Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
Before wasting my time exposing in detail (yet again) the deliberate dishonesty, ignorance and misrepresentation in your post, please post a direct link to the opinion piece by the non-qualified anti-gay, pro-life, very Catholic, religious 'author' you copied and pasted the 'quotes' in your above "Examples" from.
|
Wasting YOUR time? Amazing! And you question my integrity? How rich. I've never seen such a combination of intellectual laziness, coupled with the intellectual dishonesty exhibited by your continuous attack with baseless accusations and allegations, and the very transparent tactic of attempting to cast doubt about data presented, based on references, rather than the actual "source" or the "data" itself. And this has become your primary tactic of responding throughout this thread ... with an endless river of lies, distortions and tactical ploys, totally bankrupt of an iota of integrity.
Now, for anyone who may be easily confused by your disingenuous gamesmanship ... let me inform them of the huge difference between a "source" of information and a "reference" to a source of information. In this particular instance, I am the "
Reference", while the "
Source" is the
Archives of Sexual Behavior. How I locate these various sources of information is entirely immaterial to the discussion, and has no bearing on the validity of the information itself. As an example, I often use Google to search .. are you going to claim that the data found using Google is invalid because you have some objection to Google?
In any event, here is the link to the first article which is "referenced" in the PubMed index. Since you obviously already have the link to PubMed, you could have just searched the title of the article and would have been presented it. But you'd rather cast "illusions" of impropriety, since it is impossible for you to disprove the existence of the data, because it does exist and is indeed listed by a "reference" you've already used yourself, and comes from a "source" you have also used yourself. Obviously, you cannot challenge the legitimacy of either one.
Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation ... [Arch Sex Behav. 2000] - PubMed - NCBI
"Fraternal Birth Order and Sexual Orientation in Pedophiles."
Archives of Sexual Behavior, October 2000 [Volume 29, Number 5], pages 463-478, p. 464.
Now if you want the entire article, you'll need a subscription. And like I said previously, I won't be providing that for you.
Similarly, you'll need access to the other referenced material that I won't "pay for" for you. As an example, PubMed didn't index the next article that I referenced ...(they have been known to be selective about which publications they choose to index, from time to time) so the difficult matter of going directly to the source - Journal of Sex Research, was required. Clever huh?
This is the sample page - to see the entire article you have to be a subscriber - sorry, I won't be paying for that either.
Taylor & Francis Online :: Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age preference - Journal of Sex Research - Volume 26, Issue 1
The ONLY reason why I didn't make the effort to "provide" you links earlier is that you've already proven beyond any reasonable doubt that you aren't the least bit interested in facts or the truth, and when presented to you, you either ignore them or manufacture some lame, nonsensical counter point. So why bother WASTING MY TIME. I presented the information, including the sources for those who honestly wish to investigate the matter, which I already know does not include you.
And how do I know this? Well, you continually cite study data that uses only "Self-Identified as heterosexual" as indisputable proof of the heterosexual orientation of males raping little boys .... but when I cite the most infamous group of self professed, unapologetic pedophiles (NAMBLA) who openly admit that their sexual attraction to young boys is ABSOLUTELY, UNEQUIVOCALLY homosexual in nature ... you dismiss that testimony altogether. So that's pretty solid proof of your UNEQUIVOCAL BIAS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
Don't bother denying it. I already know who the 'author' is, because you made a couple of simple 'errors' when you copied and pasted the 'quotes' that made it easy to track down your 'source'. You accidently left in some phrases by the author of the opinion piece that were not part of the original articles and studies you referenced. He also has a slightly odd way of referencing. Perhaps because his PhD is in Civil Engineering? Or didn't you know that?
You probably didn't realise your error because it's obvious you haven't read the original studies and articles themselves. I'm very familiar with those studies and articles so I know how the author you copied and pasted from has misrepresented them out of context as so many non-qualified anti-gay religious zealots have done.
This is a case of "Google is NOT your friend"  |
I deny nothing ... I need not deny anything. And the only error here is your confusion about references and sources. It doesn't matter if I got the reference to the information from the back of a bar napkin, written by a Skin Head Catholic who hates gay people! The reference to a source, as I've already explained, has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the legitimacy of the original information and it's original source.
Furthermore, ANY reference site I may use will automatically be an "anti-gay" reference according to you ... even those self professed homosexuals at NAMBLA are anti-gay according to you .. so if homosexual pedophiles are anti-gay, I don't think it's possible to escape that label, except for those that agree with you. So who do you think you're fooling with this two headed coin argument? Sorry to steal your thunder, but there is no gotcha moment here.
But speaking of "Gotcha" and dubious sources, lets take on this bit about honesty and integrity for a moment, because I find you to be completely bankrupt in both, and similarly, your side of the argument and it's proponents consistently demonstrate that shortcoming.
