Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Blogging » Magic Pudding full of Pure Poison

Magic Pudding full of Pure Poison


Just like the magic pudding..... but more hateful

My Learned friend wrote a piece at Pure Poison that has earned him lots of “Hail fellow well met!” electronic back slapping  that is  entirely unjustified because what he has written is actually an example of his bigotry when it comes to Catholics like the author of the piece that he critiques. Find over the fold a point by point rebuttal of his argument that I originally tried to post as a  comment only to have it almost edited out of existence.  He also tries to promote that same bigotry here.

I presume there’s a limit to what the Herald Sun will publish. I choose to believe that they’d reject some racist rant submitted by a white power group, or a vicious diatribe declaring that people of a particular religious background make inadequate parents.

As an opening gambit he begins by proving that he is going to bang his usual drums rather than actually calmly addressing the issues raised by the piece in question.

So why on Earth did they print this nasty and bigoted screed by Catherine Sheehan?

Reading all of the piece in question shows that it is not in fact as Jeremy describes it there is no derision or disparagement of homosexuals at all in the piece It merely makes the argument that the natural thing is for a man and a women to raise the children that they create together.She dares to suggest that following nature’s plan might actually be the best for children.

Yeah, dads are inadequate at picking kids up from school, or cooking favourite meals, or listening to problems. How could a man do these things? Wouldn’t he always be tripping over his penis? How could he listen to problems without a pair of breasts? Catherine undoubtedly can’t define what this “feminine approach” specifically entails, because any aspect she could name could promptly be shown to be able to be done just as well by a parent of either gender. Can anyone name any specific thing, after breastfeeding, that one gender of parent can do that another can’t? She couldn’t.

Straight into hyperbole is not unusual for Sear. But Sheehan’s argument is not about the mechanistic meeting a child’s needs and in fact she concedes that a man is perfectly capable of doing that. She is arguing that the bond between a mother and her child something special and something that can not easily be  replaced by a child “having two daddies” For the life of me I can’t see how this argument is either “nasty or bigoted” Sheehan is not saying that it is impossible for a Gay man to do an adequate job of parenting nor is she attacking  those who do this , she is just saying that he will not be able to provide that unique thing which  is the mother child bond.

Sheehan, who the end of the article reveals that she “is employed by the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne” – presumably their Crushing Equality For Gays Department – is using the following construction to attempt to use parents’ love for their own children to encourage them to support discrimination against other people’s:

For a writer who seeks to denounce the bigotry he is sure is out there in the world Sear does a very nice line of hateful bigotry himself. He wants to argue that being a Catholic means that you are automatically evil (from the progressive point of view) He draws on a very broad and derisive stereotype of Catholicism and uses it to demonise Sheehan.

Play on mothers’ vanity (you’re special, aren’t you? What you offer the kids is different from what their father offers them, isn’t it?)

The difference between men and women is biologically evident not only in the way that their genitals are shaped but also in the way that their brains are “wired”.

Your kids would do terribly without you, wouldn’t they?

She does not say this at all this is just more hyperbole from Seer.

Children of gay dads don’t have mothers so it’s JUST LIKE IF YOU WERE RIPPED AWAY FROM YOUR CHILDREN.

Hyperbole in overdrive adds nothing to Seer’s argument it just shows his ignorance of both biology and of the child rearing process.

Of course, every parent is special regardless of their gender, and what any particular mother brings is different to what any particular father brings not because of her gender but because she’s an individual adult with a unique approach to raising her own children.

Here is where Sear totally departs from the biological reality there is a distinct difference in the way that men and women approach the parenting task and while it is possible for a man to be a very adequate primary carer for his children that does not lessen the special bond between a child and its mother.

It’s kind of insulting to mothers to suggest that the strength of their bond with their children is down to their particular set of genitals, rather than anything they do as parents with a brain.

What is insulting is Sear insisting that parenting is an entirely intellectually driven process rather than one that is substantially driven by instincts that present differently depending upon a parents gender.

