waltermitty (r) vs. carlhayden(d)

[afleitch]

Oh, perhaps Alcon can cite the names of the female victims of Gacy and/or Williams, since you have delclined to list such names.

One last time Carl. I don't know who they are, I do not know the crimes they commited. I do not know the names of their victims. It was a US media story. Not a British one. I 'declined' nothing- I just don't know who on earth they are.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Oh, perhaps Alcon can cite the names of the female victims of Gacy and/or Williams, since you have delclined to list such names.

One last time Carl. I don't know who they are, I do not know the crimes they commited. I do not know the names of their victims. It was a US media story. Not a British one. I 'declined' nothing- I just don't know who on earth they are.

Fleitch,

If you look at my last post, you will note that my challenge with respect to the victims of Mr. Gacy and Mr. Williams was addressed to Alcon.  Your point that you are not familiar with crimes committed in the United States is understood.

Oh, and btw, is truth an absolute defense to defamation charges in the UK today?  As I earlier noted, in the United States it is, but british law at the time of the Zenger case held that it was not.  Zenger was also a famous case for jury nullification.  So, what is the current status of british law in this area?

Also, have a nice day.

[afleitch]

So, what is the current status of british law in this area?

I don't study law. Why do you wish to know?

[Democratic Hawk]

I can see this thread running longer than the King County ballots and that's saying something!

Dave

[CARLHAYDEN]

So, what is the current status of british law in this area?

I don't study law. Why do you wish to know?

Well, YOU were the one who posted an allegation against me of slander.

I advised you that none of my posts could be classified as 'slander' and that under American law (I cited the seminal case) truth is an absolute defense.  I further noted that at the time of Zenger truth was NOT a defense under British law.  Perhaps your accusation was based not only on an ignorance of the differences between 'slander' and 'libel' which I explained, but perhaps in British law, truth may still NOT be a defense (which would seem to explain a great deal).

Now, when you bring up points, it seems to me that it is only proper to provide explanation of them when querried.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I can see this thread running longer than the King County ballots and that's saying something!

Dave

Uh, Dave, please review the posts and tell me if I have given numerous specific examples to support my points, and requested clarification of statements my by opposing posters?

Also, when I have requested responses (I think rather clearly and specifically) have the opposing parties often been nonresponsive (i.e. replies which do NOT address the specific matter raised)?

Further, I believe I have commended other posters for some parts of their posts, and have instead received considerable abuse?

Also, there is a maxim in logic which translates to the effect that to argue from the specific to the general is valid, while to argue from the general to the specific is invalid.  Are you familiar with this maxim?

[CARLHAYDEN]

All the ancedotal evidence in the world does not support your claim which is that a majority of homosexuals support child molestation. Now if you had a poll or some study showing that to be the case with exact percentages, you'd have a point. You don't.

Well, lets look at your post.

First, I have cited uncontrovered facts (which you lave ancedotal evidence) and in turn have received nonresponsive replies without any facts.  Hmm.

Second, if you would read closer I did not say that a majority of homosexuals support child molestation, but rather that few homosexuals would denounce NAMBA, an organization dedicated to child molestation. Please reread my posts.

Third, yes survey research would be very useful, however it is both costly (money) and most research are understandably terrified of homosexual retaliation if results were produced which ran counter to homosexual claims.

Let me cite an example.  For many years, homosexuals claimed that they constituted 10 per cent of the population.  Several surveys have indicated that in fact they constitue approximately two per cent of the population (plus or minus one per cent).  When the first survey came out years ago with the results I just cited, homosexuals really went nuts and denounced the survey in rather intemperate terms (threats were made, etc.)

[afleitch]

Several surveys have indicated that in fact they constitue approximately two per cent of the population (plus or minus one per cent).  When the first survey came out years ago with the results I just cited, homosexuals really went nuts and denounced the survey in rather intemperate terms (threats were made, etc.)

Actually the British government released an in depth survey, complied by them to give them reliable figures to work with during the implementation of the civil partnerships bill, last December suggesting that 1 in 16.66 people in Britain were gay - around 6% of the population or approximately 3.6 million people in the UK.

Source: The Daily Telegraph (a right wing newspaper) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/12/ngay12.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/12/12/ixhome.html

Surveys used different methodology and give different answers- and depends of course on the willingness of the respondent to co-operate. So you can 'pluck' out surveys showing 2% and surveys showing 6-7% in order to back up your claim. (as anyone who has dealt with the complexity of polling would know) This survey was different - it was not by sociologists, or by gay rights groups - but simply for the governments own use acting like a 'census' in order to allow them to calculate the potential number of partnerships in different parts of the country. Much of the national breakdown data has not yet been released.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, thank you for the information.

