waltermitty (r) vs. carlhayden(d)

[Alcon]

CARLHAYDEN's latest rant on "the liberals" seemed a few yards off the pier, so I'll be going with Mitty.

[Alcon]

The thing is, I don't actually know much about CARLHAYDEN's philosophy beyond his belief that gay marriage is entirely intended to ruin civilization and that liberals exist solely to destroy the planet.

I think those speak for themselves, though.

[Alcon]

Carl would win Florida easily.

Carl's hard-line immigration stances wouldn't help him there.

You haven't been to Florida lately. Carl would sweep everything from Lake Okeechobee North.

The SurveyUSA poll of Florida on immigration showed a 57-38 positive split.  Can you cite from where you are getting this information?

[Alcon]

Carl would win Florida easily.

Carl's hard-line immigration stances wouldn't help him there.

You haven't been to Florida lately. Carl would sweep everything from Lake Okeechobee North.

The SurveyUSA poll of Florida on immigration showed a 57-38 positive split.  Can you cite from where you are getting this information?

57-38 split on what question particularly?

Immigrants do jobs that Americans don't versus immigrants take jobs.  Sorry for not being clearer.

[Alcon]

The thing is, I don't actually know much about CARLHAYDEN's philosophy beyond his belief that gay marriage is entirely intended to ruin civilization and that liberals exist solely to destroy the planet.

I think those speak for themselves, though.

Alcon, you are using one of Richard M. Nixon's pet techniques by attributing statements to me which I did not make.

I stated that the motivation of most (not all) liberals who do support 'gay marriage' (believe it or not, all do not) for supporting 'gay marriage' was to show their contempt for real marriage.

Second, I never said anything even remotely the effect that liberals exist "to destroy the plant," merely that their motivations for a number of positions were a little strange.

I was being more than a little hyperbolic, which I apologise for, but nonetheless I find your assertions more than a little paranoid:

1. Liberals intentionally want to damage marriage because they have contempt for it;
2. Liberals support gun control because it allows citizens to protect themselves from a totalitarian liberal regime;
3. And liberals think that the French should dictate foreign policy (if this is what you meant by the pont de neuf - it was unclear whether this was a reference to the courts or the bridge.)

Your presentation of them as accepted facts bothers me.   I especially thought it was amusing that you presented this list and then declared that it clearly indicated that Time is a liberal publication; not only was this a bit of a non-sequitur, but it is basely a logical fallacy.

[Alcon]

CARL,

You said their contempt was - and I quote - "malicious."  Does that not mean "with intent to cause damage"?

I never said you said all liberals think these things.  I just said you said "liberals" do.  This is exactly how you phrased it in your original post.  You didn't say all, and neither did I.

I do not think I am being hostle; I apologised for pigeonholing your positions.  How am I communicating hostility?  I will do my best to stop doing whatever it is, but I do need to know.

You are, however, unjustly using strawmen.  You say that "most sellf-described liberals want to disarm the American people."  I agree with you on gun control 110 percent.  However, it frustrates me when liberals say "most self-described conservatives want to promote the use of dangerous guns."  I have no reason to believe their intent is to disarm people to install a totalitarian regime.  I do think it is inappropriate and would disarm the American people, but that is my opinion, which should not be confused with their motivation.

[Alcon]

First, lets first start with definitions:

Malicious - given to, marked by or arising from malice

Malice - desire to cause pain, injury or distress to another

Now, I don't believe most liberals who support 'gay marriage' actually want dammage, but I do think that most liberals who support 'gay marriage' because they recognize that it will distress conservatives.

Then why did you say, I quote, "liberals generally favor 'gay marriage' because it is a deliberate, intentional and malicious assault on the traditional family"?  That does not mean that they want it to distress conservatives; it means exactly what it says, and what you said does directly state that they want to cause damage.

Second, I suggest you reread my original posts. Obviously, since I clearly limited my observation as to the rationale for those liberals who do support
'gay marriage' (as opposed to those liberals who do NOT support ''gay marriage), my statement did not on its face apply to all liberals.  I appologize that this was not made clearer.

Again, I never said that you were applying it to all liberals.  I am glad you are making that clear, though.

