Let me demonstrate how to get your post size down. I'll also point out how little substance there is in a single paragraph.
So anyway it ends up being:
If you're claiming experience because you are "a trained observer" (What ever the fuck that means, are you a cop? A social worker? Private investigator? Vigilante?) I think you're probably suffering from exposure bias.
Regardless previous statements you've made have been fundamentally disgusting and in no way "middle of the road".
You want to claim that homosexuals are more likely to be paedophiles, provide statistical evidence from peer reviewed research or fuck off. Your creepy claims that your "experience and training" (Care to name the organisation?) and being "enabled to spy on people"(?????????) provided you with knowledge about the "truth" about homosexuals do not fucking wash and are pretty horrific in and of themselves.
You make it sound like you spy on homosexuals appropo of nothing. What I'm assuming is that you've been asked (or you do it off your own back for fucked up reasons of your own.) to watch those accused or convicted of child sex offences against boys. This is selection bias which you've turned to bigotry.
Or you're making the scientificcally fallaceous argument that because 3% of men are gay and 33% of child sexual offenders target boys, that homosexuals are more likely to offend. This disregards the evidence that the mechanics in the psychology between homosexual and hetrosexual paedophilia and that of androphilia and gynophilia are completely different and that.
It also ignores the massive body of evidence that paedophiles do not display erectile response when shown pictures of adults of the same sex as their preferred child gender.
Also your ignorance is... well, extreme. [Unnecessary and unsupported personal attack - remove] To be honest my attitude on homosexuals is pretty much middle of the road, but you for all your claims of worldlyness [what claims?] have never actually met someone with extreme viewpoints to understand the differances. [Unsupported claim] Especially [especially why? remove word] seeing as my attitudes are backed up by a lot of experience and training. [unsupported claim] See, I'm a trained observer in certain contexts, who has actually been trusted to put those skills to use professionally. [unsupported claim and redundant - remove] This makes me fundementally differant from you, or anyone who has never been in a similar profession. [non sequitur claim -remove] Referred to in training as "colored glasses", [redundant information - remove add paragraph break] once you learn certain things, and how to do them, you can no longer see the world the way someone who is not trained does not. [non sequitur claim and appeal to authority, makes last claim redundant] You can basically say I'm wrong about homosexuals and so on, but that's because of what you've heard, read, and want to believe. Your opinion compared to mine being ultimatly meaningless because you simply don't actually know anything, and aren't equipped properly to learn it. [assertion without evidence] This applies to a lot of matters, not just this. [irrelevant -remove] You've never been enabled to spy on people (going beyond that training), and to be brutally honest, would probably never be trusted to do so, even in as limited a context as I did. [completely irrelevant] In short, there are subjects you are incapable of having an informed opinion on, and the tradegy of it is that like most in that opinion you'll never really understand why this is, or what a differant person you'd be if you ever did have your eyes opened to the truth.
So anyway it ends up being:
I've challenged you before to provide evidence beyond your anecdotal rubbish and you've failed to come through. As such you're just another person perpetuating dangerous myths about perfectly normal people.To be honest my attitude on homosexuals is pretty much middle of the road, but you for all your claims of worldlyness have never actually met someone with extreme viewpoints to understand the differances.
Seeing as my attitudes are backed up by a lot of experience and training. Once you learn certain things, and how to do them, you can no longer see the world the way someone who is not trained does not. You can basically say I'm wrong about homosexuals and so on, but that's because of what you've heard, read, and want to believe. Your opinion compared to mine being ultimatly meaningless because you simply don't actually know anything, and aren't equipped properly to learn it.
You've never been enabled to spy on people (going beyond that training), and to be brutally honest, would probably never be trusted to do so, even in as limited a context as I did. In short, there are subjects you are incapable of having an informed opinion on, and the tradegy of it is that like most in that opinion you'll never really understand why this is, or what a differant person you'd be if you ever did have your eyes opened to the truth.
If you're claiming experience because you are "a trained observer" (What ever the fuck that means, are you a cop? A social worker? Private investigator? Vigilante?) I think you're probably suffering from exposure bias.
Regardless previous statements you've made have been fundamentally disgusting and in no way "middle of the road".
You want to claim that homosexuals are more likely to be paedophiles, provide statistical evidence from peer reviewed research or fuck off. Your creepy claims that your "experience and training" (Care to name the organisation?) and being "enabled to spy on people"(?????????) provided you with knowledge about the "truth" about homosexuals do not fucking wash and are pretty horrific in and of themselves.
You make it sound like you spy on homosexuals appropo of nothing. What I'm assuming is that you've been asked (or you do it off your own back for fucked up reasons of your own.) to watch those accused or convicted of child sex offences against boys. This is selection bias which you've turned to bigotry.
Or you're making the scientificcally fallaceous argument that because 3% of men are gay and 33% of child sexual offenders target boys, that homosexuals are more likely to offend. This disregards the evidence that the mechanics in the psychology between homosexual and hetrosexual paedophilia and that of androphilia and gynophilia are completely different and that.
It also ignores the massive body of evidence that paedophiles do not display erectile response when shown pictures of adults of the same sex as their preferred child gender.