Gay Mass Murder Trend

[Jefferson]

No, I think he is a pedophile.

Then why wouldn't he molest a boy - not even once out of 100 molestations?

 

[Granite]

By cowardly running away from answering my question in post #194, you just proved my point Granite.

There is zero cowardice or bravery when it comes to TOL, Jeff. If anything it just enables and allows some paper tigers and armchair tough guys to say things they'd never actually dare speak aloud. Those are the breaks when it comes to the web: anonymity and distance make us all feel brave.

As I said before, if you can address me like a man, then we can talk. When and if you can, send me a PM. Until then, I see zero point in subsidizing your attitude and rotten temper.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Then why wouldn't he molest a boy - not even once out of 100 molestations?

Can you show me data on an actual child predator who has behaved in that manner or are you just talking in absurd hypotheticals? As I've already pointed out, the vast majority of pedophiles are men who have families and heterosexual lives. If someone is having sex with dogs we don't judge whether they are straight or gay by the sex of their canine "partners" so why on earth would you pretend that you can do this for pedophiles?

 

[Jefferson]

There is zero cowardice or bravery when it comes to TOL, Jeff. If anything it just enables and allows some paper tigers and armchair tough guys to say things they'd never actually dare speak aloud. Those are the breaks when it comes to the web: anonymity and distance make us all feel brave.

As I said before, if you can address me like a man, then we can talk. When and if you can, send me a PM. Until then, I see zero point in subsidizing your attitude and rotten temper.

Oh please Granite. I've called you a brat dozens of times but as soon as I call you a brat while citing statistics that you have no response to, all of a sudden you use that as an excuse to not respond. Do you actually expect everyone to believe that's just a coincidence?

 

[Stripe]

Can you show me data on an actual child predator who has behaved in that manner or are you just talking in absurd hypotheticals? As I've already pointed out, the vast majority of pedophiles are men who have families and heterosexual lives. If someone is having sex with dogs we don't judge whether they are straight or gay by the sex of their canine "partners" so why on earth would you pretend that you can do this for pedophiles?

Homosexual mean sexual contact with the same sex. So a man having sex with a male dog is a homosexual.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Homosexual mean sexual contact with the same sex.

No, Stripe. It doesn't. Homosexuality as a sexual orientation means that person is primarily attracted to or has sex either primarily or exclusively with members of their own gender. It isn't like an STD or condition that someone catches from one same-sex encounter. If it were, the whole point of this discussion would be even more absurd. Let me spell it out for you:
Bob and the others are arguing that serial killers are composed of a disproportionately large percentage of homosexuals considering the population at large. If homosexuality were expanded to include everyone who had ever had any type of sexual contact with a member of their own gender then the numbers used for comparison, which are only people who identify themselves as gay, would be but a small percentage of those who would have to be reclassified as homosexuals under this new definition. The whole argument is based on very sloppy thinking.

So a man having sex with a male dog is a homosexual.

So you think that a man having sex with a female dog is "straight"?
:dizzy:

 

[MaryContrary]

Bob and the others are arguing that serial killers are composed of a disproportionately large percentage of homosexuals considering the population at large. If homosexuality were expanded to include everyone who had ever had any type of sexual contact with a member of their own gender then the numbers used for comparison, which are only people who identify themselves as gay, would be but a small percentage of those who would have to be reclassified as homosexuals under this new definition. The whole argument is based on very sloppy thinking.

I actually agree. I think it would be more accurate to say serial killers are composed of a disproportionately large percentage of sexual deviants considering the population at large and that homosexuality is simply one of the more common and more perverse of those deviancies.
But I'm certain you'd then just argue that homosexuality is neither perverse nor deviant, so I have to wonder if it's worth the bother.

Out of curiousity, what are you basing your assertion that the percentage of serial killers who identify themselves as homosexual would be so negligibly small and why is that the standard? What percentage of serial killers would you be comfortable identifying as homosexuals or bisexuals?

 

[Stripe]

No, Stripe. It doesn't. Homosexuality as a sexual orientation means that person is primarily attracted to or has sex either primarily or exclusively with members of their own gender.

:squint: Isn't that what I said?

It isn't like an STD or condition that someone catches from one same-sex encounter.

If you have one homosexual encounter that was a homosexual encounter and makes you a person who has had a homosexual encounter. You can't get more homosexual than that ..

If it were, the whole point of this discussion would be even more absurd. Let me spell it out for you:
Bob and the others are arguing that serial killers are composed of a disproportionately large percentage of homosexuals considering the population at large. If homosexuality were expanded to include everyone who had ever had any type of sexual contact with a member of their own gender then the numbers used for comparison, which are only people who identify themselves as gay, would be but a small percentage of those who would have to be reclassified as homosexuals under this new definition. The whole argument is based on very sloppy thinking.

I don't understand anything you just said.

So you think that a man having sex with a female dog is "straight"?
:dizzy:

:kook: He's not even got the right species for that.

 

[lightbringer]

I don't understand anything you just said

Now you've got it!:rotfl:

 

[Rusha]

If you have one homosexual encounter that was a homosexual encounter and makes you a person who has had a homosexual encounter. You can't get more homosexual than that ..

