“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.