Second, the surveys I cited were for the United States, and I will concede that the UK probably has a higher per centage of homosexuals than the United States.

Third, just as ALL heterosexuals do NOT marry (some remain unmarried all of their lives), I suggest that many homosexuals may not choose to avail themselves of 'civil partnerships.'

Fourth, it will be interesting to see the breakout of homosexuals by area.  I suspect it will end up being higher in England than in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.  Please advise me by posting on the forum when such information is available.

[Alcon]

Yes Alcon, I realize that in your world theories trump facts.

Facts are only anecodatal, but theories need no evidence.

Yes, and as to you "retied cop" friend, is he/she/it the easter bunny too?

I could probably find police officers that say there is no correlation; you could probably find some that say there are.  Are they both correct?  No.  How is your anecdotal evidence any more or less valid than mine?

I do not understand how you can claim that I am making up knowing a retired Seattle police officer when you make vague references to being "in the know" constantly.  Is it that unlikely that I know a retired Seattle police officer?  Hell, I know two (although one I would not be comfortable talking to about this sort of thing, certainly).

No  number of facts will change your mind as you are inflexibly adhering to politcial correctness.

Go ahead and believe in political correctness (or just continue to spout it), but some day you may wake up to the real world.

Just because my position is "politically correct" does not make it wrong.  There are plenty of positions which I support that are not "politically correct."

And so far, you have presented anectodal evidence (without, by the way, reference of any sort), not facts.  Facts are backed up by evidence, not hearsay.

You still, I will note, have not replied to my decimation of your "study."

Oh, and btw, would either you or Alcon be so good as to tell me how many of the victims of John Wayne Gacy or Wayne Williams were female minors, as opposed to male minors?

Relevance?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, I guess you are unable to cite any names of the victims of Mr. Gacy or Mr. Williams who are not young males.

Now, when I cited the example of catholic priests moleting only boys you alledged that it was because of their limited access.

Are you saying that Mr. Gacy and Mr. Williams had access only to young boys?

If you concede that had access to boys and girls alike, why did they only kill young boys?

Access seems not to explain things.

Again, I cite specific examples to refute general allegations.

Seems relevant to me.

Now, I will give you a hint as to why I am able to gain access to information on criminal data.

Many years ago while working on my thesis I came across a correlation which had a major impact on explaining major variations in the violent crime rate among black Americans.

If you look at the rate of Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter by Jurisdiction, you will see there is a major variation in that rate among blacks.  Try taking the average and projecting it on say the District of Columbia (one example) and Mississippi (another example) and you will find a major discrepency which my factoring largely explained (and no, its not simply the size of community).

Tell me when you find the correlation factor.

Hint.  Its related to a factor long used by judges in determining bail.

Oh, and btw, I cited specific examples to support my contention, and apparently you were able to see at least a few of the examples.

You cited a study by a 'hospital' which is blantantly pro-homosexual, and an anonymous (and possibly mythical) retired cop.

I would like to see the police and the FBI collect data on child molesters by category of both the sex of the victim, and of the perpetrator. As I noted earlier, I don't see this happening for political reasons.

[Alcon]

Well, I guess you are unable to cite any names of the victims of Mr. Gacy or Mr. Williams who are not young males.

Now, when I cited the example of catholic priests moleting only boys you alledged that it was because of their limited access.

Are you saying that Mr. Gacy and Mr. Williams had access only to young boys?

If you concede that had access to boys and girls alike, why did they only kill young boys?

Access seems not to explain things.

Again, I cite specific examples to refute general allegations.

Seems relevant to me.

And would it be relevant if I cited cases of heterosexual minor rape?  I could very well take the case of John Wayne Gacy, Jr., and hypthosise that men who dress up in clown suits are more likely to sexually molest boys.  Besides, again, specific examples do not necessarily indicate an overall trend in such a large sample body.  Will you admit this?

Now, I will give you a hint as to why I am able to gain access to information on criminal data.

Many years ago while working on my thesis I came across a correlation which had a major impact on explaining major variations in the violent crime rate among black Americans.

If you look at the rate of Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter by Jurisdiction, you will see there is a major variation in that rate among blacks.  Try taking the average and projecting it on say the District of Columbia (one example) and Mississippi (another example) and you will find a major discrepency which my factoring largely explained (and no, its not simply the size of community).

Tell me when you find the correlation factor.

Hint.  Its related to a factor long used by judges in determining bail.

