Shayna, thank you for your patience. From your post, it seems as if you were under the impression that homosexuals consist of a disproportinate amount of abusers. This is not the case. What I believe is that they are a disproportinate amount of the male-male abusers, as are heterosexuals to male-female. I note that your first quote does not include the sex of the victims, nor does it explain the criterion for the categories. Your second quote does say
but does not address whether they are disproportionately homosexual.
How is it wrong?
While I’m willing to accept that some of my assumptions may be wrong, how is my logic wrong?
While I see how it can be misleading, I don’t see how it’s wrong.
First of all, I would like to make clear that I do not think that child molestation is the same as homosexual relationships. However, I cannot think of any reasonable definition of mental illness which would include pedophilia but exclude homosexuality. “Whatever the APA says” is not a reasonable definition.
Why do you believe homosexuality to be a mental illness? Homosexuality consists of sexually desiring a human consenting adult of the same sex. Pedophilia consists of wanting varying levels of sexual/inappropriate physical contact with prepubescent children, or wanting to photograph them, or touch one’s self in rheir presence. Furthermore, while a gay person desires sexual contact solely with that person’s sex, a pedophile does not necessarily specify a gender (as was the case with my grandfather).
And just for my own personal edification, if you can, would you define “mental illness” as you see it? And if you can stay away from a dictionary.com definition and stick to your own thoughts that’d be nice:) I can go to dictionary.com and see what it has to say whenever I want. That’s not what I’m interested in; I’m interested in your thoughts.
[upon preview: two nitpicks]
In that context and usage, “police” most definitely is an adjective. If I were to write the sentence “male conduct”, the modifier of “conduct” would be “male”, and as such (per the definition of an adjective as a modifier of a noun), “male” in that context is an adjective. In the sentence Spiritus constructed, “police” is the modifier of “conduct” as it describes the type of conduct. More specifically, the conduct is done/made/whatever by the police/an officer/whatever, but that’s getting into another kettle of fish entirely; the difference between words that can be either noun or adjective (such as a color) and words that, in the proper construct, can be adjectives in that they can modify, but that are properly nouns. Another example of this would be the phrase “computer malfunction”, in which “computer” is the adjective in that it modifies “malfunction”, but in its more common (and no, I don’t have a cite;)) use is a noun.
It used to be the case that “man” was used solely as a noun. It has increasingly been the case in recent years (inculding, most annoyingly, by my English 404 professor) that “man” was used as an adjective; for example, “man writer”, to refer to a writer who is genetically male. However inappropriate I think that construction to be, if it gains in popularity and acceptance it will doubtless be accepted into mainstream society (amongst numerous other usages I would consider improper). As Ed Zotti said (paraphrased), if people use a word to mean one thing enough, or they use a particular expression enough, it becomes accepted. Whether or not you agree with it is another matter, and perhaps a good reason to clarify your meaning lest others who assume (erroneously, perhaps, in this case) otherwise mistake your argument. If nothing else, it makes you clear as day, and anyone who tries to argue otherwise comes away looking the fool. One person I see doing this a great deal (defining terms long in advance to clear up any possible future confusion) is Polycarp; by agreeing on the meanings of terms beforehand, he avoids a great deal of nit-picking and missed intentions and such, which are certainly present in this thread;)
The Ryan
I never called you a homophobe. I called you a liar and an idiot. Your posts in this thread are quite evident for anyone who cares to make their own judgments. You have made a number of false statements in your latest post, too, along with simply ignoring points for which you apparently cannot find a suitably evasive response. It is tedious to go through your posts pointing out the flaws in detail, and your latest post to Shayna has convinced me that your prejudices are far too ingrained to be overcome with words, whether calm or confrontational.
How comforting it must be to simply dismiss the accumulation of knowledge among professionals who devote their lives to the study of an issue. What can a bunch of psychologists possibly know about mental illness, The Ryan thinks homosexuals are sick (or that pedophiles are not).