Third, I repeat it is important to understand the motivation of those proposed a particular matter of public policy.   Sometimes it is merely the case of people not being adequately informed concerning a subject.  So, if the alledged rationale for supporting 'gay marriage' would be to obtain certain tax and other tangible benefits for homosexuals, if those benefits could be obtained by civil unions, would that be acceptable?  If the answer is in the affirmative, then the person was being honest in their rationale, and an accomodation can be reached.  However, if the answer is "no," then it is clear that the originally proffered explanation was bogus.

Many believe that, no matter what practical reasons are involved, the emotional implications of being married as opposed to being in a civil union are significant; this is the same reason many people oppose gay marriage, and the same reason many support it.

In the context of those who wish to disarm the American people, I trust you will concur that the overwhelming majority of conservatives (and yes, moderates) are opposed to such a proposition whereas a majority of self-identified liberals do support such a proposal.  Why?  Recently in my state the legislature voted (19-10 in the State Senate) to probibit the Governor from seizing privately owned firearms (as occured in Louisiana last year).  The conservatives and moderates of both parties voted for the proposal, the liberals voted against it.  Hmm.

Yes, I think that pretty much everyone knows that liberals generally support gun control, but I'm not sure what your point is there in response to what I said.

[Alcon]

No, I don't believe most liberals want to "damage" the traditional family (most liberals are too shallow to think that far) but that most of those liberals who do support gay marriage do so to indicate their contempt for real marriage.  The same people would support 'marriage' between a man and a sheep, a woman and a dog, etc. simply because it will outrage the majority of human beings.  Doubtless they will protest about the right of interspecies 'marriage' and how unfair and heartless people are to oppose such 'marriage,'  Such protests would be simple lies.

You may say that now, but that's different from what you said before.

You are arguing slippery slope fallacy.  Besides, animals cannot agree to be married.  Do you really believe that there is support for that?

As to the "emotional" argument, you either do NOT understand what was posted or are deliberately misreprenting again.  Let me be specific that some are desperate for official sanction that their actions are the same as the actions of others.  I repeat, the purpose of civil marriage is to protect the children of such a union, and hence marriage is an institution  soley for a man and a woman.

How does marriage protect children?

Finally, I am perplexed why liberals have such an attachment to homosexuality.  Why must homosexuality be sanctioned, not merely tolerated?

Why must heterosexuality be sanctioned, not merely tolerated, by the government?  Is the government instituting marriage as a breeding program?  Why not the same recognition for homosexuals?
 

Oh, and if you gave it some though, I think you would recognize that:

Dude, what is it?  You think that anyone who disagrees with you has never thought?  I have heard your arguments dozens of times before, as I'm sure you have heard mine.

(a) liberals favor big brother government,

So do today's so-called "conservatives."

(b) the majority of the population does not favor big brother government,

This may be true, but then again, if you've ever seen polling on abortions, you know in what regard I hold the majority opinion in this country.

(c) liberals believe in forcing others to do what liberals want them to do, and

And "conservatives" believe in forcing others to not do what they don't want them to do.

(d) where people are armed, they can and have sucessfully resisted imposition of the kind or regime that liberals would foist on the.

Where is the indication of the impending liberal regime change?

[Alcon]

Alcon,

1.) Marriage is designed to protect the rights of children.

2.) Those rights are listed in your state's statutes.

Looking at my state statue now, I can see only a few differentiations: civil unions do not allow immigration, and no tax benefits,  but nothing to protect the children.  You are obviously more familiar with the Arizona statue; please name these benefits to children.

3.) Homosexuals cannot (without outside asistance) create children.

Plenty of people get married but do not have children and have no intent to at the time.  Why are you not working to get that banned?

4.) Calling a homosexual relationship "marriage" is merely intended to denigrate real marriage.

I do not think that is true.  Some people disagree that marriage should be for children-raising again, and instead believe it should be used to celebrate the love and devotion of two people.  You may disagree with that perception, but that certainly makes it not just intended to denegrate real marriage.

5.) Apparently you do not comprehend that granting homosexuals the 'right' to 'marry' is an attempt to provide official sanction for such a relationship.

Personally, I think the churches should be allowed to decide what they consider marriage, and the government should get the hell out of the practise, so the point is moot to me.

