Ann Coulter is at it again

The BBQ Pit
81

hudley: Paraphrasing you, "First you (Shayna) said, “The fact that [I’d] apparantly have a problem with [male scout leaders for my daughter] speaks volumes.” Then you (Shayna) said you had “made no accusations either stated or implied that [****I] had a propensity to molest children.” It sounds like your buddy’s accusation that my “post gives a subtle implication that I would feel attracted to a young girl[s].”

It does? Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit, is it? What does the fact that I draw conclusions about your character based on your unwillingness to allow gay men around your daughter have to do with someone else’s observation that they saw an implication in your post(s) that you’d be attracted to young girls? Really. I’m totally stumped here.

I’m just going to ignore the rest of your blather.

RTFirefly: You are correct that polycarp and Esprix (and now wring), as well as yourself, have expressed their understanding that a person’s sexual orientation does not determine the sex of their child victims. My assumption that little girls who are molested are more likely molested by heterosexual men and vice versa, came from my interpretation of the raw numbers of little girls being molested in far greater numbers than little boys. In spite of the fact that Esprix’s posted quote from encyclopedia.com supporting his (and your) position doesn’t reference how that conclusion was arrived at, I’ll concede that point and say I was wrong.

However… it still doesn’t really matter within the scope of this discussion. In other words, whether a male who is heterosexual in his adult sexual contact chooses little boy victims over little girl victims, and vice versa, doesn’t in any way prove that homosexual men are a greater risk to children. That was the point I was trying to make when I said that there simply is no correlation between sexual orientation and whether or not one will be a child molester, with which you agreed.

I did not mean to imply that “straight males were more likely to be molesters than gay males” because of their sexual orientation. It’s strictly a numbers game. Because of the fact that sexual orientation is not a determinant of whether one will be a child molester, and heterosexual men significantly outnumber homosexual men in the population, the odds are that a child’s risk of being molested by a heterosexual male exceed the risk of molestation by a homosexual male. Does that clarify it better?

The Ryan: My apologies. I must have missed where you said her axioms don’t make sense. I believed from the tone of your post that you were in agreement with her, and included you in my reply because of that. If you don’t agree with her, then ignore said inclusion and consider it not directed towards you.

Now that I’m pretty much done clarifying any previous statements, I’d like to return to the subject of the OP – that Ms. Coulter is espousing the removal of gay men from the priesthood, much as the BSA removed gay men from scout-leading, because she (and they) believe(s) there is an inherent risk in exposing children to gay men. The evidence proves this to be at best, untrue, and at worst, fear- and hate-mongering.

I invite you to read this research report on Child Sexual Molestation from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice: http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/163390.txt

I’ll quote some relevant findings (all bolding mine)

Note that there is nothing describing homosexuality as a factor in whether or not one will have a propensity towards molestation. What it does list are factors such as…

[quote]
[ul][li]A history of impulsive, antisocial behavior is a well-documented risk factor for certain predatory, extrafamilial child molesters.[/li]
[li]Early childhood experiences, such as a high turnover in primary caregivers (which is a strong predictor of adult sexual violence), may interfere with the development of viable, age-appropriate adult relationships, making it more likely that children are selected as sexual targets. [/ul][/li][/quote]
Ms. Coulter’s arrogance in thinking she knows better than the researchers, what causes pedophilia, is astounding. While she equates being gay with being a high risk, the research actually states:

But Ms. Coulter knows it’s gays. Okaaaaay.

With regard to the sex of the victim, it has this to say:

Skipping all the information on recidivism and/or treatment, we get to the conclusion…

So, to repeat, research studies have shown that whether a male is homosexual or heterosexual does not determine their propensity towards child molestation. Therefore, the removal of gays from any particular organization will not decrease the risk of molestation.

82

Yes, that is the post. Apparently you found it despite the ambiguousness of the phrase, “my second post )on teh first page of this thread).” I am happy that you managed to pull it out from all of my other second posts on that page.

No, it supports that descriptor “homosexual act” for an instance of male-male molestation. It also notes, "People concerned with precision and clarity understand that distinction. People familiar with current research into sexual orientation understand the fallacy of using the term to describe the sexual orientation of the molester. . . People concerned with advancing an inflamatory agenda regardless of accuracy forgo such nuances and apply emotionally laden terms broadly and often inaccurately."

Which of those categories best applies to you is becoming quite clear.

No. “Homosexual conduct” is a phrase which cannot be expected to clearly communicate the realities of the context. It carries a straightforward reading of “the conduct of homosexuals” which is both inaccurate and inflammatory.

Waiting for support!? How silly–generally one asks a question before one “waits for an answer”. Still, suit yourself. While waiting perhaps you could idly pass the time clicking some of the links Shayna provided, or typing a few choice phraes into google, or even (I know this is a stretch) asking for a specific point to be defended.

For the rest, I see that Polycarp has answered you with far more patience and equanimity than I was likely to. I will simply recommend that you read his post more carefully than you have read my second post (on the first page of this thread). Yes, that one.

83

Actually, not quiote. What they are calling for is the removal of honest gay men from the priesthood.

