Motoring1 min ago
Social Media Backlash Against Russia
I notice there are a lot of 'boycott the Winter Olympics' and protest posts against the Russian attitude towards the LGBT community; and quite rightly so.
Also we have seen a lot on the TV and in the press covering this topic ahead of the winter Olympics.
I wonder if this will be repeated for the World Cup in Qatar in 4 years time to protest against the Islamic communities attitudes to homosexuality - or maybe even closer to home?
Are people afraid to criticize Islamic attitudes for fear of being branded racist?
Also we have seen a lot on the TV and in the press covering this topic ahead of the winter Olympics.
I wonder if this will be repeated for the World Cup in Qatar in 4 years time to protest against the Islamic communities attitudes to homosexuality - or maybe even closer to home?
Are people afraid to criticize Islamic attitudes for fear of being branded racist?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Snafu03. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
LG, // You make the fundamental error of assuming that all male-male sexual assaults are driven by sexual orientation (homosexuality), rather than paedophilia, a psycho-sexual disorder that is somewhat gender-blind.//
No, there is no error here, the de-frocked priests, the teachers etc. that I listed are all related to specific incidents of men accused of assaults on young boys and not on girls, your attempt to confuse the crime by claiming that it is "Gender-blind" is inaccurate. Any idea that they were impartial to the gender of their quarry is simply untrue, - this is nothing other than adult male on juvenile male homosexuality. Many other types of sexual crimes exist, but they are not relevant in these cases.
No, there is no error here, the de-frocked priests, the teachers etc. that I listed are all related to specific incidents of men accused of assaults on young boys and not on girls, your attempt to confuse the crime by claiming that it is "Gender-blind" is inaccurate. Any idea that they were impartial to the gender of their quarry is simply untrue, - this is nothing other than adult male on juvenile male homosexuality. Many other types of sexual crimes exist, but they are not relevant in these cases.
Khandro, from what LG says it seems a that paedophiles (infantophiles) are 'gender blind'. However, I think that what you are talking about is an obsession with prepubescents which is somewhat different and may well be gender specific. A problem with this discussion is that there are parties who seem to be keen to cloud the issue.
^quite!
LG; You required evidence, I gave it in the form of actual figures (Known priests and offenders brought before courts in the UK) I used an intelligent and generous guess as to how many individual assaults on boys this represented, using ONLY these figures I extrapolated them into the world population and even ignoring every country other than the UK the figure was enormous, and bore no relationship to criminal proceedings against heterosexual men on girls. For defence of your position; that boys are in no greater threat of assault by homosexual males than girls are by heterosexual males, you produce figures based on Q&A interviews with sex-offenders nearly 40 years ago, from a country where even homo-sexual acts were still illegal (and not to be repealed until as recently as 2003).
Allow me to put to you a hypothetical question; You have a daughter aged seven and two sons aged eight and nine, they all want to go to a summer camp, you have the choice of sending them to one staffed by, or populated by a large number of homosexuals, the other is staffed entirely by heterosexuals, and in both places the staff would be 'in loco parentis' 24/7 for a week.
Which one to choose? Well, I know which one I and my wife would choose, and I know which one Vladimir Putin and the overwhelming amount of parents would choose.
The question is LG, with your convictions, which would you choose?
LG; You required evidence, I gave it in the form of actual figures (Known priests and offenders brought before courts in the UK) I used an intelligent and generous guess as to how many individual assaults on boys this represented, using ONLY these figures I extrapolated them into the world population and even ignoring every country other than the UK the figure was enormous, and bore no relationship to criminal proceedings against heterosexual men on girls. For defence of your position; that boys are in no greater threat of assault by homosexual males than girls are by heterosexual males, you produce figures based on Q&A interviews with sex-offenders nearly 40 years ago, from a country where even homo-sexual acts were still illegal (and not to be repealed until as recently as 2003).
Allow me to put to you a hypothetical question; You have a daughter aged seven and two sons aged eight and nine, they all want to go to a summer camp, you have the choice of sending them to one staffed by, or populated by a large number of homosexuals, the other is staffed entirely by heterosexuals, and in both places the staff would be 'in loco parentis' 24/7 for a week.
Which one to choose? Well, I know which one I and my wife would choose, and I know which one Vladimir Putin and the overwhelming amount of parents would choose.
The question is LG, with your convictions, which would you choose?
Well, I know which one I would choose. Definitely the camp run by homosexuals.
