Christians who don't make my skin crawl!

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

When someone repeatedly refuses to answer a question it is perfectly reasonable to question their motives and, of course, the person challenged can set the matter straight by answering the question and addressing the challenge.

You failed to do that - it was a bit look that famous interview between Michael Howard and Jeremy Paxman.

I didn't answer the question because I considered it irrelevant as I stated in the thread - since the thread was about Robertson's concerns about children being indoctrinated in classrooms to a particular view on LGBT. You can question my motives all you like for not answering a question. "Shame on you" doesn't sound like a question though.

I just think it is hypocritical for you to lecture other posters about making assumptions, given your track record.

[ProfessorDavey]

I didn't answer the question because I considered it irrelevant as I stated in the thread - since the thread was about Robertson's concerns about children being indoctrinated in classrooms to a particular view on LGBT. You can question my motives all you like for not answering a question. "Shame on you" doesn't sound like a question though.

You are correct 'shame on you' isn't a question but a comment on your refusal to address a direct question, despite being asked to (by more than one poster in a variety of ways) on perhaps half a dozen separate occasions.

It is perfectly reasonable to challenge posters on both the views they express but also on their failure to address direct questions. You point about irrelevant is total non-sense - I was asking a direct question that related to discriminatory behaviour in the class room using as an example a different protected characterstic (also protected in law) simply to check whether your attitudes were only to sexuality (in this case LGBT) as protected characteristic, but not to gender (women in my example) as a protected characteristic.

It was completely relevant to the issue of discrimination and protection of people on the basis of protected characteristics in the classroom.

It is, of course, a classic tactic to close down debate and to refuse to address valid point for someone to simply claim they are irrelevant. So what if you think they are irrelevant - have the guts to answer the question. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You are correct 'shame on you' isn't a question but a comment on your refusal to address a direct question, despite being asked to (by more than one poster in a variety of ways) on perhaps half a dozen separate occasions.

It is perfectly reasonable to challenge posters on both the views they express but also on their failure to address direct questions. You point about irrelevant is total non-sense - I was asking a direct question that related to discriminatory behaviour in the class room using as an example a different protected characterstic (also protected in law) simply to check whether your attitudes were only to sexuality (in this case LGBT) as protected characteristic, but not to gender (women in my example) as a protected characteristic.

It was completely relevant to the issue of discrimination and protection of people on the basis of protected characteristics in the classroom.

It is, of course, a classic tactic to close down debate and to refuse to address valid point for someone to simply claim they are irrelevant. So what if you think they are irrelevant - have the guts to answer the question.

i think you’re lying. I think “Shame on you” is a comment based on your assumption about my double standards and your assumption that I was ok with lessons in schools that discriminate against LGBT.

Robertson was not trying to have children taught that LGBT people were inferior. He was expressing concern about whether they were going to be indoctrinated into a particular political view on LGBT because of the material in the lessons they were proposing to introduce. And my posts were supporting his right to air his concerns about indoctrination when he was interviewed. I don’t need to answer an irrelevant question about my views on lessons being taught stating women were inferior  - given we were discussing Robertson’s concerns about indoctrination in proposed LGBT lessons.

So shame on you for being a liar and a hypocrite. Yes I am making assumptions - just like you.

[ProfessorDavey]

i think you’re lying. I think “Shame on you” is a comment based on your assumption about my double standards and your assumption that I was ok with lessons in schools that discriminate against LGBT.

And there was me thinking you had a problem with people jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about people's motives when they are posting comments.

Pot-kettle.

Frankly this discussion is simply going round in circles and getting no-where. I suggest time for us to stop the tit for tat and allow others to draw their own conclusion as to whether you are a serious offender in resorting to pointless anecdote in discussions (my claim) or that I am a serial offender in jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about people (your claim).

Or indeed that we are both guilty as charged or both innocent.

[ProfessorDavey]

Robertson was not trying to have children taught that LGBT people were inferior. He was expressing concern about whether they were going to be indoctrinated into a particular political view on LGBT because of the material in the lessons they were proposing to introduce. And my posts were supporting his right to air his concerns about indoctrination when he was interviewed.

Which was precisely why I asked you for your position on an analagous situation, where everything is identical except for the nature of the protected characteristic - women/gender rather than LGBT/sexuality.

