You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Tom Daley announces baby
March 19 2024 8.44am

Tom Daley announces baby

Previous Topic | Next Topic


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

 

View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 14 Feb 18 9.32pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC


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

I was actually referencing your usage of 'check yourself' from your earlier response.....so last year.

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

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.

I've yet to see any scientific data that really analyses this area....As stated there isn't enough time nor sample size.....lets not even broach the fact that it's playing 'social theory' with real lives.

For myself I taught in secondary schools and I know what the nature of teenagers are.....so I have my suspicions on the real world affects of this in at least one area......homosexual families are not common....anything out of the ordinary to that extent isn't going to be great in a number of situations growing up.

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

‘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.

Mmmm...your research amounted to a Google search.....I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on.

As for your waffle implying motives and ineptitude. I could fire that straight back at you and have exactly the same relevance.

Not worthy of consideration on the actual issue.....but a typical tactic of those with weak arguments.

 


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

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 14 Feb 18 9.42pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

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

Emotional waffle.

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

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 thinking that's a gotcha is weak logic I'm afraid.

A homosexual relationship can't produce children. Science has to provide it for them. Hence what I am, rather poorly stating, is that the 'box' is society's social constructionism changing the natural results of nature.

Basically it's the point that nature making you a homosexual was a kind of hint that you aren't designed to have children.....not particularly fair but life isn't.

Society is providing the means to enable it......Now I'm not against science improving lives...for the obvious example medicine... but this to me is science being used for social constructionism.....not to cure you of illness.

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

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)

I never tip toe darling.....stop showing your prejudices.

But you have a point that my objections....to the extent they are objections is partly connected to nature and my disquiet at the over confidence of social constructionists......frankly....to play your game. I find your faith in them disquieting....you must have some interior motive...oh my.

Oh please.

 


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

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View SW19 CPFC's Profile SW19 CPFC Flag Addiscombe West 14 Feb 18 9.45pm Send a Private Message to SW19 CPFC Add SW19 CPFC as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Mmmm...your research amounted to a Google search.....I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on.

As for your waffle implying motives and ineptitude. I could fire that straight back at you and have exactly the same relevance.

Not worthy of consideration on the actual issue.....but a typical tactic of those with weak arguments.

Disagree. You’re misrepresenting the point of the google search. I’m not quoting my research. I’m quoting that of others far more qualified than your anecdotal POV. That’s different, it’s harder to discredit controlled, scientific rigour, albeit with a limited sample size. It is easy to discredit agenda, opinion and emotive subjectivity.

I’d love to dive into this in more detail, and I’d love nothing more than someone to just please put forward a credible counter argument rather than anecdote and hearsay. But the irony of your google search snipe is that in five seconds I’ve produced more credible reading material that supports my objective stance. That was kind of the point. Do some reading. You might surprise yourself. Being open to change is ok.

And the effect on kids at school is therefore a societal issue not a problem with the adoption/surrogacy in the first place, which is kind of the point of this argument.

 


Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View SW19 CPFC's Profile SW19 CPFC Flag Addiscombe West 14 Feb 18 9.53pm Send a Private Message to SW19 CPFC Add SW19 CPFC as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I never tip toe darling.....stop showing your prejudices.

But you have a point that my objections....to the extent they are objections is partly connected to nature and my disquiet at the over confidence of social constructionists......frankly....to play your game. I find your faith in them disquieting....you must have some interior motive...oh my.

Oh please. [/quote

Your first sentence is a little immature.

I know I have a point, it’s obvious from how you’re coming at this. And annoying because you’re dragging opinion into this.

I don’t care for social constructivism. I care about equal rights.

If huge amounts of qualified research came out in 50 years time that said same sex parenting was significantly detrimental to society and children, then you have a case, and I’d be right behind you. I follow the evidence, not assumptions.

But it currently doesn’t, and therefore you don’t. You’re just left with unqualified opinion. So by all means harbour it, but don’t put it forward like it carries any significant weight.

 


Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 14 Feb 18 9.53pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

Disagree. You’re misrepresenting the point of the google search. I’m not quoting my research. I’m quoting that of others far more qualified than your anecdotal POV. That’s different, it’s harder to discredit controlled, scientific rigour, albeit with a limited sample size. It is easy to discredit agenda, opinion and emotive subjectivity.

I’d love to dive into this in more detail, and I’d love nothing more than someone to just please put forward a credible counter argument rather than anecdote and hearsay. But the irony of your google search snipe is that in five seconds I’ve produced more credible reading material that supports my objective stance. That was kind of the point. Do some reading. You might surprise yourself. Being open to change is ok.

And the effect on kids at school is therefore a societal issue not a problem with the adoption/surrogacy in the first place, which is kind of the point of this argument.

You produced nothing yet feel happy to claim you produced something.

It's silly to criticize 'anecdote and hearsay' yet big up a google search.

I think you are emotionally attached to the points raised which produces a willingness to diminish what you don't like and highlight what you do.

I think it's worthy of criticism because essentially you've proven you are willing to play social theory with babies.

I support court overview.

 


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

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 14 Feb 18 9.56pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

And the effect on kids at school is therefore a societal issue not a problem with the adoption/surrogacy in the first place, which is kind of the point of this argument.

Sorry, it is risible to divorce the two. One is a consequence of the other.

Again, a obvious case of you being willing to diminish possible negatives because...possibly you are emotionally invested.

But I'm playing your game there....must stop doing that.

Edited by Stirlingsays (14 Feb 2018 9.57pm)

 


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

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View SW19 CPFC's Profile SW19 CPFC Flag Addiscombe West 14 Feb 18 9.58pm Send a Private Message to SW19 CPFC Add SW19 CPFC as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

You produced nothing yet feel happy to claim you produced something.