So, I’ll just give a brief recap of some more factual errors and semantic idiocies on your part:
[ul]
[li]No data has been presented that opposed my view. Simply a lie.[/li][li]You can’t have it both ways. Unfortunately, I can. You are both ignorant and a liar. [/li][li]Either you have no idea what you’re talking about, or you’re lying. No. Here’s a hint: when you have to start synonym hopping through a dictionary to find support for your usage of “conduct” to describe a single act you might want to reconsider your certainty–especially when the example given next to your citation refers to a specific class of behaviors not a single act. It’s bad enough that you think semantics begins and ends with the dictionary, but you can’t even use a dictionary well.[/li][li]My language does not blur the distinction It does. It has been explained to you why it does. Cites have been given to both support that idea and to suggest unambiguous terminology. You are a liar.[/li][li]**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”.**My first response to you on this subject: *. “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. * You are a liar. You aren’t even a good liar. You make statements which can be proven false without even leaving this page of the thread.[/li][li]**You want me to apologize for daring to use the “wrong” words. **Find a single instance in which I have asked you to apologize. No? That’s because you are a liar.[/li][li]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. Yep. If you would like to accuse my posts to you of being inflammatory, go ahead. I promise not to whine like a pathetic loser and pretend that my word choices are all about “accuracy”. They do happen to be accurate. You are a liar. You have displayed simply stunning ignorance of semantics. But I will not pretend that I am unaware of teh inflammatory nature of the words I am choosing. You have earned every one of them.[/li][li]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. WHat I think is for you to pretend that you are choosing tour terms out of nothing more than a concern for accuracy is a claim so facile as to engender ridicule and derision. I would rather be full of myself than full of shit. Then again, you seem to enjoy your wallowing, so perhaps we have each reached our level of happiness.[/li][li]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. Yes, you are capable of making many, many mistakes. “Conduct” is a common word which you misuse. You also are rejecting the use of unambiguousness terminology developed by professional psychologists and counselors. Being wrong in one area does not mean that you cannot be wrong in another area, too. More’s the pity. If nothing else, such a stricture would make your posts much shorter.[/li][li]Your unstated assumption is that the way you feel [about the use of a word] is the same as its connotations.connotation: 2(a) An idea or meaning suggested by or associated with a word or thing. (b)The set of associations implied by a word in addition to its literal meaning. Like I said. It isn’t just that you mistake owning a dictionary for understanding language, it’s that you don’t know how to use the damn dictionary, either. Idiot. [/li][li]That does not follow. It does. Allow me to provide the “idiot proof” chain, and we’ll see whether it is The Ryan proof as well.[list=a][/li][li]Word W is inflammatory.[/li][li]Idiot R knows word W is inflammatory.[/li][li]Word X has the same meaning as word W[/li][li]Word X is not inflammatory[/li][li]Idiot R knows word X.[/li][li]Idiot R uses word W.[/li][li]therefore: Idiot R is choosing to be inflammatory.[/list=a][/li]Can you follow that?
[li]That doesn’t make any sense. “Police” isn’t an adjective. Homosexual can be used as adjective or noun. Thus–straightforward reading with inflammatory connotations. Surely your dictionary has a little n. next to some definitions for homosexual, or did you somehow miss that in your rush to look up “abnormal”?[/li][li]We are debating accuracy, not usage. You completely missing the point may explain why your “support” is not. We are debating accuracy of usage. the accuracy of a term in a given context is not sepparable from the usage of a term in a given context. I guess they don’t mention that on dictionary.com, eh?[/li][li]**Do you really not understand the difference between presuming something and deducing it? ** therefore: For that reason or cause; consequently or hence. The transition, “therefore” after a listing of evidence and before the statement of a conclusion is used in English to indicate a deductive process. Your use of “presumably” was strange in that sentence, but it could be read as indicating a lessened certainty about the deduction in question. Certainly, if you had meant it to indicate that the statement which followed was a supposition before any examination of evience then it was in the wrong place in the paragraph. I guess compositional elements aren’t really addressed on dictionary.com, either. Still, if you meant it to be a supposition without evidence then I will retract the charge that it was an unfounded deduction.[/li]
It was an unfounded supposition.
