you getting lock up for being a homo in Uganda!

antiguad

New member
You still don't get it do you?
As you don't seem to respect the Ugandan people, their president and their scientists why do you think they should respect your views? Who are you to them with your brainwashed Westernized views anyway?

Get back to me when you can answer that in a way that they would take you on when you don't have any respect for the Ugandan people and their scientists.

Btw here is an interesting interview with President Museveni on Hard Talk from exactly 2 years ago that also gives us his perspective on the promotion of homosexuality in Uganda before the new Anti Gay bill that he recently signed was presented to their parliament.

President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda On Hard Talk Pt,1-2
<iframe width="650" height="400" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/0vWAdY0uZvA?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda On Hard Talk Pt,2-2
<iframe width="650" height="400" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/QjaqtTMF24c?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Respect should not given freely, but should be earned.

Surely you agree?

Surely you wouldn't respect a group of people simply for having a majority opinion?

Should I respect the Bosnian Serbs because the majority agreed that they should "ethnically cleanse" the area of Muslim Bosnians and Croats?

Should I respect Hitler and the Germans because they were united in their willingness to brutally slaughter millions of people?


If someone comes out with an opinion that is unfairly hurting others, why should I respect their opinion?

If someone claims to be a scientist, yet cannot refer to any peer reviewed research to support their claim, and all the valid and reliable research is pointed AGAINST what they say, why should I respect their opinion?
 

Socapro

Repect Our Soca Pioneers
If you want to call me a brainwashed Westerner (quite amusing for a black man, living in England, speaking English, and using all the modern conveniences of Westernized society) then fine.


GIVE ME THE RELIABLE AND FACTUAL DATA TO SUPPORT YOUR POINT AND I WILL SHUT UP ONCE AND FOR ALL.

THAT"S ALL YOU HAVE TO DO.

GIVE ME FACTUAL, PEER REVIEWED STUDIES that have gone through checks for validity and reliability and I WILL SHUT UP ONCE AND FOR ALL.

GIVE ME META ANALYSIS THAT SUPPORT the Ugandan "scientists".

GIVE ME SOME SORT OF FACTUAL INFORMATION THAT OUTWEIGHS MINE, AND I WILL BE QUIET.

I'm not trying to prove a point. I'm not trying to win an argument.

I'm trying to show you that the information that has been presented has been twisted beyond belief.

Yet you put your hands in your ears, singing loudly to yourself because you can't face the fact that your beliefs aren't grounded in the truth, but regurgitated BS.

I'll wait for your next excuse.
You are quizzing the wrong person with those questions!
Do I look like one of those respected Ugandan scientists that did the research?
If you really want those questions answered by the right people then please direct it to them and not to me.

My position is that I looked at the full video and now understand why the president came to his decision to sign the bill.
And because I respect the Ugandan people and their right to decide on their own laws I respect their decision.

What is most humorous about all this is that the old Anti-Homosexuality laws in Uganda that were introduced by the British during colonial rule there had the same penalty of life imprisonment for aggravated homosexuality as the new laws just introduced but the President is only signing the new bill for political PR reasons in order to appeal to the popular view and call of his people who are now more likely than ever to vote him back into power for signing the bill and standing up to the bullying of the Western outsiders.
 

antiguad

New member
Because my conclusions that I support the Ugandan people in their decision was based on watching the whole video and making a balanced decision.

And since you want to argue against me supporting their decision and would like me to take you seriously then you need to look fully at the video we are basing our arguments conclusions on.

Because if you want to be respected in life then you need to learn to give respect, it’s that simple. And who told you that they have failed to present a so-called peer review information to support their scientific conclusions? Have you contacted their scientists to confirm that or are you making assumptions?

Why should I respect the Western countries that benefited from enslaving my forefathers and still continue to discriminate against Black people in every western country to this day despite so-called Emancipation of Slavery?

