nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Let's all take Blindboy seriously now...

Sky King

People do know this is a character right? And not an actual person?

Does it strike anyone else as strange that a made-up persona with a fake voice, parody accent and a fking plastic bag on his head is treated like a normal, regular person in debates and current affairs TV shows? And given the same credibility and respect as an actual real person?

Imagine Fr. Dougal Mcguire, Dustin the Turkey and Fortycoats appearing our incisive current affairs shows discussing mental health with Alan Partridge adjudicating.

Or discussing the 8th amendment and feminism with Mrs Brown, The Bottler and Podge and Rodge? It would be treated like a joke (obviously), but when the prank phone call making, glue-huffing, spastic hawk-toting Blindboy talks serious we all suddenly have to sit up take it seriously.

If I was asked to debate on the same show as a parody character I'd be more than a little pissed off.

By all means share your story on mental health or offer an opinion on our education system. But for fk sake would you give us and the other people on the show the respect of doing it yourself, in a real voice? Without a fking bag on your head?

Alternatively if you prefer holding on to the bag, you could try going back to... you know... being funny. And less preachy.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

nozzferrahhtoo

Deleted User wrote: »

Only if you believe that such studies are the only form of evidence... Which gives Psychology an even greater degree of credibility than is warranted.

You've said the word evidence, but what evidence is there really?

I am certainly open to other forms of evidence if people want to present some and explain how and why it is evidence. What unfortunately happens to me is that people like to talk about "evidence" itself and never seem to get to offering it.

But it would not be for me to tell them what the evidence is. Their claims means it is their onus to offer the evidence or find out what it is.

Deleted User wrote: »

Because religious, or traditional focus groups in the US are going to very interested in showing that the Male/Female group is better for parenting. Lesbian or gay focus groups are going to want to show that they are the better option, and if not the best, then more than acceptable. The focus stops being about actual parenting, and becomes about the issue. Gender, Sexuality, etc.

Don't care what their focus or bias is to be honest.I just care that when they present a study that their methodology is sound. But we are talking in vague meta terms here. So unless I see such a study I can not really be sure what you are talking about. It is a bit more of the talking about evidence, without offering any to consider thing.

Deleted User wrote: »

There is a decided lack of studies about female led violence in our society. Oh, there are some but in comparison with the amount of studies about male led violence.... nope. Not even close.

And I offered reasons already as to why that might be. And I think the more we foster an environment where such men can come forward without fears of derision or anything else, the more likely we are to study them.

But it is a common problem. For example on another thread as I said I discussed "normal" pedophiles. That is pedophiles who have never and will never abuse anyone. We really do need to study them. But we do not know who they are. Hell we can not even estimate how many there are without getting wildly different estimates.

So until such time as they are coming forward and we can study them, we can not study them. And it is only in recent times I suspect we are even able to consider this for men who have been abused emotionally or physically in relationships. We need to talk to more of them, but we need to see more of them first. And yes, we do need to do the studies you have looked for and not found.

Deleted User wrote: »

Do we? How do we know?

How do we know there are problems with funding and publication? Well for one there have been studies done on publication bias. For example quite often when a claim is published, the counter claims to it do not get published in the same journal, if at all. Sometimes reports are shelved when their results seem insignificant. We havestudied this. Ben Goldacre has some great figures and comments on the matter.

What he and others have tried to do is set up a formal procedure where once a study is started, the study MUST be published to a central database regardless of the results and the completion level. Studies should not be left on shelves or in drawers.

[Deleted User]

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually much of psychology is up in the air as far as hard data goes. It can be quite the "soft" science particularly by the time it hits the mainstream and it suffers from fashions that come and go. Remember "mindfulness"? That was a recent cure all, some even pushing it to be made a school subject. Then further research showed a strong tendency in gender differences and outcomes from the practice. In essence it was generally helpful for women, less so for men and could actually exacerbate problems in some.

