[valve bouncer]

stats, but the proportion of men who report having sex with men is substantially higher than those who self-identify as gay. .

Make your point Toshi, but whatever you do, don't call Stinkle a homo....that's below the belt.

 

[ohio]

good points. i don't have any real or fake ink: stats, but the proportion of men who report having sex with men is substantially higher than those who self-identify as gay. the point that ohio was alluding to in the second paragraph's parenthetical note was that child abuse is not a sexual thing (except for true pedophiles, who are a very slim minority) but rather are about power and control.

Actually my point was regardless of motivation for the assault (it may well be sexual for all I know), I'm willing to bet that the majority of the 34% of molestation that were "homosexual" (a man assaulting a boy, or a woman assaulting a girl), it is in a "heterosexual" home.

 

[$tinkle]

Hahahaaaa, I can't believe the debate got this far without recognizing the fundamental flaw in the original quote. It assumes that homosexual pedophilia/assault only occurs in homosexual homes, and heterosexual pedophilia/assault only occurs in heterosexual homes.

If stinkpot can dig up some more comprehensive data, I'll put an Andrew Jackson down that says a greater proportion of homosexual (which it shouldn't even be called...) assault occurs in traditional marriage adoptive homes than in same-sex adoptive homes.

no, i'm sorry. you don't get to do that. you don't get to dismiss any possibilities for consideration by nit-picking the minutiae, then in the next breath make a totally baseless assertion. i don't care who's in your fan club.

i'll get my paypal account details to you to collect on those 4 fins

i don't have any real or fake stats, but the proportion of men who report having sex with men is substantially higher than those who self-identify as gay.

all that means is there's a few more coming out parties to attend

the point that ohio was alluding to in the second paragraph's parenthetical note was that child abuse is not a sexual thing (except for true pedophiles, who are a very slim minority) but rather are about power and control.

as are certain truths in cell block H at pelican bay, but open society???

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

isn't that just what you'll be doing next with your a-priori position of the FRI not "sounding like a very credible source"?

you perfectly know the lines of thought of those institutions in the US with the "family" word in their names..

just like doubting data from an "institute" called the "african panthers of the US" on issues relative to african americans, or "the flat earth foundation" on issues regarding astronomy....

i didnt made an a-priori judment. i raised a question, a doubt based on the (within reasonable doubt) biased name of the institution....

 

[$tinkle]

you perfectly know the lines of thought of those institutions in the US with the "family" word in their names..

here're some more of "those institutions" websites:

http://www.365gay.com/people/Family/family.htm
http://www.gayfamilyoptions.org/
http://www.angelfire.com/co/GayFamilyValues/
http://gaylife.about.com/od/copingwgayfamily/
http://www.cbel.com/gay_family_and_relationships/
http://www.lathefamily.org/gayfamilies/dcd/

you were saying...

 

[ohio]

no, i'm sorry. you don't get to do that. you don't get to dismiss any possibilities for consideration by nit-picking the minutiae

You have just lost all credibility in any discussion of statistics or logic. There are books on both subjects; I suggest you spend some time with them. Since you have trouble with both, I'll lay out for you why it is not minutiae:

Let's look at your argument -

It is supported by these premises:

Premise 1: 34% of assaults on adopted children were of the same sex variety
Premise 2: The proportion of children adopted into same-sex homes is much lower than 34%... the closest thing I can get to a stat on this from your post is 17/(136+17) (~12%)
Premise 3: Only homosexuals commit same-sex assault, AND only heterosexuals commit different-sex assault

Conclusion: homosexual adopters commit sexual assault more often than heterosexual adopters.

So it is hardly minutiae to point out that if one of only 3 premises in your argument is wrong, then your argument is wrong. It has been shown time and time again, and written about ad nauseam that the vast majority of cases of sexual assault on children (same sex or different sex assault) were committed by heterosexual (though pedophilic) males. You will find similar volumes of work disproving a significant correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia. Therefore premise 3 is false.

That's without even discounting the data or the survey methods... we'll assume they're not.

If I thought it would help you pull your head out of your ass I might spend the time digging for some good scientific publishing... but I'm busy(ish) and I don't think you'd change your mind anyway.

