Play Nice Society, Religion & Politics Thread

[mtooler]

Not my theory but that of clincal pyschologists and genetiic researchers. I simply read and absorb. But you want enlightenment then I'll give you that and it's anything but hilarious. There has been debate ever since the 1930s originally postulated in the Mead study of PNG tribes as to derivation of behaviour whether learned or genetic. That debate has raged ever since. Framed as nature v nurture. Geneticists on one side and pyschologists the other. Pyschologists would have you believe that Mead was sacrosanct and virtually all behaviour is learned. But if you read the critiques as i have you will understand that Meads study had it's limitations which influenced it's conclusions. More recently in a 2012 study by Qld brain institute the largest study ever done of world wide twins studies since 1950s resolved and tabulated the answer definitively. All behaviour derives 49% from it's genetic roots and 51% by environmental or learned behaviour being things you encounter by experience from sources such as family. So in a sense it's a mixture of influences

These conclusions allow us to now look closer through genetic analysis to determine how genes influence behaviour and conversely how sociological cultural and familial influences and experiences likewise influence. It is a well known fact that a child who is sexually abused by a pedaphile will have a extremely strong disposition to become a pedaphile and repeat the pattern. The same can be said of domestic abuse of children- the patterns repeat when child becomes adult. That's because experiences become learned behaviour and entrenched.

On the other hand geneticists are making anazing discoveries on genes- a gene that gives predisposition to cheating as one such example. Genes identified to explain the dominant v submissive attraction between all couples heterosexual or not. I'm sure there would be genes in the genome that predispose to same sex attraction likewise.

My point in the articles I read was that same sex families influence children by their behaviours of sexual orientation and those influences and exposure to it rather than insulation from it and creates higher incidence of same sex attraction amongst the children upon becoming adult. It is entirely consistent with the model we now know of how behaviour evolves.

So true, but due to political correctness, not allowed to speak the truth as it conflicts other peoples worldviews and narratives. Similar conclusions drawn in criminology.

 

[mtooler]

I studied contract law in my university BCom course. offer, acceptance and consideration and you have a contract. They are the only 3 requirements. Not problematic at all. The only remedies for breach are damages and specific performance. Conditions precedent and conditions subsequent and that's contract law encapsulated.

You're right, studied law myself contract law was my specialisation. Offer, acceptance and valuable consideration three components of a contract. Invitation to treat is best thought of in the marketing realms. Acknowledged in common law in one case I recall where a shopper sought a large order that couldn't be supplied. Previous posters correctly mentioned that's why there's been changes to rainchecks and limits etc advertised, but I am fairly confident the precedent was found that a business is not required to provide an infinite number of product under the guise it was a contract or invitation to treat. Businesses can decline service for reasonable grounds, it is what constitute reasonable grounds i.e. religious exemptions that will be interesting to see where to from here for Australia. Submissions from yes campaigners are seeking to remove the limited freedom of religion protections that are already in place on the basis that they are discriminatory. As a concept discrimination is not always a bad thing.

 

[BarneyBent]

You're trying to play the argument at the edges. "Some hetero couples can't procreate therefore all couples who can't procreate should be allowed to marry". That's a garbage argument and plays into the thin edge of the wedge game. And it allows the other side to then play the polygamy card.

How so? It’s showing it’s not actually about procreation - it’s about family units that may or may not involve procreation, as evidenced by the number of non-procreating couples who do marry.

Put simply - if you’re happy to include genetically infertile straight couples then there is absolutely no reason, all else being equal, to exclude homosexual couples. None at all. You can handwave it away all you like, but unless you can justify that exclusion with something other than “that’s just how it’s always been” then it’s not a sound argument.

As for polygamy, there are two legitimate reasons I can think of that differentiates it from homosexual marriage.

First, the combining of assets would be extremely complex, as would next of kin rights, etc (who makes the call to take someone off life support, for example), especially when it came to divorce. Pretty close to unworkable to be honest. It would change the way that marriage functions in a very real sense.

Second, there is a history of polygamy being an abusive and misogynist institution. Though they are not by definition abusive, there is a close correlation and much like, for example, teachers sleeping with students (even those over the age of consent), or bosses sleeping with employees, we generally don’t encourage that sort of thing.

That said, I am not necessarily against polyamorous marriage. I’m not convinced it’s workable, but I know a handful of people in poly relationships that are very stable and healthy (and also a few in relationships that are very much not that). Point is, there are very tangible differences between the arguments for and against polygamy and those for and against same sex marriage.

