TAdamson said:
Or how about this?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/030105119490037X
I'm glad to see you think that your experience as casino security is more valid than actual scientific research.
Okay, now we're done.
By your spurious definitions you might not be racist but you're definitely culturally xenophobic and generally homophobic.
Actually, yes it is more valid. You can come up with all the theories and tests you want but at the end of the day it comes down to what people are actually doing out there in the real world. Proper scientific research on the subject would involve conferring with people who actually have experience like me, and those who handled a lot of my training and such to begin with.
In the end it's like this, you want to know about Gorillas. You capture one, put it in a cage, and then examine it in a controlled enviroment. In the end any hypothosis you might come to or prove about them and how they behave in the wild is totally irrelevent compared to the word from someone who goes out into the woods and watches them from hiding for a few years. The guy doing the covert observation might not have the fancy lab, but he's going to wind up knowing a heck of a lot about Gorillas.
The problem with most research on subjects like homosexuality is simply the human factor. Those who get involved in doing it, set out to prove a specific point. The guys making cases that gay men are harmless are generally though with a liberal agenda who are out to prove that point to begin with. The same way that someone from an anti-gay type group might do the same thing from the opposite perspective. The results reinforce what they set out to prove to begin with. Both sides claim they debunked each other, and who you take more seriously depends on what you want to believe to begin with. The two sides laugh at each other's research, and who is considered "right" more often in discussions depends on what forum your in when you make the referance. That's why I don't bother to play the "link game".
The thing is that my conclusions came after long experience, I didn't set out to be anti-gay men despite what you might think from my early life experiences. Actually, it's easiest in life to just let and let live, and assume the best of everyone as long as they leave you alone. Ignorance is bliss and all of that. Rather, I wound up in a position where I was out there with the right training, watching human behavior over a prolonged period of time. Patterns of behavior developed, reinforced by training, logs, etc... which all pointed in this direction. It's sort of like the guy observing the gorillas. The guys doing this research by definitition just don't have the training, or time invested, to do what I did, since nobody was going to pay them, nor are they neutral since they set out to do research to begin with.
I get that you don't want to accept this, and that's fine, but the point remains that I, and people like me, are the only real sources you could possibly have for something like this. To argue the point we'd need to find someone with a similar backround, with an entirely differant set of experiences. That would provide a counter-source to it. I'm pretty confident though that you won't find anyone in the same kind of position covertly watching/protecting children as part of a job who will disagree with me.
See, you keep using the term "homophobic" but that really isn't accurate, since I'm not against homosexuals, just gay men. The reason for this is simple. You know my standards come down to a tendency towards pedophillia. My reason is that I've seen a lot of gay men try and go after kids/lurk around/etc, caught them with kiddie porn in bags (which the casino doesn't prosecute being more interested in the money spent at games than anything else), and similar things, enough to have noticed a massive trend. I have not seen ONE case of a lesbian trying to do the same thing to a little girl in ten years on the job. I won't say it hasn't happened, it probably has, but not on my watch, and certainly not frequently enough to form a pattern. As a result, I could give a crap what lesbians do. This is a trend you'll also find in the media in general, you do a check for sexual assaults on little girls by adult women and while they do exists, how many will you find compared to little boys being attacked by men? Let's just say the gay men pull waaay ahead here. Contrary to what some people imply, that I am not anti-lesbian because I like lesbian porn (which is funny since porn has so little bearing on reality), or whatever else, for me it's a very simple situation.
I'll also go so far as to say that even the ridiculous "but what about straight guys attacking girls" peanut gallery crack really doesn't matter. You don't generally see the same kind of hunting/stalking behavior. It's to the point where I'm far less likely to be concerned about a little girl with some strange guy, than some strange guy following little boys around. To be honest there have been far more incidents (mostly "close calls"... again the casino just wants to prevent incidents for it's own liability, it doesn't care what people do in most cases that don't involve it's money, since it wants everyone, including the real scum, to gamble) with men going after little boys than with guys going
after little girls, which happened in a blue moon comparitively. It's something you learn from watching patterns, and responding to incidents over a period of time.
In short, I am exactly what I portray myself as... anti-gay men. I'm actually quite blunt and up front about it. "Homophobe" is a nice, left wing attack, that tries to imply there is something wrong with the person who dislike gays, but it really doesn't work in my case since the problem isn't homosexuality, just one paticular side of it. It's also pointless to attack me on the case, I'm hardly ashamed of it, I think what I do from a long period of time. Running around screaming "Therumancer doesn't gays" is kind of funny on a lot of levels, like it's something I hide if the subject comes up.
Also I myself have said before that I'm a cultural bigot, something which actually comes from not being racist. Simply put I believe that as all people are pretty much the same, they can be held to the same standards, and can be expected to learn and change. When I'm critical of nations like The Middle East, China, etc... it's because of their behavior and what they do. I do not consider "well we've been doing it this way for thousands of years" to be an excuse not to grow up and progress. There is no intristic, genetic, barrier, compelling these people to be a specific way. That's why when I go on my militant rants about breakin cultures and killing hundreds of millions of people or whatever, it ultimatly comes down to putting an end to an ingrained set of behaviors with a lot of inertia behind it. I genuinely believe people can be made to change, and a lot of the backwards craziness we see going on is the result of a self perpetuating cultural cycle that cannot be broken internally, which is why exterior force (extreme given that it's a society) is nessicary. There is no racism or genocide involved, since I believe in the final equasion everyone can be held to the same standards. There is no genetic imperative making islamic tribes stone women to death, or keep these endless cycles of human trafficking throughout that region as well as asia and south and central america going.
In the final equasion what I believe in amounts to social darwinism. Yes I am a bigot, because I happen to believe that what I think, and what my society standards for IS better than civilizations that promote human trafficking, intergrated sexism, racism, and other assorted behaviors. I believe that the greater good can be measured in terms of future generations, killing hundreds of millions now is a small price for untold trillions that will not effectively be born into one form of ownership and slavery or another accross future generations. If you break a culture, people can be taught to live a better way. Of course this is the height of bigotry as people from those same cultures fully believe in their theocracies, stonings, human ownership schemes, sweatshops, and whatever.
The point of this rant. I don't like gay men, and I'm a pro-western bigot, primarily American, but I tend to see proper civilization being represented by a triumverate of the USA, UK, and Australia... or simply put The British Empire and it's two greatest children. As I've ranted before, while I disagree with a lot of their current politics, I think the three of us are far more alike than differant at the end of the day due to our shared origins, and that I believe this basic style of values and morality (seperation of church and state, no slavery or human ownership of other humans) is the best possible future for humanity.
