Tom Daley announces baby

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Tom Daley announces baby

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 5 of 10 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

Hrolf The Ganger 14 Feb 18 8.37pm
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC I’m not in a position to read every article in 5 minutes. I am in a position to make a qualified decision based on the overwhelming initial volume of different research that I’ve found that seems to be reaching the same conclusion. I’m not accepting it in totality, just making the case based on the constraints of this exchange, which I think is fair, and carries more weight than a hunch or opinion. I feel strongly about any issues that involve minorities, especially when people start to debate on emotive opinion rather than objective fact. Pretty simple really. And that is likely to cloud your judgement. My bias is the experience of not being raised in a traditional family environment.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

14 Feb 18 8.37pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

I’m not in a position to read every article in 5 minutes. I am in a position to make a qualified decision based on the overwhelming initial volume of different research that I’ve found that seems to be reaching the same conclusion.

I’m not accepting it in totality, just making the case based on the constraints of this exchange, which I think is fair, and carries more weight than a hunch or opinion.

I feel strongly about any issues that involve minorities, especially when people start to debate on emotive opinion rather than objective fact. Pretty simple really.

And that is likely to cloud your judgement.
My bias is the experience of not being raised in a traditional family environment.

Alert a moderator to this post

SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 14 Feb 18 8.37pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger All science is biased by the scientist. Believe it. I'd like to know more about the research. Ok. Now you’re really being silly. Re. Research, so would I, but the difference I’d be looking at it without preconception and bias, whereas you already have an agenda. Also you can’t be pro gay rights and anti same sex adoption/surrogates. Well you can, obviously, because you are, but it is of course slightly hypocritical. aaaaand... 100 papers by different scientists reaching similar conclusions is vastly different from one. And science is inherently objective and papers are peer reviewed, so it’s nowhere near as easy as you say to be biased and get away with it. Unless you’re in the pharma industry where there is a serious problem with corporate collusion. Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.
Alert a moderator to this post

SW19 CPFC

Addiscombe West 14 Feb 18 8.37pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

All science is biased by the scientist. Believe it.
I'd like to know more about the research.

Ok. Now you’re really being silly.

Re. Research, so would I, but the difference I’d be looking at it without preconception and bias, whereas you already have an agenda.

Also you can’t be pro gay rights and anti same sex adoption/surrogates. Well you can, obviously, because you are, but it is of course slightly hypocritical.

aaaaand... 100 papers by different scientists reaching similar conclusions is vastly different from one. And science is inherently objective and papers are peer reviewed, so it’s nowhere near as easy as you say to be biased and get away with it. Unless you’re in the pharma industry where there is a serious problem with corporate collusion.

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 14 Feb 18 8.40pm
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC Ok. Now you’re really being silly. Re. Research, so would I, but the difference I’d be looking at it without preconception and bias, whereas you already have an agenda. Also you can’t be pro gay rights and anti same sex adoption/surrogates. Well you can, obviously, because you are, but it is of course slightly hypocritical. aaaaand... 100 papers by different scientists reaching similar conclusions is vastly different from one. And science is inherently objective and papers are peer reviewed, so it’s nowhere near as easy as you say to be biased and get away with it. Unless you’re in the pharma industry where there is a serious problem with corporate collusion. You do understand that there is a lot of politics in science? Grants, careers at stake.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

14 Feb 18 8.40pm

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

Ok. Now you’re really being silly.

Re. Research, so would I, but the difference I’d be looking at it without preconception and bias, whereas you already have an agenda.

Also you can’t be pro gay rights and anti same sex adoption/surrogates. Well you can, obviously, because you are, but it is of course slightly hypocritical.