QUOTE="BruceFromBalnarring, post: 54299703, member: 34865"]
Puke got sucked in to trying to summarise the marriage tradition into a simple form of "procreation". It is obviously not that simple and I got sucked into articulating an example as to why it was not that simple.[/quote]

Defending your position is not getting “sucked in”. Don’t try to argue I’ve somehow tricked either of you by asking you to explain yourselves, that’s ridiculous.

QUOTE="BruceFromBalnarring, post: 54299703, member: 34865"]
Family is the foundation stone of society. Families don't work (at least not very well) if there isn't a committed couple at its head. The institution of family is not something to be messed with lightly and whilst I broadly support the right of same sex couples to participate, I'm not without my suspicions as to the motivations some of those who seem suddenly very actively interested in the notion of marriage and families who seemed to be against them previously.[/quote]

Gay people have been on the fringes of society for literally most of society’s existence. Of course they would have been less concerned with marriage and more concerned with, you know, decriminalisation, not getting murdered, etc.

Now, they have achieved a level of acceptance where they can actually have families, raise children, even have biological children! So it only makes sense that they now look to the institution that enshrines and supports those rights and asks that they be allowed to participate. It’s not a conspiracy to destroy marriage, it’s a natural progression of gay rights.

QUOTE="BruceFromBalnarring, post: 54299703, member: 34865"]
Now the reason why the argument is silly is because if natural procreation is a condition, then same sex couples don't meet that condition. That remains a matter of biological fact. Your race argument doesn't apply.[/quote]

Ok, but why would natural procreation be the condition of marriage? Raising children, absolutely. But we don’t need marriage to encourage procreation - humans procreate just fine on their own. We have marriage to support the RESULTS of procreation, natural or otherwise. Yes, tied to procreation. No, doesn’t have to be natural.

And if you’re going to say that’s rubbish and go back to the genetic argument for natural procreation, then I’ll go back to the top of this post - that’s clearly not the case or infertile couples (either genetically infertile or the elderly) would not be able to marry. That’s clearly not the case, so claiming “natural” procreation is necessary is just moving the goalposts to exclude same sex couples. It’s unfair, it’s discriminatory. As you said, marriage is about family, and in this day and age same sex couples are just as capable of having families as straight couples.

QUOTE="BruceFromBalnarring, post: 54299703, member: 34865"]
Now remember, I'm broadly on your side. But what I detest is the representation of those who are not as bigoted. Puke is not.[/QUOTE]

You can detest all you like. To be honest I’m not a big fan of the word “bigot”, it implies something special or unusual about it, but discrimination is anything but unusual. Hell, I have plenty of biases, conscious and unconscious, that I do my best not to let sway my judgement but I know I’m far from perfect in that regard.

But if we want to use the word “bigot” to mean someone who discriminates, he is one, but he’s not a particularly bad one, nor is he unique in that regard, especially not historically. But he holds a position that discriminates against homosexual people, and has failed to justify it with any argument that doesn’t fall apart at the slightest hint of scrutiny.

Does that make him equivalent to a Klan member, or Hitler, or ISIS, or Stalin? Of course not. I’m sure he’s a solid guy, he’s just got a blind spot and it’s problematic.

 

[Number37]

Sorry I didn't answer a facet of your question. There is no 'good' or 'bad' for that matter in heterosexual couples producing same sex kids or hetero ones that is an unnecessary term you use to be emotive. It happens and if statistics are to believed is 3% of population (though I thought was higher). Answer of course is that 49% of behaviour comes from genetics. I certainly believe there is same sex attraction gene. Anecdotal personal experience - I know of one male child predisposed to wear female clothes as young at 3 yo who became gay and likewise a girl who from 3 yo insisted on wearing boys clothes and became lesbian. I do not believe that is coincidence.

The environment in a heterosexual marriage isn't encouraging to same sex attraction because models and experiences are hetero based but gentics will in instances override learned behaviours.

A few posts ago you seemed sure that it was the learned behaviour that was going to make kids raised by same sex couples gay.

So are kids from same sex couples being taught to be gay (learned behaviour) or is it just genetics kicking in?

I will guess your next theory is going to be.....Kids from same sex couples are getting their 'gay gene' triggered by being exposed to such an environment.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

So true, but due to political correctness, not allowed to speak the truth as it conflicts other peoples worldviews and narratives. Similar conclusions drawn in criminology.