I don't need your respect and never asked for it but similarly please don't expect mines. Reading that old out of date peer review from the early 90's is irrelevant to the argument and the up-to-date scientific information that the Ugandan President based his decision to sign the bill on.

Finally if you took the trouble to look at the video you would realized that the old anti-gay laws in Uganda introduced by the British are basically the same as the new updated laws that were just introduced. The main different is that the old laws were not regularly enforced because the Ugandans were previously prepared to turn a blind eye to homosexuals provided they did not publicly try to promote their lifestyle especially to their young children.
Because my conclusions that I support the Ugandan people in their decision was based on watching the whole video and making a balanced decision.
How can a decision be balanced when it is based on flawed or incorrect evidence?

I don't need your respect and never asked for it but similarly please don't expect mines. Reading that old out of date peer review from the early 90's is irrelevant to the argument and the up-to-date scientific information that the Ugandan President based his decision to sign the bill on.

Socapro, as much as I cuss you off on the homosexuality thing, I still think you're a good person, judging by your other posts.

But stuff like this makes me wonder if you're just a troll.

I have presented two peer reviewed papers, both of which have been referenced dozens of times, even recently

I could present dozens more to back up my case, but they would be of no use to you because you would not even look at them because you're not interested in the truth.

You have failed to present even ONE peer reviewed study to back up your point.

I have asked, time and time again, to show me the peer reviewed information to support your point (and that of the Ugandan president and "scientists")

You have not.

All I ask is the evidence. You can beat around the bush all you want, but it's clear that you cannot present any because you do not have any. Neither do the Ugandan scientists or President.

Give me the evidence. Stop beating around the bush. Give me evidence to support your point. Give me reliable, valid, and fact checked evidence to support your point.

That's ALL I ask

I have presented mine, and will be happy to present more. I'm just waiting for YOU.
 

antiguad

New member
You are quizzing the wrong person with those questions!
Do I look like one of those respected Ugandan scientists that did the research?
If you really want those questions answered by the right people then please direct it to them and not to me.

My position is that I looked at the full video and now understand why the president came to his decision to sign the bill.
And because I respect the Ugandan people and their right to decide on their own laws I respect their decision.

What is most humorous about all this is that that old Anti-Homosexuality laws in Uganda that was introduced by the British during colonial rule there had the same penalty of life imprisonment for aggravated homosexuality as the new laws just introduced but the President is only signing the bill for political PR reasons in order to appeal to the popular view and call of his people who are now more likely than ever to vote him back into power for signing the bill and standing up to the bullying of the Western outsiders.

You are quizzing the wrong person with those questions!
You are the one claiming that the science supports your viewpoint. If you can't support your point, if YOU DON"T EVEN KNOW THE EVIDENCE, then how the hell can you argue for it?
 
D

DiTriniempress

Guest
How can a decision be balanced when it is based on flawed or incorrect evidence?




Socapro, as much as I cuss you off on the homosexuality thing, I still think you're a good person, judging by your other posts.

But stuff like this makes me wonder if you're just a troll.

I have presented two peer reviewed papers, both of which have been referenced dozens of times, even recently

I could present dozens more to back up my case, but they would be of no use to you because you would not even look at them because you're not interested in the truth.

You have failed to present even ONE peer reviewed study to back up your point.

I have asked, time and time again, to show me the peer reviewed information to support your point (and that of the Ugandan president and "scientists")

You have not.

All I ask is the evidence. You can beat around the bush all you want, but it's clear that you cannot present any because you do not have any. Neither do the Ugandan scientists or President.

Give me the evidence. Stop beating around the bush. Give me evidence to support your point. Give me reliable, valid, and fact checked evidence to support your point.

That's ALL I ask

I have presented mine, and will be happy to present more. I'm just waiting for YOU.
You are beating a dead horse lol good stuff so far though
 

antiguad

New member
You are quizzing the wrong person with those questions!
Do I look like one of those respected Ugandan scientists that did the research?
If you really want those questions answered by the right people then please direct it to them and not to me.

