Poor old Lyle is utterly obsessed with sex.

Well said JBSH why are religious types obsessed with other people sex lives?

I wonder if Lyle Shelton can tell me if children can be to young to have their parents religion thrust upon them? Genital mutilation and getting dunked in water is just fine but let a kid know that it's okay to SLGBTI and the world will end.

Never mind that 10 years after a sex change operation, a person is 20 times more likely to commit suicide than the non-transgendered population. What's that I hear the 1950's calling Lyle they don't want you back either.
Care to explore why suicide maybe high in these people?

I spoke with six other parents about this very issue at a party on Saturday night, as parents of primary age kids they'd all had to deal with the confusion and fear caused in children by over zealous teachers introducing this type of morals policing into the classroom.
One couple had to deal with their very confused and upset grade three daughter who'd had to endure graphic descriptions of the procedures involved in removing male genitalia, and had the confronting experience of a classroom visit by a male transvestite.

JBSH.
Smirk all you want, I mean it's not like the habitually violent, unreasonable and bigoted LGBTIQ movement has a leg to stand on anyway.
This has nothing to do with sex at all, the conclusion reached by my circle of parents around the buffet on Saturday night was that the opinions of radical Trotskyites from the Arts department of Monash University have no place in public school classrooms.

Hard to miss the homophobic bias or the patent implication that teachers are lecherous libertines turning a blind eye to the willful indoctrination of kids, who might just catch a transgender virus? And as propaganda, just fails to tell big enough porkies (the real test of effective propaganda) to be convincing?
Alan B.

So obsessed with sex and sexuality. Where's all the talk of adultery? Jesus never mentioned sexuality and adultery at least made God's top ten.

Perhaps it makes them feel more righteous if they can focus on a sin that they know they will never be guilty of?

I only skim articles like this, but one point that popped out at me was Lyle's conflation of biological sex and gender.

<<Kylie Smith, wants pre-schoolers taught ... that their gender is fluid, not biological.>>

I don't know about "their" gender identity personally (I can't see anywhere where she specifically said that), but gender in general certainly is. Even biological sex is not as binary as we think. It's the ignorant and old-fashioned idea that it is that leads some fools to claim that transgender people are "confused".

Sorry to inject a little sanity here but a couple of facts. Race is real, it does not impugn anyone and you are who you are. Whitlam originally said if you "thought" you were aboriginal then you were? Now some people think they are foxes or even wolves so apparently we have to go along with all these delusions, what!
Gender has some small differences but basically you are male or female. Sorry for kids whose genitals are non-conforming but to turn the whole world on it's head and try and assume massive power over us is not the answer.
The usual suspects will be telling us soon that we all have to be what they say we are. My suggestion is just de-fund these programs and vote out crazy bigot Andrews at the next election.

And the horrifying part of all this, as shown in some comments, that activists cannot see that this material is several bridges too far in thrusting sexual-explicit material on very young children. With or without permission from the parents, it should never have been permitted.

If there is a need for such programs in school then perhaps something more targeted. but to state this or question the program is to be labelled "homophobe" - an outrageous response which indicates that something has gone wrong in this area. Politicians need to be strong and sort it out.

yep those so horrified about homosexual paedophile priests are often those cheering the grooming of kids for every perversion. A very sick society.

Good article Lyle! This is a very worrying and creepy development in our nation.

I wonder whether all those who throw childish insults have children of their own that they want to expose to this nonsense. I suspect not.

One other take away from the conversation at the party was that the parents I spoke to don't blame the teachers, the consensus was that if anyone is being bullied and pressured it's the staff, not the students and that most teachers are good people who try to shield the kids from as much of this irrelevant nonsense as possible.
We, the parents want a secular, ideologically neutral education system which focuses on core subjects and doesn't waste valuable classroom time with morals policing or political correctness lessons,the opinions of Pastors and Imams are just as problematic as those of radical homosexuals, promoters of child-adult sex and Trotskyites.
Once an organisation opens the door to these wingnut points of view it's very hard to get them out again when the proponents and facilitators start showing their true colours and resistance could end up being a career destroying battle for the good, honest teachers.
The one thing we know about both religious nuts and ideological zealots is that once appeased they only ramp up their demands and nothing is ever enough for them, religious beliefs and political ideology alike are open ended programs, not goal focused initiatives with a clear start and finish.

If you do not like what priests were doing, you cannot condone what is happening in schools. I'm sure not all teachers agree with this, but it is happening. No wonder the sites that once considered parent feedback are being shut down. It is hypocritical to jail some, and promote others that have found a different way to package the same evil. Make your voice heard by voting out those that advocate injustice towards children.

If we had decent politicians, this nonsense would be knocked in the head in seconds. But, we do not have decent politicians and, unless parents and decent people stand up, the perverts will prevail. There is nothing that ordinary people cannot overcome in a democracy. If this sick muck gets into schools, it is our fault.

I would say that bit about kids being shown scenes of a persons genitalia being cut up is BS.

What is going on is reality of life. Should it be swept under the carpet and not discussed. That sort of teaching is far better than knights and round tables.

All scenes of operations are gross. A three year old recognising such a thing is pure crap.

What a lot of nonsense !
It is just a campaign to brainwash children into a situation until
they do not know who or what they are. If I had a child at school and
it was being taught this I would probably sue the teacher or school.
It is very vicious and should be halted immediately.
It can do physiological damage to children. The whole "gay" movement
is becoming a political movement and they need to get other peoples
children into their movement as they do not have any of their own.

You are what your DNA says you are and don't forget it.

Thank you Lyle for your post.

579,
Read the post again, the kids were grade threes not three year olds and I didn't say they were shown footage, the procedure was described to them by the teacher in terms eight and nine year olds can understand.
The way one of the mothers described what her child repeated as "..and they cut off the boy parts and turn part of it inside out to make girl parts"
The context was that the transvestite in question was part of the school community, a parent of one of the kids, the teacher decided to hold the lesson on her own initiative so as to head off any "bullying" of the man's son.
According to the mothers I spoke to the teacher didn't ask permission from the parents and the kids were frightened and confused by the experience.
It was that conversation which led into discussion of the safe schools program, which as far as I know hasn't been fully implemented as yet but which is already creating apprehension among parents.
No child needs to know the details of what mentally ill people and their supporters are prepared to do to indulge their manias and dysphoria.
I led a Bohemian life in my teens and twenties, I got to know a couple of transvestites reasonably well, my wife and I used to drink with them in the dives of Fitzroy.
They're anything but sane and normal people and indulging their delusions does nothing to calm them, the post operative ones actually seem worse in my experience, even as a 25 year old being around them was scary and fraught because you're walking on eggshells all the time, kids don't need to be put under that amount of pressure just to please sick adults..

