Report - Pedophilia more common among "gays"

Dragging up this old argument? Seems people will see what they want in the statistics.

 

You make the same "mistake" many who post this propaganda make. You assume that pedophiles that target children of the same sex are homosexual.

You are likely going to continue ignorantly insisting on this nonsense regardless of reality not because you give a crap about people but because of your agenda.

Thus the only thing left is to mock you and others that make your same "mistake."

 

and it would be a correct statement given that male/male sex is homosexual as is female/female

 

I didn't "dismiss" that men attracted to boys (or, more specifically, men who abused boys) can be described as "homosexual". What I did was highlight the fact that the math can be misunderstood to associate a greater risk among men attracted to adult men when there is no more risk among them than anybody else. I don't like arguing semantics, use whatever definition of homosexual you like. I will simply point out that, depending on what definition you are using, this obviously changes how the results should be read.

When you are defining terms and building a "study" such as this, you have to ask yourself what its purpose is... correct me if I'm wrong, but the purpose of this seems to be something along the lines of "quantifying the risk among identifiable groups, presumably for some reason regarding social policy". In short, there should be utility gained in the way the groups are defined that help most effectively reach the social goal.

If there is one thing we know, it's that men attracted to adult men are the most easily identified homosexuals. On the other hand, men who abuse boys are most commonly in adult heterosexual relationships or no relationship at all, most commonly family and friends of family. As such, men attracted to adult men, being the most identifiable, will bare the brunt of the scrutiny based on the label you've chosen, even though most of the risk is not associated with them. In other words, your use of the label "homosexual" to capture all cases of "same sex" in broad stroke distracts from identifying the risk group more than it helps... people will focus on men attracted to adult men as they are most identifiable whether or not they have any more risk than anybody else. This may actually HELP pedophiles, in a twist of irony.

The math is no different for the "bisexual" label. Nothing has been demonstrated that the subset of "bisexual men attracted to adult males and adult females" is of any greater risk to also abuse children than heterosexual males attracted to adult women.

 

Answer me. Actually think about what I said instead of repeating the same dishonesty.

 

Would it be "correct" for me to say that 100% of jihad is committed by religious people, and that Christians are religious? Both statements are "correct", but that doesn't mean its "useful" for us to be suspicious of Christians because they fall under the label of "religious". This is fallacious reasoning. It is analogous, and equally as fallacious as claiming "Disproportionate amounts of pedophilia are homosexual, men attracted to men are homosexual, therefore men attracted to men have disproportionate risk". Same logic, same fallacy. Not everyone who falls under the "religious" label shares the same risk, just as not everybody who falls under the "homosexual" label shares the same risk. "Correct" and "useful" are two different things. The insistence of grouping all homosexuals together to apply statistics and risks to them is only helpful to pedophiles, allowing them to go about their business unnoticed while most of your focus is on the more easily identified men attracted to men.

 

It doesn't say that. sorry.....

 

Yet again our homophobes are ignoring the fact that many pedophiles are heterosexual when it comes to adults but homosexual/bisexual only when it comes to children. Which means that their offenses reflect badly on heterosexuals, not homosexuals.

Thats all there is to it when it comes to erroneous claims like these. A misunderstanding of simple statistics.

 

This is the piece of dreck that is not a study that the OP references. From a right wing lunatic written for right wing lunatics. It fails at every level.

http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/s...cs/issues/v14n2/Vol. 14, No. 2, 3 Baldwin.pdf

example: Moreover, the liberal media omits any mention of a person's
homosexuality in covering molestation stories.

This is not academic this is libel.

 

In adults. The majority of males who molest boys are heterosexual.

 

No, it implies that gays are 1.82 times more likely to be pedophiles than homosexuals:

20 / 11 = 1.82

This is an overrepresentation, but it is far from those absurd numbers that get thrown around by anti-gay sites, and it could be even due to statistical noise, possibly. Hard to say based on a single study.

 

Ratios don't work that way

 

Here is a real study to focus on:

http://www.livescience.com/19563-homophobia-hidden-homosexuals.html

 

Indeed, it is only approximately right. The correct result is:

20:1 = 4.7691%
11:1 = 8.3333%

8.3333% / 4.7691% = 1.75

Thats even less significant.

 

It also doesn't give us any idea of the magnitude... i.e. being "twice as likely to do something" could mean jumping from 0.1% to 0.2%.The number needs to be compared to the whole population to see if we are dealing with numbers of any practical importance.

This source gives a quick reference: http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pages/tell_others_the_facts.html

About 1 in 20 men abuse, according to this source. This is for "all men", but given the size of the population of heterosexual men vs homosexual men, I'll assume this number works for heterosexual men alone. Which means ~5% of heterosexual men abuse and 8.8% of gay men abuse. A 3-4% differential. And to be clear, as small as this -3-4% is, it's still just a "high mark". This is a lifetime chance to abuse, not habitual abusers. This number includes minors who abused other minors, for example, so the percent will continue to shrink if you remove from it non-adult populations. Maybe a 2-3% differential as a ballpark figure? We're already likely well within a range of error.

