Well, of course that would be silly, as it would apply not just to charges of bigotry but also any moral judgement. It’s a good thing you’re not really pointing that out, as it’s an absurd argument.
-
-
- You are confusing opinions with facts: opinions are estimates based on past experiences, made before the fact is known. You can prove a claimed fact to be false, but you cannot prove an opinion to be false before the fact. -And once again, I never said “93% of gays are child molesters”, I said that under certain circumstances, they might be percieved to have a predilection towards it. Read this carefully over and over again until you understand it.
~
- You are confusing opinions with facts: opinions are estimates based on past experiences, made before the fact is known. You can prove a claimed fact to be false, but you cannot prove an opinion to be false before the fact. -And once again, I never said “93% of gays are child molesters”, I said that under certain circumstances, they might be percieved to have a predilection towards it. Read this carefully over and over again until you understand it.
-
- The McDonald’s example was one of a frivolous lawsuit; the rattlesnake example was one of a prejudice. Nowhere has it been claimed that the term “prejudice” is only applicable to people. The term “bigotry” is vague in that it cannot be quantified; it is your opinion of your perception of somebody else’s opinion that you feel is inferior to yours. So, like, Ed’s bigotry plus Lenny’s bigotry minus Wendel’s bigotry equals, what? Or is it just that you can’t explain it, but you know a bigot when you see one?
- To call anything a “natural instinct” is to hold a prejudice yourself - is not pursuing males a natural instinct for gay men? No human can possibly know why so many rattlesnakes bite, unless they can speak to snakes and actually get an explanation. To make any assumption of “natural instincts” is to admit that most rattlesnakes you have heard of or seen have bitten, and so you expect that they all will.
- As it has been noted on this board before, in the past it was not unusual for girls as young as their early teens to wed and become mothers.
(Granted, lots of them died from the attempt so maybe it wasn’t all that bright an idea, but nonetheless…)
-And there are places around the world where it still occurs, and is legal and considered culturally acceptable. If a heterosexual man can be interested in so young a girl, is it unbelievable to think that a gay man would be interested in so young a boy?
What, in your definition, is the age limit for a “child”? - MC
I’m going to attempt to refute this post piece by piece, but believe me it’s going to be a frickin’ chore in the face of such stupidity …
**
If it is your “opinion” that homosexuals are predisposed to be molesters, then I’d say the overwhelming mountain of evidence in this thread alone might suffice.
I’ve read it a dozen times, and it just keep getting dumber and dumber. Someone, who has been given the aforementioned mountain of evidence, and still “percieves” homosexuals to have a predilection toward molesting children is simply being ignorant, close-minded and (like it needs to be said again) a BIGOT!!!
~
It doesn’t really matter what either of your analogies were about, as they were both idiotic. They took your established bigotry as a given to make their points. I tried to point this out to you, but your skull is thick as a brick.
Seriously, that paragraph has caused the need for several aspirins.
Let me just say (again) that a bigot is someone who makes sweeping judgements about groups of people based on preconceived derogatory opinions. Which you continue to do. So I find it really fucking simple to point to you and scream “BIGOT,” at the top of my lungs. If I were to say, “I know a bigot when I see one,” would make me bigoted, no? That’s your bag, not mine.
1 - To call something a “natural instinct” in animals is not a prejudice, you nincompoop. It is to make an observation based on scientific exploration. And I might point out that except in very rare occasions, snakes and humans are vastly different.
2 - A natural instinct “for lack of a better term” for homosexual men is indeed to “pursue” (well, at least be attracted to) males. Adult males. Just as it is the natural instinct for heterosexual men to “pursue” adult women. Why is this such a difficult concept for you?
And this is an example of poor research how?
Unless you are implying that every single homosexual that anybody has ever run accross in the history of the world, has molested a child.
What the fuck on Buddha’s great green earth does that abortion of a paragraph have to do with anything? I can barely make sense out of it, but I think what you are saying is that - Pedophiles exist. Boing! Thanks for that news update.
I’m serious when I tell you this. This isn’t a rash judgement. I have thought this through thoroughly.
You are profoundly ignorant. You are a bigot. I don’t like you.
What are those circumstances?
If the child in question is a really hot 17 year old? In that case I should be “percieved to have a predilection toward” hitting on them. I’m a 20 year old woman though, and that might soften the blow.
But what is inherently dangerous about liking men? What circumstances?
