I see you've left. But if you come back, this is waiting for you:
Trolling? No it's called arguing and you both have been doing an absolutely miserable job of it while triumphantly and smugly perked on your crumbling sandcastle soap boxes.
If you wanna get into the minutiae of arguing, let's have at it, shall we? Cuz I'm 'bout to get real pedantic on your ass.
Alleged 'ex-dealer' Premier-designate
Factual 'current-dealer' and accused 'groper' Prime Minster
First: "current dealer" = False Analogy fallacy. Legalized government sanctioned and controlled sales of drugs aren't equivalent to illegal drug dealing any more than BestBuy is to a guy selling stolen stereos out of his van.
Also why the difference between "alleged" and "accused"? Accused implies proof. Both are alleged misdeeds.
Oh the screaming hypocritical irony.
Of what? I didn't vote Liberal.
But again, logical fallacy checkmark. Fallacy of Whataboutery. The prime minister is irrelevant to this argument (feds have little to do with education), and you're attempting to put moral character of the people arguing against you into question based on that.
I'm not interested in responding to those aburdlly baited questions.
Baited? Another check on the logical fallacy scorecard; Fallacy of Deliberate Ignorance.
The list was the necessary steps required to believe that Benjamin Levin was able to taint the curriculum from conception all the way to its being taught. Each one a link in an incredibly weak chain that crumbles on any serious inspection. A person who has a serious, legitimate argument as to how Levin had tainted it, should be able to answer no to every one of those questions. That is, with the exception of whether one had read it or not. Your unwillingness to answer even one of them leads me to believe that you know your argument has zero merit.
By the way, I have read it, and I'm quite fine with what's being taught to my school-age daughter.
My point concerning the pedophile was that someone in a very high position was involved in the sex ed curriculum so it stands to reason that the curriculum may be tainted with his poised quiver.
It's an informal logical fallacy of association. Phil Spector was a great music producer. Phil Spector killed a woman. Therefore all the records he ever produced must be about killing women. See how that doesn't work? It doesn't work in your case either.
If you can't comprehend the logic of that simple argument you are more lost that I gave you credit for.
Logic noun
reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
It's the strict principles you're missing here because you're being astounding reductionist and not even bothering to give validations of why Levin being a paedophile equals a tainted curriculum.
Anyway, bye-eeeee!