"re: your source The Lantern Project: In 2015 their funding was withdrawn by the NHS and their other 3rd sector backers. After 2015 they no longer offered counselling and now only respond to emails and send out reading material to support those who reach out to them. Funny that."
Yep, how funny they had support withdrawn by the woke NHS, for studies with findings that weren't politically correct (cast homosexuals in an unfavourable light).
"As an expert panel of researchers convened by the National Academy of Sciences noted in a 1993 report: "The distinction between homosexual and heterosexual child molesters relies on the premise that male molesters of male victims are homosexual in orientation. Most molesters of boys do not report sexual interest in adult men, however" (National Research Council, 1993, p. 143,"
Yeah "an expert panel convened", that sounds real scientific.
Once, you decide to sexually assault children of the same gender, you lose your rights to be called a heterosexual, regardless of whatever your adult preferences are. Of course there are male paedophiles, that are solely satisfied by preying on young boys, and don't bother seeking adult relationships, that doesn't mean they aren't gay. lol
Its funny how Tom Cruise, can be called gay on here for far less, but if you sexually penetrate 300 boys as an adult male, you still aren't gay! MC logic for you folks.
reply
share
filmflaneur (1088)
3 months ago
>support withdrawn by the woke NHS,
... and all their other backers. All must be 'woke' I guess, then? The opposite of 'woke' by the way, is asleep.
> studies with findings that weren't politically correct
One notes that you offer none fresh which contradicts them.
> Yeah "an expert panel convened", that sounds real scientific.
Sarcasm is not an argument.
>Once, you decide to sexually assault children of the same gender, you lose your rights to be called a heterosexual, regardless of whatever your adult preferences are. Of course there are male paedophiles, that are solely satisfied by preying on young boys, and don't bother seeking adult relationships, that doesn't mean they aren't gay. [/quote]
None of which contradicts the surveys I quoted.
> Its funny how Tom Cruise, can be called gay on here for far less,
That's homophobic slurs for you.
> but if you sexually penetrate 300 boys as an adult male, you still aren't gay!
This is a strawman.
reply
share
BillySlater (4241)
3 months ago
I thought you could read through the sarcasm. Saying an expert panel convened and gave their opinion on something, isn't scientific at all.
I was merely making an observation about like-minded liberals like yourself, who frequently call out celebrities for being gay and yet say a man who solely targets boys for sexual pleasure isn't homosexual. I said it knowing, your most likely response was that I was straw-manning you, that's fine. The point still stands, someone who gets sexual gratification with someone of the same sex, is homosexual. Age isn't relevant. The definition of a homosexual isn't based on age.
reply
share
filmflaneur (1088)
3 months ago
> I thought you could read through the sarcasm
Actually it was more than I saw through it.
>Saying an expert panel convened and gave their opinion on something, isn't scientific at all.
Saying it, maybe not. But of itself, a report by The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is likely to be so. After all NAS is a scientific society that promotes and recognizes science established by Congress in 1863 to advise the government on science and technology. The NAS is made up of distinguished scientists and engineers who are elected by their peers for their contributions to research. Membership is considered a high honor for scientists. So who do I believe, them or some dubious group which has virtually disappeared or a guy on the internet who thinks they were an authority?
>I was merely making an observation about like-minded liberals like yourself, who frequently call out celebrities for being gay yet say a man who solely targets boys for sexual pleasure isn't homosexual.
Again a strawman, since this I have never done. And what this is to do with slander of 'homosexuals are often paedos' only you can say.
>The point still stands, someone who gets sexual gratification with someone of the same sex, is homosexual. Age isn't relevant. The definition of a homosexual isn't based on age.
Points which hardly needs to be made. And was not your original one. The obvious and logical point which eludes you is that all homosexuals like people of their own sex, but not all young males (in fact only a small majority) are abused by homosexuals (or clerics, come that). See how it works?
Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals?
Objective: To determine if recognizably homosexual adults are frequently accused of the sexual molestation of children. Conclusions: The children [352] studied were unlikely to have been molested by identifiably gay or lesbian people. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8008535/
I can't believe you need to be shown this. The unfortunate suspicion is that you want homosexuals to be paedophiles so as to condemn them without appearing homophobic.
reply
share
BillySlater (4241)
3 months ago
"homosexuals are often paedos". Now you are straw-manning me. I said, homosexuals are disproportionately more likely commit paedophilia than straight men. Based on the study, that is a true statement.
Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals?
Objective: To determine if recognizably homosexual adults are frequently accused of the sexual molestation of children. Conclusions: The children [352] studied were unlikely to have been molested by identifiably gay or lesbian people. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8008535/
I can't believe you need to be shown this. The unfortunate suspicion is that you want homosexuals to be paedophiles so as to condemn them without appearing homophobic.
