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.
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.
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.
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.
I’ve never claimed to speak for anyone but myself.
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.
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.
Exactly.
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?
It’s your tone, Stallone.
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:
Which you demonstrably failed to do. Better luck next time.
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.
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?
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.
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…
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.
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).
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.
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.
While we’re on the subject, a study at Johns Hopkins considered other paraphilias:
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.