Right now, today, if I were to call up Troop 72, my old Scout troop and say “I wanna be an Assistant Scoutmaster,” they would jump at the chance to have me.

They’d look at my record, see that I am an Eagle Scout, have served the Troop as an Assistant Patrol Leader, Patrol Leader, Assistant Senior Patrol Leader, Senior Patrol Leader and Junior Assistant Scoutmaster. They’d know that I was ASPL for a National Jamboree Troop (and one of less than 10 guys in the history of Troop 72 to go to ta Nat’l Jambo). Their records would show tht I am fully Youth Protection Certified, that I am a Brotherhood Member of the Order of the Arrow, a former District and Council Lever Officer for that organization, who has attended a National OA Conference, that I served on Summer Camp Staff for three months, and twice volunteered for Winter Camp staff.

In essence, I am exactly the kind of person they would want to have as an Assistant Scoutmaster. The only thing they would have to check is my police record (which is relatively clean, and certainly clean enough), and of course, the prerequisite, “are you gay?” question.

If I lie about that question (and remember not to wear my little rainbow bracelet to the meetings), I’m in like Flint. Exemplary Eagle Scout, dedicated former OA officer, I’m prime ASM material.

But if I follow the Scout Law, and tell them the truth, I’m rejected. Not for anything I’ve done, or anything I’ve shown the propensity to do. But because of who I am, and the fact that I care enough about the BSA not to lie to it. All my past accomplishments, all my qualifications, and my clear dedication to the Scouting program? Worthless. Meaningless.

The fact that I spent months on end among Scouts as a late teen and never molested anyone, and have full Youth Protection certification? Meaningless.

One little trait, and it’s all thrown out the window. That’s wrong. I am not a threat to anyone. But the Scouts would treat me like a pariah, if I were to honestly apply. But if I lie? I’m fine.

So an organization that prides itself on morality is, basically, encouraging dedicated Scouters and Scouting professionals to lie, lest they be tossed out on their asses. And trust me, there are a lot of gays involved at all levels of Scouting. They’re not a threat to the kids, and they’re not molestors.

But they’re all forced to lie. Just like gay priests will be, if trash like Coulter get their way. And that’s wrong. That’s bigotry. It’s un-Christian. And definitely un-Scouting.

Kirk

84

While it is not what is considered “normal”, I think that most would agree that consent is irrelevant to determining orientation.

Whether my heterosexual attraction includes prepubescent girls is irrelevant to the issue of whether the category of heterosexual attraction includes prepubescent girls, just as whether people describing themselves as homosexual normally are attracted to prepubescent boys is irrelevant to the category of homosexuality. You may not wish to associate yourself with fundamentalist Christians, but that does not mean that you can redefine the term “Christian” to exclude them just so you can avoid putting yourself in the same category as them when describing yourself as Christian.

In what way is this attraction a mental illness, and homosexuality not?

I believe that you are misunderstanding my position. I certainly agree that there homosexuals who engage in heterosexual behavior, and vice versa. However, a person who, having no external forces favoring one choice over another, regularly chooses to engage in homosexual conduct is, in my mind, a homosexual. And vice versa.

This will probably just get me into more trouble, but I find the phrase “normal homosexuality” to be an oxymoron. Without ascribing any moral value to the term “abnormal”, I find all homosexual conduct to be abnormal.

There are some people who have this sort of relationship with multiple people, with no expectation of exclusivity or permanence. Then there are a large number a people who simply are not looking for that sort of relationship. How would you categorize these people? Asexual?

I don’t understand what you’re saying here. Are you saying that there is some fallacy, once having defined homosexuality as attraction to people of the same sex, to apply it to “a person oriented to, and if gratified in his or her desires engaging in, sexual activity by mutual consent and desire with another adult of the same sex”?

[quote]
Because that dog won’t hunt, to quote one of your old expression

[quote]

Hmmm, I don’t remember ever using that expression, but whatever.

Are you saying that I am condemning all homosexuals for being child molesters? Because I never said anything of the sort.

Even if that were true, I don’t think that we are beholden to the definitions decided on by a minority.

Not at all. For one thing, I am at a loss to understand where all this talk of condemnation is coming from. I don’t recall ever condemning anyone in this thread. Secondly, I don’t believe that I have ever assumed anyone to be something different from what they are. Simply because I believe that people that engage in consensual relationships with people of the same sex and people who engage in nonconsensual relationships with people of the same sex belong to the same category does not mean that I think that all who fit the first description fit the second, or vice versa.

Where is the term “normal” coming from? I never claimed that it is normal homosexual behavior, or that it is representative of homosexuals.

No. If you wish to introduce the term “consensual homosexuality” into this discussion, then I would be happy to agree that child molestation does not fit into that category. Redefining existing terms is something else entirely.

85

Shayna:

Accepted. And I hope that I can explain hudley’s reasoning without you or anyone thinking that I agree with him.

As you have failed to specify what the “volumes” are that it speaks, it is understandable that hudley would look to like minded individuals to find what these are.