This is another straw man.
"The unfortunate suspicion is that you want homosexuals to be paedophiles so as to condemn them without appearing homophobic."
This is your own false assumption. I was merely pointing out that, the doco was going out of its way not to offend homosexuals which was blatantly apparent.
reply
share
filmflaneur (1088)
3 months ago
>you are straw-manning me.
Here you offer just semantics. What is the difference between "homosexuals are often paedos". and "homosexuals are disproportionately more likely commit paedophilia than straight men" If homosexuals are not often paedophiles then they cannot commit the crime more than straight men.
> Based on the study, that is a true statement.
Your discredited source has already been dealt with. The empirical research simply does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. Sorry about that.
>...your own false assumption. I was merely pointing out that..
Yeah, right and too blithe. However a mere suspicion is not a 'strawman' since it does not erroneously and firmly assert you have made an argument to attack it.
reply
share
BillySlater (4241)
3 months ago
The NHS cutting their funding, doesn't "discredit" them or invalidate their study. Government funding cuts happen all the time, the organization though still exists.
"Yeah, right. However a mere suspicion is not a strawman."
Right, I never said it was. Was more akin to an ad hominem.
reply
share
filmflaneur (1088)
3 months ago
>The organization still exists.
Without backers, it would seem. Meanwhile one notes you offer no other substantiation.
> I never said it was [a strawman]
"FF: "The unfortunate suspicion is that you want homosexuals to be paedophiles so as to condemn them without appearing homophobic.
BS: This is another straw man."
>more akin to an ad hominem.
Given that you have shown that you do not like homosexuals because they are supposedly disproportionately more likely commit paedophilia, then me expressing a suspicion that you are just selecting a (doubtful) reason to condemn them, is an attack on your preferred arguments more than you - and in any case is still just a suspicion, not an asserted insult. If you think it is, you need to get out more.
reply
share
BillySlater (4241)
3 months ago
"FF: "The unfortunate suspicion is that you want homosexuals to be paedophiles so as to condemn them without appearing homophobic.
BS: This is another straw man."
I was referring to the study you presented as being a strawman response since I never suggested this ----> "To determine if recognizably homosexual adults are frequently accused of the sexual molestation of children."
Knowing that homosexuals disproportionately commit paedophilia has nothing to do with "how often the group as an entity are accused". I haven't even looked at the study but the premise sound incredibly flawed.
"Given that you have shown that you do not like homosexuals because you claim, falsely, that 'they are more likely to be paedos' then me expressing a suspicion that you are just selecting a reason to condemn them, is an attack on your preferred arguments more than you - and is still just a suspicion, not an assertion. If you think it is, you need to get out more."
Agreeing with the BSA that homosexuals should not be scout leaders is not "condemning them".
Its good common sense. Just as I would agree, that young men should not be girl guide leaders or should go out camping with young girls but no one cares about offending heterosexual men because they aren't a politically protected group.
reply
share
filmflaneur (1088)
3 months ago
>I was referring to the study you presented
As the quote shows, no, you just weren't.
> I never suggested this ----> "To determine if recognizably homosexual adults are frequently accused of the sexual molestation of children."
You claimed that homosexuals are disproportionately more likely to commit paedophilia than straight men, a false claim, and close to the same thing since to commit paedophilia is to (amongst other things) to molest children. Once again you are splitting hairs. In any case the conclusion of the link I supplied was entirely pertinent.
>Knowing that homosexuals disproportionately commit paedophilia has nothing to do with "how often the group as an entity are accused".
See above. To (as already said), to 'commit' paedophilia is to commit a crime, and so gays who 'disproportionately' commit this offence will logically be 'disproportionately' accused and feature in crime statistics to this effect. But they are not.
The conclusion however of my link was, if you remember , that "The children [352] studied were unlikely to have been molested by identifiably gay or lesbian people." which is entirely pertinent, given your prejudice.
>I haven't even looked at the study
No surprise.
>Agreeing with the BSA that homosexuals should not be scout leaders is not "condemning them" Its good common sense.
If you say so. But given the research I have shown it is insulting to homosexuals, and indeed homophobic, to suggest that they cannot be trusted among children. Remember that "Most molesters of boys do not report sexual interest in adult men" (National Research Council, 1993)? I do. But perhaps I should argue that it is also just 'common sense' that priests should be kept away from children ?
>no one cares about offending heterosexual men because they aren't a politically protected group.
Which is also nonsense. The world is full of easily offended heterosexual men. Including you, it would seem - which is why you posted here this thread in the first place!
reply
share