That's hardly the Google search I want to be doing in the classroom I'm in right now (), but I am certainly interested in hearing what correlation there is.  I do not see exactly why this is relevant, but I'm always interested in learning that sort of thing.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Alcon, either you did not understand the original point (although I think I tried very carefully to explain it), or you are deliberately misrepresenting what I said one again.

I concede that there are heterosexual males who have molester minor girls, and if you look back on this thread you will note that I have specifically condemned a judge in Vermont for giving a very light sentence to a man who abused a little girl.

My point about Mr. Gacy and Mr. Williams was that your earlier contention that the reason boys only were molested by catholic priests was because of availability.

As the cases of Gacy and Williams clearly show, availablity is NOT the sole consideration.

As to the correlation, the factor I provided to law enforcement was subsequently incorporated into their computations for allocation of resources (it was but one of many factors used).  Given the insight provided for by the factor, they have seen me as a friend, and occasionally given me information (on the qt) which will not impact on a specific prosecution.

Note that before the information hit the press, I predicted the Duke case would fall apart.

[Alcon]

Alcon, either you did not understand the original point (although I think I tried very carefully to explain it), or you are deliberately misrepresenting what I said one again.

I concede that there are heterosexual males who have molester minor girls, and if you look back on this thread you will note that I have specifically condemned a judge in Vermont for giving a very light sentence to a man who abused a little girl.

My point about Mr. Gacy and Mr. Williams was that your earlier contention that the reason boys only were molested by catholic priests was because of availability.

As the cases of Gacy and Williams clearly show, availablity is NOT the sole consideration.

I never said that; I said that this might contribute to the reason why we never hear of priests molesting girls.  I think it is you who is having difficulties with reading comprehension.

As to the correlation, the factor I provided to law enforcement was subsequently incorporated into their computations for allocation of resources (it was but one of many factors used).  Given the insight provided for by the factor, they have seen me as a friend, and occasionally given me information (on the qt) which will not impact on a specific prosecution.

You do not believe that I know a Seattle police officer, yet you expect me to believe this?  I do, of course, because I do not see why you would lie.  Perhaps this anectodal evidence is true; perhaps it is not.  There is no way to tell without me having numbers to back it up, which is exactly why I do not take the opinion of the police officer I know at face value either.  Experiences vary.

Note that before the information hit the press, I predicted the Duke case would fall apart.

Good for you?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, lets see-

I stated:

However, to give you one class of homosexual child abusers, I cite the rather substantial number of catholic priests over the past few years.

You replied (in part):

Could it be because they are closer to boys than girls with a greater frequency.

Now, I concluded that you we alleging that with access to boys being greater for them than access to girls, that it was simply a matter of access.

So, I cited two rather well known cases where the access issue was not so clear cut, but the results were (all victims were boys).  Ergo, something just might be going on other than access.

So now you are saying that for catholic priests access is a factor, but not for others?

If access were not a factor, can you please explain to me why all of the victims of Gacy and Williams were young males?

[Alcon]

Well, lets see-

I stated:

However, to give you one class of homosexual child abusers, I cite the rather substantial number of catholic priests over the past few years.

You replied (in part):

Could it be because they are closer to boys than girls with a greater frequency.

Now, I concluded that you we alleging that with access to boys being greater for them than access to girls, that it was simply a matter of access.

So, I cited two rather well known cases where the access issue was not so clear cut, but the results were (all victims were boys).  Ergo, something just might be going on other than access.

Then I would have said that, as opposed to what I did say, which was that it was part of it.

So now you are saying that for catholic priests access is a factor, but not for others?

Of course, it is a factor in all cases, because most pedophiles are indiscriminate in regards to sexual orientation.

By the way, you earlier said "pedophile" and "minor."  This is incorrect; those attracted to underage girls are not necessarily pedophiles.  Pedophilia, as a term, should be limited to prepubertal children; most pedophiles (following the actual definition) are attracted to either gender.  When bodies change enough for the difference to be notable, this situation may change, but please clarify which one you are discussing.

If access were not a factor, can you please explain to me why all of the victims of Gacy and Williams were young males?

Or, perhaps, you could answer the question I asked first - why are Gacy and Williams specifically relevant to this discussion any more than, say, Mary Kay Letourneau?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Would you be so kind as to state the basis for your allegation that:

    most pedophiles are indiscriminate in regards to sexual orientation.

Now, I would at first be inclinded to believe you were trying to say that pedophiles don't care whether they molest girls or boys.  However, given your past posts, I am going to seek clarification.  Is that what you are trying to alledge?