There's fantastic coverage of this issue here:

https://themarcusreview.com/2016/04/15/safe-schools-issue-far-from-over/

I think a really good point to take note of is that they brought this stuff in knowing full well that many parents would oppose, but they didn't care about them.
They may have even thought that they could slide it in under their noses noses and get away with it, having confused and indoctrinated the voters to accept this type of thing.

What does that say to all those who still believe in the system?
How many of you actually believe that the government cares about what you want or think?

Sorry Jay of Melbourne, I just don't believe that any public school grade 3 teacher brought in a transgender person for 'show and tell'! I also very much doubt there is rampant homosexual propaganda being peddled all day in public schools, as some want us to believe.

This sort of false rubbish is only trotted out by hysterical characters who have their own anti-homosexual agendas, and want to ram it down everyone else's throats (pardon the pun), so everyone else can be whipped into a similar frenzy.

@Longy "If you do not like what priests were doing, you cannot condone what is happening in schools"

Man you need to take a good hard look at yourself, if you can workout the difference between adults raping children and teachers decreasing sex education that is more inclusive of the reality of life.

It's so interesting to see that conservative religious types get so worked up about sex education but anything to actually do with the ten commandments is down played.

Why is it that these things need to be taught in schools? Kids go to school to be educated in the things they need to help them in life. Schools have professional teachers who are trained to impart information and practical skills in ways that can be guaranteed to succeed. The more complex the information and skill the more trained the teachers need to be.

These kinds of skills are not found in the average parent and so school is necessary. Not every bit of information or every skill comes from school. Why should sex education be the province of schools when there is no need for highly trained professionals to impart such knowledge? Most parents are quite capable of giving their children the information they need to live out the sexual part of their lives. It is as they say ‘not rocket science’. There seems no need to have it in the school curriculum at all. There are many issues that are not dealt with at school.

The same might be said for issues like inclusivity and respect for others. What kind of specialist training does someone need to impart these values? It should be the responsibility of parents to teach these things – not the responsibility of schools.

It appears that some groups want to make sure that children receive the information that they deem appropriate and do not trust parents to teach their kids properly. Why do education authorities intervene in the parent/child relationship like this? That is not their role to teach what can be taught outside of school. Why do governments also want to force these authorities to take control?

This is not about education but about trying to indoctrinate kids. It is an abuse of the power of the schools to feed information to kids by which certain groups hope to influence society. Education is a responsibility and abusing that responsibility is a serious business.

I totally agree Phanto. It should be the parents who discuss these issues with their kids.
If only there weren't all those judgemental, ignorant homophobe adults out there who were quick to spread their hatred and lies, then that would work well.

I also think that religion should be strictly taught in the homes as well, as peddling all those superstitious stories and lies to innocent children is wrong too.

In year 1 I got my kids enrolled in sex awareness education to enable them to understand what is private and protect them against predators. In senior school they had sensible education on the biology, emotions etc of sex, how to enable them to make their own choices, avoid peer pressure, unwanted pregnancies or STDs. Their choice of gender was entirely up to them. Similarly bullying, racism and homophobia were not tolerated at school.

However, I objected to my kids being subjected to mandatory non educational political or religious agendas such as "ethics" lessons by priests, and while my kids are now at UNI, I would also have objected to the gratuitous political indoctrination masquerading as an anti bullying program.

It looks like the left have decided as schools have a captive impressionable audience that they are the perfect for political indoctrination.

It gets worse;
Now the leaders in this trans sex movement are promoting that sex is
not binary, ie you are male or female but there can be a range.

There can be a scale of +10 to +1 to 0 to -1 to -10.

So you can be +3 so that means you are slightly male.
Perhaps if you are neither you can be 0 !
or perhaps if you are a feminazi you would be -15 !

The mind boggles at the thought of toilets and change rooms.
The odd thing is these ideas are coming out of universities.
Now if such way out thinking is typical of universities how much
does it infect say engineering and scientific disciplines ?
Should we in fact investigate those academic areas with a view to
dismissing all the staff and restructure them all.

Blog comments are no place to get your facts. Jay has vested interest in slander and BS.

Dear Phanto,

Thank you for you post. I am impressed!

Yes, Bazz. I mentioned that earlier.

But it’s not the leaders in the trans-sex movement. It’s biologists.

http://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943

There’s even a community in the Dominican Republic where a lot of males start out as females and don’t grow their man bits until they hit puberty.

http://www.sciencealert.com/in-a-remote-town-in-the-dominican-republic-some-girls-turn-into-boys

Biological sex is far more of a spectrum than was once assumed.

But I suppose we’re free to waste tax-payers’ money on pointless inquires simply because so many uneducated buffoons out there don’t like what they’re hearing.

A J Phillips, I read those links with interest.
What they point up is a genetic "defect" made worse by small village
inbreeding ie not a big enough population pool.
Or a chaotic random accident.
Those are generally sporadically aborted.
It is a bit like a baby with six toes or fingers.
It is just that a defect.
What is being proposed by the crazies is that with brainwashing or
just choice people can switch one way or the other.

Don't confuse the two scenarios.

the only thing AJ seems educated in is to twist science to support his perverted views. Thats the kind of education our kids don't need. Hollywood fills their heads with enough perversion without the likes of 'educated' AJ twisting science in order to promote idiotic ideology. Leave the kids alone.

It's interesting that you say this, Bazz

<<What is being proposed by the crazies is that with brainwashing or just choice people can switch one way or the other.>>

Because in my earlier comment, I noted that Lyle was conflating biological sex with gender, and I think that’s what you’re doing now too. Either that, or you have unwittingly switched topics.

I have yet to see any evidence that anyone is suggesting to children that they can just switch their gender if that’s what they want to do. Whatever suits the mood at the time.

What is actually being said (in terms simple enough for younger people to understand), is that not everyone is physically born with the same biological sex as they are mentally, and that if a child realises this already, or if they end up realising this at some point in the future, then that’s alright. It’s creating an environment for transsexual children (and they often realise at a very young age) that makes them feel more accepted not so fearful of any possible rejection by society in the future, which usually results in all sorts of anxiety and depressive issues later on in life.

There are many explanations as to why this sometimes happens, in case you’re wondering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexualism

Unfortunately, conservatives are misrepresenting what is being said and done to make out as though children are being told (or even encouraged) to just be whatever they want to be. Mix and match. Whatever takes their fancy at the time.

I don’t think any one of us, when we were in school, would have become confused about who we were, or would have wanted to change our gender if the Safe Schools program was in the schools we attended as kids. It’s just fear-mongering.

But it does make me wonder about those who are so concerned about children becoming confused. Could they have maybe benefitted from such a program in their school, given that they apparently think it’s so easy to become confused about one’s own identity?

