How do I hate MC? Let me count the ways . . .

The BBQ Pit
161

Hey, I may be a shitbag, but at least I’m not an ignorant, “I see the facts but I’m going to stay with my opinion instead” shitbag. That honor I bestow upon you and C-M.

You must be so very proud. Not since my great-grandmother, who hated all people equally (Seriously. Tried to kill her own daughter. Molested all of her grandkids.) have I seen someone so utterly involved of his own opinion that “mere facts” do not sway his unfounded and inherently bigoted opinion on things he clearly does not know from his own ass.

If by that you mean that to hold an opinion you know is false you must know it’s false . . . congratulations on finally getting something right.

If, on the other hand, you maintain that it is required to know an opinion is false in order to hold it . . . that really says a lot about your logic. In that case you must either know that your opinions on homosexuality and child molestation are false, or you’re just full of shit.

Or both. I leave it to the reader to decide.

In this case it is. You think homosexuals molest children. Facts prove you wrong, but you take the high road by saying “Damn the facts. Full bigotry ahead!”

Bullshit, pure and simple. Nice attempt to justify your own bigotry, by the way.

You can certainly do more than admit that you’re a bigot. You can work to correct that bigotry.

And though I don’t know how much this means to you, you’d get mad props from the people here for doing that. You’d get a lot more respect than you have now (though more than nothing is easy to come by—for most people).

162

I’m glad to see that you have been able to recover after all the times he molested you when you were a child.

Sua

163

If one accepts the data reported by Dr. Marshall, an interesting result emerges. As I’ve discussed in a previous thread, attraction for pubescent children is not an abnormal perversion, it is merely taboo due to societal and legal reasons. By contrast, the attraction to pre-pubescent children might rightly be regarded as a perversion. It would therefore appear that all or almost all pedophile perverts are heterosexuals, none or almost none are homosexuals. (The logic being that someone attracted to the masculine form would not find much in small children, by contrast the similarity to females is greater. This point was noted by Dr. Marshall). This is kind of the opposite to what certain people may assume.

But this point cuts both ways. Because the attraction to pubescent children is not too distinct from the attraction to adults, it is likely that a large percentage of homosexuals actually feel or might feel such an attraction (much like the attraction of adult men to pubescent girls discussed in the linked thread.) That more homosexuals are not child molesters would then be due to moral and legal constraints (parallel to the reason more men don’t molest pubescent girls). By contrast, when considering the heterosexual/pedophilia issue, it is likely that only a small percentage of heterosexual men even feel any attraction to pre-pubescent children altogether.

I don’t know what to make of this as a practical matter - probably nothing. But I think it is an interesting observation.

164
      • It is not always possible to separate facts from opinions, and the word “bigotry” assumes a false belief that one must hold despite being known to be false:
  • Suppose I said “rattlesnakes bite”. And suppose you put on some safety gloves, and we went on a nature hike. And suppose we found ten rattlesnakes, and you picked up each one, and every one tried to bite you.
  • Now, that cannot strictly be said to be bigotry, because our own observations have shown it to be true to the extent of our experience, and so it isn’t irrational. It cannot be said to be a fact though, because the only way to prove it as fact would be to pick up every rattlesnake there is, and that isn’t possible. You could only say “in past experience, it has been a fact”, and you could hold the prejudice that “rattlesnakes bite”, but doing so doesn’t make you any less respectable than anyone else, or your opinions worth any less. Even if you happened to pick up the only ten biting rattlesnakes in the whole world, your opinion still wouldn’t be false because of the facts you based it on, so you still couldn’t rightly be called a bigot.
  • And quite frankly, every rattlesnake I have ever seen somebody try to pick up, tried to bite the person. I would be willing to bet you a hundred bucks that 10 out of 10 healthy rattlesnakes would try to bite, or 25 out of 25, or even 100 out of 100, but that’s just my opinion, and even though it is based on facts, I know that I can never show it to be fact itself. That also doesn’t mean that I hate rattlesnakes any more or less than any other snakes, it just means that as far as my interests are concerned, there are certain situations with rattlesnakes that are best avoided.
  • The question of what is a reasonable opinion on rattlesnakes involves your willingness to ignore how many rattlesnakes have bitten you in the past, and how many times you’d have to get bitten before “rattlesnakes bite” became your opinion: 10 times? 100 times? 100,000 times? - MC
165

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at the above quote.

