Bias in the mainstream media

[SmartCat]

You are ignorant of logic on this issue. I demonstrated that clearly when your conclusion did not follow your points.

You demonstrated nothing of the sort. In your unwillingness to describe the difference between deductive logic and inductive logic you revealed your ignorance of logical reasoning.

I will repeat my reasoning again.

Major premise: Male homosexuals are about two to three percent of the male population.

Minor premise: A vastly larger percentage of sexually abused minors are boys.

Conclusion: Homosexuals are more likely to be child abusers than are heterosexuals.

The only way one can dispute my my logic, which is deductive by the way, is to argue that for this or that silly, counter intuitive reason the vastly larger percentage of sexually abused boys are sexually abused by heterosexuals.

 

[SmartCat]

Incorrect. Tell us the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior.

I already have, over and over again. Look at comment #150.

 

[SmartCat]

Incorrect. You still don't understand the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. Do you do this because you want to remain uneducated on this issue or because it helps you to feel good about your anti-gay agenda?

My agenda is pro fact.

If you must know, I lack enthusiasm for gay marriage. It is not my issue. Nevertheless, I am not opposed to it. Indeed, I think it is likely that married homosexuals will be less likely to abuse minors than single gays.

In my thread, "The Costs of the Sexual Revolution,"
http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/243782-costs-sexual-revolution.html

I argue that the problem with American society is not that a few homosexuals want to get married, but that many heterosexuals do not want to get married and to stay married to the parents of their children.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Look up the definition of heterosexual. It's pretty explicit. For sure it does not include among its ranks people who have sexual relations with people of the same sex. Now strangling and then burying the corpse of your sexual partner, consenting or not, may go down as something completely beyond hetero/homosexual definitions. I won't deny that. But heterosexual he is not.

You still don't understand the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. That ignorance on your part makes it impossible to discuss this issue with you. Until you have a basic understanding of basic terms the best I can hope to do here is continue to point out how your lack of knowledge flaws all of your arguments.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Why? I am only saying that a person who has sex with humans of the same sex is not heterosexual. Pretty clear cut argument, CC.

Which is incorrect. Your premise shows a lack of understanding of the complexities of human sexuality and your basic ignorance around the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. Until you demonstrate that you know the difference, everything you say has no validity. And when/if you DO show that you know the difference, everything you say will again be shown to have no validity. That's why I like debating you calamity.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Sometimes your arguments and the information you present approach the absurd. If, I go out every Friday to pick up guys and have sex with them, I am not heterosexual, no matter how many female sex partners I may have on the other six days of the week.

What is the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. Let's see if you can demonstrate that you have some knowledge on this topic.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

If the sexual behavior is to have sex with both sexes, the orientation is bisexual. Pretty simple stuff, CC. No need to complicate things.

Incorrect. Try again. I asked you to tell us the difference. You did not do that. You're right. This is pretty basic stuff... and you keep getting it wrong.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

The only reason I "know so little about" child abuse is because I have never been guilty of it.

Once does not have to "do" something in order to understand it's nature and to have knowledge about it. There. I just taught you something else.

I have already explained the difference between sexual orientation and behavior. This is the last time I will repeat myself. Sexual orientation is the propensity to be attracted to males, females, or both, and to be attracted to males, females, or both at
various ages.

Correct up until the part I placed in bold. That is YOUR addition. It is not the actual definition. Someone who would be attracted to a male or female (or both) of a child would be a pedophile. Sexual orientation is irrelevant in this case.

Sexual behavior is what one actually does. It is not true that all men who are attracted to underage boys try to have sex with those boys. It is probably the case that most do not. Nevertheless, the desire is father to the deed.

Incorrect. Sexual behavior is any act that is sexual in nature. It is a separate concept from sexual orientation. It can be connected or it can be mutually exclusive. There is no definitive set pattern that encompasses everyone of a particular sexual orientation.

It is natural for sexually mature heterosexual males of all ages to prefer females from the ages of about 18 to perhaps 25 because they are best able to give birth to healthy babies. Homosexuals are similar in this regard to heterosexuals. They prefer youth. This can easily be determined by looking at heterosexual and homosexual pornography.

Here you are talking about sexual orientation, not sexual behavior, and you are talking about heterosexuality or homosexuality, not pedophilia. You are confusing terms.