Perfectly relevant to the discussion - yet you refused to answer.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

You are correct 'shame on you' isn't a question but a comment on your refusal to address a direct question, despite being asked to (by more than one poster in a variety of ways) on perhaps half a dozen separate occasions.

FYI, I've given up trying.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

And there was me thinking you had a problem with people jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about people's motives when they are posting comments.

Pot-kettle.

Frankly this discussion is simply going round in circles and getting no-where. I suggest time for us to stop the tit for tat and allow others to draw their own conclusion as to whether you are a serious offender in resorting to pointless anecdote in discussions (my claim) or that I am a serial offender in jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about people (your claim).

Or indeed that we are both guilty as charged or both innocent.

I don’t have a problem with you or anyone else making assumptions as I clearly stated. I think it happens regularly on this forum along with people, including you, posting anecdotes. My point was that you were pulling someone else up on making assumptions when you do it yourself.

Yes fine we can leave it there.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don’t have a problem with you or anyone else making assumptions as I clearly stated. I think it happens regularly on this forum along with people, including you, posting anecdotes. My point was that you were pulling someone else up on making assumptions when you do it yourself.

In your opinion - other opinions are available.

Yes fine we can leave it there.

Agreed

[ProfessorDavey]

Prof,

FYI, I've given up trying.

Indeed - it is rather exhausting.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Which was precisely why I asked you for your position on an analagous situation, where everything is identical except for the nature of the protected characteristic - women/gender rather than LGBT/sexuality.

Perfectly relevant to the discussion - yet you refused to answer.

No - what would have been analogous is if you asked me if I would support the right of Robertson to air their concerns about children being indoctrinated into a particular view about women.

[ProfessorDavey]

No - what would have been analogous is if you asked me if I would support the right of Robertson to air their concerns about children being indoctrinated into a particular view about women.

The view being that women and men should be treated equally.

And the use of the term indoctrination is pejorative in this case. Would you consider 'indoctrination' to be the correct term in the context of children being taught that boys and girls (and men and women) should be treated equally.

So simply by using the term you (or is it this person Robertson) is demonstrating a fundamental bias.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The view being that women and men should be treated equally.

And the use of the term indoctrination is pejorative in this case. Would you consider 'indoctrination' to be the correct term in the context of children being taught that boys and girls (and men and women) should be treated equally.

So simply by using the term you (or is it this person Robertson) is demonstrating a fundamental bias.

Davey - I have to ask - are you even a professor, given your tendency to dodge the point and your tenuous grasp of reading posts, not to mention how you quick you are to make erroneous assumptions. 

Are we really going to argue the Robertson issue on this thread now? We have established that Robertson was not asking for the government to teach primary school children in classrooms that LGBT are inferior.

What he did say, when asked for comments in an interview, was that he did not think primary school children needed to be taught about LGBT - a view I disagree with but I do support his right to air his concerns about what they were going to be taught in classrooms - facts or beliefs.

By challenging Robertson's use of the word "indoctrination", are you saying that it is not possible for LGBT pressure groups to indoctrinate primary school children into a particular belief - are you arguing that LGBT groups have a better moral compass than everyone else and therefore will ensure that they are not biased towards a particular belief?

Also, can you please quote where he said he thought it was indoctrination to teach primary school children that everyone is equal.

Teaching about sex is a sensitive subject when it comes to primary school children - different parents have different assessments about when their individual children feel ready to have these discussions. Talking about sex is not the same as talking about boys and girls or men and women in terms of gender. Sex does not have to be mentioned in gender conversations and a child is aware of gender from a very young age, but is not necessarily aware of sexual activity. Robertson also made it clear that schools should act against bullying. That does not mean it takes away a parent's concerns and responsibility to do what is best for their own primary school age child by assessing their own child and finding an appropriate way at the appropriate age for their individual child to talk about sex in a way that is not distressing for their child.

Robertson's point was that the rights of the minority LGBT community do not trump the rights of the majority of straight primary school age children to have their needs met to have a conversation about sex at an age and in a way that is appropriate for each individual child. And he wanted to look at ways to protect children from bullying and mental health issues and drugs, rather than narrow the focus onto LGBT issues at primary school, given the tiny minority of children who are affected by LGBT.