Ok, so “every rattle snake” you “have ever seen somebody try to pick up, tried to bite the person”.

Are you trying to seriously suggest that every single homosexual male you’ve seen has tried to molest boys? Or that out of 100 gay men, 100 of them would molest boys given the opportunity?

By that same rationale, out of 100 heterosexual men, 100 of them would molest girls given the opportunity.

Molestation is NOT A CRIME OF PASSION, anymore than rape is. Being gay does NOT predispose someone to being a pedophile.

Oh, why bother.

166

MC:
So homosexuals are snakes now? Do you like that for the biblical symbolism alone, or are you actually trying to posit that just as every rattlesnake bites every gay man will molest? I suppose both are just the nature of the beast, right?

You seem to be saying you have personal experience that allows you make the correlation between gays and molestation. Even if this is the case, haven’t you ever considered the statistics of small numbers? To borrow from Carl Sagan, “They say 1 out of every 5 people is Chinese. How is this possible? I know hundreds of people, and none of them is Chinese.” You should also know that anecdotal evidence is far inferior to any scientific study. Please note that this is not a personal attack, you just seem to be placing a great deal of emphasis on a small amount of anecdotal experience.

167
      • Some of you people seem to have fixated on defending gays when that is not the subject at hand: the subject is what constitutes a reasonable basis for an opinion, and how an irrational opinion can arise from observing facts without any ill intent involved.
        -And gay rattlesnakes would probably bite too. - MC
168

MC,

The only reason we’re “defending” gays is that you, or your opinions, are attacking them.

We want to know why you think homosexuals are inferior beings. What is the “reasonable basis for an opinion, and [the] irrational opinion [that has arisen] from observing facts without any ill intent involved” that leads you to believe homosexuality = pedophilia. And we’d like to know why you are so seemingly unwilling to open your mind.

Look, when I was a kid, I got beaten up by a Canadian. As a result, I don’t consider all Canadians violent. Just that one that I know of (outside of hockey anyway).

On another note …

I’d be interested to know how you’d answer the question previously posed to Crafter_Man.
(I’ll keep it hypothetical because I don’t know your family situation.)
If you found out your adult son was homosexual, would you trust him to babysit your other children or grandchildren? If so, why not other people you know well (non-strangers), whether or not they are homosexual?

169

Umm, my post didn’t give any defense, it’s an analysis of your rather confusing anecdotal analogy. Irrational opinions can be formed any number of ways, since you seem to be saying (though not in so many words) “I know gay people that have done bad things,” I have pointed out the problem with extrapolating that to the population as a whole. Here:

and here:

Doesn’t this take into account the basis for the opinion and state why it should be revaluated? I have yet to put myself an either side of this debate. I’m confident if that if it is argued with logic, people will come to the correct conclusion.

170

No, I belive if you’ll READ the OP again, you’ll see that “defending gays” is pretty much the subject at hand. Allow me to save you the trouble of not reading it again and quote below from the OP:

So you see, we aren’t asking you “what constitutes a reasonable basis for an opinion”. We are asking you what basis in fact (not personal opinion) you have for believing the above quoted information.

171
      • (sigh,)
        “…implied that homosexuality equals pedophilia,”
  • No, I did not. What I said rather bluntly was: under certain circumstances, a lawyer would probably be able to convince a jury that homosexuals have a prediliction towards male children, and the BSA is responsible (that is, financially responsible) because they should have prevented the situation from occurring.
    “…labeled homosexuals’ fight for equal rights “leftist grandstanding,””
  • Yes, I did. The BSA is a fairly conservative social organization, and gay rights are rarely championed by conservatives. It was pointed out that there are other more hospitable organizations available, but that hardly seems to be the point: forcing the issue on one organization that doesn’t want it involved, is. I call that “adults’ leftist grandstanding”. Conservatives do it too but in this case, it’s leftists.
    “…equated homosexuality with the use of hard drugs,”
  • No, I didn’t: what I did was offer other examples of personal behavior that different people accept to different degrees. I never said being homosexual or using hard drugs was absolutely right or wrong. I admitted being prejudiced, because I know that I am and am willing to be honest about it, which is more than many here can manage.
    -I also pointed out that the term “bigot” is unclear: you cannot hold a false belief you know yourself is false, you can only act counter to your opinions, and you cannot know which of your opinions are true or false, because even if they are based on facts you have observed, the facts might be a misrepresentative grouping. You can only base your opinions on past impressions, therefore, everyone must engage in prejudice. - MC
172

Thank you, Mauvaise. I’m still waiting for him to address the issues stated in the OP.