Patriarchy is a strong factor in male mental illness? Great, only that mental illness in men(and women) has and is going up, not down, yet society has become far less patriarchal in its thinking over the same time period. Indeed on the subject of mental health and psychology: we've never had so much emphasis, understanding and access to therapies regarding mental health, yet mental illnesses in men and women are on the increase. And no, the "it wasn't diagnosed in the past" doesn't quite fit either. Take one demographic; middle aged men. A generation ago your average 40 year old western man was one of the least likely to present with mental illnesses, the least likely to turn to suicide and very low down on overall death rates(deaths tended to cluster in younger men and the elderly). Today, they are one of the most likely groups to die by their own hands and their death rates have gone up. Even if every single death by suicide in say 1970 of 40 year old males was hidden it wouldn't explain the overall jump in rates today.

Now somebody could have a brain fart, equate the rise of women's equality with this trend over the same time period and come to the conclusion that Feminism is to blame!!!!, but they'd be a 24 karat moron of the highest quality. There could be a case to answer in how roles have shifted as being one factor alright, but picking a buzzword like feminism or patriarchy and laying all the blame there like this BlindBoy character did is again the easy answer of the moronic, and I would suggest unhelpful.

Could it be that the deaths weren't reported as suicides. Very common to brush it under the carpet.

Wibbs

Dannyriver wrote: »

There is nothing about mental health that he speaks about that isn t based in solid scientific evidence. Can you name which aspect of his opinions you think are not based on research?

Actually much of psychology is up in the air as far as hard data goes. It can be quite the "soft" science particularly by the time it hits the mainstream and it suffers from fashions that come and go. Remember "mindfulness"? That was a recent cure all, some even pushing it to be made a school subject. Then further research showed a strong tendency in gender differences and outcomes from the practice. In essence it was generally helpful for women, less so for men and could actually exacerbate problems in some.

Patriarchy is a strong factor in male mental illness? Great, only that mental illness in men(and women) has and is going up, not down, yet society has become far less patriarchal in its thinking over the same time period. Indeed on the subject of mental health and psychology: we've never had so much emphasis, understanding and access to therapies regarding mental health, yet mental illnesses in men and women are on the increase. And no, the "it wasn't diagnosed in the past" doesn't quite fit either. Take one demographic; middle aged men. A generation ago your average 40 year old western man was one of the least likely to present with mental illnesses, the least likely to turn to suicide and very low down on overall death rates(deaths tended to cluster in younger men and the elderly). Today, they are one of the most likely groups to die by their own hands and their death rates have gone up. Even if every single death by suicide in say 1970 of 40 year old males was hidden it wouldn't explain the overall jump in rates today.

Now somebody could have a brain fart, equate the rise of women's equality with this trend over the same time period and come to the conclusion that Feminism is to blame!!!!, but they'd be a 24 karat moron of the highest quality. There could be a case to answer in how roles have shifted as being one factor alright, but picking a buzzword like feminism or patriarchy and laying all the blame there like this BlindBoy character did is again the easy answer of the moronic, and I would suggest unhelpful.

Wibbs

Normally I couldn't be arsed with your particular debating style, but fcuk it I'm in pre drinking downtime so need to flush the braincells in preparation.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

beyond your love for picking pointlessly on single words a person happened to use, is not likely to define them.

Christ.

and you go on to suggest my self awareness needs a rethink?

The answer could not be clearer really. You are asking what traits a particular group are considering bad. And you are asking this in the context of a discussion of the term "toxic masculinity".

And my response to it is clear, that the reason you are not getting answered with a list of such traits is that the question itself misses the point that it is not the traits themselves that are "good" or "bad", but how pressured or expected an individual group is to conform to them or measure their worth by them.

Which does not answer the question. What feminine traits are regarded as toxic by feminism? What masculine traits are regarded as positives? Going on about conformity is you dodging the point.

As is this:

I have told you what my understanding of "feminism" is, and how I see myself as a feminist thus defined. And I have given MY answer to the question you asked. Someone elses answer you will have to get from someone else. But part of the reason "feminists" are not answering your question is I have yet to find anyone who stands up and identifies by YOUR personal definition of what a "feminist" is. So again the deck is stacked, you will continue (to pretend) not to have a "feminist" answer your question because no one actually is a "feminist" by your definition of it. So there is no one TO answer it.

Again avoiding the question(s). Again point me to any mainstream feminist doctrine that doesn't paint women as agentless victims and men/the patriarchy as the oppressor. For clarity: Im not asking for your a la carte when it suits to avoid the point interpretation of it.