I struggle with people who are unable to accept principles which have strong scientific backing for their scientific value. I never make shit up for the sake of it but seems to be one wave after another of people who take varying degrees of offence when I cite things with evidential backing. Sometimes the objective truth value as we understand it is shocking. Suck it up and stop kicking the messenger I say. As for trying to give good or bad connotations to any of it.....omg.

I admit I was surprised to have read the same sex orientation in kids today because I had always felt that gentics has higher stake in that outcome than learned behaviour......but does it? in one of the articles the clinical pyschologist stated in unequivocal terms that 'it's well established that homosexuality is largely environmentally induced behaviour'..... And she dealt mainly with homosexuals!!!!

Imagine had I postulated that? I happen to disagree because for whatever reason pyschologist education always gives higher credence to learned behaviour and nothing to genetics. I don't believe it's that simple and therefore I think she was wrong. But I don't dispute her and others citing repeated clinical data to support the argument of a causal link of some nature. There was even one article from 4 adults who had childhoods in same sex marriages and who now are all same sex orientated one being influenced so profoundly IN HIS words that he became a homosexual prostitute and HE cites ( as they all do) that the origin is their parents.

I'm not going to cower in the face of political correctness or ridicule or abuse. There are answers here and to the extent they can be uncovered I intend to do that because answers interest me

 

[Kummerspeck]

That means you didn't read the article, thought you didn't.

No, I addressed one of its main points and went through the references based on guesswork.

I gave the key statements from my sources and a direct link to the parts that supported my argument. I take it your refusal to do so for a number of posts now along with the "do your own research" means you don't have any evidence for claiming bias. Your personal attack was a poor cover. I'd like you to tone down the aggressiveness.

 

[Kummerspeck]

I admit I was surprised to have read the same sex orientation in kids today because I had always felt that gentics has higher stake in that outcome than learned behaviour......but does it? in one of the articles the clinical pyschologist stated in unequivocal terms that 'it's well established that homosexuality is largely environmentally induced behaviour'..... And she dealt mainly with homosexuals!!!!

Imagine had I postulated that? I happen to disagree because for whatever reason pyschologist education always gives higher credence to learned behaviour and nothing to genetics. I don't believe it's that simple and therefore I think she was wrong. But I don't dispute her and others citing repeated clinical data to support the argument of a causal link of some nature. There was even one article from 4 adults who had childhoods in same sex marriages and who now are all same sex orientated one being influenced so profoundly IN HIS words that he became a homosexual prostitute and HE cites ( as they all do) that the origin is their parents

Links and direct quotes please

 

[BarneyBent]

When you start down a track you really don't know what the effect of that choice will be and can only tell in hindsight. We've thrown out the definition and tradition of marriage that has served us for centuries and was only ever contemplated as being a man and woman.

On my readings today it's pretty clear that the environment of a same sex marriage as place to start a family will dramatically influence sexual orientation for that child. I've already mentioned the adopted chikd syndrome avd the Cinderella effect. Will same sex orientation be as high as 70% as cited on one article I don't know. Not at all surprising really because children model their behaviours on parents. Greater experimentation. More fluid conception of sexuality. Many end up in same sex relationships. How do people view this fact?

When my GFs son first came out as gay to her she embraced him. Quietly she was sad talking to me about it mainly because of what she knew he would endure and because she saw an uncertain path with grandchildren. Enlightened, accepting and supportive but sad.

Having a son or daughter who is same sex oriented doesn't change the love nor should it but let's not kid ourselves ........it's not a path the parent would choose if choices were available. Setting in motion same sex families that produce same sex children by environmental conditioning is also not something you would willingly choose unless of course your own needs outweighed those of your children.

Oh, this is wonderful.

“Let’s not kid ourselves, it's not a path the parent would choose if choices were available.“

Yeah, because they still get discriminated against and told their relationships aren’t worthwhile or equal to heterosexual relationships. The life of a homosexual is difficult precisely because they’re not considered equal in society. You remove that, you remove any reason to be sad about kids being gay.

It’s good though. You’ve finally admitted you see homosexuality as something to be prevented. That explains so much about your position.

 

[mtooler]

I struggle with people who are unable to accept principles which have strong scientific backing for their scientific value. I never make shit up for the sake of it but seems to be one wave after another of people who take varying degrees of offence when I cite things with evidential backing. Sometimes the objective truth value as we understand it is shocking. Suck it up and stop kicking the messenger I say. As for trying to give good or bad connotations to any of it.....omg.