My position is that I looked at the full video and now understand why the president came to his decision to sign the bill.
And because I respect the Ugandan people and their right to decide on their own laws I respect their decision.

What is most humorous about all this is that the old Anti-Homosexuality laws in Uganda that were introduced by the British during colonial rule there had the same penalty of life imprisonment for aggravated homosexuality as the new laws just introduced but the President is only signing the bill for political PR reasons in order to appeal to the popular view and call of his people who are now more likely than ever to vote him back into power for signing the bill and standing up to the bullying of the Western outsiders.
Do I look like one of those respected Ugandan scientists that did the research?
You know that you don't need to have a degree to do a Google search for scientific research right?

You realise that you don't need a PhD to read and interpret a scientific paper right?

Find me the evidence, something that has gone through checks for reliability and validity, that supports your point.

That's all I ask, and that's all I'll continue to ask until you stop making excuses.
 

Socapro

Repect Our Soca Pioneers
You know that you don't need to have a degree to do a Google search for scientific research right?

You realise that you don't need a PhD to read and interpret a scientific paper right?

Find me the evidence, something that has gone through checks for reliability and validity, that supports your point.

That's all I ask, and that's all I'll continue to ask until you stop making excuses.
If you read my last post to you properly you would realise that all this argument is irrelevant.

1. If it bothers you so much then you contact their scientists or do your Google search and confirm if they have publish their findings to the rest of the world or not? My suspicion is that they will do so soon if they haven't already done so.

2. My position is that I looked at the full video and now understand why the president came to his decision to sign the bill. And because I respect the Ugandan people and their right to decide on their own laws I respect their decision.

And here is the reason why all this argument about the Ugandan President signing the bill or not is irrelevant except for PR purposes.

The old Anti-Homosexuality laws in Uganda that were introduced by the British during colonial rule there had the very same penalty of life imprisonment for aggravated homosexuality as the new laws just introduced.
The President only signed the new bill for political PR reasons in order to appeal to the popular view and call of his people who are now more likely than ever to vote him back into power for signing the bill and standing up to the bullying of the Western outsiders.

Even if the new bill wasn't signed the Ugandan government still had the same Anti-Gay laws they could enforce under the old laws.

It was all a PR exercise anyway but I do respect the findings of their scientists because I respect and trust the judgement of the Ugandan people.
 

Socapro

Repect Our Soca Pioneers
Thanks lol.

Maybe, just maybe, something will get through to SocaPro.
Yes what got thru to me after looking at the full video was that it was all a PR exercise as their old Anti-Gay laws introduced by the British during colonial rule were basically the same as the new laws just introduced.

But you silly people are working yourselves up and don't even realize that the Ugandans have exactly the same powers under their old laws but chose to turn a blind eye to the Gays in Uganda and not enforce the laws as they could have in the past.
Unfortunately the Gay movement got too bold in Uganda and overstepped their mark and woke up the Ugandan people to their agenda. They reacted by bringing these new laws to parliament not realizing that the old laws already on the books provided them with exactly the same powers.

With that in mind the Ugandan people have my full support. :good:
 

antiguad

New member
If you read my last post to you properly you would realise that all this argument is irrelevant.

1. If it bothers you so much then you contact their scientists or do your Google search and confirm if they have publish their findings to the rest of the world or not? My suspicion is that they will do so soon if they haven't already done so.

2. My position is that I looked at the full video and now understand why the president came to his decision to sign the bill. And because I respect the Ugandan people and their right to decide on their own laws I respect their decision.

And here is the reason why all this argument about the Ugandan President signing the bill or not is irrelevant except for PR purposes.

The old Anti-Homosexuality laws in Uganda that were introduced by the British during colonial rule there had the very same penalty of life imprisonment for aggravated homosexuality as the new laws just introduced.
The President only signed the new bill for political PR reasons in order to appeal to the popular view and call of his people who are now more likely than ever to vote him back into power for signing the bill and standing up to the bullying of the Western outsiders.