So how is your repeated question to me about whether I would be ok for children to be taught that women are inferior an analogy of the situation? Bit dishonest of you to dodge answering that question.

I note that you did not disagree that an analogy would have been if you asked me if I would support the right of Robertson to air his concerns about children being indoctrinated into a particular view about women. If you had asked me that question on the thread I would have answered it. Your stupid irrelevant question on the thread did not merit an answer.

By the way, you said several people asked me the question - who else asked me apart from Ippy - or was that you being misleading again? You seem to have a need to portray that many people agree with you - why is that - are you under the impression if your opinion is popular it must be right, or are you just insecure? 

[SusanDoris]

Gabriella

You ask whether Prof Davey is 'just insecure'. That sounds like projection to me.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Davey - I have to ask - are you even a professor, given your tendency to dodge the point and your tenuous grasp of reading posts, not to mention how you quick you are to make erroneous assumptions.

Wow.

Just wow.

[SusanDoris]

Gabriella,

Wow.

Just wow.

Seconded.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Seconded.

Ra Ra Ra B.L.U H.L.Side. Bluehillside yeeeaaaah!!!!!!!

[Aruntraveller]

I'm having trouble withe whole idea of projection and insecurity when applied to either of the posters involved. The only real quibble I have with Gabriella's post is this:

By challenging Robertson's use of the word "indoctrination", are you saying that it is not possible for LGBT pressure groups to indoctrinate primary school children into a particular belief - are you arguing that LGBT groups have a better moral compass than everyone else and therefore will ensure that they are not biased towards a particular belief?

If you insert religious group for LGBT group where does that leave faith schools? Just wondering.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I'm having trouble withe whole idea of projection and insecurity when applied to either of the posters involved. The only real quibble I have with Gabriella's post is this:

If you insert religious group for LGBT group where does that leave faith schools? Just wondering.

I think it’s possible for UK faith schools to indoctrinate children.

I think it’s really important that there is inspection and regulation of schools. I don’t think faith pressure groups or faith schools have a greater moral compass. They just have different traditions and beliefs - and if traditions and beliefs are part of identity and the security that comes from a shared identity with family members I would support a choice to send children to a faith school that did have values and a culture shared by the family, provided it was adequately regulated. By the time the children become teenagers there is every chance they will question what they have been taught and go onto forge a different/ independent identity.

And just for BHS - an anecdote: I was against sending my children to an independent Muslim faith school partly because the school’s exam results were not as good as a local independent school, but also because I was worried about the risk that they would learn values that were different from our family values. I have contemplated moving my younger daughter from her current independent non-faith school to another one that gets better academic results, but students who joined her current school in Year 7 have said they picked the school because it has a reputation for a kinder school culture whereas the school I thought about making bing her to has a reputation for more cliques, drugs, alcohol-fuelled parties, boyfriends etc but yes, better results. So I decided against moving her.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I think it’s possible for UK faith schools to indoctrinate children.

Do you not think it’s a lot more than “possible”? As primary school children don’t question the instructions of their teachers on matters non-religious, why would they do so when the “facts” happens to be a resurrection, a “prophet” etc that the teacher cannot know to be true?

We can debate the word “indoctrinate”, but it seems to me that that’s essentially what faith schools are for.

I think it’s really important that there is inspection and regulation of schools. I don’t think faith pressure groups or faith schools have a greater moral compass. They just have different traditions and beliefs - and if traditions and beliefs are part of identity and the security that comes from a shared identity with family members I would support a choice to send children to a faith school that did have values and a culture shared by the family, provided it was adequately regulated.

Well yes, inspection is important (and difficult to do sometimes) but that doesn’t help much with some issues. When the law itself for example requires there to be a “daily act of worship” even in secular schools what use would inspection be other than to check that they were actually doing it?

More generally, the shared identity thing is a red herring I think. What if the values are by current standards horrendous – homophobia, murdering cartoonists etc? Isn’t the more important point not the “values” themselves, but rather the notion that they’re inerrantly correct because a god decided on them and they’re written in a book? It’s the closing down of enquiry and skepticism this faith school thinking causes that's the problem I think, not the specific claims themselves.     

By the time the children become teenagers there is every chance they will question what they have been taught and go onto forge a different/ independent identity.