[li]**So do you think that homosexuals disproportianately molest children? Or do you have another suggestion? ** Yes, it is the suggestion which you are about to pretend has no evidence to support it. How disengenuous of you to pretend otherwise. Liar.[/li][li]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 What I said was, “some pedophiles do not develop any sexual desire for adults: male or female.” Apparently, this so disturbs your prejudiced worldview that you can only twist the statement into “begging the question” on my part. You are a pathetic.[/li][/ul]
Damn–that’s a whole lot of ignorance to pack into one post, yet somehow you managed to squeeze in a full day’s requirement of arrogance, too. Truly, your rhetorical skills are a marvel.
I saw no such data. If the sex of the child doesn’t matter, why are 75% of the victis girls? Random chance?
iampunha
What makes you think I do?
Not in the second usage. In the phrase “conduct that is police”, “police” is used incorrectly because it can not work as an adjective in that context.
I suppose that I would rather look to be a fool than coproise my beliefs. Besides which, does anyone really not know what I mean? Has anyone said “Hey Ryan, I don’t understand what you’re saying here”? No, it’s “I see what you’re saying here, but it could be interpreted completely differently from what you meant, so I’m going to take that meaning and run with it.”
I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. I don’t recall posting anything, either stated or implied, that I think homosexuals commit a disproportionate amount of molestation. In fact, I’m certain I posted exactly the opposite, as is evidenced by your direct quote, that “the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual.”
I’m pretty sure that belief comes from your previously stated assumption that adult male-juvenile male molestation = homosexual conduct. I know I, and others in this thread, have tried to dissuade you of that notion, however, I can see that we have so far been unsuccessful. If you’ll carefully read the very quote you, yourself, isolated, you will see that your belief is incorrect. Again:
That is a direct contradiction to your current belief that homosexual men commit a disproportionate number of the male-male acts of molestation.
The question now becomes whether you’re willing to discard your current belief and accept the empirical evidence that supports the above statement. The researchers quoted in both the Departement of Justice study and the studies referenced in the USC site, interviewed, between them, hundreds of child sexual offenders. In every case, they concluded that a boy is actually less likely to be sexually assaulted by a homosexual male than he is by a heterosexual male.
I know, I know, it doesn’t make sense. Why on earth would a grown man whose sexual preference in adult sexual partners is women, choose little boys to molest over little girls? It - just - doesn’t - want - to - compute, does it?
The reason it doesn’t make sense to you is because you can’t imagine ever wanting to touch a penis, child or adult. So why would any other heterosexual male want to diddle with little boys?
Well, it all comes back to the fact that the sex of the victim is completely unrelated to the perpetrator’s preference in adult partners. In fact, many pedophiles and child molesters don’t have a preference in adult partners - they only like children. And in all cases, the perpetrator’s attraction to children is strictly based on the fact that they’re children. It then becomes a matter of “availablility” and “opportunity”.
Perhaps it would be better explained by simply stating that we don’t know why, we just know that that’s the way it is. And we know this based on the factual data gathered regarding the stated sexual preference of adult male perpetrators compared to the sex of their victims.
Little boys who are molested by adult males are more likely to be molested by heterosexual males than by homosexual males.
It’s really as simple as that. It may seem odd, but it’s a fact, none-the-less. Go figure.
I believe the above also answers why your terminology, and the logic by which you arrived at it are wrong. If it’s still not making sense, I’m not sure how else I can state it so that it does.
I believe you when you say that you “do not think that child molestation is the same as homosexual relationships.” I’m surprised, therefore, that you seem to want to cling so strongly to the erroneous labelling of male-male molestation as homosexual conduct. Again, the “conduct” of homosexuals is adult consensual sex. The conduct of child molesters is child molesting, regardless of the sex of either the perpetrator or the victim.
It’s a thin line, I know. Homosexual = same sex. Male-male molestation = same sex. I can see where one can make the jump, therefore, to male-male molestation = homosexual. In reality, it doesn’t work that way. It’s kindof like those math problems that you can work forwards, but not backwards.
