Lovely Mixture said:
[
As much as you keep saying "this is over." You keep bringing up points for us to counter.
We're all reasonable people, it's not like who gets the last word wins.
Despite how it might look I'm not trying to have the last word, simply trying to withdraw while giving it to someone else. I just happen to keep getting pulled back in by seeing something I feel I should answer myself.
That said, the thing is your not really "countering" anything, merely re-stating an opinion as if it's fact, and trying to draw me into a more in depth debate which I am setting out to avoid for the moment as it would go on for months with nothing being resolved. What you happen to think is fine, but understand that a lot of what your saying is based on the assumpsion of acceptance of other points you try and make. Your position is based around the idea that homosexuals are entirely harmless and as a group tend to spawn more dangerous deviants than the norm. This allows you to "logically" follow through with arguements based on it being simple discrimination.
When you cut through the chase we are simply not going to agree, because at the end of the day I believe gay men are far more likely to be pedophilles than anyone else. You do not. You tend to believe political studies conducted by those setting out to prove equality that say this is not true, and based on what gay people tell you to your face. I on the other hand am someone who was not only a victim, but also happened to have gone through things like Code Adam training, and then had to go out and use that training in the real world and actually chased away/caught a whole heck of a lot of creepy gay guys trying to lure young kids over an extended period of time. I've also had access to the reports by actual professionals, and also engaged in surveillance and such with a kind of pseudo-authority that goes beyond what anyone conducting these studies could do. I also know that most people who do "serious" security work, police work, corrections, etc... having dealt with tons of them, wind up becoming extremely bigoted due to experience, both towards gay men, and also towards certain minority cultures. It's not a matter of these tendencies being there to begin with but what the job, authority, and the kind of information you get with the training and using it day after day to see "behind the curtain" constantly makes you that way.
The irony is that the information gained by the people who can actually gather it, is not something that can be put out in official studies due to the policies intended to limoit this kind of information gathering even when it happens. No study conducted by politicians, university students, professors, etc... can ever really give you the real picture because they don't have the authority to gather it. To really find the truth of matters like this you need to be able to really dig into a of a lot of people who are unaware they are being observed.
At the end of the day the bottom line is you, or others I'm argueing with need to either accept what I'm saying since it comes from personal experience and observations, OR flat out call me a liar. If you think I'm a liar, then we have nothing to talk about.... the end. Entire debate concluded.
Speaking for myself, one of the reasons why I mentioned tracking and suerveillance is because I kind of know what will happen if people ever really look behind this curtain. I think on some level everyone does. After years of wearing those "colored glasses" of training and experience... on a lot of subjects, I've come to the conclusion that people are simply happier with the illusion, and don't want to be forced to confront the truth. A lot of it is that accepting the truth on a lot of touchy matters would require change throughout society, and even worse, people to actually do something. Blind acceptance and enforced ignorance is very much the path of least resistance.
Incidently, this is also one of the reasons why I believe in a sort of Heinlan-esque ideal that to hold any kind of govermental position at the state or federal level, someone should have a minimum of 5 years practical experience in Law Enforcement or other trained "eye opening" profession. In my opinion only someone who sees the world properly and was able to be trusted to do these things to begin with, should be making social policies, or arguably should be trusted wielding any kind of authority. Basically I don't think someone who has never been trusted enough to arrest someone or (under the right circumstances) engage in suerveillance, should be trusted enough to pass laws or set social policy.
At any rate, the point is that while I state my opinion in brief in threads, there is nothing to discuss. You have nothing to counter or dispute here. At the end of the day either everything you say is wrong, or I'm a liar. There is
no room for discussion. That said, while you might "know a lot of gay people" or whatever, how many of those people have you ever spied on (and who trained you/provided the equipment to do it?)?. Have you ever been assigned to keep a bunch of kids safe in a high traffic, public area? How many years did you do that? Who trained you for it? What authority did you have (even if just on paper as was my case)? Chances are you don't KNOW anything, you've just been told things, and probably by people who had their own agenda and didn't have the authority or abillity to ever really know anything themselves.