Now there’s a thought!

Hi runner.

Oh yes indeed Runner and Bazz, we shouldn't be informing our kiddies of the undeniable truth that there are different sexual orientations amongst human beings.

But apparently it is ok to 'teach' them that if they tell a lie they will burn in the fires of hell forever after they die (like I was told as a 6 year old by Nuns). Or that there is an invisible God out there who will 'punish' me for any number of 'sins'.

Now, which of those stories would worry a young child the most?
That is, if primary school age kids are really being told the nitty-gritty of different sexual orientations, or if it is all really in the grubby little minds of the resident homophobes?

'But apparently it is ok to 'teach' them that if they tell a lie they will burn in the fires of hell forever after they die (like I was told as a 6 year old by Nuns). Or that there is an invisible God out there who will 'punish' me for any number of 'sins'.'

hopefully Susie they told you that Someone paid the penalty for your sin so you could avoid hell. I know that modern day mankind hates the thought of any accountability. The zoos the State schools have produced should convince you of the stupidity of the secular faith. Having depraved people brainwash kids about sexual issues leads to suicide, unwanted pregancy, baby killing and disease. No suprise I suppose when people are idiotic enough to beleive we came from slime or by random chance. Such foolish faith

Suseonline,

Your false comparisons always fail to impress.

I very much doubt there are any nuns threatening school children with Old Nick anymore, whereas the are Marxist social engineers trying to get their hands on preschool kids.

Onthebeach, you never fail to prove you continue to live in the communist past by imagining there are any 'Marxists' saying or doing anything at all in our modern day Australia.

Do YOU honestly believe that grade 3 public school teachers are introducing transgender people to their classes and explaining exactly what it means to be transgender?
What rubbish!
I would like to see actual video proof of these classes before I would believe it.

There are lots of complaints about this mythical "rainbow mafia" I think what is occurring (and this is the American Experience) is that both sides of the political divide can no longer excuse cruelty and hate and bullying toward children who happen not to identify as heterosexual. On the ACL's website, Lyle exorts us all to write to the PM to continue an illegal chaplaincy program in our secular state schools that was said to be in breach of the perceived seperation of church and state in our constitution by the high court of Australia. I do not think any reasonable person has a problem with church schools subscribing to the values they uphold just as it would be unreasonable to expect any church to marry gay ppl. if it conflicts with doctrine. However, freedom of worship means that you are free to worship and hold religious values in your tax-exempt , not-for-profit churches. It does NOT mean you may foist your religious doctrinal view on the rest of us in the state school system or in the public secular sphere. As a footnote I smiled when I read that Lyle also believes it would be a disaster if churches were no longer tax exempt. Maybe thats the key, so that churches realise just how priviledged and lucky they are and perhaps that will motivate them to get back to basics instead of wanting ALL of us and our children to swallow Christian doctrine whether we like it or not

Suseonline:

“I totally agree Phanto. It should be the parents who discuss these issues with their kids.
If only there weren't all those judgemental, ignorant homophobe adults out there who were quick to spread their hatred and lies, then that would work well.”

It is irrelevant to my point what parents tell their kids. Using the education system to try and control what children are taught about sexual behaviour and other values is an abuse of the education system. There is no excuse for this abuse. Those who introduce programs which aim to inform children about any kind of sexual behaviour or express opinions about how we should relate to others in regard to their sexual behaviour are abusing that system for their own ends.

If they were confident in the information and opinions they have then they would not have to resort to these tactics. There are more appropriate ways to get their point across. It is up to all of us to make sure the education system is not compromised in this way.

Phanto, as long as we also don't subject our kids in primary schools to other people's agendas either, such as the current public school use of religious Chaplains that could spread their own superstitious religious views to vulnerable children, then I would agree we shouldn't allow too much education of values that should be taught by parents at home.

Of course, especially in high schools, the recommended biology or human biology classes re human reproduction and development should continue.
I believe that high school age children should be given a more thorough education re sexuality issues to prepare them for life after school. Many parents don't give their teenagers the correct information, if any.

Suseonline,

You are in 'de Nile' (denial), as you so often are. You have posted in threads where this has been mentioned before, but here again to assist your short term memory problems,

"Safe Schools activist Roz Ward raises ‘red flag’
Safe Schools Coalition ­Vic­toria co-founder Roz Ward has also conceded the Safe Schools Coalition program is part of a broader Marxist strategy to change society.

Ms Ward is a La Trobe University academic who moonlights as a writer for Red Flag, the publication of the Socialist Alternative, a Trotskyite self-des­cribed Marxist organisation that has become a dominant force among university radicals and the broad-left ­activist movement"
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/education/safe-schools-activist-roz-ward-raises-red-flag/news-story/42208731b0e4705aa0d2e6aaa8584e3e

Oh yawn Onthebeach....I have absolutely nil interest in old dead Russians or their ideas, or those who still hang onto the past revolutions of a communist country.

Anyone belonging to a dodgy fringe organisation, like your mate Roz does, is of no interest to me either, regardless of what uni she belongs to!
I still don't believe any public school brings in a transgender person to meet grade 3 students and discuss their brand of sexuality in detail.....

It's hard to reconcile a royal commission into child sex offences over the past several decades on one hand and on the other hand government funded programmes sexualising young children now. What is going on? Why are parents not rallying together and making use of their UN sanctioned parental rights and demanding to speak with principals to withdraw this harmful program? Teaching kids about homosexuality, encouraging them to role play gay people and watch porn including gay porn is absolutely outrageous. "Safe" Schools and Building Better Relationships sound lovely but they are nasty programmes hurting children. The sexual rights movement is hyper aggressive and harmful. It needs to be resisted for the sake of children.

WillM "...encouraging them to role play gay people and watch porn including gay porn is absolutely outrageous. "

OMG WillM, please tell us which schools, exactly, did what you suggest?
If you can't, then we will assume you are lying.

The reason why there aren't many thousands of parents around the country ranting and raving about the Safe Schools Program is because there is nothing wrong with it....unless you are a homophobe and a bigot. Most parents know what is right and what is wrong for their kids

The hysteria surrounding Safe Schools is becoming hilarious.

First, we have teachers dragging in transvestites from The Cross and The Valley, still drunk and swaying, with a lazy eye, five o’clock shadows and a fags hanging out of their mouths (Because, let’s face it, that was the imagery that you were going for, wasn’t it JoM?). Now they’re encouraging kids to watch porn. But not just any porn, GAY porn as well. *Gasp* Because it wouldn’t have been quite so bad if they were only encouraging straight porn, would it?

The first claim is concerning and the second is hypocritical.