I admit I was surprised to have read the same sex orientation in kids today because I had always felt that gentics has higher stake in that outcome than learned behaviour......but does it? in one of the articles the clinical pyschologist stated in unequivocal terms that 'it's well established that homosexuality is largely environmentally induced behaviour'..... And she dealt mainly with homosexuals!!!!

Imagine had I postulated that? I happen to disagree because for whatever reason pyschologist education always gives higher credence to learned behaviour and nothing to genetics. I don't believe it's that simple and therefore I think she was wrong. But I don't dispute her and others citing repeated clinical data to support the argument of a causal link of some nature. There was even one article from 4 adults who had childhoods in same sex marriages and who now are all same sex orientated one being influenced so profoundly IN HIS words that he became a homosexual prostitute and HE cites ( as they all do) that the origin is their parents.

I'm not going to cower in the face of political correctness or ridicule or abuse. There are answers here and to the extent they can be uncovered I intend to do that because answers interest me

Agree mate, I enjoy your posts as they add substance rather than childish semantics others specialize in.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

A few posts ago you seemed sure that it was the learned behaviour that was going to make kids raised by same sex couples gay.

So are kids from same sex couples being taught to be gay (learned behaviour) or is it just genetics kicking in?

I will guess your next theory is going to be.....Kids from same sex couples are getting their 'gay gene' triggered by being exposed to such an environment.

My view hasn't changed. It's always been my view there is a combination of factors which influence of genetics and learned or environmental. That is how all behaviour evolves to accord what I discussed. if you were to press me I would have said that more likely there is greater genetic influence but that's just personal view. My reading today forces me to conclude that environment takes a higher place than I had ever thought. I find that disturbing because it challenges my preconceived ideas.

I honestly don't give a f if you think I change opinions to suit or not. I have no axe to grind and am only influenced by science. If that states there are no orientation influences then cool. If it says it does influence then I try and gain an understanding so I can place it in context with my existing knowledge

 

[mtooler]

No, I addressed one of its main points and went through the references based on guesswork.

I gave the key statements from my sources and a direct link to the parts that supported my argument. I take it your refusal to do so for a number of posts now along with the "do your own research" means you don't have any evidence for claiming bias. Your personal attack was a poor cover. I'd like you to tone down the aggressiveness.

 

[mtooler]

Links and direct quotes please

 

[Number37]

It seems to have the last half dozen times I've been to Court on the issue but I'm happy to take your advice.

If you've been to court half a dozen times in relation to misleading and deceptive conduct I am not so sure you do understand how that particular section operates.

It is not my advice, I am merely following what the judges in the leading judgment on this issue have stated.

Here's a snippet:

What the section is concerned with is the conduct of a corporation towards persons, be they consumers or not, with whom it (or those whose interests it represents or is seeking to promote) has or may have dealings in the course of those activities or transactions which, of their nature, bear a trading or commercial character.

The key concept is that the activities or transactions in question: "of their nature … bear a trading or commercial character".

And here's a real world example:

ACCC v Scoopon Pty Ltd (QUD 402 of 2013).

Scoopon was also found to have made misleading representations in relation to the price of goods and services sold on its website. These representations were found to have been made in respect of three separate products and generally overstated the type or quantity of goods available at the advertised price.
For example, Scoopon advertised a three-piece set of luggage, stating "3 piece set" and "$155" without any qualifications. The Court held that this representation was misleading because only the smallest piece of the set was available, as a single item, for purchase at the price of $155. The entire three-piece set was available for purchase at the price of $499.

And another example:

Euro Solar and Worldwide Energy and Manufacturing agreed by court order that they had contravened the ACL by displaying false testimonials on their websites and making false or misleading representations as to the country of origin of their goods.

 

[mtooler]

If you've been to court half a dozen times in relation to misleading and deceptive conduct I am not so sure you do understand how that particular section operates.

It is not my advice, I am merely following what the judges in the leading judgment on this issue have stated.

Here's a snippet:





And here's a real world example:

ACCC v Scoopon Pty Ltd (QUD 402 of 2013).




And another example:

Misleading and deceptive conduct and invitation to treat are different legal concepts, is my understanding, for what its worth, I'm not a practicing solicitor.

 

[Number37]

My view hasn't changed. It's always been my view there is a combination of factors which influence of genetics and learned or environmental. That is how all behaviour evolves to accord what I discussed. if you were to press me I would have said that more likely there is greater genetic influence but that's just personal view. My reading today forces me to conclude that environment takes a higher place than I had ever thought. I find that disturbing because it challenges my preconceived ideas.

