Crosswords1 min ago
Social Media Backlash Against Russia
I notice there are a lot of 'boycott the Winter Olympics' and protest posts against the Russian attitude towards the LGBT community; and quite rightly so.
Also we have seen a lot on the TV and in the press covering this topic ahead of the winter Olympics.
I wonder if this will be repeated for the World Cup in Qatar in 4 years time to protest against the Islamic communities attitudes to homosexuality - or maybe even closer to home?
Are people afraid to criticize Islamic attitudes for fear of being branded racist?
Also we have seen a lot on the TV and in the press covering this topic ahead of the winter Olympics.
I wonder if this will be repeated for the World Cup in Qatar in 4 years time to protest against the Islamic communities attitudes to homosexuality - or maybe even closer to home?
Are people afraid to criticize Islamic attitudes for fear of being branded racist?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Snafu03. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Khandro
Just to clarify
You are talking utter balderdash.
Give us some stats.
Please give us some stats.
I will check this thread tomorrow, if you haven't been able to back up the utter nonsense you've been spouting, then I will ignore this thread, because honestly, it's not worth my time.
On a more serious note, I hope your posts don terminate from personal trauma that you may have faced. If it does, then I apologise for being so strident in my condemnation of your point of view.
If however, you are spouting bollocks because you want to put across the point that gay men are more likely to be paedophiles, then fair enough - you're talking bollocks (but you can prove me wrong with stats).
Just to clarify
You are talking utter balderdash.
Give us some stats.
Please give us some stats.
I will check this thread tomorrow, if you haven't been able to back up the utter nonsense you've been spouting, then I will ignore this thread, because honestly, it's not worth my time.
On a more serious note, I hope your posts don terminate from personal trauma that you may have faced. If it does, then I apologise for being so strident in my condemnation of your point of view.
If however, you are spouting bollocks because you want to put across the point that gay men are more likely to be paedophiles, then fair enough - you're talking bollocks (but you can prove me wrong with stats).
Jsut to also clarify, those aren't even Khandro's figures. They're mine -- originating from a separate question about lollipops and left-handedness. As I've made clear earlier, I do not condone the use of those figures at all to support Khandro's argument. For the most simple reason that a toy model about lollipops and handedness is nothing like real life at all. There is a whole host of other factors to consider.
http://
One that didn't get away.
One that didn't get away.
and then again in today's Telegraph;
http://
Shall I go on?
http://
Shall I go on?
@Khandro. What, so you are now trawling papers to find stories about individuals that "prove" your point?
Your statistics were simply wrong and were forcefully and accurately rebutted by several posters here,not least Jim. Your contention - that homosexual adult males are more likely to abuse children than heterosexual adult males - is both unproven and unevidenced; On the contrary, what evidence there is points out clearly that homosexuality is not a precursor to paedophilia or child molestation and that young girls are far more likely to be abused by adult males; and yet despite that you still persist in attempting to prove this notion of yours. That speaks to an unfounded prejudice to me.
So yes, keep going on. Keep trawling the web, picking out individual articles that do nothing to support your contention, keep digging the hole you are in.
Frankly, right now you disgust me.You reduce the very real misery of abused children of both sexes, and adults scarred as a consequence of suffering childhood abuse, to some sort of simplistic numbers game in an pathetic attempt to support your repellant viewpoint.
Your statistics were simply wrong and were forcefully and accurately rebutted by several posters here,not least Jim. Your contention - that homosexual adult males are more likely to abuse children than heterosexual adult males - is both unproven and unevidenced; On the contrary, what evidence there is points out clearly that homosexuality is not a precursor to paedophilia or child molestation and that young girls are far more likely to be abused by adult males; and yet despite that you still persist in attempting to prove this notion of yours. That speaks to an unfounded prejudice to me.
So yes, keep going on. Keep trawling the web, picking out individual articles that do nothing to support your contention, keep digging the hole you are in.
Frankly, right now you disgust me.You reduce the very real misery of abused children of both sexes, and adults scarred as a consequence of suffering childhood abuse, to some sort of simplistic numbers game in an pathetic attempt to support your repellant viewpoint.
^^ Two what?
jomifl; You wanted some "kosher" stats. I spent a couple of minutes on the internet, and then looked at the front page of today's Telegraph and gave you some. Only two, (male homosexual/paedophiles) which between them must count for a very large number of assaults, particularly the first, where we not only need take in to account his own assaults, but he was actually organising TOURS from N.Z. for heaven's sake! (population 4.2 million) - world population reminder; 7 billion.
I'm prepared to talk you through statistics, step by step and anyone is welcome to challenge me along the way.
(1) It seems to be accepted that male homosexuals constitute 2% of the population -- correct?
(2) Most of those are only interested in other adult males -- correct?
(3) Some of them also have proclivities towards young boys (indisputable) but will someone now please make a guess at what % of the 2% that might be, bearing in mind the ease of collecting the above information, which is only two examples, one from NZ and another from England.
jomifl; You wanted some "kosher" stats. I spent a couple of minutes on the internet, and then looked at the front page of today's Telegraph and gave you some. Only two, (male homosexual/paedophiles) which between them must count for a very large number of assaults, particularly the first, where we not only need take in to account his own assaults, but he was actually organising TOURS from N.Z. for heaven's sake! (population 4.2 million) - world population reminder; 7 billion.