I doubt he has the integrity to face them.

173

Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick. Since there seems to be nothing left to intelligently discuss with you, MC, let me just wish you luck as you endeavor to be an unabashed dicknose.

Hey, that was my first Pit insult…

174

First, I apologize for insulting you. You addressed the issues in the OP, albeit obliquely.

I’d like a good deal more detail, however.

It’s quite plain that in the other thread, you did, in fact, imply that homosexuality is the same as pedophilia.

This says nothing about a jury. This reflects a personal belief, unfounded, as it was later shown, that homosexuals are at greater risk of pedophiliac urges.

Again, you seem to be saying that you associate homosexuals with pedophiles. Yet, when confronted with the evidence, you refuse to even pretend that you might be wrong.

You are refusing to give homosexuals a fair shake. Your behavior is directly analogous to racism. You admit your prejudices, and yet you refuse to do anything about them.

Point #2: your assertion that the fight for gay rights is “leftist grandstanding.”

If you mean that making the public at large aware of the problems homosexuals have with being accepted is “grandstanding,” then I agree with the definition. However, the negative connotation of the term seems to imply a dismissiveness on your part.

The BSA is a private organization, yes. They have the right to exclude whomever they wish. However, gays have the right to object to the prejudicial treatment, and they have the right to label the exclusionary policy as “bigotry,” since it plainly qualifies. In fact, I’d label the BSA’s policy as “rightist grandstanding.”

Since when is the quest for equal rights unacceptable?

Point #3: your assertion that homosexuality is analogous to the use of hard drugs.

I’m not even sure how to answer this. Is it not plain to you that the two are not, in fact, analogous? Your statement implies that homosexuality is self-destructive and socially harmful. This is, at best, not demonstrable.

175

Not to mention the fact that, to the extent that this issue has been made known to the public by former members of the Boy Scouts (e.g., the two boys who were kicked out of their troop for being atheists, the Scout leaders who were kicked out for being uncloseted homosexuals), we can assume that those former members were in fact generally supportive of the goals and activities conducted by the Scouts. That removes them somewhat from the province of “leftist grandstanding.”

176

Again, I will point out that the BSA does not actually have the right to exclude anyone it wants. If it were that simple, the case would not have made it to the Supreme Court. In New Jersey (and several other states, but it was New Jersey in the Dale case), public accomodations are required to not discriminate against various protected groups, including homosexuals. This law, however, cannot be used to abridge an organization’s right to free expression, as guaranteed by the First Ammendment, under a doctrine called “expressive association.” Thus, only an organization whose ideals or teachings would be hampered by admitting homosexuals can discriminate against them.

The Supreme Court ruled (erroneously, IMNSHO) that admitting homosexuals would impair the Boy Scouts’ ability to express its opinions.

Notice that there is nothing about molestation involved. The Boy Scouts do not claim that their policy lowers the chances of a child being molested. And since (IIRC) every other youth organization not run by a church allows gays without negative consequences, I doubt that a court could declare that allowing gay adult leaders is a necessary protection against molestation.

177

Said lawyer and jury would then be either ignoring or ignorant of the studies and information RickJay has so gracefully presented in this thread, yes? As such, any conviction would be independent of that information. Kinda like convicting without (or ignoring) eyewitness accounts.

You offered an analogy to homosexuals in the form of druggies. A proper analogy contains analagous (what a coincidence) information: the subjects and actions are comparable. In the case of a druggie vs. a homosexual I don’t think you’re going to get an analagous situation.

No, I’ll extend that. Solely looking at drug use vs. being homosexual, there is no way on God’s green Earth, Heaven or Hell that you’re going to get a proper analogy of homosexuality to using hard drugs.

And in this society, in most places, there is the general opinion that using hard drugs is bad, wrong, etc. If you’re going to say it’s not, then you need to make sure people understand that. Your presentation of the analogy made it look like a bad thing. If you can’t see that I suggest you remove your brain from between your legs and give it some much-needed oxygen.

