Okay, as I've said I'm done with this thread. I am not going to keep coming back for one more, even if I get more private messages or whatever, this is not going anywhere.
From your perspective your probably trying to be quite diplomatic and reasonable, but seriously, pay attention to what your saying here. Your basically saying "well, I want proof, but only from sources I personally happen to already agree with", which is by and large not REALLY looking at an alternative point of view because you've already heard from any source your willing to accept. To be blunt I wouldn't use conservapedia, as they happen to be a joke even as far as right wing sources go, but generally speaking any source that could be used would probably warrent a similar omission simply by being representitive of the other side. The mainstream media by and large being left wing, and right wing media being largely underground. While I wouldn't use them either, let's say for the sake of arguement I decided to bring up research conducted by say... Stormfront. Your response would be "OMG, they don't count, they are a bigoted hate group!" by definition they happen to be a bigoted hate group because they tend to have the kind of information that is contrary to what you want to believe. Stormfront is simply a well known example, I just use them as an example of why
it's a catch 22. In comparison, bringing up information compiled by a human rights coalition, under any name, is by definition just as tainted as conservapedia, stormfront, or other extreme wingnut sources, just in the other direction. Something that identifies itself as being about "human rights" by definition isn't going to publish or support anything that goes against their stated agenda. Such groups tend to go out of their way to cover up the other side when it's inconveinent (just as right wing groups do) believing it's for the greater good.
Right now the left wing can make more noise, having more control of mainstream media, but the issue actually breaks down 50-50 more or less. The left wing groups will say that support gor gay rights is on the rise, and the extreme right wing groups on the other end will point to stuff like what is going on in Uganda as proof that they are slowly picking up steam, especially given that western business interests seem reluctant to get involved in putting pressure in the issue. I remember reading something about human rights appeals being made for Citigroup to pressure Uganda, which were being met more or less with silence.
The thing is that being in the middle of things, pretty much a "gay rights centrist" I actually consider the right wing conservapedia/stormfront crap insane, just as I consider the stuff you tout as being equally insane just from the other direction. I concede good points on both sides, with the truth being somewhere in the middle, which is the position I personally hold.
When it comes to subjects like "peer reviewed sources" that is an inherantly ridiculous request when applied to any big issue, and to be honest I think that's the entire point of making it. It SOUNDS good, but in reality you wouldn't have a major issue like this if you were seeing many universally accepted sources appearing. With media trends you do find an easier time finding propaganda in favor of gay rights availible in the mainstream fairly easier, but that doesn't actually equate to universal acceptance. Anything that could be called "peer reviewed" in a case like this is probably holding it's weight on the authority of people that say the leadership of Conservapedia, Stormfront, or others holding the rather substantial other side would question the validity of.
That said, understand that this entire discussion is not me trying to make some kind of massive academic point to change people's world views. It's me, explaining what I happen to think, upon request no less, abou tthe subject of gay rights in general, which is a spin off of discussing Jim's "comments" on Mass Effect 3. Trying to act like I should have to be able to sell my case before a Yale review board or I'm inherantly wrong and shouldn't be able to say my piece on an internet message board is pretty bloody stupid all on it's own, and really that is where a lot of these demands go.... and as I pointed out, if I *DID* invest that much effort into an internet discussion thaty people are going to forget about in a week or two, it would be pointless because the very nature of the debate means that people would insist any source reinforcing part of what I say would be discredited by being a source that reinforces what I say in the eyes of the people making the demands. An intentional catch 22, so why bother?
As far as statistics go, that was a general point, I merely used the point about gay men and compiling statistics with homosexuals in general to convey a specific image, as an example of something I've seen done before. Is someone currently employing that specific gimmick, I have no idea, I'd have to go digging through tons of studies, and look at how the data was compiled. If it was worth the time, I could probably find an example, but really would the work be worth it? Would anyone care? Not really. The point is pretty much that if someone happens to see statistics like that, as I have in the past, they will perhaps notice something that didn't think to look at before. Not to mention providing an example of how statistics can be made to lie in general, and might actually say something differant than what the person using them says they do. If you bothered to read what I wrote, you'd also noticeI said BOTH sides do that and that statistics in general are entirely worthless when dealing with any big issue.
When it comes to first hand experience, as I said, playing semantics with me doesn't matter becayse I know what I know. Having seen things with my own eyes, no amount of academics or internet arguements is going to change what I know to be true. As I said, in the end this all comes down to whether you think I'm lying, or not. In the end it really doesn't matter, but that's the bottom line. Hence why I have been saying for quite a while no that I'm just going to let this drop, because everything that can be said in a debate like this, has been said, and really it's not going to go anywhere. If you think I'm a liar, fine, nothing I say on the subject matters. If you don't, then there is iikewise no reason to continue the topic at this point.
I'm done now, especially seeing as I'm pretty exhausted. Private mail or whatever else, I'm probably just going to delete it if it's connected to this topic. Give it a month or so and we'll probably be at it again, with a similar ending. If Jim wants to write again (but he's busy) I might respond, but really I don't want to piss him off any more since he's one of my favorite Escapist conributors at the moment so maybe not even then.