I remember when I was in the seventh grade in junior high school. The seventh grade girls looked good, but the ninth grade girls looked much better! When I was in senior high school the tenth grade girls looked good, but the twelfth grade girls still looked better.

In terms of sexual attraction, there is no dichotomy between men who are attracted to males, females, or both who are over the age of seventeen, and those who are under the age of eighteen. There is nothing that happens to a person on his or her eighteenth birthday that suddenly turns on the lust of older men. Attractive eighteen year olds were attractive at the age of seventeen. They were probably attractive children.

What is the difference between ephebophilia and pedophilia?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

You demonstrated nothing of the sort. In your unwillingness to describe the difference between deductive logic and inductive logic you revealed your ignorance of logical reasoning.

I will repeat my reasoning again.

Major premise: Male homosexuals are about two to three percent of the male population.

Minor premise: A vastly larger percentage of sexually abused minors are boys.

Conclusion: Homosexuals are more likely to be child abusers than are heterosexuals.

The only way one can dispute my my logic, which is deductive by the way, is to argue that for this or that silly, counter intuitive reason the vastly larger percentage of sexually abused boys are sexually abused by heterosexuals.

Wrong. The accurate way to demonstrate that your reasoning is illogical is to demonstrate that your conclusion is inaccurate as are your definitions. Because a male abuses a boy, does NOT mean that the male is homosexual. That's your flaw and why your argument is invalid.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I already have, over and over again. Look at comment #150.

Easily taken apart.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

My agenda is pro fact.

That would mean you have facts... which you do not.

If you must know, I lack enthusiasm for gay marriage. It is not my issue. Nevertheless, I am not opposed to it. Indeed, I think it is likely that married homosexuals will be less likely to abuse minors than single gays.

Since gays do not abuse minors at a higher rate than straights, your position is invalid.

 

[calamity]

You still don't understand the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. That ignorance on your part makes it impossible to discuss this issue with you. Until you have a basic understanding of basic terms the best I can hope to do here is continue to point out how your lack of knowledge flaws all of your arguments.

Which is incorrect. Your premise shows a lack of understanding of the complexities of human sexuality and your basic ignorance around the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. Until you demonstrate that you know the difference, everything you say has no validity. And when/if you DO show that you know the difference, everything you say will again be shown to have no validity. That's why I like debating you calamity.

What is the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. Let's see if you can demonstrate that you have some knowledge on this topic.

Incorrect. Try again. I asked you to tell us the difference. You did not do that. You're right. This is pretty basic stuff... and you keep getting it wrong.

The last statement of mine pretty much did distinguish between the two: if someone's behavior is such that they have sex with people of the same sex, they are not heterosexual. Their orientation would be bisexual if they also have sex with people of the same sex, which is exactly what Gacey was.

 

[SmartCat]

That would mean you have facts... which you do not.

What have I said that is not true?

You are immune to facts. Your mind is so full of the preposterous belief that most boys who are sexually abused by men are sexually abused by heterosexual men that I cannot push any facts into it.

 

[SmartCat]

Easily taken apart.

Try to do it.

 

[calamity]

Incorrect. Try again. I asked you to tell us the difference. You did not do that. You're right. This is pretty basic stuff... and you keep getting it wrong.

The last statement of mine pretty much did distinguish between the two: if someone's behavior is such that they have sex with people of the same sex, they are not heterosexual. Their orientation would be bisexual if they also have sex with people of the same sex, which is exactly what Gacey was.

To add to my previous post, if someone's behaviour leads them to having sexual relations with a certain sex or both of them, it would stand to reason they are attracted to them. Thus, it would define their orientation. Unless, of course, you want to argue people have sex with those they are not attracted to...which I guess is possible. But, boy that sure is a freaking stretch in order to just try making a point.

 

[SmartCat]

Two facts are reasonably clear. First, the percentage of homosexuals in the male population is about 2 - 3 percent. Second, the percent of sexual abuse victims who are boys can be estimated from about 30 percent to 85 percent.

To argue that homosexuals are not much more likely to be child abusers than are heterosexuals is to invent definitions of "homosexual" and "heterosexual" that violate common usage.

Speaking only for myself, I am a heterosexual. The thought of having sex with a teenage boy leaves me cold. I do not care if he is beautiful, takes all of the initiative, and I am confident we would not be detected, I would have no desire to do it.

