keyser_soze

Yguy, I have totally lost all respect for your rational abilities. Not that it means anything, but...oh well.

Why did you do that when you KNEW better? ALWAY, ALWAYS doublecheck sources when they come from ANY place that has a bias! ESPECIALLY web sites(probably why a lot of us prefer to use hard research data, vs. spamming by web links. He's right, spamming from dr. laura's(we won't even go into her hypocrisy) site re: homosexuality IS akin to posting from a racist site about black people, jewish people, or other minorities. How good is the research going to actually be? You already knew this before you did it though, I just can't fathom why you would do it.

dk

You brought up alcohol and drug addiction so don't blame me for changing the subject. Nonetheless, I will take this as an opportunity to present a critical analysis that goes to the heart of the homosexual and homophobe vernacular.

What we've seen over the last 55 years is an engorged Trial Lawyers Association… enabled by political radicals… to feed pseudo-science to constitutional courts… packed with social pundits appointed for life to masquerade as judges. These judicially active magistrates (social pundits) divine from the pseudo-science a finding of fact to their liking, and then from a finding of fact fashion science and law to order.

Armed with a finding of fact and a court writ psuedo scientists dictate both 1) scientific dogma by judicial fiat and 2) The Rule of Law by the power of judicial review. This isn't science but an evolving morphism that projects the illusion of science under the auspices of justice for the benefit of egotistical social engineers. The courts lacking any specific scientific knowledge take upon themselves the power to confer “the authority of science” upon dogma by an act of judicial fiat. This amounts to pure and simple social engineering at the expense of jurisprudence and science.

dk

To clear up some of the confusion about fetishism, and pedophilia….

Abnormal Psychology : Sexual Disorders
Note these are technical definitions written by an elite college of practitioners that voted homosexuality off the DSM list on the basis of personal opinion under the duress of gay political protesters. Men dominate the Paraphilia disorders, a fact which leaves this elite group of abnormal practitioners holding a bag of crap that doesn’t pass the smell test, and undermines their doctrines, theories and scientific credentials at every turn. Ironically, after a hundred years of study, experiments, theory, clinical diagnosis and practice these pontificates yet to explain what it means to be woman or a man in any psychological or coherent fashion. Go figure, truth stranger than fiction. This leaves us “common folk” to reflect upon a world where sexual disorders are determined by elitists that lack the intellectual capacity to discern a woman from a man.

Other less discerning schools of thought have determined a sexual disorder like beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, and simply say …

yguy

My, but we're getting careless, aren't we? Go back to the original post and follow the link.

I haven't yet made a claim about Dr Laura's assertion. I've merely stated that several pro-"gay" websites quote it without refuting it, which leads me to believe that it is true. When someone provides evidence to the contrary, I will have grounds to reconsider.

yguy

Next time you take the word of one poster (such as Dr. Rick) regarding the sources of another (such as me), remember this.

Dr Rick

Brilliant, yguy; you completely demolished my argument, because it was a claim from Dr Laura, and not from Dr Laura's website. This makes your entire argument flawless; you no longer have any need to substantiate what you post (this probably won't affect you much, since you rarely did before).

"You posted claims from Dr Laura's web site about the sexual orientation of pedophiles, and rather than substantiate it, asked others to disprove it."


My mistatement doesn't change the thrust of my questioning your source, but your strawman does; I didn't claim that you made a claim about Dr. Laura's claim.

It's a matter of credibility. You can't vouch for the veracity of what you post, so there's no reason to believe that what you post has any veracity. So keep posting your strawmen, and do your little victory dance over a minimal mistake that has very little bearing on either your lack of credibility or your intellectual dishonesty.

Btw, keyser_soze, I'm so sorry I let you down, but if it's any consolation, maybe now you can trust yguy.

mecca777

Hypocrisy. You quote a website to support your argument, but then disregard the fact that the information cannot be verified from any independent source on the Internet. If it is more than hearsay, why haven't the likes of Phelps also quoted this research?
Strawman. The "gay" websites where the quote is found are volunteer-run sites which catalogue specific incidences of anti-homosexual prejudice found on Dr Laura's show. The information you quoted appears on those websites purely as part of a transcript of a Dr Laura show, not as part of a reasoned debate. The intent is merely to show that Laura Schlessinger has a persistent bee in her bonnet on the topic of homosexuality, not to provide peer-reviewed scientific information for and against her assumptions.
You claimed that the information in the Dr Laura quote could not be refuted. It has yet to be established whether the "information" in the Dr Laura quote ever existed outside of the mind of one hateful, prejudiced person. You may not consider that a falsehood, but it casts your debating skills and intellectual rigour in a fairly poor light.