I honestly don't give a f if you think I change opinions to suit or not. I have no axe to grind and am only influenced by science. If that states there are no orientation influences then cool. If it says it does influence then I try and gain an understanding so I can place it in context with my existing knowledge

You say you're influenced by science but the science is nowhere near as conclusive as you make it out to be.
And that hasn't stopped you from making some pretty outlandish claims.
Which suggests you are using your pseudo understanding of both science and psychology to support a predetermined position.

On my readings today it's pretty clear that the environment of a same sex marriage as place to start a family will dramatically influence sexual orientation for that child.

I've already mentioned the adopted chikd syndrome avd the Cinderella effect. Will same sex orientation be as high as 70% as cited on one article I don't know. Not at all surprising really because children model their behaviours on parents. Greater experimentation. More fluid conception of sexuality. Many end up in same sex relationships. How do people view this fact?

You're being disingenuous with your arguments. You've tried desperately to give your opinion some intellectual credibility but you haven't come close to justifying your OWN conclusions.

 

[Number37]

Misleading and deceptive conduct and invitation to treat are different legal concepts, is my understanding, for what its worth, I'm not a practicing solicitor.

I hope so.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Oh, this is wonderful.

“Let’s not kid ourselves, it's not a path the parent would choose if choices were available.“

Yeah, because they still get discriminated against and told their relationships aren’t worthwhile or equal to heterosexual relationships. The life of a homosexual is difficult precisely because they’re not considered equal in society. You remove that, you remove any reason to be sad about kids being gay.

It’s good though. You’ve finally admitted you see homosexuality as something to be prevented. That explains so much about your position.

Tell us how your parents reacted when you came out?. Did they jump up and down rejoicing and congratulating you? Or throw their arms around you telling you they loved and support you? A parent grieves for what is lost when a gay son comes out. It's not something you push but there is a process to go through because the dream that was established in THEIR mind coming as it does from heterosexual sources all THEIR life needs to be shelved and die. In my GFs case she silently sought counselling. The period of adjustment took 6 months and now
she has dealt with it emotionally and can accept possibly no grandchildren but for the whole time she teared up regularly. Her counsellor said it was entirely normal. And her reaction was immaculate in the sense of best that could be expected in support. I think she is wonderful so too does her son.

No one chooses this path not because there is something inherently evil or bad about the lifestyle but because it has impact!!! You should understand that and if you don't well you live in a unrealistic world all of your own....and that diesnt surprise me one bit

 

[Number37]

Tell us how your parents reacted when you came out?. Did they jump up and down rejoicing and congratulating you? Or throw their arms around you telling you they loved and support you? A parent grieves for what is lost when a gay son comes out. It's not something you push but there is a process to go through because the dream that was established in THEIR mind coming as it does from heterosexual sources all THEIR life needs to be shelved and die. In my GFs case she silently sought counselling. The period of adjustment took 6 months and now
she has dealt with it emotionally and can accept possibly no grandchildren but for the whole time she teared up regularly. Her counsellor said it was entirely normal. And her reaction was immaculate in the sense of best that could be expected in support. I think she is wonderful so too does her son.

No one chooses this path not because there is something inherently evil or bad about the lifestyle but because it has impact!!! You should understand that and if you don't well you live in a unrealistic world all of your own....and that diesnt surprise me one bit

You're really doubling down on the nonsense.

 

[BarneyBent]

Tell us how your parents reacted when you came out?. Did they jump up and down rejoicing and congratulating you? Or throw their arms around you telling you they loved and support you?

Again, not gay. Not sure how many times I have to clarify that. 100% certain they would be fine with it though, having discussed the matter both generally and also in relation to me specifically.

A parent grieves for what is lost when a gay son comes out. It's not something you push but there is a process to go through because the dream that was established in THEIR mind coming as it does from heterosexual sources all THEIR life needs to be shelved and die. In my GFs case she silently sought counselling. The period of adjustment took 6 months and now
she has dealt with it emotionally and can accept possibly no grandchildren but for the whole time she teared up regularly. Her counsellor said it was entirely normal. And her reaction was immaculate in the sense of best that could be expected in support. I think she is wonderful so too does her son.

Oh yes, it’s hard for parents, but it shouldn’t have to be. It’s hard because we place heterosexuality above homosexuality in almost everything we do. What is lost? The idea that they’ll get married, settle down and have kids? Guess what, you allow them to marry and they’ll be a lot more likely to do all of those things!

