Constance Singam tearing as she speaks about what AWARE means to her.
“Really what was so wonderful about AWARE, is that 25 years have been 25 years of friendship, support and empowerment. I grew in AWARE, and I know what it is to be an AWARE member. And that’s the sad part of it…that trust is gone.”
That is what AWARE is, we empower each other, we support each other. And that friendship…which is why I was there these 24 years and why I keep coming back because of that.
AWARE is a feminist organization. And what are feminist values? We give a chance, we respect, we support each other, we empower each other. Yes, you’re right, I am saddened by what’s happening, and those values aren’t being respected, and that culture is not being respected”.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Curious,
“I will if it has any relevance to the debate that I am presently engaged in. As I said I am not really interested in the internal politics at AWARE. Let history be the judge.”
Touche. If you scroll up, you’d notice that the lead article is about Constance Singam lamenting the loss of trust thanks to the actions of the new exco. What does this have to do with “the debate you are presently engaged in”, which, if i’m not wrong, is whether gayness is wrong?
So here you go insisting that I only your debate is relevant, when you’ve essentially hijacked the main thread for your own purposes. I hope the irony is not lost on you.. hijacking something for your own purposes? Sound familiar?
Curious,
The questions I posed were meant for me to understand where exactly you are coming from, to find amidst all the issues being raised, a meeting point for honest discussion. When you refused to answer them, I therefore had to conclude you didn’t want to engage me there. But nonetheless some of my points to you I addressed to Plen in #85
As for you stance on 337a, I had to admit, it was my bad. I apologize for some of the harsher words said. That also extends to the description of taunting – it was directed at others, not you. (But in light of you calling me ‘lordship’ I think it was well worth the effort..lol)
“And are you saying you have assumed the role of judge and jury ? Who bestowed upon you that special right?”
No, the judge are the people reading this.
Now, to address the question about utilitarianism – “a morally right action is one that will produces a good outcome for society at large.”
So in your view, does homosexuality produce a bad outcome, and therefore it is a morally wrong action? So is it up to the gays therefore then, to correct their actions such that they have a positive outcome for society?
Again, back to the question of gay lifestyle – homosexuality that’s bad for society? or homosexual promiscuity?
Since you are inclined to agree with the latter, shouldn’t education be the way to address it?
68) tj on April 26th, 2009 4.16 pm
thanks tj. =)
the new Exco is a group of “arsonists”.
the spark – themselves
the fuel – simple-minded folks who cannot see through the smoke
the smoke (screen) – the gay issue
the prize – taking over a long established vehicle for their own agenda
Q: give them time to prove themselves?
A: would another shady group of “stormtroopers” also be given time to prove themselves? how would such support be interpreted (overseas)? this is how we in S’pore do things?
for those caught up with the gay issue ask yourselves why is it an issue only recently? a convenient smoke screen thrown in by the new Exco?
don’t allow yourself to be fodder for other’s personal goal. people on both sides, wake up!!
I wonder how a young reader, young member not initiated into religion or the curious reader, curious member not initiated into GLBT can be convinced heart, mind and soul to accept the physical and moral consequences of exprimenting with homosexuality when the approach taken doesn’t reach out to the heart, the mind and the soul?
The laws of a game has little meaning for non participants of that game.
The laws of a nation has little meaning for non members of that nation.
The laws of a faith has little meaning for non believers of that faith.
But if advocates of the game, the nation or the faith feels that their game, their nation or their faith will bring greater good to those yet to be initiated, then the way forward surely is not through authoritarian/dictatorial stances.
Reading all the online posts, what is truly material is the women’s vote at the coming EGM.
Women of Singapore who are truly concerned for your children’s welfare and the future of families in Singapore should sign up as member of Aware, attend and vote at the EGM on 2May. The worse thing you could do is be apathetic. Do not allow Aware to be the backdoor organisation for promoting promiscuity, bisexual/gay/lesbian/transexual rights, and who knows what other rights on the ground of non-discrimination. Without moral boundaries, non-discrimination could also in the extreme extend to paedophilia, necrophilia, and other seedy practices so this needs to be surfaced for discussion. We need to know what the OLD EXCO members and the NEW EXCO members stand for, and which EXCO would be best placed to put appropriate mechanisms in place to prevent Aware from being hijacked from its publicly stated Vision and Mission. Your vote counts. Go vote with your conscience.
EGM DETAILS
Date: Saturday 2 May 2009
Time: 2 – 5pm
Venue: First Choice Auditorium, 3 Lorong 6 Toa Payoh #01-01 HSR Building Singapore
Please note, you must be member to be entitled to attend and vote at the EGM. Voting by proxy at the EGM is not permitted.
Sign up for membership at the AWARE website – http://www.aware.org.sg/?page_id=1078 – (note that it is a two-step process, you need to create an account first). Membership costs $40 per year; you can pay by credit card or paypal. You have voting rights if you are Singapore Citizen or Singapore PR, 18 Years and above; and Female.
