|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
 Posted - 05/05/2002 : 16:29:03 [Permalink]
|
That is absolute garbage. Either quote me making such a demand, or retract the distortion!
Okay, here.
pedophiles who victimize same-sex children are no more likely to be homosexuals than heterosexuals
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
 |
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2002 : 18:55:59 [Permalink]
|
Slater and ReasonableDoubt ...
Nor do I insist, without evidence, that the male victims of pedophilia were victimized by homosexuals.
Because you demand that males who have sex with other males are heterosexual.
That is absolute garbage. Either quote me making such a demand, or retract the distortion!
Okay, here: [blue]"pedophiles who victimize same-sex children are no more likely to be homosexuals than heterosexuals"[blue]
1. Pedophiles who victimize same-sex children are no more likely to be homosexuals than heterosexuals.
2. To equate this statement with a "demand that males who have sex with other males are heterosexual" is pathetic.
 ============================================================
I'm done discussing this with Slater -- it's simply not worth my effort to debate someone for whom I have lost all respect. For others who might be interested in the topic, I believe the following is pertinent:
quote:
A sexual abuser who molests a child of the same sex is usually not considered homosexual.
Dr. Nathaniel McConaghy (1998) cautioned against confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. He noted, The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women.
It is meaningless to speak of fixated molesters in these terms as heterosexual or homosexuals - they are attracted to children, not to men or women. (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978).
[see http://hrc.grassroots.com/family/soandchildabusefact/ - RD]
quote:
Explaining Pedophilia
The biggest misunderstanding many people have is that pedophilia and homosexuality are one and the same. But to say that all homosexuals are pedophiles, or that all pedophiles are homosexual, is like comparing apples to rat poison. "They certainly are two distinct things," says James Hord, a psychologist in Panama City, Fla., who specializes in treating sexually abused children. Hord explains that while some pedophiles may prefer boys over girls, or vice versa, it's not so much about gender as it is about age. For homosexuals, Hord says, sexual preference is "simply not linked to the age." If a man, for instance, is attracted to other adult males, he is a homosexual. A man who is sexually attracted to male children is not considered a homosexual: He is a pedophile.
[see http://my.webmd.com/content/article/1687.51642 - RD]
quote:
ACLU Fact Sheet: Overview of Lesbian and Gay Parenting, Adoption and Foster Care
Fact: There is no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. All of the legitimate scientific evidence shows that. Sexual orientation, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is an adult sexual attraction to others. Pedophilia, on the other hand, is an adult sexual attraction to children. Ninety percent of child abuse is committed by heterosexual men. In one study of 269 cases of child sexual abuse, only two offenders were gay or lesbian. Of the cases studied involving molestation of a boy by a man, 74 percent of the men were or had been in a heterosexual relationship with the boy's mother or another female relative. The study concluded that "a child's risk of being molested by his or her relative's heterosexual partner is over 100 times greater than by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual."
[emphasis added; see http://www.aclu.org/issues/gay/parent.html - RD]
quote:
PRIESTLY SINS
Putting Pedophilia in Perspective
Scandal resurrects incorrect stereotype about gay men
San Francisco Chronicle -- Sunday, April 28, 2002
There are multiple tragedies arising from the pedophile-priest scandal rocking the Catholic Church: innocence invaded, families disfigured, faith shattered.
But there's an equally odious semantic configuration oozing from church officials and from media reports about the scandal: the conflation of "homosexual" and "pedophile."
This canard used to be employed to underscore the incorrect belief that homosexual men, by dint of their orientation, were attracted to young boys and unable to control their desires.
Gay men are coming for your children, the sentiment went. That stigma effectively barred gay men from positions of authority over young males as teachers, camp counselors, Boy Scout troop leaders, sports coaches.
It is, of course, untrue. Homosexual men are no more attracted to young boys than heterosexual men are universally attracted to young girls. Moreover, most male-male pedophiles identify as heterosexuals.
[emphasis addwd; see http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/04/28/IN168085.DTL - RD]
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2002 : 22:10:52 [Permalink]
|
I'm done discussing this with Slater -- it's simply not worth my effort to debate someone for whom I have lost all respect.
You're awfully long winded for someone who is done. If you want to twist facts around to keep your cows sacred that's up to you.
But don't say that you aren't.
Moreover, most male-male pedophiles identify as heterosexuals....www.sfgate.com
SF gate is perhaps not the most unbaised source you could have picked.
But don't tell me I'm lying when I say that you are calling same gender sex heterosexual and then post most male-male pedophiles identify as heterosexuals.
And a question might be raised about why it is horrible for me to "sterotype all homosexuals" and yet when you post even worse comments about heterosexuals that's supposed to be just peachy? I won't even make any jokes about heterophobia or fear of leaving my grand kids with straights. These rude remarks weren't true when you slandered me and I just hope they aren't true about you. You seem to have some really strong double standards.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860
Edited by - slater on 05/05/2002 22:20:31 |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2002 : 00:26:37 [Permalink]
|
So, a couple days after locking this thread, I reopened it; however, I was foolish enough not to tell anybody. So, here it is.
-me. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2002 : 00:31:53 [Permalink]
|
By the way, I am curious about this whole abuse scandal. How much evidence is needed to prove this? It seems to me (in my ignorance) that some of this can be easily made up, like the "repressed memory" issue in the 1980s (I just finished that section in Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things). Thoughts?
-me. |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2002 : 10:53:16 [Permalink]
|
Any prosecutor who would want to try a case based on a "repressed memory" is out of his or her mind. Even some sensible people who are somewhat sympthetic to the theory will admit its not proven. All others say debunked.
I believe there is a case like this going on somewhere on the west coast. A guy said he picked up a newspaper, read about the current church scandals, and suddenly "remembered" abuse by his priest. Without knowing anything about this gentleman, I'm a bit skeptical of the claim.
