A Fulda drugstore is not allowed to sell condoms - Germany
The building belongs to the Catholic Church
Kindly post a link to the above article BTC , your record of "summarising" articles is poor at best.
Thanks BTC, this article (which, btw can be found quite easily using Google) affirms every thing I've been saying. I like this part...
Anyway, have fun children, I've got oil to change.
QUOTE
Conclusions. The children in the group studied were unlikely to have been molested by identifiably gay or lesbian people.
Anyway, have fun children, I've got oil to change.
that's right thefirelane, it is a widely cited study. The abstract can be viewed on Pubmed:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8008535...Pubmed_RVDocSum
you can probably read the original at the LMU or TU if interested parnell. You can also purchase a pdf of the article from the american academy of pediatrics from here:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/...ourcetype=HWCIT
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8008535...Pubmed_RVDocSum
you can probably read the original at the LMU or TU if interested parnell. You can also purchase a pdf of the article from the american academy of pediatrics from here:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/...ourcetype=HWCIT
@thefirelane
You've said quite a lot , about extradition from the vatican ,morals , spelling etc etc... none of which mentioned in the article
Also your quote is misleading... from the sentence directly before:
Recognizably homosexual? You mean "self-declared" ? So a bunch of child abusers dont call themselves gay - whoop dee doo.
AH... I see BTC has just joined in... so you are now retracting the bit about marriage I take it since there is no mention of that in the aritcle?
You've said quite a lot , about extradition from the vatican ,morals , spelling etc etc... none of which mentioned in the article
Also your quote is misleading... from the sentence directly before:
QUOTE
Results. Abuse was ruled out in 35 cases. Seventy-four children were allegedly abused by other children and teenagers less than 18 years old. In 9 cases, an offender could not be identified. In the remaining 269 cases, two offenders were identified as being gay or lesbian. In 82% of cases (222/269), the alleged offender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of the child. Using the data from our study, the 95% confidence limits, of the risk children would identify recognizably homosexual adults as the potential abuser, are from 0% to 3.1%. These limits are within current estimates of the prevalence of homosexuality in the general community.
Recognizably homosexual? You mean "self-declared" ? So a bunch of child abusers dont call themselves gay - whoop dee doo.
AH... I see BTC has just joined in... so you are now retracting the bit about marriage I take it since there is no mention of that in the aritcle?
o. dear. god
even when proved wrong and presented with respected scienific data parnell still doesn't seem o get it . . . .
As ER said before its like fighting a one legged man in a kicking contest
even when proved wrong and presented with respected scienific data parnell still doesn't seem o get it . . . .
As ER said before its like fighting a one legged man in a kicking contest
QUOTE(parnell @ Mar 29 2008, 1:11 pm) 
AH... I see BTC has just joined in... so you are now retracting the bit about marriage I take it since there is no mention of that in the aritcle ?
no, I see no need to retract that. When Jenny carried out her study back in the early 90s I would guess the majority of the abusing fathers were indeed married. The same study repeated today might indeed reflect the catestrophic collapse of marriage in recent years but I don't know of recent studies personally as I stopped teaching this subject in the mid-90s.
That study is not worth the paper is written on.
Mixes apples and oranges.
ie: Patients. Patients were 352 children (276 girls and 76 boys)
Even the objective and the conclusions do not fit:
Objective. To determine if recognizably homosexual adults are frequently accused of the sexual molestation of children.
Conclusions. The children in the group studied were unlikely to have been molested by identifiably gay or lesbian people
Mixes apples and oranges.
ie: Patients. Patients were 352 children (276 girls and 76 boys)
Even the objective and the conclusions do not fit:
Objective. To determine if recognizably homosexual adults are frequently accused of the sexual molestation of children.
Conclusions. The children in the group studied were unlikely to have been molested by identifiably gay or lesbian people
Ah yes ER :
For the record: I am not a bigot
Probably she'll have to update the bigotry remark in light of your "hope they all die of a disease" comment and the bit about personal insults...
For the record: I am not a bigot
QUOTE
BTC, as an impartial thrid party I've been on both sides of a debate with you and no, you're not a bigot.
What you often are is blind to any point of view that isn't yours. Often there are several valid points of view and the point of a debate is to learn from each other not to make sure you come out on top at any cost. Obviously you are not alone in this but since you asked . . .
What I do respect is that you don't stoop to personal insults which some people can not seem to grasp has no place in debate or on TT and for the record I enjoy having you on this site.
What you often are is blind to any point of view that isn't yours. Often there are several valid points of view and the point of a debate is to learn from each other not to make sure you come out on top at any cost. Obviously you are not alone in this but since you asked . . .
What I do respect is that you don't stoop to personal insults which some people can not seem to grasp has no place in debate or on TT and for the record I enjoy having you on this site.
Probably she'll have to update the bigotry remark in light of your "hope they all die of a disease" comment and the bit about personal insults...
QUOTE(Bell the cat @ Mar 29 2008, 1:17 pm)
no, I see no need to retract that. When Jenny carried out her study back in the early 90s I would guess the majority of the abusing fathers were indeed married. The same study repeated today might indeed reflect the catestrophic collapse of marriage in recent years but I don't know of recent studies personally as I stopped teaching this subject in the mid-90s.
So now they're all "the abusing fathers" but are no longer overwhelming?
@Sinderbox
I noticed that but what was even funnier to me was the bit quoted in post #304 (above)... if the "recognizably homosexual" adults child abuse at the same rate as the heterosexuals - surely the conclusion that homosexual adults are unlikely to abuse is incorrect since they abuse at the same rate???
I noticed that but what was even funnier to me was the bit quoted in post #304 (above)... if the "recognizably homosexual" adults child abuse at the same rate as the heterosexuals - surely the conclusion that homosexual adults are unlikely to abuse is incorrect since they abuse at the same rate???
QUOTE(Sinderbox @ Mar 29 2008, 1:18 pm)
That study is not worth the paper is written on.
Mixes apples and oranges.
ie: Patients. Patients were 352 children (276 girls and 76 boys)
Even the objective and the conclusions do not fit:
Objective. To determine if recognizably homosexual adults are frequently accused of the sexual molestation of children.
Conclusions. The children in the group studied were unlikely to have been molested by identifiably gay or lesbian people
Mixes apples and oranges.
ie: Patients. Patients were 352 children (276 girls and 76 boys)
Even the objective and the conclusions do not fit:
Objective. To determine if recognizably homosexual adults are frequently accused of the sexual molestation of children.
Conclusions. The children in the group studied were unlikely to have been molested by identifiably gay or lesbian people
you don't know what you are talking about. The study has indeed been criticised by those who feel that sexual politics in this arena are misplaced. But Carole Jenny is a leading Pediatrician and Pediatrics is the flagship journal in the field with a rigorous peer review to ensure only top quality studies are eported.
The selection of children to study is clearly stated and reflects accurately the ratio of girls to boys that is commonly seen in cohorts of abused children. If it didnot and the pratio was 50:50 the study could have legitimately been criticised as skewed. And I fail to see how you cannot understand how the objectives do not fit the conclusion. I presume you haven't the first fucking clue about science have you?
and that is the last I will post on the matter. I have been upfront about my agendas and have rigorously backed up the things I have posted. But it seems to have no discernible effect on the argument at all. Carrying n the debate is therefore pretty pointless as I guess most other people concluded several pages back.
QUOTE(Bell the cat @ Mar 29 2008, 1:28 pm)
I presume you haven't the first fucking clue about science have you?
Ad hominem ad nauseam. We are not talking about me nor you. But since you are asking: You do not have a fucking clue about me.
QUOTE(Bell the cat @ Mar 29 2008, 1:28 pm)
you don't know what you are talking about. The study has indeed been criticised by those who feel that sexual politics in this arena are misplaced. But Carole Jenny is a leading Pediatrician and Pediatrics is the flagship journal in the field with a rigorous peer review to ensure only top quality studies are eported.
The selection of children to study is clearly stated and reflects accurately the ratio of girls to boys that is commonly seen in cohorts of abused children. If it didnot and the pratio was 50:50 the study could have legitimately been criticised as skewed. And I fail to see how you cannot understand how the objectives do not fit the conclusion. I presume you haven't the first fucking clue about science have you?
The selection of children to study is clearly stated and reflects accurately the ratio of girls to boys that is commonly seen in cohorts of abused children. If it didnot and the pratio was 50:50 the study could have legitimately been criticised as skewed. And I fail to see how you cannot understand how the objectives do not fit the conclusion. I presume you haven't the first fucking clue about science have you?
Abusive now huh? Ah well you're homosexual aren't you so we shouldnt be too surprised LOL!
Sinder is dead right on the male:female ratio :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse
QUOTE
Based on a literature review of 23 studies, Goldman & Padayachi found that the prevalence of child sexual abuse varied between 7-62% for girls and 4-30% for boys.[90]
This bit is a bit shocking though :
QUOTE
In US schools, according to the US Department of Education.[95], "nearly 9.6% of students are targets of educator sexual misconduct sometime during their school career." In studies of student sex abuse by male and female educators, male students were reported as targets in ranges from 23% to 44%.[95] In U.S. school settings same-sex (female and male) sexual misconduct against students by educators "ranges from 18-28% or reported cases, depending on the study"[96]
Significant underreporting of sexual abuse of boys by both women and men is believed to occur due to sex steoreotyping, social denial, the minimization of male victimization, and the relative lack of research on sexual abuse of boys.[97] Sexual victimization of boys by their mothers or other female relatives is especially rarely researched or reported. Sexual abuse of girls by their mothers, and other related and/or unrelated adult females is beginning to be researched and reported despite the highly taboo nature of female-female child sex abuse. In studies where students are asked about sex offenses, they report higher levels of female sex offenders than found in adult reports.[98] This under-reporting has been attributed to cultural denial of female-perpetrated child sex abuse,[99] because "males have been socialized to believe they should be flattered or appreciative of sexual interest from a female"[100] and because female sexual abuse of males is often seen as 'desirable' and/or beneficial by judges, mass media pundits and other authorities.[101]
Significant underreporting of sexual abuse of boys by both women and men is believed to occur due to sex steoreotyping, social denial, the minimization of male victimization, and the relative lack of research on sexual abuse of boys.[97] Sexual victimization of boys by their mothers or other female relatives is especially rarely researched or reported. Sexual abuse of girls by their mothers, and other related and/or unrelated adult females is beginning to be researched and reported despite the highly taboo nature of female-female child sex abuse. In studies where students are asked about sex offenses, they report higher levels of female sex offenders than found in adult reports.[98] This under-reporting has been attributed to cultural denial of female-perpetrated child sex abuse,[99] because "males have been socialized to believe they should be flattered or appreciative of sexual interest from a female"[100] and because female sexual abuse of males is often seen as 'desirable' and/or beneficial by judges, mass media pundits and other authorities.[101]
QUOTE(Bell the cat @ Mar 29 2008, 1:31 pm)
I guess most other people concluded several pages back.
You have been using this cheap rhetoric trick very often.
Most people, all people, you are the only one that cannot see, etc.
You know it proves nothing, if you have some scientific background as you claim.
Stop it if you truly want to have a constructive discussion.
QUOTE(Bell the cat @ Mar 29 2008, 1:28 pm)
The selection of children to study is clearly stated and reflects accurately the ratio of girls to boys that is commonly seen in cohorts of abused children. If it didnot and the pratio was 50:50 the study could have legitimately been criticised as skewed.
The selection of children to study is probably the right ratio of girls to boys being abused. It proves nothing if you link it to homosexuality, and as such is skewed.
A more honest approach would have been:
1) Take only the boys
2) See the percentage of boys abused by hetero males, X.
3) See the percentage of boys abused by gay males, Y.
4) Be 99% certain that hetero and gays are well identified.
5) Get the percentage of gays in society, Z.
6) Z must be similar to Y if sex orientation is not a factor in the abuse of boys
If you throw in an overwhelming majority of abused girls and lesbians into the mix, there is little you can prove.
QUOTE(parnell @ Mar 29 2008, 1:11 pm)
Recognizably homosexual ? You mean "self-declared" ? So a bunch of child abusers dont call themselves gay - whoop dee doo.
That was the point the whole time. I specifically said your logic is not useful because filtering out self-declared gays does not catch people who are more likely to abuse.
At the very least, the study should make you admit: declaring a child molester as gay after the abuse is only done for political purposes, and has no scientific value.
Dontcha mean "non-self declared but nevertheless homosexual" ? Also post #298 , questions.
re: post #298. You did imply it could only be determined that way... because your definition of sexuality is based on ones most recent sexual experience. So someone married with children for years, and who then sexually abuses a [same sex] child becomes gay automatically.
By that logic, you can't filter for gays any other way... because logically a man who has had sex with men for many years, could then one day have sex with a woman, or abuse a young girl... and presto, they are now a "non-self declared but nevertheless heterosexual"
By that logic, you can't filter for gays any other way... because logically a man who has had sex with men for many years, could then one day have sex with a woman, or abuse a young girl... and presto, they are now a "non-self declared but nevertheless heterosexual"
WHAT??? I didn't apply anything of the sort and yourself and BTC both belong firmly in the same misrepresentative box.
I said that a person who had sexual relations with someone of the same sex , regardless as to their "self declaration" is homosexual. Nothing else.
Were someone to say that they are heterosexual and fuck people belonging to the same sex then what else are they?
Once more :
Dictionary:
homosexuality
(hō'mə-sĕk'shū-ăl'ĭ-tē, -mō-) [img]http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/pron.gif[/img]
n.
1. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
2. Sexual activity with another of the same sex.
I said that a person who had sexual relations with someone of the same sex , regardless as to their "self declaration" is homosexual. Nothing else.
Were someone to say that they are heterosexual and fuck people belonging to the same sex then what else are they?
Once more :
Dictionary:
homosexuality
(hō'mə-sĕk'shū-ăl'ĭ-tē, -mō-) [img]http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/pron.gif[/img]
n.
1. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
2. Sexual activity with another of the same sex.
ok parnell, so a man is married to a woman for several years, has sex with her. Then sexually abuses a young boy... then later continues to have sex with his wife.
What is he? heterosexual or homosexual? What is he counted as in the study you cited?
What is he? heterosexual or homosexual? What is he counted as in the study you cited?
Bisexual (assuming of course that he was in the study) . Sexuality is not binary . News to you presumably.
no shit, so why did you cite a study that lists all such men as homosexual? Why did you previously claim that having sex with a woman, and then abusing a child of the same sex makes you homosexual?
well what about me then parnell. I have not had sex at all for the last six months and two years ago I had a night of passion with a women. Does that mean I am not a homosexual? Does it in fact mean I am straight? By your bizarre logic it would.
Check the study:
So it appears that your apples , pears and bananas are all accounted for.
Next question :
Why did you previously claim that having sex with a woman, and then abusing a child of the same sex makes you homosexual?
Now you're rather not that stupid are you? I prefer to believe that even you would understand that homosexual and even heterosexual behaviour is a subset of bisexual behaviour.
QUOTE
The stark imbalance between homosexual and heterosexual child molestationswas confirmed in the Archives of Sexual Behavior study itself, which divided 260 pedophile participants into three groups: "152 heterosexual pedophiles (men with offenses or self-reported attractions involving girls only), 43 bisexual pedophiles (boys and girls), and 65 homosexual pedophiles (boys only)."[19] In other words, 25 percent of the offenders were homosexual pedophiles--or 41 percent if those who molest girls as well as boys are included.
Homosexual Males are Sexually Attracted to Underage Boys
· A study in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that homosexual men are attracted to young males. The study compared the sexual age preferences of heterosexual men, heterosexual women, homosexual men, and lesbians. The results showed that, in marked contrast to the other three categories, "all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories," which included males as young as age fifteen.[36]
· In The Gay Report, by homosexual researchers Karla Jay and Allen Young, the authors report data showing that 73 percent of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys sixteen to nineteen years of age or younger."[37]
Homosexual Males are Sexually Attracted to Underage Boys
· A study in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that homosexual men are attracted to young males. The study compared the sexual age preferences of heterosexual men, heterosexual women, homosexual men, and lesbians. The results showed that, in marked contrast to the other three categories, "all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories," which included males as young as age fifteen.[36]
· In The Gay Report, by homosexual researchers Karla Jay and Allen Young, the authors report data showing that 73 percent of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys sixteen to nineteen years of age or younger."[37]
So it appears that your apples , pears and bananas are all accounted for.
Next question :
Why did you previously claim that having sex with a woman, and then abusing a child of the same sex makes you homosexual?
Now you're rather not that stupid are you? I prefer to believe that even you would understand that homosexual and even heterosexual behaviour is a subset of bisexual behaviour.
QUOTE(Bell the cat @ Mar 29 2008, 2:53 pm)
well what about me then parnell. I have not had sex at all for the last six months and two years ago I had a night of passion with a women. Does that mean I am not a homosexual? Does it in fact mean I am straight? By your bizarre logic it would.
No but it does say a lot for other gay men however desperate.
EDIT: Every thread that I see you post on is ALWAYS about you BTC.
do you think I am a paedophile then parnell? After all I am a self-confessed gay and you seem to imagine that we are all lusting after little boys*
* I am not even remotely in case you wondered
* I am not even remotely in case you wondered
@ BTC
I honestly do not know the answer to your last question. I would desperately hope not. You're not a bad apple really I suspect , tons of issues though.
My imagination , like my sex life is very plain vanilla. Sorry to dissappoint there.
EDIT : I'm a tremendously lucky person , I acknowledge and thank the heavens for that on an hourly basis - I love every day and wish the same for others.
I honestly do not know the answer to your last question. I would desperately hope not. You're not a bad apple really I suspect , tons of issues though.
My imagination , like my sex life is very plain vanilla. Sorry to dissappoint there.
EDIT : I'm a tremendously lucky person , I acknowledge and thank the heavens for that on an hourly basis - I love every day and wish the same for others.
QUOTE(Bell the cat @ Mar 29 2008, 2:56 pm)
do you think I am a paedophile then parnell? After all I am a self-confessed gay and you seem to imagine that we are all lusting after little boys
Again with this sort of fallacy?
He never said that.
Same trick you used against the church
well I have never once been even remotely interested in children or teenagers of either gender. I did have one (straight) friend who battled with a passion for young boys. He was deeply religious (Catholic incidentally) and when he realised this while teaching n a school in his year out before University, it devastated him. He confessed it to me in my role with the Christian Union at the time. He is the only person who has ever confessed to me that he or she is attracted to children and to the best of my knowledge he has never acted on it (though I would guess by the law of averages there must be men and women I know who are attracted to kids but not open about the fact)
@ parnell
Then why do you act like the antichrist on TT?
Why do you persist in trying to make other people's lives miserable?
Why do you try to turn God-fearing men and women away from Belief?
What class of a sickness is on you?
Then why do you act like the antichrist on TT?
Why do you persist in trying to make other people's lives miserable?
Why do you try to turn God-fearing men and women away from Belief?
What class of a sickness is on you?
You should annex some proof to back such stupid accusations, unless you are trying some sort of irony that makes no sense...
Fair enough lads... I'm just a small guy from a small country (I'm sure you'll be thinking "with a small mind" BTC) ... but I hope ye enjoy yer Saturdays and get the most out of the funbox that is life that ye can - so long as ye cause no harm to others. For what its worth I think the Church fucked up hugely on this paedophilia thing , I just got so much out of my experience and know so many decent folks within it that I can't keep my mouth shut when I see folks knock it without mentioning the good it does. Good luck.
EDIT: Did I miss something??? Looks like I did , anyhoo no harm done.
EDIT: Did I miss something??? Looks like I did , anyhoo no harm done.
QUOTE(garibaldi @ Mar 29 2008, 3:07 pm)
@ parnell
Then why do you act like the antichrist on TT?
Why do you persist in trying to make other people's lives miserable?
Why do you try to turn God-fearing men and women away from Belief?
What class of a sickness is on you?
Then why do you act like the antichrist on TT?
Why do you persist in trying to make other people's lives miserable?
Why do you try to turn God-fearing men and women away from Belief?
What class of a sickness is on you?
If by "other people" you mean yourself then I am truly on the divine path. Thanks for the self-affirmation!
Don't mention it. Have a nice day.
LOL fair fucks man.
QUOTE(Sinderbox @ Mar 29 2008, 3:04 pm)
Again with this sort of fallacy?
He never said that.
Same trick you used against the church
He never said that.
Same trick you used against the church
I have spent my entire adult life being persecuted by jumped up moral arbiters in the hierarchies of the leading Christian, Jewish and Moslem denominations. Forgive me if I have little sympathy for any of them. I acknowledge that there are indeed good religious people of all religions but cannot see organized religion as anything other than a force for evil mostly in the modern world.
QUOTE(Bell the cat @ Mar 29 2008, 3:27 pm)
I acknowledge that there are indeed good religious people of all religions but cannot see prganised religion as a force for evil mostly in the modern world.
Doood. you're disagreeing with yourself. stop.now. please.
have corrected it now
QUOTE(Bell the cat @ Mar 29 2008, 3:27 pm)
I have spent my entire adult life being persecuted by jumped up moral arbiters...
I understand you fully.
And you have some good arguments.
But those same arguments are sometimes being buried by needless exaggerations or fallacies. You have no need to revert to those. And your point of view will look stronger. If you pay attention at what I've been saying from the beginning you will realize I do not think much different on most of these issues, however by not remaining strictly factual you put me on the other side.
how shallow is that? You form your opinions solely based on your own anal pedantry?
I think he was tryin to help ya man...
EDIT: aNd thats it for me this weekend fo sho!
EDIT: aNd thats it for me this weekend fo sho!
Ad hominem ad nauseam, and twisting and misrepresenting again what I've said.
Sad.
Sad.
then what on earth did this mean:
QUOTE(Sinderbox @ Mar 29 2008, 3:38 pm)
however by not remaining strictly factual you put me on the other side.
That means that you, based on some facts, tend to go on exaggerating and twisting them. And even if I were to agree on the analysis the original facts, I will be against you if you augment and misrepresent them. That is not changing my opinion and has nothing to do with anuses.
345 posts man! I am telling you this since post #19
Time you understand it even if you do not share my view.
And this is my last post. I am tired of you getting personal.
345 posts man! I am telling you this since post #19
Time you understand it even if you do not share my view.
And this is my last post. I am tired of you getting personal.
Impressive.
I go away on holiday for three days and this thread is still going.
Nobody mentioned the complete and utter unhumanity of a vow of Celibacy , from what I have read.
Having said that my sister in law is a 'house help' for a priest and definatly cleans more than the windows.
I go away on holiday for three days and this thread is still going.
Nobody mentioned the complete and utter unhumanity of a vow of Celibacy , from what I have read.
Having said that my sister in law is a 'house help' for a priest and definatly cleans more than the windows.
wouldn't say Celibacy was inhumane - imbecile maybe. The Catholic church should ask itself whether requiring an all male celibate priesthood necessarily encourages sexually screwed up individuals to apply.
Given that our base reason for being on this earth is to shag it's more than a little short sighted...
It certainly is silly in this day and age for the church to be so narrow minded etc, but can I just say: Margaretha Hölldobler-Heumüller HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Hölldobler-Heumüller!!!
BG, I had to chuckle at the name as well (which is why I made sure to include it in the post, I know TTers have an appreciation for funny-sounding names). Anyway, in the time I was away on my little vacay this topic went from two pages to 18. Impressive. Must be my most popular topic yet. (But I only got to page 11 or 12 so far.)
(But I only got to page 11 or 12 so far.)
You are viewing a low fidelity version of this page. Click to view the full page.