Important:
1. Please print the e-receipts and bring them to the EGM as proof of membership.
To Admin / Moderator:
ok point taken by Zefly, i needn’t have been so caustic in my earlier posts. I’ll scale down the sarcasm. Thanks for moderating, you guys are doing good work.
wah, the comments have been coming Fast and Curious! er, i mean, furious.
just to do my bit. i’m not taking pot shots at C despite being tempted to do so, but i missed my turn oreddy.
just want to clarify re Dr Frank Joseph and his Statisticks.
“Statistics as a tool is neutral and only reflects the data fed to it. If Dr Frank Joseph has told an untruth please be my guest to rebut him vigorously.”
ah, the lovely fallacy of Appeal to Authority. how singaporean!
now the website of our good doctor is: http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02rStatistcs.html
he starts off the article with a proper warlike stance, worthy of someone trying to prove his mettle. “What is being pawned off on our children and grandchildren in public schools is the story that to be homosexual or lesbian is just another normal alternative lifestyle.”
(oh, before that, he proves his credentials as well – M.D.)
he followed that with >30 points on the “Statistics of Homosexuality and Its Effects”. i will not go through each point here because that will take too much time. will get choice bits instead. before i continue, would also like to point out his “statistics” are very, very outdated for a “scientific” work. his references are from 1978-1994.
1>> “Since homosexuality has been removed from the APA list of mental illnesses, so has pedophilia”
NOT TRUE. it is still found within DSM-IV-TR, the ‘bible’ of mental disorders that is published by APA.
http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/pedophiliaTR.htm
2>> * Judge John Martaugh, chief magistrate of the New York City Criminal Court has said, “Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities” (10).
* Captain William Riddle of the Los Angeles Police says, “30,000 sexually abused children in Los Angeles were victims of homosexuals” (10).
* 50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexuals (10).
* It takes approximately $300,000 to take care of each AIDS victim, so thanks to the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals, medical insurance rates have been skyrocketing for all of us(10).
there are altogether 5 points derived from the same source: (10) Kaifetz, J. “Homosexual Rights Are Concern for Some,” Post-Tribune, 18 December 1992.
so who is this Kaifetz guy? a bit of research on the ‘net turned this up:
http://www.jerrykbooks.com/about.htm
“Jerry Kaifetz is a businessman who has owned an operated a chemical company near Chicago since 1986… He has two degrees in Pastoral Theology and a Ph.D. in Philosophy in Religion… Dr. Kaifetz has published numerous articles over the years and has been interviewed by (a long list of major news and media corporations)… He has also been a columnist for The Times and the Post Tribune in Northwest Indiana. He is a past recipient of The Sword of the Lord Award for Evangelism.”
degrees in pastoral theology and philosophy in religion? any scientific background? nope. christian fundamentalist? certainly. look at: http://www.jerrykbooks.com/doctrinal.htm
you decide for yourself is this guy is a reliable source of “statistics”.
3>> there are about 5-6 “statistics” basically saying a lot of homosexuals are also paedophiles. let’s dissect the beast. they came from these four sources:
(7) Family Research Institute, Lincoln, NE.
(9) Jay and Young. The Gay Report. Summit Books, 1979, p. 275.
(19) Psychological Reports, 1986, 58, pp. 327-37.
(22) San Francisco Sentinel, 27 March 1992.
Family Research Institute is a well-known christian right organisation bent on generating “empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family, particularly homosexuality, AIDS, sexual social policy, and drug abuse.” it is headed by a psychologist called Dr Paul Cameron. The American Psychological Association (APA) dropped Cameron from its membership in 1983 for lack of cooperation in an inquiry into his research methods. http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html
Jay and Young, The Gay Report, 1979. these two are apparently real scientists. their work, however, has been criticized in its methodology: they sent out very long and detailed questionnaires and respondents mail the completed ones back. apparently the return rate is only 1%. even the authors themselves conceded they “do not claim to have a scientific or representative sample of lesbians and gay men.”
“Psychological Reports” is a general psychology journal where the Family Research Institute often submits papers to. including this paper mentioned in our Dr Frank Joseph’s statistics:
Cameron, P., Proctor, K., Coburn, W., Forde, N., Larson, H., & Cameron, K. (1986). Child molestation and homosexuality. Psychological Reports, 58, 327-337.
do you notice how he (Frank Joseph) hid the authors and only mentioned the name of the journal itself? that is bad referencing practice, to say the least. in any case, Psychological Reports is a low-ranking journal with a high acceptance rate in the papers it accepts (easy to get things published there).
San Francisco Sentinel seems to be a daily newspaper in SF which appears neutral on gay issues. i am however unable to track the original article from 27 March 1992, especially since Dr Frank Joseph has kindly ‘forgotten’ to include the title of the article.