[Alcon]

With respect to the rights of children in marriage, let me start out with inheritance laws.  In the event that a will or other instrument is unavailable, the natural (and adopted) children of a couple inherit upon the death of both parents as established by law.

And why can this not be extended to adoption, and thus homosexual couples?

Next you assert that 'some people believe' (which may be true), but will you acknowledge that some liberals real rationale for support for 'gay marriage' is simply to show their contempt for the institution of marriage?

I'm sure it is, but there are plenty of similarly nefarious views on the Republican side of things.  That does not make the overall argument null and void.

Finally, given the interest in protecting the rights of children, and recognizing that some people are NOT religious, I believe that civil marriage should continue to be available for persons capable of bearing children.

I myself am not religious.  Of course, I meant ordaining official.  If the government removes the political shackles surrounding marriage, it effectively removes the need for any of these petty issues.  Leave it up to individual churches and individual ordained officials to decide whom they will and will not marry.  As it is, marriage seems effectively the government's way of designated who is and is not trying to produce children.  Of course, you don't have to give birth to a child to have children whom you love, so this is basely useless.  It just reeks of more big government.

[Alcon]

I'm sorry, but you 'reply' to my first point makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever. You had previously asked for an example of rights provided for children under marriage. I gave you a basic one which exists in every state.  As to homosexuals "adopting" children, such practices may be approved of by NAMBA and such, but ARE despicable, and should NOT be allowed.

What does NAMBLA have to do with this?  Pedophilia and homosexuality are entirely different things.  I will also point out that there are plenty of people in heterosexual relationships who are pedophiles.

With respect to your second point, finally we are getting somewhere.  It seems that you have admitted that some liberals DO support 'gay marriage' as a means by which to demostrate their contempt for real marriage.   So our difference here is with respect to how widespread this position is among liberals.

I suppose so.

With respect to civil marriage, I would note that the family is THE foundation of civilized society, and a government which is interested in the welfare of its populace will promote that institution, not denigrate it by diseignating other relationships with the same title.

I agree that the nuclear family is extremely important.  However, I disagree with the connection between pedophilia and homosexuality and would appreciate it if you would link to a single reputable study which makes the connection in any significant way.

[Alcon]

Well, lets start with the point on the nature of the importance of the family. Its nice to see you concede that the family is extremely important, but, I would argue that one of the great declines in the United States over the past couple of generations is the EXTENDED family (grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.) which filled a vital role in society.

OK.

Next, lets lets look a pedophilia.  While the data is largely hidden about this despicable crime. let me ask you if adult males who sexually molest minor boys are heterosexual or homosexual.  If you can answer this question honestly, then we can proceed.

Uh, most adult males who molest young boys would be homosexual.  They are molesting boys.  Let me ask you this: are most adult males who sexually molest minor girls heterosexual or homosexual?

Oh, and BTW, its a rate heterosexual who will NOT denounce child molesters, but, its a rare homosexual who WILL denounce childr molesters.

What in the hell?  I bet I can collect every gay person on the Atlas Forum and each and one of them will strongly, strongly denounce child molestation.  In fact, the only person who won't is a heterosexual.  What has led to you believing this?

[Alcon]

Well, one and a half out of three, an improvement.

You need to stop saying things like this.  It is rude and constitutes behaviour often consider trollish.

Now, when occasions occur in which an adult has sexually molested a minor female, I have been rather vocal in denouncing the slimebag, and criticized lenient sentences for such trash (I still think the judges in Vermont and Ohio who barely slapped the monsters on the wrist should be removed from office and disbarred).

Good for you.  Now prove the statement that most homosexuals do not denounce NAMBLA.

Next, the truth of the matter is that whether it is NAMBA or other child molesting homosexuals, homosexuals generally will NOT criticize such slime.

As to statistics on homosexual moletation of minor boys, the data is deliberatedly not collected.

Most government agencies are terrified of being attacked by homosexuals.

Then how do you know this?

However, to give you one class of homsexual child molesters, I cite the rather substantial number of catholic priests over the past few years.

Could that be because they are closer to boys than girls with a great frequency and most pedophiles in general tend to be homosexuals, not the other way around?

Oh, and BTW, I cited a group with supports homosexual child molestation (NAMBA), can you cite a heterosexual group which supports child molestatio9n?