Ie: 3 men get a hotel room costing a total of $30.00, each paying $10.00. But the desk clerk made a mistake and the room was only supposed to be $25.00. He gives the bellhop $5.00 to return to the 3 men. On the way to their room, he decides that because $5.00 cannot be easily divided evenly between 3 men, he’ll pocket $2.00 as a tip and give each man back $1.00. Upon refunding each man $1.00, they have each now paid $9.00 for the room. 3 men @ $9.00 each = $27.00. Plus the $2.00 the bellhop kept = $29.00. Where’s the other dollar?
Well, the other dollar doesn’t exist. Why, because you can’t work the math backwards like that. In that scenario, the cost of the room was misstated to be $27.00, when in fact it was $25.00. When you add the $2.00 for the bellhop and the $3.00 returned to the men, you are now back to the original $30.00.
In short, sometimes logic that works forwards doesn’t hold up when you try to back into it from the other direction.
So, restating one more time… odd as it may seem to you, men who molest little boys are less likely to be homosexual than they are to be heterosexual. And that’s why it’s better not to refer to male-male child molestation as homosexual.
As to your last statement that you “cannot think of any reasonable definition of mental illness which would include pedophilia but exclude homosexuality. “Whatever the APA says” is not a reasonable definition,” well, I’m just stumped, then.
I think what it all boils down to is that you find both adult homosexual consensual sex and child molestation (regardless of the sex of either the perpetrator or the victim) abnormal, amoral and abhorrent. Therefore you’re equating both with mental illness, when in fact, only one of them is actually defined as such.
I linked to it in my previous reply, but I’m sure you haven’t clicked on it, but there is a really excellent article titled, Facts About Homosexuality and Mental Health that could clarify the distinction, if you’d be willing to read it. I will leave it up to you to take the time and make the effort to educate yourself on this, as opposed to copying and pasting portions here, as it’s really more beneficial if you read the cite in its entirety as opposed to piecemeal. I will warn you, however, that it does cite the DSM and the APA, so if you aren’t willing to accept their findings, you’re not likely to accept the conclusion of the author, which states:
That’s all for tonight. I’m tired and a friend just came over and we’re going to watch the Oscars. Goodnight.
I never said that you called me a homophobe. I said that you implied that I was.
There has been to reference to concrete knowledge with regard to this area.
[quote]
[li]No data has been presented that opposed my view. Simply a lie.[/li][/quote]
Well, that’s convincing :rolleyes:.
[quote]
[li]Either you have no idea what you’re talking about, or you’re lying. No. Here’s a hint: when you have to start synonym hopping through a dictionary to find support for your usage of “conduct” to describe a single act you might want to reconsider your certainty[/li][/quote]
I added that as support. I didn’t “have to”. A single act constitutes a manner of acting.
[quote]
[li]**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”.**My first response to you on this subject: *. “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. * You are a liar. You aren’t even a good liar. You make statements which can be proven false without even leaving this page of the thread.[/li][/quote]
How is it proven false. You did not politely ask me to use a different word, and did not make it clear that your own feelings were the main issue.
[quote]
[li]**You want me to apologize for daring to use the “wrong” words. **Find a single instance in which I have asked you to apologize. No? That’s because you are a liar.[/li][/quote]
So you’re allowed to make inferences from what I say, but not vice versa?
[quote]
[li]Your unstated assumption is that the way you feel [about the use of a word] is the same as its connotations.connotation: 2(a) An idea or meaning suggested by or associated with a word or thing. (b)The set of associations implied by a word in addition to its literal meaning. Like I said. It isn’t just that you mistake owning a dictionary for understanding language, it’s that you don’t know how to use the damn dictionary, either. Idiot. [/li][/quote]
And a connotation of “connotation” is that it is the feelings that people in general have about the word, not what one person in particular feels about it.
Simply because you have a list of statements, that doesn’t mean that they follow from each other.
[quote]
[li]That doesn’t make any sense. “Police” isn’t an adjective. Homosexual can be used as adjective or noun.[/li][/quote]
Exactly. And police can’t (except as all other nouns can be). So your analogy between the two words does not work. How does the fact that “homosexual” is both a noun and an adjective change the fact that “police” is only a noun?
