To prove that we are indeed doomed, and that we haven’t even come close to hitting the bottom of the bottomless Pit Of Progress, this Newsweek headline: TANNING SALONS COULD BE TARGETING GAY MEN BY OPENING IN LGBT NEIGHBORHOODS, PUTTING THEM AT RISK OF CANCER. (Thanks to Kip Hansen for the tip. Kip’s tip? Never mind.)
Tanning salons are more likely to be located in U.S. neighborhoods with higher numbers of same-sex male couples, according to scientists who fear the industry could be targeting the demographic.
By studying census data on 10 U.S. cities, researchers found tanning salons were twice as likely to be found within one mile of a neighborhood where 10 percent of households were made up of same-sex male couples, compared with areas of less than 10 percent. The team looked at the cities with the largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender populations in the U.S.: Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, San Diego Dallas, Phoenix, Washington, D.C., Portland and Denver.
Damn! They’re on to us!
We’re going to have to cancel those San Francisco grocery stores, which we had planned to cause obesity and cardiovascular disease among bisexuals.
And there goes the newsrooms planted in areas of high perversion. We had planned these to cause madness in all those “Qs” you see tacked on the end of LGBTQ.
Dr. Eleni Linos told the “news” magazine about the Protocols of the Elders of Deep Tans that “It’s definitely something I am very worried about.”
The peer-reviewed paper is “Association of Number of Indoor Tanning Salons With Neighborhoods With Higher Concentrations of Male-Male Partnered Households” in JAMA Open, by this Linos and many others. Emphasize many. This isn’t a lone-wolf crank. This is a pack of them.
Remember all those times I told you p-values can’t discover cause; no, nor confidence intervals, either? Good. Keep those times in mind.
Incidentally, do you know why there are no Walmarts on mountain tops? Racism!
You might have thought it was because Walmarts are placed where customers want them, and few to no customers are to be found on mountain tops, in the same way you thought that tanning salons were located in areas of high narcissism.
But, no. It’s racism. After all, how many non-people-of-no-color do you know that climb mountains? P < 0.05, baby.
Enough! Let’s get to the wee Ps.
The goal of the study was “Are indoor tanning salons more likely to be located in neighborhoods with higher proportions of gay men?”
The immediate answer that would seem to suggest itself to anybody who is familiar with the loud preening and (yes) narcissism of most of those who prefer sodomy is “D’uh! Where they hell else would they put them?”
That’s just your experience and commonsense talking. Those kinds of evidence are not scientific, and therefore don’t count, because they haven’t been certified by statistical measures.
Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study used geographic information systems to integrate census data and business location data obtained from ArcGIS and Google Maps for the 10 US cities with the largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender populations in 2010, ie, Los Angeles, California; Chicago, Illinois; San Francisco, California; Seattle, Washington; San Diego, California; Dallas, Texas; Phoenix, Arizona; Washington, DC; Portland, Oregon; and Denver, Colorado. The association of indoor tanning salon locations with proportions of gay men, using the concentration of male-male partnered households as a proxy measure for the latter, was examined [my emphasis].
So we have the epidemiologist fallacy. A weak version of it, yes. But a fallacy is a fallacy.
Incidentally number two. A fallacy can be a fallacy, but the conclusion or proposition of interest can still be true. For instance, this fallacious syllogism. Roses are read, violets are blue; therefore, 1 + 1 still equals 2. The “therefore” fails us, but math still works.
Same thing here. They went to areas where are lots of people like sodomy and found—surprise!—tanning salons. I bet they also found a lot of AIDS medication posters. But they wouldn’t have supposed those were put there as a part of conspiracy to infect people with that disease.
The paper goes on for pages, proving the obvious, what everybody already knew. This is Type I scientism.
They descend into lunacy at the end. “The presence of tanning salons close to communities at high risk for skin cancer raises questions about potential industry targeting of populations at higher risk of using indoor tanning.”
It’t not only that tanners who hunt sodomy preferers. It’s also tobacconists: “Increasing evidence suggests that certain industries may target the LGBT community, contributing to health disparities. For example, tobacco…” And bartenders: “Alcohol companies, many either owned by or found to have direct alliances with tobacco firms, may also have targeted gay men as early as the 1950s.”
Of course, those who enjoy sodomy have no choice. They are born that way. Not to have sodomy! No. When they walk by a tanning salon, they have no choice but to go in and saturate themselves with excessive UV radiation. And then to develop skin cancer and die.
The plan is coming together!
To support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal (in any amount) click here