No, but that does not mean that it does not happen, certainly.

USA Today did an article on this about ten years ago.  There was a survey at the Denver Children's Hospital.  The statistics were resoundingly clear:

80% of girls were molested by a man who was or had been in a heterosexual relationship with the child's mother or another relative; 75% of boys were abused by males in heterosexual relationships with female relatives.  Only 1 of 219 girls was molested by a lesbian; 1 out of 50 boys by a gay male.

No offense, but I'll take scientific evidence over your wild conjectures.

[Alcon]

Lets start at the begining.

First, what is being "trollish."  When I note that you are haltinglylyg conceding some points, or when others engage in ad hominen attacks?  I note that I have yet to see an example of where YOU have critiqued anyone who has launched ad hominem attacks on me, or other conservatives?Hmm.

I don't approve of ad hominem attacks and actually talked privately with the originator of one against you.  I've asked you to point out how I am being condescending, and you haven't done so.  I'd be happy to change accordingly, but I can't unless you tell me where I am bothering you.

Second, I stand by my statement that most homosexuals do NOT denounce NAMBA.  I suggest you open your eyes and look around.

Please give me instances where leading gay rights activists have been presented with such an opportunity and have not denounced NAMBLA.  I doubt there are many.

Third, I note that you indrectly acknowledge the accounts of catholic priests sexually molesting boys, but try to discount such occurances with the allegation that they merely molest the most covenient targets.

I do discount such occurrences as proof that homosexuals are inherently much more likely to sexually molest boys than those in heterosexual relationships.  I do not discount them as heinous, loathesome acts.

Fourth, I cited a homosexual group which endoreses sexual child molesting.  I challenged you to cite a heterosexual group which advocates sexeual child molesting.  You condeded that you could not name such a group/organization.

Yes, but that does not prove anything other than there is no such group.

Finally, as I earlier noted , accurate statistics are NOT kept of homosexual child molesting because of understandable fear of attacks by homosexuals.  Now you can cite statistics from pro-homosexual groups/organizations which will proport to 'prove' that ther is little/no child molesting done by homosexuals.  If you stop and examine these studies, and their alledged "proof," you will see they are phonyh.

The Denver Hospital is pro-homosexual?  Source?

The problem is that while I at least attempt to offer proof, you don't offer any.  Why should I believe your argument?

Now, once again I think you are operating under several misperceptions and false assumptionsl/.

First, I do NOT suggest that most homosexuals are child molesters.

I never said you are.

Second, I DO suggest that child molesting is (as a percentage of population) more prevelant among homosexuals than heterosecuals.

I am aware.

Third, I DO state clearly that most homosexuals are reluctant to denounce NAMBA.

Again, I am aware, and awaiting proof.

You have already thoroughly informed us of your disbelief in statistics showing contrary.  Just because you can claim invalidity for these statistics does not make the opposite of the statistics true.  If you have a theory that contradicts common scientific results, the burden rests upon you to create proof.  Then again, I doubt you are much of a man of science.

[Alcon]

Well, lets start with the status of NAMBA in the homosexual community.Take a look a 'gay pride' marches and you will usually see an openly identified (signs) NAMBA contingent.  Check it out for yourself.

Some gay rights activists have had uncomfortable ties to NAMBLA in the past, but the group has been ostracised since the 80s and 90s.  Most NAMBLA participations these days are in public parades where, unfortunately, they have a right to be.  Harry Hay was primarily involved in this, and if you could point me to a mainstream gay organisation that modernly supports NAMBLA's right to march, then I will concede that.

However, gay activists still do not equate to gay people.

Now the repression of 'politically incorrect' statistics in not limited to homosexual sexual molestations of children.  Twenty five years ago a category in the FBI Uniform Crime Reports was for 'ethnicity,' and (unfortunately) the only ethnicity used was 'hispanic.'  Inasmuch as the crime rates in the 'hispanic' group were consistently far above the national norm, the FBI was told to stop publishing that data.

That's unfortunate, but you seem to be ignoring what I'm saying.  You can discredit the opposing information all you want, but you still are not even bothering to attempt to meet burden of proof for your argument.