I suppose like you, I'm using my own prejudices to think what's best for the kids, and I've seen way too many stories about little girls who have been molested or raped or even burned alive by their heterosexual care-givers.
It seems that we can't go through a year without hearing about abuse or even murder of some poor young kid by their step parent.
So, with that in mind, I'd probably go for the 'Homosexual camp'. They'd probably come back with better haircuts to boot!
I suppose like you, I'm using my own prejudices to think what's best for the kids, and I've seen way too many stories about little girls who have been molested or raped or even burned alive by their heterosexual care-givers.
It seems that we can't go through a year without hearing about abuse or even murder of some poor young kid by their step parent.
So, with that in mind, I'd probably go for the 'Homosexual camp'. They'd probably come back with better haircuts to boot!
@Khandro Yes, your bigotry would lead you to make that decision. I would not care about their sexual orientation, provided the staff had passed an enhanced security check. What I would not do, unlike you, is to assume every male homosexual is automatically a potential child molester.
As for your calculations? Nothing intelligent, accurate or generous about your back of the fag packet calculation designed to fit your own prejudice. As for paedophilia, the evidence, rather than your prejudices, speak for themselves.
I tire of discussing, well pretty much anything with you. Your bias and bigotry offend me deeply.
As for your calculations? Nothing intelligent, accurate or generous about your back of the fag packet calculation designed to fit your own prejudice. As for paedophilia, the evidence, rather than your prejudices, speak for themselves.
I tire of discussing, well pretty much anything with you. Your bias and bigotry offend me deeply.
I'd also like to say that it's pretty disgusting to bring a question to someone on an entirely unrelated topic, take their answer, and translate it back into another argument without ever telling the person you asked. My maths is now associated with a position I never did, nor do, nor will ever support. Shame on you for coming to me under false pretences.
LG; I do not, nor have ever implied that I "assume every male homosexual is automatically a potential child molester".
What I have said is "homosexuals comprise 2 or 3 % of the general population, and as virtually all sex crimes are committed by men, then the crimes by homosexual males against young boys by this group are enormously disproportionate to that of those of crimes by heterosexual males against young girls within the general population". This is a fact, borne out by statistical evidence.
jim; I don't understand your reaction, but I apologise if that is how you see it, I didn't want to start involving you this subject matter in relation to a mathematical question. LG and Kromo decided to show the link anyway, not I. The maths is the same whatever the subject, surely. Anyway, sorry if you see it that way.
What I have said is "homosexuals comprise 2 or 3 % of the general population, and as virtually all sex crimes are committed by men, then the crimes by homosexual males against young boys by this group are enormously disproportionate to that of those of crimes by heterosexual males against young girls within the general population". This is a fact, borne out by statistical evidence.
jim; I don't understand your reaction, but I apologise if that is how you see it, I didn't want to start involving you this subject matter in relation to a mathematical question. LG and Kromo decided to show the link anyway, not I. The maths is the same whatever the subject, surely. Anyway, sorry if you see it that way.
Khandro
Let me see if I understand your maths.
To simplify it, let's say that all sex attacks are carried out by men, right?
Well, out of all the sex attacks carried out by men what percentage are attacks on boys by adult males?
I would guide you to the following section on the link below, for a scholarly analysis of the question. You might want to search for " What About Claims That Scientific Research Proves Gay Men Are Likely To Molest Children?"
Link: http://
Let me see if I understand your maths.
To simplify it, let's say that all sex attacks are carried out by men, right?
Well, out of all the sex attacks carried out by men what percentage are attacks on boys by adult males?
I would guide you to the following section on the link below, for a scholarly analysis of the question. You might want to search for " What About Claims That Scientific Research Proves Gay Men Are Likely To Molest Children?"
Link: http://
Given that you've done maths at all, you clearly don't understand how it worked. Firstly I made the assumption that the only two variable in the problem were Left-handed or not, and a Yellow lollipop liker or not. But the problem has missed a huge number of possible factors. How many people might like lollipops but never have an opportunity to buy them? How many people are left-handed, but hold things in their right hand to conform with society -- or are even forced to do so, or derided for daring to use their left hand to hold a lollipop? How many like red lollipops as a rule, but are only able to gain access to yellow lollipops and then eventually succumb to the temptation to buy something they don't like in order to have a lollipop of any colour?