Now, for the benefit of other readers of this thread (I don't think Alcon is so dense that he doesn't 'get it')  Gacy and Williams chose their victims.  The exclusively chose to attack (and kill) boys.  So, the argument previously made that availability explained molestation is disproved, unless Alcon is going to alledge that Gacy and Williams only had access to boys.

Also, sexual predators tend to seek a particular victim type (there are numerous examples of this,  the Green River murderer, the Hillside strangler, etc.).  So, Alcon, if your cop friend tells you that this is untrue, I can guess why he's an EX cop.

Oh, and when you talk to your ex cop friend, ask him about the two categories of "mass murderers."  It would be really interesting to see if he knows about this?

[Alcon]

I used ProQuest to find this information, and I can't access that from here, but I can get the citation for you tomorrow (assuming you have access to ProQuest or something similar).  Otherwise, you may have to do some digging

It is true that sexual predators tend to seek out a certain victim type, of course.  To many, because the bodies have not developed, "prepubescent" is sufficient, as there is not much differentiation between the body at this point.

At the moment, the most I can find is web sites that refer to this (I can't find any that claims most pedophiles are attracted to one gender or the other, but plenty say most are attracted to both), but obviously that is good enough.

I don't mean to be overly aggressive, but if I cite this, will you just claim that it is inaccurate because information is being hidden to appease the homosexual agenda?

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, I have cited examples examples of where data has been repressed for political reasons, including crime data.

Second, if you review this thread you can get some small idea that many homosexuals get very exercised when one dares to disagree with them.  Please further note that the homosexuals who have disagreed on this thread have been relatively mild (routine name calling) whereas many in the real world get violent.

So, it is not suprising that agencies have supressed data on attacks by homosexuals on minors.

I earlier noted how upset some homosexuals where when the claim that ten per cent of the population of the United States was incorrect.

I hope that someday the data may become available.

[Alcon]

OK, but will you answer my question?

[afleitch]

I earlier noted how upset some homosexuals where when the claim that ten per cent of the population of the United States was incorrect.

I hope that someday the data may become available.

May I say, as someone who studied Sociology- the 1 in 10 claim has never really been cited as a reliable figure. Some gay rights groups may have used it, but i can't think of academics that did. I'm certainly not upset, and I can't think of anyone else who was! If I had written down that 1 in 10 people where gay in my sociology exam I would have been marked down! Kinsey was the most famous- remarking that 37% of men had had an orgasmic experience due to another man, but his research was a little unreliable as groundbreaking as it was.

Two Canadian studues give the number of homosexuals at 1%, yet one for Calgary alone gave the stat of 15.3% of men being 'homosexual to a degree.' Studies in France said 4.1%, the UK in 1992 said 6.1% (very similar to the government survey 13 years later which also said 6%) So results vary.

It also depends on the question that is asked and how the process is carried out. If you ask someone directly they may be unwilling to tell you about their sexual experience, but an online or anonymous survey will generate differnt results- it's a bit like canvassing political support- some people are more willing to tell you they support a certain party than others.

Take this example

'A random survey of 1672 males (number used for analysis) aged 15 to 19. Subjects were asked a number of questions, including questions relating to same-sex activity. This was done using two methods — a pencil and paper method, and via computer, supplemented by a verbal rendition of the questionnaire heard through headphones — which obtained vastly different results. There was a 400% increase in males reporting homosexual activity when the computer-audio system was used: from a 1.5% to 5.5%'

Turner CF, Ku L, Rogers SM, Lindberg LD, Pleck JH, and Sonenstein FL (1998). Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: Increased reporting with computer survey technology. Science Magazine, 280(5365-8), 867-73.)

The accademically accepted figure, not the figure quoted by gay rights activists or by those opposed to gay rights is roughly 4-6%, being notably higher in urban areas and cities than in rural areas.

The number of homosexuals in the US is probably close to around 15 million.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Let me cite three studies (for the United States which came up with relatively the same results:

Billy/Guttmacher          2.3%

Billy/Battelle                1.1

Catania/NABS                2

Now, most survey research firms assume a figure of 3%.

Now, I will certainly concede that homosexuality is probably more prevelant in the UK, partricularly England, than in the United States, and the 4-6% figure may well be accurate there. 

[CARLHAYDEN]

OK, but will you answer my question?

And you question is...?

[Alcon]

OK, but will you answer my question?

And you question is...?

Should I bother citing the study, or will you just dismiss it as another homosexual-biased study?

I can get the citation on Monday; today and tomorrow are half-days, so no ProQuest access for me.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Do whatever you choose.