[quote]
[li]We are debating accuracy, not usage. You completely missing the point may explain why your “support” is not. We are debating accuracy of usage. the accuracy of a term in a given context is not sepparable from the usage of a term in a given context. [/li][/quote]
Simply because they are not separable, that hardly means that they are indinstinguishable.
[quote]
[li]**So do you think that homosexuals disproportianately molest children? Or do you have another suggestion? ** Yes, it is the suggestion which you are about to pretend has no evidence to support it. [/li][/quote]
What suggestion? Do you mean “some pedophiles do not develop any sexual desire for adults: male or female.”? If so, how does that explain the statistics? Even if some don’t develop any sexual desire for adults, wouldn’t the disparity suggest that most develop a preference for one sex (in children)?
As I see it (and I may well be wrong), there are two options if you cannot define “mental illness” to include pedophilia and exclude homosexuality:
You believe them both to be mental illnesses.
You believe neither of them to be a mental illness.
Is there another aspect I’m missing?
In the sentence Spiritus provided, “police”, if the sentence were diagrammed, would be marked as an adjective because it modifies the noun. It tell us what kind of conduct we’re dealing with. More specifically, it tells us who is responsible for the conduct: some police official or whatnot. We know it isn’t teacher conduct or psychiatric conduct or professorial conduct but police conduct. That much, I assume, we can agree on:D
The word police is, in its natural state, a noun. However, when placed in the proper context (as I believe it to be here based on my knowledge of the English language), it can be an adjective.
And as an example of how your language might be miscontrued, consider:
“it can not work as an adjective in that context.”
If I wanted to (it would be disingenuous, but I could do it), I could agree that it can not work as an adjective … because that construct deals with the possibility of something not meshing, so to speak. What, in my experience, is the proper construct is not “can not” but the contraction “can’t”. “can not” more often means “it is possible for it not”, as in “I can not post (when I’m asleep, for instance).” “I can’t post” would mean I were banned or something:)
How would you be compromising your beliefs by explaining what you take certain words to mean? By not using a dictionary but your own definition? Is there something about your beliefs of which I am entirely unaware?
I have to say that I completely disagree with that assessment of the posts directed at you, and that’s completely independent of my disagreement with you. I know that certain words can have different meanings, but based on my past readings of your posts and beliefs, I took your meaning to be essentially as Spiritus and others have said they saw them as. If that’s a matter of us not knowing you well enough … well, we can’t exactly be blamed for that:) Clarity is your friend.
And in case I wasn’t clear enough beforehand, I’ll say it again: what source would you believe regarding the fundamental difference(s) between homosexuality and pedophilia?
Okay. It’s getting kinda late, so maybe this is lack of sleep talking, but it seems to me that you may be contradicting yourself. To wit:
You say that “police” can’t be an adjective “except as all other nouns can be”. Is your meaning here "except as all nouns can be, with the exception of “police”? Or do you mean that police can’t be an adjective any more than “target” can be an adjective, except in that all nouns can be adjectives?
The problem with a dictionary is the same as the problem with a general definition: it can’t speak to every exception or example. If nothing else, y’aint got the room:) Hell, y’aint got the room for a whole slew of words. There are cases where a noun can serve as an adjective. It quite possibly won’t carry the “-al” adjectival indicatorial ending, but it serves as an adjective nonetheless.
Just because the person is not homosexual, that doesn’t mean that the act isn’t homosexual.
No, it’s not. Suppose that 10% of the population is homosexual, but 20% of male-male abusers are homosexual. Then it is both true that a male-male abuser is not likely to be homosexual, and that a disproportitionate number of male-male abusers are homosexual.
Why? I cling equally strongly to labeling male-female abuse as “heterosexual”, regardless of the orientation of the participants. Do you think that I therefore consider child molestation to be the same as heterosexual relationships? If all x are y, does that mean all y are x?
Really? If tomorrow the APA declared that hoosexuality is a mental illness and pedophilia isn’t, you’d say “Oh, okay, whatever the APA says”?
I do?
Actually, I think that defining neither of them to be mental illnesses makes the most sense.