THAT’S ALL, FOLKS!
make your own judgement whether Dr Frank Joseph’s article is credible or not. btw, a little background on the man himself: http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2001Jan/frankbio.htm
“Zefly is clearly a man with greater tolerance and patience for people like you. ”
Not true. I resort to sarcasm and mockery when my patience runs out. Have to thank Curious for pointing that out for everybody. :P
89) sllim
“Thanks for proving his email. I’ve checked. Your statistics hail from the same guy.”
You are welcomed. Those are not my statistics but statistics published by Dr Frank Joseph. See Link at 4) Curious.
Have you at least also taken the trouble to check if the statistics he published are correct or otherwise, such as those listed below ?
Dr Joseph’s statistics show that in the United States, Canada and Australia :
1 Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne.
2 Even today, homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a large number considering that they account for only 1-2% of the population.
3 It takes approximately $300,000 to take care of each AIDS victim.
4 The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75.
5 The median age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 79 .
Before vilifying the retired doctor please do your due diligence and if what he published is incorrect you can publish your findings here with appropriate sources and then you can rebut him vigorously as you have his email, so that he has a chance to defend himself.
Demonizing the man who cannot defend himself is not only unfair, it is also tantamount to killing the messenger!
92) the irony
1 “Curious, You have this trait of “not coming across” or “missing” views that are contrary or inconvenient to your stand, don’t you?
And you, pal, has a tendency to put your foot into your mouth and contradict yourself. Here is a perfect example : See 95) the irony where you said ,quote :
“Touche. If you scroll up, you’d notice that the lead article is about Constance Singam lamenting the loss of trust thanks to the actions of the new exco. What does this have to do with “the debate you are presently engaged in”, which, if i’m not wrong, is whether gayness is wrong?”
If this is only about “the loss of trust thanks to the actions of the new exco.” why did you bother to talk in “15) the irony” about whether “there is a subtle but important difference between “promoting GLBTs” and “choosing not to discriminate against GLBTs,”?
Why the double standard? Why accuse me of allegedly hijacking this thread for my own purposes when you were doing precisely the same thing?
2 “Then, you “didn’t come across” the rather eccentric claims of the objective scientific source, Dr Frank Joseph, on whom you rely so heavily in this discussion.”
Hey pal, the burden of proof is on the skeptics to show that his statistics are incorrect. As I said before in “103 ) Curious” :
“Before vilifying the retired doctor please do your due diligence and if what he published is incorrect you can publish your findings here with appropriate sources”
Then you can rebut him vigorously so that he has a chance to defend himself. His email is : DFJosephMD@aol.com
“Demonizing the man who cannot defend himself is not only unfair, it is also tantamount to killing the messenger!”
3 “Please, Curious, don’t bring this dirty American evangelical politics home to Singapore, could you?”
There you go again, putting your foot in your own mouth. It is you who is bringing this allegedly ” dirty American evangelical politics home to Singapore”, not me.
I merely posted the statistics published by him on gays which you have, until now, not a shred of evidence to show that they are wrong but you are ready to pillory him! Is that the hallmark of a gentleman ?
Attack the statistics not the messenger, pal, because as the saying goes “Glass, porcelain and reputations are easily cracked but never well mended.”
“Demonizing the man who cannot defend himself is not only unfair, it is also tantamount to killing the messenger!”
Erm… that’s not exactly quite the same. When you put out facts as authoritative sources from Frank Joseph, we are assuming you believe in him and his objectivity. So now people have found out some of his ‘research’ came from biased and questionable sources, hence discrediting his objective, and hence also putting into the question the verifiablilty of these ‘facts’, you are accusing them of demonizing a guy who can’t defend himself?
No. We are just saying the ‘facts’ you lifted up are no reliable, hence they cannot be used to ‘prove’ your arguments that gay lifestyle is more detrimental than straight lifestyle. And neither can you disclaim responsibilty from not exercising due diligence in your research taking, because then you will be misleading others with wrong ‘facts’.
Curious,
if your esteemed source Dr Frank Joseph comes across as not quite, I dunno whats the word, “sane”? “objective”? as evident in his other writings on Satan, God and why America should vote George Bush, then what are the odds that rational Singaporeans should accept wholesale his “scientific” statistics of why gayness is wrong as the gospel truth?
Do you seriously stand by what he writes? Or are you just trolling here? If the latter, then I think I’m done with this discussion. I’ll leave everyone else here to assess where you’re coming from.
Curious, you said: “If this is only about “the loss of trust thanks to the actions of the new exco.” why did you bother to talk about whether “there is a subtle but important difference between “promoting GLBTs” and “choosing not to discriminate against GLBTs,”? Why the double standard? Why accuse me of allegedly hijacking this thread for my own purposes when you were doing precisely the same thing?”
Please be objective here, the whole “accused-turned-accuser-pity-me” schtick is just so 1980s. I was responding to someone who claimed that AWARE was promoting GLBT. I hope you didn’t conveniently “miss that” again. i.e. I was willing to engage in broader views. I even engaged you in your diatribe on how “science proves gayness to be wrong”, even though you flat-out refused to engage in our questions of how you feel about Josie Lau lying on TV.
