Friday, April 26, 2013

What are the Boy Scouts for? Anthony Esolen on what a boy is

It is a commentary on the intellectual condition of our modern culture that the smarter you purport to be, the less you are able to tell the difference between boys and girls.

The Boy Scouts recent announcement that they are abandoning their policy against admitting open homosexuals as Scouts. Fortunately, most local Scout leaders understand what they are for, but their leaders, like those in many other cultural conservative institutions, are largely worthless when it comes to standing up for anything. Apparently Boy Scout leaders mistook the admonition "Quit yourselves like men" for "Quit like men." Now that they've taken a giant leap toward becoming (as Anthony Esolen remarks) the "Unisex Scouts," it is becoming very much less clear exactly what their justification is.

Here's Esolen, pointing out obvious things that pretty much everyone knows to be true, but which we all now have to pretend are not true because the gods of Tolerance and Diversity must be propitiated with cant and justified with sophistry:
I see a boy: ... vir futurus, a going-to-be man. Meaning: He will join other men, brothers fighting to attain or defend the common good. Greater meaning: He is made for a self-giving that is categorically impossible among his male friends. He is made for a woman. It is the orientation of his body, in its sexual form. It is the orientation of his masculine being, developing in a natural and healthy way. 
None of this should be controversial, no more than claiming that the noonday sky is blue. Should someone protest, “It isn’t so! I saw it green once, when a tornado was coming,” we’d look askance, and wonder whether he had lost the capacity for normal communication. A boy is not a girl. A boy grows up to be a man. A man marries a woman, for love and for a family: That goal is stamped upon his body. Even savages without a doctorate in philosophy can figure it out.
Read the rest here.

54 comments:

KyCobb said...

The black and white world of the religious conservative. Everyone must be hammered into square holes defined by you, even if they are circular pegs.

Martin Cothran said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

If I were defending your position, I think an argument about fitting things into the wrong holes would be about the last thing I would want to use.

Anonymous said...

Ky, the world of the social liberal: taking definitions that have long been understood as universally true and redefining them so that there no such things as holes or pegs.

Old Rebel said...

Martin Cothran,

Your response to KyCobb is pure gold. I'm still laughing.

Martin Cothran said...

Well, I wasn't being completely flippant.

There are physical characteristics of things that indicate their orientation toward something else.

The irony that stares everyone in the face about this issue is that we're supposed to accept that gays have a sexual "orientation" toward others of the same sex--an orientation we are supposed to believe is somehow essential to them.

But if you talk about an orientation in nature of a male toward a female and you point to very clear biological evidence that shows that this part in one fits this other part in the other perfectly and the work together for the very survival of the race (the kind of physical evidence that is completely lacking--in fact, completely conflicting in the case of homosexuality), you are some kind of cultural reprobate.

And the thing about it is that this was the stuff all of us learned in biology class in high school. This was what we were told by science.

So now the very people who are always lecturing me on how evil I am because I don't respect science enough are telling me to ignore what I was taught in my biology class.

Of course, the reason for this is that politics trumps science--even among those who spend so much time championing science. But they're too busy criticizing Republicans for politicizing science to notice that they're doing the same thing.

Old Rebel said...

Martin Cothran,

Yes, I know you weren't being flippant - your rejoinder was both on-target and hilarious. That's what gives it that gem-like quality.

When you say "politics trumps science," you're pretty much summarizing leftist ideology. Leftists have always been at war with human nature because it fails to conform to their exalted ideals. So they MUST use brute force to impose their Procrustean ideology - that's why communism has such a bloody record.

Singring said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Singring said...

'But if you talk about an orientation in nature of a male toward a female and you point to very clear biological evidence that shows that this part in one fits this other part in the other perfectly and the work together for the very survival of the race (the kind of physical evidence that is completely lacking--in fact, completely conflicting in the case of homosexuality), you are some kind of cultural reprobate.'

Martin Cothran, the champion of science-based morality!

Tell us, Martin - why should we care whatsoever about what the boys who join the boyscouts do with their sex organs?

What is your logic here?

Singring said...

'Ky, the world of the social liberal: taking definitions that have long been understood as universally true and redefining them so that there no such things as holes or pegs. '

Anonymous: the world of the social conservative: thinking that a man is defined by what he does with his genitals.