Each of these considerations and many others means that the solution to the toy problem can have no basis in reality whatsoever, and so using it to try to support a position in the real world is a massive fallacy. You've taken an A-Level at best approach to two-variable probability and ignored anything and everything else that might be a factor in the real problem, and tried to use it to justify your views. Never mind that you've extracted that support by lying about why you wanted it, or at least concealing your true purpose. And in using it you show that you don't understand where the maths came from.
Allow me to point out a further factor in the problem that you've apparently overlooked: the fact that the sex abusers were all Catholic Priests. How can this have no bearing at all on the problem. Oh no, they were all predatory homosexuals desperate to prey on the innocent and sneaked into the Church to satisfy their lusts, and in doing so bringing shame upon on honourable organisation. Or perhaps ...
All Catholic Priests take a vow of Celibacy. A large number of them, clearly, turn out to struggle to keep this vow. On the other hand the role of women in the Church is not exactly major, so the majority of the time these priests with problems keeping to a vow of celibacy are only in contact with other men -- and, in particular, young boys. Suddenly, the fact that the victims are all boys makes a great deal of sense, does it not? After all, where else would someone turn if they have some urges that must be satisfied, but not the inclination to leave the straitjacket of celibacy, or go somewhere else. In this view, which is likely to have at least some impact, the crime is one based on opportunism, and unfortunately the young choir boys or boys at Catholic schools are just easy targets.
How much of a factor this is I don't know exactly, to be sure, and it does paint a picture where the priests are victims too, which is probably not the case either in some cases. But it certainly introduces a complication to the tidy mathematical picture of only two variables to consider. Now we have at least one more: were the priests concerned keeping to a vow they could not hold? Or, even more simply, were the men priests?
Yet another point to consider. As we have seen earlier in this thread the idea of homosexuality as "abnormal", and therefore by extension morally wrong, is one that still pervades modern society. How awful it must be to be told that you should hate yourself! Can you not see how damaging that could be? Those who hate themselves are at best merely self-destructive, and at worst can lash out at those around them too. Spreading this message, then, that gay men are mostly also paedophiles, risks becoming a self-reinforcing argument.
Two final points: if you cannot understand someone who is angry when you take what they have said and deliberately apply it out of context to support a position they do not, I find that incredible and, frankly, sad. I'll remember it next time you find someone twisting your words to make it sound like you support a position when you hold entirely the opposite view.
And, also, correlation does not imply causation.
Each of these considerations and many others means that the solution to the toy problem can have no basis in reality whatsoever, and so using it to try to support a position in the real world is a massive fallacy. You've taken an A-Level at best approach to two-variable probability and ignored anything and everything else that might be a factor in the real problem, and tried to use it to justify your views. Never mind that you've extracted that support by lying about why you wanted it, or at least concealing your true purpose. And in using it you show that you don't understand where the maths came from.
Allow me to point out a further factor in the problem that you've apparently overlooked: the fact that the sex abusers were all Catholic Priests. How can this have no bearing at all on the problem. Oh no, they were all predatory homosexuals desperate to prey on the innocent and sneaked into the Church to satisfy their lusts, and in doing so bringing shame upon on honourable organisation. Or perhaps ...
All Catholic Priests take a vow of Celibacy. A large number of them, clearly, turn out to struggle to keep this vow. On the other hand the role of women in the Church is not exactly major, so the majority of the time these priests with problems keeping to a vow of celibacy are only in contact with other men -- and, in particular, young boys. Suddenly, the fact that the victims are all boys makes a great deal of sense, does it not? After all, where else would someone turn if they have some urges that must be satisfied, but not the inclination to leave the straitjacket of celibacy, or go somewhere else. In this view, which is likely to have at least some impact, the crime is one based on opportunism, and unfortunately the young choir boys or boys at Catholic schools are just easy targets.
How much of a factor this is I don't know exactly, to be sure, and it does paint a picture where the priests are victims too, which is probably not the case either in some cases. But it certainly introduces a complication to the tidy mathematical picture of only two variables to consider. Now we have at least one more: were the priests concerned keeping to a vow they could not hold? Or, even more simply, were the men priests?
Yet another point to consider. As we have seen earlier in this thread the idea of homosexuality as "abnormal", and therefore by extension morally wrong, is one that still pervades modern society. How awful it must be to be told that you should hate yourself! Can you not see how damaging that could be? Those who hate themselves are at best merely self-destructive, and at worst can lash out at those around them too. Spreading this message, then, that gay men are mostly also paedophiles, risks becoming a self-reinforcing argument.
