GAY adopter kills child within weeks.

[pErvinalia]

The statistics for killings of adopted babies must be off the scale now, with this one case of murder.

How many babies get given to homosexual male couples in the UK in a year? It's going to be absolutely miniscule, compared to normal heterosexual adoptions. As it bloody well ought to be.

Another logical fallacy. This time a "begging the question".

[Forty Two]

That isn't begging the question. Begging the question is when the person assumes the assertion made to be true - using a premise to support itself.

Mistermack just said that the stats were effected by this one incident, because the numbers are so small. Well, if he's right that the numbers are so small, then the stats might well be effected. If he's wrong, then he's wrong. However, he did not actually "beg the question."

[mistermack]

One thing I haven't said, that ought to be obvious from the thread, is that I personally would have very little problem with a lesbian couple adopting a baby. So long as they were shining examples of stability, and didn't give off any negative vibes, I can't see why the baby should be in extra danger.
There would be problems to think about, like prejudice from other kids, as the child grows up, but that wouldn't necessarily block it, it would just be one factor to consider among others.

[pErvinalia]

That isn't begging the question. Begging the question is when the person assumes the assertion made to be true - using a premise to support itself.

He said "as it bloody well ought to be". That is, his conclusion precedes his premises.

[Forty Two]

That's his value judgment, not his argument. Saying, there are few gay adoptions as compared to hetero adoptions is a statement of fact, and it can be true or false. He thinks there "ought to be" few gay adoptions, which is his value judgment. But his argument is this:

a. Prospective adoptive parents who are in classes with higher rates of violence should be highly scrutinized before being allowed to adopt;
b. Gay males are in a class with a greater propensity for violence;
c. Therefore gay males should be highly scrutinized before being allowed to adopt.

So, his argument does not beg the question. His conclusion that there are low levels of gay adoption is how it ought to be is his value judgment based on his argument.

[pErvinalia]

That's his value judgment, not his argument.

That actually is his argument. He's presented nothing else other than a value judgement.

a. Prospective adoptive parents who are in classes with higher rates of violence should be highly scrutinized before being allowed to adopt;
b. Gay males are in a class with a greater propensity for violence;
c. Therefore gay males should be highly scrutinized before being allowed to adopt.

So, his argument does not beg the question. His conclusion that there are low levels of gay adoption is how it ought to be is his value judgment based on his argument.

A more accurate summary of his argument would be this:

a. Gay males shouldn't be able to adopt, because I'm scared of what I don't understand.
b. Prospective adoptive parents who are in classes with higher rates of violence should be highly scrutinized before being allowed to adopt, because Gay males shouldn't be allowed to adopt;
c. Gay males are in a class with a greater propensity for violence;
d. Therefore gay males should be highly scrutinized before being allowed to adopt.

[Brian Peacock]

Humans are all potentially lethal to one another. It's the conditions that are important. Making sure a gay couple has a well provisioned social network who can take up stresses and support, rather than living within a insular only gays in the village context....etc...where is the bad?

Given that 'humans are all potentially lethal to one another' why single gay parents out for this special treatment?

Why single out any one of Crumple's meaningless posts as being intellectually worth engaging with? To reply to him with logic like that implies that he's logical enough himself to understand it and that he isn't just trolling for the shits and giggles.

Why give any member any excuse to ignore the comments of others in favour of arguing the toss with you about how stupid you think they are? Jeez rEv, take the cactus out and rest your brains.

[pErvinalia]

Humans are all potentially lethal to one another. It's the conditions that are important. Making sure a gay couple has a well provisioned social network who can take up stresses and support, rather than living within a insular only gays in the village context....etc...where is the bad?

Given that 'humans are all potentially lethal to one another' why single gay parents out for this special treatment?

Why single out any one of Crumple's meaningless posts as being intellectually worth engaging with? To reply to him with logic like that implies that he's logical enough himself to understand it and that he isn't just trolling for the shits and giggles.

Why give any member any excuse to ignore the comments of others in favour of arguing the toss with you about how stupid you think they are?

There's too many particles in that sentence.

[Brian Peacock]

Who elected you chief constable of the tone police? I didn't vote for you.

[pErvinalia]

I elected myself. I was the only one to vote. You've only got yourselves to blame.

[Svartalf]

to that, there can be only one answer :

[Brian Peacock]

rEv is not being straight with us - 3 million dead Democrats also voted for him.

[Strontium Dog]

The dead have risen and they're voting rEvolutionist

[pErvinalia]

rEv is not being straight with us - 3 million dead Democrats also voted for him.

[rainbow]

That isn't begging the question. Begging the question is when the person assumes the assertion made to be true - using a premise to support itself.

Thank you for correcting this. It is good to have a know-it-all on this site so we can be shamed at our less than perfect use of English.

...especially us ignorant Africans.

Mistermack just said that the stats were effected by this one incident, because the numbers are so small. Well, if he's right that the numbers are so small, then the stats might well be effected.

How does a stat get "effected"?