But even all of this STILL doesn't address the fact that among the population of "gay" and "straight" men, not all of them necessarily share the same risk as the average of their whole population. Not every "straight person" has the same chance to abuse, just as no every "gay person" does. There are differences in etiologies that are completely being glossed over for the sake of smearing everyone in broad stroke.

I find it very strange, disturbing really,that people would simply ASSUME that the reason someone would choose to abuse a child is the same reason someone would be romantically involved with an adult. I find it surprising that people really believe that... more likely they just never really examined what they were saying. Children who are abused are most often chosen because of convinience, and has nothing to do with what drives adult relationships. It should be plainly evident that there are different reasons and different causes at play, such that you can't just group the populations together and apply a statistic true of the total to each of its parts. And even if you could, worst case scenario, we're dealing with a 2-3% differential.

 

male on male sex is homosexual

female on female sex is homosexual

I understand that it's easier to play word games and try to redefine homosexual-sex but why not focus on the issue and that is the proclivity of homosexual pedophilia among homosexual males?

Maybe if the homosexuals would spend more time on protecting children and less time whining about a wedding cake they may find that people might be more accepting of their homosexual lifestyle

 

I do believe you are the one playing the word games. Not all homosexuals have the same risk, but the statistics are often presented as though all homosexuals have to take some kind of reaponsibility. Men attracted to men are no more a risk than men attracted to women. Having been a gay child myself, I know what it was like and I am protecting them by standing up for social acceptance.

Ill agree with you about wedding cake though, we have bigger problems.

 

Where is "here", exactly, and what reason has anyone to believe a homosexual will be better off for getting "help" from whoever occupies "here"?

 

If you are incapable if thinking on a deeper level sure. But most men that molest boys are heterosexual.

It's funny how the term homosexual means different things depending on the argument you are making. But it can never mean what it meant in your last argument if the conditions don't match your new one.

Sec you are all wet. Please keep quoting your pseudo science. It does a better job arguing my case than I ever could.

 

They want it to though. I can't figure out why other than some existential angst.

Some people will pervert science verses let go of their backward views. Holocaust deniers, evolution deniers, so on.

Sure they insist that their version of "science" is the truth and there is some conspiracy of secularists, Jews, or gay overlords in secrecy controlling science, and throwing out the people they claim to be "legitimate researchers."

Thus should tell you something. If somebody has to cite junk science and get the opposition to believe that there is a propaganda conspiracy, they are obviously wrong.

People see what they wish to see.

 

Let me ask you this. Assume for the sake of discussion that what you assert is true. I don't buy it, but just for giggles, let's assume it is.

What is it you would like to see done?

 

It's junk science ment to support immoral beliefs. Basically put, if we can't demonize gay people, it would be immoral to stand against them.

Besides look at the people that we argue with. Their positions are schizophrenic. In one thread homosexuality is just a choice you make like picking out which car you want. In Another it's a mental illness. In another case a bisexual person is homosexual. And a man that is attracted to women is homosexual.

Anybody with sense can see the failings of their arguments. Only people suffering from the same moral dilemma would agree with them.

These folks purposefully view the science in a skewered prism. They wish to justify their beliefs.

It is the vary basis of all confirmation bias.

 

How many gay folks rape a member of the opposite sex? I don't have the numbers, but I'd be willing to wager that's a pretty low number, possibly even non-existent. Therefore, rape is committed predominantly by "straight" people.

What should be done? Is there anyone here who, when asked for it, can provide the help that they, errrr, we(I'm straight, oh noes) need before it's too late?

 

I really don't think anti Ssm people care. I think they are trying to rationalize their beliefs. They know they are wrong but they wants them to be correct.

It's called existential angst.

Some people see their church as God. Some churches even teach that they are. But if you look at what church really is, which is a group of people gathering and deciding on how they are going to worship a god that nobody has ever seen or spoken with. You realize they aren't really any good at deciding what is or isn't moral. Especially since many have used holy orders to protect themselves from the consequences of their actions.

When you stop and evaluate it, you realize religion is subject to morality. Not the other way around as some would have you believe. That fact is the root of that existential angst that fuels 99% of this argument.

Basically put, their church/morality/beliefs can't be wrong, thus science must be.

 

You have made a very good counter point, and it is based on logic.

I don't believe it's going to be very useful in this argument because this argument is about existential angst.

It's about people that believe something they know is wrong, and it's dying out as a belief because of it. They are frightened because they know science spells doom for their beliefs.

They are simply throwing darts at the wall to see which one sticks.

Debate the argument only enough to debunk it. That normally occurs in the first or second page. The argument is irrational. I know it, you know it, they even know it. Debate the debator.

They view data through a prism. Trying to make it fit their conclusion. It's called confirmation bias. It's the single most prevailing enemy to science. It's must often based on some emotional tie to the conclusion somebody wants.

Basically put when you start your method with a conclusion you will likely end with that conclusion regardless of the data. It's backward.