GOP to ban divorce (so much for small government)

[Diogenes]

You keep presenting anecdotal and not scientific evidence. Strange way to try to make your case. You won't bother because you know there is no scientific, peer reviewed, credible evidence to support your assertion. The last 'expert' you trotted out was a disgraced psychologist thrown out of his professional association for using unfounded methodologies to support his presuppositions. He lead the evidence instead of following it. You are exactly like parallel trying to support Rossi. He doesn't have a scientific leg to stand on and neither do you.

So again where is the evidence? Time to walk the walk.

I don't know who you are talking about, and I don't care whether or not I ever find out. I am simply immune to your opinion. Again, the only purpose you serve from my perspective is amusement.


Here's another one.


Gay Couple Accused of Raping Adopted Boys

“They took turns raping me over and over,” one of the boys said at a hearing Friday in Hartford Superior Court, testifying that the abuse began when he was only 6 years old. “Anyone who would do this to a child is a sick, demented person.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/g ... -1.1310010


I'm amazed that the newspaper even ran this story. Nowadays, the word "Gay" provides massive amounts of immunity from bad publicity, especially in a place like New York. It's like being Muslim or something.

[kcdodd]

One tell of a liar is that when pressed on something they are being dishonest about, they try to change the subject. So, now you are talking about gay Nazis? How funny. You WERE talking about how gays are far more likely to molest people than anyone else. But, since you were pressed on that giving bupkis, which isn't quite true since you did provide a link to articles refuting that claim, you changed the subject at the first opportunity. So, naturally you want to talk about a gay Nazis conspiracy theory to try to prove your point. How about you answer for your first lie first. Then we can move on from there. Of course I know you won't.

[Diogenes]

One tell of a liar is that when pressed on something they are being dishonest about, they try to change the subject. So, now you are talking about gay Nazis?

Temper temper. YOU brought up the Nazis and asked me what I thought of them. I pointed out that they were pretty "gay" and you fault me for answering you?


This is why I don't really try very hard with people like you and stubby. You will dispute or find fault with anything I say. Again, only good for amusement.

How funny. You WERE talking about how gays are far more likely to molest people than anyone else.

Actually, I was saying that they molested children at a higher percentage than is their representation in the population, but what is the point of accuracy in such a discussion as this?

But, since you were pressed on that giving bupkis, you changed the subject at the first opportunity.

YOU changed the subject. (Actually you just initiated a divergent thread, the main topic is still active.) That I am not taking any serious efforts to convince you is because I do not think you can be convinced, ergo to what point effort?

So, naturally you want to talk about a gay Nazis conspiracy theory to try to prove your point. How about you answer for your first lie first. Then we can move on from there.

How about I just annoy you further? You allege a lie, so I don't see any point in trying to argue with you.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ng-10.html

The third boy told investigators that Mytton would perform a regular sex act on him and that he once accompanied Mytton to a dinner party as his 'plus one'.

Mytton told officers following his arrest: 'I like boys. If I was a straight gay, life would be a lot easier. I like boys, I know I like boys and it has cost me everything.'

[kcdodd]

You brought up Nazis first, not me. Perhaps you are just a pathological liar, instead of just every now and then.

Actually, I was saying that they molested children at a higher percentage than is their representation in the population, but what is the point of accuracy in such a discussion as this?

So, at least you can count TO one.

I have to admit that I do not seem to have access to the full article, so I cannot read it. The only information on it I can see is in the abstract. It says that 11% of the abused children (or 16 of 145) where male. What I assume follows is that all the attackers were male (I think it's something like 90% statistically), then that means that 11% of attacks are by homosexuals. If you assume that 2% of men are gay, then that must mean that gays are 5 times more likely to molest. Is that about right?

[Diogenes]

You brought up Nazis first, not me. Perhaps you are just a pathological liar, instead of just every now and then.

I mentioned that trying to convince a homosexual about homosexuality would be like asking a Nazi what he thinks about the Jews. As the Nazis are widely known for their prejudice it was an easy to understand metaphor. It was not an attempt to initiate a conversation about the Nazis, but that is what you did with it.

You asked, I answered, you didn't like the answer. I actually suspect you wish you'd never asked it if you bothered to look at the material. One does not like being associated with one of the most blood thirsty organizations in history. I must say *I* was surprised when I read it the first time.

Actually, I was saying that they molested children at a higher percentage than is their representation in the population, but what is the point of accuracy in such a discussion as this?

So, at least you can count TO one.

I have to admit that I do not seem to have access to the full article, so I cannot read it. The only information on it I can see is in the abstract. It says that 11% of the abused children (or 16 of 145) where male. What I assume follows is that all the attackers were male (I think it's something like 90% statistically), then that means that 11% of attacks are by homosexuals. If you assume that 2% of men are gay, then that must mean that gays are 5 times more likely to molest. Is that about right?