Even if the new bill wasn't signed the Ugandan government still had the same Anti-Gay laws they could enforce under the old laws.

It was all a PR exercise anyway but I do respect the findings of their scientists because I respect and trust the judgement of the Ugandan people.
If you read my last post to you properly you would realise that all this argument is irrelevant.
Quite convenient for you that when you cannot support your point it's suddenly "irrelevant".

If it bothers you so much then you contact their scientists or do your Google search and confirm if they have publish their findings to the rest of the world or not?
THEY HAVE NOT.

My suspicion is that they will do so soon if they haven't already done so.
Lol. They won't publish a thing because no peer review scientific study has been undertaken. I will bet you every single credit I have on that.

but I do respect the findings of their scientists because I respect and trust the judgement of the Ugandan people
You realise that the scientific method does not rely on the opinions of a random populace right?

You respect their "findings" (ignoring the fact that they have not released any) because you agree with them, not because they are supported with even a shred of evidence.
 

Socapro

Repect Our Soca Pioneers
Quite convenient for you that when you cannot support your point it's suddenly "irrelevant".



THEY HAVE NOT.



Lol. They won't publish a thing because no peer review scientific study has been undertaken. I will bet you every single credit I have on that.



You realise that the scientific method does not rely on the opinions of a random populace right?

You respect their "findings" (ignoring the fact that they have not released any) because you agree with them, not because they are supported with even a shred of evidence.
I respect the findings because I respect the Ugandans for having decent scientists and what they presented makes a lot of common sense to me.

But as I already said all this argument is irrelevant because the old Anti Gay laws on the Ugandan law books are basically the same as the new laws just introduced but it was all done by the President as a clever PR exercise so that he would retain his popularity and so be voted back into power come next elections.

Let me spell it out for you, whether the President signed that new bill or not makes little changes to the old laws but signing the bill makes him more popular with the Ugandan people. Get it now?
 

antiguad

New member
I respect the findings because I respect the Ugandans for having decent scientists and what they presented makes a lot of common sense to me.

But as I already said all this argument is irrelevant because the old Anti Gay laws on the Ugandan law books are basically the same as the new laws just introduced but it was all done by the President as a clever PR exercise so that he would retain his popularity and so be voted back into power come next elections.

Let me spell it out for you, whether the President signed that new bill or not makes little changes to the old laws but signing the bill makes him more popular with the Ugandan people. Get it now?
I respect the findings because I respect the Ugandans for having decent scientists and what they presented makes a lot of common sense to me.
You realise that just because something makes "common sense" does not mean it is factual or scientific right?

Stop papering over the cracks. The "science" used is nothing more than bits and pieces of information that has been cobbled together in order to justify a witch hunt.

(PS - I have actually read the Ugandan paper - which was NOT peer reviewed)
 

bktrini305

Registered User
Gay Men in Twin Study - NYTimes.com


The study examined 56 identical twins, 54 fraternal twins and 57 adoptive brothers recruited through advertisements in gay-interest publications.

Identical twins are genetic clones, having developed in the womb from a single egg that split after being fertilized by a single sperm. Fraternal twins develop simultaneously from two separate eggs fertilized by two separate sperm cells, making them only as similar as non-twin siblings.

"This is the first real genetic study of sexual orientation in about 40 years," said Dr. Bailey, whose co-author was Dr. Richard C. Pillard, a psychiatry professor at Boston University School of Medicine.

Dr. Bailey estimated that the degree of the genetic contribution to homosexuality could range from 30 percent to more than 70 percent, depending on varying assumptions about the prevalence of homosexuality and how well the sample represents twins in the general population.

Now without getting too vernacular, but moreso than this dude... scientists use what is called the Central Limit Theorem to find correlation (and point in the right direction for finding causation). In a study the mean (average) or proption are normalized and graphed on what are called probability distribution tables.
There's the Z table (for known population variances), a T Table (for unknown population variances) a Binomial Probability Distribution table (for a group of proportions all adding up to 1 or 100%) and numerous others. The chances of error are there because they always. But they are only as significant as the supplement of the CI. For sociological experiments like this one, the accepted CI is 90-95% and the percentage gets higher for things that need more precision, 99.9% and above for medical equipment precision studies for example.