So touche touche touche.
94) lockeliberal
1 “Dear Curious, Is Aware qualified to run a sex education programme and encouraging prebuscent gals to experiment with one another ” not equivalent to accusing AWARE of promoting a homosexual lifestyle ?”
Since you are a newbie in this thread I shall publish again the question I raised :
“But is it there any truth that Aware “conducts comprehensive sexual programmes for girls and it runs this programme in some of the schools. They encourage girls to express their full sexuality and this includes experimenting with other girls.” ? If it is true then my question would be : Is AWARE qualified to conduct such a programme in schools and is it normal to ask pubescent girls to experiment with other girls?”
So dear Locke, why is it merely asking a question about AWARE’s sexuality training programme has become so offensive to you and on what grounds do you imply that I am ‘accusing AWARE of promoting a homosexual lifestyle ?”
2 “Darth Tio seems to think so and is not afraid to openly link the two statements.”
But why are you so afraid to print her full name here so that she can defend herself? Why demonize her when under our constitution everyone has freedom to express his or her views?
3 “You should likewise be fair and follow the lead of “feminist mentor” or state clearly why you disagree with her linkage.”
Who are you to tell me what to do and who to follow? I have my own views and don’t need to follow anyone’s views, thank you very much.
4 “Those words of yours were scare mongering of the very worst sort.”
I would like to repeat the old saying again here as people like you become very careless with words under a psuedonym : “Glass, porcelain and reputations are easily cracked but never well mended.”
If merely asking for clarification is tantamount to “scare mongering of the very worst sort” then how can anyone learn the truth if they cannot ask questions?
5″The crux of the debate, the schism between the two camps has always been over the issue of sexuality and how to approach it. Your camp prefers a moral approach , the other camp prefers an approach based on the practical and real realization that kids are experimenting with sex whether the moral majority likes it or not at a younger age.”
Your ability to make bizarre generalizations knows no bound is all I can say, as I belong to neither camp!
6″Take your concerns, set up a Focus for Women under Darth Thio, teach a church based programme based on abstinence and morality to secular schools and for xtian mission schools…”
And you can take yours and stuff it up anywhere you fancy for all I care! I am not interested to start any NGO for women or men or for anybody! I came here to debate!
7 “My prediction, seclularism except for the staunchest and most fervent christians wins out in equipping teenagers to cope with difficult questions about sexuality..”
Yawn! Anyone how professes to be able to “see” the future is either naive or silly or both !
Curious #101,
“Have you at least also taken the trouble to check if the statistics he published are correct or otherwise…”
Since you were the one who put forth his “statistics” as objective data, the onus is on you to make sure the data is indeed objective; whether it is reputable work that passes academic muster.
My only intention was to point out as many others have so decidedly since, that he is a bankrupt source by any reputable standards, that social scientists who take themselves seriously won’t give him the time of day and that it is not beneath him to make groundless claims:
“Already college professors are saying that man-boy sex is normal and so is having sex with animals.”
“Pedophilia and Bestiality are now where homosexuality was 15 years ago.”
“Americans better start shedding their ignorance, or in 15 years, pedophilia and bestiality will be the norm and will also be taken out of all psychiatric books by the fickle and gutless psychiatrists.”
“Satan is so desperate he’s revealing his true self to millions in every spin, every whine and excuse, every alteration of the law. And the saddest thing as his disciples in the Democratic Party fight for their political life, is that so many are seeing the beast face to face and can’t see the terrible danger and damage to their souls!”
106) the irony
1 “I was responding to someone who claimed that AWARE was promoting GLBT.”
If you felt so strongly that this thread is about “the loss of trust thanks to the actions of the new exco” why even bother to respond to someone who did not even address his post to you? Why the double standard? Is this another case of it’s ok for the goose but not ok for the gander?
2″I even engaged you in your diatribe on how “science proves gayness to be wrong”
Why contradict yourself again when, as you said, this thread is about “the loss of trust thanks to the actions of the new exco”
Also show me, if you can, where I was allegedly engaged in a “diatribe on how “science proves gayness to be wrong” or did you mistake me for someone else, tongue in cheek?
3″even though you flat-out refused to engage in our questions of how you feel about Josie Lau lying on TV. ”
What I feel or don’t feel about another person is no business of yours, pal ! Why do you insist on debating this theme when I already told you I am not interested in the internal politics of AWARE? Why not let history be the judge?
Curious,
Reset, reboot, restart.
What is it you want to debate about again?
“Reset, reboot, restart.
What is it you want to debate about again?” – #107) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang)
This must surely go down as the comment of the year. TOC, please take note.
#Curious
Wow. You is Good, man.
Ya, as Zefly says, let’s reset, reboot and restart. When I scroll to the top, the topic is “Constance Singam :”That trust is gone”.
Then the article describes what Constance Singam said : “…. 25 years of friendship, support and empowerment. … And that’s the sad part of it…that trust is gone.”
