# Coldfire, what were you thinking? **URL:** \ **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:** 4
**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/61 "2001-08-22T00:30:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > \*\*I’d like to say that when I read the entire portion of text that **Ryan** posted I found his argument to be perfectly clear. \*\* Oh, it was perfectly clear to me too. I just happened to _disagree_ with it. Nobody seems to be claiming they don’t _understand_ The Ryan. A lot of people **do** seem to be saying they think he’s full of shit, and merely playing pointless semantics games. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/62 "2001-08-22T01:03:56Z")
That’s enough. I know from the futility of previous threads involving The Ryan that this could go on for [pages and pages.](http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm) I wish it were worth the effort but it surely isn’t. Close the blinds when you leave, Matron. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/63 "2001-08-22T01:08:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE \* > The Ryan’s claim is that if one makes an assumption, then there is no proof to back up that assumption. Basically, he’s saying that he can “assume” 'til the cows come home and he never has to back up anything he says, which is ridiculous. Not at all. What he is saying (or should be, anyway) is that one can make an assumption in the abscence of proof either way. You cannot say that “since you have no proof you must be wrong” or that “since you have no proof you cannot say it”. If _you_ have facts to disprove the assumption by all means whip them out, but until you do so, a reasonable assumption might tentatively stand. What Coldfire did was essentially to shout down an assumption that he didn’t like, with no basis at all. ---
**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/64 "2001-08-22T01:14:05Z")
What Coldfire did was take offense to an unfounded assumption. Since the assumption at hand could be considered highly inflammatory, it had better be backed up by _something_, conclusive or not. It came out of thin air, however. In such a case, Coldfire deems it wise to wait for the _real_ experts, rather than sling wild unfounded statements around. And as can be seen in the thread at hand, the experts later proved The Ryan, and whomever it was he was defending, **wrong**. So it can be stressed with ease that the statements at hand were indeed unfounded, and premature. We now end this FatherJohn Third Person Segment. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/65 "2001-08-22T01:33:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Coldfire \* > What Coldfire did was take offense to an unfounded assumption. Since the assumption at hand could be considered highly inflammatory, it had better be backed up by _something_, conclusive or not. It came out of thin air, however. > > In such a case, Coldfire deems it wise to wait for the _real_ experts, rather than sling wild unfounded statements around. OK, if Coldfire is only saying that people should avoid making tenous assumptions about inflammatory issues then he is on safer ground. This was not too clear from Coldfire’s initial remarks, which sounded like a general rule about assumptions. It was to _this_ proposition that **The Ryan** was objecting. (Perhaps the thread will end peacefully after all 🙂 ) > [@](#): > > And as can be seen in the thread at hand, the experts later proved The Ryan, and whomever it was he was defending, **wrong**. So it can be stressed with ease that the statements at hand were indeed unfounded, and premature. But not unreasonable. ---
**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/66 "2001-08-22T01:44:58Z")
“Unreasonable” in my book also means “not taking into account the possible repercussions of a remark in a debate”. While there may be a certain (yet-to-be-debunked, as can be seen in the original thread) _logic_ to it, it may bot be wise to use it as argumentation. See what I mean? Exclaiming “it’s OK to assume most abusers are homosexuals” _will_ offend participants in the debate if it isn’t backed up by hard facts, like it or not. That has nothing to do with being (too) PC. It has everything to do with making damn sure you’ve got your facts straight before you apply a sweeping generalisation to a specific group of people. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/67 "2001-08-22T02:19:57Z")
Look! A whole flock of them! ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/68 "2001-08-22T02:20:29Z")
OK, so it appears that you would not be saying that the logical assumption itself was necessarily unreasonable, as might have been thought. Rather, that it is unreasonable to _express_ this assumption in a debate. So there may not be any fundamental disagreement after all. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/69 "2001-08-22T03:15:48Z")
