# LadMirer shouldn't have been banned **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 29, 2004, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058 "2004-11-29T00:27:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/161 "2004-11-29T19:05:11Z")
> [@JonScribe](#): > > You’re being disingenious. Acts of pedophlia are already outlawed. I said nothing about outlawing anybody’s thoughts and desires. Sorry, but try again. You proposed outlawing pedophilia, and as child molestation is already illegal, like you said, your comment couldn’t have meant anything other than outlawing mind crimes. Not that you actually meant that: more likely it was just a poorly constructed comment. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/162 "2004-11-29T19:24:37Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > I would add, though, that our incomplete understanding of the nature of genetic inheritance of certain traits, and the fact that some other articles were calling for more investigation into this issue, suggests that we might usefully stick with the old maxim: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Without reference to the specific issue being discussed here, the “old maxim” _Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence_ should really be avoided in any scientific debate. I have seen this old chestnut dragged out by “alternative” medicine proponents and outright quacks when challenged for evidence supporting bizarre health claims, and it would fit neatly into the agenda of creationists and “intelligent design” advocates. A more useful admonition to those making novel claims would be “When come back, bring evidence”.\* \*and of course, pie. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/163 "2004-11-29T19:31:58Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Without reference to the specific issue being discussed here, the “old maxim” _Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence_ should really be avoided in any scientific debate. Why? Just because you’ve seen it used by some crackpots does not mean that it’s not a reasonable maxim to follow in many situations. And that’s why your decision not to refer to the specific examples being discussed in this thread is silly, because the maxiim applies better to some situations than to others. Do you, in fact, believe that absence of evidence is the same as evidence of absence? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/164 "2004-11-29T20:59:51Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Why? > > Just because you’ve seen it used by some crackpots does not mean that it’s not a reasonable maxim to follow in many situations. And that’s why your decision not to refer to the specific examples being discussed in this thread is silly, because the maxiim applies better to some situations than to others. > > Do you, in fact, believe that absence of evidence is the same as evidence of absence? There is absence of evidence that you read and comprehended my response. To put it more simply, your maxim is a close relative of the “Well, prove me wrong!” dodge that we see a lot of from lazy posters on the SDMB. Obviously, anyone versed in the scientific method and/or a practitioner of critical thinking knows that it is incumbent on the maker of wild/controversial claims to back them with evidence, and not the responsibility of the debunker to _disprove_ a fanciful or baseless theory. Similarly, we are not obliged to concede “Well, it _could_ be so” merely because someone has issued a speculation to that effect. For instance, it may be claimed that within a galaxy far, far away there is a planet made of xenon gas and Roquefort cheese which houses a population of Elvis Costello look-alikes. We cannot prove that it is not so, nor is it reasonably to act as though the postulate has merit because it cannot be disproved. Catchy though your maxim is, it has no place in logical debate. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/165 "2004-11-29T21:05:22Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Yes, because you can speak for all queers. I hate to add to the **Dio** pile-on, but when did you become the mouthpiece for the queers? This is where most political correctness comes from. Somebody decides that a comment or joke is offensive to a group to which they do not belong, and then decides they must fight this injustice. Meanwhile, the group who’s been “insulted” couldn’t care less. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/166 "2004-11-29T21:38:50Z")
I’ve never claimed to speak for anyone but myself. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/167 "2004-11-29T21:53:07Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Similarly, we are not obliged to concede “Well, it _could_ be so” merely because someone has issued a speculation to that effect. The thing is, the hypothesis has not been forwarded in the absence of evidence. There _is_ some evidence that suggests there _may_ be a genetic vector involved. There is not yet a _preponderance_ of evidence either way. Your example of the proposed existence of a remarkable planet might be a _little_ bit more apropos if the hypothesis were forwarded in the context of the discovery of an extragalactic meteoroid which was determined to have considerable traces of goat’s milk, blue mold, DNA that matches Elvis Costello and xenon. While the evidence may suggest that a meteor downed the pop star’s private jet while he was serving wine & cheese with a bevy of paparazzi present, we shouldn’t jump to either conclusion until we’ve done enough investigating to find probative evidence. Of course the competing (and perhaps complimentary) theories that we’re actually discussing aren’t _quite_ so improbable, especially as studies involving paedophiles have tended to find more incidence of paedophles in their _extended_ families. The trouble is that these sort of findings could fit either theory, so more specific research needs to be done to explore each avenue. We don’t have enough data to discard either one, although _neither_ of them have been proved satisfactorily. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/168 "2004-11-29T22:21:01Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > There is absence of evidence that you read and comprehended my response. > > To put it more simply, your maxim is a close relative of the “Well, prove me wrong!” dodge that we see a lot of from lazy posters on the SDMB. Obviously, anyone versed in the scientific method and/or a practitioner of critical thinking knows that it is incumbent on the maker of wild/controversial claims to back them with evidence, and not the responsibility of the debunker to _disprove_ a fanciful or baseless theory. Similarly, we are not obliged to concede “Well, it _could_ be so” merely because someone has issued a speculation to that effect. > > For instance, it may be claimed that within a galaxy far, far away there is a planet made of xenon gas and Roquefort cheese which houses a population of Elvis Costello look-alikes. We cannot prove that it is not so, nor is it reasonably to act as though the postulate has merit because it cannot be disproved. > > Catchy though your maxim is, it has no place in logical debate. Talk about obtuse _and_ stupid! The difference between this case and your amusing but pathetic astronomical analogy is that many researchers into the causes of pedophilia have, based on their knowledge of genetics and on the results of past studies, stated that there is some evidence suggesting that genetics might play a part in this issue, and that more research needs to be done into the possibility. This is why i said that we need to assess each case on its merits, and draw a distinction between cases where experts agree that there is a reasonable possibilty of finding new evidence, and ridiculous cases like yours which assume everyone else operates on the same simplistic black-and-white assumptions that you do. > [@Larry Mudd](#): > > The thing is, the hypothesis has not been forwarded in the absence of evidence. > > There is some evidence that suggests there may be a genetic vector involved. There is not yet a preponderance of evidence either way. Exactly. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/169 "2004-11-29T22:26:32Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I’ve never claimed to speak for anyone but myself. What do you call this, then? > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Do not insult homosexuals with this fucking garbage. If you’re speaking for yourself there, you and Mrs. the Cynic need to have a long talk. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/170 "2004-11-29T22:31:01Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > What do you call this, then? > > If you’re speaking for yourself there, you and Mrs. the Cynic need to have a long talk. Why do I have to be speaking for a group to think they’re being insulted? ---
**Author:** ![PaulFitzroy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/2acd7d/32.png) [@PaulFitzroy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PaulFitzroy)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/171 "2004-11-29T22:40:27Z")
It’s your tone, Stallone. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/172 "2004-11-29T22:45:21Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Talk about obtuse _and_ stupid! I thought so, which is why I came up with the simplest, most obvious analogy to penetrate your fog. I did not and am not going to argue the main subject matter of this thread. The whole point was to expose the inanity of your maxim, to which you are apparently going to cling despite the company of morons to which it assigns you. So be it. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/173 "2004-11-29T23:01:20Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > The whole point was to expose the inanity of your maxim… Which you demonstrably failed to do. Better luck next time. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/174 "2004-11-29T23:19:39Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Yes, because you can speak for all queers. Nope, no I can’t. I can speak for exactly one queer. However, you can’t speak for any of us. And no, DtC, I don’t appreciate the fact that you went on a multi-page rantspree in order to come to the defense of homokind. Even you now admit that you were wrong about it, but that doesn’t come close to mitigating the asshole things you said to the OP and it doesn’t mitigate the stubbornness that had you continuing to argue long after you’d been roundly shown to be wrong. I’m rather pissed to see you do that in the name of defending us - you _don’t_ have the same perspective on queer issues as actual gay people, and you make everyone on your side look bad when you do this. The thing is that you, like everyone, have the right to speak up when something that offends you is said. But you don’t have the right to speak on the behalf of a group that doesn’t include you. And that’s what you were doing here. If we want bizarre, incomprehensible invective-and-spittle-filled rants about perceived insults to gay people, we have spectrum to do it. Your help is not needed in that department. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/175 "2004-11-29T23:30:00Z")
I was never shown to be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/176 "2004-11-29T23:40:14Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I was never shown to be wrong. And absence of evidence in this case surely prove abundance of something. 😉 But just for the record, I don’t think anyone answered my question. You moved your assertion to something like “Near 100% correlation with trauma and pedophilia”. Did any of the studies confirm this? Didn’t they say something closer to “high correlation”? I did not notice any percentages, but maybe I just missed them. In order to be “near 100%” wouldn’t it at least have to be in the 90s as you later stated your recollection of that class in college was? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/177 "2004-11-29T23:52:11Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > I’m rather pissed to see you do that in the name of defending us - you _don’t_ have the same perspective on queer issues as actual gay people, and you make everyone on your side look bad when you do this. The thing is that you, like everyone, have the right to speak up when something that offends you is said. But you don’t have the right to speak on the behalf of a group that doesn’t include you. And that’s what you were doing here. I’m going to disagree with you, here. I’d appreciate it if more straight people would speak up when they hear something they think is homophobic. Obviosuly, this works best when they only do this in response to something that’s _actually homophobic_, but beggars can’t be choosers. So, despite the hard time I’ve been giving you here, **Diogenes** , I do appreciate your intent. It’s just the execution I have problems with. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2004, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/178 "2004-11-30T01:15:29Z")