A fifteen year old girl can have a woman's body. Many do. If a beautiful fifteen year old girl put the moves on me I am confident I would not succumb. To the contrary, I would avoid being alone with her. I would avoid doing anything to arouse suspicion. Nevertheless, the matter would attract my attention. I might even feel flattered. I am confident that my response to teenagers is similar to virtually all heterosexual men, although a few might explore the possibility of a liaison with the fifteen year old girl.

The only reason what calamity and I are saying is even marginally controversial is because of taboos against criticizing homosexuals.

One can say anything bad about white, male, heterosexual, Protestant Fundamentalists. Any public criticism of homosexuals, blacks, Hispanics, or Muslims can be dangerous, even if the criticism is well documented and qualified.

I have not said that all homosexuals are child abusers. I suspect that most are not. I have never said that no heterosexuals are child abusers. Some very obviously are. What I am saying is that homosexuals are much more likely to be child abusers than are heterosexuals.

 

[Matthew Carcoon]

With the exception of FOX News, which fought and won a law suit protecting its right to lie, the major networks and newspapers do not lie. What they print in news stories is nearly always true. If they make a mistake, they admit it.

Where bias comes to play is which events they choose to cover, and how they choose to cover them.

In 1998 Matthew Shepard was killed by two men he picked up in a bar. That was in the news for months. It was only years later that I learned of a thirteen year old boy who was raped and tortured to death by two adult homosexuals a year later.

The tragic story of Jesse Dirkhising

There was no organized conspiracy to cover up this information. Various news media simply decided not to cover it. Years ago I read an essay in The New York Times that said that liberals seldom want to read anything bad about blacks or homosexuals. Many newspapers do not print the race of criminal suspects.

The mainstream media has been eager to report the Roman Catholic priestly pedophile scandal. Little attention has been given to the fact that 85% of the victims of these pedophile priests have been boys. That tells me that homosexuals are more likely to be sex abusers than heterosexuals. That is seldom even suggested, however.

Media has gotten the practice of biased media down to a T. Even ignoring their ability to omit stories that oppose their bias, there is an enormous difference in perception between someone "dying" and being "brutally murdered", and they're able to skew stories in any way they desire for their own ends.
I've read an article--or rather a pair of articles--portraying two possible views on the exact same story: one telling the tale of a lonely kid who was driven to go out and shoot his abuser in a school shooting because that was his only conceivable escape, and the other about an unstable kid who grew up to be an unstable murderer who violently mowed down a several students and a teacher at his school. The difference in elicited emotions and the message received was remarkable.

Psychology is the main focus of most news and politics, these days. It's very difficult to find news that both gives neutral bias and shows all real news stories. Even when consciously attempting to be unbiased, bias is ingrained in human psychology and physiology to our core, making it difficult if not impossible. The uninformed, common news consumer is thrown into a whirlwind of misleading information, and are told by every news outlet and politician that they are the truth. The truth is they are all manipulating us, but how can we avoid it?

Good luck.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

The last statement of mine pretty much did distinguish between the two: if someone's behavior is such that they have sex with people of the same sex, they are not heterosexual.

No, that did nothing of the sort. Since sexual behavior is not a definitive subset of sexual orientation, one can be homosexual and have sex with someone of the opposite sex and retain their homosexuality. You are practicing black and white thinking and demonstrating that, as usual, you have no knowledge on research or information on the topic we are discussing.

Their orientation would be bisexual if they also have sex with people of the same sex, which is exactly what Gacey was.

Incorrect. Gacy was a heterosexual who's aggression was aimed towards teenage boys and young men. His aggression was sexual in nature.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

What have I said that is not true?

You haven't said anything that IS true.

You are immune to facts. Your mind is so full of the preposterous belief that most boys who are sexually abused by men are sexually abused by heterosexual men that I cannot push any facts into it.

You have presented nothing but anti-gay bias. ANYONE who would link to FRC is anti-gay and ignorant of facts on this issue. You do not understand the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior and have shown a a complete resistance to understand any facts that do not agree with your agenda. I have no intention of trying to teach you anything on this topic; you have demonstrated that is not possible. I will just continue to point out your complete inaccuracy so that anyone who wanders into this thread unsure of what is correct will be able to notice that your posts demonstrate nothing but ignorance.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Try to do it.

Done. Easily and with little effort.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

To add to my previous post, if someone's behaviour leads them to having sexual relations with a certain sex or both of them, it would stand to reason they are attracted to them.