**
I think I’m actually following some of MC’s reasoning here. (And ain’t that a terrifying thought) Correct me if I’m wrong, MC, but are you saying that if The Boy Scouts let homosexuals be scout masters, and one of them molests a child, then they are at risk of a lawsuit because they didn’t ban all homosexuals automatically?
Well, that’s almost logical. Keep up the good work, and you may soon have debating skills rivaling that of Koko the Gorilla.
I think I teased that point out of his comments a while ago, and argued that that doesn’t stop every other youth organization not affiliated with a church from allowing homosexual adults to volunteer. Basically, the law does not seem to find any liability in allowing homosexuals to be with kids. Of course, MC seems more interested in playing the part of being martyred by the PC crowd.
Also, that argument does not address the issue of scouts who are homosexual being kicked out either. Nor does it address the fact that it is not the argument the the Boy Scouts use for supporting their policy, nor was it even mentioned (AFAICT) in the Dale case.
Waterj: Oops, missed where you said that. Long thread, and all. And obviously, (I hope) I wasn’t endorsing the opinion in any way, just clarifying what I thought he meant.
Okay, Crafter_Man, you’ve said this a number of times, and it’s really starting to cheese me off, so I’m going to clear something up for you, plain and simple:
Scout camp does not involve, at ANY time, a scout being alone with a counselor, straight, gay, bi, or a-sexual!
Therefore, your little “leave my kid alone with the big bad gay man” analogy has no bearing whatsoever on the argument. I find it somewhat comical that you seem more than willing to leave your child alone with a straight stranger, but alas, that argument is for another day.
Oh, and MC, are you even TRYING to come across as an intelligent debator? If you are, you may want to rethink your strategy.
I’d just like to ask a question. Why was RickyJay’s post accepted at face value? It didn’t meet any of the requirements that were asked of Crafty_Man’s, i.e. links or sources to be used for verification? I mean why was RickyJay’s post so readibly accepted as being true? Could he not have made it up also?
Was it because it’s content fit the argument of most of the posters who believe differently than CraftyMan? Shouldn’t the information presented by RickyJay need to be subjected to the same standards as that asked of anyone’s source regardless of which side of the argument they reside?
Shouldn’t the sources quoted from both sides of an argument be held to the same criteria?
Yes, they should. But that criteria can differ based on the nature of the sources.
For example: Crater_Man obtained his quotes off of a website. The reason that there was such an uproar over his original quoting of the info was that he didn’t say where he found it. He then refused to cite his sources up until the point where he actually posted the link to the FRI website.
RickJay, on the other hand, came right out and said his source: an expert in the field of study that the debate focuses on. True, he could have made it up, but how else would you propose one cite a personal letter? There is no site to link to, or book to reference. We have to take RickJay’s word for it, and his good reputation and history on the boards, we can easily do so.
In short: RickJay cited his source to the best of his ability, whereas Crafter_Man was extremely vague about where he obtained the quotes. Hence, an uproar over CM’s info, while Rick’s is accepted.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by SuaSponte *
sigh:: Crafter_Man, I am a litigator. On more than one occasion in my career, I have received motion papers from the other side that include a quotation from a Supreme Court or other high court that appears to definitively state that the law is completely against my client’s position, and that the other side, as a matter of law, should prevail. The other side provides complete citations, including down to the page number of the quotation.
Ya know what I do? I look up the case itself. And repeatedly, the opposing side, in providing the quote, have: a) taken the quote out of context; b) failed to provide the next sentence from the case, which explains that, for example, the proposition the quotation stands for is no longer valid; c) (you’d be amazed how often this happens) in the quote itself, put in elipses to eliminate the word “not” from the quotation; d) etc.
So no, I will not accept an anti-gay website’s interpretation of Kinsey or any other study. I will also not accept Greenpeace’s, the ELF’s, NOW’s, or any other interpretation of a scientific study. How often has the general populace been conned by inaccurate and slanted interpretations of scientific data? Perhaps you recall the study that “proved” that women over 35 are more likely to be hit by lightning than marry?
Sua
[QUOTE]
Why does RickyJays “best of his ability” give his post any more authenticity than anyone else’s? I am not implying that it is untrue. But I find it strange and maybe hypocritical that even standards aren’t applied. Did RickyJay edit the response from the doctor? Anything omitted?
I’m not debating the issue of pedophilia here. I just found it interesting the lack of questioning that RJ’s post recieved.
Actually, I’ll be the first to say that Bill’s letter was not as detailed as I would like. However, he DID refer to a comprehensive study done on the issue, which I am sure you can get a copy of from Queen’s University or Bill himself.