Now to give you some concrete examples.  A few years ago a small boy (Jeffrey Curley) was sexually molested and murdered in Boston.  You probably never heard of it because the media (with few exceptions) refused to publish the story.  The same thing happened in Arkansas (Jesse Dirkhising) a few years ago (again little reporting) despite the horrendous way the child was murdered.

I don't argue that it isn't terrible, but the news will only go so far with shock reports.  You rarely hear details about brutal murders related to children, especially when rape is involved, because people would not watch the news if this information was carried.  I think it is inexcusable, but it is a side effect of how news is done.

And still does not show proof to the contrary that shows any significant predelection on the part of homosexuals toward being molesters.

So far, your argument is, at best, that what you say could be true; you have not even mentioned why you believe it to be so.

[Alcon]

Well, lets see, alcon

I provided evidence that NAMBA participates in organized homosexual activities and is NOT ostracized, but theis means nothings to you.

Actually, you didn't provide any evidence beyond saying "it is not ostracised."  I had to look it up, and found that NAMBLA is currently ostracised and has been since the 80s and 90s.  And that still has nothing to do with homosexuals overall, just certain gay activists.  This strikes me as the same arguments used against blacks (higher crime rates, leadership is incompetent, etc.) to me.

I have provided a tangible example of how criminal statistics which don't 'fit' the politically correct mode, but this too means nothing to you.

That just potentially invalides the statistics, not proving the opposite.

I have provided examples of boys raped and brutally murdered by homosexuals who never received even a fraction of the coverage of Matt Sheppard, but that too means nothing to you, but to try to explain it away.

Which is unfortunate, but certainly not limited to gay issues.  If it meant nothing to me, I'd say it meant nothing to me; do not tell me what I think.

Oh, and let me give you an example of how many of the offenses are covered up:

https://www.kable.com/pub/mrjs/subAllCusT01.asp?/af=SEVX

"Wrong Code Entered" error.  Shocking!

[Alcon]

I see on that site:

1. A bunch of mentions of specific incidents which, while tragic, are not indicative of a larger trend.

2. A few conclusions from studies, I'll get to those later.

3. Books being sold.

There are two major errors in these conclusions:

1. They assume that all males who molest boys are homosexuals. This is not true; they are generally pedophiles with no sexual attraction to other adults. And many, if not most, are sexually attracted to both boys and girls.

2. They assume that all homosexuals are males. They find something negative that they feel they can say about male homosexuals and extend it to all homosexuals; lesbians included. It is also seen very commonly in discussions of AIDS. Such groups will typically condemn gays for levels of HIV infections which are higher than among heterosexuals; they ignore the fact that HIV infections among lesbians are lower than among heterosexuals.

(Full disclosure: I did not write these responses, but they are more articulate versions of what mine would have been.)

I do not know what you are talking about when you say "sites that I will be able to find."  You were the one who gave a broken URL, and I don't know what about Mother Jones you are referring to.

[Alcon]

Well, glad to see that you do admit that there are a few incidents reported at one of the sites I cited.

OK...

Next, you really need to twist definitions around, and ignore facts that adult males who sexually molest boys are homosexuals.  Will you bother to admit that some of the instances of boys being sexually molested were committed by homosexuals.

Why do you keep asking me to admit to things that are materially irrelevant to the point I am arguing against?  Yes, I will admit that.  But it does not prove that the point you are making is true.

So, by this definition, you consider someone with no sexual attractions to adults to be homosexual if they have sexual attraction to children of the same gender?

Further, I know of no one who suggests that homosexuality is limited to males, but, the incident of forciable rape of minor children is far more prevelant by homosexual males than the forciable rape of girls by adult females.

As is forcible rape by heterosexual men than my heterosexual females; this is indisputable.

Finally, I am not suprised that you did not write the responses, although it is good of you to admit it, as you seem to be afraid to buck the prevaling political correctness in this area.

Then why did you not respond to them?

Let me suggest another brief quotation from the book I earlier alluded to:

and the truth will make you free

Ask yourself 'why' isn't the data available?
 
Heck, you can go to the UCR and get the number of persons of 'asian' racial group arrested for gambling, but, data on child molesting is unavailable as to the predator type.

