Re: What's in the spelling of a word?
[quote="dlowan]
You are defending LSM's baseless sliming of one she considers to be an opponent.[/QUOTE]
You are definitely LSM's opponent, and in this debate, mine as well. If you deny that, you are living in a dream world.
Quote:My calling you homophobic was an illustration of what you are defending..ie a baseless accusation. However, you DO appear to be so, unless you can give some properly researched evidence re your assertions about increased boundary breaches and increased paedophilia amongst gays. (Your charges of increased promiscuity and buggery I note as simply evidence that you have prejudices....I assume you do not like these things equally in heterosexuals, or do you only cavil at them in gays??? However, whatever your beliefs, how do you equate promiscuity and buggery between consenting adults with child abuse?)
You'll note that I did not say all gays, I said
many and stick to the point that a higher percentage of gays than heteros are likely to be molesters of children.
Quote:1. While many homosexuals do not seek out young sexual partners, evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of homosexual men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners. (Zebulon A. Silverstone & Vernon L. Quinsey, "Sexual Partner Age Preferences of Homosexual and Heterosexual Men and Women," p.73)
2. A study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that homosexual men are attracted to young males. The study compared the sexual age preferences of heterosexual men, heterosexual women, homosexual men, and lesbians. The results showed that in marked contrast to the other three categories, "all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male categories," which included males as young as age 15. (Zebulon A. Silverstone & Vernon L. Quinsey, "Sexual Partner Age Preferences of Homosexual and Heterosexual Men and Women," p.73)
3. A study of 229 convicted child molesters found that "86% of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual." (W.D. Erickson, "Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters," Archives of Sexual Behavior 17 (1998): 83)
4. Homosexual researchers Karla Jay and Allen Young report data that 73% of the homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys 16-19 years of age or younger. (Karla Jay and Allen Young. The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gay Men Speak Out About Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles. (New York: Summit Books, 1979) p. 275)
5. "Individuals from 1% to 3% of the population that are sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children." (Timothy J. Dailey, Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse)
http://www.frc.org/get/is02e3.cfm)
6. A study of 279 homosexual/bisexual men with AIDS and control patients reported: "more than half of both case and control patients reported a sexual act with a male by age 16 years, approximately 20% by age 10 years." (Harry W. Haverkos, "The Initiation of Male Homosexual Behavior," The Journal of the American Medical Association 262 (July 28, 1989): 501)
7.A study of 425 homosexual males, ages 17 to 22, reported that 41.4% reported an occasion of forced sex. Seventy-nine of the boys reported beginning anal sex with men when they were ages 3 to 14. (Lemp, G., Hirozawa., Givertz, D., Nieri, G., Anderson, L., Linegren, M., Janssen, R., Katz, M., (1994) Seroprevelance of HIV and Risk Behaviors Among Young Homosexual and Bisexual Men. Journal of the American Medical Association. 272, 6: 449-454)
8. Noted child sex abuse expert David Finkelhor found that "boys victimized by older men were over four times more likely to be currently engaged in homosexual activity than were non-victims. The finding applied to nearly half the boys who had such an experience...further, the adolescents themselves often linked their homosexuality to their sexual victimization experiences." (Bill Watkins & Arnon Bentovin, "The Sexual Abuse of Male Children and Adolescents: A Review of Current Research, "The Journal of Child Psychiatry 33 (1992); in Bryan Finkelman, Sexual Abuse (New York: Garland Publishing, 1995): p.316)
9. A Child Abuse and Neglect study found that "59% of male child sex offenders had been victims of sexual abuse as a child." (Michle Elliott, "Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: What Offenders Tell Us, "Child Abuse and Neglect 19 (1995): 582)
Quote:It is certainly a common prejudice, and one often used by bigots to shore up their bigotry, and one often repeated by the more bigoted here, though I have never seen a single one of them come up with any evidence,
Okay, so now you've seen a poster come up with some evidence. 
Quote:... and it is not borne out in my experience with paedophiles (which admittedly is anecdotal although reasonably extensive). Eg, the kiddy porn sites feature hapless little girls as much as they do little girls, or so the police whi take them down tell me; As far as we know, many more little girls than little boys are still being sexually abused.
