Ut Oh, Could Nancy Be Facing....

Monte Cargo wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

stop trying to be the voice of reason OB, you have cheese on your head.

Must have been swiss cheese judging from the holes, or limburger cheese, judging from the stench.

Occom Bill is an old time established and well thought of poster here. Who the hell are you?

Your logic is to see one of the world's most powerful women marching three feet away from the poster boy for a child abusers club, then take campaign money from the same organization that defends the child abuser's club, and then conclude that there is no relationship, and to make that conclusion with authority.

Even the five year old could see that is completely moronic.

Dear Bunny,
You know damn straight that posters like MM, Big Bird and I likely like Pelosi just about as much as the sliming twins. That being said; how anyone could miss the logic bus that many times in a row is a mystery... especially since your last barrage of examples of why it's idiotic (it is clear they both must eat greasy, grimy gopher guts, since I've never seen either of them deny it). Since it is clear neither are trying to understand your points (somebody fetch them a 5 year old), and equally clear no reasonable minded person could follow their logic (more accurately; obvious lack thereof), I'm rather amazed to see you continue to feed the trolls, if only to watch the monkey **** (sorry about the probably confusing mixed metaphor, twins :wink:). Funny, how we all like to do that sometimes.

[quote="dlowan]
You are defending LSM's baseless sliming of one she considers to be an opponent.

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?)

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)

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,

... 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.

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.

However, for you to make such an assertion requires you to have evidence, or to withdraw it.

(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?)

Once again, you remain determinedly stuck on your anti Pelosi thing AND on your anti gay stuff.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 your posts here similarly attempts to slime constructed of prejudice, falsities, and chains of faulty logic?

stop trying to be the voice of reason OB, you have cheese on your head.

Deb, you might want to clear up your quote boxes in that second to last post and post it again. That was really tough to read.

(Watch Bill fail to follow his own advice. )

Monte Cargo wrote:

Your logic is to see one of the world's most powerful women marching three feet away from the poster boy for a child abusers club, then take campaign money from the same organization that defends the child abuser's club, and then conclude that there is no relationship, and to make that conclusion with authority.

Even the five year old could see that is completely moronic.

One last try…
Pelosi marched in support for gay rights.
Nambla sicko marched in support for gay rights.
Your conclusion is that this proves Pelosi supports nambla? Obvious Non Sequitur. Watch-->
I haven't, but most certainly would, consider marching for gay rights. I'm neither homosexual nor homophobic.
I haven't, but most certainly would, consider signing a petition to exterminate all confirmed members of nambla.
See the problem?

If Bill Clinton, George Bush and Osama Bin Ladin also marched in that parade, it would be equally fallacious to suggest any or all of them support nambla.

But she never denied it! See Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance)(pun optional) on this page. :wink:
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

"Republican leaders admitted to knowing about Mr. Foley's abhorrent behavior for six months to a year and failed to protect the children in their trust. Republican Leaders must be investigated by the Ethics Committee and immediately questioned under oath."

Hypocrisy is the act of pretending or claiming to have beliefs, feelings, morals or virtues that one does not truly possess or practice. The word derives from the late Latin hypocrisis and Greek ὑπόκρισις hypokrisis both meaning play-acting or pretense. The word is arguably derived from ὑπό hypo- meaning under, + κρίνειν krinein meaning to decide/to dispute [1].

Truly believing in one's right to a behavior whilst denying others the same right does not fit under the definition of hypocrisy, but should rather be termed as holding a double standard, thus leading to the most common misuse of the word. Examples of behavior mistakenly attributed to hypocrisy include issuing or enforcing dictates one does not follow oneself and criticizing others for carrying out some action while carrying out the same action oneself. This erroneous application of the word leads some people to believe that most people, if not all, are hypocrites; they tend to criticize what they perceive to be bad behavior in others, yet will justify it when they are inclined to perform the same action. Rather, this form of behavior is closely related to the fundamental attribution error, a well-studied phenomenon of human psychology: individuals are more likely to explain their own actions by their environment, yet they attribute the actions of others to 'innate characteristics', thus leading towards judging others while justifying ones' own actions.

Hypocrisy is a deliberate pretense used to convey sentiments or ideas that are false (acting as if one likes something or someone or agrees with a belief or political position when in fact they do not).

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Deb, you might want to clear up your quote boxes in that second to last post and post it again. That was really tough to read.

Lol!!!


I tried, but MC had kinda stuffed it up anyway.

Now, of course, I can't edit it because it has been replied to.

My new bumpf is after all his bumpf.

Anyhoo, I shall let the slimers enjoy themselves in peace...it really IS like trying to put lipstick on a pig.

Thanks for the link, Dlowan.

This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information --

dlowan wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Deb, you might want to clear up your quote boxes in that second to last post and post it again. That was really tough to read.

Lol!!!


I tried, but MC had kinda stuffed it up anyway.

Now, of course, I can't edit it because it has been replied to.

My new bumpf is after all his bumpf.

Anyhoo, I shall let the slimers enjoy themselves in peace...it really IS like trying to put lipstick on a pig.

Sorry to see you run off so soon. Another march?

ossobuco wrote:

Thanks for the link, Dlowan.

You might want to also check these links out:
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum ad hominem

Quote:

This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information --

An example would be calling people slimers and making comments about putting lipstick on pigs falls under this fallacy of logic. When all else fails, call names is the credo for this behavior.

Also see argumentum ad numerum (http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum ad numerum) and argument ad populum
(http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum ad populum)

These two logical fallacies would cover a poster trying to make the point that because another poster has been posting here longer and more people agree with him, the opposing point of view is not really valid.

An example would be calling people slimers and making comments about putting lipstick on pigs falls under this fallacy of logic. When all else fails, call names is the credo for this behavior.

There was this movie I saw one time, I may have seen it twice. It starred James Arness and was a sci-fi atomic mutant sorta thing called "The Thing". So maybe it was'nt in a theatre but we didn't have a theatre in Ras Tanura Saudi Arabia, they would just set up a projector (probably 16 mm) on the beach and we would walk down there and lay on blankets wathching the movie but that's not the point here. The point is that once in awhile a local beduin arab would come by our home (our home was a converted army barracks) selling eggs and my mum would always ask "are these fresh eggs?" and the arab would say in his few enguish words "Oh yes very fresh, just ask the son-a-bitch who lives next door I only have fresh eggs" so my mum would pay him 1/4 rial (about 6¢) for 8 eggs. It was hog heaven for us to eat fresh eggs. Oh and yeah booze was illegal in Saudi Arabia so my father created a still with all the copper pipes and all and keep the 5 gallon jugs in my bedroom. My father was very popular with the Brits who lived nearby.