more on sandusky

[mtnbkr]

Rooster, I haven't seen any actual data to support your hypothesis.  Just your opinion based on your well known dislike of gays (or "bents" as you like to call them...heh heh, good one rooster).

How about I present some data for you: http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/sites/default/files/31_tab01.pdf
Source: http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/?q=node/322
Note that the data for 1999-2009 indicates an overall decreasing trend for both males and females.

This supports that assertation: http://www.stopitnow.org/csa_fact_prevalence_decline
Even more support for the idea that child sexual abuse is declining: http://www.d2l.org/site/c.4dICIJOkGcISE/b.6250781/k.5D51/Is_Child_Sexual_Abuse_Getting_Worse.htm

This document attempts to explain the decrease: www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/199298.pdf

Unfortunately, it's difficult to find stats specific to boys, but the first PDF I linked to does break it down by sex.  Those numbers correlate to an overall decrease in CSA as put forth in the other links.

The question is why is there a decrease?  As was stated earlier in this thread, it's probably due to the fact that it's harder to hide nowadays.  Decades ago, you could shame a child into silence, call them a liar, or simply move on.  If you were a known child raper in one town, moving a couple hundred miles away could buy you some anonymity.  That isn't so today.  Between the linked data systems, improved communications, and increased awareness, a child rapist isn't as able to disappear.  Who doesn't know about Sandusky now?  It may have taken some time, but his crimes are public knowledge now.  What would have happened 50 years ago?  I'm sure you're probably saying they would have strung him up to the nearest tree, but I suspect not only would that not have happened, but even if the crime were locally known, the news probably wouldn't have traveled far from the region.  News didn't have the reach decades ago it has now. 

I would also put forth that the entire reason for your rant, that increased homosexuality increases boy rape, has made it more likely a child will come forward because there is less stigma of homosexuality.  Even communication between children has increased.  Kids use the Internet to connect and communicate.  They get support from groups and websites.  They learn that there is no shame in being the victim.  More light is shined upon the attacker.  Granted, this is my opinion, but it is no less based on fact than yours. :)

Chris

[Jamie B]

I've been a proponent of live public execution for long time.

Loughner is a good example of those eligible, Nidal Malik Hasan is another. Absolutely no question of guilt.
Roll 'em out on a big flat bed trailer during 1/2 time at the Stuper bowl and swing from the gallows.

It works quite well in Saudi Arabia!

[Jamisjockey]

Rooster, your arguements are long on wind and short on facts.  Where's the beef, man?

[AJ Dual]

Rooster, your arguements are long on wind and short on facts.  Where's the beef, man?

Between the buns?

[TommyGunn]

Between the buns?

  That was BAAAAAD.

[roo_ster]

Funny that you don't address the other side of my post, roo-ster. Any reason why?

Perhaps because you have addressed 0% of my post and my answering 50% of your post was a gimme on my part?

OK, just to demonstrate I will address someone's posts rather than assume ill motives or roll around in non-sequitur land...

I assume you mean this bit:

However, in days past, most victims wouldn't come forward out of fear of being labeled homosexual themselves. So, in fact, the increased tolerance of homosexuality has led to better treatment for the victims and more certain prosecution of the perpetrators...

Sorry, but that bit lies in the realm of unreality.  Most children have not yet gone to college and been indoctrinated into the myth of the sainted homosexual (see "numinous negro" for the model). 

Go to any public school playground and listen a bit.  We have one across the street from us that I walk by on occasion.  They are not Zones of Sensitivity toward homosexuality.  "Fag," "queer," and suchlike are still commonly used.  Walk by a public school playground with a large illegal alien contingent and they are even less worried by PC concerns and use terms like "maricon," "manflor," and others with even greater frequency.  (Also, I hear wide use of spanglish terms derision that are jarring on the ear.)

The point being, most kids still haven't got the pro-homosexualist memo and most victims of pederasts will still fear being labeled.  Also, we have let in a large group of kids who are even less sensitive to the issue and most certainly will label.

So, yeah, nice thought, but I don't buy it.

[roo_ster]

Rooster, your arguements are long on wind and short on facts.  Where's the beef, man?

Address the post and/or logic.  All I have seen from you is the assumption of ill motive. 

After several examples, I begin to suspect you have not the capacity to address it honestly.

If you are scared to address the logic of "In this world, all things come at a cost" in the primary context of this thread, perhaps try to address it in the context of firearms.  Or do you believe that there is no price to be paid or deleterious consequences for actions & beliefs...as long as they are those you hold dear?

At the least, I thought you might ask me the same question I asked you & other participants.