I'm prepared to talk you through statistics, step by step and anyone is welcome to challenge me along the way.
(1) It seems to be accepted that male homosexuals constitute 2% of the population -- correct?
(2) Most of those are only interested in other adult males -- correct?
(3) Some of them also have proclivities towards young boys (indisputable) but will someone now please make a guess at what % of the 2% that might be, bearing in mind the ease of collecting the above information, which is only two examples, one from NZ and another from England.
There is no point in establishing any statistical link between gay men and paedophiles unless you simultaneously establish a causal link on top. Thus, even if it were the case that a disproportionate number of gay men were paedophiles, which is still far from established, you must also go on to prove that there is no other, more dominant, factor, contributing to the case.
I find it unbelievable that you cannot understand this. It's a basic statistical rule that you must always bear in mind, that correlation does not imply causation.
I draw to your attention to other features of the cases you keep bringing up: that the cases you cited earlier were Catholic priests, and that one of the two cases you cite above includes a teacher at an all-boys' school. How you continue to overlook and ignore the fact that all these paedophiles were also in contact with a lot of young boys for most of their lives is staggering.
So far in this thread you have demonstrated again and again that you have no understanding at all of how to use or understand statistics, being guilty of a number of basic errors in interpretation, and with a number of other logical fallacies on top of that -- as well as trying to obtain support for your opinions through totally dishonest and unethical means.
While you continue to ignore all these basic holes in your position there is no debate, and I suggest that you stop even trying until you realise that these are major holes, and go back and fix them one by one. You can start with some basic decency, and apologise to me for trying to drag my work into supporting your position. Until you do that you will have lost all legitimacy as a debater in my opinion -- and, I hope, in that of most other people who see what a dirty trick you pulled.
I find it unbelievable that you cannot understand this. It's a basic statistical rule that you must always bear in mind, that correlation does not imply causation.
I draw to your attention to other features of the cases you keep bringing up: that the cases you cited earlier were Catholic priests, and that one of the two cases you cite above includes a teacher at an all-boys' school. How you continue to overlook and ignore the fact that all these paedophiles were also in contact with a lot of young boys for most of their lives is staggering.
So far in this thread you have demonstrated again and again that you have no understanding at all of how to use or understand statistics, being guilty of a number of basic errors in interpretation, and with a number of other logical fallacies on top of that -- as well as trying to obtain support for your opinions through totally dishonest and unethical means.
While you continue to ignore all these basic holes in your position there is no debate, and I suggest that you stop even trying until you realise that these are major holes, and go back and fix them one by one. You can start with some basic decency, and apologise to me for trying to drag my work into supporting your position. Until you do that you will have lost all legitimacy as a debater in my opinion -- and, I hope, in that of most other people who see what a dirty trick you pulled.
Jim, I wouldn't say it was a dirty trick, it was a bit too obvious.
Khandro, I'm not saying you are wrong, just that you have no proof that you are right. If you are going to use stats. to argue your case you need to get them from an unimpeachable source and have them worked out by someone who understands statistics, otherwise you are onto a loser.
Khandro, I'm not saying you are wrong, just that you have no proof that you are right. If you are going to use stats. to argue your case you need to get them from an unimpeachable source and have them worked out by someone who understands statistics, otherwise you are onto a loser.
Had I been aware of this thread and the debate therein, it certainly would have been obvious. But I wasn't.
It's a common tactic in the media, apparently, to extract quotes from scientists/ other assorted experts under the cloak of one question, and use their answer in another different one. This is the same thing, really.
It's a common tactic in the media, apparently, to extract quotes from scientists/ other assorted experts under the cloak of one question, and use their answer in another different one. This is the same thing, really.
jim; I asked you earlier, personally, [which I regret, but you happened to be live on another thread] for an answer to a mathematical question, - which was actually answered fully by someone else before you, (who hasn't complained) You then said how you were offended. Regardless of why, I apologised to you if you felt that way, but you still continue demanding apologies, like some kind of outraged primadonna. It makes no difference at all to the MATHS whether units are pederasts or pickled onions, does it? You carry on to say; even if it were the case that a disproportionate number of gay men [to heterosexual men]* were paedophiles, you must also go on to prove that there is no other, more dominant, factor, contributing to the case.
* my parenthesis. Well yes, I am saying that, and that is why, in relation to the OP, Russian society, and others, along with a large population of the world, while accepting the fact of homosexuality, do not want their children to be given ' sex education' explaining the 'normality' of homosexual acts, nor homosexual 'marriages', and even less their demands for adoption. What 'dominant factors' do you have in mind? and what statistics do you have to prove that I am wrong in this assertion? and will you answer or affirm my above questions?
* my parenthesis. Well yes, I am saying that, and that is why, in relation to the OP, Russian society, and others, along with a large population of the world, while accepting the fact of homosexuality, do not want their children to be given ' sex education' explaining the 'normality' of homosexual acts, nor homosexual 'marriages', and even less their demands for adoption. What 'dominant factors' do you have in mind? and what statistics do you have to prove that I am wrong in this assertion? and will you answer or affirm my above questions?