If posters here manifest some sort of prejudice that anyone deems to be bad, that poster gets wind of it, generally. Sometimes that poster ends up in the pit. The good people admit it and usually try to change it. The bad ones . . . well, we’ll use your case as an example.

Of course you can. Just look at a pit thread where evidence presented completely throws someone’s argument out the window. When they stick to their belief, they hold a false opinion.

Complete and utter horseshit. You’ve been shown facts that throw your opinions in the trash. The trash has been taken out, put in a dump truck, and it currently rotting in a garbage dump over in Coventry.

Thanks for playing. Stop peeing in the sandbox here. Go somewhere else.

Like Coventry. Have one of our travel agent dopers hook you up with a package deal:)

178

“It’s quite plain that in the other thread, you did, in fact, imply that homosexuality is the same as pedophilia…”

      • No, I didn’t: my example bears on the posibility of the wrong party being held financially responsible in the event a gay leader was caught in that act. Remember the lady who sued McDonald’s when she spilled hot coffee in her own lap and won? McDonald’s wasn’t immediately responsible, but the argument was that they didn’t do everything they could have done to prevent prevent the injuries she gave herself.-“This is America, after all.”- “This isn’t about truth and justice, it’s about lawyers and juries.”

" …they have the right to label the exclusionary policy as “bigotry,” since it plainly qualifies."

  • This sentence is incomplete: it should read “…it plainly qualifies in their opinion”. To call a rule against gays an example of “bigotry” is to assume that everyone desires to allow gays, and that is not the case, nor has it ever been claimed. There are similar alternative organizations more acceptable, as said, but that hardly seems the point.

“Since when is the quest for equal rights unacceptable?”

  • Here is the very problem: a group of non-members does not satisfy membership policy, so the offended group wants the rules changed to suit them. That is not asking for equal rights; in fact it’s very much the opposite, and what rules they do not satisfy is quite beside the point. -Again, especially when there are other similar more-hospitable organizations available to join. If everybody is allowed to participate in making the membership rules, it would hardly be a private orgainzation anymore.

“…your assertion that homosexuality is analogous to the use of hard drugs.”

  • I used the example of heroin use as an example of another type of behavior that many people consider to be undesirable. Undesirable behavior being, something you’d rather not have your children learn.

“…we can assume that those former members were in fact generally supportive of the goals and activities…” - pldennison

  • Being “generally supportive” isn’t the same as following the rules. “Well, Officer, I will have you know that I am generally supportive of speed limits,” - MC
179

MC:

This is a logical fallacy. By this line of reasoning, “separate-but-equal” facilities in the old segregated South ( or more recently in South Africa ) were not examples of bigotry. One’s desire, no matter how strongly felt and deeply rooted in their culture, to exclude others for reasons of race, gender, creed, OR sexual orientation, is bigotry. It may be perfectly legal and above-board. But it IS bigotry.

  • Tamerlane
180

It has been pointed out to you a billion frigging times, that a homosexual is not predisposed to pedophilia so your analogy is just plain wrong.
McDonalds: In order for damage to be done the coffee needs to be hot.
BSA: In order for damage to be done the scout leader must be a pedophile. In every case discussed we’ve only presumed the scout leader to be homosexual. You’re the dipshit jumping from that to child molester.

**
Separate but equal. Yeah, that’s a beautiful example of tolerance. :rolleyes:

**
Don’t even think of whipping out the bullshit “special rights” argument. I’ve never encountered any person who has been actively discriminated against who was asking for anything other than what others were being offered. Nothing special - only the same as others.

**
This sentence is incomplete. It should read “… that many bigoted people consider undesireable.” Your comment about having your children “learn” homosexuality is just fucking ludicrous, so I won’t even address that.

And the only rules they broke is that they decided to not be what they are not. How can one break the rules simply by existing the only way they know how.
I will say it one more time, as if it will make any difference. Every post you submit reveals you to be a bigot! Capital B - igot. Irrationally prejudiced. Ignorant. Ignoble. Disgraceful. Et-freaking-cetera.

{head, meet wall}

::bang::
::bang::
::bang::
::bang::
::bang::
::bang::
::bang::
::bang::
::bang::
::bang::