[roo_ster]

Rooster, I haven't seen any actual data to support your hypothesis.  Just your opinion based on your well known dislike of gays (or "bents" as you like to call them...heh heh, good one rooster).

Yeah, I stopped reading after your assumption of ill motive.  It gets tiring.

So, I assume you believe that actions and beliefs can be taken/held with no deleterious consequences?

[mtnbkr]

Yeah, I stopped reading after your assumption of ill motive.  It gets tiring.

Of course you stopped.  I did something you didn't, I presented actual numbers, data.  You've presented nothing but opinion and vitriol.

So, I assume you believe that actions and beliefs can be taken/held with no deleterious consequences?

How about you connect the two with facts, verifiable statistics.  What you "believe" is true isn't and you can't prove it.  You sound like a liberal who "believes" guns cause violence. 

If you are serious about protecting children and not persecuting "bents", then you might be just as concerned about other factors of life that result in child abuse (sexual, physical, and mental).  One thing I picked up in less than an hour's worth or research online was the myriad ways a child can be damaged.  A gay man buggering boys is very low on the list.

Chris

[Strings]

>Sorry, but that bit lies in the realm of unreality.  Most children have not yet gone to college and been indoctrinated into the myth of the sainted homosexual (see "numinous negro" for the model).  <

Wow... didn't realize I was just talking about their peers.

Wasn't that long ago, it was believed that a boy raped by a man would "become gay". Wasn't just other kids that believed that, but a huge portion of society...

Now, I'm not sure what you do that gives you contact with abused kids, so you can form an educated opinion. Me, all I have is anecdotal evidence: the kids I and my brothers and sisters work with. And what I've seen (and heard from some of my brothers of days past) supports my belief that the acceptance of homosexuality by our culture has resulted in more young male victims being willing to come forward now. Your proof of the opposite, if you please?

[roo_ster]

Of course you stopped.  I did something you didn't, I presented actual numbers, data.  You've presented nothing but opinion and vitriol.

Again, assumption of ill motive.  Vitriol?  Might want to look it up.  I can reasonably say that it does not mean, "opinion, idea, or logic contrary to mine."  The only poster I have even been the least bit short with was Jamis, after his assumption of ill motive.

How about you connect the two with facts, verifiable statistics.  What you "believe" is true isn't and you can't prove it.  You sound like a liberal who "believes" guns cause violence. 

"Ideas Have Consequences" is a very conservative thesis.  Matter of fact, somebody wrote a book with that very title, once:

In what has become a classic work, Richard M. Weaver unsparingly diagnoses the ills of our age and offers a realistic remedy. He asserts that the world is intelligible, and that man is free. The catastrophes of our age are the product not of necessity but of unintelligent choice. A cure, he submits, is possible. It lies in the right use of man's reason, in the renewed acceptance of an absolute reality, and in the recognition that ideas—like actions—have consequences.

The idea of "something for nothing" is the liberal idea you are looking for.  And maybe endorse?  Not sure about the latter, since you have never addressed the logic of the thesis.

If you are serious about protecting children and not persecuting "bents", then you might be just as concerned about other factors of life that result in child abuse (sexual, physical, and mental).  One thing I picked up in less than an hour's worth or research online was the myriad ways a child can be damaged.  A gay man buggering boys is very low on the list.

When we have a post about child safety seats I might very well address the trade offs involved with mandating them.  They ain't free, either.  And when there is a post about drunks beating their kids, ditto.  But, this thread/topic has a particular focus which is not the price of tea in China, Senor Non-Sequitur.

[roo_ster]

>Sorry, but that bit lies in the realm of unreality.  Most children have not yet gone to college and been indoctrinated into the myth of the sainted homosexual (see "numinous negro" for the model).  <

Wow... didn't realize I was just talking about their peers.

Wasn't that long ago, it was believed that a boy raped by a man would "become gay". Wasn't just other kids that believed that, but a huge portion of society...

Now, I'm not sure what you do that gives you contact with abused kids, so you can form an educated opinion. Me, all I have is anecdotal evidence: the kids I and my brothers and sisters work with. And what I've seen (and heard from some of my brothers of days past) supports my belief that the acceptance of homosexuality by our culture has resulted in more young male victims being willing to come forward now. Your proof of the opposite, if you please?

Sure.

After you address my thesis (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=32404.msg645204#msg645204) in length, detail, and directness similar to the manner I have addressed your tangential topics.  Or be the first person to answer the question I posed and maybe even toss it back into my face.

[Jamisjockey]

Sure.