Esolen, Martin and their ilk luckily are a dying breed. It really shouldn't surprise anyone - it doesn't take too long to realize that no matter how many times someone repeats that a man is a man only if he behaves according to their dignified opinion of what makes a man - that just doesn't make a rational argument.

Slowly, but surely, the days where men can tell other men (or women) what to do purely by virtue of their definition of words and what they think is the purpose of things are coming to an end.

Martin Cothran said...

Esolen, Martin and their ilk luckily a dying breed.

Lol. Singring hasn't apparently noticed that white secular society is contracepting itself into oblivion and that it's the far more socially conservative developing world (and religiously conservative immigrant populations) that is having all the babies.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

Slowly, but surely, the days were men can tell other men (or women) what to do purely by virtue of their definition of words and what they think is the purpose of things are coming to an end.

When I was growing up and wanted to know whether the puppies our collie gave birth to were boys or girls, my mother told me to look between their legs. It was a very simple procedure taught to me by someone with a 10th graded education.

Do they not teach that to biologists these days?

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

Tell us, Martin - why should we care whatsoever about what the boys who join the boyscouts do with their sex organs?

What is your logic here?


Um, let's see. Maybe you missed the stories about molestation by scout masters, stories that were decried by liberals in every corner of the known universe--the same liberals who are not calling for the admission of gay scoutmasters.

What is your logic here?

Singring said...

'Um, let's see. Maybe you missed the stories about molestation by scout masters, stories that were decried by liberals in every corner of the known universe--the same liberals who are not calling for the admission of gay scoutmasters.'

What on earth does that have to do with allowing gays into the boy scouts? Please state explicitly what you are alleging here, Martin - preferably with some scientific data to support those claims (seeing as you're being all 'scientistic' today).

'When I was growing up and wanted to know whether the puppies our collie gave birth to were boys or girls, my mother told me to look between their legs. It was a very simple procedure taught to me by someone with a 10th graded education.'

Watch out everybody - the logic teacher is at it again, telling us that we can tell the 'purpose' of things by looking at them!

But of course, only when HE looks at them are the conclusions valid.

So when Martin looks at things and derives morals from them, they are universally applicable and true - but any scientist who even dares whisper that science might so much as inform morality is a scientistic ignoramus.

This is intellectual consistency par excellence!

'...it's the far more socially conservative developing world (and religiously conservative immigrant populations) that is having all the babies.'

So were we a century ago - all it takes is time.

Ema Nymton said...

.


"a boy: ... vir futurus, a going-to-be man. Meaning: He will join other men, brothers fighting to attain or defend the common good. Greater meaning: He is made for a self-giving that is categorically impossible among his male friends. He is made for a woman. It is the orientation of his body, in its sexual form. It is the orientation of his masculine being, developing in a natural and healthy way."

" Maybe you missed the stories about molestation by scout masters, stories that were decried by liberals in every corner of the known universe--the same liberals who are not calling for the admission of gay scoutmasters.

What is your logic here?"

See if I can follow Martin Cothran logic. Currently scout masters are not allowed to be homosexual so scout masters are straight. Currently straight scout masters are molesting boy/girl scouts. Because current straight scout masters are child-molesters, Martin Cothran does not want homosexual scout masters ...?

Do I have this right?

__________~


"The irony that stares everyone in the face about this issue is that we're supposed to accept that gays have a sexual "orientation" toward others of the same sex--an orientation we are supposed to believe is somehow essential to them."

Perhaps Martin Cothran cares to explain why he cannot accept that all people have a sexual "orientation" and it is essential to them?

Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

First, black-and-white thinking is not scientific. Scientists, know, especially in the complex world of biology, that the world is fuzzy and there is no black-and-white. Second, its despicable to equate homosexuality with pedophilia. And I always like to add, you've already lost this war; most Americans already accept civil rights for LGBT people, and they aren't going back into the closet.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

Second, its despicable to equate homosexuality with pedophilia.

Where did I say that? I said the admission of people with a homosexual inclination (one who sexually desires other males rather than females) would increase the incidence of pedophilia.

That is no different from saying that replacing female Girl Scout masters with male Girl Scout masters would increase the incidence of pedophilia in those cases.

If I said the latter, would I equating heterosexuality with pedophilia?

KyCobb said...

Martin,

"If I said the latter, would I equating heterosexuality with pedophilia?"

