I find it interesting that some would take the position that "dire dangers" don't require facts. Without facts, how does one determine if one is facing a dire d

I find it interesting that some would take the position that "dire dangers" don't require facts. Without facts, how does one determine if one is facing a dire danger? We have a low-level debate (at present, but is getting bigger) going on here in relation to a anti-bullying program being introduced into schools called the "Safe Schools" program. The premise that underlies the entire program is that the only significant bullying that occurs in schools is against LGBTI... individuals. The premise says that there is no other bullying. As a parent, you are given no opportunity to actually see the materials to be used. In other words, one cannot see the "facts" the program is presenting to the children. The material is required to be taught in every class and if a teacher disagrees with it and won't teach it, they will be sacked. One reason some teachers don't want a bar of it is that the material comes with strong warnings about how to deal with the psychological problems the children will have when they do their sexual role playing. Bullying has a broad range of targets and reasons. Some of it has a sexual orientation, much of it doesn't. I was a nerd, but in my case, I suffered little bullying for the simple fact that I was of the attitude that that you attack me, I attacked right back with a bigger stick. I was generally not a target as I was considered too dangerous and unpredictable. It took a very calm father to train me not to do such. I saw others who were also bullied and where I intervened that ceased to be a problem, again because I was too dangerous and unpredictable. This is another area where the facts are not important only the agenda of a specific group.