Kirkland1244:
Without defending their position, I would like to state what I am sure would be their response to your argument. “The fact that the BSA has no way of enforcing their position in the event of an untruthful applicant does not mean that they are encouraging lying. The fact that being untruthful often is more beneficial than being truthful is, sadly, an aspect of the world that simply naturally exists and is not an invention of the BSA. An honest person will pay their bill in a restuarant while a dishonest person might skip out once finished eating, but that hardly means that restuarants ‘encourage’ dishonesty. If an applicant is really so concerned with morality, he would stop engaging in sodomy and then the issue of whether he should lie would not arise” [again, please remember that this is what I think their response would be, not my own advice].

86

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi *
Yes, that is the post. Apparently you found it despite the ambiguousness of the phrase, “my second post )on teh first page of this thread).” I am happy that you managed to pull it out from all of my other second posts on that page.

[quote]

I would appreciate it if we could keep the sarcasm and snippiness to a minimum. I have on multiple occasions scrolled past a person’s post, and in the case that I that this time, I did not wish you to think that I was intentionally ignoring your points.

In this context, I find “act” and “conduct” to be synomynous.

Do you see me advancing an inflamatory agenda? And calling my use of the term “inaccurate” is simply begging the question.

Simply because some people read it as being “conduct of homosexuals” does not mean that that reading is the straightforward one (no pun intended, I take it?), nor does it mean we must forego its use simply because some people take it in a way it is not intended. If I mean conduct that is homosexual, I will use the term “homosexual conduct”. If I mean conduct that is done by homosexuals, I will use the term “conduct of homosexuals”. I will not allow my vocabulary to be dictated by other people’s insistence on reading my statements in a manner completely at odds with their meaning.

I thought that I had made it quite clear that I disagreed with your statement, and that a request for support was implied.

Those links, as I see it, are evidence against your statement “…but not an accurate adjective to describe the perpetrator.” Can you explain how the facts that most molestations are of a person of the opposite sex, and that most people are attracted to the opposite sex, and therefore presumably most molestations are in line with the perpetrators “adult” orientation supports your assertion?

I have already posted this:

Or did you mean “… specifically addressed to me”?

87

Coulter got this absolutely wrong. The Boy Scouts explicitly said that the ban on homosexual leaders was not due to fears of molestation,but rather due to a belief that homosexuals are not of good enough moral character.As I recall,most of the Scout leaders who were found to have molested boys were married men with children of their own

I wouldn’t want you to take either my daughter or my son camping. Why? Because I don’t know you.I wouldn’t allow any one to take either my daughter or my son camping alone- because there’s no one I trust who has the sort of relationship with my kids that might lead to a camping invitation who shouldn’t also be bringing their own kids-except my husband, who by the way is a heterosexual male. Should I not let him take her camping? Should I never let my daughter go to a friend’s house because the mother might not be there?

88

I am not surprised. You seem quite willing to twist the meaning of a word in order to fit it into your desired hole. “Conduct” refers to a manner or pattern of action, it is not generally used to describe a single act. Indeed, a single act is sometimes used as a guide to determine or declare one’s conduct, and it is just that fact which makes your usage so egregious.

You use words like Inspector Clouseau uses logic. I guess that’s only fair; he uses words like you use logic.

The categories listed were:[list=1]
[li]concerned with precision and clarity–understand [the distinction between describing the act and describing the sexuality of the perpetrator][/li][li]familiar with current research into sexual orientation–understand the fallacy of using [homosexual] to describe the sexual orientation of [a generic male-male molester][/li][li]concerned with advancing an inflamatory agenda–forgo such nuances and apply emotionally laden terms broadly and often inaccurately[/list=1][/li]You fail miserably to meet the predicates of (1) and (2). You quite clearly favor the broad and inaccurate application of inflamatory terms to describe a highly sensitive issue. So, yes, category (3) fits you best. Admitedly, I might have made a fourth category “People who confuse owning a dictionary with understanding an issue,” but at the time I was describing Coulter, not you.

No, calling your use of terms inaccurate is simply a tedious necessity of answering your posts. When examining pedophilia, people interested in precision of communication attempt to understand and apply the appropriate clinical terminology. You do not.

What you mean is, “a homosexual act”. Even this, while strictly accurate, is a poor choice of words. Pretending that words do not have emotional content or socially controversial connotations is not a means of achieving clear communication. Doing so ignorantly is simply a mistake. Doing so knowingly indicates a desire to inflame rather than communicate substantial information.

You miss the point. The inflamatory interpretation is not at odds with the meaning of the words. If it is at odds with the meaning you intend, then that is a good reason to choose other words. Of course, you cannot have read this thread with comprehension and avoided understanding that the language you are insisting upon is inflammatory, so I find your appeal to semantic principal hollow and unconvincing.

Do you have a lie-sahnse for your mun-kee?

No. You had made it quite clear that you disagreed with my statement and were using terms in manners at odds with current understandings of human sexuality. There are some inferences I could draw from that, but a request for a glossary of standard terminology was not one of them.

Here is a nice overview from a UC Davis psychologist that I have spoken to a few times.

Here is a list of his publications, in case you wish to challenge his authority in presenting the general state of current research in the field.