Again however my understanding of the use of the phrase, as with the definitions I found when I googled it, is that NO trait is toxic.

Masculinity: a set of attributes, behaviors, and roles associated with men. By definition when someone adds toxic in front of that it rates certain traits associated with masculinity as toxic. There is no female equivalent, though neurosis would be good one. Though as I've noted before and funny enough this is one phrase in origin that can't be laid at the feet of Feminism. They nicked it later on. It actually originated with a men's group back in the 70's, whose name thankfully escapes. Basically they were the original men crying and holding hands around campfires in forests banging drums. IE. hippies. And what should any sensible person do when confronted by hippies chanting in shrubbery?

I SUSPECT you agree with me, for example, that any suffering someone suffers due to expectations put on them due to an arbitrary grouping they are part of.... is a bad thing.

Yes. And No. I don't like to see anyone suffering, but I don't see men and women as "arbitrary groupings" either.

Just like I wholly agree with YOU that this modern move towards playing the victim is a horror move and one to be resisted at every turn.

We agree there at least. It's everywhere. Feminism positively drips with it and is a bloody charm for the trend, but so is every identity politic and hard felt done by group out there. Left, Right, whatever. Lefties see oppression and oppressors everywhere. Righties ditto. Men's rights types have caught the same disease, and rather than show up much of the feminist doctrine as bollocks and then ignore, or better yet fight said bollocks wherever it is to be found, too often they try to enter the same Victimhood Olympics Race.

Keepaneye

Dannyriver wrote: »

There is nothing about mental health that he speaks about that isn t based in solid scientific evidence. Can you name which aspect of his opinions you think are not based on research?

Read my post again. Then again.

Wibbs

Technocentral wrote: »

Only know the Rubberbandits from Horse Outside and the song on TS 2 soundtrack, never seen him interviewed but the fact he's pissing of the rightwingers on here so much must mean hes successful in his mission, fair fuks to him!!

Truth hurts eh Dick?

Funny, I noticed a few on the Jordan Peterson thread saying the same thing only swapping out rightwingers for leftwingers and on its own it's a bit childish and hardly worthy of the word debate. Particularly as a drop and go without any expansion, beyond a variation on the theme of "you smell, so there!!" added at the end. It just cements the Us Versus Them bollocks all too prevalent of late and too many people bereft of their own angle and arguments happy to simply follow whatever talking head they think speaks for them and their already established worldview.

DickSwiveller Returns

Brian? wrote: »

I'm misrepresenting nothing.

I said "I wonder". I didn't say it was happening.

Brian?

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

If children of same sex parents had worse outcomes I wonder how willing the researchers would be to publish such findings. Can you imagine the backlash from the LGBT lobby? Are these researchers completely balanced, I wonder?

I'm misrepresenting nothing.

DickSwiveller Returns

Brian? wrote: »

Correction, it's not what you're saying. What are you are saying is that you suspect that any research on the subject would be buried. That's not being intellectually curious.

If you were intellectually curious why don't you go and find some evidence on the subject, instead you throw out some guff about climate change data as a distraction. The reason I'm not addressing that is because it's zero to do with the topic at hand.

Why are you trying to misrepresent me, Brian? I'm making the simple point that research results are bias interpretations, just as we all do. I gave the climate change example to show that.

Brian?

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Actually, that isn't what I'm saying. I'm just being intellectually curious, which you should be too. I note you didn't address my point about the concealment of data re climate change

Correction, it's not what you're saying. What are you are saying is that you suspect that any research on the subject would be buried. That's not being intellectually curious.

If you were intellectually curious why don't you go and find some evidence on the subject, instead you throw out some guff about climate change data as a distraction. The reason I'm not addressing that is because it's zero to do with the topic at hand.

[Deleted User]

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Sounds the same thing to me? A statement like that would be just trying to explain a lack of evidence for a given position, by creating theories explaining away the lack of evidence.

Even if it was 100% true however, it still changes nothing. The evidence is not there. And until such time as it is, we should act on the evidence that IS There.

Only if you believe that such studies are the only form of evidence... Which gives Psychology an even greater degree of credibility than is warranted.