The first claim is concerning because it portrays transgender people as vermin who need to be tucked away, hidden from civilised society. Someone in the ‘30s and ‘40s may have come up with a different solution. While I would find it a bit of an odd thing to do if my kids’ teachers brought a transvestite hobo into the classroom, I wouldn’t be overly concerned, because I don’t see them as vermin, just people who were mentally born a different sex to what they are physically, and - in the case of JoM’s imagery - could perhaps do with an alcohol support group.

The second claim is hypocritical not so much because conservatives appear to be the biggest consumers of porn (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16680-porn-in-the-usa-conservatives-are-biggest-consumers), but because they’re the biggest consumers of gay porn too (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2014/03/bible-belt-leads-the-nation-in-consumption-of-gay-porn).

Hey, not that there’s anything wrong with that. There does appear, however, to be a strong relationship between homophobia and (homo)sexual repression.

Just sayin'.

AJ Philips,

That 'proof' that "conservatives appear to be the biggest consumers of porn" is laughable.

I didn't bother with your other 'proof', having already wasted a few minutes of life on your first link.

A J Philips:

“Hey, not that there’s anything wrong with that. There does appear, however, to be a strong relationship between homophobia and (homo)sexual repression.”

Well if there is nothing wrong with it then why bother going to the trouble of finding links and posting them here? Perhaps you were being sarcastic in which case then you do think there is something wrong with it.

If you were being sarcastic then what exactly is wrong with it? Is it the hypocrisy? What does a person’s behaviour have to do with their arguments? Many people have strong convictions about certain behaviours but fail to live up to those convictions. What is relevant in the context of this forum is to examine their convictions or opinions and to counter them with contrary opinions. Criticising their behaviour is just a way to avoid dealing with their opinions.

If there is nothing wrong with their behaviour then we do not need to read studies about their behaviour. If their behaviour is irrelevant to their arguments then why raise it as an issue at all?

Either way your post is at least a waste of time and at worst an act of aggression aimed at belittling people who do not share your views.

“Phanto, as long as we also don't subject our kids in primary schools to other people's agendas either, such as the current public school use of religious Chaplains that could spread their own superstitious religious views to vulnerable children,”

That is a totally separate issue and irrelevant to this discussion. If you have a problem with that then perhaps you could start a new thread in the general section. Using these discussions to push an agenda about religion in schools is an abuse of these discussions. At the moment religious people have access to schools and they have gained it because they have gone through the correct channels to achieve it. If you think they should not have that access then you too are free to go through the correct channels to stop them.

Using a discussion about the content of the school curriculum to express your opinion about whether religious instruction should be allowed in schools is not a correct channel. It will not help achieve your aim – only the correct channels will do that. We can only assume you raise the issue in irrelevant discussions because you want to simply denigrate religious people rather than challenge them in ways that someone would if they genuinely believed in their views.

“Many parents don't give their teenagers the correct information, if any.”

This is not an excuse for the education system to create a program that is enforced on every child. It is not necessary. If a particular child has a particular problem then maybe some counselling could be made available but there is no need to act as if every child has inadequate parents.

Some of these programs pretend to have the well-being of children at heart but most children already are well enough. It is not about helping needy children but helping ‘needy’ adults who are trying to convince themselves that their sexual behaviour and attitudes are reasonable.

Suseonline, "I still don't believe any public school brings in a transgender person to meet grade 3 students and discuss their brand of sexuality in detail....."

As OLO's No 1 advocate for gay everything, except lesbians who never receive your attention for some strange reason, you wouldn't be worrying anyhow, now would you?

Yet on your say-so you expect parents to suck it up where the State is taking over their role and Marxist activists (any wonder you scoff, sharing their ideology as you do) are given free rein to tweak the school curriculum.

Where their children's education is concerned, parents cannot leave it all up to trust. Parents really do need to turn up wherever they can for P&C meetings and to make good use of the parent-teacher interviews. That can be hard to do where employment hours are long or awkward. A cup of tea with other parents is a good idea.

By way of example, it is not unusual for some State primary schools to have indigenous speakers visiting (pre-Australia Day for instance). No problems there, excepting where the 'black armband' view of history of activists is being represented as fact as can be the case.

onthebeach,

Don’t put words (or implications) in my mouth. I didn’t say that those links were “proof” of anything. I did, however, offer them as evidence. If I wanted to “prove” my point. I would have offered a lot more than that.

Of course, if you could provide a sound rebuttal to the link (presumably you can, because you have so decisively rejected it), then please share. Or are you just going with your gut on this one, as conservatives so often do?

phanto,

Because it’s ironic.

<<Well if there is nothing wrong with it then why bother going to the trouble of finding links and posting them here?>>

Please don’t start with the amateur psychology again. You’re just not very good at it. I note your defensiveness with keen interest, however.

Finding the links wasn’t much “trouble” either. It took less than ten seconds. Googling it was so quick and easy for me because I have long been aware of the relationship.

<<Perhaps you were being sarcastic in which case then you do think there is something wrong with it.>>

No. No, sarcasm. I just enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy.

You see? This is why you make such a fool of yourself when you play amateur psychologist.

<<What does a person’s behaviour have to do with their arguments?>>

Nothing necessarily. Why do you ask?

<<If there is nothing wrong with their behaviour then we do not need to read studies about their behaviour.>>

You’re confusing the wrongness of hypocrisy, with the “wrongness” of gay pornography, to suggest an hypocrisy on my behalf.

That’s dishonest.

<<Either way your post is at least a waste of time and at worst an act of aggression aimed at belittling people….>>

Not at all. I had provided sound arguments (as I have throughout this thread). You have overlooked all of those, however, and then implied that I am just belittling others, by attacking a snippet of what I have said without viewing it in the context of everything else.

That too is dishonest.

AJ Philips, "I didn’t say that those links were “proof” of anything. I did, however, offer them as evidence"

That is laughable too. As 'evidence' of what, junk science?

A J Philips:

“Because it’s ironic.”

Well I think we are all capable of working that out. Why do you feel the need to patronise us?

“Please don’t start with the amateur psychology again”

Why are you so afraid of that? If it is ‘amateur’ then you have nothing to be afraid of do you?

“Finding the links wasn’t much “trouble” either. It took less than ten seconds. Googling it was so quick and easy for me because I have long been aware of the relationship.”

Of course you have – you are so learned on these matters.

“I just enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy.”

What kind of enjoyment do you get from pointing out that people do not always live up to their ideals? Do you enjoy it when it is done to you? That is a perverse sense of joy.

“You see? This is why you make such a fool of yourself when you play amateur psychologist.”

Why do you need to belittle me? Even an amateur psychologist knows that is the resort of a desperate person.