I have no idea why I’m doing this but…OK, I haven’t directly addressed the OP so, against my better instincts, here’s a whirl… > [@](#): > > \*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. What is “unreasonable” with it is that you’re tainting a group within society (defined by its sexual preference) as comprising most of the child molesters on an “assumption” (the man’s male, the boy’s male, it must be a homosexual thing). That of, and in itself, _is_ unreasonable. Why ? – because sexual gratification may not be the prime motivation for the molestation. Do we know that sexual gratification isn’t the prime motivation ? - I don’t know (the complex psychology of any male’s sexuality / power-domination / allure of innocence, etc. is beyond me), but, in the absence of facts, I’ll _assume_ it isn’t always the main motivation (from a personal POV, because if I was homosexual and wanted sexual gratification, I’d probably find an adult who’s up to the job) Thus, if we _assume_ simple sexual gratification isn’t (the prime motivation) all the time, it becomes unreasonable, by the same token, to _assume_ all molesters of boys are homosexual men. Why ? - because, in the absence of _any_ facts, you are tainting a defined group without a factual base. And if you read this far, ducking good job! I am now officially ducking out of this thread on the grounds of endangered sanity. Thank you all. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/70 "2001-08-22T03:35:49Z")
**London\_Calling** What you have done is to present a counter-argument, possibly with some degree of merit. (You’ve also engaged in a bit of straw-man construction). This is not the same thing as saying that the original assumption is not a reasonable one. The difference is that you are (apparently) acknowledging that the thought process that led to the assumption had a logic to it. You are merely pointing out something that you feel the logic overlooked. I don’t see that you are doing anything more than simply disagreeing with the assumption. ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/71 "2001-08-22T08:59:40Z")
Irony? Irony? Humbug. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/72 "2001-08-22T12:08:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > \*\*OK, so it appears that you would not be saying that the logical assumption itself was necessarily unreasonable, as might have been thought. Rather, that it is unreasonable to _express_ this assumption in a debate. > \*\* Actually, I can’t speak for Coldfire, but I would agree more with your first statement more than your second, at least if we define “reasonable” as “proceeding from reason.” (As in definition 2 [here](http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=reasonable).) Let’s look at two contrasting assumptions. First, we’ll go with waterj2’s example, assuming the sun will rise tomorrow: 1. A sunrise has occurred every day since I have been alive. 2. Sunrise occurs when the Earth rotates into position such that the portion I am on is facing the Sun. 3. The Sun has not stopped shining, nor has the Earth stopped rotating. 4. Therefore, I assume there will be a sunrise tomorrow. See, the assumption proceeds from a set of observed facts. Each premise leads directly to the next, and they all tie together. Now let’s take the assumption to which Coldfire objected, that most abusers of boys are homosexuals: 1. Homosexuals differ from heterosexuals in that they are attracted sexually to members of their own gender. 2. Male homosexuals and male pubescent or prepubescent chilren are the same gender. 3. Therefore, I assume that most abusers of male children are homosexual. You see the difference? There is a fundamental disconnect between premise 2 and the conclusion at 3. Namely, poor reasoning, or a failure to analogize properly. What’s needed is a premises labeled 2a and 2b: 2a. Heterosexuals are not normally attracted to pubescent and prepubescent members of the opposite gender. 2b. It seems likely, then, that homosexuals also are not normally attracted to pubescent or prepubescent children of their own gender. Given those two premises, the conclusion at 3 is, therefore, **unreasonable**. It does not proceed from reason, because it does not contain sufficient premises to support the conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/73 "2001-08-22T13:10:39Z")
**pldennison** If you find a flaw in someone’s argument, your job in a debate is to point it out. The understanding that some people got from Coldfire’s words was that since the assumption was not backed by facts it could be dismissed on those grounds alone, **without addressing the actual reasoning** or pointing out it’s flaws. It was to this that **The Ryan** objected, and Coldfire has since clarified that this was not his intention. While on the subject, I would note that your own reasoning is itself flawed. Your points that > [@](#): > > 2a. Heterosexuals are not normally attracted to pubescent and prepubescent members of the opposite gender. > 2b. It seems likely, then, that homosexuals also are not normally attracted to pubescent or prepubescent children of their own gender. would be valid if someone was actually claiming that homosexuals **are** normally attracted to children of their own gender. No one actually made this claim, and The Ryan specifically made note of this fact. The issue here was whether the small minority of people who are attracted to children are attracted in acordance with their preferences in adults, i.e. heterosexuals to members of the opposite gender and homosexuals to members of their own. This is not an unreasonable assumption, although it has apparently turned out to be false. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/74 "2001-08-22T18:28:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE \* > Just because an assumption is something that is taken WITHOUT proof, that doesn’t mean there is NO proof, you moron. Jeezum Crow, Ryan, do you _really_ need to be stretching so far just to satisfy your own pathetic ego? You’re complaining that I did not make sufficiently clear the distinction between “no proof exists within the argument” and “no proof exists at all”, and you’re complaining that **I** am stretching? > [@](#): > > The Ryan’s claim is that if one makes an assumption, then there is no proof to back up that assumption. Basically, he’s saying that he can “assume” 'til the cows come home and he never has to back up anything he says, which is ridiculous. No, I’m saying that it is perfectly valid to make assumptions, and stick to those assumptions, **until they are proven wrong**. I’m arguing **against** the idea of not having to back up one’s arguments. If two people disagree about something, neither one has a reason to change his mind until one of them presents evidence. It’s one thing to say “you should not believe this, and I don’t have to provide any evidence why not” which is what Coldfire seemed to be saying, and to say “I believe this, and I don’t need any evidence to believe it”. There’s a big difference simply believing something, but not having proof, and trying to convince someone else, but not having any proof. Coldfire > [@](#): > > This is especially funny since “not defending your statements” was what prompted me to respond to you in the first place. Just what statement of mine did I not defend, thus prompting you to respond? > [@](#): > > And as can be seen in the thread at hand, the experts later proved The Ryan, and whomever it was he was defending, wrong. If you had actually paid attention to the last sentence of the OP, you would realize that you did **not** prove me wrong. You presented evidence that most SS abusers are heterosexual. That in no way proves wrong the claim that it is a reasonable assumption that most SS abusers are gay. > [@](#): > > So it can be stressed with ease that the statements at hand were indeed unfounded, and premature. I really don’t think that it is fair to judge statements on the basis of what is presented after they are made. Was Newton’s theory “unfounded and premature” because it did not take into account the evidence that supported Einstein’s theory of relativity? > [@](#): > > “Unreasonable” in my book also means “not taking into account the possible repercussions of a remark in a debate”. Well then, I guess we have different standards of reasonability. See, I consider truth to be more important than making sure that no one’s feelings get hurt. > [@](#): > > Exclaiming “it’s OK to assume most abusers are homosexuals” will offend participants in the debate if it isn’t backed up by hard facts, like it or not. That has nothing to do with being (too) PC. Avoiding statements solely because they might offend people is **exactly** what PC is about. London\_Calling > [@](#): > > What is “unreasonable” with it is that you’re tainting a group within society (defined by its sexual preference) as comprising most of the [same sex]child molesters No, the statement “most SS abusers are gay” says nothing about the gay population as a whole. > [@](#): > > Why ? – because sexual gratification may not be the prime motivation for the molestation. I don’t see how something is unreasonable because it “may” be untrue. > [@](#): > > Thus, if we assume simple sexual gratification isn’t (the prime motivation) all the time, it becomes unreasonable, by the same token, to assume all molesters of boys are homosexual men. So you disprove one assumption by making another one? That doesn’t seem like a very strong basis to me. pldennison > [@](#): > > 2a. Heterosexuals are not normally attracted to pubescent and prepubescent members of the opposite gender. > 2b. It seems likely, then, that homosexuals also are not normally attracted to pubescent or prepubescent children of their own gender. Yes, but it seems even less likely that heterosexuals are normally attracted to children of their own gender. The fact remains (ignoring bisexuals, etc.) that all child abusers are one or the other. So it becomes a question of which is less unlikely. Oh, and IzzyR: thanks for restoring my faith in the SDMB. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/75 "2001-08-22T19:34:32Z")
**IzzyR** - you make good points. If people didn’t have assumptions that may or may not be accurate at the end of the day, we wouldn’t have Great Debates, and life would then have no meaning. So assumptions, and the expression thereof, are fine. **BUT** - here’s where **MC’s** assumption moved from “reasonable assumption to be debated” to “ass talking” - his assumption was conclusory. **MC’s** conclusion in the original thread was that gay men should not be Scout leaders because of the threat of child molestation. His conclusion was **wholly** based upon his assumption that child molesters are gay. Therefore, his conclusion was wholly assumptive - it had no basis in known fact nor derivations therefrom. That is an absolutely crappy way to debate. If someone were to state in a GD that “Israel is wholly responsible for the violence in the Middle East, and therefore to stop the violence, Israel must be removed from the Middle East”, the poster would have his/her head handed to them on a platter. It’s _reasonable_ to assume that Israel is responsible for the violence on a but-for level - if Israel did not exist, there wouldn’t be an Arab-Israeli conflict - but I think you would agree that such a conclusory assumption is simply a waste of everyone’s time. The same would apply to conclusory assumptions as to abortion, taxes, politics, or the price of tea in China. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Alphagene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Alphagene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alphagene)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/76 "2001-08-22T20:05:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > **I wanted to respond to a specific comment made in a Pit thread. Would GD debates really have been the appropriate forum?** Yup. Your OP wasn’t a flame or a rant. Your first comment was defining the word “assumption”. Your other comment was a question: “just what is unreasonable about assuming that most men who abuse boys are homosexual?” Neither is comment is Pit worthy. > [@](#): > > **And do you really think that I would have been immune from these sort of comments in GD?** Immune from insults, yes. You won’t be immune from debate which is the point of GD an _not_ the point of the Pit. \*\* > [@](#): > > The attitude “If he starts a pit thread, he should expect pit responses” is absurd. How would you like it if I came into a thread you started in the Pit and started insulting you for no reason, and then defended my actions by saying “Well, if you didn’t want Pit responses, you shouldn’t have started a Pit thread”? \*\* I’d tell you to start your own thread specifically for insulting me, rather than hijacking the current one. And I’d pat you on the head for starting a Pit thread that was actually a flame. We have a forum for debate, people. And I’m getting tired of seeing Yet Another Homosexuality Debate crawl out of the muck in this forum. If you’d like to continue this debate, start a new thread in GD and provide a link here, because I’m about to wrap this thread up. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/77 "2001-08-22T20:12:36Z")
**Sua** I actually did not follow the original Boy Scout thread. In the iampuhna Pit thread that spawned this one, **MC** had not actually made an appearance at the point that this exchange began. The reasoning being discussed was not that of MC (though he may have said it also - I don’t know), but was provided by **Spoofe** , who said: > [@](#): > > Well, the basic theory is that “a person who is attracted to males would be more likely to act innappropriately with YOUNG males”. Therefore (using this way of twisted thinking), a gay scoutmaster is more likely to molest the kids than a straight one. To which Spoofe himself rejoinded: > [@](#): > > The flaw in that thinking, however, is that “child molester” and “homosexual” are two completely different categories of people. Child molesters get off on - surprise! - molesting children. Generally, it doesn’t matter what gender the child is. The problem is that this rejoinder amounted to nothing other then a contradiction of the assumption - which may or may not have been true. Spoofe provided no basis for his assertions, other than his own sayso (though he was ultimately backed by Dr. Marshall). **The Ryan** noted this, saying > [@](#): > > The flaw is that it’s wrong? Ooh, there’s a pursuasive argument At this point Coldfire jumped in, and the rest is history. A better Israel analogy would be as follows: Guy 1: Many think that Israel is responsible for the violence in the Middle East because they keep expanding settlements and attacking terrorists. These actions spur the Arabs to more anger and make it impossible to stop the violence. The flaw in this thinking is that the Arabs would be just as violent without these actions, and are just using them as an excuse. Guy 2: Your “flaw” is nothing more than a denial of the assumption. Guy 3: Around these parts, “Israel is responsible for the violence” goes as an unreasonable assumtpion unless it’s backed up by FACT etc. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/78 "2001-08-22T20:21:12Z")
Screw you! ---
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2001, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/79 "2001-08-23T20:37:12Z")
I’d like to take this opportunity to tell **The Ryan** that he is a jackass. This is a stupid thread. Hell, this is a stupid post. I don’t care. Awating action from **Alphagene**. ---
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2001, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039/80 "2001-08-23T20:39:56Z")
Ah, _awaiting_ even. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coldfire-what-were-you-thinking/77039.md?page=5)