That is the implication of THAT article. I've seen others which put the number even higher, but yeah, you've got the basic point. Molestations of boys ought to be about 2% of the overall cases of molestations, but various sources indicate that the actual percentage of cases is substantially higher.

[kcdodd]

Well, it seems another interpretation that is just as accurate is that child molesters are about 10x more likely to be "heterosexual" than "homosexual". Don't you agree with that?

[Stubby]

This study has absolutely nothing to do with tendencies of homosexuals to molest children.
You read the abstract, saw some numbers, pulled some conclusions out of your ass.
There is no data here at all to support your assertions regarding homosexuality.

Do you want to try again or drop your claims?

This study suggests that boys are
more commonly victims of sexual
abuse than is generally appreciated.
Boys are similar to girls in the type of
perpetrator who assaults them and in
the age group at which they appear
for medical examination. Although
they are equally prone to assault in
their own homes, boys are more likely
to be assaulted in public places and
more likely to be physically injured by
the incident. Parents, health care pro-
viders, and child advocates need to be
alerted to the existence of the male
child sexual abuse victim so that pre-
vention and timely intervention can
be provided. In evaluating traumatic
injuries, genital infections, and psychoemotional
disorders in boys of any
age, the possibility of sexual abuse
must be considered

[GIThruster]

. . .I am waiting for you to forget that we remember your ludicrous conspiracy claims about UFO's--and your other manifold stupidities.

Then I'll metaphorically beat you in the head with them again. You are no one whose arguments should be given credence, except by happenstance.

I can't recall any statements about conspiracy theories. I recall answering that I have indeed investigated the issue and find the evidence compelling, as do the majority of Americans, including the vast majority of the intelligence community.

I also recall you doing what you're doing now--ignoring any and all pretense toward having looked at the evidence yourself, and taken a stand based on your emotions. Philosophers have a name for folks who come to a position without ever having looked at the evidence--morons.

[Diogenes]

Well, it seems another interpretation that is just as accurate is that child molesters are about 10x more likely to be "heterosexual" than "homosexual". Don't you agree with that?

Absolutely. In fact, if the numbers are proportional, they should be 49 times more likely to be child molesters. 49 x 2% =98% with the remaining 2% being the homosexual molesters.

Homosexuals are overrepresented amongst child molesters, and that is not even counting the effect of boys being less willing to report molestation than are girls.

[Diogenes]

Do you want to try again or drop your claims?

I think I mentioned that I don't give a flying f*** what you think. Here, have another.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... mailonline

Cannon, 54, and his 31-year-old partner John Scarfe were each jailed for 30 months in May 2006 for inciting sexual activity with a child.

Mr Cannon said: ‘I believe if my adoptive dad was in a heterosexual relationship then my complaints would have been listened to earlier.

[hanelyp]

Well, it seems another interpretation that is just as accurate is that child molesters are about 10x more likely to be "heterosexual" than "homosexual". Don't you agree with that?

Context is important. How many instances of population X are in population Y takes on far more meaning if you compare how many in !X are in Y. Without that comparison you can't establish a meaningful correlation, or lack thereof, between 2 groups.

[kcdodd]

Well, it seems another interpretation that is just as accurate is that child molesters are about 10x more likely to be "heterosexual" than "homosexual". Don't you agree with that?

Absolutely. In fact, if the numbers are proportional, they should be 49 times more likely to be child molesters. 49 x 2% =98% with the remaining 2% being the homosexual molesters.

Homosexuals are overrepresented amongst child molesters, and that is not even counting the effect of boys being less willing to report molestation than are girls.

I was using "heterosexual" and "homosexual" in quotes to classify the molestation itself based on the sex of the offender and victim. I'm not sure what you have done with your numbers, you'd have to explain.

However, if we are going to get into statistics, then there are a few interrelated problems. You're assumption is that those men who molest girls are randomly selected from the straight population defined to get the 98% statistic, and those who molest boys are randomly selected from the gay population defined to get the 2% population. However, you actually have to justify that assumption.

Although the majority of clergy abuse victims are males, homosexuality cannot be blamed. First, many of the pedophile priests report that they are not homosexual. This is also true of many non-clergy sex offenders who victimize boys. Many report that they target boys for a variety of reasons... that include easier access to boys ... pregnancy fears with female victims ... homosexuals in general have not been found to be more likely to commit sexual crimes against minors compared to heterosexuals. Sexual orientation is not predictive of sex crimes

Thomas Plante, Mental Disorders of the New Millennium (2006)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/09/1 ... -the-proof

So, at the very least, one can not assume that the 2% statistic is of any use what-so-ever in determining a population from which child molesters come from, because it was defined using another metric altogether. At its heart, you are committing the error of equivocation, defining gay in one sense and then using it in another sense altogether.