Here’s a University of Missouri site with some gernal information. Please note the phrase, "The pedophile is sexually aroused because the child is a child, regardless of the pedophile’s sexual orientation, or the child’s gender."

Actually, that little tidbit of information is insufficient, in and of itself, to deduce anything about the adult sexual orientation of molesters. The “presumably” in your sentence is unjustified. It would seem that you apply statistical analysis with the same precision that you apply language.

Dez yur dog biiite?

Yes–if you are waiting for me to provide support, then it’s probably a good idea to direct a question to me.

On occassion, however, I will address points raised to other posters. For instance:

In exactly the same manner that pedophilia is a mental illness and heterosexuality is not.

It is only oxymoronic if you are supplying the oxy, too. Do you find all minority traits do be abnormal, or just the ones that involve sexuality?

I would lahk to rent a rrrheum.

Well, when the definition in question is how we identify the minority in question it kind of makes sense to listen to them. Of course, you could listen to the experts in the field instead, but they generally listen to the people they are trying to identify. Maybe the just don’t have a dictionary as persuasive as The Ryan’s.

Good tomorrow, and have a pleasant today.

89

Do you have a cite for that?
(I’ starting to feel like a broken record. In case anyone else has or will make claims of this type that I haven’t gotten around to asking: Do you have a cite?)

We aren’t debating the meaning of “pedophilia”; we’re debating the definition of “hoosexual”, so the definition for “homosexual” is indeed the correc one. As for looking in the dictionary, where else am I supposed to look? If I had siply said “this is what I think ‘homosexual’ means”, people would have jumped on me. I’m pretty sue that when I first posted that definition, I asked for alternative definitions. No one has presented me with one.

90

The Ryan
Does your dictionary definition specifically restrict attraction to living partners? If not then we must obviouisly include necrophiliacs in the category homo/hetero-sexual.

Or maybe that line of reasoning is utter nonsense, and there are sound reasons to differentiate between a description of normal human sexuality and specific psychological disorders with a sexual characteristic.

91

What are you talking about? I’m the one who is insisting that words be used according to their proper meanings.

But it is used in this instance to refer to a single act.

Huh?

[quote]
The categories listed were:[list=1]
[li]concerned with precision and clarity–understand [the distinction between describing the act and describing the sexuality of the perpetrator][/li][/quote]

Simply because I don’t agree with you as to what that distinction is does not mean that I don’t understand it, or that I am unconcerned with precision and clarity.

I do not “favor” inflammatory terms. Simply because I refuse to be intimidated out of using the terms that I believe are accurate does not mean I “favor” inflammatory terms. Do you really think that I’m using the terms I’m using because they’re inflammatory?

A tedious necessity? Do you really think that simply referring to my terms as “inaccurate” without providing any support is going to do anything?

The reason I am using the terminology that I am using is because I believe that it is accurate. It is dishonest of you to say that I am not attempting to use the correct terminology simply because I do not agree with you.

I do not need your help in determining what I mean.

I am not doing so. I am simply refusing to allow the baggage that other people have attached to the word to dictate my word usage. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DENY ME THE USE OF A WORD SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU ARE UNABLE TO SEPARATE ITS MEANING FROM HOW IT MAKES YOU FEEL.

Basically, you’re saying “I can declare some words to be off-limits, and if you dare to use those words then I can accuse you to be inflammatory”.

Yes it is. “Homosexual conduct” means conduct that is homosexual. It does not mean conduct by homosexuals, and the latter interpretation is at odds with its meaning.

Simply presenting me with a list of links is not going to convince me. I do not know which statements you think support your position or how. If you have a specific statement that you want to present to me, then quote it.

Which is presented without empirical support. Sorry, but finding people who agree with you isn’t going to convince me. Truth is not a popularity contest.

I never claimed to have deduced anything. I simply asked you, who had implied that it supported your claim, to explain how it was consistent with your position. Are you able to do so, or are you going to just continue making ad hominem attacks in the hope that they will distract me?

Do you have any explanation of this claim? If, say 10% of the population is homosexual, and 75% of molestation victims are girls (as Shayna claims), and only 12% of molestation cases are by women (which I think is what Shayna is saying, but I’m not sure) then the at least one of the following statements must be true:
a disproportiate percentage of molestation are by homosexuals or
over 50% of all molestion cases, the orientation of the molester matches the sexes of the victim and perpetrator (in which case my “presumably” is justified).

I wasn’t waiting for you specifically, I was waiting for anyone. I’m still waiting. So I take it you respond to questions that aren’t addressed to you only when it’s convenient?

That’s not answer. In what way is pedophilia a mental illness, and heterosexuality not? And how is this comporable to prepubescent attraction versus homosexuality?

I would point out that the dictionary defines abnormal to be of the minority, but apparently actually looking at a dictionary is a sign of weakness :rolleyes:.

But in order to question the minority in question, one must first know how to identify the minority, which requires one to have a definition already. Which makes the whole idea rather silly. Words are not owned by the people to whom they refer, especially when they are created by the majority. If you were talking about a term such as “queer” that has been largely championed by its constituents, then you would have a point.