You've said the word evidence, but what evidence is there really? Some research is done, data collected and analysed based on the circumstances agreed by the researcher, and assumptions drawn. They're still assumptions. They're still going to have a degree of bias. I don't see that as evidence until we establish it beyond a shadow of doubt, which most research does not try to achieve.

But I see no reason rationally to expect funded studies to find the evidence these people are looking for, because I see no arguments being offered to even expect it to be true in the first place that there is any reason a man and a women can give a more ideal upbringing to a child than a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

Because religious, or traditional focus groups in the US are going to very interested in showing that the Male/Female group is better for parenting. Lesbian or gay focus groups are going to want to show that they are the better option, and if not the best, then more than acceptable.

The focus stops being about actual parenting, and becomes about the issue. Gender, Sexuality, etc.

But the studies ARE being done, that's the thing. The results just are not going the way some people want, so they imagine the studies THEY would like to see simply have not been done, or have been buried.

About a year ago, I started looking into the area of Domestic Abuse towards men. Some threads on Boards got me interested because the same studies were brought up time, and time again by both those talking about Male/Female violence. So, I've been digging at the different studies and reports both from the US and Europe.

And There are tons of studies into violence committed by men towards women. There are tons of studies into violence committed by men towards Children. There are some studies about violence committed by women towards men but they're in a distinct minority, and usually have some limitations attached to the assumptions made, and same again about studies about violence by women towards children.

There is a decided lack of studies about female led violence in our society. Oh, there are some but in comparison with the amount of studies about male led violence.... nope. Not even close.

True. Totally with you on that one. Great are of research. One of the reasons I think study on that is only being done in the last decade however is that I think the concept of emotional abuse in the first place is.... relatively speaking..... new in the public eye.

It was not that long ago that (and some people still do) people thought you could not even be raped by your husband or wife if you were married to them. That marriage implied 100% consent 100% of the time. So that we are only looking into the area of women emotionally abusing men now.... does not really surprise me.

Worse still, as I was only saying on the paedophilia thread yesterday.... one can only do research on certain people if those people make themselves known to us. And men have not been quick to come forward and admit to being abused in any way, emotional or physical, by women. It would be seen as a weakness. "Ah john cant even handle his woman" type stuff.

So it is a good first step that we are combating THAT mentality and men are coming froward more. Now we CAN study it more. Which is all good stuff.

Agreed, although I would question the lack of motivation in the past to actually do the research. We have plenty of research done about rape and yet women have spoken for a long time about the difficulties in obtaining volunteers to talk about the subject.

If you want to go with black and white "pass" or "fail" fair enough. I don't. I see that the methodologies of science have removed vast swaths of human bias from experiements and studies. Sam Parnia always springs to mind here who was very biased towards a positive results, but because honest methodologies were used they never got the results they WANTED To get.

Is the system perfect? Hell no. Do I consider that a fail? Also hell no. We are working on it all the time. But yes there are flaws in how research is funded and how publication is chosen. We know this.

Do we? How do we know? The studies and reports are being released, and used as "evidence" to support opinions on each particular subject. Not just opinions, but official stances, and initiatives.

I preferred it when Psychology was still a weird "science" and something we should be careful about believing in. Like Pop psychology used to be dodgy as hell, and now is actually becoming relatively accepted. Nowadays, it's almost immediately accepted because if you don't, they'll find some label to put you under.

Dannyriver

Keepaneye wrote: »

That's the thing. If confronted in the real world these people shrink down and cower away from a good debate because when confronted with actual scientific facts, they get flustered ala Cathy Newman.

There is nothing about mental health that he speaks about that isn t based in solid scientific evidence. Can you name which aspect of his opinions you think are not based on research?

Dannyriver

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Ah, more smug patronising comments. Do you really expect people to engage with you just talk down to them?

Just because someone uses logic and rationality to call you out on your emotional arguments doesn t mean they are talking down to you or being patronising.

briany

Where's Mr. Chrome these days? It seems like the Rubberbandits twitter is basically Blindboy talking from his own perspective. Would be better if they each had their own account and just use the RB one to announce gigs or whatever they're collaborating on.