…
… And what are feminist values? We give a chance, we respect, we support each other, we empower each other. Yes, you’re right, I am saddened by what’s happening, and those values aren’t being respected, and that culture is not being respected”.
So, what say you? Really keen to know your views.
Curious, HT, Zefly
“Back to basics” would be great.
Though I seriously doubt AWARE encourages our youth to experiement with anal sex, I can agree with M.Ong in that parents are concerned. (Their concerns might be groundless but still, I think it’s understandable that parents err on the side of overprotectiveness.)
If I am not wrong, this is also Curious’ position. But I stand to be corrected.
tj #99,
Thanks for your input. Riveting stuff.
96) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang)
1″The questions I posed were meant for me to understand where exactly you are coming from, ”
So why don’t you answer them yourself so that I will understand “where exactly you are coming from” too? To me you are an enigma wrapped round a riddle in a maze of conundrums and that is supposed to be a compliment.
2″When you refused to answer them, I therefore had to conclude you didn’t want to engage me there.”
That must the understatement of the week! Anyone who is not blind can see the copious amount of engagement we both had in this thread.
3 “As for you stance on 337a, I had to admit, it was my bad.”
Please state the noun after the adjective! Is it “memory” or “mistake” or “judgement” or “eyesight”? I thought it was your bad memory like when you falsely claimed that ″Firstly, I never said anything about same-sex marriage.”
4 ” I apologize for some of the harsher words said. ”
Your apology for the “harsher words” is accepted on condition that you refrain from unsubstantiated accusations in the future such as “You have put the Old Guard on trial.” and “You have accused them of promoting a gay lifestyle” or you have “chains of illogical reasoning that arouse from your deepest darkest fear”.
5″That also extends to the description of taunting – it was directed at others, not you.”
How could it not have been directed at me when you said “until a few comments ago, you have shown yourself to be willing to engage in a reasonable discourse without resorting to immature taunts.” ?
I asked you to show me an instance where I taunted a poster but I see you have not been able to so do. So why don’t you just admit you cannot and move on?
6″ Now, to address the question about utilitarianism – “a morally right action is one that will produces a good outcome for society at large.”
This is not about Bantham’s Utilitarianism. It is about Consequentialism!
7″ So in your view, does homosexuality produce a bad outcome, and therefore it is a morally wrong action?”
IMO a homosexual’s actions, like any other citizen’s actions can produce a bad or good outcome for society at large. It’s entirely up to them.
8″So is it up to the gays therefore then, to correct their actions such that they have a positive outcome for society?”
IMO, all citizens need to correct their actions if their actions produce a bad outcome for society at large!
9″Again, back to the question of gay lifestyle – homosexuality that’s bad for society? or homosexual promiscuity?
I think you need to rework this question. Is it not that the gay lifestyle is a sub-set of homosexuality and not the other way around?
10″Since you are inclined to agree with the latter, shouldn’t education be the way to address it?”
Why makes you come to this conclusion?
Now it is my turn to ask you questions and I hope you will be as forthwith as well:
You said ″Now, go think about. If you want, I can help undo the chains of illogical reasoning that arouse from your deepest darkest fear. Consider that free counselling. And I promise you I won’t administer electro-shock therapy.”
A) Was that a nuanced taunt or is it a genuine invitation to treat?
B)Are you a qualified counseller or a registered psychiatrist or both?
105) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang)
1″When you put out facts as authoritative sources from Frank Joseph, we are assuming you believe in him and his objectivity.”
I put it up for discussion and if anyone could prove him wrong, I have invited him/her to be my guest to rebut him vigorously. So far no one has done that !
2″No. We are just saying the ‘facts’ you lifted up are no reliable,”
Then where is your proof? Why attack the man and not the statistics before you have the proof, is my point! If you can prove his statistics ARE wrong that we know he is a fraud! The burden of proof is on you and your ilks!
3″hence they cannot be used to ‘prove’ your arguments that gay lifestyle is more detrimental than straight lifestyle.”
It was his argument! Please be clear as the statistics are his not mine.
4″And neither can you disclaim responsibilty from not exercising due diligence in your research taking, because then you will be misleading others with wrong ‘facts’.”
Has anyone so far proved that his statistics are fabricated and false? If not why are you jumping to conclusion that his statistics are entirely without merit?
109) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on April 27th, 2009 1.37 pm
1 “Curious, Reset, reboot, restart. What is it you want to debate about again?”
Again? Do you have so much time on your hands? Have we not trashed this thread to its core already? Have you lost your marbles?
110) gemami
“Reset, reboot, restart. What is it you want to debate about again?” – #107) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang)”
“This must surely go down as the comment of the year. TOC, please take note.”
It surely is ! Gemani, you rock man !
