waltermitty (r) vs. carlhayden(d)

[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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, lets see, alcon

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

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.

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.

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

[Max Power]

GASP!!!

"Wrong Code Entered."

[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!

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, here's another site which YOU will not be able to find:

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=710

I believe there is a passage is book which you may not be familiar with to the effect:

There are none so blind, as those who will not see.

Oh, and btw, the site you couldn't find is from Mother Jones.

[Max Power]

CARL, linking to a group called "Traditional Values Coalition" kind of makes your point void and makes you look like a dumbass.

Especially with this in their site:



AND WITH HEARTSTOPPING ARTICLES LIKE THIS:

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2704

[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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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

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.

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. 

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.

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.

Now, as I earlier noted, due to political pressure, the statistics on child molesting by homosexual males is a subject which is officially taboo.  Anyone official who published uncontroveted data on this would be fired.

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

[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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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

[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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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 spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

All the ancedotal evidence in the world does not support your claim which is that a majority of homosexuals support child molestation. Now if you had a poll or some study showing that to be the case with exact percentages, you'd have a point. You don't.

[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?"

[CARLHAYDEN]

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?

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.

[afleitch]

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?

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.

Sure Carl...sure...

You sure do try very hard to make a guy like me feel like total sh*t don't you?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Afleitch,

You posts are up to your usual level, i.e. devoid of facts of logic, and heavy on ad homiem (abeit primitive) attacks.

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?

[afleitch]

Afleitch,

You posts are up to your usual level, i.e. devoid of facts of logic, and hevy on ad homiem (abeutg primitive) attacks.

You ever actually read any of my posts Carl? You know, in order to think my 'usual' posts have no fact or logic?

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, let me note that your 'reply' was nonresponsive, i.e. nothing was said about the victims of Mr. Gacy or Mr. Williams.

Second, I hade earlier commended you as one of the rare self-described homosexuals who has denounced NAMBA.

Third, I'm still searching for any factual or logical statement in your posts.

[afleitch]

Second, I hade earlier commended you as one of the rare self-described homosexuals who has denounced NAMBA.

Well you seem to think that every gay person has a responsibility to denounce it. You know, they must secretly agree with molesting children if they don't. I'm British- I only heard of NABLA from a South Park episode. I'm sure most people have never heard of it, or if they have, they think its a joke.

You seriously have a chip on your shoulder. Does that mean unless say, Hugh or Pete Bell actually come on here and denounce child molestation and NAMBLA then you think that secretly, they must agree with it? I mean you said how 'commendable' it was for me to say I disagree with it, you know as if I had to say it before you felt secure. Did you have doubts before? Did you think I quite liked child molestation, because I'm gay and didn't feel happy until I came out and said I found it appaling?  Are you sitting waiting for every gay person on the Forum to say I hate NAMBLA too, to make you feel secure Carl?

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, let me again note non-responsive re Gacy and Williams.

Second, let me note that I cited examples of homosexual gatherings where NAMBA is an active participant.

Third, I wonder why NAMBA is NOT excluded from homosexual gatherings nor denounced by more homosexuals as a vile organization?  Perhaps you can explain.

Fourth, I can assure you that nothing you have posted to date has had any impact whatsoever on my feeling "secure," or "happy."  However, I wounder why you seem to be so upset when someone commends you?

Now, perhaps you know Hugh or Pete Bell better than I do, but I have NEVER commented on their sexual predilictions as it is none of my business.  As such, I see no need for them to denounce NAMBA, but it seems to me that as long as NAMBA is permitted to participate in 'Gay Pride" marches, etc., there's something wrong with 'gay activists' (as I believe Alcon labels them). 

[afleitch]

First, let me again note non-responsive re Gacy and Williams.

Because I don't care! I don't know who they are or what they did, but if it was any form of molestation then every sound and civil person would denounce them. Do you think gay people are going to someohow be more permissive of a gay arsonist, crime baron or murderer just because they are gay? Come on! Do you want me to give you a list of straight child molestors and paedophiles and ask you to denounce them?

I don't care about an obscene American group and idiots who support them. But if a group like that was formed in the UK I would make a citizens arrest against them!

And yes I am a gay 'activist.' Every gay person is an 'activist' in the current climate of fear and mistrust, but I don't belong to any group, march wave flags or make a fuss. I sit an engage with people like yourselves who make outrageous and slanderous accusations against an entire group of people. Someone's got to do it and thats why I am involved in politics and it's why I engage with people like yourself even though, quite frankly I'd rather I didn't have to.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, let me again note non-responsive re Gacy and Williams.

Because I don't care! I don't know who they are or what they did, but if it was any form of molestation then every sound and civil person would denounce them. Do you think gay people are going to someohow be more permissive of a gay arsonist, crime baron or murderer just because they are gay? Come on! Do you want me to give you a list of straight child molestors and paedophiles and ask you to denounce them?

I don't care about an obscene American group and idiots who support them. But if a group like that was formed in the UK I would make a citizens arrest against them!

And yes I am a gay 'activist.' Every gay person is an 'activist' in the current climate of fear and mistrust, but I don't belong to any group, march wave flags or make a fuss. I sit an engage with people like yourselves who make outrageous and slanderous accusations against an entire group of people. Someone's got to do it and thats why I am involved in politics and it's why I engage with people like yourself even though, quite frankly I'd rather I didn't have to.

First, if you have followed my posts on this forum, you just might have seen that I denounced the Judge in Vermont who gave a slimebag who molested a little girl a (gentle) slap on the wrist, and similiarly denounced a Judge in Ohio who gave a slimebag who molested boys a slap on the wrist.  Child molesting is child molesting, and should be REALLY punished.  I don't need any prompting to denounce child molesters.

Second, I cited the examples of Gacy and Williams because both were rather infamous, and their cases received more media coverage than is the norm where murders of boys by male adults occurs (I had earlier cited two cases in Boston and Arkansas which received almost NO coverage).  I also cited Gacy and Williams because when I cited the molestation cases of the catholic priests, Alcon alledged that they merely attacked boys rather than girls because of 'availability.'  So, did Gacy and Williams have their access to girls restricted?

Now, I have cited several examples, and provided considerable explanation, have remained civil and refrained from any ad hominem attacks. 

Now, just for your general fund of knowledge, statements which meet the standards of defamation in the United States, which are mechanically reproduced, are classified as 'libel' not 'slander.'  Also, in the United States we established that truth is an absolute defense (re John Peter Zenger).  At the time of Zenger, truth under British law was NOT a defense (has that changed).

Also, if I understand you correctly, you are stating that every homosexual is an 'activist,'  While I find that rather hard to believe, it would cast Alcon's earlier statement that only the homosexual 'activists' condone NAMBA in a new light.

Oh, perhaps Alcon can cite the names of the female victims of Gacy and/or Williams, since you have delclined to list such names.