You do understand that there is a lot of politics in science? Grants, careers at stake.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 14 Feb 18 8.43pm
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow I think the 'traditional' family model is already hugely problematic, so alternatives should be encouraged, at least until we could definitively say it doesn't work - the point on family planning is a strong one to suggest the standard of parenting should be better in single sex families. In terms of when it goes wrong; I wouldn't consider the state implicated in faulty same-sex families any more than I would in a 'traditional' one - ie. Only really if there is a failure to act from the relevant social services, as we have seen previously, or something of that sort. As you elude to in your post, there are a hundred and one things which influence a child's upbringing - I haven't seen anything convincing that suggests same sex parents is consistently a harming factor in that process. I certainly don't consider the likelihood of a single sex family raising a bad egg to be any higher, which ultimately should be the deciding point. Edited by EverybodyDannsNow (14 Feb 2018 8.33pm) The state isn't implicated in the traditional family model. It does not have to intervene for them to happen and didn't have to change the law either..... It has in alternative family types where it enables an powerless child to be introduced.... it itself has enabled that. I fundamentally disagree with you here. The state does already try....via social work, to avoid some of the most obvious and worse examples of dysfunction....but it's a very difficult job and disastrous when they get it wrong in either direction. But I say again, the state isn't responsible for enabling that dysfunctionality to have occurred in the first place. Edited by Stirlingsays (14 Feb 2018 8.44pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

14 Feb 18 8.43pm

Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow

I think the 'traditional' family model is already hugely problematic, so alternatives should be encouraged, at least until we could definitively say it doesn't work - the point on family planning is a strong one to suggest the standard of parenting should be better in single sex families.

In terms of when it goes wrong; I wouldn't consider the state implicated in faulty same-sex families any more than I would in a 'traditional' one - ie. Only really if there is a failure to act from the relevant social services, as we have seen previously, or something of that sort.

As you elude to in your post, there are a hundred and one things which influence a child's upbringing - I haven't seen anything convincing that suggests same sex parents is consistently a harming factor in that process. I certainly don't consider the likelihood of a single sex family raising a bad egg to be any higher, which ultimately should be the deciding point.

Edited by EverybodyDannsNow (14 Feb 2018 8.33pm)

The state isn't implicated in the traditional family model. It does not have to intervene for them to happen and didn't have to change the law either..... It has in alternative family types where it enables an powerless child to be introduced.... it itself has enabled that. I fundamentally disagree with you here.

The state does already try....via social work, to avoid some of the most obvious and worse examples of dysfunction....but it's a very difficult job and disastrous when they get it wrong in either direction.

But I say again, the state isn't responsible for enabling that dysfunctionality to have occurred in the first place.

Edited by Stirlingsays (14 Feb 2018 8.44pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 14 Feb 18 8.49pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger You do understand that there is a lot of politics in science? Grants, careers at stake. Of course. I’m not complacent. See my point about pharma, or did you skim read that because it didn’t fit with your narrative. However this is not the argument, it’s deflection, and I say again, I’ll take extensive research over opinion. You have to, logically. I’d say there’s more margin for error for society if I just listened to you. Surely you can see that. Otherwise how would anyone do anything. You can’t live life by the mantra ‘I didn’t see that so I don’t believe it happened’ - You can only go on what you’ve got in front of you. Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.
Alert a moderator to this post

SW19 CPFC

Addiscombe West 14 Feb 18 8.49pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

You do understand that there is a lot of politics in science? Grants, careers at stake.

Of course. I’m not complacent. See my point about pharma, or did you skim read that because it didn’t fit with your narrative.

However this is not the argument, it’s deflection, and I say again, I’ll take extensive research over opinion. You have to, logically. I’d say there’s more margin for error for society if I just listened to you. Surely you can see that.

Otherwise how would anyone do anything. You can’t live life by the mantra ‘I didn’t see that so I don’t believe it happened’ - You can only go on what you’ve got in front of you.