Really ... and if you have 50 heterosexual encounters, you believe that ONE encounter makes someone gay? It would be called either bi-sexual or bi-curious.

I don't understand anything you just said.

No big news there.

 

[Stripe]

Really ... and if you have 50 heterosexual encounters, you believe that ONE encounter makes someone gay? It would be called either bi-sexual or bi-curious.

One homosexual encounter makes one homosexual encounter.

 

[Rusha]

One homosexual encounter makes one homosexual encounter.

You stated that makes a person a homosexual with that one encounter ... it does NOT. IF it was an isolated incident, it was a bi-sexual encounter.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

:squint: Isn't that what I said?

I am not talking about specific encounters. :mrt::duh:
The topic is do homosexuals make up a larger percentage of serial killers than their numbers in the general population would suggest. If you are defining homosexual for the purpose of identifying serial killers as including people who do not label themselves as gay, but for deciding what percentage of the population at large is homosexual solely by those who identify themselves as gay then you are playing fast and loose with the truth.

If you have one homosexual encounter that was a homosexual encounter and makes you a person who has had a homosexual encounter. You can't get more homosexual than that ..

Actually, you can get twice as homosexual as that by having TWO homosexual encounters! And a person who has exclusively homosexual relations or is attracted exclusively to members of their own sex would be what we call a "homosexual".

I don't understand anything you just said.

Not my problem.

:kook: He's not even got the right species for that.

Neither does the man in your "brilliant" example.

 

[Stripe]

You stated that makes a person a homosexual with that one encounter ... it does NOT. IF it was an isolated incident, it was a bi-sexual encounter.

One act makes one bi-sexual but not homosexual? :dizzy:

 

[Stripe]

The topic is do homosexuals make up a larger percentage of serial killers than their numbers in the general population would suggest. If you are defining homosexual for the purpose of identifying serial killers as including people who do not label themselves as gay, but for deciding what percentage of the population at large is homosexual solely by those who identify themselves as gay then you are playing fast and loose with the truth.

Uh. Well sure. But the whole point is that the mass murderers are homosexuals according to their actions. So any further analysis of homosexual rates must also consider homosexuality as a consequent of action rather than accepted label.

It is not unfair for Bob to use estimated rates of homosexuality to highlight the excessive proportions. If the rates of homosexuality are actually far higher than the statistics say then that only bolsters the argument that homosexuality produces mass murderers.

However, sticking with the facts, any list of mass murderers that includes an analysis f their homosexual activity is adequate proof for any over-representation.

Actually, you can get twice as homosexual as that by having TWO homosexual encounters! And a person who has exclusively homosexual relations or is attracted exclusively to members of their own sex would be what we call a "homosexual".

So you see a distinction between a person committing a homosexual act and a person who is a homosexual. Why would you do that?

 

[Rusha]

One act makes one bi-sexual but not homosexual? :dizzy:

When you make comments like this, that :dizzy: sign suits you well ...

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Uh. Well sure. But the whole point is that the mass murderers are homosexuals according to their actions.

Except that this isn't what people mean when they say "so-and-so is a homosexual." They mean that so-and-so is exclusively gay, by attraction or by action, not by virtue of one or two encounters. It would be as misleading as saying that these same serial killers are heterosexual since they have wives, girlfriends, etc. Pedophilia is NOT the same as homosexuality even if the victims are of the same gender because they are different attractions. One is an attraction to children, one is an attraction to members of the same sex. If you wanted to be completely upfront about this you have to phrase it like this: "I believe that most serial killers who molest children have had homosexual relationships at some point, although they don't necessarily consider themselves gay and often have relationships with people of the opposite sex."

So any further analysis of homosexual rates must also consider homosexuality as a consequent of action rather than accepted label.

Sure, if it is made clear what the difference between a homosexual act and a homosexual person is. When the distinction between those is lost it is misleading. To say "most child molesting serial killers are the result of homosexual acts of molestation inflicted upon them when young which they reenact upon innocent victims" is different than saying "most child molesting serial killers are homosexual."

It is not unfair for Bob to use estimated rates of homosexuality to highlight the excessive proportions.

It is extremely unfair and approaching dishonesty to do so using different criteria than those used to evaluate the serial killers' sexuality.

If the rates of homosexuality are actually far higher than the statistics say then that only bolsters the argument that homosexuality produces mass murderers.

How on earth would you come to that conclusion? If the percentage of gays to straights were higher that would diminish the significance of the difference in serial killers' orientation. :mrt::duh:

However, sticking with the facts, any list of mass murderers that includes an analysis f their homosexual activity is adequate proof for any over-representation.

Only for the inclusion of homosexual acts in their pathology, not for being gay in and of itself. As I keep pointing out there is a difference. For example- have you ever been warned not to drop the soap in prison? Is this because there are a much higher number of gays in prison or is it because circumstances have forced some people to seek gay encounters because of no alternatives beyond celibacy but who totally abandon that means of sexual gratification once an alternative becomes available? It's "prison gay" and it isn't the same thing as being a homosexual. Neither is the mental pathology of a serial killer the same as being a homosexual. This should be pretty obvious and I'm disappointed to spell it out for you, Stripe.

