Maybe I’m being shallow for using looks to judge people like this, but if I’m discussing anything remotely debatable with someone and they get this look on their face, I just try to end the conversation as quickly as possible. I figure that any further debate would be like trying to teach a pig to sing (it’s a waste of your time and it bothers the pig.)
TheRyan: After your response to me back on page 2, I now see the point at which you were driving.
I must agree in very general terms with all the people who have accused you of insensitivity. Before you get offended, let me explain why.
First, you are using the broad-brush dictionary definition of the term “homosexual act” to mean “any sexual act performed by one individual on an individual of the same sex” (with the obvious parallel definition of “heterosexual.” You are then working from that to define “homosexual conduct,” and presumably “homosexual orientation” though I do not recall you addressing that phrase specifically.
All right, by your definition, any behavior of a sexual nature performed by one individual on someone of the same sex is by definition homosexual – including same-sex child molestation (man-boy, woman-girl), bestiality performed on an animal of the same sex, and even masturbation, since the recipient of the act is the same individual as the giver and therefore by definition of the same sex (disregarding the passing hermaphrodite).
Likewise, you use the definition of “normal” as “behavior engaged in by the majority of the population” – by which terms homosexual activity is (probably) abnormal (though one wonders how many “normal heterosexual men” have at one time or another had in passing a homosexual encounter, and of course we’d need to deal with the question of masturbation, which as noted above would be automatically homosexual by your definition.)
However, as Kirkland pointed out with some heat, all such words have not only definitions but connotations and as such are used in hateful and hurtful speech.
Of course, you then became very defensive at the very thought that how someone could ever take your insistence on precision in terminology as being offensive, goodness gracious, that’s reading into what I said, not taking my words at face value.
Well, let me advise you, that is in fact the case. If you were to say to Kirkland or Esprix, “You look like a faggot to me,” they would not immediately contemplate whether you think that they in some way resemble a bundle of sticks used for kindling, but find it an insult, and ask for your banning as intentionally using offensive and insulting language – and probably get it. Why? Because words carry freight.
To be absolutely sure, whenever an adult molests a child, that act does fit into one of your two broad-brush categories.
In my earlier post to which you responded, I tried to demonstrate in what way your shifting from the broad-category definitions you chose to use to the specific-orientation definitions used in present society was offensive to gay people and to anyone seriously interested in combatting pedophilia by addressing the problem as it exists – (1) to wit, a small minority of “heterosexual males” (i.e., men sexually attracted to adult females) also are attracted to and molest prepubescent boys, along with, one assumes, a group whose sole sexual attraction is to those boys (this hypothetical group has not been dealt with in this thread yet, but I would suspect that such a group does exist). (2) On the other hand, a small minority of “homosexual males” (i.e., men sexually attracted to other adult males) is also (or perhaps exclusively) attracted to post-puberty youthful males, constituting
“ephebophilia” as defined. Note that (3) large groups of men who are attracted to adult women, to adult men, and to adults of both sexes and who are not attracted to any subadult of either sex. It is to these latter that we as a society normally apply the terms “heterosexual,” “homosexual,” and “bisexual” – despite the broad-brush category that would imply that any act must be one or the other of the first two, presumably inferring that a “bisexual act” can only be committed with a fully functional hermaphrodite.
I find it extraordinarily difficult to believe that your feeling that you can insist on the broad-brush category definitions when everyone else participating means something different by the terms, and to see their being offended by your usage as insulting to them, is quite close to trollery. Since you have been a longstanding poster and debater, I’m not making an accusation there, simply trying to stress how offensive your point is to them.
Finally, unless one is Humpty Dumpty, one normally allows a person who self-identifies as belonging to a category to define what he or she means by that category. Am I supposed to say to Kirkland and Sister Coyote that as virgins they are neither heterosexual nor homosexual, because according to the dictionary those terms define acts? Wrong. That would be like my attempting to prove to Jodi that because John Wesley started the Methodist Movement as a part of the Church of England and insisted that the members retain their membership there and receive the sacraments there, she is absolutely not a Methodist, but a member of some other church started by John Wesley and not belonging to the “true Methodists” who are all Anglicans. I have a feeling that if I did so she’d direct a set of flames at me that would incinerate my superego and my libido before she was done.
