評論
打印
Now, for many of these claims, we don't have to settle the statistical arguments in order to address the arguments.
對于很多這種無端的指責，其實并非每個都需要我們通過統計研究的方法加以辯駁。
Part of the reason for this is that correlation is not the same thing as cause.
原因很簡單：相關性和因果性不能混為一談。
How many of you have heard this before maybe in class? Ok.
你們有誰聽過這個道理？
Just because two things go together, it doesn't mean that one causes the other.
兩個事物同時出現，并不意味著其中一個是另一個的因或果。
I usually illustrate this with the old story of the scientific drunk.
我一般會用一個科學醉鬼的故事來說明這個道理。
Scientific drunk wants to know why he gets hangovers, so he starts keeping a journal.
科學醉鬼想要了解他自己宿醉的元兇，于是開始進行記錄。
And he writes in his journal, "Monday night, scotch and soda. Tuesday morning, hangover.
記錄里這樣寫：周一晚，威士忌兌雪碧，周二早，宿醉；
Tuesday night, gin and soda. Wednesday morning, hangover.
周二晚，杜松子兌雪碧，周三早，宿醉；
Wednesday night, vodka and soda. Thursday morning, hangover."
周三晚，伏特加兌雪碧，周四早，宿醉。
And he looks back at the journal and says, "Aha! Soda causes hangovers!"
他研究了記錄，得出了結論：哈，造成我宿醉的是雪碧！
I think that when we say that homosexuality is responsible for all these problems, we might be looking at the soda.
我想，當我們說同性戀對于很多問題負有責任的時候，也許同性戀就是那杯雪碧。
So, what's the alcohol?
那么，什么是酒呢？
Well, at least part of the alcohol seems to be society's treatment of gay and lesbian people, which might make it stand to reason that life is more difficult if you're a gay or lesbian person, and you might be more likely to exhibit problems as a result of that.
嗯，至少有一部分造成宿醉的酒，是這個社會對于同性戀者的不公平對待。而這也會在某種程度上導致如下的結果：如果你是一個同性戀者，你的生活多半會變得相對不易一些，因此你就比異性戀者更容易遇到生活中的問題。
In fact, there is something here that I call "the argument of the bully."
事實上，有種東西我管它叫"惡霸理論"。
Bully on the playground knocks another kid, kid falls down and starts crying.
學校操場上有個小惡霸把別的孩子打倒在地，倒地的孩子大哭起來。
Teacher says, "Why did you hit the kid?"
老師問打人的孩子："你為什么打他？"
Bully says, "I hit him because he's crying and that bothers me."
打人的孩子回答："我打他因為他哭，他哭起來讓我心煩。"
Teacher says, "Well, he's crying because you hit him."
老師："可是他哭是因為你打他啊。"
Bully says, "Yeah, and if he keeps crying, I'm going to hit him again!"
打人的孩子回答："沒錯，如果他繼續哭，我會繼續打他。"
Now, what's the problem with the bully's argument?
這種"惡霸論調"的問題在什么地方呢？
The bully tries to justify what he does on the grounds that he doesn't like the effect of what he does.
施暴者試圖以"我不喜歡我對他施暴后他的樣子"為理由，把自己的施暴行為正義化。
Now, imagine somebody like, oh I don't know, Pat Robertson.
我們設想一下，假設有這么個人，名叫帕特·羅伯森。（著名反同保守派政客）
Pat Robertson says, "Homosexual people lead miserable, unhappy lives!" And I want to say, "Why do you think that might be?"
帕特·羅伯森說："同性戀者過著悲慘和不幸福的生活！"我想說的是：你難道就不想想為什么他們過得不好嗎？
Could it have anything to do with the kinds of things that you say about gay and lesbian people?
難道和你針對同性戀者的攻擊言論沒有一點關系嗎？
Could it have anything to do with the kinds of positions you take?
難道和你扮演的極端保守主義角色沒有一點關系嗎？
I mean that might stand to reason that gay and lesbian people's lives are a little more difficult.
而這也許就會在某種程度上，導致同性戀者的生活變得更不易一點。
Now you might say, "Okay, well that might work for some of the alleged problems, but not all of them.
也許你會說："好吧，也許你的道理能解釋一些問題，但不是全部。
What about AIDS? Doesn't homosexuality cause AIDS?"
你如何解釋艾滋病？難道導致艾滋病的不是同性戀嗎？"
Um, no. A virus causes AIDS, and that virus can be passed along by homosexual activity, by heterosexual activity, by some activities that are not sexual at all.
不，導致艾滋病的，是病毒！而病毒可以通過同性性行為傳播，可以通過異性性行為傳播，也完全一通過非性行為傳播。
Consider the fact that from the standpoint of AIDS risk, it is infinitely more risky for me to have sex with an HIV positive woman than with an HIV negative man.
從艾滋病風險的角度來說，我和一個女性HIV病毒攜帶者發生性關系，被傳染上艾滋病的風險要無限大于我和一個完全健康的男性發生性行為。
Why? Because it's the virus that causes AIDS, not the sex.
因為導致艾滋病的，是病毒，而不是性行為。
And, if the virus isn't present, two men can have sex for days on end without worrying about AIDS.Fatigue, yes. AIDS, no.
而且，如果病毒不存在的話，兩個男人可以從早到晚發生性行為而不必擔心染病，他們會累得半死，但不會得艾滋病。
And furthermore, if AIDS risk was somehow supposed to be the barometer of morality, lesbians would be the most moral people in the world-because, from the standpoint of AIDS risk, lesbian sex is the way to go.
此外，如果艾滋病的風險高低，可以成為判斷倫理道德水準高低的計量工具的話，女同性戀會成為世界上道德水準最高的族群。因為以艾滋病風險來看，女同性戀的性行為非常值得提倡。
I see some of you are very risk-averse in this audience.
我知道你們當中有很多喜歡規避風險的哦。
I mean think about the headline: Surgeon General Recommends Lesbianism.
我們想象一下新聞頭條：衛生局長大力提倡拉拉性愛！
Okay, it's probably not going to happen. But if we're talking about AIDS, I mean, there are just too many gaps in this argument.
這多半不可能。不過當我們討論艾滋病風險的時候，這種反同的論點有著太多的漏洞了。
The argument seems to assume that: all homosexual sex is risky, all risky activity is immoral, therefore, all homosexual sex is immoral.
這種論調在假定：所有的同性戀性行為都是高風險的，所有的高風險性行為都是不道德的，繼而推出結論：所有的同性戀性行為都是不道德的。
That argument falls apart in two places: the first premise and the second premise.
這種論斷在兩個地方站不住腳：第一個前提和第二個前提。
They're both false as written.
兩者皆荒謬。
Some homosexual sex is risky, some is not, some heterosexual sex is risky, some activities that are not sexual at all are risky.
有的同性戀性行為是有風險的，有些沒風險；有些異性戀性行為是有風險的，有些沒風險；有些跟性半點關系都沒有的行為時有風險的；
Some risky activities are immoral, some aren't.
有些有風險的行為是不道德的，有些則無關道德。
There are just too many gaps here.
那種論斷太多漏洞了。