But Catherine’s appeal isn’t to those thinking rationally – it’s to those who have never actually known a gay couple (one of the reasons this Modern Family show so angers the Catholic Archdiocese, I suspect) and therefore can only approach the issue by reference to the heterosexual families they know.

Sheehan is not the one being irrational, Sear is, he has no evidence that Modern Family Angers anyone in the Catholic archdiocese and he is being presumptuous to assume that they as an organization feel anything about the program. Given that writing at Pure Poison is a paid gig you would expect that Sear is obliged to do some primary research and actually ring either Sheehan or someone else at Catholic Archdiocese to see if they are in fact angry about the show.

Taking any parent out of a family would hurt it: but, of course, that’s not what gay parents would be doing. And there’s no reason why two dads couldn’t have as varied and valuable approaches to raising children as any heterosexual couple.

This claim by Sear is of course superficially correct but what he says here begs the question about the feelings of the woman who must by definition have carried that designer accessory for the fictional Gay couple and who provided half the DNA for the child. It also ignores the profound distress that so many children of unknown or legally obscured parentage have so often experienced

At the very least, you know that every gay couple has had to work very hard to have children – they’re not having them by accident like many heterosexual couples.

It is in fact the necessity of some form of artificial intervention that makes Gay couples having children problematic and of course if the practice were to become more common then Sear’s argument that the difficulty makes Gay parents try harder becomes invalid anyway

(Particularly the ones who follow the Catholic Archdiocese’s rule that once a foetus is conceived it’s a human being who must be born whether you’re ready to be a parent or not.)

More of Sear’s anti-Catholic bigotry in evidence in this misrepresentation of the the Catholic position of when a human life starts.

Her Mothers’ Day appeal is particularly bizarre:

This is precisely why Mother’s Day is so special. Why do we shower our mums with presents and flowers? If a man can be a substitute for a mum, then Mother’s Day would be meaningless.

If you support treating gay couples equally, you hate Mother’s Day, you monster. Why won’t anyone think of the Hallmark corporation?

Of course according to Sear we are not allowed to hold our mothers in any sort of special esteem because he thinks that gender is a social construct rather than a biological reality.

Catherine obviously doesn’t care that her article is hurtful to any children being raised by single fathers who are being told that their parental relationships are second-rate, just because of the gender of their remaining parent. Listen, you little snots, you are lesser people and your parents are RUINING YOUR LIFE. Classmates? Make sure you let all the kids of single parents know how much their families suck. She claims to be concerned about the rights of the children affected, but she doesn’t care about smearing them and their families through arrogant, empty assumptions and stereotypes.

This is just another bigoted cavort from Sear were he wrongly assumes that if you believe that there is any sort of ideal for a family structure that you are  automatically arguing that anything other than that is entirely inadequate. The thing is that Sheehan does not make this argument at all.

I wonder if we’ll see a similar article next week as to why kids raised by two mums are missing out. Prepare for some empty – and unspecified – assertions about what a father brings to parenting that a mother cannot, simply because he has a penis.

This is just a straw-man argument from Sear that just gives him another excuse to exhibit his own bigotry about anyone who is heterosexual and thinks that being in sympathy with nature and our own biology is in some sense abhorrent.

I don’t think Catherine Sheehan has finished embarrassing herself quite yet. And, sadly, I don’t think the Herald Sun has finished enjoying the page hits it gets out of it.

Sheehan just wrote a rather innocuous piece that just happened to criticize an aspect of modern life; Gay men who create children and seek to raise them alienated from their natural mothers. She asks the questions and and puts forward a reasoned argument about why she thinks this is less than ideal. Sear has used it as an excuse to give his anti Catholic bigotry a thorough workout. For all of his pretencions of openness and a oft claimed support for diversity he just can’t respect the notion that someone like Sheehan may question the desire of Gay activists to use modern science to get around the reality of biology: that it takes a man and a woman to make children.