92

I have to say, The Ryan, as a gay male, I’ve found almost every one of your word choices offensive. Clearly you don’t care. Scum like you never do. You don’t care that you choose terms that have, in general, pejorative connotations and apply them at will. You don’t care that you use phraseology that is very easily confused. And you seem incapable of understanding the difference between conduct (which is behavior over a long period of time, such as being gay) and an act (which is a single, or a few, incidents occuring at a certain point of time, such as a male having sex with another male, even though neither of them are gay).

The English language is not ruled by the dictionary. Words mean things to the people that hear them that are often in contrast with their “official meanings.” Which is more important, the official meaning, or the meaning most of your listeners would ascribe to the words? If you say “the official meaning” then you are a poor communicator.

Take the words “gay” and “queer.” The primary meanings of those words are “happy, cheerful, lighthearted” and “peculiar.” However, if you use those words in a modern American context, you should not presume that those are the meanings people will ascribe to th words. If you say “gay vacation” and think that people are going to think, “ah, a cheerful trip,” instead of “oh, a homosexual cruise” or somesuch, then you’re really not fit to be expressing yourself in a public forum.

How people will understand your words is more important than nitpicking what the words mean. If you say “homosexual conduct,” most Americans, I daresay, would react the same way most people here did, and take it as meaning “the behaviour of homosexuals.” The fact that you’re straining the meaning of “conduct” to be simply a single or few acts and don’t mean “homosexual” as in gay people but in a more general “male-male-sexual-contact” way, doesn’t matter. How your words are percieved is more important than how you intedn them to be percieved, and as a communicator it is incumbent upon you to express yourself in a manner that is clear to your audience.

I’m a well educated person, but I also “hear” things with American ears, not with ears that reference everything back to strict meanings concocted by Merriam Webster. From a lay, non-nitpick perspective, every post you’ve foisted upon this thread has seemed to condemn homosexuals en-masse, and with glee. The fact that you have had this pointed out to you and you persist in saying “no, I am in charge and you will use my definitions, no matter how far they stray from the standard colloquial” and refuse to back down from your offensive statements.

It is a sign of charachter when someone apologizes for unintended offense. It is a sign of a derth of character when you act offended that someone might dare take your word according to something other than the specific (and non-standard in everyday speech) meanings you have ascribed to them.

Yes, you are the master of what you say. But you are a poor master indeed if you do not tailor your messages to 1) avoid unnecessary offense and 2) conform to the standard colloquial definitions of your audience.

Kirk

93

Nice post Kirkland. I was just about to point it out like this:

If you went around saying, “Oh, those clouds are a nice shade of green today,” others would look at you like you were crazy. If you went on to explain that because white objects reflect all colors of the spectrum, you’re technically seeing green along with the other wavelengths and simply chose to point out that color, people would think you were being intentionally difficult.

But that post illustrates it much better, so I thank you for keeping me from having to come up with a more fitting example.

Ryan, your word choice is, quite frankly, unthoughtful. It is not that I am not guilty of this from time to time, but at least I try to make myself understood. As an example take:

“In what way is this attraction [pedophilia] a mental illness, and homosexuality not?”

Even if you didn’t mean it as such, the implication is that either you think pedophilia is a healthy mental condition or homosexuality is not.

You are free to express yourself in whatever manner you choose, but don’t blame your audience for not understanding you if you refuse to try to make yourself understood in the first place.

94

and I find it most intersting that the Ryan demands ‘cite’ (Despite the great accumulation of data already presented), and immediately afterwards takes some one to task for ‘merely’ presenting cites, stating that he wants, in addition to the links themselves, a quote from the cite, then in the same post rejects the quote from the cite with "well, you may have found some one to agree with you, but that’s insiginificant.’

Saved me the trouble.

And I like the cloud analogy, too.

95

No. You are the one lying about it. You are also the one who does not seem to understand what a “proper” meaning is, but your dishonesty extends beyond that.

Yes, you aren’t even consistent in your fetishism for dictionary definitions. When it suits your purpose you are willing to use a word in a non-standard manner. I wonder if the readers at home can figure out why you would be so adamant about twisting the phrase “homosexual conduct” into this discussion?

No, understanding the distinction yet insisting upon language which blurs the ditinction demonstrates that you place other desires above precision and clarity in communication. I wonder what those desires might be?

Yes.

Using terms you know are inflammatory when more precise and less value-laden terms are both available and in comond use indicates that you want to be inflammatory.

Lying about it indicates that you are pathetic or self-delusional. Possibly both.

I have provided support. You have provided dictionary.com. My inspector Clouseau analogy was too kind. He was just an honest bumbler.

This is either a lie or a self-deception. You may well believe it to be accurate, but that is not the reason you insist upon your terms. It may be a reason, but when more than one accurate term exists, to insist upon only using the most inflammatory indicates a desire beyond “accuracy”. You cannot pretend ignorance, so the desire to inflame is conscious.

It is simply a fact that you are using the incorrect terminology. Areas of scientific study quite often develop a specific jargon of usage. You know this, you have been shown examples, you persist in rejecting those conventions for your own usage.