There is absolutely no doubt that there are heterosexual child molesters and no one here disputes that fact. I believe you meant to write "the kiddy porn sites feature hapless little girls as much as they do little
boys".
Quote:Of course, the data re this stuff is, by its very nature, highly suspect, as it relies on discovery, disclosure by kids, and post fact disclosure by adults.
Paedophile rings are hard to break up, especially now that they have become so adept at using the web.....however, again, the ones here which HAVE been seem to feature mass exploitation of girls AND boys.
This passage is where I begin to respect your experience in this field.
Quote:However, for you to make such an assertion requires you to have evidence, or to withdraw it.
I did leave the evidence to support my contention and without disagreeing with your observations about heterosexual perps, I also stated in a previous post that I additionally felt it is every civic-minded servant of child protection to be particuarly aware and protective of high-risk exposures to children.
Quote:(By the way, since you are determined to cast spelling stones, did you catch your spelling error in the very post where you made such a showing of your ignorance of spelling in your attack on mine?)
I'm sure that you are right. I also apologized for attacking you on the basis of my earlier accusation stemming from the manner in which you spelled "pedophile". It's just that there were so many other spelling errors in that same post that I didn't make the Aussie/English connection and think to investigate first. With the deluge of posts that followed my accusation, it felt like you mined your post with errors and the one that I grabbed blew up, so I felt obliged to grumble out loud.
Quote:Once again, you remain determinedly stuck on your anti Pelosi thing AND on your anti gay stuff.
I'm stuck on Pelosi because she happens to be the topic of this thread. If we wish to switch the discussion to needlepoint, that would best be done on a different thread.
I happen to count among my good friends some that are gay, some of the clients I have are gay, and I have been in a position where I place a great deal of trust in some gay people. I am not fearful of offending gay people with my comments here because the truth is the truth. The reason that the Boy Scouts are against allowing gay scout masters is because of the disproportionately higher rate of predatory behavior among gay men.
Having said all that, I am not saying that "all gays" are predatory or that being gay disqualifies someone completely from assignments that involve vulnerable children. I am saying that care needs to be greatly emphasized for the protection of vulnerable children. You or anyone else would just have to be crazy to think it would be safe to leave children with the members of NAMBLA.
I'm not anti-gay but I am anti-NAMBLA. I did say that Pelosi's constituency is predominantly gay, so naturally, she is courting this vote. The debate centers around whether one of this country's leaders should go on the record to denounce a faction of that constituency that is dangerous to children. Yes I know the trial has not ended, but the silence is deafening from Pelosi. One could sensibly infer that by her silence, she condones NAMBLA but is unwilling to take the stand, fearing the angering of this large faction, further meaning that Ms. Pelosi may very well be placing politics ahead of serving the public interest.
Quote:Your argument is that she supports "special" rights for gays. What special rights does she champion? Give me ONE "special" right she champions...one not afforded to hetersosexuals.
What I imagine she supports, unless and until you can give me a "special" right, is normal civil rights such as are extended to heterosexuals.
Gay marriage is the first example that comes to mind. That is a
gay rights issue as opposed to a
civil rights issue. Humoring the notion that Pelosi knew she marched with Harry Hay and supports NAMBLA (I said "humoring the notion") then Pelosi would favor expanding the First Amendment and concept of rights of privacy to 10 year old boys consenting to sex with older males. Admittedly, that's a bit of a stretch but it is not a stretch to presume that Pelosi favors gay rights:
http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=2308
Quote:The same-sex marriage question has posed a vexing political dilemma for Pelosi since mid-February, when Newsom decided to buck state law and allow gays and lesbians to wed. While considered a strong advocate of gay rights, Pelosi in numerous interviews has refused to publicly support same-sex marriage until now.
<<snip>>
Aides said that while Pelosi does support the rights of gay and lesbian couples to marry, they feared her full endorsement of such unions could endanger Democratic Congressional candidates in districts where opposition to same-sex marriage runs high. As House Minority leader, Pelosi campaigns across the country for Democratic candidates and is a highly visible spokeswoman for the party.
Gay rights leaders praised Pelosi's comments, saying they reflected the views of her San Francisco constituents - a majority of whom support same-sex marriage, polls show.
