Conquer Club

PLAYER57832 wrote:

barackattack wrote:Is it true that a gay man is 5 times more likely to be convicted of sexual assault on a minor than a heterosexual man? Scary.

No, it is not.

Do you know this, or are you just leaping to the assumption that my statistic is a figment of someone's imagination?

barackattack wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

barackattack wrote:Is it true that a gay man is 5 times more likely to be convicted of sexual assault on a minor than a heterosexual man? Scary.

No, it is not.

Do you know this, or are you just leaping to the assumption that my statistic is a figment of someone's imagination?

Until you show the documentation of your very unlikely statistic, yes I'm going to leap to that assumption. Do you have some documentation?

I was just asking whether anyone knows if my statistic is true or not. I never said it was documented anywhere.

It would appear the isue is still out there.

barackattack wrote:I was just asking whether anyone knows if my statistic is true or not. I never said it was documented anywhere.

It would appear the isue is still out there.

There are a few studies debunking it, but basically it's a variant on a pretty common homophobic claim that homosexuals are a threat to children.

UC Davis Analysis

It's difficult to debunk a claim without knowing its source though. The only one I could find that made the point that caused your fear seems to come from Pat Robinson's university.

The argument will always be out there, in some form or another. I don't think it's particularly legitimate or rational though. You don't need to worry.

Your link appears to be picking holes in all past research.

There is, therefore, no reliable evidence that contradicts my statistic.

barackattack wrote:Your link appears to be picking holes in all past research.

There is, therefore, no reliable evidence that contradicts my statistic.

Your statistic? How did you come by this statistic? Can you post the stats behind your post?

The question is not where the statistic came from, but whether we can disprove it.

Which we can't. Oh well.

barackattack wrote:The question is not where the statistic came from, but whether we can disprove it.

Which we can't. Oh well.

That's quite a claim. Are you saying you made it up? It's pretty offensive to gay people, specifically gay men. You understand that they would be offended by a claim like that? Right?

You do understand why people would ask where you're getting your information from?

Symmetry wrote:

barackattack wrote:The question is not where the statistic came from, but whether we can disprove it.

Which we can't. Oh well.

That's quite a claim. Are you saying you made it up? It's pretty offensive to gay people, specifically gay men. You understand that they would be offended by a claim like that? Right?

You do understand why people would ask where you're getting your information from?

It's not just offensive, but downright homophobic.

I merely asked whether that statistic is true. If someone takes offense from my fact-finding expedition then that is their bad, not mine.

Yes, but barackattack, according to Woodruff, asking questions is a common tactic people use to terrorize him on the internet. So you should stop asking questions forever.

barackattack wrote:Is it true that a gay man is 5 times more likely to be convicted of sexual assault on a minor than a heterosexual man? Scary.

I've not heard this, however - and this was discussed at length in a different thread - it is true that homosexual males are 11 times more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexual males (similar trends are not present among homosexual females). That said, pedophilia as it is used in this study refers to a psychiatric disorder, not a criminal statute, and no data concerning whether or not the men actioned their impulses was included. Also, 11x still puts pedophiles in a small minority of the overall homosexual community. So this shouldn't be taken to suggest Symmetry or anyone else is a de facto pedophile.

• This is very old data (about 15 years) because no psychiatric study into homosexuality has been permitted since then (NIH and other research funders won't permit this type of scientific inquiry as a result of intense political pressure). The study was conducted by the renowned Czech sexologist Dr. Kurt Freund at Toronto's Clark Institute.

These aging studies are frequently subjected to intense discrediting from academics who are - 9 times out of 10 - social workers, sociologists, psychologists and other non-physicians. The Davis study linked in here was posted in the previous thread to which I referred by a different poster and it is one of the most popular ... but still is not authored by a person with medical qualifications.

• There are many potentially fascinating questions about homosexuality that will never be answered by science because asking the questions has been prohibited. But two facts do remain:
  
  • (1) Homosexuality remains the only condition in human history that has been declassified from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as a result of political lobbying (I, therefore, assume one could hire a lobbyist to have a legislature declare that cancer is cured, which would probably be less expensive than conducting research into cancer treatments.),
    (2) free and unhindered scientific inquiry by the psychiatric profession into the topic no longer exists and is absolutely impossible to get funded by grant-making centers

barackattack wrote:I merely asked whether that statistic is true. If someone takes offense from my fact-finding expedition then that is their bad, not mine.