I wonder what percentage of this claims constitute jumping on the bandwagon?
Lisa
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room. |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2002 : 08:17:34 [Permalink]
|
A couple of years ago, I spent a considerable amount of time digging out "repressed memories" from my own childhood. (Most of them turned out not to be "repressed"--just "lost" or "misplaced": burried under the mass of the more pertinent memories from teen's and early adulthood.)
In the beginning it was all very interesting; then I became exceptionally skeptical of my own re-remembered memories. After a couple of months of digging around (--I think that Ron Hubbard was correct in this particular aspect: Everything is down there somewhere in our memories.--), I was spending almost as much time carefully verifying to myself that the "memory" was a real one and not just a piece/occurance of childhood imagination. (--Almost all kids, I believe without proof, have very good and active imaginations. I think that imagination is a good thing, even for adults;--especially for adults whose job is in science or engineering.  )
You say "...bit skeptical...". Based on my own experiences with 'memory mining', I would say "very skeptical" (--most-especially if there is some kind of a reward involved for finding memories from a certain class of memory).
[Edited for sloppy typing and grammer.]
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff
Edited by - Computer Org on 05/15/2002 08:23:38 |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2002 : 11:34:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(--I think that Ron Hubbard was correct in this particular aspect: Everything is down there somewhere in our memories.--)
'Fraid not. My understanding is that our knowledge of how memory works is quite extensive (though there is still much to learn!), and it has been shown that memory is not at all like a video camera recording every second of your sensory inputs. In fact, memory is/can be quite unreliable, especially as the memory and the actual event get further apart.
Check out The Skeptic's Dictionary and the author's entries on repressed memory. Very cool stuff.
------------
Truth above pride and ego; truth above all
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 05/15/2002 11:35:28 |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2002 : 12:33:26 [Permalink]
|
Let's face it; it seems that (enforced) abstinence doesn't work. It neither works for the priests themselves, or, come to think of it, the Virgin Mary either. She didn't have sex, yet she STILL got pregnant!
Some things you just can't count on anymore.
Seriously, other than the fact that the people responsible (and those covering them up) are sickening, and that the Pope had said that those characters are more eligible for forgiveness than some poor woman who's husband divorced her because he's fooling around (should she ever remarry), I'd say that it's time to stick a fork in it; it's done. To those who know the past scandals and activities of that institution should find this affair no surprise whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2002 : 12:56:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
'Fraid not. My understanding is that our knowledge of how memory works is quite extensive (though there is still much to learn!), and it has been shown that memory is not at all like a video camera recording every second of your sensory inputs. In fact, memory is/can be quite unreliable, especially as the memory and the actual event get further apart.
Quite right. My next door neighbor is a cop. He hates asking a group of people "So, what happened?". Its even worse if they come down to the station the next day. 20 reports can turn into 40!
quote:
Check out The Skeptic's Dictionary and the author's entries on repressed memory. Very cool stuff.
Very cool indeed. Whenever someone comes up to me with their latest crank theory, this is one of the first places I send them to.
Lisa
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room. |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2002 : 13:50:42 [Permalink]
|
CO,
As a fellow with a (cognitive) psychology degree, I will give you the secret word that is the key to our current understanding of cognition: heuristics. Pass it on.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2002 : 08:51:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
PhDreamer wrote:
As a fellow with a (cognitive) psychology degree, I will give you the secret word that is the key to our current understanding of cognition: heuristics. Pass it on.
Hmmmm. The Skeptics Dictionary touts:quote:
over 400 skeptical definitions and essays on occult, paranormal, supernatural and pseudoscientific ideas and practices...."
but the field of 'heuristics' doesn't seem to be one of them. 
(I will have to do an old-fashioned library search to find out what it means.)
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2002 : 09:47:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Check out The Skeptic's Dictionary and the author's entries on repressed memory. Very cool stuff.
------------
Truth above pride and ego; truth above all
Your reference of The Skeptic's Dictionary is very cool indeed.
Still, the page of the Dictionary that I linked to above is about yet another book that I read 20+ years ago but, unlike the Dianetics book, some of which I was able to run a [very crude, gross, loosely-parametered] computer simulation on--one that produced adequate results with respect to some of the book's speculations.
On Hubbard: I read the Dianetics book 20-25 years ago and was mostly interested in his observations as "data points" rather than in his theories. (At the time I recall{?} thinking that many of his theories were very naive.)
Almost everything that you wrote (--and that The Skeptic's Dictionary wrote--) matches my own personal observations on my own memory--as I posted earlier. I don't know if all the stuff that I didn't remember is 'just not there', as you contend, or is of such minute importance that it is more like dealing with a bunch of diamonds in a giant sandbox: Who even notices the sand when you're finding diamonds?
The computer-scientists working in nanotechnology are finding that a vast amount of stuff can be recorded at the atomic level. Do we? Are our memories recorded in great detail? I, for one, don't know.
I did find that it wasn't the length of time between the action-moment and the rememberance that led to a degradation of memory, but the number of times that I had remembered the action-moment. (Each one--actual action and rememberance of the actual action--seemed to be weighted equally in the overall remembering process. Increasingly I found myself remembering rememberances rather than remembering the actual action.  )
I offer the following: In 1976 I read A Soldier's Story. Up to a few months ago, I was utterly convinced that I had read that Brig.-Gen. T. Roosevelt Jr. was killed by "friendly fire"--an errant bomb. I have even referenced this "fact" many times. When someone finally called me on it, I dug the book out and, Lo!, it turned out that T.R. Jr. had died of a heart-attack, peacefully, in his sleep. So much for the accuracy of memories.
(P.S. I really like your sig. )
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