There’s not “every chance” at all. The whole point of getting to children early is that, once embedded, losing these beliefs is far harder to do than would otherwise be the case. That’s why the main religions invest so much time and effort precisely in doing it – it’s the “give me the child until he’s seven & I’ll give you the man” thing again. We all have anecdotes(!) about people who ditch their childhood faiths, but the correlation between Christian-schooled staying Christians, Muslim-schooled staying Muslims etc is substantial. By contrast, joining (or changing) religions in later life is relatively unusual.     

And just for BHS - an anecdote: I was against sending my children to an independent Muslim faith school partly because the school’s exam results were not as good as a local independent school, but also because I was worried about the risk that they would learn values that were different from our family values. I have contemplated moving my younger daughter from her current independent non-faith school to another one that gets better academic results, but students who joined her current school in Year 7 have said they picked the school because it has a reputation for a kinder school culture whereas the school I thought about making bing her to has a reputation for more cliques, drugs, alcohol-fuelled parties, boyfriends etc but yes, better results. So I decided against moving her.

There’s nothing wrong with anecdotes provided they’re treated as such. The criticism came from using them as arguments – “some children in the class had flu, my child went to school and didn’t catch flu, therefore flu isn’t contagious” type of thing.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Do you not think it’s a lot more than “possible”? As primary school children don’t question the instructions of their teachers on matters non-religious, why would they do so when the “facts” happens to be a resurrection, a “prophet” etc that the teacher cannot know to be true?

We can debate the word “indoctrinate”, but it seems to me that that’s essentially what faith schools are for.

Well yes, inspection is important (and difficult to do sometimes) but that doesn’t help much with some issues. When the law itself for example requires there to be a “daily act of worship” even in secular schools what use would inspection be other than to check that they were actually doing it?

More generally, the shared identity thing is a red herring I think. What if the values are by current standards horrendous – homophobia, murdering cartoonists etc? Isn’t the more important point not the “values” themselves, but rather the notion that they’re inerrantly correct because a god decided on them and they’re written in a book? It’s the closing down of enquiry and skepticism this faith school thinking causes that's the problem I think, not the specific claims themselves.     

There’s not “every chance” at all. The whole point of getting to children early is that, once embedded, losing these beliefs is far harder to do than would otherwise be the case. That’s why the main religions invest so much time and effort precisely in doing it – it’s the “give me the child until he’s seven & I’ll give you the man” thing again. We all have anecdotes(!) about people who ditch their childhood faiths, but the correlation between Christian-schooled staying Christians, Muslim-schooled staying Muslims etc is substantial. By contrast, joining (or changing) religions in later life is relatively unusual.     

There’s nothing wrong with anecdotes provided they’re treated as such. The criticism came from using them as arguments – “some children in the class had flu, my child went to school and didn’t catch flu, therefore flu isn’t contagious” type of thing.

A person who provides no evidence or data to support his generalisations and assertions is unlikely to be taken seriously when he tries to criticise other people’s arguments.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

A person who provides no evidence or data to support his generalisations and assertions is unlikely to be taken seriously when he tries to criticise other people’s arguments.

What about a person who when given evidence or data then endlessly redefines the question to mean something else so as to avoid the consequences? 

[SteveH]

Davey - I have to ask - are you even a professor, given your tendency to dodge the point and your tenuous grasp of reading posts, not to mention how you quick you are to make erroneous assumptions. 

Maybe he's this kind of professor.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Ra Ra Ra B.L.U H.L.Side. Bluehillside yeeeaaaah!!!!!!!

Yes - Susan and BHS do have a cute little love fest going. I’m touched to be the one that brings them together. Must be a great feeling having Susan cheering  “Go Blue go!!” from the sidelines.

[SusanDoris]

Yes - Susan and BHS do have a cute little love fest going. I’m touched to be the one that brings them together. Must be a great feeling having Susan cheering  “Go Blue go!!” from the sidelines.

Yuk. That's not even remotey amusing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes - Susan and BHS do have a cute little love fest going. I’m touched to be the one that brings them together. Must be a great feeling having Susan cheering  “Go Blue go!!” from the sidelines.

I'm. Afraid cheerleading gets my goat.
Having said that . Go Gabriella Go Go Go!!!