Also in general, not nessicarly related to this subject, if it seems like I overlook something, don't assume I didn't read it, though it might have been missed during skimming if I'm getting a lot of messages. In all likelyhood if it's a debate, chances are your clevery intellectual trap was something I recognized and just pretty much figured "meh" and moved on. See, I don't take semantics games, straw men, and attempts at verbal manipulations very seriously, and prepfer to stay on topic. So yeah, if by sidestepping something I avoided some clever bit of online gamesmanship you though could win you some points, especially with me facing a hostile crowd, chances are it was intentional. Likewise, this is an internet debate on a big issue, basically if your "counterpoint" is to try and demand sources, citations, proof of common knowlege, and similar things, it's not worth the time. Especially when done the way it normally is in these debates. If someone's response is the two words "citation needed" then I'm just going to ignore you, since chances are anything I just left hanging is veriiable with a minimum of effort OR has been covered in another post I wrote recently. I write huge, rambling posts, and if I just spent 3 paragraphs explaining something to another guy yesterday, I'm not going to humor some guy who jumps in arrogantly like he's an expert, who didn't bother to do his research on the flow of the conversation so far.... oh yes, and I try and be polite, if someone is rude, condescending, or insulting, you can pretty much guarantee I'm not going to refuse to acknowlege at least the part of the message where
that was done. I mean if you do something like snip my message with the words "ignorant rant" for example as some have done, don't be surprised if i'm not going to humor your "clever" commentary from then out by writing a small book in response debating it's virtue. WTF should I? you called me ignorant...
Just an explanation on how I do things, it migt not make me the most popular poster on the forums at times, but I go through periods of a lot of traffic since I am not shy about expressing unpopular (for this site) opinions on big issues, I have to deal with it somehow espexially given my horrible, inflated writing style, and as arrogant as it sounds some people and points just don't strike me as being worth the time.... and again, also remember that what seems new and clever input to you, might have already been covered by something else I said elsewhere. You might not agree with me being right in how I covered it, but I don't see the point of rehashing the same arguement 40 times for 40 differant people in the same thread every time someone comes up with a slightly differant way of raising the same point....
... and finally, I almost dismissed this (despite the huge amount of writing) not only because of your "clever" attempts at Catch-22, because of the bit at the end about saying "you know, there are non-gays who support this too you know"... no offense, but with all the things I've said about political trends, specifying "the movement" as seperate from homosexuals themselves, and who knows how many other things, it's borderline insulting. It also shows that the guy sending private mails about someone not reading his posts, himself hasn't actually read what the other guy has written, and probably doesn't even correctly understand the position he's fighting.
Genuine Evil said:
Ok I will try and lay off the insults this time because you actually made a response that addresses what I?ve said ( the wrong post but hey , baby steps) also if you actually give me compelling evidence to change my mind I will, there is no truth worth fearing and if you can prove something ill change my world view according to the evidence.
Therumancer said:
What I actually said was that there was a tendency for gay men to be more likely to be pedophilles and attack children. I even specified myself that this does not mean all, or even the majority of them. Indeed the point I made was originally in relation to statistics, and one of the reasons why I seperate lesbians and gay men into differant groups. A typical technique being to prove that gay men are not pedophilles by using statistics compiled using homosexuals in general. One thing you'll notice is that when it comes to pedophilles or homosexual assault you'll have a VERY hard time finding a case where lesbians have attacked children, or anyone for that matter. That is not to say it doesn't happen, just that it's nearly unheard of. In comparison you'll have a relatively easy time with some searches finding documentation of gay men attacking kids, to the point where it's *almost* exclusively the only sort of homosexual pedophillia just by paying attention. If you remove the lesbians from the equasion due to their tendency to not be involved in this at all, statistics saying "no more likely than anyone else" actually come up with gay men being twice as likely.
Ok then please point me towards those statistics ( and preferably from a site other then conservapedia). Also you separate gay man and gay woman because it supposedly makes your point more valid but you didn?t explain why you can actually do that(outside of it suits you world view ). because it is the same ?underlying condition? give me a reason why men and woman should be treated as different groups . and saying one is more violent than the other isn?t goon enough because (1) you need evidence to support you claim and (2) you simply can?t split results every which way you like unless you have reasons to do so .
You are the man making the claim and as you said before saying I have experience simply doesn?t cut it a debate . because I also have experience and it?s completely different to yours. You need to support your claims by peer reviewed papers (Or at least evidence from respectable sources ) were no one can claim that there is a bias towards one opinion or another .
Therumancer said:
It was about statistics in general, and their nature. Not to mention the simple fact that people on both sides of any major conflict compile data but tend to only release the data that supports what their message is. If a group like say ABIGAYLES decides to do studies on gay men attacking children they simply aren't going to release data saying the opposite of what they want, and with the guys compiling the data working for them it's their desician. Rather they simply release the information that supports what they say when they get it, with as much authority as possible. Basically "this study conducted here with this representitive sample has shown that gays are no more likely to attack children than homosexuals" if they did 9 other studies that had opposite results they will just sit on them. The other side of course does the same thing, rendering any statistics on an issue like this meaningless since the very issue makes neutrality impossible
True and that?s why im asking for peer reviewed papers that have passed the scrutiny of the scientific community . and if you are going to claim that papers like that are also bias and unfair then don?t bother responding to what I wrote because you are clearly ?.. ( I promised ill be nice) ?.
Therumancer said:
I mean seriously... I'm not stupid enough to think someone who with apparent conviction insists that both there is an overwhelming support for gays that will change the world in 30 years when the small minority of ignorant people like me are silenced, while at the same time saying overwhelming majority pressure has the homosexual suicide rate at 40% (yes, 40% think about this) is going to engage in a reasonable debate. That kind of inherantly contridictory "in the same breath"
How does the fact that support for gay rights is on the rise (you do realize e that support comes from straight people as well right?)
http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/stats-on-human-rights/statistics-on-discrimination/statistics-on-discrimination-of-homosexuals/ (Link I gave sites source at the bottom of every claim)
and the fact that 40% of LGBT youth are attempting suicide connected ? these are 2 unrelated facts , yes there is still a lot of hatred as you clearly demonstrate but there is also a lot of good people out there too.
Also my original post is number 445 and was the post addressing my problems with your original response ?im still waiting for any type if acknowledgment of that front
(I did not spell check this because it late and I have work )