You know what I discovered a while back? Your reference to "information", called:
"Fact Sheet on Sexual Orientation and Child abuse" which can be found here:
The truth about homosexuality and pedophilia (http://www.fallwell.com/pedophilia.html - broken link)
Now at first, even I was a little confused since the link appeared to be pointing to Jerry Falwell ... but how could that be I asked myself? The well known, outspoken Reverend who died a few years back. But upon visiting the cite, I discovered that it was in fact a
"hijack site" intentionally "posing" as Jerry Falwell ... who's operators cleverly set up the URL "www.Fal
lwell" (with two L's in Fall instead of the correct spelling FalWell).
And this virtual mirror of the TRIPE you posted originally can be found there, which was the entire purpose of this thread ... to expose your biased and dishonest attempts to convince people that up=down.
Now, unlike you, I am not claiming that the information itself is automatically disqualified based only on who presents the references ... I just find it SUPREMELY I R O N I C ... that this group of fraudsters would demonstrate such an overt absence of integrity by setting up a hijack site in order to spread this propaganda, while you preach on about the lack of integrity and anti-gay motives of anyone challenging this crap. How funny is that!
Birds of a feather indeed do seem to flock together ..... Gotcha!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
PS: And you might want to do a little research on the well respected clinical psychologist Dr A. Nicholas Groth before defaming him so ignorantly. His research from many years of experience working with both sex offenders against women and children as well as their victims, is considered the defining work in the field. His work has long been used as the basis for criminal profiling of sex offenders. If you ever actually read any studies and articles on the topic of sex offenders you might see that he is the most cited author in this field.
|
Oh yes, yes ... the well respected leading denier of existence of homosexual pedophiles, and certainly well respected at least among that wonderful group of deviants. I dare say he's a major breeder of the meowing dogs too. Of course, he's not alone. He's got plenty of kindred spirits within the circles of the psychiatric community to which he belongs, including those wonderful psychiatrists and psychologists of B4U-Act (which I referenced earlier) that want to not only remove pedophilia from the DSM-5, but change the laws in order to decriminalize molesting children ... how nice. In the mean time, they state very clearly on the website that they will carefully instruct all of their pedophile clients about what they can and cannot divulge in their therapy sessions to avoid the legal requirement to notify law enforcement authorities about threats to children. A real caring bunch these B4U-Act, well respected psychiatric professionals! Too bad they care so much about child predators and not a lick about their little victims. But that does describe your CRAZY side of this PERFECTLY.
Oh yes, I know there is an excuse for everything coming from your side. And you will strenuously deny your advocacy of child molestation, but because so many on your side are such pathological liars, I'd urge everyone to ignore what you all say, and watch carefully what you all do, because the claims and the actions are often the exact opposite.
You know what's really, really crazy ... everyday I wake up to more good news showing how half the world seems to be standing on their heads claiming Z is the first letter in the alphabet. If it's not another Billion Dollar rip off from the financial gangsters, it's some group of "well respected scientists" who have literally gone MAD.
There are two breaking news stories out of London today, the first is not related to pedophilia, but the second one is ... both are crazy ... the first one:
EU bans claim that water can prevent dehydration - Telegraph
After a three year study, the EU has concluded that it should be against the law to claim that water prevents dehydration. All this time .. who knew we were drinking and peeing for no good reason? (And I'll bet a day won't go by that someone here doesn't try to explain how reasonable that is). But I digress ...
The latest absurdity coming from those on your side of this insanity was reported just today in fact, in the London Telegraph:
Sex offenders including paedophiles should be allowed to adopt, Theresa May told - Telegraph
Imagine that. Pedophiles being licensed to adopt human child sex toys. What's next ... human sacrifice in the name of freedom of religious expression? Cannibalism?
If anyone doubts what your side is up to, look no further than this story. All of your "well respected" authorities have one goal in sight ... to first desensitize people to pedophilia by distorting the facts and confusing the issues .... next comes sympathy for the "minor-attracted-person" as being misunderstood .... next comes legalization of child molestation, citing all of the benefits and why we shouldn't be so judgmental of people who are attracted to children. This is the position you support ... and I'll continue to expose every single last one of you to the very end.
Now for any of you who think you are just defending the reputation and image of homosexuals by taking this stance ... I've got news for you. You're accomplishing the exact opposite. You're highly out numbered, and the majority of sane people find the act of molesting children to be singularly the most despicable of crimes one can commit. And I don't care if homosexuals account for 25% of these child predators, or only 10% ...engaging in the types of distortions and lies and lame excuse making that has gone on on this thread is representative of the entire past history of homosexual support of child molesters going back to the 1970's (which you also deny, but is nonetheless well documented), and that puts you at odds with society that will never allow this assault on their children.
You all are isolating yourselves and painting yourselves in a corner by taking these radical positions, and you wonder why society seems hostile toward your goals and agendas? It is YOUR hostility toward society and children which causes that well earned response.
So let's get it straight .. this is not "anti-gay" ... this is "anti-homosexual-agenda", and there should be no one who supports that agenda except for pedophiles and their sympathizers, of which there is no significant difference.
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.