Cheers Comrades




  1. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Greg Naylor, Iain Hall. Iain Hall said: Magic Pudding full of Pure Poison: http://wp.me/p1ZH5-1Uv […]

  2. Leon Bertrand says:

    The research finds that children are best brought up when a mother and father is in their lives. This of course makes a nonsense of Jeremy’s claim that:

    “Of course, every parent is special regardless of their gender, and what any particular mother brings is different to what any particular father brings not because of her gender but because she’s an individual adult with a unique approach to raising her own children.”

    What bunk. To deny that there are differences between the sexes is to deny reality.

  3. Iain Hall says:

    Yes Leon I thought that a great deal of the gender differences were socially created until I had a daughter and tried to do the gender neutral thing trying to teach her stuff that is normally “boy stuff” it just did not take. this is entirely consistent with so much research that gender identity is innate and not learnt.

  4. Iain Hall says:

    Jeremy whines about my post at PP:

    Iain’s response now is to call me a bigot for criticising the Catholic Archdiocese’s campaign to make sure government continues to discriminate against (non-Catholic) gay people. And to repeat his gender stereotypes without addressing why they necessarily apply to specific gay couples (whilst he’s happy to deride me for having an opinion on parenting despite never having been a parent, Iain’s happy to opine on the emotional tendencies of participants in gay couples despite – presumably – never having been in one) or why they should result in the discrimination before the law that Sheehan’s article is clearly supporting.

    Let’s be clear here: her article is not in a vacuum. It is an attempt to justify real discrimination presently conducted by our governments. If people like Iain who are supporting her words are not actually in favour of governments discriminating against gay people, they should specify that. Because it sounds very much like they’re endorsing real equality being denied by real governments to real citizens.

  5. Eric Sykes says:

    In fact “the research” shows the exact opposite Leon. That’s the whole point.

  6. Iain Hall says:

    Welcome to my blog Eric 😉
    What research would that be BTW?

  7. Iain Hall says:

    OK Jeremy

    Iain’s response now is to call me a bigot for criticising the Catholic Archdiocese’s campaign to make sure government continues to discriminate against (non-Catholic) gay people.

    Campaign? what campaign? we have one Op ed piece that has been written by one person ostensibly in her own right rather than at the behest of the Archdiocese. The disclaimer about her position is not proof of any campaign.

    And to repeat his gender stereotypes without addressing why they necessarily apply to specific gay couples (whilst he’s happy to deride me for having an opinion on parenting despite never having been a parent, Iain’s happy to opine on the emotional tendencies of participants in gay couples despite – presumably – never having been in one) or why they should result in the discrimination before the law that Sheehan’s article is clearly supporting.

    Sheehan advocates no discrimination in her piece she calls for no changes in the law. she even concedes that a man can quite adequately perform the basic parenting tasks (while you claim she does other wise)
    As for your opinion on parenting i deride it because I used to think something along those lines myself (without of course the Anti Catholic bigotry) and I have learned from practical experience that there is a difference.
    Speasking of homosexual partnerships have you ever been in one? Now I have said previously that I haven’t (but I have shared houses with Gay flat mates) so it is reasonable that you answer this then don’t you think?

    Let’s be clear here: her article is not in a vacuum. It is an attempt to justify real discrimination presently conducted by our governments.

    Now you have not successfully proven that this is a piece arguing for any sort of discrimination just saying something does not make it so.

    If people like Iain who are supporting her words are not actually in favour of governments discriminating against gay people, they should specify that.

    I have written about “gay issues” a few times but I reject Jeremy’s catch all insistence that any questioning of the Gay activist’s agenda is of necessity “evil discrimination” posts on my writing about this topic are here.

    Because it sounds very much like they’re endorsing real equality being denied by real governments to real citizens.

    No I am saying that real children are not fashion accessories or possessions and that they have a right to know who they are and part of that is that their creation by either surrogacy or anonymous donor insemination denies them that right. So even if (for the purposes of argument) I were to accept that gay men have a right to do as the show suggests that “right” can not be entirely unqualified or beyond question as you want it to be.

