Where do they get their statistics?

Question

Shouldn't it be considered a hate crime when Fundamentalist groups randomly report false statistics and incite Homophobia? Every one I have ever looked up is in direct opposition to our own GOVERNMENT studies. If these "sites" are reporting their "stats" as "fact", shouldn't it be considered a crime to report false information with the intention of creating panic, fear and hate?

Answer 1

Actually yes it should be considered a criminal act and after such an act each group guilty of doing so should be relegated to cult or criminal status.

Answer 2

I agree that many fundamentalist groups do this. I find it very strange that these so-called 'scientific' studies are funded by groups like Focus on the Family. They are about as credible as the 'studies' done by the tobacco companies about smoking. It is amazing, though, how many people don't even look into the facts and details about the studies. THAT is how they get away with it!

As for it being a crime, I don't know if that is the case. But I certainly DO think they should be held responsible when these false studies are used to COMMIT crimes, but I really don't feel they should be crimes in and of themselves!

Answer 3

Jen, just ignore them. Most statistics are made up on the spot. If they cannot site unbiased sources of the information they give, then they are either making them up or siting something from their church site.

Unfortunately, I wish I could say that only the fanatic fringe of fundamentalist Christians do this...but its pretty much widespread all over this forum.

And yeah...I consider it a hate crime too...but no one cares much what I think.

The Skeptical Christian
Grace and Peace
Peg

Answer 4

while most statistics are made up "on the spot" one of the fundamental problems with statistics is that most people do not understand them. They really have no meaning unless you understand from where the data were generated.

for instance, i could quote that 45% of people approve of gay marriage. but what does that mean? do 45% approve? now i can tellyou my sample was all the people who work in my office (~22 people). what does my statistic mean now? what if i told you i polled my office after a preacher came in and talked about how gay marriage is bad? does that change the meaning too? now what if i tell you that 10 people in my office are in same sex relationships, and listened to the preacher talk (10/22 is 45.4%). what does that statistic mean now? and i haven't even gotten into the issues with "sampling error".

statistics mean absolutely NOTHING outside of a context. and to be frank, schools do a shoddy job of encouraging people to think critically about what statistics mean. the real crime is that people will accept a "statistic" from a perceived authority figure without thinking about it.

Answer 5

Anytime I answer the question on the percentage of gay people and cite 3 separate sources (of which 1 source is Alfred Kinsey).

Another user always answers after me saying that Kinsey admitted lying in a television interview in 1986 without citing any source. In this example, no source is given because Kinsey died in 1956!

It is obvious that uncited statistics are usually made up.

Answer 6

Well the only problem is that the statistics can change, if they poll within their group, they'll have different statistics than if they poll their entire city for instance.

All studies should be taken with a grain of salt, especially oppressive studies.

Answer 7

But honey, aren't 78% of statistics 39% wrong and 48% fabricated on-the-spot anyway?

Answer 8

Those statistics are as good as anyone else's The studies were done and the statistics gathered.

Answer 9

As if you folks always presented facts pristine and pure. Yeah, right.

The saying, variously reported, was "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics." Trust me, the tales told 'statistically-speaking' have no limits to one group.

Come to think of it, your slurs and slams are a tad bit incendiary in some circles too, eh?