What is wrong with sharia law?

[Ubon]

Shari law belongs in the dark past, it has no place here in the civilized world, period.

I dont think sharia law belonged at any period or place.

 

[psychoslice]

I dont think sharia law belonged at any period or place.

Yes, thanks for correcting me.

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you mean me ?.

Yes.

 

[psychoslice]

Yes.

I see, no I wont say what I want to say, I know that I am not welcomed here, say no more.

 

[Godobeyer]

Ah, but I bet @Tumah does

I bet you lose your "bet" at this one.

but fair enough. .

This is enough.

But it can do a better job than anybody else can.

My point maybe they did not (or could not) count all cases of homosexual people whom turned straight in world.

This make me recall the case of Trump how win the votes,and beat the " Expectation" before the vote.

99.99% is not global percentage.

 

[Godobeyer]

Oddly enough, neither can Google. So why do you feel Google is a better source than the WHO?

Because not all cases in world studied/analysed by WHO.

 

[Notanumber]

This obsession with homosexuals must be an Islamist hang-up.

 

[Kirran]

My point maybe they did not (or could not) count all cases of homosexual people whom turned straight in world.

This make me recall the case of Trump how win the votes,and beat the " Expectation" before the vote.

99.99% is not global percentage.

But it has been proven without any measure of doubt to be massively harmful. It drives people to depression and suicide. That is established totally.

What is NOT proved is that it can do what it purports to. And there wouldn't even be any advantage if it COULD.

Regarding all your Google results - the experts at the WHO who established these things can probably also use Google...

 

[Shad]

Because not all cases in world studied/analysed by WHO.

Yes some are made by crackpots that post their conclusions on the internet while avoiding scrutiny of professionals. Those are the sources you found

 

[Godobeyer]

But it has been proven without any measure of doubt to be massively harmful. It drives people to depression and suicide. That is established totally.

What is NOT proved is that it can do what it purports to. And there wouldn't even be any advantage if it COULD.

Regarding all your Google results - the experts at the WHO who established these things can probably also use Google...

Yes some are made by crackpots that post their conclusions on the internet while avoiding scrutiny of professionals. Those are the sources you found

Btw not all cases are found in Google, so we can't find out the exact result.

I doubt WHO is may taken the hard cases, that's why could NOT announce that homosexual people could not turn straight.

 

[Kirran]

Btw not all cases are found in Google, so we can't find out the exact result.

I doubt WHO is may taken the hard cases, that's why could NOT announce that homosexual people could not turn straight.

So you know better than the WHO, who says that it is bad to attempt to "cure" homosexuality?

 

[Godobeyer]

So you know better than the WHO, who says that it is bad to attempt to "cure" homosexuality?

No I said WHO did not analyse all cases.

Yes ,when I saw cases on some Internet websites ,I doubt in credibility of WHO result.

 

[Kirran]

No I said WHO did not analyse all cases.

Yes ,when I saw cases on some Internet websites ,I doubt in credibility of WHO result.

I think we can say very safely that the WHO has done a much better job of analysing cases and assessing the literature than you have been able to. To make a pronouncement like this, they will have done a highly holistic review of all records and literature available on the subject. You have not done this, and all the anecdotes and debunked articles you find will have been considered.

Sometimes Googlers are just incorrect in the face of evidence and consensus.

 

[Shad]

Btw not all cases are found in Google, so we can't find out the exact result.

You know why? Many medical journals have requirement in order to access the journal which Google can not provide for non-members.

I doubt WHO is may taken the hard cases, that's why could NOT announce that homosexual people could not turn straight.

Speculation and assertion, nothing more

 

[Godobeyer]

I think we can say very safely that the WHO has done a much better job of analysing cases and assessing the literature than you have been able to. To make a pronouncement like this, they will have done a highly holistic review of all records and literature available on the subject. You have not done this, and all the anecdotes and debunked articles you find will have been considered.

Sometimes Googlers are just incorrect in the face of evidence and consensus.

You know why? Many medical journals have requirement in order to access the journal which Google can not provide for non-members.



Speculation and assertion, nothing more

WHO is human made, and other google sources are human made too.

WHO may could be had good knowlegde but NOT all knowledge.

 

[Kirran]

WHO is human made, and other google sources are human made too.

WHO may could be had good knowlegde but NOT all knowledge.

But a much better bet than random unverified stuff off Google.

 

[Shad]

WHO is human made, and other google sources are human made too.

WHO has a track record which is far better than "Google it". It is also an organization which has it's own checks and balanced regarding various studies and positions. Google doesn't. Google never shows that your sources are disputed and rejected. You needed people like Kirran, I and others to point this out for you.

WHO may could be had good knowlegde but NOT all knowledge.

Irrelevant as WHO already reviewed the sources, or the type of sources, you put forward and found lacking

 

[Godobeyer]

WHO has a track record which is far better than "Google it". It is also an organization which has it's own checks and balanced regarding various studies and positions. Google doesn't. Google never shows that your sources are disputed and rejected. You needed people like Kirran, I and others to point this out for you.



Irrelevant as WHO already reviewed the sources, or the type of sources, you put forward and found lacking

But a much better bet than random unverified stuff off Google.

I do believe WHO can't count all cases happened in world include what said in Google.

Google is engine search is just a tool of help in most of matters.

 

[Kirran]

I do believe WHO can't count all cases happened in world include what said in Google.

Google is engine search is just a tool of help in most of matters.

If you're trying to figure out whether eating apples can cure cancer, do you have to test every single person with cancer in the world before you can say it doesn't? Or do you test it scientifically in a controlled environment or through analysis of available data and draw a conclusion?

 

[Shad]

I do believe WHO can't count all cases happened in world include what said in Google.

A primary idea within peer-review is people wishing to have their ideas accepted, reviewed, etc.submit their work for review. It is not the reviews purpose to seek out any and all crackpot ideas found on the internet

Google is engine search is just a tool of help in most of matters.

The tool is useless in the hands of the incompetent that can not see the difference between a valid medical source and some random stuff they read on the internet