If Kirkland and Esprix and the others define “homosexual” and “gay” in present-day usage to mean, “people who, like us, are sexually attracted predominantly if not exclusively to other adults of the same sex with the idea of establishing a mutually consenting relationship,” then what you think it ought to mean has about as much validity as my theory on what “a real Methodist” is.
Well, I tried. At least I can take comfort in the knowledge that what we’ve posted in this thread has reached at least one person (thank you, P.T. Smegma, and welcome to the SD. It’ll be nice to have you around).
The Ryan, this will be my last reply posted to you in this thread. I am now firmly convinced beyond any measure of reasonable doubt that you are purposefully and maliciously being obtuse…
I’ve had all I can take of you. You have: [ul][li]Twisted the numbers in an erroneous attempt to make them match your narrow-minded world-view.[/li][li]Refused to follow links which support the arguments of those who don’t agree with your narrow-minded world-view, yet…[/li][li]Demanded not only links, but quotes of relevant sections from those links, because you’re too lazy or obstinate to bother yourself with reading outside of the SD.[/li][li]Lied about what you “would’ve done” had you been “asked nicely” to change your terminology (I think I’ve not only asked nicely, but explained in great detail why it’s important that you do so, yet you still refuse).[/li][li]Conveniently skipped over any arguments that you can’t figure out a way to manipulate with your narrow-minded world-view.[/li][li]Attempted to change the subject and divert the discussion away from the primary subject at hand (should gay men be denied entry into the priesthood because gay men/gay priests are a greater risk to the safety of our children) to mind-numbingly nitpick the semantics of silly word definitions, like “noun” and “conduct.”[/li][li]Refused to provide any cites of your own to even attempt to support your position - you merely “believe” it to be true, so therefore you’re right, no cites necessary.[/ul] I could go on, but I’m getting bored. Here’s the deal… Several of us have told you the facts. These aren’t “suppositions” or “beliefs” or “feelings.” They are, indeed, facts, arrived at by professionals, both in the fields of medical science and criminal justice. Study after study over many, many years, of hundreds and hundreds of child sex offenders have borne out the data. The primary and most relevant findings are:[ul]The adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual.[/li][li]Incest offenders… are almost exclusively heterosexual in their choice of victims. (This, btw, accounts for the reason little girls outnumber little boys as victims of child molestation by a factor of about 3.)[/li][li]Many child molesters don’t really have an adult sexual orientation. [/ul] That’s it. It’s really as simple as that. The evidence does not support Ms. Coulter’s fear-mongering, hate-spewing attitudes towards gay men in relation to their propensity towards child abuse/molestation. She’s wrong. You’re wrong. [/li]
I don’t like tomatoes. In fact, I despise tomatoes. If I so much as get a remnant of a tomato seed on a sandwich, I will practically puke. However, I cannot deny the fact that tomatoes are a healthy food which are an excellent source of vitamin C and vitamin A, or that recent sientific studies suggest eating cooked tomatoes reduces one’s likelihood of suffering from cholesterol-related heart problems and digestive tract cancers.
You do not have to like gays, nor condone their choice in adult sexual partners, to accept the fact that they pose no greater risk with regard to sexual abuse and molestation to your children than heterosexual men. In fact, the scientific research says children are more at risk from heterosexual men than from homosexual men.
These are facts. You can choose to stick your proverbial fingers in your ears and sing neener-neener-neener-I’m-not-listening-to-you, if you want. Or you can choose to accept the overwhelming evidence that you’re wrong and not only concede, but learn something here. The choice you make will be a reflection of the character of the man who’s sitting behind that computer screen right now.