“<<What does a person’s behaviour have to do with their arguments? >>

Nothing necessarily. Why do you ask?”

Well you must think there is a connection or else you would not bring it up in the discussion. I am just asking why you think there is a connection.

“You’re confusing the wrongness of hypocrisy, with the “wrongness” of gay pornography, to suggest an hypocrisy on my behalf.”

What exactly is ‘wrong’ with hypocrisy? That is not really the issue of this discussion. It is about whether the material being taught in schools is appropriate. We are not really discussing the behaviour of those who oppose it.

“Not at all. ...everything else.”

I am not ‘attacking’ you – there is no need to be so defensive. I only asked about the snippet because you wrote the snippet. There is no need to play the victim because I have not replied to all the other ‘sound arguments’ you think you have contributed.

onthebeach,

So you have nothing with which to rebut the study then, I take it?

<<That is laughable too. As 'evidence' of what, junk science?>>

Here, I’ll make it a little easier for you by linking you to the actual study. It may help you to better articulate why you disagree with it, since you seem to be having so much trouble doing that at the moment.

http://people.hbs.edu/bedelman/papers/redlightstates.pdf

Sheesh. Will ya look at that. Twenty-seven references there. You have your work cut out for you.

phanto,

More amateur psychology. That’s all you’ve got, isn’t it? Suggestive questions and insinuations about the motives of others. Then, if someone points it out, then they must have something to hide, according to you. It’s a win-win tactic for you, albeit a dishonest one.

Your amateur psychological analyses are nothing more than scurrilous attempts to damage the reputations of those whose arguments you cannot adequately rebut, and avoid addressing their claims head-on. You use ad hominems to make the person with whom you disagree (or more specifically, their motives) the central issue.

Ad hominems are fallacious, by the way.

You also like to play the victim card:

<<Why do you need to belittle me?>>

I don’t, and nothing I have said should suggest that I do. Unlike yourself, I have addressed everything that everyone has responded to me with head-on. Speaking of which, why do you need to engage in such evasive tactics by playing the man instead of the ball?

“More amateur psychology. That’s all you’ve got, isn’t it?”

Well it is all I have got for you because I think your motivation is suspect . If your motivation is a good one then you would be able to explain why you want to talk about hypocrisy. You have not presented an argument for the introduction of hypocrisy and so it is reasonable to question your motives.

“It’s a win-win tactic for you, albeit a dishonest one.”

If I can’t lose then it is pointless to remain in the game which you continue to do.

“Your amateur psychological analyses... and avoid addressing their claims head-on.”

Why are you so concerned about your reputation? No one knows who you are so who can possibly be harmed by my analyses? Perhaps it is your own reputation with yourself that is under threat.

“You also like to play the victim card:”

I asked why you want to belittle me. I never said you were successful in your attempts but you tried. Calling someone an ‘amateur psychologist’ and telling them they look foolish are attempts to belittle them or would you like to affirm they are indeed compliments?

“I have addressed everything that everyone has responded to me with head-on. “

Well what ‘head-on’ argument are you promoting when you raise the fact that there is hypocrisy between what people argue and what they do? You may well have responded to the issues about what should and should not be taught in schools so why did you need to post the facts about the hypocrisy. This is the only thing I am responding to. It is a reasonable question. If it constitutes an argument in favour of what is being taught then it should be easy to say why.

Unless you can show it as a valid argument then we can only presume that you are trying to belittle those who do not live up to their own convictions. So far you have failed to give a good reason why you would need to introduce such material to the discussion.

I didn’t actually want to, phanto.

<<If your motivation is a good one then you would be able to explain why you want to talk about hypocrisy.>>

It was only a passing comment. But now that you want talk about it…

It’s because it has relevance. Hypocrisy is deceit through dissimulation, and a façade of virtue despite succumbing to vice. Therefore, exposing the hypocrite has relevance.

<<You have not presented an argument for the introduction of hypocrisy…>>

The fact that you actually need one is sad.

<<Why are you so concerned about your reputation?>>

I’m not, but people have the right to correct slanderous insinuations.

<<I asked why you want to belittle me.>>

No, you asked why I needed to. I don’t want to belittle you, but if you act like a fool, then I will point that out, so long as I can demonstrate the truth of my accusation. There’s an easy way to avoid it though.

<<Well what ‘head-on’ argument are you promoting when you raise the fact that there is hypocrisy...?>>

That wasn’t a response to anything. See above anyway. It should still answer your excuse to distract from everything else and focus on me personally.

Your amateur psychology is a deceitful tactic used for the soul purpose of stifling discussion. If you make an assumption about someone’s motives, then they are entitled to correct you. If they don’t, then you’ll probably feel as though your assumptions have been vindicated. If, on the other hand, they do correct you, then, according to you, they must have a guilty conscience.

It leaves the person damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

Meanwhile, you never had to address any of their arguments but can still strut around like a pigeon that has knocked over all the chess pieces, crapped all over board, and then flown off to claim victory.

I don’t think you’re suspicious of my motives at all. You took offence to something that probably hit too close to home, lashed out with ad hominem, and now you’re trying to justify it.

AJ Phillips,

You make it rather obvious that you know squat about statistics and you probably haven't bothered to read the slim information of methodology and limitations, or you would say anything to support your opinion, regardless.

What about YOU show how reliable the 'finding' is that you support and starting with this statement from the 'research',

"My adult website subscription data is available on the zip code level"

It is junk science. You can stop wasting everyone's time.

A J Philips:

“It was only a passing comment. But now that you want talk about it…

It’s because it has relevance. Hypocrisy is deceit through dissimulation, and a façade of virtue despite succumbing to vice. Therefore, exposing the hypocrite has relevance.”

We all know what hypocrisy is but you have not explained how or why it is relevant to the arguments proposed by the original author. He has presented an argument which condemns what is being taught in schools as inappropriate. You may disagree with him and you may or may not have a good argument in response.

The point I am trying to make is why is it relevant that some people who present these arguments might indulge in homosexual activities. You presented evidence to say this is true and what if it is – how does it in anyway detract from their argument? Are you saying that an argument should only be considered if the proponent behaves in accord with the beliefs they express?

An argument should rise or fall on its merit as an argument and not on the behaviour of the arguer. Once we begin to examine someone’s behaviour then we are no longer examining their argument. What is taught in schools should come as a result of civilised and reasonable debate where arguments are pitted against each other. Resorting to pointing the finger and belittling the arguer because they are not behaving in accordance with their stated beliefs is desperate.

If your assertions about hypocrisy have no place in a debate about these arguments then what is the point of them? The only point could be the need by you to deride and belittle those who do not share your views about some sexual behaviour and values.