Two final points: if you cannot understand someone who is angry when you take what they have said and deliberately apply it out of context to support a position they do not, I find that incredible and, frankly, sad. I'll remember it next time you find someone twisting your words to make it sound like you support a position when you hold entirely the opposite view.
And, also, correlation does not imply causation.
On a broader point, this flagrant misuse of statistics is seriously dangerous. One tragic example worth citing once again is that of "Meadow's Law", named after Roy Meadow, whose terrible misuse of statistics essentially saw many mothers wrongly convicted of murdering their babies, who in fact had just died suddenly. How tragic and awful to lose your child, through no fault of your own, and then be sent down for murdering them too! Sally Clark was one such mother, she never recovered and succumbed to alcohol poisoning.
The statistical crime in this case was, to my knowledge, twofold. Firstly, the accidental death of a child is an extraordinary event. But then, so is a murderous mother. Meadow only considered the likelihood of the first, deemed it to be small, and drew the conclusion that it must have been murder. The courts seemed to believe him, even when there was no other evidence than his own opinion.
The second error was the assumption that there was no medical connection between the death of one child and deaths in similar circumstances of any subsequent children. Thus, if the chance of one child dying by accident is about 1 in a million, then the two children dying in the same family ought to be one in a million squared, one in a million million, which is so small. But it's also utter nonsense! In fact the two events are highly correlated -- since, if cot deaths are genetic (which appears to be at least partly the case) then it follows that one cot death in a family suggests that any future children are likely to be at risk from inheriting the same gene.
Meadow's Law states that "one is a tragedy, two is suspicious and three is murder -- unless there is proof to the contrary." This "law" came from a dreadful misunderstanding of statistics. And as I have explained above it led to massive tragedy, as, guided by the phony numbers, courts sent many mothers to prison for no other justifcation, and apparently many other mothers were separated from their children.
Frankly, your understanding of statistics is demonstrably no better than his was. If, in future, you have a question about probability, then, I'd suggest you ask the question honestly: you'll get a better answer that you are far more likely to be able to use. In the meantime, I'd suggest learning more about probability and statistics before ever trying to use them to support a view. And don't you dare quote me again, or ask me (or other mathematical experts) a question under false pretences to support such a disgusting view.
See also: http://
The statistical crime in this case was, to my knowledge, twofold. Firstly, the accidental death of a child is an extraordinary event. But then, so is a murderous mother. Meadow only considered the likelihood of the first, deemed it to be small, and drew the conclusion that it must have been murder. The courts seemed to believe him, even when there was no other evidence than his own opinion.
The second error was the assumption that there was no medical connection between the death of one child and deaths in similar circumstances of any subsequent children. Thus, if the chance of one child dying by accident is about 1 in a million, then the two children dying in the same family ought to be one in a million squared, one in a million million, which is so small. But it's also utter nonsense! In fact the two events are highly correlated -- since, if cot deaths are genetic (which appears to be at least partly the case) then it follows that one cot death in a family suggests that any future children are likely to be at risk from inheriting the same gene.
Meadow's Law states that "one is a tragedy, two is suspicious and three is murder -- unless there is proof to the contrary." This "law" came from a dreadful misunderstanding of statistics. And as I have explained above it led to massive tragedy, as, guided by the phony numbers, courts sent many mothers to prison for no other justifcation, and apparently many other mothers were separated from their children.
Frankly, your understanding of statistics is demonstrably no better than his was. If, in future, you have a question about probability, then, I'd suggest you ask the question honestly: you'll get a better answer that you are far more likely to be able to use. In the meantime, I'd suggest learning more about probability and statistics before ever trying to use them to support a view. And don't you dare quote me again, or ask me (or other mathematical experts) a question under false pretences to support such a disgusting view.
See also: http://
@Khandro. I am not sure which you are; bigoted or deluded.
"What I have said is "homosexuals comprise 2 or 3 % of the general population, and as virtually all sex crimes are committed by men, then the crimes by homosexual males against young boys by this group are enormously disproportionate to that of those of crimes by heterosexual males against young girls within the general population". This is a fact, borne out by statistical evidence"
Virtually all sex crimes are committed by men - that much at least is true. 98% of men are heterosexuals. To use your own ridiculous child summer camp earlier - would you be happy to send your 9 year old girl to a summer camp where some of the instructors are male? Clearly, according to your own misinformed prejudices, males should be banned from teaching at primary schools, or anywhere they come into extended contact with children.