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert a moderator to this post

SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 14 Feb 18 8.53pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays The state isn't implicated in the traditional family model. It does not have to intervene for them to happen and didn't have to change the law either..... It has in alternative family types where it enables an powerless child to be introduced.... it itself has enabled that. I fundamentally disagree with you here. The state does already try....via social work, to avoid some of the most obvious and worse examples of dysfunction....but it's a very difficult job and disastrous when they get it wrong in either direction. But I say again, the state isn't responsible for enabling that dysfunctionality to have occurred in the first place. Edited by Stirlingsays (14 Feb 2018 8.44pm) I see your point here but really you’re debating ‘what is nature/natural’ according to your point of view rather than what is dysfunctional according to fact. There is more evidence (currently) to say same sex parenting not dysfunctional. To say otherwise just isn’t true. Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.
Alert a moderator to this post

SW19 CPFC

Addiscombe West 14 Feb 18 8.53pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

But I say again, the state isn't responsible for enabling that dysfunctionality to have occurred in the first place.

Edited by Stirlingsays (14 Feb 2018 8.44pm)

I see your point here but really you’re debating ‘what is nature/natural’ according to your point of view rather than what is dysfunctional according to fact. There is more evidence (currently) to say same sex parenting not dysfunctional. To say otherwise just isn’t true.

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 14 Feb 18 8.57pm
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC Of course. I’m not complacent. See my point about pharma, or did you skim read that because it didn’t fit with your narrative. However this is not the argument, it’s deflection, and I say again, I’ll take extensive research over opinion. You have to, logically. I’d say there’s more margin for error for society if I just listened to you. Surely you can see that. Otherwise how would anyone do anything. You can’t live life by the mantra ‘I didn’t see that so I don’t believe it happened’ - You can only go on what you’ve got in front of you. It's not about me. It's about the validity of research dealing with psychology and your obvious eagerness to defend minority rights at all costs. I'm stating an opinion based on personal experience which I trust more than a lot of so called scientists trying to get grants by sticking to the party line. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (14 Feb 2018 8.57pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

14 Feb 18 8.57pm

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

Of course. I’m not complacent. See my point about pharma, or did you skim read that because it didn’t fit with your narrative.

However this is not the argument, it’s deflection, and I say again, I’ll take extensive research over opinion. You have to, logically. I’d say there’s more margin for error for society if I just listened to you. Surely you can see that.

Otherwise how would anyone do anything. You can’t live life by the mantra ‘I didn’t see that so I don’t believe it happened’ - You can only go on what you’ve got in front of you.

It's not about me. It's about the validity of research dealing with psychology and your obvious eagerness to defend minority rights at all costs.

I'm stating an opinion based on personal experience which I trust more than a lot of so called scientists trying to get grants by sticking to the party line.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (14 Feb 2018 8.57pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 14 Feb 18 9.06pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger It's not about me. It's about the validity of research dealing with psychology and your obvious eagerness to defend minority rights at all costs. I'm stating an opinion based on personal experience which I trust more than a lot of so called scientists trying to get grants by sticking to the party line. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (14 Feb 2018 8.57pm) I’m defending objectivity first, minorities second. Opinion and personal experience (especially with the amount of inherent bias you have revealed during this exchange) come a poor second to the admittedly not perfect, but far more credible scientific, peer reviewed process. You appear to have a problem with policy politics, the left and authority, that’s fine. But don’t try to dress it up and make it sound like fact and knowledge on this subject. Defer to others more qualified than you. You have a right to an opinion but in the context of what exists on this subject already it’s not credible. That’s a fact. Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.
Alert a moderator to this post

SW19 CPFC

Addiscombe West 14 Feb 18 9.06pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

It's not about me. It's about the validity of research dealing with psychology and your obvious eagerness to defend minority rights at all costs.

I'm stating an opinion based on personal experience which I trust more than a lot of so called scientists trying to get grants by sticking to the party line.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (14 Feb 2018 8.57pm)

I’m defending objectivity first, minorities second.

Opinion and personal experience (especially with the amount of inherent bias you have revealed during this exchange) come a poor second to the admittedly not perfect, but far more credible scientific, peer reviewed process.