Also, a reminder that one claiming to be from the Rubberbandits used to post here,

https://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?user=50082&sort=newest&date_to=&date_from=&query=%2A%3A%2A&page=1

Perhaps one of them still does under another name...

Dannyriver

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

So a young lad struggling in Southill Limerick needs to take a Gender Studies course or something?

You think thats what he meant?

DickSwiveller Returns

Brian? wrote: »

That is not what you're saying. You are saying you believe research into same sex parents is purposely not being published. At least stand over what you're actually saying.

Actually, that isn't what I'm saying. I'm just being intellectually curious, which you should be too. I note you didn't address my point about the concealment of data re climate change

Brian?

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

I'm simply saying that you shouldn't believe that all research is 100% honest and transparent just because it's been peer-reviewed.

That is not what you're saying. You are saying you believe research into same sex parents is purposely not being published. At least stand over what you're actually saying.

DickSwiveller Returns

Brian? wrote: »

Right so. You've taken a position and have started digging in. It doesn't actually matter what I say anymore.

I'm simply saying that you shouldn't believe that all research is 100% honest and transparent just because it's been peer-reviewed.

Brian?

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Well, I think you're very naive. do you remember a few years ago when scientists in Norwich university were found to be concealing data that conflicted with their view on climate change. These things are bound to happen.

Right so. You've taken a position and have started digging in. It doesn't actually matter what I say anymore.

nozzferrahhtoo

Deleted User wrote: »

Or simply that there hasn't been any funding or pressure allocated to researchers to actually do the studies.

Sounds the same thing to me? A statement like that would be just trying to explain a lack of evidence for a given position, by creating theories explaining away the lack of evidence.

Even if it was 100% true however, it still changes nothing. The evidence is not there. And until such time as it is, we should act on the evidence that IS There.

But I see no reason rationally to expect funded studies to find the evidence these people are looking for, because I see no arguments being offered to even expect it to be true in the first place that there is any reason a man and a women can give a more ideal upbringing to a child than a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

But the studies ARE being done, that's the thing. The results just are not going the way some people want, so they imagine the studies THEY would like to see simply have not been done, or have been buried.

Deleted User wrote: »

Look at the area of domestic abuse. There are extremely few studies looking into the area of women assaulting males in the home, either physically or emotionally, except within the last decade or so.

True. Totally with you on that one. Great are of research. One of the reasons I think study on that is only being done in the last decade however is that I think the concept of emotional abuse in the first place is.... relatively speaking..... new in the public eye.

It was not that long ago that (and some people still do) people thought you could not even be raped by your husband or wife if you were married to them. That marriage implied 100% consent 100% of the time. So that we are only looking into the area of women emotionally abusing men now.... does not really surprise me.

Worse still, as I was only saying on the paedophilia thread yesterday.... one can only do research on certain people if those people make themselves known to us. And men have not been quick to come forward and admit to being abused in any way, emotional or physical, by women. It would be seen as a weakness. "Ah john cant even handle his woman" type stuff.

So it is a good first step that we are combating THAT mentality and men are coming froward more. Now we CAN study it more. Which is all good stuff.

Deleted User wrote: »

Which fail... because there are biases within the organisations who fund the research, or within the communities who review the work.

If you want to go with black and white "pass" or "fail" fair enough. I don't. I see that the methodologies of science have removed vast swaths of human bias from experiements and studies. Sam Parnia always springs to mind here who was very biased towards a positive results, but because honest methodologies were used they never got the results they WANTED To get.

Is the system perfect? Hell no. Do I consider that a fail? Also hell no. We are working on it all the time. But yes there are flaws in how research is funded and how publication is chosen. We know this.

Deleted User wrote: »

There are heaps of studies out there which have been accepted for decades, and then later are revealed as being based on flawed assumptions.

Which is great! That is why we improve the methodologies all the time. We also have many people who were found guilty or innocent of murder, but later that decision was changed. Why? Because methods improved and we parsed old conclusions through new methods. This is GOOD. Not bad.

So yes, I have no doubt studies accepted (and rejected) in the past will become rejected (and accepted) in the future as our criteria for parsing them change. I would not have it any other way.