Okay. I’m going to ask again. What would you consider a reputable source on the matters of homosexuality and pedophilia? If you’re not going to accept the APA or other scholarly cites, then what will work for you? It isn’t entirely fair to say “Cite?” and then, without providing an example of what you’d accept, toss aside a reputable cite.
[quote]
Really? If tomorrow the APA declared that hoosexuality is a mental illness and pedophilia isn’t, you’d say “Oh, okay, whatever the APA says”?[/qupte]
We’d question it just as we should. More than likely that conclusion would come from one study, or it would be a subject line looking to elicit a response, much as puddleglum’s “can gays go straight? science says yes” OP title was.
However, given the decades of research that have gone into this area, Shayna, Spiritus, Polycarp and I (among others) feel that the APA has things pretty well in hand in this case. Maybe I missed the part where you explained your problem with the APA’s stance?
This has got to be the single most shocking thing I’ve read in months. Possibly a year. What basis do you have for believing pedophilia not to be a mental illness? And what do you believe you know that the APA does not, since it lists pedophilia as a mental illness?
So, to recap: what source regarding sexuality and paraphilias would you consider reputable? And I will add, for my own benefit, that if there are none … then I have to say I don’t think you’re playing by the rules. You’ve tossed aside cites because you disagreed with them, yet not provided any of your own that I’ve seen. Seems to me like you want to play offense but aren’t willing to go on defense. And as a personal aside it’s really quite annoying to dig up cites only to see “I don’t care for what the APA has to say.” You don’t care for it? Fine. Find something that supports what you’re saying. And if I’ve missed it, I’d appreciate it if you’d repost it. I’d do the same for you, FWIW:)
The list just keeps growing: [ul]
[li]I never said that you called me a homophobe. I said that you implied that I was. And you were wrong. You are an idiot and a liar and pathetic and a fuckwit. You may be a homophobe, but I have not made that implication.[/li][li]**There has been no reference to concrete knowledge with regard to this area. ** :rolleyes:[/li][li]**Well, that’s convincing ** What is convincing is the evidence of this thread. I do not think any reasonable person could read this thread and agree that “no data has been presented that opposed your view.” Your lies and evasions get more pathetic with each response.[/li][li]A single act constitutes a manner of acting. No, the manner in which a single act is performed constitutes a manner of acting. A single act constitutes an action. I am sure that you can synonym hop to show that “action” and “conduct” can be used synonymously, too. The point was never that your use of “conduct” could not be justified. The point is that your use of conduct lends itself to an inflammatory reading. In this case, one in which the meaning within the inflammatory reading is more common than your meaning of “conduct” to apply to a single act.[/li][li]**So you’re allowed to make inferences from what I say, but not vice versa? ** I can defend my inferences. Can you supply support for your inference that I want an apology from you, or are you just being a pathetic lying fuckwit.[/li][li]**And a connotation of “connotation” is that it is the feelings that people in general have about the word, not what one person in particular feels about it. ** And you are now pretending that I am the only person in the world who sees a negative connotation in your usage? Again, one need only glance at this very thread to see what a pathetic lying fuckwit is The Ryan.[/li][li]Simply because you have a list of statements, that doesn’t mean that they follow from each other. And yet I notice that you have not taken the opportunity to point out the flaw in my presentation. I wonder why? Oh, wait, it’s because you’re a pathetic lying fuckwit, isn’t it? I thought so.[/li][li]**How does the fact that “homosexual” is both a noun and an adjective change the fact that “police” is only a noun? ** Who said anything about changing the role of “police”? Let’s recap:[list=1][/li][li]SM: “Homosexual conduct” . . . carries a straightforward reading of “the conduct of homosexuals” which is both inaccurate and inflammatory. [/li][li]PLF: 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. [/li][li]SM: You miss the point. The inflamatory interpretation is not at odds with the meaning of the words. [/li][li]PLF: 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. [/li][li]SM: So, police conduct would mean conduct that is police, not conduct by police? [/li][li]PLF: That doesn’t make any sense. “Police” isn’t an adjective. [/li][li]SM: Homosexual can be used as adjective or noun. [/li][li]PLF: So your analogy between the two words does not work. [/li][li]SM: No, so the just as “police conduct” means conduct by police, with police being a noun functioning in an adjectival role, the phrase “homosexual conduct” can mean conduct by homosexuals, with the noun homosexual functioning in an adjectival role. It is not incorrect for someone to parse the phrase in that way. It is not even an unusual grammatical form. Many people who are not pathetic lying fuckwits are capable of understanding this point.[/li][/list=1]
