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?