This is not ‘amateur psychology’ it is simple logic. If your post was irrelevant to the arguments presented then what other purpose could it have possibly served?

On the contrary, onthebeach, I know a lot about statistics and how to apply different statistical concepts and methodologies to different datasets to achieve accurate results.

I understand concepts such as standard deviation, standard error mean, normal distribution, t-tests, ANOVA tests, z-scores, confidence intervals, chi scores, dependant and independent variables, levene's test, p-values, degrees of freedom, one- and two-tailed tests, skewness, kurtosis, Pearson's r, Spearman' rho, histograms, scattergrams, error bar charts, box charts and leaf and stem plots. I could keep going if you'd like?

So if you claim to have already taken the time to determine that the study was junk science, then please, by all means share. I'll understand what you're talking about.

I didn't just describe hypocrisy, phanto.

<<We all know what hypocrisy is but you have not explained how or why it is relevant to the arguments proposed by the original author.>>

I also explained why exposing the hypocrite is relevant to any discussion on any topic.

I also wasn’t referring to the article specifically, but also the comments it generated.

<<He has presented an argument which condemns what is being taught in schools as inappropriate.>>

Correct.

<<The point I am trying to make is why is it relevant that some people who present these arguments might indulge in homosexual activities.>>

I know what that point is that you're trying to make. That’s why I explained why hypocrisy is relevant.

<<You presented evidence to say this is true and what if it is – how does it in anyway detract from their argument?>>

The logic may or may not be sound, but the argument risks not being taken as seriously if those who convey it are hypocritical, and this is a problem if the argument is a good one. This goes back to the point that I made yesterday in my justification, which you apparently missed. This is why it's expected that people practice what they preach.

<<Are you saying that an argument should only be considered if the proponent behaves in accord with the beliefs they express?>>

No.

<<An argument should rise or fall on its merit...>>

Correct. But those arguments lose traction when the arguer is a hypocrit.

<<Once we begin to examine someone’s behaviour then we are no longer examining their argument.>>

No, most of us are capable of doing both at the same time.

<<Resorting to pointing the finger and belittling the arguer because they are not behaving in accordance with their stated beliefs is desperate.>>

No, it’s relevant, and I have already explained why. You have not countered this

<<This is not ‘amateur psychology’…>>

What you were engaging in earlier was.

<<If your post was irrelevant to the arguments presented then what other purpose could it have possibly served?>>

You haven't yet demonstrated that it was.

“I also explained why exposing the hypocrite is relevant to any discussion on any topic.”

No you have not. You said –

“Hypocrisy is deceit through dissimulation, and a façade of virtue despite succumbing to vice. Therefore, exposing the hypocrite has relevance.”

What kind of logic is that? A definition followed by an assertion that it is relevant to the current thread without any reason given as to why? An explanation of why is not presented at all. An orange is a fruit – therefore it has relevance to the debate.

“I also wasn’t referring to the article specifically, but also the comments it generated.”

It does not matter the same principles of relevance apply.

“This is why it's expected that people practice what they preach”

Expected by whom? So we should always check a person’s behaviour before we accept their arguments, no matter how convincing they are? Unless their behaviour stacks up their argument should be dismissed?

“But those arguments lose traction when the arguer is a hypocrit.”

Can you explain how this works exactly? Why does it lose traction? What happens in the mind of the reader to the value of the arguments when they find out the arguer does not behave according to their stated values?

“No, most of us are capable of doing both at the same time.”

No we are not they are two entirely separate activities. One is examining their arguments for flaws in logic and reasoning and the other is about collecting facts about how they behave outside the discussion.

“No, it’s relevant, and I have already explained why. You have not countered this”

You have explained nothing.

I already explained the logic to you, phanto.

<<What kind of logic is that?>>

Here it is again:

“…the argument risks not being taken as seriously if those who convey it are hypocritical, and this is a problem if the argument is a valid one.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18217#323760)

Hypocrisy, for this reason, should be exposed and shamed at all opportunities so as to discourage it. Like, say, paedophilia, for example.

<<Expected by whom?>>

Society in general. Do you not think the fact that the hypocrisy of moral pontificators, like priests, for example, adds an additional layer of concern because of the treachery?

We have defamation laws because it is in society's interests to protect the reputations of those whose reputations deserve protecting. Similarly, hypocrites need to be exposed because good ideas need to be protected by not being promoted by hypocrites.

<<So we should always check a person’s behaviour before we accept their arguments…?>>

No. There is nothing wrong with giving most people the benefit of the doubt.

<<Unless their behaviour stacks up their argument should be dismissed?>>

No, I never suggested that.

<<Can you explain how this works exactly? Why does it lose traction?>>

See my example above regarding the moral pontification of priests.

<<What happens in the mind of the reader to the value of the arguments when they find out the arguer does not behave according to their stated values?>>

They are more likely to reject the claim/moralising as illegitimate because not even the claimant/moraliser appears to believe what they’re saying.

<<No we are not [capable of doing both at the same time] they are two entirely separate activities.>>

Yes, we are.

People can assess more than one claim at a time, while also taking into account more than one factor at a time. We have hundreds of years’ worth of research on every possible topic to attest to this. I’m sorry you don’t feel you’re capable of doing what every other human being is apparently capable of doing.

<<You have explained nothing.>>

Actually, I have. At least twice now too, if you count my quoting of myself above.

AJ Phillips,

Since you imply you have considerable expertise in statistics you should have no difficulty in my question, here again,

<What about YOU show how reliable the 'finding' is that you support and starting with this statement from the 'research',

"My adult website subscription data is available on the zip code level">

This is what you said, so go ahead and show your evidence,

"The second claim is hypocritical not so much because conservatives appear to be the biggest consumers of porn (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16680-porn-in-the-usa-conservatives-are-biggest-consumers), but because they’re the biggest consumers of gay porn too"

You are relying on your weasel word "appear" (your 'out' and back door), but then you assert that they are "the biggest".

It is all your wishful thinking. Your 'expertise' is in spinning wobblies through insinuation. Absolute bunkum!

onthebeach,

I have looked at the data and see no major flaws, and I don’t have the word count to rehash all of the justifications and data analysis in the article. You, on the other hand, claim to have spotted problems. So how about you give us one?

Is your quote from the article, “My adult website subscription data is available on the zip code level”, the supposed to be the flaw? And if so, why is it such a major flaw? Because it doesn’t go down to the individual level? That’s not a flaw.

It is impossible to ask absolutely every single person their political leanings and levels of porn consumption, and postcodes have proven themselves to be a reliable way of determining the overall political persuasion of the residents in an area. Politicians know this only too well. If you consider that to be a fatal flaw, then every research project ever undertaken is highly suspect.