I respectfully request that you do not waste your time coming back and picking this reply apart sentence-by-sentence and asking such stupid questions as, “where?” (we’ve shown you already), “when did I say that?” (trust me, you did), etc. I will not be responding further to you. I merely wanted to recap the issue that this thread was supposed to have been about and explain to you why this will be my last reply to you in this thread.
The Ryan, believe it or not, I understand what you were getting at originally - that any male-to-male sexual contact could be described as “homosexual,” as in, well, male-to-male sexual contact. The argument has merit. But, in the context of discourse, it is innaccurate, confusing, misleading and inappropriate to use the two synonymously. Once again (and for the last time)…
Pedophilia is rape. Homosexuality is not.
However, after this:
… I once again give up with you, you fucking moronic jerk. You are hereby crowned the King of Worthless Word Minutiae Vivisection, and given discretionary powers to take an argument, dissect every single word of it, create an inflammatory sub-argument on each of those words, and then dissect them as well, until the original argument or discussion is so mired in the morass and lost to the winds of history, and every participant is so inflamed at your jackassedness, that you can smugly claim victory.
We bow to your omnipotence in this baliwick. So mote it be.
Goodness, there is not a single substantive reply to any point that I raised! I am shocked, truly shocked. I so expected to see a treatise on structural grammer with respoect to adjectival use of nouns, an investigation of intentionality in word choice as distinguished from the desire to communicate all semantic elements of the word, a discussion of discrete probability analysis focussing on how to fully relineate a solution filed, or at least a demonstration that I have in any way expressed a desire to be apologized to by a certain pathetic lying fuckwit. Ah, well, I suppose I shall be able to live with the disappointment.
Just for the record:
I understand. I disagree. I find your presentation dishonest. Were you really unclear on this?
No, I came to this discuission having both some acquantance with the current state of knowledge regarding pedophilia and a working familiarity with English structure and semantics. You did not, but I was not at all hostile to you initially. You have earned ever-increasing amounts of my contempt through your repeated lies and evasions. Congratulations.
Pathetic. Lying. Fuckwit.
I have responded to every salient point you have raised in this thread, and more than a few which were not salient. Your inferences were baseless, a fact of which I suspect we are both well aware. If you can’t defend your position, the honorable thing to do is admit your mistake. Pretending that you could support it but will not because I mean old meanie who won’t listen to or understand your words is the tactic of a–wait for it–pathetic lying fuckwit.
Which point? That I want you to apologize? That your usage is unambiguously accurate? That you couldn’t possible mean to inflame when you knowingly choose inflammatory language?
Wrong.
Wrong.
Liar.
If you think you can demonstrate the validity of thoise positions, then do so. Even though I’m a closed-minded meanie, I’m sure you will be able to convince one of the kinder, gentler dopers of your righteous concern for accuracy and clear communication.
Not at all. You are wrong in several of your statements in this thread. You are also a pathetic lying fuckwit, but that has no necessary consequences for your point of view. That’s just what you are.
wringand SM, Yup, the Inspector C. references got me, too! Good stuff!
cornflakes, good to see that I’m not the only one perceiving a rather huge amount of smugness in Ann Coulter’s pic!
Esprix
I agree. Totally.
TheRyan, fuck you. Fuck you in the ass with a big rubber dick. Unlubricated.
Seriously. You’ve been presented with enough data to support other peoples’ viewpoints, but you seem to disregard them in favor of semantic quibbles. It’s all mental masturbation on your part, as far as I’m concerned.
Don’t like my assessment? Well tough shit, Sonny Jim!
Here’s a clue: I have worked as a caretaker to profoundly mentally ill and/or retarded people, and many of them had a better grasp of critical thinking than you.
Bandy semantics all you want, I think you are a willfully ignorant bigot, based on your posts (and justifications for same) in this thread.
So, are you the kind Legolas killed in LOTR, or just the basic fuckstick I’ve had encounters with all to often?
If your beliefs on mental illness, homosexuality and pedophilia have been stated elsewhere on this board, and Spiritus has seen them, and is aware of your, ah, reluctance to accept the validity of three decades of psychological research, as well as to even accept the tiniest inaccuracy or mistake on your part (Christ, man, I know what a fucking adjective is!), then I don’t blame him one whit for thinking to himself, as this debate was starting, “I bet The Ryan will hold to his usual manner of ‘I don’t believe you because I don’t want to.’” If Spiritus is wrong, then so are not only the rest of us but the APA, and I defy you to prove the APA wrong. It’d be somewhat on the level of proving that Henry Aaron didn’t hit 755 home runs. The numbers are there, the film is there, people saw it happen. Unless there’s some grand conspiracy you’d like to elucidate, you’re wrong.
Let me repeat that in case it got lost: three decades of research are right. Dr. Marshall is right. Unless you can come up with several cites to prove your point, at least accept, for the love of Cecil, that … hell, accept something. It is an untenable position that you hold, and believing otherwise will only prove you to be a fool. Since you spend a good amount of time on this boards debating, going into things with people who believe you to be a fool is not entirely good for your cause. Think about the reputation Jack Dean Tyler got after he refused to accept cites (but at least he provided some of his own, inherently biased though they were).
Will you explain them to me, then?
So you’re just going to give up without giving any proof of the validity of your claim?
If you don’t defense, people are just going to have open shots around you. You’re going to make a few baskets, possibly (assuming you know how to shoot), but you’re going to have people making lay-ups all day.
Ya don’t win that way:)
Well then again, give me an example of what you would accept. We’ve had the APA’s official word on this, which, when it comes down to it, is basically like asking “what does the scientific community believe about X?” We’ve had the word of at least two prominent researchers in the field. It isn’t just the APA saying it, The Ryan. And you know what else? Other than your word, which I don’t see carrying much weight (unless you’d care to reveal some sort of credential in this area), you have given us nothing to point to that gives your argument any credibility whatsoever. Simply saying, absent any degree or life experience, “I’m right and three decades of research are wrong”, doesn’t make you right. It is an accepted fact in this community that the vast majority of molestation of pre-pubescent boys is committed by heterosexual males. That puts the burden of proof on you to prove otherwise, just as the burden of proof would fall to me if I were to try to convince a group of fundamentalists that “six-day” creationism is an untenable position.
Interesting that this comes from someone who has yet to provide a single cite of his own. I don’t see that you can really complain, The Ryan, seeing as you’ve given us nothing but your opinion.
A graduate of the Jack Dean Tyler school of debate, I see. “I don’t believe X, so you have to prove to me that X isn’t true, even though anyone in their right mind agrees with you, not to mention the scientific community, and I don’t like your cites either, since they don’t agree with me.” Once again: if a belief is not held by the group of people you’re debating with, and you’re challenging their belief, it is up to you, not them, to prove them wrong.
The fact that you won’t take, among other things, their say on the differences between, and definitions of, homosexuality and pedophilia. When someone disagrees with a scientific viewpoint, often it can mean that they believe they know something the formers of that viewpoint don’t.
Lemme ask you this, The Ryan: whence do your opinions of mental illness, homosexuality and pedophilia stem?
Where would that be? This is the pit, so Spiritus and Esprix were well within their rights to insult you. We’ve debated with you, pointed out where (we felt) you were wrong, put up cites to back up what we said.
You, meanwhile, have given us no cite, nothing but your word (which, I am sorely tempted to add, doesn’t come with high recommendation). This is a debate. A debate consists of more than just “I don’t think so, and I don’t have to listen to you.” A debate also consists of cites, of which you have provided exactly 0. Unless and until you provide a cite, not only have you not advanced your position, you have done marked work to hinder it.
To put it as simply as it can be put: put up or shut up. If you aren’t going to provide any evidence that your viewpoint is correct, you must at least accept the viewpoint of the scientific community, who have shown (in our cites) the differences between pedophilia and homosexuality.
And on the off-chance that you care, I should point out to you that unless you come up with a cite in the next response of yours that addresses and point I have made,you might as well send it to the moon because I’m tired of you doing absolutely no work to prove your point beyond “your word”, which as I have said carries absolutely no weight here. And for that you have none but yourself to blame.
Finally: I’ll make sure to tell my father and some of his siblings, all of whom are themselves victims of a pedophile, that you disagree with the APA and say that he did not have a mental illness. When they ask what you have to prove your point I’ll give them every cite you gave me.
[sub]Is it just my imagination or was Phaedrus a better debater? At least HE used cites, bullshit though they were.[/sub]
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Polycarp *
First, you are using the broad-brush dictionary definition of the term “homosexual act” to mean “any sexual act performed by one individual on an individual of the same sex” (with the obvious parallel definition of “heterosexual.” You are then working from that to define “homosexual conduct,” and presumably “homosexual orientation” though I do not recall you addressing that phrase specifically.[/.quote]
If you mean by that that I think that anyone who engages in a homosexual act is of homosexual orientation, you are incorrect.
I specifically stated that I meant absolutely nothing moral in using the term “abnormal”. If you were to tell Esprix that he looks like a faggot, and by that you don’t mean a homosexual, and he were to become angry, I don’t think he would be justified. As for “homosexual conduct”, what is the connotation that is offensive?
When did I do so?
I’m sorry, but I am unable to parse that sentence.
You have heard of the “true Scotsman fallacy”, haven’t you? It’s been so long that my memory is starting to fade, but I believe that in my previous post, I responded to your point that there are Christians of whose conduct you are embarrassed by pointing out that, using this logic, you could simply say that as you are a Christian, you get to decide what the definition of “Christian” is, so you can simply declare them to not be Christians. You never responded to that (possibly because I’m imagining things).
My god…I’d just like to say that some of here you here, have an insane amount of patience!
And that’s about it! Except, isn’t Pedophelia more about power and control than about sex? Because I’ve always heard that a pedophelia cares nothing about the gender of the child.
I never said that the APA is wrong. I said that I don’t find them convincing.
Just so I can be clear, what is the position that I hold which is untenable?
What in the blazes are you talking about? My claim is that I know of no reasonable definition of “mental illness” that includes pedophila but excludes homosexuality. You’re claiming that this claim has no validity? What, you think I do have such a definition, but I’m just lying about it?
I say that I know of no definition that is acceptable to me, and you ask me for an example of a definition that I would accept? I think there’s a serious lack of communication going on here.
On what? That there is a definition that I would accept? “Well, sure there’s a definition. Trust me. No, I’m not going to tell you what it is.” Sorry, not buying it.
My word should carry a lot of weight in this area. Who knows better than I do what I will accept than me.
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m not saying they’re wrong; I’m saying that I’m not convinced.
I disagree. The burden of proof falls on the one making the claim, regardless of how many people agree with it.
I never said that I was trying to convince anyone of anything. It is them that are trying to convince me.
I don’t see what’s so strange about that. If neither of us has any proof one way or another, than we are both entitled to our opinions.
How does the fact that I won’t blindly follow what someone says mean that I think that I know something more than them?
That would of course depend oon which opinion you arer talking about.
Wait. So Spiritus and Esprix can say whatever they want, but if I don’t follow your rules, that’s “not playing fair”?
A cite attempting to prove someone wrong should include, at the very least: a reference to what claim it is opposing, a statement of what claim it is supporting, an explanation of how it does so, a quote of the most important parts, and clear directions to find the full text. Has there been a single such cite?
I have never said that your father does or does not have a mental illness.
Esprix, just to be clear, you are aware that as far as the meaning of “pedophilia” in the passage you quoted is concerned, pedophilia is not rape, aren’t you?
[sub]I loved your Clouseau references, too![/sub]