So what we have is one study from a country with a 75% literacy rate whose PRESIDENT not even the scientist (I am not clear what the man actually means because he's saying it incorrectly) says that they have ONE study that isn't even peer reviewed that says as was put forth earlier

they discovered that 35% of the tendency was due to genetic abnormalities or nature while a much higher percentage 65% of the tendency was down to nurturing.
No CI mentioned, no sample size mentioned, no variance mentioned nothing. Which is cool, you're quoting a president of a corrupt country, who is badly quoting a scientist; its to be expected

and I'm going to put forth a similar study that says

The study examined 56 identical twins, 54 fraternal twins and 57 adoptive brothers recruited through advertisements in gay-interest publications.
....

Dr. Bailey estimated that the degree of the genetic contribution to homosexuality could range from 30 percent to more than 70 percent, depending on varying assumptions about the prevalence of homosexuality and how well the sample represents twins in the general population.
In other words THEY COULD BE WRONG, but there is only a 5% chance that the genetic factors contributing to homosexuality account for less than 30% of some behavioral pattern (whose definition could vary from study to study because Ugandan Soldiers rape men and nobody seems to call them gay). The point is that there is

No contradiction to the claims. They are saying quite similar things STATISTICALLY but as for its meaning...

"We found 52 percent of identical twin brothers of gay men also were gay, compared with 22 percent of fraternal twins, compared with 11 percent of genetically unrelated brothers," said J. Michael Bailey, an assistant professor of psychology at Northwestern University in Evanston, "which is exactly the kind of pattern you would want to see if something genetic were going on." By "unrelated," Dr. Bailey was referring to brothers by adoption.

"The genetically most similar brothers were also the ones most likely to be gay, by a large margin," he added.
There are also physiological differences between Gay people and straight people to think about.

What Makes People Gay? - The Boston Globe

Gay and straight men may have different facial shapes, new study suggests - Science - News - The Independent

The Augusta Chronicle


Like I've said before, what you are saying with regard to Uganda is evil. Incarceration for that which cannot be controlled or changed and the strong possibility of the law being strengthened is tantamount to genocide. I'm really not trying to argue with you however, I just would rather not have to go through this with somebody else on Imix. Its a lot to look up, its hard to explain statistics to a DJ and now that I've written it, I won't feel the need to write it again.
 

antiguad

New member
I respect the findings because I respect the Ugandans for having decent scientists and what they presented makes a lot of common sense to me.

But as I already said all this argument is irrelevant because the old Anti Gay laws on the Ugandan law books are basically the same as the new laws just introduced but it was all done by the President as a clever PR exercise so that he would retain his popularity and so be voted back into power come next elections.

Let me spell it out for you, whether the President signed that new bill or not makes little changes to the old laws but signing the bill makes him more popular with the Ugandan people. Get it now?
Why should you respect an opinion that is blatantly based on incorrect evidence?

Just answer me that.
 

antiguad

New member
Gay Men in Twin Study - NYTimes.com





Now without getting too vernacular, but moreso than this dude... scientists use what is called the Central Limit Theorem to find correlation (and point in the right direction for finding causation). In a study the mean (average) or proption are normalized and graphed on what are called probability distribution tables.
There's the Z table (for known population variances), a T Table (for unknown population variances) a Binomial Probability Distribution table (for a group of proportions all adding up to 1 or 100%) and numerous others. The chances of error are there because they always. But they are only as significant as the supplement of the CI. For sociological experiments like this one, the accepted CI is 90-95% and the percentage gets higher for things that need more precision, 99.9% and above for medical equipment precision studies for example.

