Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea
So you're now looking to playwrights to determine science? That's rich.
You have a wannabe social activist pulling numbers out of her ass, and you call that science.
So I get to write a nice little pandering piece to a congregation, pull numbers out of my ass, and then cry for public adulation. Maybe the move is too much for you today.
The play is a pandering puff piece.
It's easy. Suicide is tragic and sad. The current poster children for sympathy are gays. So you add the two together, contrast it against the big bad LDS Church, and people will come running.
I could do the same. People hate children with cancer. It is sad when they get sick or die. So I can make up numbers how the LDS Church causes children with cancer to contract cancer due to the oppressive culture. And if I write a play about a little girl with cancer whose mother encouraged her to attend Church I can then get on my high horse and rail against the Church.
State a hypothesis.
State factors to correlate.
Create controls.
And start a study.
See what results are derived, and then you'd have credibility. But most of the discussions on suicide run around hysterically without real competent discussion or data.
I'm not saying let gays die, but I am calling the playwright and you as bullshit artists.
|
I state a hypothesis, and you are upset because a scientist can't state a hypothesis?
WTH?