Making facts up is not in any way a "fact-finding expedition".

pimpdave wrote:Yes, but barackattack, according to Woodruff, asking questions is a common tactic people use to terrorize him on the internet. So you should stop asking questions forever.

pimpdave, I'm not at all surprised to see you supporting someone for simply making shit up and trying to pass it off as fact, as you have done yet again in the post I've quoted above.

barackattack wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

barackattack wrote:Is it true that a gay man is 5 times more likely to be convicted of sexual assault on a minor than a heterosexual man? Scary.

No, it is not.

Do you know this, or are you just leaping to the assumption that my statistic is a figment of someone's imagination?

Been brought up plenty of times before.
The attraction to children is not in any way associated with homosexuality. Pedophiles tend to specialize in either girls or boys, but that is not tied to attraction to adults of any gender. Those attracted to adults of the same sex are actually LESS likely to be pedophiles than those who are heterosexual.
.

I am not 100% confident on this link her, but it does seem to get at some of why there is so much disinformation about this, specifically dealing with defintions:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chil.htm

Woodruff wrote:

pimpdave wrote:Yes, but barackattack, according to Woodruff, asking questions is a common tactic people use to terrorize him on the internet. So you should stop asking questions forever.

pimpdave, I'm not at all surprised to see you supporting someone for simply making shit up and trying to pass it off as fact, as you have done yet again in the post I've quoted above.

What are you talking about?

Woodruff wrote:pimpdave, I'm not at all surprised to see you supporting someone for simply making shit up and trying to pass it off as fact

Ah, but did I pass it off as fact? No. I asked whether or not it was factual. Maybe you should re-read my question, rather than picking on poor Dave.

saxitoxin wrote:Homosexuality remains the only condition in human history that has been declassified from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as a result of political lobbying

I like this. Puts an interesting perspective on the debate that I had not considered before. Kudos on your ability to think outside the box (or outside the UK box, at least).

saxitoxin wrote:

barackattack wrote:Is it true that a gay man is 5 times more likely to be convicted of sexual assault on a minor than a heterosexual man? Scary.

I've not heard this, however - and this was discussed at length in a different thread - it is true that homosexual males are 11 times more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexual males (similar trends are not present among homosexual females). That said, pedophilia as it is used in this study refers to a psychiatric disorder, not a criminal statute, and no data concerning whether or not the men actioned their impulses was included. Also, 11x still puts pedophiles in a small minority of the overall homosexual community. So this shouldn't be taken to suggest Symmetry or anyone else is a de facto pedophile.

No, the link you provided actually doesn't say that. It says that, among pedophiles, homosexual pedophilia is more common. One issue is, as noted above, the definition. Heterosexuals attracted to children are more often distinguished from adult heterosexuality, whereas pedophilic homosexuals are often combined, statistically, under the term "homosexual".

For example, Sandusky is not at all noted to be attracted to adult males. He is, however, accused of molesting young boys.

This mayo clinic study, though long-winded and involved does show the data:.
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/co ... 4/457.full

Woodruff wrote:

barackattack wrote:I merely asked whether that statistic is true. If someone takes offense from my fact-finding expedition then that is their bad, not mine.

Making facts up is not in any way a "fact-finding expedition".

woodruff, I think you missed this statement:

barackattack wrote:I don't consider myself intelligent.

It pretty well speaks for itself.

Even so, statements like that going unchallenged do sway folks who don't take the time to investigate, so I did answer.. even knowing he's just a troll.

Before you go into overdrive and repost that quote over every single damn thread going, I'd suggest you read back through the thread I originally posted it in.

It was part of a post/series of posts in which I stated that I don't believe it is possible to rationally judge intelligence. Therefore I don't see how I can realistically declare myself (or anyone else) intelligent.

barackattack wrote:Before you go into overdrive and repost that quote over every single damn thread going, I'd suggest you read back through the thread I originally posted it in.

It was part of a post/series of posts in which I stated that I don't believe it is possible to rationally judge intelligence. Therefore I don't see how I can realistically declare myself (or anyone else) intelligent.

Your attempt at being cutely erudite is failing, sorry.

If you ever decide to honestly enter these debates, fine. But you are hardly the first, and far from the most adept, troll here.

Yeah, Player's got you beat by miles.

pimpdave wrote:Yeah, Player's got you beat by miles.

as do you, as do you... .
(I actually had you in mind, along with a few others when I made that statement... you can, of course, come up with some great discussion, but also have a knack for trolling when you so decide. Saxi, though, I have to say is in a class all his own. "Troll" is rather diminishing a word for his talents.)

Then again, I could have just said "case in point" (to clarify for b, I am not that good of a troll)

It's not my fault you're allowing your heart to lead your role in this debate.

Player, why are you calling me names? That's really hurtful.