So what we have is one study from a country with a 75% literacy rate whose PRESIDENT not even the scientist (I am not clear what the man actually means because he's saying it incorrectly) says that they have ONE study that isn't even peer reviewed that says as was put forth earlier



No CI mentioned, no sample size mentioned, no variance mentioned nothing. Which is cool, you're quoting a president of a corrupt country, who is badly quoting a scientist; its to be expected

and I'm going to put forth a similar study that says



In other words THEY COULD BE WRONG, but there is only a 5% chance that the genetic factors contributing to homosexuality account for less than 30% of some behavioral pattern (whose definition could vary from study to study because Ugandan Soldiers rape men and nobody seems to call them gay). The point is that there is

No contradiction to the claims. They are saying quite similar things STATISTICALLY but as for its meaning...



There are also physiological differences between Gay people and straight people to think about.

What Makes People Gay? - The Boston Globe

Gay and straight men may have different facial shapes, new study suggests - Science - News - The Independent

The Augusta Chronicle


Like I've said before, what you are saying with regard to Uganda is evil. Incarceration for that which cannot be controlled or changed and the strong possibility of the law being strengthened is tantamount to genocide. I'm really not trying to argue with you however, I just would rather not have to go through this with somebody else on Imix. Its a lot to look up, its hard to explain statistics to a DJ and now that I've written it, I won't feel the need to write it again.
That's the thing you know - there's no need to go into complicated statistics. Simply reading the abstract, introduction and conclusions of any one of a number of twin studies would give a conclusive view that what the Ugandan president says is a load of bollocks.

I find it quite amusing that SocaPro wants me to watch an hour and a half long video yet can't take five minutes to read the introductions and conclusions of peer reviewed studies that are quickly available by Google search.
 

Socapro

Repect Our Soca Pioneers
You realise that just because something makes "common sense" does not mean it is factual or scientific right?

Stop papering over the cracks. The "science" used is nothing more than bits and pieces of information that has been cobbled together in order to justify a witch hunt.

(PS - I have actually read the Ugandan paper - which was NOT peer reviewed)
The section I highlighted is your opinion of which you are entitled to but for which you have NO proof. We just have to agree to disagree on that point.

A dose of reality; the Ugandans don't care about your opinion and have made their decision after confiding in their reputable scientists who they trust more than you. Who are you with your opinion to them? Nobody!

Let me repeat myself; I respect the Ugandan people's decision because I respect their right to decide on their own laws. I also respect the judgment of their scientists who seem to have done proper research before presenting their findings to their president and nothing you can say will change my opinion on that.
Also note that at the end of the video of the bill signing that I posted, the Ugandan President even said that nothing is set in stone and if he receives solid new scientific evidence to prove that folks can be born 100% gay without a majority of environmental/nurturing factors deciding then he will be willing to review the bill of laws that he signed in the future.

However you seem to be avoiding the important facts below:
This emotional argument irrationally trying to condemn the Ugandan scientists is all irrelevant because the old Anti Gay laws in Ugandan are basically the same as the new laws just introduced. This signing of the new bill was done by the President as a clever PR exercise so that he would retain his popularity with the voting public in Ugandan. Even if these new laws were not signed they still had the old laws to fall back on which basically gives them the same anti-gay powers as under the new laws.
The only difference in the past was they had chosen to turn a blind eye to the Gays in Uganda and not to exercise those old laws that were introduced by the British during colonialism.

So in summary, whether the Ugandan President signed that new bill or not makes little difference to the old laws already on their books but the signing of the bill was mainly done as a PR exercise by the President.
 

Socapro

Repect Our Soca Pioneers
That's the thing you know - there's no need to go into complicated statistics. Simply reading the abstract, introduction and conclusions of any one of a number of twin studies would give a conclusive view that what the Ugandan president says is a load of bollocks.

I find it quite amusing that SocaPro wants me to watch an hour and a half long video yet can't take five minutes to read the introductions and conclusions of peer reviewed studies that are quickly available by Google search.
Who told you I haven't read it? Are you my shadow that follows everything I do 24/7 or something?
Some of you emotional people around here really love to believe everything that you imagine to be true and then convince yourselves that it is factual with no reliable evidence to prove what you say.