Some of the statistical concepts that I mentioned were designed specifically for the purpose of countering and measuring such unavoidable, potential sampling weaknesses. There are various sampling techniques, such as between-group and within-group techniques, all with their strengths and weaknesses. Different techniques are used to minimise sampling error and any possibly lack of representation of the overall population.

The degree of certainty that may be achieved (with regards to a data sample’s accuracy) can be calculated to ensure that the samples are an accurate representation of the population. This is done using standard normal distribution, standard deviation, the standard error mean, the p-value, confidence intervals, Cohen’s d, histograms and box charts.

So again I ask, how exactly is the data flawed? Because, as a flaw, the fact that the researcher’s data was based on adult website subscription at the postcode level just doesn’t cut it, I’m afraid.

It’s a scholarly article, onthebeach. Do you really think it was likely to have passed the peer-review process if some schmo, without the vaguest understanding of statistics and research, was able to spot such an obvious “flaw”?

Let’s get real here.

A J Philips:

So a person writes an article in which he presents an argument why the school curriculum should be changed. Many readers think it is a good argument. It follows all the rules of argument and logic and they agree with his argument.

Two weeks later they discover he has been accessing pornography. How has his very good argument changed? It is still the same argument. Judgements about what should be taught in schools should be based on the best argument. How does his behaviour affect the logic of his argument?

His behaviour cannot affect the quality of his argument. It is either a well-reasoned argument or it is not. If arguments are not the sole criteria by which we decide policy then we are in serious trouble because we would be obliged to examine the behaviour of anyone who presents an argument in favour of a course of action or policy.

What you are saying is that arguments are not enough and that we should take into account the behaviour of the arguer before we make policy based on things like education curricula. You have not explained how their behaviour affects the validity of their argument. Their behaviour is totally irrelevant and so their hypocrisy is totally irrelevant since it does not change the quality of their argument.

Why expose their hypocrisy when the discussion is about the merits of their arguments? The only reason could be to try and expose them and their lack of ‘moral integrity’ as a way of hurting them in some way.

What have they done wrong by looking at pornography? Who have they harmed? Making a connection with the damage done by a paedophile is desperate stuff. You say you should expose such hypocrisy. Why would you need to do that? There is no law against hypocrisy. If there was then we would all be in trouble.

AJ Philips, "Let’s get real here"

To get real as you say one would have to call you out as a bulldust artist, a gay activist intent on confirming his own opinions, who finds 'evidence' but NOT proof you say, in weak findings that any ethical researcher would comment are 'interesting' (what isn't?) and only possibilities for further research.

Given the weakness of the 'findings' and the restrictions on interpretation, it is most unlikely any research grant might be forthcoming.

All done by speculation from post codes, but you are running with that to assert that 'conservatives' appear to be the biggest consumers of porn ..'conservatives-are-biggest-consumers' (and) they’re the biggest consumers of gay porn too".

As has been said before, you are wasting everyone's time (and post codes, LOL).

phanto,

You didn’t read a word I said before, did you?

<<Two weeks later they discover he has been accessing pornography. How has his very good argument changed?>>

I never I never said it would have. In fact, I even suggested that it would have.

<<It is still the same argument.>>

Correct, and that was part of my point that you’ve missed.

<<How does his behaviour affect the logic of his argument?>>

For the third time now, it doesn’t.

<<His behaviour cannot affect the quality of his argument.>>

Correct.

<<What you are saying is that arguments are not enough and that we should take into account the behaviour of the arguer before we make policy based [decisions].>>

Nope, haven’t even implied that. It’s no wonder you haven’t quoted me in this response of yours.

<<You have not explained how their behaviour affects the validity of their argument.>>

That’s because I’ve never claimed that it did.

<<Why expose their hypocrisy when the discussion is about the merits of their arguments?>>

I explained that in my last post.

<<The only reason could be to try and expose them and their lack of ‘moral integrity’ as a way of hurting them in some way.>>

You see? Now this is why your amateur psychology fails so often.

Yes, Dr. phanto, "the only".

<<What have they done wrong by looking at pornography?>>

Nothing per se.

<<You say you should expose such hypocrisy. Why would you need to do that?>>

I explained this in my last response to you.

You’re really running out of angles of approach here, aren’t you phanto? Keep trying, though. I'm sure you'll find something to catch me on eventually.

onthebeach,

You still haven’t demonstrated how the findings of the study were weak. Your rebuttal amounts to the denial of the fact that postcodes are indicative of the overall political leanings of the residents. Well, politicians and political scientists would disagree.

How about applying some of the statistical methods I mentioned earlier, if you want to challenge the findings of the article? I’ll give you a hint: start with the p-value.

AJ Philips,

Politicians, media hacks posing as political scientists and you the leftist gay activist might believe that an individual's political choice next election is predicted by his/her postcode, but no-one else does.

You need to take heed the limitations of the 'research' you take great liberties in interpreting to suit your gay activism.

As a gay activist you find what you are looking for - but of course and you wouldn't have it any other way.

onthebeach,

You’re taking great pains to concoct a supposed weakness in the study. Unfortunately, though, your arguments basically amount to, “Well, I disagree.” As has just recently become even more apparent in your latest response.

If politicians and political scientists are wrong about the relationship between postcode and political persuasion, what then do you think is the point in gerrymandering? And why is it so effective in achieving its purpose?

Like so many conservatives I’ve come across, you just flippantly dismiss out of hand anything that contradicts your beliefs, no matter how scholarly and evidence-based it is. Usually the first response to cognitive dissonance.

To your credit though, at least you haven’t resorted to conspiracy theories surrounding academia. That’s usually the last refuge of a defeated conservative position.

Face it, onthebeach, you have nothing. Nothing but an unshakable worldview that is impervious to anything that may contradict it.

But hey, don’t be too embarrassed about any porn viewing you may have (likely, even, given your reaction) engaged in. Most of us have done it. Myself included.

High five, brother!

We’re all red-blooded males, and sometimes our wives get headaches. Speaking of which, women view porn to a surprising degree too. What’s more is that they tend to prefer the girl-on-girl stuff because it’s more sensual and there isn’t some big hairy brute there treating the woman he is with like a piece of meat.

Ah, the things we learn.

AJ Philips,

It is the uses YOU and others put on those soft 'findings' that is the problem.

It is the foolish, self-serving use of it as 'evidence' of anything that makes it junk science.

What do you, the self-buffed 'expert statistician' say to that?

You are shameless. You are just another of those bullying gay activists who try to pull the wool over the eyes of the trusting public, as you last post shows.

“The” problem, onthebeach?

<<It is the uses YOU and others put on those soft 'findings' that is the problem.>>

I wasn’t aware that we were discussing any particular problem. More just the merits of a study that appears to have hit a little too close to home for you.