You seem to be. It seems to me that having people who are open about their sexuality reduces the risk of sexual predation. I would think a hidden female pedophile as a scoutmaster would be more likely to molest girl scouts than an openly heterosexual male or an openly lesbian female.

Martin Cothran said...

Ema,

Because current straight scout masters are child-molesters, Martin Cothran does not want homosexual scout masters.

Who says they are straight? I didn't.

The whole point was that people who said they were straight but weren't. So now we are going to increase the percentage of people who are not straight (whether they say they are straight or not) and we somehow think we are not going to make the problem worse.

Do I have this right?

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

It seems to me that having people who are open about their sexuality reduces the risk of sexual predation.

So I would be better off leaving my children with someone who openly says he's a sexual predator than someone who says he's not a sexual predator?

This is a strange world you live in.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

Please state explicitly what you are alleging here, Martin - preferably with some scientific data to support those claims (seeing as you're being all 'scientistic' today).

Since you seem not to be able to figure out the obvious assumption I am making, let me state it plainly: If you put males who are sexually attracted to males with other males, then you will likely to see more sexual activity between them than if you put males who are not sexually attracted to other males with these same males.

No scientific evidence needed--unless you are questioning whether there is any relationship between sexual attraction and sexual activity.

Not that I would surprised if you questioned another self-evident truth.

Art said...

Where can Luke’s father turn? To the only institution left standing that affirms the goodness of human nature, both masculine and feminine.

LOL. The "institution" has for centuries enabled, coddled, sheltered, and otherwise abetted the visitation of all manner of cruelty and abuse upon countless Lukes (and their sisters).

There's a take-home message here. But it isn't the one Martin wishes to convey.

Singring said...

'No scientific evidence needed'

So here we have the social conservative in a nutshell: evidence is discarded, all you need is your 'intuition'.

From a teacher of logic, no less.

I don't think this warrants any further discussion.

KyCobb said...

Nice strawman, Martin. I'm saying the boys would be safer with an openly homosexual scoutmaster than with a pedophile posing as straight. Banning open homosexuals from the priesthood certainly hasn't seemed to provide much protection to Catholic boys.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

So you are questioning whether there is any relationship between sexual attraction and sexual activity?

And from a scientist no less.

Singring said...

'So you are questioning whether there is any relationship between sexual attraction and sexual activity?'

I am questioning your allegation that gay male scout leaders are more likely to molest children than straight male scout leaders.

I know that you think your 'intuition' already provides you with a pat answer - no evidence needed.

Unfortunately for you and luckily for society, actual scientists know that the worst thing you could possibly do is just trust your intuition, because usually it is wrong.

History is rife with instances where experimental evidence overturned intuition.

The reason you don't want to even debate the evidence and dodge the issue is that you know perfectly well that the science indicates no link between homosexuality and child molestation.

Here is an excellent discussion of this (from an accredited university website, written by a professor of psychology at UC Davis:

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

I quote:

'In recent years, antigay activists have routinely asserted that gay people are child molesters. This argument was often made in debates about the Boy Scouts of America's policy to exclude gay scouts and scoutmasters.'

Further:

'In a more recent literature review, Dr. Nathaniel McConaghy (1998) similarly cautioned against confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. He noted, "The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women" (p. 259).'

Finally:

'The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.'

The article also gives detailed responses to the studies the Family Research Council likes to claim indicate gay men are more likely to abuse children.

Engage with the evidence, Martin.

Otherwise, your 'intuitions' are just as reliable as those of Joe Sixpack on the corner - which is to say not very.

Lee said...

> If I were defending your position, I think an argument about fitting things into the wrong holes would be about the last thing I would want to use.

Ouch.

Lee said...

> There are physical characteristics of things that indicate their orientation toward something else.

Liberals are always at war with the status quo. Nature is just so unfair.

Lee said...

> Second, its despicable to equate homosexuality with pedophilia.

KyCobb's philosophy with regard to right and wrong has been discussed over and over again on this board. Based on his opinions about morality being relative, I hereby submit 'despicable' means he doesn't like it.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

You keep changing the ground of argument to the question of whether homosexual men are or are not more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexual men.

I said precisely nothing about that. You can go on and discuss that to your heart's content, but it has nothing to do with what I said.

I realize that it can be difficult for someone with a very narrow scientific education and too little philosophical training to make basic distinctions, but let me state the issue again:

Are men more likely to be sexually attracted to a young person of the sex to which he is generally attracted? In other words, are heterosexual men more likely to be sexually attracted to young girls than young boys and are homosexual men more likely to be attracted to young boys than young girls?