And you pretend that it is from a concern for accuracy. And you find dishonesty in my observation of those facts. I think you should pull your head out of a dictionary and find a mirror.

No, but you need help in communicating what you mean in a precise and non-inflammatory manner. Wait–that would imply that you want to communicate in a precise and non-inflammatory manner. So sorry. Consider the point withdrawn.

I denying you nothing. I am simply observing that choosing to be offensive carries certain implications. BY THE WAY–THE CONNOTATIONS OF A WORD ARE PART OF ITS MEANING.

Ignorance and arrogance, what a charming combination.

No, basically I am saying that some words have inflammatory connotations. If you know that, and you use those words anyway, then you are being deliberately inflammatory.

If you do so and then whine about being called on it, then you are just being pathetic and silly.

If you do that and then pretend that your only concern is being accurate, then you are being pathetic and silly and dishonest.

So, police conduct would mean conduct that is police, not conduct by police?
Officer critical of police conduct
Police Conduct: Guide picks
Directory of police conduct

Your understanding of the English language is truly awe-inspiring. (That’s a synonym for awful, right?)

I am not trying to convince you. You embrace your ignorance with a passion, and I never come between a man and his first love.

You asked for support. I provided support. You have ignored that support. This is a fine demonstration of your intellectual honesty. Oh, don’t worry, I wouldn’t expect it to convince you. You are not the only one reading these words.

You either did not read and understand the page or you are telling another lie. I really don’t care which is the case. For those at home, ask youself how The Ryan might have missed a section marked Terminology in bold letters which discusses pedophilia, hebephilia, child molestation and homosexuality.

You asked for support for usage of terminology. You were given it, along with a list of prefessional publication for one cited individual. Examples of usage is empirical support for usage of terminology. If you wish to question the credentials of either author, or if you wish to impugn their usage as unjustified, then perhpas you should provide some citations of your own.

You said: **therefore presumably most molestations are in line with the perpetrators “adult” orientation **. That is a deduction–a conclusion drawn by [faulty, in this case] reasoning.

Here is another deduction: you have told another lie.

Actually, I implied no such thing. I did suggest looking at some of the links which Shayna had posted, but you chose the wrong links (for this question). Try the link in the post which appeared directly above the post where I made the suggestion. I know that was probably confusing for you.

The ad hominems, by the way, are not designed to distract you, I just find it helpful to address folks with the respect that they have earned.

Well, since you yourself have listed 2 possibilities to accoutn for those numbers, then “presuming” one to be correct is unjustified. Of course, your list of possibilities is incomplete, but even under your flawed presentation your conclusion is demonstrably flawed.

Beautiful.

Had you actually read and understood some of the information presented in this thread you would be aware that some pedophiles do not develop any sexual desire for adults: male or female. So, your analysis is doubly flawed.

Your gasp of statistical analysis is every bit as impressive as your understanding of language.

Of course. Are you under the delusion that anybody on this board feels a responsibility to answer every question which is not addressed to them? Here are some more news flashes:[ul]
[li]I don’t feel obligated to read every thread on the SDMB. [/li][li]I don’t find it necessary to apologize for mistakes made by other people.[/li][li]I don’t feel an obligation to provide links for every OP which might benefit from one.[/ul][/li]
Wow–I guess you really do need to point out the obvious to some people.

It is an answer. Apparently, you just don’t understand it. Okay, more pointing out the obvious.
Well, when considering mental illness, the APA might be one place to go. The APA recognizes pedophilia as a psychological disorder. The APA does not recognize either homosexuality or heterosexuality as a psychological disorder. Also, homosexuality and heterosexuality are very similar psychological entities, thus the parallelism between teh relationship of one to pedophila and the relationship of the other to pedophilia. This makes the analogy valid as an illustration of “how”, presuming that one understands how heterosexuality is not a mental illness.

Directly.

It can be, if one doesn’t understand the language well enough to inerpret the entries. Do feel free to embrace you understanding of blue eyes as abnormal and males as abnormal and voting for Bush as abnormal.

I’ll feel free to understand that you are an idiot.

Actually, this makes it necessary for our understanding of terms to evolve through usage. Many people who are not idiots understand this.

The meaning of words is defined and refined through usage. Pretending otherwise does not make you “accurate”. It makes you a fool.

Oh, and all words are created by minorites, usually a minority of one.

