Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 24, 2006 4:09:28 GMT -5
biblethumper said:
WanderingTrekker is copying and pasting and also quoting from sources such as the UCLA, which is far too liberal to be taken seriously....liberal don't mesh with the UCLA, so why would I take such seriously?The primary issue, however, is a copy/paste issue.... I will NOT respond to such lazy attempts at "proving a point".
I respond to people who have something of their own...sure, copy and paste, but at least have the common respect to say something YOU wrote.
Otherwise, no response is forthcoming.
Excuse me?
I thought I made it clear in my post that I am not a psycologist, I have not done research, I have no credentials to make claims on my own. I therefore must use empirical evidence to back up any claims that I have made.
I have italicised all of my own words in the quote below. You'll note that the only place I did not use my own words are places where I am quoting studies.
You think I'm lazy? Yeah, I just copied and pasted all of that stuff. I spent over an hour looking up materials online and cross-referencing to make sure that the data checked out. In addition I have probably read over 10,000 pages on the subject, I know, many of the books are sitting on the shelf approximately 8 feet from me right now. Quoting is not lazy.
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and suggest that you never attended college. I say this because otherwise you'd realize that the hardest part of putting an opinion in words is doing the research to back yourself up. That is what takes time.
As I look down, it appears to me that about 50% of those words are my own. The remaining 50% comes from experts in the field.
wanderingtrekker said:
Actually, your aguement is mistaken. What you will most likely see in the paper is Uncle Jack's name, but he won't have molested little Timmy, but rather niece Jenny. Statistically Aunt Molly is far less likely to molest anyone as she is female.
Indeed, a study conducted by the Children's Hospital in Denver found that between 1 July 1991 and 30 June 1992, only one percent (1%) of 387 cases of suspected child molestation involved a gay perpetrator. Overwhelmingly, the study found that boys and girls alike said they were abused by heterosexual male family members, including fathers, stepfathers, grandfathers, and uncles.
Furthermore, a study in the December 1998 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association that reports that 98% of all male perpetrators who had sexually abused boys were identified in their families and communities as heterosexual. The study was conducted by University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine Assistant Professor Dr. William C. Holmes.
A.N. Groth and H.J. Birnbaum in their ground-breaking 1978 study entitled "Adult Sexual Orientation and Attraction to Underage Persons" found that: "The belief that homosexuals are particularly attracted to children is completely unsupported by our data… In our twelve years of work with child molesters, we have found… the child offender who is also attracted to and engaged in an adult sexual relationship is heterosexual. The adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the homosexual male."
According to Dr Roland Summit of the Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, "The vast majority of offenders are heterosexual men. Male offenders who abuse young boys maintain adult heterosexual relationships."
One particularly telling source on the misconceptions of the perpetrators of child molestation is Dr. Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California at Davis. His website has very good information, including information on the methodological problems of some "researchers." It can be visited at psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/index.html.
It is important to clarify some of the terms which have been thrown around on this thread. The following quote box is taken from Dr. Herek's website:
Pedophilia usually refers to an adult psychosexual disorder characterized by a preference for prepubescent children as sexual partners; this preference may or may not be acted upon. The term hebephilia is sometimes used to describe adult sexual attractions to adolescents and children who have reached puberty.
Whereas pedophilia and hebephilia refer to psychological propensities, child molestation and child sexual abuse are used to describe actual sexual contact between an adult and someone who has not reached the legal age of consent. In this context, someone who has not reached the age of consent is referred to as a child, even though he or she may be a teenager.
Although the terms are not always used consistently, it is useful to distinguish between pedophiles/hebephiles and child molesters/abusers. Pedophilia and hebephilia are diagnostic labels. Not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually molest children; an adult can be attracted to children or adolescents without ever actually engaging in sexual contact with them.
Child molestation and child sexual abuse refer to actions, and don't imply a particular psychological makeup or motive on the part of the perpetrator. Not all incidents of child sexual abuse are perpetrated by pedophiles or hebephiles; in some cases, the perpetrator has other motives for his or her actions and does not manifest an ongoing pattern of sexual attraction to children.