[Deleted User]

I saw on a few threads here recently a lot of complaints about the phrase 'toxic masculinity', and I don't want to get into the phrase since it's been done, but I always thought the under reporting and ignoring of males as victims of abuse and violence came from this sort of thinking, the proponents of which are of course (at least seems to be) other men. 'Real men don't get beaten up by girls' sort of thinking

Technocentral

I could never be as profound and eloquent as you Dick.

DickSwiveller Returns

Technocentral wrote: »

Only know the Rubberbandits from Horse Outside and the song on TS 2 soundtrack, never seen him interviewed but the fact he's pissing of the rightwingers on here so much must mean hes successful in his mission, fair fuks to him!!

Truth hurts eh Dick?

yes, your eloquent, thoughtful argument has hit me hard.

Technocentral

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Technocentral wrote: »

Only know the Rubberbandits from Horse Outside and tgecsong on TS 2 soundtrack, never seen him interviewed but the fact he's pissing of the rightwingers on here so much must mean hes successful in his mission, fair fuks to him!!

Wow, fantastic argument. Really profound.

Truth hurts eh Dick?

Technocentral

Only know the Rubberbandits from Horse Outside and the song on TS 2 soundtrack, never seen him interviewed but the fact he's pissing of the rightwingers on here so much must mean hes successful in his mission, fair fuks to him!!

Truth hurts eh Dick?

Technocentral

DickSwiveller Returns

Technocentral wrote: »

Only know the Rubberbandits from Horse Outside and tgecsong on TS 2 soundtrack, never seen him interviewed but the fact he's pissing of the rightwingers on here so much must mean hes successful in his mission, fair fuks to him!!

Wow, fantastic argument. Really profound.

Technocentral

Only know the Rubberbandits from Horse Outside and tgecsong on TS 2 soundtrack, never seen him interviewed but the fact he's pissing of the rightwingers on here so much must mean hes successful in his mission, fair fuks to him!!

DickSwiveller Returns

Brian? wrote: »

I have no doubt they would. That's how any decent academic should work. You're displaying some serious bias here to believe they wouldn t

Well, I think you're very naive. do you remember a few years ago when scientists in Norwich university were found to be concealing data that conflicted with their view on climate change. These things are bound to happen.

nozzferrahhtoo

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Apologies. It's very hard to keep with this word salad.

Which is an attribute of you, not me. Just for the record. The majority of people have, the majority of the time, no problem understanding me I have noticed over the decades.

I will endeavour to go easier on you.

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Your comments were in reply to a comment I just made so pardon me for thinking you were referring to me.

Apology accepted. But in future I will work with you on that and explicitly use words that make it clear I am talking about you when I am. If I do not do that, you can assume I am not.

But to return the point, which you now know is a general one rather than a personal one...... it is a very common move we see when there is no evidence for a position, to start claiming or inferring that that evidence exists but is being suppressed or hidden somehow.

So my response to your comment was a general warning to all, not to fall into the trap of conspiracy theory on this one. Especially given the negative publications ARE there, so that makes concerns about them being hushed up wrong on two levels.

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Well, that person does have a point. When the American Psychological Association was full of Conservative Psychologists they classified homosexuality as a disease.

That is one association though. The person I was talking about was making a blanket statement about academia as a whole. Which is ludicrous bordering on insane.

Especially given this imported US concept of conservative/liberal is represented in academia. Academia is NOT just liberals. And even if it was, that in no way means they are skewing results and reports to support their lifestyles.

SO no, the guy did not have a point. He had a paranoid skewed and nonsense view of the world. And, I fear, still does as the statement was never retracted.

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

You can't underestimate how much bias plays a role in these kinds of studies.

We don't. That is why we have peer review and ever improving methodologies. If anything we are OVER estimating it. And I think that is actually the right thing to do.

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Also, as I said, there is surely a fear of a backlash from the LGBT lobby, who are very influential at the moment.

Then you will find me on the front line of that battle fighting by your side AGAINST The LGBT lobby if they do it. Because I am more interested in the truth and the methodologies of science than I am with giving people I like a free ride.

And if a well formed, methodologically sound study gets attacked by them purely because they do not like the results..... they will find me on the opposite side of the battle to them.

It has not happened though, and I do not expect it to, because I see no reason to expect evidence of the sort we are discussing to ever arise.