That's unfortunate, but I do not know how many times I need to say this; I should not have to repeat it, because you are obviously not reading my posts.  You have made your case, over and over again (again, despite the fact that I have accepted your argument there with no indication that I do not understand it) that the information would be hidden if it was to exist.  Now, demonstrate that it does exist.

From now on, I won't even bother responding to these comments, because I have already accepted that premise.

Oh, and btw, Mother Jones is a left-wing publication, named after a left wing American agitator of nearly a centry ago.

I know, but I don't understand why you are referring to it.

[Alcon]

I know that you don't understand.  However, the hyperlink that you could not get to work was to an article in the magazine, Mother Jones.

Oh, and here's another report on the Mother Jones article you were not interested in finding:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/localarticles/0402bennett02.html

Why do you think I am not interested in reading it?

That link does not work either.  But if it's a link to just another incident, then don't bother, because that's no more indicative of a significant trend than abortion clinic bombers are of the pro-life movement.

By the way, here's a technology tip.  Copy the URL into your web browser's address bar and press enter.  If it doesn't work for you, it won't work for me.

[Alcon]

Well, Alcon, you seem to have been fixed in your opinions, and ignored the examples I have provided.

Now, I don't have official statistics to to support the points I have made because the people who are most familiar with the facts are aware that if they were to report them, they would become unemployed.

I would suggest that if you had an open mind, you talk with police detectives assigned to investigate child molestation cases, but they are pretty smart people and would not talk to you because they would sense that you would be likely to turn them in to their politico bosses, who would have them fired.

Now, let me cite one more source for though.  An Elizabethan author had a delightful line:

     methinks thou protests amuch

I am sure that said Elizabethan author would have probably preferred you not bastardised his works of literature "amuch."

I actually have an acquaintance - a former Seattle cop - who I mentioned this to.  I won't repeat what he said about what you're saying, but it contained the term "full of."  Not that it matters; it's still all anecdotal, and no honest scientist would accept that as fact.  While I may be fixed in my opinions, I actually responded to what you said.

You just repeated the same mantra while ignoring the questions I was actually asking.  One wonders why someone as open-minded as you seemed to entirely avoided my questions, instead choosing to repeat the same point communicated before.  Why, that seems rather closed-minded.

Methinks thou make monsters of shadows; then again, I suppose that's all you can do when you have little more than anecdotal evidence and vague references to statistics which don't stand up to even basic logical standards.

"Chopp'd logic? What is this?"

[Alcon]

Yes Alcon, I realize that in your world theories trump facts.

Facts are only anecodatal, but theories need no evidence.

Yes, and as to you "retied cop" friend, is he/she/it the easter bunny too?

I could probably find police officers that say there is no correlation; you could probably find some that say there are.  Are they both correct?  No.  How is your anecdotal evidence any more or less valid than mine?

I do not understand how you can claim that I am making up knowing a retired Seattle police officer when you make vague references to being "in the know" constantly.  Is it that unlikely that I know a retired Seattle police officer?  Hell, I know two (although one I would not be comfortable talking to about this sort of thing, certainly).

No  number of facts will change your mind as you are inflexibly adhering to politcial correctness.

Go ahead and believe in political correctness (or just continue to spout it), but some day you may wake up to the real world.

Just because my position is "politically correct" does not make it wrong.  There are plenty of positions which I support that are not "politically correct."

And so far, you have presented anectodal evidence (without, by the way, reference of any sort), not facts.  Facts are backed up by evidence, not hearsay.

You still, I will note, have not replied to my decimation of your "study."

Oh, and btw, would either you or Alcon be so good as to tell me how many of the victims of John Wayne Gacy or Wayne Williams were female minors, as opposed to male minors?

Relevance?

[Alcon]

Well, I guess you are unable to cite any names of the victims of Mr. Gacy or Mr. Williams who are not young males.

Now, when I cited the example of catholic priests moleting only boys you alledged that it was because of their limited access.

Are you saying that Mr. Gacy and Mr. Williams had access only to young boys?

If you concede that had access to boys and girls alike, why did they only kill young boys?

Access seems not to explain things.

Again, I cite specific examples to refute general allegations.

Seems relevant to me.