96

Dear, The Ryan, as frustrating as it’s been to try to communicate with you in this thread, in a way, I’m glad you’re still participating, because I hope that you’re here because you’d like to learn something as opposed to merely wishing to argue semantics. <crosses fingers, hopefully>

So I’m going to try one last time, ok? It’s pretty annoying to provide cites with research and conclusions that are conducted by and arrived at by professionals in the field, and have you ignore them completely. It’s painfully obvious that you haven’t actually clicked on the links and read the material contained therein, or you wouldn’t keep asking the same questions. So, since you’re looking for specific quotes, here goes…

With regard to pedophilia being considered a disorder and adult heterosexual and/or homosexual consensual sex not, from Spiritus Mundi’s link ( http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html ):

With regard to your use of “homosexual conduct” to describe molestation between same-sex perpetrators and victims, I believe that your intent is honestly not meant to be malicious. I really do understand that you believe you’re using the terminology correctly - and it’s easy (at least for me) to see how that mistake can be made. It saddens me that you think we are trying to “intimidate you” into using the correct terminology. On the contrary, we’re simply trying to educate you. Perhaps this information from the same cite will help clarify the distinction for you:

It further goes on to describe how few of the men convicted of child molestation were actually considered homosexual in their adult sexual conduct…

And we aren’t just making statements without empirical support, as you claim. The studies are referenced in the links provided, and the professionals who conducted those studies are quoted in those links. The authors of the articles linked to, do not just state opinions, they provide statements of fact based on scientific research. Reading further into the article, it states:

I’m hopeful that you can objectively see why your incorrect use of the terminology isn’t just about being “politically incorrect” or “offensive,” but about it actually being wrong, in spite of the fact that that wrongness is due to an unfortunately common misunderstanding on your part. I know it’s difficult to let go of strongly-held convictions, especially when one truly believes that their understanding is the correct one. What we’re asking you to do is to step back a moment and try to understand where your logic took a wrong turn.

And we’re asking you to do that based on studies and research performed by professionals in the field, not just because we’re knee-jerk liberals who want the paint the world in rainbow colors and demand that everyone conform to our way of thinking. We’re not saying the dictionary definition of the word homosexual is incorrect. What we’re saying is that it’s insufficient and erroneous to apply that word to the act of male-male sexual molestation. I’m hopeful that you can now see the difference.

Spiritus Mundi, it’s taken me quite a while to compose this reply and I just had a visitor which caused me to stop completely for over an hour, and in the interim, I see that you have also posted a reply. However, I have not taken the time to read it yet (I’ll do that after I post this), so I hope that I haven’t contradicted anything you said in my effort to try to appeal to The Ryan.

Kirkland, there isn’t much I can say regarding the unjust position the BSA has put you in, other than to offer my sympathies and hope that those of us trying to fight ignorance on this issue can eventually have some impact against the likes of Ms. Coulter. My fiancé, Spiny Norman, is also a former scout leader and it both saddens and disgusts me that there are people out there who would wish to ascribe ill motives to men who enjoy acting as role models for our youth, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual. Keep up the good fight and hopefully one day we can win this battle.

97

Well, shee-yit, as long as we’re harvesting pearls for swine, how about another premier researcher in the field? Everyone (or at least some of us) will remember Dr. Marshall, whom RickJay wrote some months ago on the very subject The Ryan is struggling with now.

Maybe Dr. Marshall will be able to put it empirically for us all. Let’s see… ah yes. I doubt this statement by the good doctor could be clearer if it soaked in Windex for a month. “All of those who had molested prepubescent boys showed a clear sexual preference for adult females and arousal to boys under age 12 years. Thus in terms of their adult sexual interests they were all heterosexual.” And later, “The men who molested post pubescent boys constituted about 20-25% of all those who molested boys. These men were almost all homosexual in their adult orientation.” http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=81739&perpage=50&pagenumber=3 third of the way down the page.

And while we’re on the subject of the difference between pedophilia and homosexuality, would you, The Ryan believe the APA, or would you take it to be me (and others) “finding someone to agree with us”? From the DSM-IV_TR:

"Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia
A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).

B. The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A."
http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/pedophiliaTR.htm

Here is the DSM-IV page for sexual disorders: http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/dsm4classification.htm#Sexual. You will note that homosexuality is nowhere to be found (at least, nowhere that I have ever seen. I take it from my passing grade in Abnormal Psychology that I didn’t miss anything key).

By the way, The Ryan, who would you trust as a reputable and honest source on the subject of sexuality and psychosexual illnesses? What would change your mind regarding the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia?

And lastly, some anecdotal evidence: my grandfather, as probably half the freaking board knows by now (because I talk about him a good bit) was a pedophile. He was also heterosexual. His victims were his legitimate children (as of yet we have nothing to indicate that his one out-of-wedlock [and with another woman] child was molested), five boys and five girls. How, while I cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was heterosexual, I seriously doubt it. I guess you’ll have to just trust me on that one. The man was straight and a pedophile. His reasons for his actions are not related to some sexual frustration, as I would think would be obvious by the, ah, evidence for his procreative efforts:) The man was sick, not at a loss for sexual interaction.

98

Kirkland1244

You are clearly trying to insult me while trying to tell me what I do and do not care about. This is presumptuous and hypocritical.

Both of them have to be taken into account. But the issue of what “most” people mean by a word is subjective and not subject to exact determination.

Looks like you’re wrong.

You’re the one doing the nitpicking.

I think that my statement was quite clear.

I’m not straining anything. This is how the words are used.

If you insist on taking offense at my statements, there is nothing I can do about it. I have never condemned homosexuals, and your insistence that I have reflects more on you than it does on me.