  8. Eric Sykes says:

    All of it actually, bar the excuses for research funded by paranoid god botherers.

  9. Iain Hall says:

    But you can’t cite a single paper to that effect I see 🙄

  10. Eric Sykes says:

    well on the blog you’ve jumped off i cite one so check back, and that report then cites a number of others. but all you need to do is web search gay parent research or the like and read a few of them..it’s really simple….they all say pretty much the same thing…so…currently there is no internationally recognised evidence whatsoever to suggest that children in same sex families have it any worse than any other children. now, of course for the god botherer that is a real problem and flies in the face of their entire belief system, but then again some people still think the world is flat.

  11. Ray Dixon says:

    So Jeremy is now using his gig @ Crikey as a platform to continue his favourite gripe – his fist-thumping over gay rights? I reckon the gay community needs Jeremy to act as their advocate like they need Fred Nile to hold the balance of power in the Senate.

    Because he is not doing their cause any good by alienating those who might disagree with his over-the-top and one-eyed support of “gay rights” by labelling them as ignorant & hateful “bigots”.

    I think Jeremy’s whole approach to the issue of gay adoption (and gay marriage for that matter) is far too confrontational and seems deliberately designed to inflame hatred against those who just happen to see things differently.

    I do not feel strongly about the issue of gay adoption (or gay marriage) one way or the other but I really think Jeremy needs to chill out and step back for a while – because, quite clearly, the gays are doing okay and making a fair bit of progress without his help.

    Depending on which State or Territory you live in, gay adoption IS allowed. Yes, there are some statutes in some States where it is prohibited (Queensland for example) but by and large the national progression is towards allowing same sex couples to adopt and there are currently reviews under way that are working (quietly working, Jeremy) towards achieving that end.

    So why Jeremy feels the need to get up on his soap box and condemn & abuse those he needs to convince as “bigots” and as “being opposed to treating gays as equal” is beyond me. It’s not the best way to go about convincing people you are right.

    And what makes his stance even more absurd is the miniscule proportion of the whole adoption issue. Adoptions in Australia have declined dramatically over recent decades since we worked out that it wasn’t “sinful” to get pregnant before you got married and we removed that stigma that forced so many mothers to give their children up for adoption at birth to avoid embarrassment & shame.

    There are now fewer than 500 legal adoptions in Australia per year and that includes inter-country ones. The waiting list is huge so where is the need, the urgency and the imperative to add to that waiting list by forcing the across-the-board legalising of same sex adoption?

    It’s not like the kids who are adopted have any shortage of potential parents out there and, moreover, adoption is not designed to satisfy the wants of childless couples (be they straight or gay) it exists SOLELY for the good of the child – full stop.

    Jeremy sets the whole tone of this adversarial stance by the confontational approach he takes in the post, as is clearly evidenced in the comments that ensue, which by and large offer lemming-like support of Jeremy’s rage. He really needs a chill pill.

    Which leads me to a secondary (but just as important) issue here: I am a bit confused about the Pure Poison comments policy and whether or not it is being administered fairly and without prejudice. It seems not:

    The Pure Poison team would also like to set one simple guideline for all of us to follow at this site:

    Play the ball and not the person; low-level snark is fine but derogatory statements about a person’s character are not.

    Any comments that the Pure Poison team deems to be unacceptable will be deleted or edited as soon as they are detected. Repeat offenders will be placed on moderation, and chronic offenders will be banned.

    We welcome robust debate but there needs to be a limit to what is acceptable.

    Really? Then why are these comments (all directed at Iain Hall) not deleted?

    Jeremy @ #51: “You arrogant twit”

    Confessions @ #64: “Which is why most sensible people ignore him – he’s clearly ignorant, and just seeking to inflame.”

    RobJ @ #66: “wow – what a bigot”

    Quantize @ #69: “wtf! 2bob is as stupid as Iain?”

    RobJ @ #78: “from your posts I’d contend that you’re very narrow minded.”

