# Coldfire, what were you thinking?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039
**Category:** The BBQ Pit
**Created:** [August 19, 2001, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039 "2001-08-19T19:54:01Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)
#### Post date: [August 19, 2001, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/1 "2001-08-19T19:54:01Z")
In [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=81739&pagenumber=1), you said
> [@](#):
>
> Around these parts, “most abusers are homosexual” goes as an unreasonable assumtpion unless it’s backed up by FACT.
>
> You know what? There are no such facts. In other words, it’s complete bull, and using it as an argument in a debate will get you roasted on the Straight Dope. And rightly so.
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.
---
### Author:  [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)
#### Post date: [August 19, 2001, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/2 "2001-08-19T19:58:20Z")
> [@](#):
>
> an assumption is by definition not backed up by facts.
Didn’t he say that exact same thing?
> [@](#):
>
> just what is unreasonable about assuming that most men who abuse boys are homosexual?
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”.
---
### Author:  [@JeffB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JeffB)
#### Post date: [August 19, 2001, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/3 "2001-08-19T20:06:44Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by The Ryan \*
> 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.
If you wade through the rest of that thread, you will find some facts that do indicate most men who sexual abuse young boys are _not_ homosexual.
---
### Author:  [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)
#### Post date: [August 19, 2001, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/4 "2001-08-19T20:08:42Z")
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]
---
### Author:  [@obfusciatrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/obfusciatrist)
#### Post date: [August 19, 2001, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/5 "2001-08-19T20:09:07Z")
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.
---
### Author:  [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)
#### Post date: [August 19, 2001, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/6 "2001-08-19T20:12:29Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by The Ryan \*
> First, an assumption is by definition not backed up by facts.
Coulda fooled me. Most of my assumptions are based on facts . . . but maybe I’m in the statistical minority here.
> [@](#):
>
> Assumptions are what are made when one doesn’t have enough facts for a conclusion,
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.
> [@](#):
>
> Secondly, just what is unreasonable about assuming that most men who abuse boys are homosexual?
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.
> [@](#):
>
> 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.
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.
> [@](#):
>
> But you don’t feel like you have any obligation to provide any such facts.
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.
> [@](#):
>
> Apparently you have the right to declare any supposition “unreasonable”, and no further discussion is needed.
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, 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.
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.
---
### Author:  [@Sterra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterra)
#### Post date: [August 19, 2001, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/7 "2001-08-19T20:16:29Z")
Coldfire is a nazi!
---
### Author:  [@Albert\_Rose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Albert_Rose)
#### Post date: [August 19, 2001, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/8 "2001-08-19T21:37:13Z")
No, he isn’t.
---
### Author:  [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)
#### Post date: [August 19, 2001, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/9 "2001-08-19T21:51:59Z")
Sheesh! Everyone knows that Coldfire is the COMMUNIST, and EUTY is the Nazi!
You people need to get these things straight!
😛
---
### Author:  [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)
#### Post date: [August 19, 2001, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/10 "2001-08-19T22:04:53Z")
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.
---
### Author:  [@Eutychus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eutychus)
#### Post date: [August 19, 2001, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/11 "2001-08-19T22:21:35Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Guinastasia \*
> **Sheesh! Everyone knows that Coldfire is the COMMUNIST, and EUTY is the Nazi!**
I am NOT a Nazi!
I’m a National Socialist. It just sounds better.
---
### Author:  [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)
#### Post date: [August 19, 2001, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/12 "2001-08-19T22:50:43Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by The Ryan \*
> \*\*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. \*\*
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.
---
### Author:  [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)
#### Post date: [August 19, 2001, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/13 "2001-08-19T23:02:16Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Coldfire \*
> \*\*Next thing you know I’ll get roasted for hating Hello Kitty merchandise. \*\*
WHAT? You BASTARD!
---
### Author:  [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)
#### Post date: [August 19, 2001, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/14 "2001-08-19T23:24:59Z")
**Coldfire** : How can you hate the manufacturer of these fine products? 😛
[http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/9938/archive/arch120.html](http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/9938/archive/arch120.html)
- Tamerlane
---
### Author:  [@TheLoadedDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheLoadedDog)
#### Post date: [August 19, 2001, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/15 "2001-08-19T23:34:12Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Guinastasia \*
> \*\*Sheesh! Everyone knows that Coldfire is the COMMUNIST, and EUTY is the Nazi!