The answer to this says nothing about whether homosexual men are more inclined to pedophilia than heterosexual men and the studies you quote say nothing about this issue because it's a different issue than the one you and KyCobb keep bringing up.

And I don't need a study to have a rational basis for believing that there is an affirmative answer to this question. I have my whole life experience seeing and hearing about this kind of thing happening.

I believe it for the same reason I believe that males and females have different personality characteristics: because I've seen it over and over and over again over the course of 54 years of life.

I don't need a scientific study for this or for the fact that when spring comes the grass will green up in my backyard or for the fact that the chicks I am now raising will lay eggs when the get older or for the fact that the sun will come up tomorrow morning or for the fact that people who worship science tend to think that we need scientific studies for everything we believe.

So if you want to address this point, then address it. But asserting that I need a scientific study for everything I say and shifting the ground of argument doesn't do your case any good.

Now if you have a scientific study that purports to falsify my common sense belief, then say what it is. But it's got to actually address my point, not some other point you want to talk about.

Singring said...

This is priceless.

It was you who brought up the specter of child molestation in this context - and now you are pretending I am 'shifting the ground'?

What on earth does it matter who gay or straight men are attracted to - according to you, your concern is that there is a greater danger of child molestation with gay scout masters. Even if gay men were 100 % attracted to little boys (cleary, they are not as the quotes above illustrate exactly - they are no more so attracted than straight men) this does not necessarily mean that they would be more likely to abuse little boys. Do I really need to be explaining this to a logic teacher?

'I realize that it can be difficult for someone with a very narrow scientific education and too little philosophical training to make basic distinctions, but let me state the issue again:'

LOL.

Maybe the next time a psychology conference rolls into Kentucky you can give a presentation on your vast and intimate life experience of who gay men are attracted to...based on 'seeing and hearing' about 'this kind of thing' happening.

This is exactly the kind of sound methodology good science is built on.

By the way - even the John Jay study of the child abuse scandal in the Church - commissioned by the Church - found no evidence of a link between homosexuality and child abuse. The number one determining factor was opportunity.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"KyCobb's philosophy with regard to right and wrong has been discussed over and over again on this board. Based on his opinions about morality being relative, I hereby submit 'despicable' means he doesn't like it."

I don't like people implying that homosexual men are likely pedophiles preying on boys because its false and a tactic designed to stir unwarranted fear and hatred of homosexuals. From your point of view, God doesn't approve of bearing false witness either.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

don't like people implying that homosexual men are likely pedophiles preying on boys because its false and a tactic designed to stir unwarranted fear and hatred of homosexuals.

Then you should stop mischaracterizing other people's remarks as saying this. That way you won't upset yourself.

Singring said...

'Then you should stop mischaracterizing other people's remarks as saying this. '

Martin, you expressly made the point that the issue of allowing gays into the scouts was to do with the molestation of children. Right here:

'Maybe you missed the stories about molestation by scout masters, stories that were decried by liberals in every corner of the known universe--the same liberals who are not calling for the admission of gay scoutmasters.'

In what universe is that statement - in the context of this debate - not meant to imply that gays are morelikely to abuse children?

You even doubled-down on this statement later when you said:

'Are men more likely to be sexually attracted to a young person of the sex to which he is generally attracted? In other words, are heterosexual men more likely to be sexually attracted to young girls than young boys and are homosexual men more likely to be attracted to young boys than young girls?

(...) I don't need a study to have a rational basis for believing that there is an affirmative answer to this question. I have my whole life experience seeing and hearing about this kind of thing happening.'

So you are clearly saying here that you believe gay men are more likely to be pedophiles - for which there is no scientific evidence whatsoever!

And then you pretend as if you had never made these outrageous comments.

This from the guy who spends half his posts lambasting spineless conservatives for 'abandoning their posts'.

Apparently your idea of making a resolute, clear argument is to be so obscure and malleable in what you say that it's like nailing jello to a wall.

But let's get to the bottom line here - you said:

'Are men more likely to be sexually attracted to a young person of the sex to which he is generally attracted? In other words, are heterosexual men more likely to be sexually attracted to young girls than young boys and are homosexual men more likely to be attracted to young boys than young girls?

The answer to this says nothing about whether homosexual men are more inclined to pedophilia than heterosexual men...'


So apprently you agree that homosexuals are no more likely to molest childrean than heterosexuals are. Great!

So then...what is your rationale for barring gay men from the boyscouts?

Lee said...

> From your point of view, God doesn't approve of bearing false witness either.

If you are indeed mischaracterizing what Martin said, isn't that bearing false witness too?

Ema Nymton said...

.

"So now we are going to increase the percentage of people who are not straight (whether they say they are straight or not) and we somehow think we are not going to make the problem worse.

Do I have this right?"

Even to a casual observer it is obvious. Both Esolen, and Martin Cothran imply that homosexual women/men are likely pedophiles preying on boys. Both are saying the Scouts are wrong for allowing homosexual men/women to be scout masters.

Esolen, and Martin Cothran are wrong in their basic assumption that homosexual women/men are likely pedophiles preying on boys. Homosexual men/women have not caused the problems of pedophiles preying on children; homosexual men/women are being blamed.

Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.

Martin Cothran said...

This is priceless. I have said in no uncertain terms that my argument has nothing to do with whether gays are more or less likely to be pedophiles.

It has only to do with whether putting adults (whether they are heterosexual or homosexual) who are attracted to people of a certain sex in close proximity to other people of that sex. What applies to homosexuals and boys applies equally to, say, mature men and young girls.

We are talking about a basic aspect of human nature that applies equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals.

So what do Ema and Singring and KyCobb do? They go on completely ignoring this.

What we have here is people who are either intellectually incapable of making basic distinction or who are intellectually dishonest.

Now let's run a little logical test here. Below is my argument--in the form of a dilemma. Refute it and you win a free copy of my Traditional Logic book.

Here goes:

If Ema and Singring and KyCobb are ignoring my point willfully (and just trying to score debating points), then they are being intellectually dishonest. If they are ignoring it unwillfully (and are really intellectually incapable over understanding the distinction), then then their intelligence is in question.

They are either ignoring it willfully or unwillfully.

Therefore, they are either intellectually dishonest or intellectually challenged.

Okay, ... Go!

KyCobb said...

Lee,

If I was mischaracterizing Martin, yes. But I'm not. He said, "I said the admission of people with a homosexual inclination (one who sexually desires other males rather than females) would increase the incidence of pedophilia."

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

And so you're just going to ignore the fact that I said the same is the case with heterosexuals?

Singring said...

'It has only to do with whether putting adults (whether they are heterosexual or homosexual) who are attracted to people of a certain sex in close proximity to other people of that sex. What applies to homosexuals and boys applies equally to, say, mature men and young girls.

We are talking about a basic aspect of human nature that applies equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals.'

I explicitly quoted a passage from the scientific literature which completely contradicts this:

'In a more recent literature review, Dr. Nathaniel McConaghy (1998) similarly cautioned against confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. He noted, "The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women" (p. 259).'

Does this register at all, Martin? Are you capable of reading?

Men who molest children are typically not sexually interested in men or women.

That's why they're called pedophiles - get it?

'So what do Ema and Singring and KyCobb do? They go on completely ignoring this.'

Projection is one of my favorite conservative traits.

But I asked you specifically in my previous post - if you agree that gays are no more likely to molest children than heterosexuals, why care whether gays join the boyscouts?

Alas, Martin's extreme allergy to responding to direct questions seems to be flaring up again, so I better not press him too hard.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

So your saying this study proves that homosexual males are no more likely than heterosexual males to molest children?

Singring said...

'So your saying this study proves that homosexual males are no more likely than heterosexual males to molest children?'

Oh goodness me - back to square one.

Science can't prove anything, Martin. How many times do we have to go over this.

The quote I gave is not from a study, it is from a review of the literature, which means it discusses the overall consensus of the literature.

That consensus is that there is no evidence that homosexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to abuse little boys.

The John Jay report, funded by the Catholic Church, states exactly the same thing explicitly. I quote:

I quote from page 64:

'The data do not
support a finding that homosexual identity and/or preordination
same-sex sexual behavior are significant risk
factors for the sexual abuse of minors.'


Now, instead of trying to play your old game of flipping things around and dodging questions like a skipping record, would you finally dignify my question with an answer:

If you agree with the conclusion that homosexual men are no more likely to abuse children than heterosexual men (which your earlier posts, vague and non-committal as they may be, seem to indicate) then what is your argument for keeping them out of the boy scouts?

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

Very good! I'm proud of you. Now next question:

My assertion does not rely on whether homosexual men are more likely than heterosexual men to be pedophiles. It only depends on them being just as likely as heterosexual men to be pedophiles. So in order to contradict my point you would have to show that homosexual men are less likely than heterosexual men do be pedophiles.

Does this study you quote, even though it doesn't prove the conclusion, bear on this question?

If not, then why did you quote it?

Singring said...

'Very good! I'm proud of you. Now next question:'

Conservative 101:

Be patronizing and completely ignore the other parties question - all at the same time!

I have no interest at all in playing your goalpost-limbo if you don't even have the courage or intellectual integrity to answer
a question I asked you directly - more than once.

Watch out Republican cohorts in the back - Martin Cothran coming through at breakneck speed running from the front lines...better not get trampled!

'My assertion does not rely on whether homosexual men are more likely than heterosexual men to be pedophiles.

It only depends on them being just as likely as heterosexual men to be pedophiles.'

Oh boy - Martin, you do realize that pedophiles don't fit into the 'homosexual/heterosexual' categories, right?

I guess I'll have to quote the science again because you didn't get it the first time:

He noted, "The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women" (p. 259).

So a pedophile is attracted to children, not women (heterosexual) or men (homosexual).

'The data do not
support a finding that homosexual identity and/or preordination
same-sex sexual behavior are significant risk
factors for the sexual abuse of minors.'


Pedophiles are attracted to children - they are a completely different category to homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Lee said...

> Pedophiles are attracted to children - they are a completely different category to homosexuals and heterosexuals.

So a "typical" (if that is the right word) pedophile is as likely to molest a boy as a girl?

Is that what your data shows?

Martin Cothran said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Martin Cothran said...

Conservative 101:

Be patronizing and completely ignore the other parties question - all at the same time!


So liberals (including yourself) are never patronizing?

Martin Cothran said...

Martin, you do realize that pedophiles don't fit into the 'homosexual/heterosexual' categories, right?

So are pedophiles just another sexual orientation? Do they have rights too?

Martin Cothran said...

I guess I'll have to quote the science again because you didn't get it the first time: He noted, "The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women" (p. 259).

Are you intentionally ignoring what I said or do you really not understand the difference between an absolute and relative claim?

Please explain to me how this quote bears at all on the relation of between the likelihood of homosexual pedophilia and heterosexual pedophilia, which is what my claim is about.

In fact, it doesn't address the relation at all because it says nothing about heterosexuals at all.

If say X is just as likely to commit Z and Y, and you offer evidence, it can't be evidence only about X. It has to also bear on Y. But your evidence has nothing to do with Y, only X.

So, one last time, address my point, otherwise I'm writing you off as simply being intellectually dishonest.

Martin Cothran said...

I have no interest at all in playing your goalpost-limbo

Interesting comment from someone how takes a proud part in gender goalpost limbo.

Singring said...

'If say X is just as likely to commit Z and Y, and you offer evidence, it can't be evidence only about X. It has to also bear on Y. But your evidence has nothing to do with Y, only X.'

Ever heard of binary data? Two mutually exclusive categories? And why do you completely ignore the other quote from the John Jay study which drives to this point?

Talk about intellectual dishonesty!

If I say:

'The data do not
support a finding that being male is a significant risk
factor for getting athlete's foot.'

...then the logical consequence of that is that women and men are equally likely to get athlete's foot, because they are two mutually exclusive categories in a binary distribution - only two possible categories!

Or do you want to invent a new sex now? Gender-bending, much?

So if being a homosexual does not create a predisposition to abusing children, then being heterosexual can't either, because that's the nature of statistical analysis - if you say 'A is not different from B', then it follows that B is not different from A.'

Am I seriously having this conversation with a teacher of logic?

Martin Cothran said...

Oh c'mon. You are basically saying that my assertion "Homosexual men are no less likely than heterosexual men to be attracted to the younger members of the gender they are attracted to" is somehow logically inconsistent with the statement "Pedophiles are not typically attracted to older men or women."

You get one last chance to show how they are logically contradictory.

Marie said...

I have a great idea...homosexuals can have an organization for their own children. Why are they so concerned about ours anyway?

James Franklin said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.