    SonofMogh @ #80: “But then again you always talk shit.
    Keep rocking on that porch in Queensland and plucking that banjo, still laughing at you.”

    Quantize @ #81: “the man has an entire blog filled with the rambling stupidity…its his MODE.”

    theantichrist @ #96: “I guess this is symptomatic of the mind of someone who hears voices and sees invisible little friends too, huh? Come on, admit it, Iain. Your quill is guided by other spooky supernatural forces, yeah? Have they told you to kill your first-born yet?”… “please book yourself into a psychiatric clinic immediately as having people like you on the streets is a definite threat to the wellbeing of our children (regardless of whether they are from hetero, gay or bi parentage).”

    oldskool @ #97: “Speaking as a parent, Iain is talking out of his arse. And I would appreciate him not making generalizations that include me in his bigoted small minded club.”

    theantichrist @ #99: “the ONLY downside of same-sex parenting is the unfortunate and unnecessary psychological impact on the children caused by the spread of fear and hatred by such loathsome bigots as Iain and his fellow evil disciples and their, no doubt, equally-deluded brainwashed children. Wipe out this scourge on our society and there is NO difference.”

    What was that about “Play the ball and not the person”?

    I don’t necessarily agree with Iain’s contention that two dads cannot replace a mother’s love. I reckon we can safely leave that to the adoption authorities who have got a handle on what environment provides a good upbringing and what doesn’t – I mean, it’s not like they’ve got any shortage of candidates.

    BUT, if Jeremy wants to see all States legalise same sex adoption (and God knows why he thinks he needs to do this) then I think he and his “followers” needs to show a bit more restraint, good manners and decorum in the way they go about debating it.

  12. Husky Jim says:

    I have said as much to his lernudness at length.
    I agree that calling people bigots is hardly a way to get them to see your point of view with any compassion at all.
    He and I believe smething entirely different, but that does not make me a bigot.
    Unfortunately he’s not able to see that.
    I also agree with Iain. I have never seen a supposedly heterosexual person argue so strongle and toxically for the other team’s right to do things he himself has chosen not to do. Me thinks he doth protest too much.
    He knows f all about being any kind of parent and yet seeks to pontificate (I like that word in context the of Jeremy) about who will and won’t make a good parent.

  13. Iain Hall says:

    That is a very good comment Ray 🙂
    Jeremy’s approach is probably doing the cause of Gay rights and gay parenting more harm than good because if people like me who are generally supportive of everyone’s right to love as they please is attacked because I also don’t think that homosexual unions should be called a marriage what hope is there of changing the minds of those who are fearful or disgusted by the idea of homosexuality?
    We are into honey vs vinegar territory here and it just seems to me that some advocates like Jeremy don’t think that they are effective unless they are hating someone.

  14. Ray Dixon says:

    I don’t think Jeremy’s constant gay rights posts indicate that he’s a practising, closet or latent homosexual, if that’s what you’re getting at HJ.

    I think he just likes to pick controversial issues. The problem, as I see it though, is his polemic style. Wikipedia sums it up best:

    A polemic is a form of dispute, wherein the main efforts of the disputing parties are aimed at establishing the superiority of their own points of view regarding an issue. Along with debate, polemic is one of the more common forms of dispute. Similar to debate, it is constrained by a definite thesis which serves as the subject of controversy. However, unlike debate, which may seek common ground between two parties, a polemic is intended to establish the supremacy of a single point of view by refuting an opposing point of view. Polemic usually addresses serious matters of religious, philosophical, political, or scientific importance, and is often written to dispute or refute a widely accepted position.

    He adopts this approach to his posts almost universally.

  15. Iain Hall says:

    I find it most pleasing that You and Ray have some common ground Jim !

  16. Ray Dixon says:

    Cont’d (I hit submit too early):

    I’m sure the real leaders in the gay community who are working towards better rights would say to Jeremy that they do not want to turn the debate into an Us v Them one, like he is doing. They would probably say that they’ve come a hell of a long way since (and before) he found the wonders of the Internet as a soap box through which to ram ideas and beliefs down others throats amd, if you don’t mind, please let us continue our good work and stop throwing rocks at those we are attempting to coerce with good will, respect & understanding of long standing differences of entrenched opinions. Back off!