Thus, not all child sexual abuse is perpetrated by pedophiles (or hebephiles) and not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually commit abuse. Consequently, it is important to choose one's terms carefully.
Moreover, Dr. Herek claims that "The distinction between gender of victim and sexual orientation of perpetrator is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women."
Indeed, Dr. Herek cites a 1978 study by Groth and Birnbaum. This study "studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that "in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males..."
According to Dr. Nathaniel McConaghy, "The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women"
The misconceptions are shrinking, however. According to Herek, "The number of Americans who believe the myth that gay people are child molesters has declined substantially. In a 1970 national survey, more than 70% of respondents agreed with the assertions that 'Homosexuals are dangerous as teachers or youth leaders because they try to get sexually involved with children' or that 'Homosexuals try to play sexually with children if they cannot get an adult partner.'
By contrast, in a 1999 national poll, the belief that most gay men are likely to molest or abuse children was endorsed by only 19% of heterosexual men and 10% of heterosexual women. Even fewer – 9% of men and 6% of women – regarded most lesbians as child molesters.
Consistent with these findings, Gallup polls have found that an increasing number of Americans would allow gay people to be elementary school teachers. For example, the proportion was 61% in 2003, compared to 27% in 1977."
Additionally, according to Herek, "Scientific research provides no evidence that homosexual people are less likely than heterosexuals to exercise good judgment and appropriate discretion in their employment settings. There are no data, for example, showing that gay men and lesbians are more likely than heterosexual men and women to sexually harass their subordinates in the workplace. Data from studies using a variety of psychological measures do not indicate that gay people are more likely than heterosexuals to possess any psychological characteristics that would make them less capable of controlling their sexual urges, refraining from the abuse of power, obeying rules and laws, interacting effectively with others, or exercising good judgment in handling authority."
In conclusion, Dr. Herek states that "The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children."
I must apologize for quoting so much, but I have no credentials of my own to make such claims. I must rely on research done by others.
The homosexual community is littered with perverts, child rapists and such.
Yes, it is. But statistically it is littered with far fewer of these sexual deviants than is the heterosexual "community."
In terms of preventing child molestation (which I assume is a good goal to have), damage is done in the thinking that ridding an organization (such as the Boy Scouts) of gay members, because the focus is on a group which is far less likely to participate in such discrimination. In the meanwhile, the focus is taken away from preventing molestation by those perpetrators most-likely to commit it, adult family members.
I must remind you, that as Valentine said, rape is not a crime of sex. It is a crime of domination. The goal of the rapist is not to get sexual gratification, but rather to exercise dominance and control over another person. This is exhibited primarily in male prisons in what is called situational homosexuality. It is not the absence of sexual partners that encourages male-male rape, but rather the need to dominate the other prisoners.
I hope that this clarifies.
Since I am not a psycologist, I suppose I should use only my own words. Would my arguement be more convincing if I said the following?
Ok, guys, I have it on good authority that homosexuals are not more likely to molest children. Actually heterosexuals are more likely to do so. I know, I just can't tell you why, because that would be lazy. Plus, you guys don't want to hear boring statistics anyway, do you? That's what I thought.
There, are my own words any better for you now? Do you doubt my intelligence? Do you doubt my sincerity? I suggest you click on my name and read my last 123 posts. I have used plenty of my own words on this message board.
MY ARGUMENT IS CLEAR:
Homosexuals are not more likely to sexually abuse children, as a matter of fact, heterosexual family members are far more likely to do so.
MY SOURCES ARE CLEAR:
I see no need to restate the facts, however, I will point out that 98% of reported child sexual abuse is done at the hands of heterosexuals. Less than 1% is done by homosexuals.
I did what one is supposed to do in an arguement. I stated a hypothesis. I backed it up with empirical data. I checked my data to ensure its accuracy. I used more than one source to add weight to my arguement. I justified my hypothesis.