And would it be relevant if I cited cases of heterosexual minor rape?  I could very well take the case of John Wayne Gacy, Jr., and hypthosise that men who dress up in clown suits are more likely to sexually molest boys.  Besides, again, specific examples do not necessarily indicate an overall trend in such a large sample body.  Will you admit this?

Now, I will give you a hint as to why I am able to gain access to information on criminal data.

Many years ago while working on my thesis I came across a correlation which had a major impact on explaining major variations in the violent crime rate among black Americans.

If you look at the rate of Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter by Jurisdiction, you will see there is a major variation in that rate among blacks.  Try taking the average and projecting it on say the District of Columbia (one example) and Mississippi (another example) and you will find a major discrepency which my factoring largely explained (and no, its not simply the size of community).

Tell me when you find the correlation factor.

Hint.  Its related to a factor long used by judges in determining bail.

That's hardly the Google search I want to be doing in the classroom I'm in right now (), but I am certainly interested in hearing what correlation there is.  I do not see exactly why this is relevant, but I'm always interested in learning that sort of thing.

[Alcon]

Alcon, either you did not understand the original point (although I think I tried very carefully to explain it), or you are deliberately misrepresenting what I said one again.

I concede that there are heterosexual males who have molester minor girls, and if you look back on this thread you will note that I have specifically condemned a judge in Vermont for giving a very light sentence to a man who abused a little girl.

My point about Mr. Gacy and Mr. Williams was that your earlier contention that the reason boys only were molested by catholic priests was because of availability.

As the cases of Gacy and Williams clearly show, availablity is NOT the sole consideration.

I never said that; I said that this might contribute to the reason why we never hear of priests molesting girls.  I think it is you who is having difficulties with reading comprehension.

As to the correlation, the factor I provided to law enforcement was subsequently incorporated into their computations for allocation of resources (it was but one of many factors used).  Given the insight provided for by the factor, they have seen me as a friend, and occasionally given me information (on the qt) which will not impact on a specific prosecution.

You do not believe that I know a Seattle police officer, yet you expect me to believe this?  I do, of course, because I do not see why you would lie.  Perhaps this anectodal evidence is true; perhaps it is not.  There is no way to tell without me having numbers to back it up, which is exactly why I do not take the opinion of the police officer I know at face value either.  Experiences vary.

Note that before the information hit the press, I predicted the Duke case would fall apart.

Good for you?

[Alcon]

Well, lets see-

I stated:

However, to give you one class of homosexual child abusers, I cite the rather substantial number of catholic priests over the past few years.

You replied (in part):

Could it be because they are closer to boys than girls with a greater frequency.

Now, I concluded that you we alleging that with access to boys being greater for them than access to girls, that it was simply a matter of access.

So, I cited two rather well known cases where the access issue was not so clear cut, but the results were (all victims were boys).  Ergo, something just might be going on other than access.

Then I would have said that, as opposed to what I did say, which was that it was part of it.

So now you are saying that for catholic priests access is a factor, but not for others?

Of course, it is a factor in all cases, because most pedophiles are indiscriminate in regards to sexual orientation.

By the way, you earlier said "pedophile" and "minor."  This is incorrect; those attracted to underage girls are not necessarily pedophiles.  Pedophilia, as a term, should be limited to prepubertal children; most pedophiles (following the actual definition) are attracted to either gender.  When bodies change enough for the difference to be notable, this situation may change, but please clarify which one you are discussing.

If access were not a factor, can you please explain to me why all of the victims of Gacy and Williams were young males?

Or, perhaps, you could answer the question I asked first - why are Gacy and Williams specifically relevant to this discussion any more than, say, Mary Kay Letourneau?

[Alcon]

I used ProQuest to find this information, and I can't access that from here, but I can get the citation for you tomorrow (assuming you have access to ProQuest or something similar).  Otherwise, you may have to do some digging

It is true that sexual predators tend to seek out a certain victim type, of course.  To many, because the bodies have not developed, "prepubescent" is sufficient, as there is not much differentiation between the body at this point.

At the moment, the most I can find is web sites that refer to this (I can't find any that claims most pedophiles are attracted to one gender or the other, but plenty say most are attracted to both), but obviously that is good enough.

I don't mean to be overly aggressive, but if I cite this, will you just claim that it is inaccurate because information is being hidden to appease the homosexual agenda?