  17. Iain Hall says:

    Please post the link to the survey that you think makes your point.
    Good point about Jezza’a polemic style he really need to lighten up occasionally and try to persuade rather than browbeat people into agreeing with his arguments

  18. Iain Hall says:

    Here here Ray!!!!

  19. Ray Dixon says:

    Well it just doesn’t help the gay cause to denigrate hetero couples by saying they do not hold any special parenting skills. That will only get their backs up. Whether or not hetero couples do hold any special parenting skills is not the point, the point is that attacking those who believe that (like he does) will get you nowhere.

    Jeremy, in typical polemic fashion, puts the onus on those who query his stance to prove why gays should not be granted adoption rights. Whereas the onus should be on those who want to change the law to convince others, respectfully, why they should.

    Just saying that if you don’t agree with me you are a “bigot” and a “gay hater” is not a good argument.

  20. Eric Sykes says:


    Conclusions: Adolescents who have been reared in lesbian-mother families since birth demonstrate healthy psychological adjustment. These findings have implications for the clinical care of adolescents and for pediatricians who are consulted on matters that pertain to same-sex parenting.

    Enuff from me.

  21. Husky Jim says:

    When a bloke’s got a fair point Iain he’s got a fair point.
    I’m a most agreeable fellow except where stupid arguments are made.
    Ray’s argument here is solid. You and I have both been victim of Jeremy’s style of argument, where he first seeks to make his point, classify those who share the alternate point as bigots, and then wait till you don’t agree so he can call you a bigot.
    In this debate (gay rights), he’s simply happy to define a very large subset of the Australian Parliament, Australian Electorate or Australian Media as vile homophopic bigots, when in fact most (not all) are perfectly reasonable people with perfectly reasonable arguments and concerns about marriage and child rearing.
    You can’t expect anyone to take your points seriously when you are willing to brand the majority of people as homophobes simply because they don’t share your out there view.

  22. Iain Hall says:

    Eric I don’t see how your link adds to the argument but you are welcome to explain 🙂

  23. Ray Dixon says:

    And still the personal insults flow @ PP, and still they remain unmoderated, it seems. Do they ever wonder why their participation (and traffic I’d suggest) is incredibly low compared to other semi-mainstream blogs like The Drum?

  24. Leon Bertrand says:

    For once I agree with Ray.

    PP’s little mission statement implies that they are concerned with attacking absurd arguments on both sides of politics. The reality is that they are just another two-faced left wing hate site.

    By the way, the fact that Jeremy told me that I should only argue with him on his blog whilst Iain’s comments get deleted for just that shows that Jeremy’s hypocrisy knows no bounds.

  25. Ray Dixon says:

    For the record, I’ve always thought that PP was set up on a very narrow premise that is reactive rather than proactive.

    And, whilst I fundamentally agree with many (not all) of the political views expressed there, I find the idea of basing your whole blog around attacking the “intellectual dishonesty” of journalists as rather odd and churlish.

    By its very definition, PP can only mount polemics -because all it is doing is refuting the arguments of those to whom they are diametrically opposed.

    But, if you have your own opinions then (for f___’s sake) just say so, rather than base your argument on the foibles of your opposition (which, ironically, is exactly how the Liberals & Abbott behave!)

  26. Iain Hall says:

    They did originally suggest that they would consider left wing writers and journalists as well and frankly if they had done that the blog would have earn a far bigger readership and certainly more gravitas.

    And you are spot on Leon My comments at PP are often needlessly edited or refused and Jeremy moderates my comments at his blog often just not allowing even the most moderate and polite.

  27. Husky Jim says:

    Note Richo’s assesment of the Greens on Q&A.
    Absolutism gone mad and no place for discussion or compromise.
    Isn’t Jezzer a Green?