You appear to have a problem with policy politics, the left and authority, that’s fine. But don’t try to dress it up and make it sound like fact and knowledge on this subject. Defer to others more qualified than you. You have a right to an opinion but in the context of what exists on this subject already it’s not credible. That’s a fact.

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 14 Feb 18 9.11pm
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC I’m defending objectivity first, minorities second. Opinion and personal experience (especially with the amount of inherent bias you have revealed during this exchange) come a poor second to the admittedly not perfect, but far more credible scientific, peer reviewed process. You appear to have a problem with policy politics, the left and authority, that’s fine. But don’t try to dress it up and make it sound like fact and knowledge on this subject. Defer to others more qualified than you. You have a right to an opinion but in the context of what exists on this subject already it’s not credible. That’s a fact. Most psychology is far from factual dear boy. It is about observation and the opinions of individuals based on them.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

14 Feb 18 9.11pm

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

I’m defending objectivity first, minorities second.

Most psychology is far from factual dear boy. It is about observation and the opinions of individuals based on them.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 14 Feb 18 9.13pm
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC I see your point here but really you’re debating ‘what is nature/natural’ according to your point of view rather than what is dysfunctional according to fact. There is more evidence (currently) to say same sex parenting not dysfunctional. To say otherwise just isn’t true. There are no known facts here.....to talk of truth isn't really appropriate. We can talk about the traditional family structure because the data is there. In our law there is only what is currently allowed and what isn't.....At the moment the social constructionists have their way......I believe social constructionism is a poor way to structure society. Human nature should not be made to fit boxes (outside of the physical protection of others) I'm pointing out the potential flaws with current thoughts in this area....But I have made exceptions.....the argument that a good family is a good family has power. But I'm not willing to concede this idea that you can potentially block out the opposite sex and it has no ill effects. I don't believe this is provable science and I think the suggestion that this is proven are not based upon solid ground. These would be court based judgements based upon access to both yin and yang.....just my opinion. Edited by Stirlingsays (14 Feb 2018 9.18pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

14 Feb 18 9.13pm

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

There are no known facts here.....to talk of truth isn't really appropriate. We can talk about the traditional family structure because the data is there.

In our law there is only what is currently allowed and what isn't.....At the moment the social constructionists have their way......I believe social constructionism is a poor way to structure society. Human nature should not be made to fit boxes (outside of the physical protection of others)

I'm pointing out the potential flaws with current thoughts in this area....But I have made exceptions.....the argument that a good family is a good family has power.

But I'm not willing to concede this idea that you can potentially block out the opposite sex and it has no ill effects.

I don't believe this is provable science and I think the suggestion that this is proven are not based upon solid ground.

These would be court based judgements based upon access to both yin and yang.....just my opinion.

Edited by Stirlingsays (14 Feb 2018 9.18pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 14 Feb 18 9.18pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Ok, let me 'unpack' this....as you have a love of annoying trendy words. Your contention that my opinion is 'prejudiced' is subjective and there is nothing against me stating that your opinion is also 'prejudiced' towards believing these situations can cause no issues. My opinion isn't based on 'feel' as it's based upon thousands of years of human family structure. Your contention is based upon 'feel' as there are no studies with large enough sample sizes that have run for enough time that can make definite summaries without the smell of social constructionists with agenda behind them. Don't suggest that studies are available to prove anything on this. All you can point to are activists and activist organisations with opinions. Like I have said, when society decides to create its own form of families.....then...when it goes wrong society itself is implicated.....or more accurately social constructionists are. Edited by Stirlingsays (14 Feb 2018 8.38pm) Haha. ‘Trendy’. The word predjudice(d) has been around for a while. Not proof. Theory, and the only available evidence. You’re right, more research always improves accuracy, but its indisputably more valid than your biased uninformed hunch. ‘Thousands of years of family structure’ I don’t know where to start. Is that your attempt at research? Actually crying tears of frustration at the ineptitude of you two and your constant ability to continually contradict yourselves whilst revealing the actual slightly more disturbing truth to the basis of your arguments during this exchange. Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.
Alert a moderator to this post

SW19 CPFC

Addiscombe West 14 Feb 18 9.18pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Ok, let me 'unpack' this....as you have a love of annoying trendy words.

