Torillian said:
DarkD said:
It's not a lack of trust in social sciences. It's simply put, the sample size is too small to use that study. It's not a study that says anything is factual, it's a study that says, "look at these other things you guys may wanna research." It's not meant for you to use as proof of fact. It's a small piece of evidence that can be used by both sides of the argument to say whatever the hell they want.
It's like a trial in a court of law. You have to prove something "beyond a reasonable doubt" before you can punish someone over it. You can't just say "Mr Johnson saw Patty enter the flower shop at 4:30 and the crime took place at 4:40; therefor, Patty is guilty" You need MORE EVIDENCE.
Getting back to the matter at hand here. We're talking about decisions that could very well be mutilating small children. I refuse to vote for it if all we have is a weak study. |
I'd like to swing back to these decisions that could be mutilating small children. Exactly what are we talking about there?
|
I'm not sure but I'd guess that he views penises and breasts being cut off, holes being cut between legs to imitate vaginas etc etc etc as mutilation
here is jazz jennings(a 15 year old at the time I believe) going for a consultation