 

[$tinkle]

You have just lost all credibility in any discussion of statistics or logic. There are books on both subjects; I suggest you spend some time with them. Since you have trouble with both, I'll lay out for you why it is not minutiae:

from this assertion, i predict you'll put forth a fallible argument (i'm still allowing that i may be wrong, however)

Let's look at your argument -

It is supported by these premises:

Premise 2: The proportion of children adopted into same-sex homes is much lower than 34%... the closest thing I can get to a stat on this from your post is 17/(136+17) (~12%)

but, let's look at my response to Velocity Girl earlier in the thread:

what's missing is the proportion of households that are gay/straight. if it's evenly split, then heteroes have some splainin' to do.

that data should have been there, & i didn't catch that til you pointed out your observation.

not only did i observe the absence of pertinent data, i also offered a mea-culpa. kinda sucks when i point out my mistake before you can, but feel free to continue to amuse yourself

Conclusion: homosexual adopters commit sexual assault more often than heterosexual adopters.

i haven't published a conclusion; i've been too busy with the paul cameron witch-hunt.

i'll readily admit that i'm unfamiliar (both personally & pedagogicially) with the motivations / behavioral characterstics behind pedophilia, but will not say that i spoke too soon, (but perhaps callously). silly me, i thought anything could actually be debated here w/o having to nearly go through sensitivity training. Silver kicks me in my christian nuts weekly, but i don't go home crying myself to sleep to veggie tales videos.

but I'm busy(ish) and I don't think you'd change your mind anyway.

if i don't change my mind, then we are in agreeance, aye?

 

[Silver]

If you don't like the witch hunt, put forth a credible source next time. It's not really a witch hunt when the guy rides a broom and has a cauldron in his closet.

 

[ioscope]

I know a kid that it is working for. He is kind of an asshole, but he has a girlfreind!

 

[ohio]

from this assertion, i predict you'll put forth a fallible argument (i'm still allowing that i may be wrong, however)but, let's look at my response to Velocity Girl earlier in the thread:not only did i observe the absence of pertinent data, i also offered a mea-culpa. kinda sucks when i point out my mistake before you can, but feel free to continue to amuse yourself
i haven't published a conclusion; i've been too busy with the paul cameron witch-hunt.

i'll readily admit that i'm unfamiliar (both personally & pedagogicially) with the motivations / behavioral characterstics behind pedophilia, but will not say that i spoke too soon, (but perhaps callously). silly me, i thought anything could actually be debated here w/o having to nearly go through sensitivity training. Silver kicks me in my christian nuts weekly, but i don't go home crying myself to sleep to veggie tales videos.

if i don't change my mind, then we are in agreeance, aye?

I'm sorry, I must be misunderstanding. Are you congratulating yourself for recognizing a fundamental flaw, only after it was pointed out to you, in a piece of flop you posted in all seriousness? And even after recognizing the fundamental flaw continued to defend? Well, I can see how congratulations would be in order...

Also, nice use of the word "fallible." Did you google for that one? You misused it, or at best misdirected it.

 

[Westy]

If you don't like the witch hunt, put forth a credible source next time. It's not really a witch hunt when the guy rides a broom and has a cauldron in his closet.

Not to mention if he weighs the same as a duck.

 

[Changleen]

Not to mention if he weighs the same as a duck.

:love:

 

[$tinkle]

I'm sorry, I must be misunderstanding. Are you congratulating yourself for recognizing a fundamental flaw, only after it was pointed out to you, in a piece of flop you posted in all seriousness? And even after recognizing the fundamental flaw continued to defend? Well, I can see how congratulations would be in order...

you can't be justly accussed of not reading my post(s), but i can easily demonstrate you did not understand.

unlike you, i am a suppleminded empiricist, and demonstrated this attribute through debate - not snivelling. the fact there was essential missing data (proportions of same- & different-sex households) was first pointed out by me, & velocity girl was the catalyst. she gets the gold star.

it's no coincidence that very shortly after disclosure of this observation my tone changed, and i mulled the topic more broadly. if in doubt, please re-read & notice lack of "last edited by $tinkle" footers. it's rather telling of your rigid ideology that you continue to berate me even after i acknowledge my flawed assumption(s) about the data. do you have too much pride to do likewise when you err?

Also, nice use of the word "fallible." Did you google for that one? You misused it, or at best misdirected it.

i used fallible most precisely, as i demonstrated to you. pity if this does not even appear in your recognition vocabulary, as fallible is a common word, and should be known in time to take the SAT or GMAT

 

[Silver]

Have they redefined empiricist lately? Must have...