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.