It's silly to criticize 'anecdote and hearsay' yet big up a google search.

I think you are emotionally attached to the points raised which produces a willingness to diminish what you don't like and highlight what you do.

I think it's worthy of criticism because essentially you've proven you are willing to play social theory with babies.

I support court overview.

That’s great to hear, because that court would (for this arguments sake) take the research papers I found in 5 seconds more seriously than your own, unqualified point of view.

Social theory is defined by people more qualified than you an I, and I’d rather listen to them to inform my own opinions. That’s the difference.

 


Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 14 Feb 18 10.03pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

I don’t care for social constructivism. I care about equal rights.

If huge amounts of qualified research came out in 50 years time that said same sex parenting was significantly detrimental to society and children, then you have a case, and I’d be right behind you. I follow the evidence, not assumptions.

But it currently doesn’t, and therefore you don’t. You’re just left with unqualified opinion. So by all means harbour it, but don’t put it forward like it carries any significant weight.

You obviously do care for social constructionivism because you are willing to play 'social theory' with the lives of powerless babies being introduced into a new family construct.

You are willing to risk the possibility that this is in fact a worse family construct all based upon your 'feels' that the data would be fine......yeah hell, do it for thirty years....lets find out. No bias in that logic is there.

That's playing with people's lives to gain data.

I make exceptions to the situations where both sexes are apart of an upbringing. What I do take exception to is this idea that for 'equality' you support the possibility that one sex can exclusively raise a baby with society's unconcerned support.

Edited by Stirlingsays (14 Feb 2018 10.04pm)

 


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

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 14 Feb 18 10.07pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

That’s great to hear, because that court would (for this arguments sake) take the research papers I found in 5 seconds more seriously than your own, unqualified point of view.

Social theory is defined by people more qualified than you an I, and I’d rather listen to them to inform my own opinions. That’s the difference.

You found nothing. State the findings you are so sure of. Stop claiming you have done something.

Nope, a court would be tasked with ensuring that a child was reared with both sexes as an influence.

It would...in effect, be a safe guarding measure as I'm sure many gay couples who were serious would want to ensure this anyway.

 


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

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View SW19 CPFC's Profile SW19 CPFC Flag Addiscombe West 14 Feb 18 10.09pm Send a Private Message to SW19 CPFC Add SW19 CPFC as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Sorry, it is risible to divorce the two. One is a consequence of the other.

Again, a obvious case of you being willing to diminish possible negatives because...possibly you are emotionally invested.

But I'm playing your game there....must stop doing that.

Edited by Stirlingsays (14 Feb 2018 9.57pm)

Stay objective, rather than venturing off track.

It’s is far from risable - just because something can create social backlash doesn’t mean it should not be challenged. See history.

I also never categorically said there are no negatives. It’s just clear that there are no significant ones based on what we know at this moment in time. To claim otherwise is simply wrong,

For the record I am in no way emotionally invested, if anything I’m socially perfect for your template. White, hetrosexual, married, middle class, 2.4 children etc. I just like to challenge people when it’s obvious they don’t have anything behind their opinions other than hearsay and ‘life experience’. Especially when perpetuating that narrative can be very damaging for in this case an often persecuted minority of people, and their children. The irony here is that if you impress this on others it actually does more harm to the children involved. Think about that.

There is no game here. Only objectivity.

 


Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View SW19 CPFC's Profile SW19 CPFC Flag Addiscombe West 14 Feb 18 10.14pm Send a Private Message to SW19 CPFC Add SW19 CPFC as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

You found nothing. State the findings you are so sure of. Stop claiming you have done something.

Nope, a court would be tasked with ensuring that a child was reared with both sexes as an influence.

It would...in effect, be a safe guarding measure as I'm sure many gay couples who were serious would want to ensure this anyway.

Define ‘done’.

I’ve not done anything. Just pointed you in the direction of some actual reading on the subject to hopefully give you a more balanced and less biased point of view. I won’t hold your hand, but I would suggest that there’s a lot more to be found.

Oh and if you do find significant comparable research that suggests otherwise, do please feel free to post it. I’m all ears. Difference is I’ll be fully prepared to change my stance. Because actually it appears that I’m not the one that’s emotionally invested.

 


Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 14 Feb 18 10.15pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

Stay objective, rather than venturing off track.

It’s is far from risable - just because something can create social backlash doesn’t mean it should not be challenged. See history.

I also never categorically said there are no negatives. It’s just clear that there are no significant ones based on what we know at this moment in time. To claim otherwise is simply wrong,

For the record I am in no way emotionally invested, if anything I’m socially perfect for your template. White, hetrosexual, married, middle class, 2.4 children etc. I just like to challenge people when it’s obvious they don’t have anything behind their opinions other than hearsay and ‘life experience’. Especially when perpetuating that narrative can be very damaging for in this case an often persecuted minority of people, and their children. The irony here is that if you impress this on others it actually does more harm to the children involved. Think about that.

There is no game here. Only objectivity.


You aren't objective, I've seen that in your arguments.

Whether or not something creates backlash and 'should' be challenged doesn't divorce it as a known negative of a course of action.

You denied that it was connected.....Wooosh....that was your objectivity sprinting over the hill old boy.

As for your description of yourself....how can I put this politely....I don't believe you.

But I might be wrong...and fundamentally on the arguments it doesn't matter anyway.

You can have the last word....I have some ham slices to finish up.

 


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

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

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

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Tom Daley announces baby