As Jim has pointed out in his own rebuttal, your math is nonsense, and your assertion- that gay men are somehow more likely to be child abusers than heterosexual mlaes - is both ill-informed, not borne out by the facts and the statistics, and is, frankly repugnant; clearly a product of your own prejudice.
"What I have said is "homosexuals comprise 2 or 3 % of the general population, and as virtually all sex crimes are committed by men, then the crimes by homosexual males against young boys by this group are enormously disproportionate to that of those of crimes by heterosexual males against young girls within the general population". This is a fact, borne out by statistical evidence"
Virtually all sex crimes are committed by men - that much at least is true. 98% of men are heterosexuals. To use your own ridiculous child summer camp earlier - would you be happy to send your 9 year old girl to a summer camp where some of the instructors are male? Clearly, according to your own misinformed prejudices, males should be banned from teaching at primary schools, or anywhere they come into extended contact with children.
As Jim has pointed out in his own rebuttal, your math is nonsense, and your assertion- that gay men are somehow more likely to be child abusers than heterosexual mlaes - is both ill-informed, not borne out by the facts and the statistics, and is, frankly repugnant; clearly a product of your own prejudice.
Bigotry is better defined as "extreme intolerance of someone whose opinion differs from one's own". I believe I'm safe in saying that I, at least, am extremely intolerant of your opinion -- but not of you who holds it.
Besides which, there is a great deal of reason to be intolerant of an opinion that is based on flagrant misuse of statistics, and on deception in order to obtain them in the first place. I did actually enjoy debating with you, up to a point, and think that I learned something from our discussions in the past. But this time it's different. Do yourself a favour and apologise.
Besides which, there is a great deal of reason to be intolerant of an opinion that is based on flagrant misuse of statistics, and on deception in order to obtain them in the first place. I did actually enjoy debating with you, up to a point, and think that I learned something from our discussions in the past. But this time it's different. Do yourself a favour and apologise.
Not wishing to sound like I'm bandwagon jumping, but Khandro, there's something else in your maths that doesn't quite add up.
For your 'proportions' idea to work, each 'man on boy' sex attack would have to be carried out by one man. There's no room for one man / multiple attacks in your calculations.
Which means your figures are thrown out of the window.
What if all the choirboys were attacked by one priest?
See what I mean?
For your 'proportions' idea to work, each 'man on boy' sex attack would have to be carried out by one man. There's no room for one man / multiple attacks in your calculations.
Which means your figures are thrown out of the window.
What if all the choirboys were attacked by one priest?
See what I mean?
naomi; // Why would a homosexual male be attracted to children unless he was a paedophile? And why would a homosexual male be more likely to be a paedophile than a heterosexual man?//
I'm not sure how often and in which manner I can keep presenting this, but within the grouping of male homosexuals, (which constitute approximately 2% of the population), there are a far higher rate of assaults on boys than the comparison proportionally between heterosexual assaults on girls in the other 98% and by claiming parity you seek exoneration.
Travel through the less salubrious districts of North Africa, Thailand and various other places in the world, and you may see evidence of just how prevalent and predatory this 2% are on poor children.
I think that some of the 'faux outrage' aimed in my direction would be better directed toward those who have damaged, and in some cases, destroyed, the lives of their victims - now grown men, do you actually know any? These cosy liberal views really cost you NOTHING, because I strongly suspect they have never been tested.
You see, those who were victims have very 'strong views' about their past aggressors, why don't you go and call THEM bigots?
I'm not sure how often and in which manner I can keep presenting this, but within the grouping of male homosexuals, (which constitute approximately 2% of the population), there are a far higher rate of assaults on boys than the comparison proportionally between heterosexual assaults on girls in the other 98% and by claiming parity you seek exoneration.
Travel through the less salubrious districts of North Africa, Thailand and various other places in the world, and you may see evidence of just how prevalent and predatory this 2% are on poor children.
I think that some of the 'faux outrage' aimed in my direction would be better directed toward those who have damaged, and in some cases, destroyed, the lives of their victims - now grown men, do you actually know any? These cosy liberal views really cost you NOTHING, because I strongly suspect they have never been tested.
You see, those who were victims have very 'strong views' about their past aggressors, why don't you go and call THEM bigots?
Khandro, I've already shot your entire statistical anlysis already. Go and read about the prosecutor's fallacy, and transposing the conditional, and then, and only then, come back and try to defend your awful and erroneous use of statistics and you'l see that you can't at all. Until then, you can have nothing useful to add to this debate.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Crosswords16 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles38 mins ago
Film, Media & TV50 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.