Feel free to misinterpret and misrepresent this post if it gives you pleasure. Alternatively, present a verifiable and reputable source for your assertion that paedophilia is statistically more prevalent among homosexuals. I'm fine either way.

keyser_soze

No worries. The point is not changed in the least. And his status has been dropping for a while, his rational skills atrophying more by the day. Does it really matter if it was on her site, or if it was her opinion? Everyone knows that Dr. Laura is a lying hypocrite...it's not hard to figure out. The point is, that you CANNOT trust information without external verification--unbiased external ver. You cannot trust extremists, or those who have an agenda based on hatred or bigotry. One can make the statistics say anything one wants, as has already been demonstrated.

Everyone knows that the most likely pedophiles in america are hetero(a vast number are actually married, and have girlfriends on the side no less...iirc) white males. The entire time I did casework, I had ONE black male that was a pedophile. In the same timeframe, I probably had 30 white males. To my recollection, I cannot say that a single one was gay. I would have to check my casenotes to make sure, but almost every one of them were family men, though the victims were not necessarily their own children(though that was VERY common). One particular screwball had a wife, 3 kids, and no less than three women on the side. He also had priors for rape, assault, and trafficking. I also found the cases equally given to ALL income levels. Of course it's all anecdotal, but hey, when everyone knows the habits, and probabilities, it doesn't really matter.

Point? HTF does homosexuality gain responsibility for pedophilia, influx of islamic jihad into america, AND destroy the american family unit?

You nuts are definately cracked. BTW, you can also find supposed proof that germany didn't massacre jews, negroes are mentally inferior, and hispanics only want to rob you....But then really, you need to use NON-MENTALLY IMPAIRED sources of information to get the truth...and that sure isn't it.

dk

dk: Women are rarely pedophiles, and little boys are molested about 10% less than little girls.
HelenM: You said that girls are molested more and most abusers are male. That argues that most pedophiles are male heterosexuals.
dk: Actually I said little boys are sexually molested less frequently than little girls by 10%.

dk: Therefore gay men that compose from 1 to 3% of the male population are disproportionately gay.
HelenM: I hope that was a typo.
dk:

• First women are seldom pedophiles.
• Second gays compose 1-3% of the male population.
• Third: 45% (55% little girls) of sexually molested children are little boys.

If we assume sexual orientation only considers gender, then little boys are molested by men that present a same sex attraction i.e. homosexual attraction. The idea presents an irreconcilable conundrum. The normalization of homosexuality presents Gender (M/F) as a sexual problem; and sexual orientation as a gender metaphor. Logic demands any coherent theory of paraphilia treat men separately from women and by extension gays apart from lesbians. Freudian concepts of homo/hetero sex (in conjunction with Kinsey’s sex-o-meter) present women and men as amorphous sex objects stripped of dignity, free will, human purpose and gender identity by a unisex conform that castrates both.

dk: Can you explain why pedophiles are so disproportionately gay?
HelenM: It doesn't even follow from what you wrote above that they are
dk: It most certainly does, all male, and since
1) pedophiles present a same sex attraction to the boys they molest
2) pedophiles are overwhelmingly the victims of sexually molestation

Abnormal Psychology has largely ignored statutory rape, child on child sexual assaults and pedophilia since normalizing homosexuality. These crimes more often than not go unreported, and even when reported go un-prosecuted. The juvenile courts along with the foster care, public schools and social services systems refuse to open their files to public scrutiny. Abortion clinics welcomes statutory rapists that deliver raped pregnant adolescents for a slam bam thank you man quickie abortion. The DOJ lacks any mechanism to track pedophilia within the criminal system, and has no connection to the juvenile courts. Since the APA normalized homosexuality little attention has been paid to molested pre-pubescent children, child on child sexual abuse and even less to statutory rape. The exponential grown of pornography and a budding kiddy porn industry on the Internet has brought sexual deviancy out of the back alleys into corporate boardrooms where $big $bucks go to the bottom line. This whole fiasco undermines the credibility of psychiatry and the competency of Abnormal Psychology. We have a problem.

dk: Given the disproportionate number of gay pedophiles, should being gay be classified as a personality disorder?
HelenM: Huh? Being a pedophile is not about personality. Nor is being gay. Do you even know what a personality disorder is? It seems that you don't, or you wouldn't have asked this question.
dk: Allow me to restate the question… Does paraphilia disorders harbored and protected by the gay community describe the gay community?

yguy

What's hypocritical about that?

I don't know.

Who do you think you're kidding? The patent intent of these sites is to discredit her, to paint her as a bigot. They have every incentive for disproving the claim. The sites I saw never even questioned its veracity. Had they done so, I would never have brought this up, as I found the quote as the result of a keyword search on the subject matter. I've only been to her site once in the year or so I've been on the net.

Like hell I did. I said that none of the "gay" sites which quoted it had refuted it.