What you have done is rejected my arguement because I used too many sources. Using sources does not weaken an opinion, it strengthens it. Think about what you've done. You have basically said that you will not read my opinion because I used facts to justify it. The use of facts is what differentiates my argument from your opinion.
A note on argumentation:
The primary goal of arguement is the reaching of conclusions based upon certain premises and through logical reasoning. It is perhaps best described as the way in which people protect their beliefs and self-interests through rational dialogue. There are several keys to arguing effectively:
1. Understanding that an argument has been presented.
2. Identifying the conclusion and bases of said conclusion of the other arguer.
3. Establishing the burden of proof.
4. The defender has the burden of proof, he/she is responsible for using evidence to force the opponent to concede.
5. The attacker must find faulty logic, attack the premises of the arguement, provide counterproofs, or find some other way to demonstrate that a valid conclusion cannot be reached based upon the defender's argumentation.
I understand that an arguement has been presented. You are the presentor (the attacker in this case). Your conclusion is that most child molestation is undertaken by homosexuals. The bases for this conclusion are based solely on the conclusions of Dr. Spitzer. Spitzer's methodology is flawed, as Valentine demonstrated. I have a feeling that you haven't taken statistics, so you probably missed Valentine's references to N and Chi square. I have established the burden of proof, and attempted to meet it. I did so by providing evidence.
Your job is to find holes in my logic, problems with my bases (sources), or provide counter evidence. Refusing to engage in debate because I followed the steps of argumentation does not disprove my argument.
The real reason that you refuse to respond is because you know that if you debate me you will lose. Well, you will lose as long as you care what the facts are. If you don't care, then you will think you've pulled one over on me, but any rational person will be able to see that your arguement does not hold water.
I should disregard any arguement that uses the Bible as its sole justification. Meaning that if you say that homosexuality is a chosen behavior, and justify that using Biblical passages, that is Ok. It is not a valid arguement, however, unless you back it up with evidence obtained using the scientific method or some other proof. To use solely the Bible to prove something about the human brain that Biblical writers could have had no knowledge of is to commit the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad antiquitatem. Just because society has always believed something does not make it logical. Therefore any arguement which hinges solely upon tradition is flawed.
I should, but I won't. However, arguements based upon that will fail to convince me.
I must remind you that by calling your argument fallicious, I am not calling a foul. I am merely alerting you to the fact that your arguements are flawed. You have committed an error of logic. So long as that error stands, your arguement will not compare to a logical arguement.
For the sake of your argumentation, please use logic and empirical evidence to prove a point. Your shouting Bible verses at me to prove a question of science without using the scientific method will fail to convince me.
Are these enough words for you? Do you like the sound of my voice now? Because I have plenty of words left to type.
Oh, and one final thing. You are perfectly welcome to ignore data because it comes from someplace with an obviously liberal (or conservative) bent. UCLA is not one of those places. Almost all of UCLA's Ph.D programs are ranked in the top 20 for academic quality. Psycology, the program in which the research I quoted was done, is ranked number 4 in the country. In 2005, 47,000 freshmen applied to this unviersity, more than any other university in the United States. UCLA was ranked 14th in a listing of the world's best public universities in 2005.
A university does not get to have such reknown if it is known that their research is biased. The University of California System has a long tradition of academic integrity, which you disregard because of what? Did your father or mother tell you it was biased? Was it Bill O'Reilly? Perhaps Pat Robertson told you that. It doesn't matter. If you want to believe that based on some rumor go ahead. I suggest you do some research about UCLA, though.
I do not ask that you post it here. This is not the place. I ask that you do this for your own benefit, not to prove myself right, or you wrong.
Now, I challenge you to respond. If you have the guts. Use logic and reasoning to refute my argument.
Remember, you can use logos, pathos, or ethos. In this case, I value logos most. Pathos will not sway me here. And while I love ethos, the Bible is not a sound basis for ethos for me, so if you wish to use ethos, you'll need a different source.
I look forward to your response.