I've already provided plenty of the answers you seek above. I suggest you look for them.
Once again, it makes a huge deal of difference to the maths because the problem you asked me and the problem you really wanted to ask about are two very different problems. One is a high-school problem in basic probability and as such will have no bearing on the real world; the other is a real world problem. Using a statistic from one to support the other is lazy, poor, wrong, and awful.
And the dominant factors I have in mind are the fact that the men were those who spent a large part of their lives in contact with boys. The onus is on you to explain why this was coincidental, or had no causal bearing on the problem -- and, in the meantime, at least to admit that you have no idea how to use statistics, so it's a bit rich of you to ask me to provide ones contrary to yours (I say yours, but they are, in fact, not yours at all, as demonstrated by the fact that you continue to misinterpret them).
Once again, it makes a huge deal of difference to the maths because the problem you asked me and the problem you really wanted to ask about are two very different problems. One is a high-school problem in basic probability and as such will have no bearing on the real world; the other is a real world problem. Using a statistic from one to support the other is lazy, poor, wrong, and awful.
And the dominant factors I have in mind are the fact that the men were those who spent a large part of their lives in contact with boys. The onus is on you to explain why this was coincidental, or had no causal bearing on the problem -- and, in the meantime, at least to admit that you have no idea how to use statistics, so it's a bit rich of you to ask me to provide ones contrary to yours (I say yours, but they are, in fact, not yours at all, as demonstrated by the fact that you continue to misinterpret them).
jim; // And the dominant factors I have in mind are the fact that the men were those who spent a large part of their lives in contact with boys// This is untrue; In the two (quickly found) cases I gave, the New Zealand boy-sex tour operator didn't, and the fact that the other taught in a boys public school has no bearing on the matter; If proximity was the cause of the assaults, then where are the comparative numbers of attacks by heterosexual male teachers on young girls?
I happen to have as a client, a world- leading statistician, someone who lectures on statistics for the UN around the world to organisations and universities, I shall consult him, and if and when he obliges me, I shall report back, and I will abide by whatever he says.
I happen to have as a client, a world- leading statistician, someone who lectures on statistics for the UN around the world to organisations and universities, I shall consult him, and if and when he obliges me, I shall report back, and I will abide by whatever he says.
@khandro "I happen to have as a client, a world- leading statistician, someone who lectures on statistics for the UN around the world to organisations and universities, I shall consult him, and if and when he obliges me, I shall report back, and I will abide by whatever he says"
Smug,much? A common all garden statistician would do just as well. Name dropping in a thread; how vacuous can you get?
That apart,good. Perhaps he can explain the difference to you between lollipops and sexual orientation. Perhaps he can also explain that, for instance, not all of the paedophile priests ( which, it appears, you assume are frustrated homosexuals seeking a target-rich environment) did not exclusively molest boys, but girls too, and that for a significant proportion of child abusers the target of their predatory instincts was children.
Maybe he will take the trouble to explain why a simple Bayesian analysis is simply inappropriate when arriving at conclusions like this.
Perhaps he can also explain why it is very bad science to start from a conclusion derived from prejudicial thinking ( homosexuality leads to child abuse) and then attempt to find "evidence" to support that claim, because you are only looking for evidence that will support your claim rather than all the evidence out there. This is the rationalisation of a bigot, rather than an open and honest attempt to look at the picture in the round.
Maybe he can help you out when it comes to looking for confounding factors, such as the Priesthood, Celibacy, and religious teachings, or even explain to you some of the basics about the spectrum of human sexual desire and fixation/ regression - although to be fair, you would probably want "a world leading psychiatrist who lectures on behalf of the UN" before you would believe them.
Such an individual could give you some pointers on obsession and homophobia whilst they were at it, too.
Smug,much? A common all garden statistician would do just as well. Name dropping in a thread; how vacuous can you get?
That apart,good. Perhaps he can explain the difference to you between lollipops and sexual orientation. Perhaps he can also explain that, for instance, not all of the paedophile priests ( which, it appears, you assume are frustrated homosexuals seeking a target-rich environment) did not exclusively molest boys, but girls too, and that for a significant proportion of child abusers the target of their predatory instincts was children.
Maybe he will take the trouble to explain why a simple Bayesian analysis is simply inappropriate when arriving at conclusions like this.
Perhaps he can also explain why it is very bad science to start from a conclusion derived from prejudicial thinking ( homosexuality leads to child abuse) and then attempt to find "evidence" to support that claim, because you are only looking for evidence that will support your claim rather than all the evidence out there. This is the rationalisation of a bigot, rather than an open and honest attempt to look at the picture in the round.
Maybe he can help you out when it comes to looking for confounding factors, such as the Priesthood, Celibacy, and religious teachings, or even explain to you some of the basics about the spectrum of human sexual desire and fixation/ regression - although to be fair, you would probably want "a world leading psychiatrist who lectures on behalf of the UN" before you would believe them.
Such an individual could give you some pointers on obsession and homophobia whilst they were at it, too.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.