If you want to show that homosexuals are over-represented among pedophiles, then you have to instead look at any correlation between the gay population as defined to get the 2% statistic and the pedophile population. In other words, you need to count to two now.

[Diogenes]

Well, it seems another interpretation that is just as accurate is that child molesters are about 10x more likely to be "heterosexual" than "homosexual". Don't you agree with that?

Absolutely. In fact, if the numbers are proportional, they should be 49 times more likely to be child molesters. 49 x 2% =98% with the remaining 2% being the homosexual molesters.

Homosexuals are overrepresented amongst child molesters, and that is not even counting the effect of boys being less willing to report molestation than are girls.

I was using "heterosexual" and "homosexual" in quotes to classify the molestation itself based on the sex of the offender and victim. I'm not sure what you have done with your numbers, you'd have to explain.

Same as you. The presumption is that homosexual child molesters will prefer boys, and heterosexual child molesters will prefer girls. The sex of the victim presumes the orientation of the attacker.

However, if we are going to get into statistics, then there are a few interrelated problems. You're assumption is that those men who molest girls are randomly selected from the straight population defined to get the 98% statistic, and those who molest boys are randomly selected from the gay population defined to get the 2% population. However, you actually have to justify that assumption.

How is that assumption not justified based on the sex of the victim? Do you have a plausible alternative suggestion?

Although the majority of clergy abuse victims are males, homosexuality cannot be blamed. First, many of the pedophile priests report that they are not homosexual. This is also true of many non-clergy sex offenders who victimize boys. Many report that they target boys for a variety of reasons... that include easier access to boys ... pregnancy fears with female victims ... homosexuals in general have not been found to be more likely to commit sexual crimes against minors compared to heterosexuals. Sexual orientation is not predictive of sex crimes

Thomas Plante, Mental Disorders of the New Millennium (2006)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/09/1 ... -the-proof

You are defining "not homosexual" pretty loosely. I would make the obvious argument that if you are having sex with the same gender, you are by definition Homo-Sexual. I believe I understand your point though. You are suggesting that they are in a group (such as prison inmates) that do not prefer same sex, but will utilize whatever happens to be available. And how can this be determined to be true?

Though I am not going to look at any links to DailyKos, I have found this study in which Thomas Plante was a consultant.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/55745387/Caus ... -201051211


I'll have to take a look at it before I can comment intelligently regarding it.

So, at the very least, one can not assume that the 2% statistic is of any use what-so-ever in determining a population from which child molesters come from, because it was defined using another metric altogether. At its heart, you are committing the error of equivocation, defining gay in one sense and then using it in another sense altogether.

I think that is a non sequitur. First, you are presuming an intent (to use different definitions in different contexts) which does not exist, and it remains to be seen if the definitions are in fact different.

If you want to show that homosexuals are over-represented among pedophiles, then you have to instead look at any correlation between the gay population as defined to get the 2% statistic and the pedophile population. In other words, you need to count to two now.

Defined by whom? With enough tailoring, you can slice the definition it into as small of a sliver as you wish. Homosexuality is itself just a subsection of a larger group of deviant sexual behavior, and there are many sub categories of homosexuality as well. (of which "Butch" and Femme" are merely two examples.)


I personally think much of human sexuality in general is tied strongly to a "taboo" section of the brain. It is no coincidence that so many people are aroused by "taboo" acts or thoughts, and I suspect this might be an evolutionary left-over from the time when Alpha males dominated the harem of females, and any non-alpha male sex had to be furtive and operating under great anxiety.

I think this particular piece of human brain firm-ware sometimes gets corrupted and produces various deviances. Some of them are relatively harmless (foot fetish?) but some of them are distinctly unhealthy.

[Diogenes]

Also, I ran across this. You might find it interesting.


http://www.homosexinfo.org/Sexuality/Pedophilia

[kcdodd]

Defined by whom? With enough tailoring, you can slice the definition it into as small of a sliver as you wish. Homosexuality is itself just a subsection of a larger group of deviant sexual behavior, and there are many sub categories of homosexuality as well. (of which "Butch" and Femme" are merely two examples.)

Of course you can lump as many, or as few, things together as you like in retrospect. But that is not what your goal is. Your goal is to say that being gay is a predictor. So, you are committing equivocation yet again. You are defining your statistic in retrospect, and then claim it can be applied as a predictor. Here is the problem. AFTER a man has molested a boy you can classify them "gay" in hindsight if you wish to. However, that's not what you're after. You're after a predictor. Something you can know before a pedophile strikes. The key issue here, and which studies have shown, is BEFORE they do it they could be classified as either gay or straight. The only way to show a correlation the way you wish to (to show that being gay is itself a predictor to child molestation) is to sample the gay population BEFORE anyone molests anyone. However, when people do that they don't find the correlation you seem to be looking for. But of course, you already knew that. You just don't like those studies.