11) sllim on April 27th, 2009 4.04 pm
“Though I seriously doubt AWARE encourages our youth to experiement with anal sex, I can agree with M.Ong in that parents are concerned. (Their concerns might be groundless but still, I think it’s understandable that parents err on the side of overprotectiveness.)”
but, but…we should not deviate from the topic – otherwise Curious may not be interested in talking about it. Anyway I have to admit that I have not read the syllabus provided by AWARE so I can’t say that it promotes anal sex. I am sure that all those who have claimed that the program does promote anal sex have read it from cover to cover and could point out to the rest of us the exact page, clause, provision, article, sentence, paragraph where it says so. Right? Right?
110) gemami
“Reset, reboot, restart. What is it you want to debate about again?” – #107) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang)”
“This must surely go down as the comment of the year. TOC, please take note.”
It surely is ! Gemami, you rock man !
101) tj
1 “wah, the comments have been coming Fast and Curious! er, i mean, furious.”
You do have a sense of humor when it’s at someone else’s expense! I take it then “tj” is an abbreviation for “The Joker” or is it for “The Jerk”?
2 “just to do my bit. i’m not taking pot shots at C despite being tempted to do so, but i missed my turn oreddy.”
No, you didn’t. You have just taken a cheap shot at me above and I have returned it in kind with my compliments ! All’s fair in love and war, as they say !
3″just want to clarify re Dr Frank Joseph and his Statisticks.”
You have done a sensational job in dissecting Dr Frank Joseph’s statistics to the quick. Well done! Now for the coup de grace !
3 “THAT’S ALL, FOLKS! make your own judgement whether Dr Frank Joseph’s article is credible or not.”
WHAT? We are not talking about the article, silly. We are talking about the statistics, pal ! Have you found any flaws in the statistics? That is what we wish to know otherwise please don’t waste any more bandwidth !
Since it is fact, that so far, no one has any shred of evidence to prove that the statistics published by Dr Frank Joseph have no merits, I rest my case !
Dr Mojo in the Mountains’ statistics tell me Curious is wrong. 100%. Since Dr MIM is a mountain mojo, he reveals himself in dreams, premonitions and the like. His references like-minded unicorns and garden fairies.
I will save everyone the trouble of discrediting Dr MIM, engage in an intellectually honest discussion etc….
“Since it is fact, that so far, no one has any shred of evidence to prove that the statistics published by Dr [Mojo in the Mountains] have no merits, I rest my case !”
P.S. he goes on about Satan too.
HT #114
Seriously now, the “anal sex in the curriculum” allegation is a steaming pile of hysteria. BUT I think Ong’s prejudice is widespread amongst conservative parents, and many of them are, that “inclusiveness” is equivalent to “permissiveness”.
It’s irrational. But, as evidenced, not a lot of people think rationally, or can accept that they might be wrong. I think that bodes ill for AWARE’s sex ed, even if the old girls come back into control.
Good gosh Sllim, I was just about to quote Dr Mojo in the Mountains too! Many a time, the good doctor has come to my rescue.
Apologies to Constance for this entry. Sometimes all we can do is laugh.
wei chun #119,
Aye, If only Dr MIM can grace us with an online presence. That passes for extra-credibility these days you know.
“IMO, all citizens need to correct their actions if their actions produce a bad outcome for society at large!”
Curious, please take a look at the criticisms of consquentialism on this website -http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/consequentialism_4.shtml
I dare not criticize your words from now on lest I am accused of demonizing you. (I freak out whenever people resort to shouting to get a point across – I apologize for my timidness)
I just happen to put this up for discussion so don’t demonize the messenger. Any criticisms should be directed at bbc. Email bbc if necessary.
Now to answer your question (see I answer so many things you ask, even though I’m uncomfortable with answering them!) I’m working on a thesis of how we can overcome our prejudices by confronting the Inner Bogeyman. It’s far too long to explain, but what the inner bogeyman does is that we project our fear of the bogeyman as a hatred of things that remnds us of him, but at the same time we justify this irrationality with a host of ‘logical’ defences.
I’m hoping to publish it on Facebook when I get around to writing it instead of replying you. Let me know your email address or facebook address I can send you a copy. I’m not sure if that makes me qualified… but it helps in making me overcome my own homophobia, which I also justified with a host of reasoning – hence I’m very familiar with your line of thinking, which makes me all the more disappointed you have not been very receptive to my offer to help. :(
(but HT, irony and silim, if you want a free copy to pass to your friends…)
Um that’s it. I don’t want to be accused of wasting bandwidth anymore.
I need to go hug a tree…
Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) #121,
I’ve prayed to seven (different) gods, but I haven’t received divine instruction(s) as to whether you are joking. If you are serious, I am interested in reading what seems like a genuinely interesting paper.
P.S. You might want to reference Shermer’s theory of why smart people believe in garbage.
Silim,
I’m also working on a thesis on how to stay calm and centred when dealing with irrational and easily provoked people.
Dear Curious,
please forgive me for resorting to humour to deal with abrasive people.
i shall apply the 95FM ad from now on in my dealings with you.
“You do have a sense of humor”
wow, thank you! that’s high praise coming from you.