After you address my thesis (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=32404.msg645204#msg645204) in length, detail, and directness similar to the manner I have addressed your tangential topics.  Or be the first person to answer the question I posed and maybe even toss it back into my face.

Your thesis is that homosexuality (the act of two consenting adults of the same sex doing things to each other) = more male rape of little boys. 
Most of us are asserting that you're full of crap. 
What need is there to address your long winded tirade in depth?

[Strings]

Ok, I'll bite. Is actually already been done.

A core statement of your thesis: "Increased tolerance for homosexuality will result in more minor male children (AKA, "boys") being raped by homosexual male men."

Which is simply not the case. Period, full stop.

We do have more victims coming forward, but many of them are also coming forward as adults, and referring to assaults that happened when they were children (things such as the Catholic church's issue).

We are more likely to hear about the crime soon enough to actually prosecute today, but it's not happening at an increased rate.

>Even if we believe the absurd notion that male homosexuality and the rape of boys is wholly unrelated, the incidence of boys being raped by practicing homosexual men would likewise be reduced, given that only some small percentage, X, of practicing male homosexuals engage in pederasty.  Are twice as many men, in this more tolerant America, willing to engage in homosexuality than in earlier years?  Make that roughly 2X the number of raped boys.<

Unfortunately for your thesis, it isn't a straight-forward correlation. Things in life rarely are.

What you suggest, that with twice as many men willing to engage in homosexual behavior=twice as many boys being sexually abused doesn't take into account the issue of the person being a pederast. You're too hung up on their sexual orientation.

Such deviants are, generally speaking, VERY willing to take the risk of offending, and have been for years. Simply doubling the number of men willing to act on homosexual urges has no effect on the number of men willing to act on pederast urges, as the two don't correlate.

Or, to put it easier: every "boy lover" pederast is homosexual, but not every homosexual is a pederast...

[roo_ster]

Your thesis is that homosexuality (the act of two consenting adults of the same sex doing things to each other) = more male rape of little boys. 
Most of us are asserting that you're full of crap. 
What need is there to address your long winded tirade in depth?

Sorry, you have mis-stated the thesis (to your advantage). 

I heard it was "Be Kind To Serial Assumers Of Ill Intent Week," so I'll help.

OK, here we go:

The title of the post:
All Things Come at a Cost in This World, No Exceptions

Hey, part of this used italics and even uses the word "thesis" in it:
Boiled down to its essentials, my thesis for the general case is that increased tolerance for homosexuality will result in more minor male children (AKA, "boys") being raped by homosexual male men.  The specific case is that this may have been a factor contributing to the years-long delay exposing Sandusky and, consequently, allowing him to rape more boys.

I then go on to use the analogy of firearms for those unable/unwilling to address the thesis more inline with the OP.  Again, it even had italics:
Increased tolerance(1) for firearms will result in more innocent people being killed by violent criminals with firearms.

[I probably don't have to tell you to ignore most the content & logic between theses, you seem to be doing that just fine already.]

Again, in italics:
In this world, all things come at a cost.

Then, an italics-free question:
To the extent that you are in favor of tolerance toward firearms, how would you finish this sentence:
"I am willing to see some number of innocent people murdered with a firearm for the sake of..."
(I did provide several handy & common answers, so it was more pick-n-pray than fill-in-the-blank.)

Repeat for the more topical question.

[mtnbkr]

Boiled down to its essentials, my thesis for the general case is that increased tolerance for homosexuality will result in more minor male children (AKA, "boys") being raped by homosexual male men.

Which was shot down by the actual data provided in my post showing a decrease in incidence of male child sexual assault specifically and overall child sexual assault generally over the past decade. You can't claim increased tolerance leads to an increase in male child sexual assault when there is a downward trend over a decade.

Where is your data supporting your specific claims?

Chris

[MicroBalrog]

All Things Come at a Cost in This World, No Exceptions

Were this even true, it still does not follow that they come at the specific cost that you, roo_ster, claim they do.

For example, child sexual abuse is on the decline.

[roo_ster]

Ok, I'll bite. Is actually already been done.

A core statement of your thesis: "Increased tolerance for homosexuality will result in more minor male children (AKA, "boys") being raped by homosexual male men."

Which is simply not the case. Period, full stop.

We do have more victims coming forward, but many of them are also coming forward as adults, and referring to assaults that happened when they were children (things such as the Catholic church's issue).

We are more likely to hear about the crime soon enough to actually prosecute today, but it's not happening at an increased rate.