>
> You people need to get these things straight!
>
> 😛 \*\*
Anyway, it doesn’t matter. We’re an autonomous collective!
---
### Author:  [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)
#### Post date: [August 20, 2001, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/16 "2001-08-20T02:22:11Z")
Yet another nitpicking thread from the ever famous **The Ryan**.
God, shut the fuck up. You started an entire thread on the definition of “assumption”? Fuck off. You wasted perfectly good electrons.
---
### Author:  [@Mikahw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mikahw)
#### Post date: [August 20, 2001, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/17 "2001-08-20T02:31:29Z")
Coldfire is an oxymoron, not a nazi! :wally:
---
### Author:  [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)
#### Post date: [August 20, 2001, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/18 "2001-08-20T06:56:58Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by SPOOFE \*
> Didn’t he say that exact same thing?
His use of the phrase “unless backed up by facts” implies that he believes that assumptions can be backed up by facts.
> [@](#):
>
> If you wade through the rest of that thread, you will find some facts that do indicate most men who sexual abuse young boys are not homosexual.
And if you even _skim_ through my post, you might actually notice the last sentence of the OP.
waterj2
> [@](#):
>
> Basically, around these parts, it goes as an unreasonable assumption because we know it to be false.
The fact that **you** know it to be true doesn’t make it unreasonable for **someone else** to assume it.
iampunha
> [@](#):
>
> Our first contradiction, and we are just three sentences into your post.
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.
> [@](#):
>
> 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.
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.
> [@](#):
>
> 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).
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.
> [@](#):
>
> 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.
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.
> [@](#):
>
> However, whereas Coldfire was speaking from A) an intelligent and thoughtful position on the subject, you were B) not.
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.
> [@](#):
>
> 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.
If you believe that it is not reasonable, by all means explain why not.
Enderw24
> [@](#):
>
> So should we assume then that the majority of men that molest young girls are heterosexual?
That certainly would be reasonable. But I would not dictate to others that they make this assumption.
> [@](#):
>
> Does a homosexual who molests a girl stop being a homosexual?
No, but the presumption of homosexuality becomes much weaker.
Coldfire
> [@](#):
>
> . I just happen to have another opinion: when someones tosses a completely out-of-the-blue assumption my way,
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.
> [@](#):
>
> I -in all my short-sighted logic- dismiss the argumentation as a whole because the premise is or may be faulty.
You are willing to dismiss an argument because its premise “may” be faulty? That’s a rather closeminded attitude.
> [@](#):
>
> Was this really worth a pit thread?
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.
---
### Author:  [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)
#### Post date: [August 20, 2001, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/19 "2001-08-20T08:56:27Z")
> [@](#):
>
> His use of the phrase “unless backed up by facts” implies that he believes that assumptions can be backed up by facts.
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”.
---
### Author:  [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)
#### Post date: [August 20, 2001, 9:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/20 "2001-08-20T09:39:26Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by The Ryan \*
> \*\*Coldfire
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > . I just happen to have another opinion: when someones tosses a completely out-of-the-blue assumption my way,
>
> 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.\*\*
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?
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Coldfire \*
> \*\*
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \*
> > **The unreasonable part is going from “most abusers are homosexual” which is a reasonable assumption (note I didn’t say it’s true, just a reasonable assumption), to “most homosexuals are abusers” which is ridiculous.**
>
> Around these parts, “most abusers are homosexual” goes as an unreasonable assumtpion unless it’s backed up by FACT.
>
> You know what? There are no such facts. In other words, it’s complete bull, and using it as an argument in a debate will get you roasted on the Straight Dope. And rightly so.\*\*
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.
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > I -in all my short-sighted logic- dismiss the argumentation as a whole because the premise is or may be faulty.
>
> You are willing to dismiss an argument because its premise “may” be faulty? That’s a rather closeminded attitude.\*\*
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_.
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Was this really worth a pit thread?
>
> 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.\*\*
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.
> [@](#):
>
> **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.**
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**.
> [@](#):
>
> **It also borders censorship, and it inhibits a healthy discussion of issues.**
_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.
> [@](#):
>
> **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.**
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.
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*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. \*\*
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Drop the martyr act already, grow a pair of balls, and go bother someone else with your stupid semantics games.
Have a nice day.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039.md?page=2)