“You have done a sensational job in dissecting Dr Frank Joseph’s statistics”
one tries to do one’s best. but i am aware it is far from perfect.
have i found any flaws with the ARTICLE? yes, many.
have i found any flaws with the statistics? some of them do not deserve to be called statistics in the first place, they’re more individual opinions of people who are not unbiased. so to cite them as “scientific” is misleading.
it is hardly fair to take what a christian journalist reports in a newspaper as statistics, that is the “untruth” that Dr FJ has told.
i chose the examples in my comment because they’re the most damaging. i will work through the rest of the “statistics” when i have the time.
however, i find it very interesting to note that many a times Dr FJ only mentioned the journal/magazine/newspaper and the date, without the author or the article name. that makes it difficult to trace how credible his sources are, and also may be construed as name-dropping.
valid points of my concern:
- Dr FJ’s references are very, very outdated
- a lot of his statistics are not real statistics in any scientific meaning
- of the scientific work mentioned, some that i have checked:
> Jay and Young: research methodology criticised. sample not representative.
> Family Research Institute: a discredited scientific institution. founder dropped from APA for lack of accountability in his research methods.
i admit i haven’t been able to trace the article published in Psychological Reports by Paul Cameron et al. from the Family Research Institute. i will comment when i have found it.
i went through Dr FJ’s article again and found that 8 out of the 29 references cited do not even appear in the article !! now there are only 2 possibilities,
a. the article has been edited by unknown persons
b. Dr FJ was name-dropping
examples of those references NOT cited in article, yet FOUND on the references list:
(4) Cameron et. al. ISIS National Random Sexuality Survey. Nebraska Med. Journal, 1985, 70, pp. 292-299.
(14) Manlight, G. et. al. “Chronic Immune Stimulation By Sperm Alloantigens.” J. American Med. Assn., 1984, 251(2), pp. 237-438.
(23) Science Magazine, 18 July 1993, p. 322.
(26) United States Census Bureau
(28) University of Chicago’s Nation Research Corp.
(29) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition, American Psychiatric Association, 1994.
ok, so i came out with my own statistics: 8 out of 29 items cited in the references are not found in the article. thus the article is not to be trusted as a “scientific” source.
individual points may still be valid, but you have to mention which are they. i’d then check if they come from valid and credible sources, and if so, if there are any more recent findings that negate those points.
i’d also like to address one of your many concerns: “Demonizing the man who cannot defend himself is not only unfair, it is also tantamount to killing the messenger!”
i don’t know Dr Frank Joseph personally, and i beleive as a doctor he would have done may good works in his lifetime. however, whenever one uses one’s real name AND credentials to post stuff on the internet, one has to be ready to face the consequences, i.e. criticisms.
his articles has been widely cited by the anti-homosexual camp, as far as i’m concerned, and that is damaging. when i’m ready, i will gather my own set on statistics, which hopefully will be more credible than his.
@ 111) sllim on April 27th, 2009 4.14 pm
thank you for your kinds words, silim.
TJ “the joker”,
I think he’s not praising you enough. I’m an Enigma. Try beating that. Now I shall go Return to Innocence… oh ya ya! oh ya ya ya!…
ha, Zefly, one day i Plen to come up with my own set of statistics…
oh, i missed something.
“i went through Dr FJ’s article again and found that 8 out of the 29 references cited do not even appear in the article !! now there are only 2 possibilities,
a. the article has been edited by unknown persons
b. Dr FJ was name-dropping”
another possibility is (c) Dr FJ forgot to put in those references.
You can’t win, tj.
When people believe in absolutes, they will only seek absolute explanations. When you use words figuratively, they will take it in a literal way out of its context to disprove you. Being comfortable with ambiguity eludes them.
It’s like the connect-the-dots exercises we used to do as kids. For some people, just by looking at the dots, they see the shapes and objects you will get when you finally connect all the dots together, (or maybe halfway or three quarters). But others may not even see the object even after finishing the exercises.
#121) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on April 28th, 2009 12.47 am
“I need to go hug a tree…”
I am concerned about your need to hug a tree. That is not natural as neither Oprah nor Martha Stewart has endorsed that. It is against the law of nature to embrace nature and if you are ignorant, then I as a concerned citizen must teach you so. I am also concerned about you advocating same tree sex on this site. That is a bad message and could cause thousand, nay, quadrillions of young impressionable teenagers to lust uncontrollably after trees. And what would NEA say? (nothing – they would say that’s a town council problem).
“Why?” I hear you cry piteously, is it bad to hug a tree? Come, let me assuage the pain you are feeling, let me counsel you. Now the reasons why it is baaaaddd, is because..erm because…err..well, never mind, it’s just bad……
Now repeat after me and you shall be healed :
For boys : “Hug girl good, Hug tree bad”.
For girls : “Hug boy good, hug tree bad.”(say it 10x)
Now go forth and sin no more.
