by extension, those who love us, and, you can’t seem to realize why your side is losing the debate.
People like you…are the reason we are winning.
Thank you Gil :)
for helping Makyui sharpen her skills even more (not that they needed it!)
for showing any young person (or older) who was here to learn just what we oppose.
And most importantly…Thank you for helping us, reminding us of the mindset of those who yet oppose freedom, good mental health, and who think prejudice against us is acceptable.
And how whiny they are when they know that they are now the minority
: )
Gil…with a chuckle and a smile on my face I point out that’
The App is GONE, and such things will go the way of blackface, and people who think like you, will be treated as you deserve to be. Dont expect more. Do expect, when you degrade so many people, hurt them, and denigrate their very sense of self by supporting those who see them at damaged, to get an occassional “f**k You”.
In truth, you have earned it.
You have made a better case for us than you realize.
Gil thinks we’re all ign’ant dumbasses, and yet he insists on trying to out-snark us. Hm.
“But of course you wouldn’t know that because reading a paragraph is enough to delude yourself into think you do know.”
Yeah… He should’ve stuck with reading half a sentence and two words.
[...] objectionable content? We beg to differ,” wrote TruthWinsOut.com. “Exodus’ message is hateful and [...]
Feels as if I am talking to clones. Evan, in other words, you’re incapable of responding to me and need to boast that your superhero could beat me. P.Z Myers is pathetic at philosophy, I’d rather stick to someone like Antony Flew, Quentin Smith, and other atheistic philosophers who could make a real case against me. Expand your horizons instead of sticking to ignorant, hateful, cheese cake atheistic blogs.
Nah, I work here and I don’t have time for your boring crap. That’s all. I only engage with smart commenters, even if they disagree. You’re a wingnut whose Mama probably filled his head with delusions of grandeur about his intelligence, but everyone following the comment thread thinks you’re an idiot.
Oh, and also, you’re obviously afraid of being ripped apart by PZ’s commenters, which is where I asked you to go. There. Away from here. You obviously have a pathological need to argue with people, so go there. And again, please let us know which threads you’re engaging in, because people will want to check up on them, for laughing purposes.
Yeah we get it, Gil, you’re a tone troll. Harsh words hurt your feelings and make you cry.
[...] made a terrific business decision,” said Wayne Desen, founder of Truth Wins Out, a non-profit gay-rights organization. “This was an offensive, obscene, [...]
“Exodus’ message is hateful and bigoted.” This statement itself is a a hateful and bigoted statment. Why the hypocrasy, I thought we were supposed to be an open society of mutual respect, this needs to flow both ways to make your argument legitimate.
No, @Mark, it’s not a point of view. It is a fact that their message is hateful toward LGBT people.
No Mark, “Exodus’ message is hateful and bigoted” is a statement based on actual, verifiable facts. I know that Exodus people don’t believe in things that are actually provable but in the real world truth can actually carry weight.
Mark, by the way, are you and Tom the same person?
No
Daniel, actual facts based on your interpretation and point of view, I thought that is what we are free to express?
Who defines hateful and bigoted, what I find hateful you might not even find offenseive, case in point I find it offensive that someone would label a group hateful and bigoted which seeks to help people leave a behavior they themselves desire to leave.
Mark, what Evan said.
By who’s definition Daniel? What facts do you have to back up your claim? I mean I could say that Exodus is the most loving minsitry on earth (I would not say this though)but my saying it does not make it so.
“what I find hateful you might not even find offenseive, case in point I find it offensive that someone would label a group hateful and bigoted which seeks to help people leave a behavior they themselves desire to leave.”
All that would be fine if they could actually help a person not be gay. but their own research shows that they can’t. you really ought to take a look at Jones and yarhouse.
All of that would be fine if not being gay was not just obstaining from a particular behaviour, but obstaining from a whole aspect of one’s personality that is evry bit as much an integral part of it for a gay person as heterosexuality is for a straight person. but it’s not. you really ought to look at alan chambers.
All of that would be fine if their motivations were clearly not anti gay. But they are. “Broken and sinful” without the slightest bit of evidence of the first, and a matter of opinion on the second. But they continually slander gay people with things that are just not true. The criminal justice system was also used to express anti-gay bigotry– you could be put in jail for 25 years in virginia as a dangerous sexual psychopath, but murder would only get you 15. Also, the psychiatric business did it for quite a while. All have since recanted, probably under threat of doom form the International Gay Mafia and Interior Design society.
all of that would be fine if Exodus weren’t in bed with the most virulent antigay people and groups who are, without the slightest bit of doubt, homohaters and liars of the first order.
And it owuld all be ifne if groups like Exodus were not reponsible for ocntirbuting ot the very world wherein people decide that being gay is just the worst thing.
Yarhouse does not say that someone cannot be changed. I have read it.
In fact Yarhouse critisezes people who make such claims.
Yarhouse said that 15% (more or less) experienced change (very loosely defined) that was ambiguous, complicated, and difficult.
All of the striahgt people and the gay people i kmnow would hardly describe being gay or being straight as ambiguous, complicated, or difficult.
That only seems to be applicable to people who wanna-be-straight-but-ain’t.
Sure, it is ambigious, complicated and difficult for some, but then thats the nature of change in many circumstances.
Where do you get the 15%, I see on page 135 33%?