Your contention that my opinion is 'prejudiced' is subjective and there is nothing against me stating that your opinion is also 'prejudiced' towards believing these situations can cause no issues.

My opinion isn't based on 'feel' as it's based upon thousands of years of human family structure. Your contention is based upon 'feel' as there are no studies with large enough sample sizes that have run for enough time that can make definite summaries without the smell of social constructionists with agenda behind them.

Don't suggest that studies are available to prove anything on this. All you can point to are activists and activist organisations with opinions.

Like I have said, when society decides to create its own form of families.....then...when it goes wrong society itself is implicated.....or more accurately social constructionists are.

Edited by Stirlingsays (14 Feb 2018 8.38pm)

Haha. ‘Trendy’. The word predjudice(d) has been around for a while.

Not proof. Theory, and the only available evidence. You’re right, more research always improves accuracy, but its indisputably more valid than your biased uninformed hunch.

‘Thousands of years of family structure’

I don’t know where to start. Is that your attempt at research? Actually crying tears of frustration at the ineptitude of you two and your constant ability to continually contradict yourselves whilst revealing the actual slightly more disturbing truth to the basis of your arguments during this exchange.

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert a moderator to this post

SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 14 Feb 18 9.23pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays There are no known facts here.....to talk of truth isn't really appropriate. We can talk about the traditional family structure because the data is there. In our law there is only what is currently allowed and what isn't.....At the moment the social constructionists have their way......I believe social constructionism is a poor way to structure society. Human nature should not be made to fit boxes (outside of the physical protection of others) I'm pointing out the potential flaws with current thoughts in this area....But I have made exceptions.....the argument that a good family is a good family has power. But I'm not willing to concede this idea that you can potentially block out the opposite sex and it has no ill effects. I don't believe this is provable science and I think the suggestion that this is proven are not based upon solid ground. These would be court based judgements based upon access to both yin and yang.....just my opinion. Edited by Stirlingsays (14 Feb 2018 9.18pm) Fair enough, that’s your opinion, but ignorance is not bliss. Or a defence. And I hate to point out yet another slip here, but you can’t say ‘human nature should not be made to fit boxes’ then propose a box by banning same sex parenting. Haha. I mean really. Do you realise what you’re saying? You’re tip toeing around it but your argument is based on your perception of what is natural not what IS natural. Very different things. And slightly disturbing. Edited by SW19 CPFC (14 Feb 2018 9.24pm) Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.
Alert a moderator to this post

SW19 CPFC

Addiscombe West 14 Feb 18 9.23pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

There are no known facts here.....to talk of truth isn't really appropriate. We can talk about the traditional family structure because the data is there.

I'm pointing out the potential flaws with current thoughts in this area....But I have made exceptions.....the argument that a good family is a good family has power.

But I'm not willing to concede this idea that you can potentially block out the opposite sex and it has no ill effects.

I don't believe this is provable science and I think the suggestion that this is proven are not based upon solid ground.

These would be court based judgements based upon access to both yin and yang.....just my opinion.

Edited by Stirlingsays (14 Feb 2018 9.18pm)

Fair enough, that’s your opinion, but ignorance is not bliss. Or a defence.

And I hate to point out yet another slip here, but you can’t say ‘human nature should not be made to fit boxes’ then propose a box by banning same sex parenting. Haha. I mean really. Do you realise what you’re saying?

You’re tip toeing around it but your argument is based on your perception of what is natural not what IS natural.

Very different things. And slightly disturbing.

Edited by SW19 CPFC (14 Feb 2018 9.24pm)

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 5 of 10 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Tom Daley announces baby

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors