First, an assumption is by definition not backed up by facts. If something is backed up by facts, it’s a conclusion. Assumptions are what are made when one doesn’t have enough facts for a conclusion, and so instead of being paralyzed by indecision, one simply makes one’s best guess. Secondly, just what is unreasonable about assuming that most men who abuse boys are homosexual? Absent facts to the contrary, it seems quite reasonable to assume that people engaging in sexual acts with members of their own sex are in fact sexually attracted to members of their own sex. But you don’t feel like you have any obligation to provide any such facts. Apparently you have the right to declare any supposition “unreasonable”, and no further discussion is needed.
And, as I said in the original thread, I’m not saying that I believe this statement, just that it seems like a valid null hypothesis to me.
As I said in another thread, pedophilia is often asexual. A perfectly straight pedophile is just as likely to target a young boy as a young girl - because, by definition, pedophiles like children. Granted, this isn’t always the case, but “molests young boys != homosexual”.
Yes, SPOOFE, but without really knowing fairly recent psychological determinations, it’s not necessarily unreasonable to assume that. Wrong, yes. But at first glance, not a bizarre conclusion.
Basically, around these parts, it goes as an unreasonable assumption because we know it to be false. Kind of mob rule, but I rarely see a case where the majority of Dopers are adamantly wrong about questions of fact.
[sub]Proveable fact, that is. God either exists or He does not, which is a matter of fact that no matter how you slice it, a bunch of us a wrong about, for example.[/sub]
Ah, but you first have to agree on the definition of homosexual.
Just as it used to be the case that one drop of black blood made you black many will say that one homosexual act makes you a homosexual. By that defnition, then, men who sexually abuse boys are homosexuals.
I don’t agree with that definition, but a sizable portion of the population does find it contradictory to say “he engaged in sex acts with him, but he’s not a homosexual.”
Under that defition, then, “he molests young boys = homosexual.” Of course, even with that overly broad definition, “homosexual = molests young boys” is not true.
Coulda fooled me. Most of my assumptions are based on facts . . . but maybe I’m in the statistical minority here.
Our first contradiction, and we are just three sentences into your post. This doesn’t sound promising. First you say that an assumption by definition is not backed by facts, and then that an assumption is what you make when you don’t have enough facts for a conclusion. However, in the latter it is possible to have plenty of facts (just not enough for you to make a conclusion), which (it would seem to me, at least) lies in direct contradiction to your definition of an assumption.
The fact that it is an invalid assumption when one looks at the credible research that has been done in this area (i.e. research that doesn’t rely on a non-APA definition of pedophilia or that a man who molests boys is by definition a homosexual (especially since sexuality is not about what one does but what one wants). Read RockJay’s posts in the MC pit thread if you want further clarification.
Might seem that way to the uneducated masses, mightn’t it? But guess what? It doesn’t. As RickJay’s letter from Bill Marshall (I think that was his name . . . I’m still recuperating from yesterday/today) shows, the men who are pedophiles were attracted to qualities in those young boys that were similar to women. So while they weren’t molesting genetic women, they were molesting people who bore many similarities to women. IOW, it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and sometimes walks like a duck. It just isn’t.
Facts supporting Coldfire’s assertation have appeared on this board innumerable times in the past. If you want to find 'em, do a search or email someone who’d know.
And you have the right to post this OP. However, whereas Coldfire was speaking from A) an intelligent and thoughtful position on the subject, you were B) not.
Now that we’ve gotten THAT out of the way . . .
And your definition of assumption seemed valid to you, too, right? Forgive me if I don’t accept sans autre this latest of your opinions.
So should we assume then that the majority of men that molest young girls are heterosexual?
Does a homosexual who molests a girl stop being a homosexual?
I’m not arguing with you TheRyan, I’m just curious as to your viewpoint.
That’s your good right, young man. I just happen to have another opinion: when someones tosses a completely out-of-the-blue assumption my way, without any factual back-up whatsoever, and continues to build his argumentation upon that assumption, I -in all my short-sighted logic- dismiss the argumentation as a whole because the premise is or may be faulty.
So, in short, that’s what I was thinking.
Was this really worth a pit thread? Next thing you know I’ll get roasted for hating Hello Kitty merchandise.
His use of the phrase “unless backed up by facts” implies that he believes that assumptions can be backed up by facts.
And if you even skim through my post, you might actually notice the last sentence of the OP.
waterj2
The fact that you know it to be true doesn’t make it unreasonable for someone else to assume it.
iampunha
I realize this is the Pit, but is this dismissive attitude really necessary? Just because you don’t agree with someone, that doesn’t mean they are contradicting themselves.
First of all, just because it is possible to have facts doesn’t mean that one has any. Granted, I implied that, but if you’re saying that one of my statements contradicted another of my implied statements, the proper term is “indirect contradiction”, not “direct contradiction”. Secondly, from the context, I took Coldfire’s phrase “backed up by facts” to mean having facts that prove, to at least a propoderence of evidence, that the conclusion is true, and I used it in that sense. Just because one has facts, that doesn’t mean they are sufficient to prove anything. If I told you that I saw a black man hanging around my house, and when I came into my house some of my electronics were missing, have I presented you with facts? Yes, I certainly have. Have I presented you with facts that prove that black men are thieves? Certainly not.
You obviously didn’t get the point of my OP. If someone lacks this knowledge, it is reasonable to assume most SS offenders are homosexual. The question of whether something is or is not a reasonable assumption really doesn’t have much to do with whether it’s true or not.
Again, you miss my point. I was not pointing to his failure to provide facts as evidence in support of the assumption in question, but rather of evidence of his unwillingness to provide facts. In other words, he was willing to dismiss something without ever presenting any counterargument. The fact that such an argument exists takes nothing away from his unreasonability. If he had cited those other arguments, they would be relevant. Since he as much as said no such argument is necessary (presumably because it is manifestly true that someone engaging in sexual acts with a MSS is clearly not homosexual ) they are completely irrelevant.
You are free to make an argument along those lines. However, simply stating it, or making arguments based on gross misunderstanding of my position, will not convince me.
If you believe that it is not reasonable, by all means explain why not.
Enderw24
That certainly would be reasonable. But I would not dictate to others that they make this assumption.
No, but the presumption of homosexuality becomes much weaker.
Coldfire
I started this thread because I thought there might actually be some rational basis behind your words, and was curious to see if this were so. Seeing as how you believe that thinking that someone who has homosexual intercourse might actually be homosexual is “a completely out-of-the-blue assumption”, I rather doubt there is such a basis.
You are willing to dismiss an argument because its premise “may” be faulty? That’s a rather closeminded attitude.
If I thought it could have been addressed in the original, no. But this attitude that certain positions can simply be dismissed out of hand bothers me deeply, and I do not think that it is healthy for such arrogant attitudes to go unchallenged. You implied that anyone that thinks SS offenders are homosexual is a bigot, and frankly calling people names just because they disagree with you strikes me as rather immature. It also borders censorship, and it inhibits a healthy discussion of issues. Now, as a private citizen you have the right to engage in censorship, and as a moderator you have the power, but just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. As I have said many times before, and of course been ignored many times before (the fact that people refuse to listen when someone takes a contrary position simply proves my point), I am arguing not on behalf of MC or any statements he made, but on the general principle that dislike of a postition is not a valid basis to dismiss it.
Are you suggesting that an assumption CANNOT be backed up by facts? 'Cuz I can tell you right now, bucko, that just ain’t right.
Regardless, Coldfire’s message seemed (to me) as: “If you have nothing to base it on, your assumption is unreasonable.” In other words, if you just pull random thoughts out of your ass, without basing them on experience or study, it is “unreasonable”.
My goodness, where did you get THAT? Allow me to quote myself from the original thread, as linked in your OP. Hell, I’ll even include your words that prompted me to respond! Howzat?
Now, where the fuck am I saying that “assuming someone who engages in homosexual intercourse is gay” is ridiculous? Nowhere. I’m responding to your statement that “most abusers are homosexual” supposedly is a “reasonable assumption”.
It is NOT a reasonable assumption.
A reasonable assumption would be based on data that, whilst perhaps not conclusive, would lead one to reason in a certain direction. If you had quoted a study that concluded that 90% of all child abuses involved a male offender and a male victim, your assumption that “most abusers are homosexual” might be reasonable. Mind you, it still wouldn’t necessarily be true, as explained by an absolute expert on the matter later on in that linked thread. It wouldn’t be true, but the assumption, based on the crime stats alone, would be reasonable.
Now here’s the catch. Pay close attention, please. No one, at that point, had provided any data along those lines. In other words, everyone who was uttering words like “most abusers are homosexual” at that stage in the discussion, was pulling those assumptions out of their respective arses.
This, dear The Ryan, constitutes an unreasonable assumption.
For your sake, just to make it clear: if there’s still some fecal matter detectable on your assumption, it’s an unreasonable one. Unless you got lucky and guessed right, which in your case seems highly unlikely.
Does the concept “common sense” mean anything to you at all? If a complete layman is trying to convince me of something by using arguments that go against everything I know (however limited that may be), I’d rather wait for someone with actual expertise to come along to explain the matter to me. So yes, if some dipshit tells me most child abusers are gay, I WILL dismiss it as ridiculous until someone with credentials shows up to confirm or denie it. I would rather trust my common sense and be wrong sporadically, than trust any unfounded statement tossed at me by a complete outsider. It’s called being sceptical, and it’s a good thing.
It’s not arrogance at all. It’s relying on common sense rather than on unfounded inflammatory statements, pending genuine expertise to settle the matter definitively.
Whatever you think I implied is irrelevant. What I said was that statements like the one referenced better be backed up by factual evidence. I didn’t call anyone names, I merely said that an uncritical attitude as described would usually get one roasted at this Message Board. And, I repeat, rightly so.
Censorship? Kindly explain this.
A healthy discussion of issues involves facts as well as unfounded and often unintelligent opinions, but I think I said that already.
I’m not censoring anyone. How you arrive at that conclusion is beyond me. I’m using no power other than my sense of logic, and my need for proof. As should any sentient being.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Drop the martyr act already, grow a pair of balls, and go bother someone else with your stupid semantics games.
) they are completely irrelevant.