  28. Iain Hall says:

    Yes he is Jim and how apt if you consider just what is said in the piece that in link to in today’s post 😉

  29. Eric Sykes says:

    well you’ve managed to turn a conversation about same sex parenting into a “hate jeremy and PP” love fest, so that is of no interest to me whatsoever. PP generally gets it right, it’s balanced and clear in my view, so ciao.

  30. Husky Jim says:

    You have been commenting at PP Eric so we realise you’re a victim of group think.
    Good luck and good bye.

  31. Iain Hall says:

    While you may think that PP is wonderful there are many more sensible people who think that it is a site that is seriously flawed. and as a site that pays its authors then it should actually set a higher standard, sadly it fails to do so.
    Anyway thanks for visiting and feel free to return.
    Cheers 😉

  32. Iain Hall says:

    Dave at PP has pulled the pin and put Jeremy’s thread out of its misery 😀

  33. PKD says:

    If it had become miserable Iain it was only from your dogged insistence of arguing the toss as usual… And I agree with Eric – you had turned it into an ‘i hate PP / Jeremy’ piece again.
    It was almost worthy of some of your BWW pieces!

  34. Iain Hall says:

    Well PKD
    remember that I do this stuff for fun and you know how I like to stir the possum 😉
    However I do think that Ray is on the money about the nature of PP and in particular Jeremy’s pieces there.
    I notice also that it is not a place where you comment and given your politics I wonder why it is not attractive to you?

  35. Ray Dixon says:

    PKD, I’d suggest that PP’s failure to moderate abusive comments in accordance with its stated policy was also a contibuting factor to the deterioration of the post. And the fact that the whole tone of the piece was adversarial and confrontational from the outset.

  36. PKD says:

    Iain, because I have to create yet another account and remember another password and I’m just too damn time poor (or lazy, take your pick!) to go through the hassle of another bloomin sign on…

  37. JM says:

    Iain (re. PKD): I notice also that it is not a place where you comment

    Are you suggesting that we should go elsewhere for our amusement when we’re bored with beating you up?

    C’mon Iain. Surely you have more confidence in your ability to keep us occupied than that?

  38. Iain Hall says:

    I thought that it might be something like that PKD Isn’t managing one’s pass words a pain?

    you have it oh so very wrong You exist here for only one purpose and that is to entertain ME and the moment that you bore me with bad manners of the lack of good graces then I can consign you to moderation land or if your annoyance factor gets high enough to Spamville 😉

  39. PKD says:

    But believe us Iain that’s a 2 way street. You entertain us with your political bias (but isn’t everyone), inconsistent arguments and AGW religious goobledegook!

  40. Iain Hall says:

    Sure PKD I love the too and fro and I also like it when even when we have profound difference that we can be affable about it.
    My late mother used to insist that “the first person to raise their fist has lost the argument” and I reckon there is still a lot in that .

  41. Fred Phillips says:

    Eric has linked to some research that supports the theory that gay parents do as good a job of parenting children as do heterosexual ones.

    Leon said the research suggested the opposite. Can he please link to some of that research?

  42. Iain Hall says:

    Fred I can’t answer for Leon But I would think that the issue is not so much that Gay parents can’t do as well a nurturing children but if the mother child bond is something special which is the crux of Catherine Sheehan’s argument.

    In any event the research cited by Eric is in fact rather suspect as this post at Oz Conservative argues in relation to similar research done by activists with an agenda.

  43. Iain Hall says:

    AGW religious goobledegook!

    speaking of which any chance of that post of yours ever materializing?

  44. JM says:

    Iain, I was complimenting you on your entertainment skills, surely compliments show good grace?

  45. Iain Hall says:

    It depends on how you play tennis JM forehand or backhand 😉

  46. PKD says:

    speaking of which any chance of that post of yours ever materializing?

    Given it looks like being a reasonable chance of hitting record low ice extent this summer, then you won’t have much longer to wait than that… and I’m sure you’ll have your regular denialist lines ready it it does hit a record low!

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: