Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You may have heard the natural sciences (chemistry, physics, biology) called the hard sciences and the social sciences (history, political science) referred to as the soft sciences. Certain sciences, such as psychology and sociology, used to be considered soft science and now are considered hard science. So, you may be wondering about the difference between hard and soft science.
The fact is, there are science fields that depend on a highly predictive model to get answers and ones who.have actual EVIDENCE. Also, at the academic level the grading standards are much more stringent in fields of chemistry and physics as opposed to psychology and sociology. There is a reason why the soft fields are cakewalks.
There's a reason for emphasis on STEM fields and not so much psych and social sciences. Because one has practical use and has made exponentially more significant contributions to society as opposed to the other.
The only people seeking to lend hard science credentials to an insanely subjective field are the nutjobs who either work in them or the social deviants who are prtotected by their tripe.
No false accusations here..if I cared enough I'd dig up the post in the Bill Nye thread where you cried strawman and there was none. You actually did in in BOTH of them.
Lol this is coming from a prior post you replied to where you stated NOTHING but a personal attack.
It seems you have a poor understanding of ad hominem and straw man fallacies. Although you certainly seem to use them yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin_Muzik_NJ
But nonetheless, what am I supposed to be arguing? That men who have sex with boys are heterosexual? Who.would even something so absurd? The mountain of twisted interpretative, suggestive "evidence" (really it's data) does not fly in the face of a.priori knowledge that a male and a male is homosexual. Regardless of secondary sexual characteristics. If "pedophelia" is a sexual orientation and the subject being a child is the prime motivating factor....then how do you explain males who exclusively choose boys? Like NAMBLA
You also don't recognise that you are using the fallacy of personal incredulity.
Most studies on child sexual abuse/sex offenders over the past 60 years have similar findings to the study I linked to. You will find similar information from any professional health source on this topic.
The fact that some people allow their prejudice and ignorance to override any concern for the safety of children, is disturbing.
The fact is, there are science fields that depend on a highly predictive model to get answers and ones who.have actual EVIDENCE. Also, at the academic level the grading standards are much more stringent in fields of chemistry and physics as opposed to psychology and sociology. There is a reason why the soft fields are cakewalks.
There's a reason for emphasis on STEM fields and not so much psych and social sciences. Because one has practical use and has made exponentially more significant contributions to society as opposed to the other.
The only people seeking to lend hard science credentials to an insanely subjective field are the nutjobs who either work in them or the social deviants who are prtotected by their tripe.
I find it truly remarkable how those on the right seem to think they ARE ways right.
They know more than doctors, scientists, climatologists, archeologists, professionals in every field. They're right because they declare themselves to be right.
It seems you have a poor understanding of ad hominem and straw man fallacies. Although you certainly seem to use them yourself.
You also don't recognise that you are using the fallacy of personal incredulity.
Most studies on child sexual abuse/sex offenders over the past 60 years have similar findings to the study I linked to. You will find similar information from any professional health source on this topic.
The fact that some people allow their prejudice and ignorance to override any concern for the safety of children, is disturbing.
I asked you a rather specific question....
If being a child is the prime motivating factor in pedophiles..then how do you explain adult men who exclusively choose boys as their targets?
I find it truly remarkable how those on the right seem to think they ARE ways right.
They know more than doctors, scientists, climatologists, archeologists, professionals in every field. They're right because they declare themselves to be right.
1 - I am not a partisan
2 - I don't ever declare to be "right" just "not convinced" and in some cases, ignorant. But, that is in no way worse than the levels of naivete and pretentiousness of many.
As far as this scenario is concerned, there was a reason I didn't major in the soft science field. The pay + the stigmatization or regard for the field in the workforce. I could have inflated my GPA nicely though, to no avail.
If being a child is the prime motivating factor in pedophiles..then how do you explain adult men who exclusively choose boys as their targets?
I was specifically NOT referring to pedophiles when I said that the majority of men who sexually abuse boys are heterosexual in their adult orientation, and are NOT true pedophiles.
As I stated, true pedophiles (those who are only attracted to children and not adults) only make up only a small percentage of men who sexually abuse children (although they tend to abuse children in higher numbers).
And as I also said, this comes from over 60 years of evidence-based studies, not just the study I posted. Law enforcement agencies (eg the FBI) base their profiling of child molesters/sex offenders on these studies as well.
I was specifically NOT referring to pedophiles when I said that the majority of men who sexually abuse boys are heterosexual in their adult orientation, and are NOT true pedophiles.
As I stated, true pedophiles (those who are only attracted to children and not adults) only make up only a small percentage of men who sexually abuse children (although they tend to abuse children in higher numbers).
And as I also said, this comes from over 60 years of evidence-based studies, not just the study I posted. Law enforcement agencies (eg the FBI) base their profiling of child molesters/sex offenders on these studies as well.
60 years of studies brought forth what? The Diana Screen?
60 years of studies furnished a test that can be foiled. Great work.
So how do you discern a heterosexual pedophile and a homosexual one? How do you know a "true pedophile" from a "pseudo-pedophile"?
60 years of studies brought forth what? The Diana Screen?
60 years of studies furnished a test that can be foiled. Great work.
So how do you discern a heterosexual pedophile and a homosexual one? How do you know a "true pedophile" from a "pseudo-pedophile"?
Speaking of straw man arguments ^^^.
Well if you bothered to take the time to educate yourself on the topic, you might know what 60 years of study have brought about. From your posts, it's obvious that you prefer maintain your prejudice and ignorance on this topic.
I find it disturbing that many people are so ill informed/ignorant about child sexual abuse.
The FBI typologies of situational and preferential offenders and their seven subgroups.
Situational offenders (not 'true' pedophiles)
REGRESSED Offenders have poor coping skills, target victims who are easily accessible, abuse children as a substitute for adult relationships.
MORALLY INDISCRIMINATE Offenders do not prefer children over adults and tend to use children (or anyone accessible) for their own interests (sexual and otherwise).
SEXUALLY INDISCRIMINATE Offenders are mainly interested in sexual experimentation, and abuse children out of boredom.
INADEQUATE Offenders are social misfits who are insecure, have low self-esteem, and see relationships with children as their only sexual outlet.
Preferential offenders ('true' pedophiles)
SEDUCTIVE Offenders “court” children and give them much affection, love, gifts, and enticements in order to carry on a “relationship.”
FIXATED Offenders have poor psychosexual development, desire affection from children, and are compulsively attracted to children.
SADISTIC Offenders are aggressive, sexually excited by violence, target stranger victims, and are extremely dangerous.
(Holmes, R.M. and Holmes, S.T. (1996). Profiling Violent Crimes: An Investigative Tool. Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage Publications.)
The long and short of this is the momentum is so great and the majority of the population are for gay rights its like trying to stop a freight train. Its not possible. What do you neo cons think your going to accomplish? Do you think your going to make gays hide who they are? Its a bunch of old homophobic idiots who are dying off like cockroaches that are against gay rights.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
