Lumping homosexuals in with pedophiles is a good way of "othering" gays
Seem to recall the Jews having all sorts of heinous crimes and behaviors ascribed to them over the years, too
You have a firm grasp of leftist talking points. And the quasi-antisemetic smear is a nice touch.
Cool... you have conviction data. Congratulations
First problem: societal view of sexual assault, including that of minors. There IS still a very healthy "blame the victim" and "sweep it under the rug" tendency within our society. Because of that, any data arrived at via conviction data is, at best, suspect.
2) Your data says the majority of offenders are men. Yet the majority of victims are girls (IIRC, the victimization rate for children is 1:3 for girls, 1:5 for boys). By that, heterosexual men are more dangerous to our kids than homosexual
3) Another societal problem (to argue that men are the overwhelming majority offenders): there are still a LOT of people who view an adult woman having relations with an underage male as a lesser offense (if they even consider it an offense) than if you switched the ages
As for the connections between groups like NAMBLA and gay rights activists: the argument could easily be made that pedophile activists see a widening of gay rights as making for a better "playing field" for their own concerns (that's a guess, granted).
You've focused hard on "gay = pedophile". I know a LOT of gay people: I've met exactly 1 that I wouldn't trust a male child in my care with, and that was more because he lacked ANY morals than because of pedophilic tendencies. But I know a LOT of heterosexual men I wouldn't trust anywhere near any of the girls in the family.
Your assertions are a dramatic oversimplification of a VERY complex set of problems
(1) Find a more solid data set. This particular data set has made it through several filters to the point of conviction: either the pedophile plead guilty or his peers determined him guilty. As you wrote in a previous post, your assumption of the lower likelihood of boys reporting abuse argues for the ratio to be even higher.
(2) Dude,
math. Offense rates
given proportion of the population. The calculation includes hetero and homo male proportions of the population.
For instance, "people killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes" was a little over 10,000 for 2010 (as I showed and linked previously
http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html ). Total number of people killed in all crashes for 2010 was almost 33,000 (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year ).
According to your logic, "sober people are more dangerous on the road than drunks" because they kill 2x the number on the road that drunks do.
This does not require any heavy math, just understanding the interplay between offense rates and proportion of the population. Yeah, not so much, given the proportion of drunks tot he total population relative to those driving sober.
You've focused hard on "gay = pedophile".
No, that is the straw man you have erected because of your failure to address the pertinent data and misunderstanding of the math, offense rates, and proportion of the population.
I will grant you victory over an argument I never made. May it bring you joy.
FTR, here is the I posed way back earlier in the thread:
OTOH, addiction and homosexuality both cause damage to the individual and those around them. And gov't regularly imposes drug/alcohol treatment in both criminal cases and in cases where they see the person as a danger to themselves and others (involuntary commitment to a mental health/addiction facility and such).
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html
Quote
Deaths: An estimated 15,529 people with an AIDS diagnosis died in 2010...
http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html
Quote
In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes...
Is it reasonable for gov't to mandate alcohol treatment for alcoholics that hurt others, from a practical/pragmatic perspective? If "YES," are you willing to extend such to other activities with similar or greater externalities?
No one (besides my own self) has yet addressed those two questions in bold font. Bueller?
And as for your objection to my claim of a 9x greater rate of conviction of homosexual pedophiles relative to heterosexual pedophiles, my arguments were such:
The rate of homosexual male sexual abuse of minors is roughly 9X that of heterosexual male sexual abuse of minors, when the proportion of homosexual and heterosexual men is taken into account.
Notice, I have not made the "gay = pedophile" argument.
=======
Thus far, your arguments include much hand-wavium, disqualification, anecdote, and accusations of bad faith. And on the notion that homosexuality is somehow some exalted state of being & behavior above all other modes of human behavior and thus ought not be subject to the the same analysis applied to other human behaviors. Because it is complex. (Somehow more complex than alcoholism, addiction, violent crime, mental illness, and many others it is perfectly legitimate to not only analyze, but make policy based on the analysis.)
Well, I didn't drink that batch of kool-aid. And whether or not we do analyze its effects, that doesn't erase the 15,000 who died from AIDS (most of them homosexual males) who might otherwise have lived. Or the tens of thousands of sexually abused children. Dead folks and savaged kiddos are notoriously poor at PR, though.
I am reminded of a similar argument made by an opponent of teacher evaluation. "This is too complex a problem to be comprehended by quantitative factors such as teacher competency exams, graduation rates, or changes in performance by students on standardized tests." And then, without batting an eye, "Subjective teacher evaluation is fraught with bias." No objective evaluation? No subjective evaluation? The point being,
the apologist wanted no evaluation whatsoever of the problem. They've a got a good thing and just plain don't care who they damage as long as they get theirs.