The point I made was that me reading that makes no difference to the evidence that the Ugandan President looked at that was presented by his respected panel of qualified scientists.
Do you realize that the Ugandan President was prepared to believe that folks could be born 100% gay before he looked at the evidence that his panel of scientists presented and that some of the scientists he consulted were respected European scientists and not just his own highly qualified Ugandan scientists?

He also said near the end of the video I posted that nothing was set in stone and if he receives solid new scientific evidence to prove that folks can be born 100% gay without a majority percentage of environmental/nurturing factors helping to decide then he will be willing to review the bill of Anti-Gay laws that he signed for Uganda in the future.
 

antiguad

New member
The section I highlighted is your opinion of which you are entitled to but for which you have NO proof. We just have to agree to disagree on that point.

A dose of reality; the Ugandans don't care about your opinion and have made their decision after confiding in their reputable scientists who they trust more than you. Who are you with your opinion to them? Nobody!

Let me repeat myself; I respect the Ugandan people's decision because I respect their right to decide on their own laws. I also respect the judgment of their scientists who seem to have done proper research before presenting their findings to their president and nothing you can say will change my opinion on that.
Also note that at the end of the video of the bill signing that I posted, the Ugandan President even said that nothing is set in stone and if he receives solid new scientific evidence to prove that folks can be born 100% gay without a majority of environmental/nurturing factors deciding then he will be willing to review the bill of laws that he signed in the future.

However you seem to be avoiding the important facts below:
This emotional argument irrationally trying to condemn the Ugandan scientists is all irrelevant because the old Anti Gay laws in Ugandan are basically the same as the new laws just introduced. This signing of the new bill was done by the President as a clever PR exercise so that he would retain his popularity with the voting public in Ugandan. Even if these new laws were not signed they still had the old laws to fall back on which basically gives them the same anti-gay powers as under the new laws.
The only difference in the past was they had chosen to turn a blind eye to the Gays in Uganda and not to exercise those old laws that were introduced by the British during colonialism.

So in summary, whether the Ugandan President signed that new bill or not makes little difference to the old laws already on their books but the signing of the bill was mainly done as a PR exercise by the President.
The section I highlighted is your opinion of which you are entitled to but for which you have NO proof. We just have to agree to disagree on that point.
I do have proof. I have the paper which was released by the Ugandan scientists - which was not a study but simply a rather biased paper that uses a few cherry picked facts (some of which are backed up by science, and some of which are not.

The conclusions that were presented in the paper which the Ugandan President gives as justification for his law are NOT supported by science, and the paper has no valid evidence to support it either.
 

antiguad

New member
Who told you I haven't read it? Are you my shadow that follows everything I do 24/7 or something?
Some of you emotional people around here really love to believe everything that you imagine to be true and then convince yourselves that it is factual with no reliable evidence to prove what you say.

The point I made was that me reading that makes no difference to the evidence that the Ugandan President looked at that was presented by his respected panel of qualified scientists.
Do you realize that the Ugandan President was prepared to believe that folks could be born 100% gay before he looked at the evidence that his panel of scientists presented and that some of the scientists he consulted were respected European scientists and not just his own highly qualified Ugandan scientists?

He also said near the end of the video I posted that nothing was set in stone and if he receives solid new scientific evidence to prove that folks can be born 100% gay without a majority percentage of environmental/nurturing factors helping to decide then he will be willing to review the bill of Anti-Gay laws that he signed for Uganda in the future.

The point I made was that me reading that makes no difference to the evidence that the Ugandan President looked at that was presented by his respected panel of qualified scientists.
So in other words, you have no interest in whether the information is true or not?

Is that the end point of what you're saying?

You don't care about truth, or facts, or validity, but because you agree with the information, that's all that matters?
 
Top