This may by the dumbest thing you've said in this entire thread, and demonstrates that you know nothing about sexuality and sexual behavior. In prisons, for example, a prisoner will have sex with a same-sex prisoner, not because of attraction, but because of aggression, because of power, because of opportunity, or to obtain protection. Nothing about attraction, AND the vast majority who engage in these behaviors are HETEROSEXUAL. You should really recuse yourself from this thread. Your lack of knowledge on this topic is more vast than all the sand on the planet.

Thus, it would define their orientation. Unless, of course, you want to argue people have sex with those they are not attracted to...which I guess is possible. But, boy that sure is a freaking stretch in order to just try making a point.

One example of this was given above. Pretty common. Another example is what we are discussing. Also common. Both are well documented. Your ignorance on this topic is once again exposed.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Two facts are reasonably clear. First, the percentage of homosexuals in the male population is about 2 - 3 percent. Second, the percent of sexual abuse victims who are boys can be estimated from about 30 percent to 85 percent.

True. Yet these two things have nothing to do with each other since sexual orientation and sexual behavior are two different things. Further, sexual activity towards children is pedophilia an issue that is completely separate from one's sexual orientation.

Once again, your ignorance on this topic is exposed and you have been corrected.

To argue that homosexuals are not much more likely to be child abusers than are heterosexuals is to invent definitions of "homosexual" and "heterosexual" that violate common usage.

No, the definition of a sexual orientation has nothing to do with pedophilia. If you believe it does, then YOU have equivocated the definitions and are being dishonest.

Speaking only for myself, I am a heterosexual. The thought of having sex with a teenage boy leaves me cold. I do not care if he is beautiful, takes all of the initiative, and I am confident we would not be detected, I would have no desire to do it.

That has nothing to do with you being heterosexual. That means that you are not a pedophile who's pedophile's orientation is towards males. The DSM-V makes no connection between the sex of the pedophile and the sex of the individual their pedophilia is aimed towards since it is irrelevant. This is why the sex of the target ONLY made a distinction.

A fifteen year old girl can have a woman's body. Many do. If a beautiful fifteen year old girl put the moves on me I am confident I would not succumb. To the contrary, I would avoid being alone with her. I would avoid doing anything to arouse suspicion. Nevertheless, the matter would attract my attention. I might even feel flattered. I am confident that my response to teenagers is similar to virtually all heterosexual men, although a few might explore the possibility of a liaison with the fifteen year old girl.

What is the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior? All you are doing above is saying what YOU would do. This is irrelevant to what a pedophile might do.

The only reason what calamity and I are saying is even marginally controversial is because of taboos against criticizing homosexuals.

No, the reason that what you and calamity are saying is controversial is because it is ignorant and is contrary to what we know about sexuality, sexual orientation, sexual behavior, and pedophilia. You do it because of your anti-gay agenda.

One can say anything bad about white, male, heterosexual, Protestant Fundamentalists. Any public criticism of homosexuals, blacks, Hispanics, or Muslims can be dangerous, even if the criticism is well documented and qualified.

One cannot say things that are ignorant without being confronted. You said something ignorant. And you have been confronted.

I have not said that all homosexuals are child abusers. I suspect that most are not. I have never said that no heterosexuals are child abusers. Some very obviously are. What I am saying is that homosexuals are much more likely to be child abusers than are heterosexuals.

And you have been proven wrong on that matter.

 

[Cisero]

I beg your pardon CaptainCourtesy, but if a man has sex with a boy that makes him a pedophile & a homosexual.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I beg your pardon CaptainCourtesy, but if a man has sex with a boy that makes him a pedophile & a homosexual.

No, it makes him a pedophile. His sexual orientation has nothing to do with the sex of the child he abuses.

 

[Cisero]

This may by the dumbest thing you've said in this entire thread, and demonstrates that you know nothing about sexuality and sexual behavior. In prisons, for example, a prisoner will have sex with a same-sex prisoner, not because of attraction, but because of aggression, because of power, because of opportunity, or to obtain protection. Nothing about attraction, AND the vast majority who engage in these behaviors are HETEROSEXUAL.

Yes I agree. However, doesn't a pedophile decide what child he wants to rape based on his personal taste ? If pedophiles are more attracted to little girls, it's logical for them to abduct little girls. Why do they abduct little boys ?

In a prison context, wouldn't prisoners rape women if they were available ?

(This thread is quite disturbing)