Quote:You then make a very strange leap to some sort of assertion that Pelosi is less likely to protect children based on a series of prejudices you hold. Well, I am sure your beliefs are fixed, but I doubt you will induce anything but amazed amusement from anyone not similarly prejudiced with such an extraordinarily ill founded argument.
Look, San Francisco happens to hold the country's largest gay community. Liberal democrats like Nancy Pelosi are routinely criticized for attacking core family and traditional values, protecting porn with the first amendment (ACLU intervention), and with the NAMBLA case and a poparazzi that is alive and well catching her gay pride festival photo op, Pelosi's about to land in a lot of ****. Believe it. This happens to high profile people.
Quote:Given that the great majority of abused kids I work with have been abused by heterosexual men, I could as well construct the argument that anyone supporting special rights for heterosexuals (which anyone attempting to deny civil rights for gays is in fact doing) is far less likely to protect children, given the heterosexual male's propensity for child abuse. By this equally founded argument, that means YOU, and certainly LSM, are a damn worry should you ever reach positions of influence.
I don't discount or dismiss your experience but I will say that this would tend to be true since homosexuals only account for 7-10% of the population, so if you had one out of ten that were abused by a same sex perp, that actually amounts to a pretty steep indictment. I am not aware of the percentage of gays in Australia.
I'm interested in hearing your response to my question of what rights you believe I am taking away from gays.
Quote:My vitriol indicating something strange? Is this a more subtle attempt to slime someone who disagrees with you with some nameless perversion? Why not come out from the sliming shadows and name it?
All right. My impression was that your zeal for liberal politicians seemed to be blinding for someone involved in the child protection field. I mean, in the absence of all of the information, why would you rush to the defense of someone whose policies might be injurious to little children like the ones you support? I EXPECT that your first concern is what's best for the kids. What if Pelosi quietly lends her support to NAMBLA and gives support to the ACLU's defense of NAMBLA? NAMBLA stands to lose a lot if they lose their civil case. Have you thought this completely through before somewhat blindling throwing your unconditional support to her? I'm asking not as a partisan, but as another human being.
Quote:When a slimer like LSM makes the accusation of someone supporting child abuse it DOES get over my threshold of tolerance, and I respond at her level.
I'm actually more amazed that you were so eager to dismiss all of the accusations.
Quote:Do you have no concern about such baseless accusations? What if we posted such a thing about Bush? Would you have no sense of a concerning cheapening of an already debased discourse? Do you have no care for the seriousness of such charges?
I would, on the evidence, say no, only if it affects your side, as I have seen you contort yourself here to defend the sliming.
Given Pelosi's constituency, her participation in the gay pride parade, her physical proximity to NAMBLA's Harry Hay, her receipt of campaign contributions from the ACLU, her open and newfound support of gay marriage, dlowan, I don't consider these to be baseless, although at this point, you could make the point that these facts are all circumstantial.
I assure you I have seen and experienced seeing extremely baseless attacks on Bush with great regularity. Perhaps that is why I am less sympathetic with you than you might feel I ought to be. It is precisely because, as a conservative, I deal with this all of the time.
Quote:Sigh. I am getting bored with rebutting your very silly "arguments".
I have little knowledge of Pelosi, and neither revere nor condemn her, nor do you have any evidence of my attitude towards her, only of my attitude towards those who slime their opponents with such unfounded libel.
So you admit that you know very little about her, so, as a guardian of children's interests, why do you throw all of your unconditional support to someone you admit you know so little about?
You don't have to answer the question.
Quote:Do you see the extraordinary logical contortions you then make? You have made no case that she supports Nambla, but, taking your totally unfounded belief that she does, plus your similarly unfounded belief that I fanatically support her, you then attempt to slime me with an accusation that I similarly support child abuse.
You are some piece of work.
Are all you rposts here similarly attempts to slime constructed of prejudice, falsities, and chains of faulty logic?
You've made your own serious accusation with that one, dlowan. My questions are by design, to get you to think about your position and nothing more.
Your posts take me back to my younger street-fighting days when the other kids who were too scared to do anything by themselves would suddenly get aggressive, beligerent and sarcastic when a tough guy was around, or when there were like two, three or four to one, much like you are doing on this board, Bear.