[li]Simply because they are not separable, that hardly means that they are indinstinguishable. No, what it means is that a discussion of one must necessarily consider the other. To pretend otherwise is the tactic of a pathetic lying fcukwit.[/li][li]**Do you mean “some pedophiles do not develop any sexual desire for adults: male or female.”? If so, how does that explain the statistics? ** What it explains is that you cannot account for the statistics by treating each molester as if they possess a sexual orientation for adults of one gender or another. Note to self–when dealing with pathetic lying fuckwits it really is necessary to explain the obvious. I really should have learned that after the “you mean you don’t feel obligated to answer questions I ask other people?” moment. sigh[/li][/ul]
Still catching some things in this thread. Tolja it’s been a long night:)
The Ryan, the problem, as I see it, with the statement “they [homosexuals] are a disproportionate amount of the male-male abusers” is that there is/are (a) difference(s) between abusing prepubescent boys and abusing post-pubescent boys/men. Molestors of pre-pubescent boys are predominantly male heterosexuals (as Dr. Marshall said), whereas molestors of post-pubescent boys are mostly gay men. Think about the difference between a little boy’s body and an adult man’s body. Then go back to what the men interviewed in Dr. Marshall’s study said about their preferences for pre-pubescent male bodies. I would think the difference would be evident, but in case it isn’t … think about it this way: it’s like the difference between the film quality of an ameteur director as compared with, say, a hollywood production. Both have their good and bad points; it’s a matter of preference. But there is a market difference.
The Ryan In “I’m in the position of dominance in the current ideology, so what I say goes.”
This isn’t the first time he’s refused to learn something.
Somewhere, there’s a thread by a young woman afraid her roommate’s new “boyfriend” might rape the roommate. TR took exception there, too, because we women have to assume that an unknown male quantity might be a rapist.
But, of course, he’s always right. So why should he learn anything. :rolleyes:
Spiritus Mundi:
Not once, not once in this entire thread have you ever honestly tried to understand my position. You have come to this discussion already convinced that I am wrong, and you have no interest in doing anything other than attacking me. Yes, I’m making inferences. No, I’m not going to try to explain what they’re based on. Because obviously you’re not going to listen to them. Because that would involve admitting that maybe, just maybe, my point of view might have some validity. And for some reason you’re convinced that not only am I wrong, but that because I’m wrong my point of view is worthless.
I’m not going to answer that question, because considering how my previous posts have been received, I have the feeling that my answer will simply be twisted around.
I never said that I wouldn’t accept a cite from the APA. What I said was that I would accept a cite of the APA-said-it-so-I-believe-it type.
But it’s not a reputable cite. Doesn’t anyone undestand what a cite is?
You see to be seriously misapprehending the burden of proof. It’s not up to me to prove that it isn’t; it’s up to show you that it is.
I never claimed to know more than the APA. What makes you think that I have?
I’d have plenty of company :rolleyes:.
Kirkland1244, there isn’t a single place I have ever spread bigotry. Maybe you think you can just play the “gay” card and insist that everyone agree with you, but it doesn’t work. I don’t agree with you. That doesn’t make me a bigot. Grow up.
SisterCoyote: I believe that thread no longer exists, so people can longer see your complete misrepresentation of my position, which was that I felt that the OP was on the wrong side of the “might” and “probably” line.
wow. I never realized that I had such a talent for predicting the future. Shayna many thanks and much admiration for your presentation of facts, data and cites to support them.
however, as I noted, facts, data and cites to support them will not overcome a handy dictionary.com mind set.
SM if it means anything, I loved the inspector C. references.