It is increasingly apparent that you can’t really have a rational discussion with certain sorts of obsessives : creationists, 911 troofers, holocaust deniers, flat earthers, religious fundies of all ilk, political and race extremists. Some of these people may be well educated and give the initial appearance of reasonableness, of engaging with the facts but the faultlines soon appear . Shifting goalposts, shifty claims to dubious sources of authority, false analogies, obsessive insistence that EVERY detail be accounted for, and ultimately, a refusal to deal with uncertainty. These people are obsessives not because they are led to their positions by the empirical evidence, as they oft claim, but because they have the type of personalities and emotional and mental vulnerabilities that lead them to these hardline irrational positions.
The futility of engaging with them is that you can’t change their minds – DR FJ is a discredited source , and an undergrad trying to pass off this study as a thesis would be kicked out of uni for flouting established rules on reference citation etc- but will Curious ever admit it? No. The debate is really for the disinterested observer who might have been suckered with the initial academic glitter of the ‘statistics’ quoted and taken it for substantial scientific opinion.
I am so glad and hopeful for Singapore that we have people like HT, TJ, Slim around to point out the obvious.
tj #127,
It might be fair and well to refute the findings of a research paper by pointing out discrepencies and faulty methodologies elsewhere in the world but what Curious really really wants can only be gotten from a a nemesis of the good doctor: A Satanic social scientist.
I am afraid you have your work cut out for you.
Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) #123,
Apparently prayer (mumbling to yourself earnestly) works great. Millions can attest to this. Sadly no research paper can…
silim #128
My method is simply imagining the offending person in front of me and he/she has a buddha-like smile and he/she is radiating miilions of tiny pink (oh, must be careful of the word ‘pink’ – very sensitive) hearts that float around like bubbles and he/she is also dancing to the tune of Boy George’s Hare Krishna.
And then I will invite them to hug this magnificent rainbow-colored coconut tree where my Inner Gay Bogeyman lives, and after that we will all sit under the tree and have tea, and Winnie the Pooh, Christopher Robbins, Piglet and the Smurfs will join us and we will read fairytales like Alice In Wonderland and Wizard of Oz…
Dang, I need to get off the weed…
131) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on April 28th, 2009 12.55 pm
Beware the Fundiewock, Zefly!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Bigoted bird, and shun
The frumpy new exco!”
With apologies to Lewis Carroll, don’t want to be accused of plagiarism. There a lawyer monitoring us all, you know.
The lawyer needs to chill. I can share my weed with her. She can also come hug my rainbow colored tree.
Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) #134,
You might want to be less cavalier about your indiscretions :)
I hope no one would accuse me of bestiality if I fondle my imaginary unicorn. Thought crime, anybody?
Mirax, I am offended that you didn’t count me as one of those rational people even though I believe in unicorns and Odins and Thors.
Go hug my rainbow-colored tree.
122) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on April 28th, 2009 12.47 am
1″Curious, please take a look at the criticisms of consquentialism on this website -http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/consequentialism_4.shtml”
That is not the end of the world. The conventional wisdom is that there is litany of criticisms and opinions on all social systems and no one has found a perfect society yet not even in fabled Utopia.
John Stuart Mill, the famous proponent of Utilitarianism, which you seem to wax lyrical over, once said “What is commonly called Utopian is something too good to be practicable; but what they appear to favour is too bad to be practicable.”
2″I dare not criticize your words from now on lest I am accused of demonizing you. (I freak out whenever people resort to shouting to get a point across – I apologize for my timidness).”
But I see you are not too timid to imply that I “resort to shouting to get a point across.” That is another cheap shot. Nice try. But the only person who “shouts” to get his Q&A completed was in fact you and to add insult to injury you misrepresented the fact that you did not say anything on same-sex marriage !
3″Now to answer your question “I’m working on a thesis of how we can overcome our prejudices by confronting the Inner Bogeyman.”
Is that for your Phd or Masters Degree or is it just an informal essay?
4″I’m hoping to publish it on Facebook when I get around to writing it instead of replying you. Let me know your email address or facebook address I can send you a copy. ”
When do you expect to publish this thesis? I shall read it and give you a feedback, gratis! And when I finally get to publish my thesis on How to write a Thesis I shall publish it on facebook too.
5″I’m not sure if that makes me qualified… but it helps in making me overcome my own homophobia, which I also justified with a host of reasoning – ”
So you are a homophobe? That’s where we part company because I am not!
6″hence I’m very familiar with your line of thinking, which makes me all the more disappointed you have not been very receptive to my offer to help..”
But how are you able to help when you are a homophobe and I am not? It will be like asking a fox to look after the hen house !!
7″(see I answer so many things you ask, even though I’m uncomfortable with answering them!)”
But you conveniently missed two important questions :
A) Was that a nuanced taunt or is it a genuine invitation to treat?
B)Are you a qualified counseller or a registered psychiatrist or both?
How about answering them now so that I can see what is behind the enigmatic veil !
Mirax #129,
These guys are indefatigable, must be all that ressurection talk.