  1. No one has pointed out to me a place where I have condemned homosexuals.
  2. It is others that are telling me that I must use their definitions, not vice versa.
  3. I have not strayed from the colloquial.
  4. There have been no offensive statements that I have refused to back down from.
    I’m amazed that you can pack so many false statements into such a small space.

mrblue92

I find it interesting that several people have harped on this question, but none have been able to answer it.

I have made every reasonable effort to be understood. Allowing other people to dictate my vocabulary is not reasonable.

99

No data has been presented that opposed my view.

The whole point is that links and “this person agrees with me” are not cites. Did you ever take high level or higher writing courses? Did your teacher allow you to get away with “Well, this book has some stuff in it that supports my thesis, but I’m not going to tell you what it is”?

Spiritus Mundi

That makes no sense. For me to be lying, I would have to know that I’m using the words incorrectly, which would mean that I understand the “proper” meaning. You can’t have it both ways.

Either you have no idea what you’re talking about, or you’re lying.

My language does not blur the distinction, nor are you justified in making ridiculous accusations just because I don’t agree with you.

I didn’t consider my terms to be inflammatory when I used them, and I have refused to retract them because doing so would imply that I agree that they are inaccurate. If you had simply politely said something to the effect of “I find ‘conduct’ to have bad connotations; could you use ‘act’ instead?” I would have said “okay”. Instead you chose to personally attack me and to make a huge issue out of my word choice. If all you wanted me to do is to change my word choice, I could have dealt with that. But that’s not what you want. You want me to apologize for daring to use the “wrong” words. I’m not going to do that. Because they aren’t the wrong words. You’re the one that’s been inflammatory. Have I implied that you are an idiot or a homophobe? No, I haven’t. You have gone out of your way to make this personal, despite my attempts to calm it down. Yet you accuse me of being inflammatory.

Where?

If you really think that you’re a better authority on what my reason is than I am, then you are really full of yourself.

Before you were claiming that I’m not using words in accordance with their common usage. Now you seem to be saying that I’m not using them according to technical jargon. Which is it? I can’t possibly do both, since “jargon” is by definition usage that deviates from the standard. But I guess setting up impossible standards for me and then complaining that I don’t meet them is just part of how you “debate”.

If you were actually interested in conveying your concern in a precise and non-inflammatory manner yourself, you would have said “Hey, that’s kinda inflammatory. Mind using a different term?” instead of pretending to be a mind reader. In case you didn’t know already, telling other people what they mean doesn’t come anywhere near the category of “non-inflammatory”.

Your unstated assumption is that the way you feel is the same as its connotations. Now, what was that you say about people that refuse to state their assumptions again?

That does not follow.

That doesn’t make any sense. “Police” isn’t an adjective.

You said "It is an accurate adjective to describe the act, but not an accurate adjective to describe the perpetrator. "
You did not say “It is an adjective used to describe the act, but not an adjective used to describe the perpetrator.”
We are debating accuracy, not usage. You completely missing the point may explain why your “support” is not.

Do you really not understand the difference between presuming something and deducing it?

I see you’ve gone for the “ad hominem to try to distract” option.

So do you think that homosexuals disproportianately molest children? Or do you have another suggestion? Or are you simply not going to add anything to this discussion, and simply attack what other people say?

Yet again you’re begging the question. I point out that there is evidence that suggests you’re wrong, and you say that it’s obviously invalid because you’re right, and therefore no such evidence can exist. BTW, putting links in the thread is not the same as presenting evidence in the thread. I’m not going to read through every single website that anyone is this thread has ever linked through just on the off chance that there might be some evidence that supports you. That’s silly. If you want evidence, you find it.

Again, truth is not a popularity contest. What are the bases that the APA has for their determinations?

Yes; usage by the majority

100

I’ll give you and example of my own shitheadedness to illustrate why people are calling you on yours:

I am an atheist (no shitheadedness yet).
I bitterly resent it when some religious folks try, and all too often succeed, getting religious dogma made into laws (still no shitheadedness).

Often, when I see or hear about another of these outrages, I’ll vent with (shitheadedness approaching), “Fucking Christians!”

Now I know full well that not all Christians want their religious beliefs made into law. Most people I know are Christians and they are generally kind, tolerant people.

The problem is, I come off as an anti-Christian bigot when I say these things. And I really can’t blame someone who thinks I am one because (wait for it):

My statement sounds ignorant and bigoted to them. No matter how well they may know me, the perception is that I have contempt for Christians and Christianity in general when they hear me express myself in that fashion.

Shayna in particular, has provided plenty of info illustrating that whether or not someone is homosexual or heterosexual is irrelevant to pedophilia. Pedophiles are turned on by little kids. Doesn’t matter what the gender of the kid is, according to the info provided. Doesn’t matter what the pedophile’s sexual activity with adults is, if any. Little kids are the target. Frankly, it opened my eyes. I always thought a pedophile would target kids of the gender they are attracted to in adult sexual relations. The research doesn’t bear that out.

Your continued use of terms in the way that people are objecting to here implies that you don’t care about clearly communicating your ideas, or that you are being willfully ignorant.

I hope you take the time and trouble to read and understand the info others have provided on pedophilia. It may open your eyes, I know it did mine.