Being sad, I get it. But that doesn’t make it rational, and it would be combated by increasing acceptance, not decreasing it.

No one chooses this path not because there is something inherently evil or bad about the lifestyle but because it has impact!!! You should understand that and if you don't well you live in a unrealistic world all of your own....and that diesnt surprise me one bit

Ha! What sort of impact? Negative impact, presumably?

This is like a couple being sad the only child they can adopt is black, because black people have it harder in life. Homosexuals are just as capable of love, just as capable of raising a family, just as capable of living a normal life as heterosexuals. It’s only people like you that make that more difficult than it should be.

 

[mtooler]

I hope so.

As in you reckon they are the same legal concept?

 

[Number37]

As in you reckon they are the same legal concept?

I hope M&DC and ITT are different legal concepts.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

You say you're influenced by science but the science is nowhere near as conclusive as you make it out to be.
And that hasn't stopped you from making some pretty outlandish claims.
Which suggests you are using your pseudo understanding of both science and psychology to support a predetermined position.


You're being disingenuous with your arguments. You've tried desperately to give your opinion some intellectual credibility but you haven't come close to justifying your OWN conclusions.

Oh mate you are so off base it makes me laugh. I actually started my reading today to try and disprove a comment I read in an article that stated that 70% of all kids in same sex marriages become same sex orientation. I didn't believe it. That was my frame of reference because I thought that comment outlandish. Instead when I read article after article it gave comments that cited causal connection rather than disprove it. Nowhere can it be determine a quantified relationship but I'm now firmly of the view there is a causal link. After about 6 I was sufficiently influenced to change my opinion

You don't believe that then cite the evidence you have and stop putting shit on me cause I'm pretty sick of pricks spewing BS.

I only need to do analysis to understand what I do and that's it for me good bad or indifferent. No BS emotions that others seem occupied with. Sometimes truth is inconvenient

 

[Number37]

Oh mate you are so off base it makes me laugh. I actually started my reading today to try and disprove a comment I read in an article that stated that 70% of all kids in same sex marriages become same sex orientation. I didn't believe it. That was my frame of reference because I thought that comment outlandish. Instead when I read article after article it gave comments that cited causal connection rather than disprove it. Nowhere can it be determine a quantified relationship but I'm now firmly of the view there is a causal link. After about 6 I was sufficiently influenced to change my opinion

You don't believe that then cite the evidence you have and stop putting shit on me cause I'm pretty sick of pricks spewing BS.

I only need to do analysis to understand what I do and that's it for me good bad or indifferent. No BS emotions that others seem occupied with. Sometimes truth is inconvenient

Again, you're opinion. Not fact. Not empirically established. Not supported by research.
"You're now firmly of the view", heavens to murgatroyd, it is still only your opinion, which to date you have failed miserably to substantiate.
I read 6 (or 60) articles and formed the conclusion...yeah nah, that's not how it works.

I'm putting shit on your opinion. Because it is laughable. I am also highly skeptical of your research methods.
When you prove your made up theory I will consider providing evidence that disproves your made up theory.

 

[mtooler]

I hope M&DC and ITT are different legal concepts.

Yep, very much so, apologies I misinterpreted your post.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Again, you're opinion. Not fact. Not empirically established. Not supported by research.
"You're now firmly of the view", heavens to murgatroyd, it is still only your opinion, which to date you have failed miserably to substantiate.
I read 6 (or 60) articles and formed the conclusion...yeah nah, that's not how it works.

I'm putting shit on your opinion. Because it is laughable. I am also highly skeptical of your research methods.
When you prove your made up theory I will consider providing evidence that disproves your made up theory.

These are articles from clinical pyschologists and studies practicing in the area. How is that MY opinion? My area or work at one stage was forensic accounting. We deal solely with the pursuasiveness of different types of information to form sound justifiable hypotheses. I'm yet to have a judge fail to accept my forensic report in court. Different sure but I understand the value and credibility of sources

This is a case of serious denial. lol

Oh look you don't want to hear or read what I say because it annoys or offends you. A scientific proposition has no emotive value. It's something provable or not. The fact you resort emotive reaction says you're not interested in science at all and only want to hear things that are consistent with your beliefs.

That's perfectly fine I'm not out to pursuade you or anyone else. Take it or leave it either is fine by me. Won't stop me posting what my abalysis is of the subject.