I say, “too close to home”, because I am baffled as to why this should upset you so much if you’re innocent of excessive porn, or gay porn, indulgence. I mean, those more closely politically aligned with me are more likely to be anti-vaxxers and fall for other such pseudoscientific health claims (there may even be studies proving this) but that doesn’t bother me because it doesn’t apply to me. I think those people are idiots, whether or not we would agree on other issues.

<<It is the foolish, self-serving use of it as 'evidence' of anything that makes it junk science.>>

No, ‘junk science’ is defined by whether or not a claim, purported to be a scientific fact, is actually untested or unproven. That doesn’t fit the description of the study that’s got you so wound up, nor how I presented it.

<<What do you, the self-buffed 'expert statistician' say to that?>>

See above. Long story short: your reaction to the study is suspect, and you don’t know what constitutes junk science.

I never claimed to be an expert statistician. I am qualified in criminal psychology though, and that requires a thorough, working knowledge of statistics.

You’re just stroppy now because a person whom you accused of knowing nothing about statistics demonstrated that it was in fact only you who knew nothing about them.

<<You are shameless. You are just another of those bullying gay activists who try to pull the wool over the eyes of the trusting public, as you last post shows.>>

Well, you haven’t provided a single reason for anyone to think that I’m shameless. Nor have you explained how I have pulled the wool over the eyes of others. I am sorry that you feel bullied, though. It’s a natural reaction to cognitive dissonance.

AJ Philips,

If your last post and the ones before are to be taken indicators of your professionalism and they will be, you have a credibility problem.

*Sigh*

So now you’re down to pure ad hominem, onthebeach?

<<If your last post and the ones before are to be taken indicators of your professionalism and they will be, you have a credibility problem.>>

How sad.

The least you could have done was attempt to justify this claim of yours with some specific examples and reasoning. But alas, I don’t think either of us is silly enough to think that you could.

I hope you can at least appreciate the sheer irony of such an unfounded and uncalled-for attack.

Onthebeach:

I don’t think it matters too much who are the biggest consumers of pornography as long as it is not criminal. People are free to access it as much as they like. If it does not matter in general then it also does not matter in regards to arguments put forth by those in favour of changing the curriculum in schools. The only thing needed to be considered is the strength or weakness of their arguments for change.

It should not matter to anyone who consumes the most pornography except perhaps to those trying to sell it. Why would anyone want to study who are the biggest consumers? Maybe they are trying to find evidence to comfort themselves that there are ‘worse’ people out there than themselves at consuming pornography but there is no good or bad when it comes to consuming pornography. Some people may become addicted but that is a problem of addiction and not pornography.

I think you are wasting your time arguing with AJP because the question of who consumes the most does not really alter anything especially the question of what to teach in schools.

I can understand your frustration with him because he does not ever really argue anything. He just sucks you in. He changes the goal posts every post. He is only content with weaselling his way out of situations that make him feel uncomfortable. He manipulates words and replies to meanings which are obviously not the meaning of the person who is responding to him. He does not come here to argue but to feed his flagging ego – who else would outline his credentials in statistics like he did? Then he will tell you it is ‘only because you asked’.

He is not a good debater because he is not here to debate and I am no longer going to waste my time with him just to feed his insecurities.

I think you should focus on the point of the article where I think you have lots of good opinions to offer.

Not you too, phanto?

It was bad enough that onthebeach, couldn’t leave without stamping is feet and slinging mud, but you as well? At least on thebeach had the courage to address me directly in his ad hominems though. Apparently you can only do it in a post addressed to someone else.

(onthebeach, could you tell phanto that annoys me?)

<<…the question of who consumes the most [porn] does not really alter anything especially the question of what to teach in schools.>>

I agree. Just don’t lose sight of the value I explained earlier in pointing out hypocrisy whenever you spot it.

But what, may I ask, would your amateur psychological assessment of where onthebeach’s determination to disprove the study I linked to stem from, do you think? Or do you not psychoanalyse those with whom you agree?

I didn’t think you did. As I observed earlier, it’s nothing more than a tactic to defame and distract.

<<I can understand your frustration with him because he does not ever really argue anything. He just sucks you in. He changes the goal posts every post. He is only content with weaselling his way out of situations that make him feel uncomfortable. He manipulates words and replies to meanings which are obviously not the meaning of the person who is responding to him.>>

You think so now? Is it any wonder you cannot provide a single example for any of these accusations?

<<He does not come here to argue but to feed his flagging ego – who else would outline his credentials in statistics like he did? Then he will tell you it is ‘only because you asked’.>>

Well, onthebeach didn’t really ask. But it became relevant for the sake of clarification and the point raised about our statistical knowledge. But yes, that’s why I’m able to tell just how woefully naive your attempts at amateur psychology are.

So, do you have any examples and reasoning to support your slanderous claims, or was your last post simply one big cowardly spat of lies and naive psychological diagnoses?

It's the latter, isn't it?

How much of this indoctrination has to do with feminist politics and environmental levels of exogenous oestrogens? I've a copy of a paper by self expressed feminist experts that states rather than cleaning up these chemicals in the environment we should embrace these chemicals and let them decide what sex we are instead of nature. Hmmmmm!
If you wish to learn more about exogenous oestrogens google "our stolen future". It's a book written by 3 environmental scientists with the assistance of a journalist. For more information that is reasonably easy to understand, go to the world health organisation, or the European endocrine society. The Europeans are the only ones currently trying to clean these things up. With a lot of interference for companies with a vested interest in them not being cleaned up. The west is too broke to even try to fix this.

Statistically the biggest consumers of pornography in the USA are from the high-unemployment, low-educated, high-crime and high teen pregnancy "Bible Belt" States, which puts those loud evangelicals and moral guardians in perspective.

When it comes to educating children about sexuality and other social matters it's not the sole responsibility of formal education but a matter of good parenting.

For example it's better to talk to your children about violence than simply getting them to watch Robocop on TV.

Hi Suse,

Just in case you haven't turned away from this discussion:

You suggest that " .... I still don't believe any public school brings in a transgender person to meet grade 3 students and discuss their brand of sexuality in detail..... "

If you are suggesting that such a move would be improper without parental consent, I would agree with you: children may not be the property of parents, but they are well and truly their responsibility. That responsibility overrules the right of teachers or schools to go beyond a conventional curriculum without informing parents and gaining their consent.

So, if any evidence comes to light that "... any public school brings in a transgender person to meet grade 3 students and discuss their brand of sexuality in detail..... ", would you be prepared to criticise such an action ? Do you think it goes beyond the pretext of 'Safe Schools', which is supposed to protect both homosexual and heterosexual children from being bullied in schools ?

Cheers,

Joe