Dr. W.L. Marshall
Department of Psychology
Humphrey Hall
Queen’s University
Kingston, Ontario, Canada
K7L 3N6
“…To call something a “natural instinct” in animals is not a prejudice, you nincompoop. It is to make an observation based on scientific exploration. And I might point out that except in very rare occasions, snakes and humans are vastly different…”
-
-
- Okay, explain it to me then: gay men tend to pursue other males sexually, and rattlesnakes tend to bite. Define exactly why it is that these two tendencies are different.
-
- “Abortion of a paragraph”?.. -You’re misunderstanding again: my reference was in societies where such young unions were legal, not illegal. Pedophilia is defined as “the perversion of using children as sexual objects”; using it to describe such a situation as I noted (where marriage, family development and common cultural ties are involved) is properly debatable.
- If you have no prejudices, then you would have to be the more ignorant…
- As I pointed out, the word has a vague definition. “Honestly prejudiced”, perhaps. Or maybe, “Prejudiciously honest”? “A prejudiced abortion of honesty?” Nah… “An honest abortion of prejudice”? That don’t sound right either. I don’t do the name-calling thing much, what was the one from before? -oh yea- “Jack Batty, you are a shoebag.”
[/quote]
I don’t like you. - Jack Batty
[/quote]
- It all just boils down, doesn’t it? - MC
Boils down? No.
Wraps up? Yes.
You have made it entirely clear that you hold bigoted opinions. You acknowledge it. You proclaim yourself proud of the fact that you can acknowledge it.
You whip out the stupidest analogies to try to make your points (rattlesnakes are to snake bites as homosexuals are to molesting? Give me a fucking break).
You talk of underage marriages on one hand and then ask why do homosexuals go after boys, like one had anything to do with another, and as though your statements were a given.
And you keep saying the word “bigot” is vague. Buy a dictionary, fucko, you’re textbook.
Yes. I don’t like you. Because of the ignorant views you’ve expressed and refuse to re-think. I had no opinion of you whatsoever before I read anything you posted in this thread. That is not a prejudice. That is an informed opinion based on your very words.
So just go about your business. I’m sure there are some homosexuals somewhere you have insulted or derided yet. I’m sure you want to keep up your quota.
Jag-off.
Like I said, there’s no better way that RickJay could have cited his sources. He did the best he could, given the fact that you can’t exactly link to a personal letter. He’s also given the address of the professor, so anyone who doesn’t believe him can write. There’s just no better way to cite a resource of that nature online, but that shouldn’t discredit it.
Crafter_Man, however, didn’t even do the minimal work necessary to cite sources, or provide sources that even acted like they knew what they were doing. That’s why nobody accepted his evidence. RickJay’s friend, however, seems quite qualified to speak on the subject, without having to heavily edit outdated studies.
And MC, you have prejudices and you can admit it. Wonderful. Now work on changing those prejudices, so that you can operate as a compassionate and likable member of society. Believe me, if you can point out any of the specific “prejudices” that you’ve accused everyone of having, we’ll work on changing them.
Oh, and as regards MC’s point about people not wanting homosexuals as Boy Scout leaders, it seems he was on to something. According to the latest issue of Scouting (the magazine for Scouters), which just came in the mail, the Boy Scouts just conducted a nationwide survey of 2400 parents of boys. The results were that 65.4% agree that homosexuals are not appropriate role models for Scouts, and that 70.3% of parents of Scouts agree.
Holy shit. Apparently homophobia is more popular than I had thought. I’m sad now.
Did they interview a bunch of different demographics? Because they could’ve just picked 2,400 people from the Bible Belt, or a bunch of MC’s relatives…
I don’t know. I’m presuming that they wanted to get a meaningful picture of how well-supported their policy is, and thus would try to get accurate results. They also mention a Gallup poll and a poll by Rasmussen Research of 1000 and 869 adults respectively that show similar results. And there’s a mention of the web site http://www.bsa.scouting.org that might provide more information in its “In Support of Values” newsletter.
This just in! Jack Chick reports that 99.9% of Americans are born-again Christians!
Next up, GM reports that Americans really like GM products!
RickJay
Don’t get me wrong. I have no reason to doubt the integrity of you, the Dr., or the study mentioned. I’m not debating the subject of the thread. But I think that with all the discussion of biased sources etc. that the lack of scrutiny it recieved shows the people who accepted it face value are not as fair and open-minded as they maybe believe themselves out to be. Since it fit their agenda,it was accepted unquestioningly in the same manner that the FRC has been accused of doing.