> [@yoyodyne](#): > > I’m not sure what the heart of this “debate” is. The assertion is that if pedophilia is genetic the pedophile is blameless, but if it is caused by childhood trauma then it is a lifestyle choice? That’s IMO a result of having too often used the “they’re born this way” defense for homosexuals, instead of the much simpler “they prefer men, if you’re unhappy with this, too bad for you”. IOW, homosexuals and homosexuals advocates played in the hands of the fundies or homophobes by seeking an answer to the “they chose this sinful lifestyle, and if only they really wanted to, they could stop being homosexuals” argument. When the appropriate response would be : “who cares whether they choose it or not? Crawl back under your rock!”. As a consequence, “being born that way” used for pedophiles now triggers immediatly a comparison with homosexuality, like we’ve seen in this thread, that could be either : “you’re comparing homsexuals and pedophiles. You must support pedophilia” or “you’re comparing pedophiles and homosexuals, you must hate the homosexuals” and also some sort of feeling that if you’re “born this way” then it legitimates your sexual behavior (since it apparently does for homosexuals). Which of course is nonsentical. The origin of the sexual preference has no bearing on its moral value (or lack thereof). And even more so when discussing whether it’s genetical or caused by a trauma, as you pointed out. Since in both case, the individual didn’t choose to be whatever he is, it can’t make the slightest difference, from an ethical point of view. But still, people either get mightily offended (“you’re saying I’m like a pedophile”) or get mad (“you’re excusing pedophilia”). Whatever… ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2004, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/179 "2004-11-30T02:00:43Z")
> [@villa](#): > > I see your point, but then surely the point could have been made equally as well with heterosexuality as the sole comparison. Yes. But saying “it’s like heterosexuality, you’re born this way” would have had people immediatly translate “heterosexuality” by “homosexuality” . I don’t think it would have changed anything. > [@](#): > > I don’t know how the OP meant the comparison, though I hope and assume it wasn’t badly. But there are just some comparisons that ring alarm bells with me, and so I try to avoid them. That’s understandable. But personnally, I tend to avoid political correctness (like in “Am I going to offend somebody? anybody?” or, IMO quite often : “will people think I’m a racist/ homophobe/ pedophile/ unpatriotic if I write it this way?”). So, I don’t search for alternatives, nor do I bend over by prefacing my posts by statements like “I’m absolutely not against X/ supporting Y, I swear you. I know that what I’m going to say is sometimes used as an argument by moron category Z, but it’s for entirely different reasons that I think this way. Please, please, believe me”. Maybe the OP thinks in the same way (Or maybe not. It’s not like I’ve a great respect for him. For reasons totally unrelated to the topic at hand). > [@](#): > > Homosexuality and pedophilia being the prime example there. I reallydon’t know if pedophilia is genetic, though if what you have said is true and no other paraphilias (is that he word) are genetic, I would doubt it. It wasn’t a statement of fact. I don’t know whether there are other paraphilias/sexual preferences/perversions/whatever with a genetic basis or not. I just meant that I’m not aware of any, and if I’m mistaken , anyway, it’s certainly not common knowledge. So writing “It might be like bestiality. There might be a genetic factor involved” wouldn’t have make sense. > [@](#): > > As for the aserisked point, I have thought about that but not come across it. It makes sense, though of course is based on the misunderstanding that genetic is the same as disease. If homosexuality is genetic, as I think the evidence suggests, then I would support education to dispel the false connection with disease, rather than the alternative. IMO, it’s mostly based on a perception of how other people will perceive it (“they’re going to tell me I’m a freak”). It might be based on cultural factor. It seems there’s an endless debate about it being a choice or not in the US (or at least on this board, which might not be representative), which, as far as I can’t tell doesn’t exist in France, or at least is rarely mentionned (probably related to the weight religion has in the US). Homophobia is rarely “rationalized” using religious argument over here. “I hate fags” generally suffice. However, as I wrote in my previous post , it seems to me that insisting on the “it’s inborn” line sounds somehow like “I need an excuse” or “Pity them. They can’t help themselves” (even if it isn’t intended to), which put gays on the defensive, and reinforce the belief that one has to justify being an homosexual. Which IMO currently isn’t or at least shouldn’t be warranted anymore. It sometimes bothers me. That said, not being gay myself, I don’t have to deal with the consequences, so my opinion is worth only what it’s worth. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2004, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/180 "2004-11-30T02:33:47Z")
> [@villa](#): > > II reallydon’t know if pedophilia is genetic, though if what you have said is true and no other paraphilias (is that he word) are genetic, I would doubt it. While we’re on the subject, [a study at Johns Hopkins](http://home.uni-one.nl/books/howitt/2e.htm) considered other paraphilias: > [@](#): > > We also found that 18.5 percent of the families of all patients with sexual deviancy had family members, mostly men, with a sexual deviancy. Families of those with pedophilia had members also having pedophilia. Families of those with non-pedophiliac paraphilia had members with a sexual deviancy not involving pedophilia. > > These data indicate that pedophilia is a familial disease, not associated with an increased familial risk of the other paraphilias. Further studies are needed to elucidate the manner of transmission. As Mr. Howitt notes, “The trends are compatible with genetic, family pathology and childhood molestation theories of paedophilia. The authors note that 27% of their sample of paedophiles were on record as having been molested in childhood against 14% of the of the other paraphiliacs but this was not statistically reliable.” This being said, I find it provocative that there is an intra-familial thing going on there with other paraphiliac behaviours. The lack of a orthophilic control group is troubling, though. Back to the old drawing board. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058.md?page=10)