>Even if we believe the absurd notion that male homosexuality and the rape of boys is wholly unrelated, the incidence of boys being raped by practicing homosexual men would likewise be reduced, given that only some small percentage, X, of practicing male homosexuals engage in pederasty.  Are twice as many men, in this more tolerant America, willing to engage in homosexuality than in earlier years?  Make that roughly 2X the number of raped boys.<

Unfortunately for your thesis, it isn't a straight-forward correlation. Things in life rarely are.

What you suggest, that with twice as many men willing to engage in homosexual behavior=twice as many boys being sexually abused doesn't take into account the issue of the person being a pederast. You're too hung up on their sexual orientation.

Such deviants are, generally speaking, VERY willing to take the risk of offending, and have been for years. Simply doubling the number of men willing to act on homosexual urges has no effect on the number of men willing to act on pederast urges, as the two don't correlate.

Or, to put it easier: every "boy lover" pederast is homosexual, but not every homosexual is a pederast...

Wow, someone addressed the topic.  Knock me over with a feather.

Your ultimate point...

Or, to put it easier: every "boy lover" pederast is homosexual, but not every homosexual is a pederast...

...is unassailable.  No argument.

As for the rest, let us first assume that every point made, base stolen, and quantity, uh, quantified is capital-T truth and my thesis invalid.

Given that ^^^, does increased toleration of male homosexuality have no deleterious consequences whatsoever?  Is this particular idea somehow different from almost every other idea in that it is all upside?  If so, how is it different?  If not, what are some of the downside consequences?

For instance:
I love economic liberty.  Economic liberty is great, better than ice cream in my opinion.  I want to increase economic liberty and free us all from the fetters of gov't interference in the economy, right now.  Since I love it and economic liberty makes me feel warm & fuzzy & morally superior, it has no downside, right?

Wrong.  Just one downside of implementing economic liberty right spanking now would be a real decline in material well-being of folks who have become dependent on economically un-free policies (like wealth transfer payments, diversity quotas, etc.) and can not transition in a timely manner.  If I am honest to myself and to others, I ought to own it, "I am willing to see some number of people become materially poorer for the sake of economic liberty."  FTR, I am.

[mtnbkr]

does increased toleration of male homosexuality have no deleterious consequences whatsoever?

If one looks hard enough or lowers the threshold for "deleterious consequences" enough, you could at some point find negatives to fit your thesis.  Does that make increased toleration "bad".  No, it doesn't. 

Frankly, if you replaced "male homosexuality" with "handicapped" or "black" or any descriptor you can think of, you could eventually find a negative consequence of the increased tolerance.  For example, increased tolerance of handicapped people means businesses have to design facilities usable by people with handicaps.  That costs them money, costs which are passed along to the rest of us.  Increased tolerance of black people means we have to tolerate gangsta rap and higher crime in inner city areas.  See?  Cast a wide enough net and you'll find some negative result.

The point is, everything likely has a negative effect on *someone*.  Does that mean it's a net negative?  No. 

And, FTR, I'm not negatively affected by increased tolerance of male homosexuals.  Their existence does not diminish mine.

Chris

[MicroBalrog]

Given that ^^^, does increased toleration of male homosexuality have no deleterious consequences whatsoever?  Is this particular idea somehow different from almost every other idea in that it is all upside?  If so, how is it different?  If not, what are some of the downside consequences?

There's plenty of ideas that have no visible universally agreed-upon downsides.

Take the free speech tradition. Sure it means people like Fred Phelps get to speak out and not be arrested, but that's not so much a downside as a direct point of free speech - I don't want to be a member of a society that arrests people for their religious and political views. To other people that would be a downside  and many people want to carve out an exception for Phelps.

Or the gun rights tradition. As a matter of fact, no, there's no visible proof that more guns = more murder, and the only 'cost'  is that it makes some bedwetters feel oh-so-offended at the knowledge someone has a firearm in the same office/school/campus as them.

[Hawkmoon]

Can we get back to something relevant ... like lynching Sandusky and that other coach from Whatever U?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i'll pull on that rope

[RoadKingLarry]

None of that lynching stuff now. Gotta have a real trial and conviction first THEN we can draw and quarter the offenders and send their various bits to the four corners of the realm, head on a pike and all that.

[Jamie B]

None of that lynching stuff now. Gotta have a real trial and conviction first THEN we can draw and quarter the offenders and send their various bits to the four corners of the realm, head on a pike and all that.

Years ago, I would have suggested putting them in a room with the parents, who would kill them.

Seems in these latest instances that the parents were ignoring the issue, just like everyone else.

[Strings]

That's because nobody wants to be the one who rats out the coach.

Yet another reason to hate professional sports (and collegiate sports ARE professional)