bintananth
behind a desk
Sample bias.
When it's illegal to do "X" a huge chunk of the people who get caught and tossed away for doing "X" probably aren't the ones you need to worry about.
Meme Thread for Both Posting and Discussing Memes
- Thread starter Captain X
- Start date
When it's illegal to do "X" a huge chunk of the people who get caught and tossed away for doing "X" probably aren't the ones you need to worry about.
Yinko
Well-known member
Alright you made me curious.
Paper based on looking at convicts.
From the extract: "Previous investigations have indicated that the ratio of sex offenders against female children vs. offenders against male children is approximately 2:1, while the ratio of gynephiles to androphiles among the general population is approximately 20:1."
"the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. "
Another paper that is even worse.
Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse
famguardian.org
Article that goes the other way. It's based on looking at victims though, not at convicts.
Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? - PubMed
The children in the group studied were unlikely to have been molested by identifiably gay or lesbian people.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
These are all from the 90's, probably around the time that the gay marriage issue was starting be bandied about, so I'm not sure how much you can claim a lack of bias. Certainly can't claim a lack of any modern papers... if they existed.
WTF, and no?
One of the chief weird things about this is that many times men who abuse boys are sexually attracted to adult women, not adult men (which can be scientifically determined by measuring the erection, so no response weirdness). They aren't gay, they are just straights that don't care what type of kid they abuse because they have a fetish for kids. When we add that to it being less suspicious hanging around young boys vs young girls, it explains a fair amount of the bias in these. I don't think your study (from a quick read) actually analyzed that.Alright you made me curious.
Paper based on looking at convicts.
From the extract: "Previous investigations have indicated that the ratio of sex offenders against female children vs. offenders against male children is approximately 2:1, while the ratio of gynephiles to androphiles among the general population is approximately 20:1."
"the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. "
Another paper that is even worse.
Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse
famguardian.org
Article that goes the other way. It's based on looking at victims though, not at convicts.
Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? - PubMed
The children in the group studied were unlikely to have been molested by identifiably gay or lesbian people.
These are all from the 90's, probably around the time that the gay marriage issue was starting be bandied about, so I'm not sure how much you can claim a lack of bias. Certainly can't claim a lack of any modern papers... if they existed.
Also, your second source was from the Family Research Council, which is going to be a pretty biased source.
bintananth
behind a desk
You are extremely wrong in this regard.
The safest babysitter I've ever met is a gay man from East St. Louis. My twin sister's kids know that he's not their father. They call him "dad".
Bigking321
Well-known member
I'm pretty much in agreement with you. The whole thing looks like evil globalists vs a Russia China alliance. I want nothing to do with it.
It's entirely possible that homosexuals are significantly more likely to abuse kids than heterosexuals, but given that such behavior is incredibly rare in the first place, "more likely" is not the same as "dangerously likely", which is the leap in the logic Whitestrake and his ilk are making.
Yinko
Well-known member
I think I remember reading before that pre-pubescent androgyny plays a part in that. Because children look androgynous it is rare for pedophiles to be picky.
I know, they are all blatantly biased. Some more than others, I pointed out that the second one was worse. In fact, there are basically no qualifiers in their arguments. The third paper, that argues against homosexuality being linked, is also biased since it's logical arguments are quite wishy-washy.
This isn't a topic that any one is going to take a look at without someone trying to affect the outcome of the study.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
I'm guessing neither of you have played Fallout: New Vegas?
bintananth
behind a desk
Up until about the age of twelve boys and girls are pretty much identical when you don't have secondary or tertiary clues like behavior, hairstyle, and clothing.
ShadowsOfParadox
Well-known member
A cloak.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
No, they aren't. The similarities are less significant, and androgyny is more common, but there are plenty of little boys and girls who are very hard to mistake for the other sex.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
That image is much, much older than Fallout. As in, by about a century. I was referencing the original they paid homage to, which had red marks commonly interpreted as blood.
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
Command and Conquer getting the respect it deserves.
Kinda worked for Red Dawn... the original.
Kinda worked for Red Dawn... the original.
bintananth
behind a desk
Secondary and tertiary clues are what make it obvious.
Barring something like precocious puberty you can't be absolutely certain that J. Random Little Kid is a boy or a girl at first glance unless the little kid is naked.