So you see a distinction between a person committing a homosexual act and a person who is a homosexual. Why would you do that?

For the same reason I make a distinction between a person committing a heterosexual act and a person who is a heterosexual.

 

[Stripe]

Except that this isn't what people mean when they say "so-and-so is a homosexual." They mean that so-and-so is exclusively gay, by attraction or by action, not by virtue of one or two encounters. It would be as misleading as saying that these same serial killers are heterosexual since they have wives, girlfriends, etc.

You've just defined out of existence the possibility of anyone ever making any link between sexuality and violent crime. Facts time, PB. If a man has sexual relations with another man and that act positively correlates with violent crime then one has evidence that homosexuality is a reasonable addition to profiling mass murderers.

If you wish to obscure what is or is not a homosexual then you are adding nothing to the conversation.

Pedophilia is NOT the same as homosexuality even if the victims are of the same gender because they are different attractions. One is an attraction to children, one is an attraction to members of the same sex. If you wanted to be completely upfront about this you have to phrase it like this: "I believe that most serial killers who molest children have had homosexual relationships at some point, although they don't necessarily consider themselves gay and often have relationships with people of the opposite sex."

:yawn:

"Homosexuals are serial killers more often than anyone else" is a lot more simple and accurate. Tell us, PB. What problem would you have if it were found that a significant proportion of serial killer had homosexual encounters? Afterall, you seem to have no problem with a high proportion of serial killers being white males. Why the angst over the idea that they might also be homosexual?

Sure, if it is made clear what the difference between a homosexual act and a homosexual person is. When the distinction between those is lost it is misleading. To say "most child molesting serial killers are the result of homosexual acts of molestation inflicted upon them when young which they reenact upon innocent victims" is different than saying "most child molesting serial killers are homosexual."

Dude, get over yourself. A case has been made and the numbers stack up. Whether it is people who have committed homosexual acts or the distinct (in your mind only) "homosexuals" that make up the over-represented numbers in the population of mass murderers the fact is that homosexuality is a reasonable profile for a serial killer.

How on earth would you come to that conclusion? If the percentage of gays to straights were higher that would diminish the significance of the difference in serial killers' orientation. :mrt::duh:

Simple. Correlate the increase in homosexuality with the increase in mass murderers.

Aren't statistics wonderful?

Only for the inclusion of homosexual acts in their pathology, not for being gay in and of itself. As I keep pointing out there is a difference.

In your mind only.

For example- have you ever been warned not to drop the soap in prison? Is this because there are a much higher number of gays in prison or is it because circumstances have forced some people to seek gay encounters because of no alternatives beyond celibacy but who totally abandon that means of sexual gratification once an alternative becomes available? It's "prison gay" and it isn't the same thing as being a homosexual. Neither is the mental pathology of a serial killer the same as being a homosexual. This should be pretty obvious and I'm disappointed to spell it out for you, Stripe.

Dude, you do homosexuals no favours yourself. What have you got against people who claim they have a tendency toward mass murder when you accuse them of being created by sexual frustration?

For the same reason I make a distinction between a person committing a heterosexual act and a person who is a heterosexual.

What reason is that?

 

[PlastikBuddha]

You've just defined out of existence the possibility of anyone ever making any link between sexuality and violent crime.

I have defined out of existence a lot of post hoc ergo propter hoc baloney that serves no purpose but to villify a portion of the population that you don't like.

Facts time, PB. If a man has sexual relations with another man and that act positively correlates with violent crime then one has evidence that homosexuality is a reasonable addition to profiling mass murderers.

No one doesn't. Because these serial killers do NOT match the profiles of other homosexuals. They don't identify themselves as homosexuals or live openly homosexual lives so the correspondence with what most people consider homosexuality comes down to a few sexual encounters- something that can't be profiled in the first place!

If you wish to obscure what is or is not a homosexual then you are adding nothing to the conversation.

I beg your pardon? I think determining who is and who is not is extremely pertinent to a conversation on whether or not homosexuals are more likely to be murderers. In fact, I'd say that aside from who is and who is not a murderer, it is the single most pertinent detail. :mrt::duh: If you don't have a definition of "homosexual" that jibes with what is commonly accepted, and if you don't stick with that definition throughout the argument than you are doing nothing but spreading nonsense.

:yawn:

"Homosexuals are serial killers more often than anyone else" is a lot more simple and accurate.

Nope. Since your definition of "homosexual" is inaccurate to the point of being useless for identifying people. Nobody knew most of these serial killers had ever had ANY homosexual contact, remember?

Tell us, PB. What problem would you have if it were found that a significant proportion of serial killer had homosexual encounters?

None at all.

Afterall, you seem to have no problem with a high proportion of serial killers being white males. Why the angst over the idea that they might also be homosexual?

Because having homosexual encounters doesn't make a person a homosexual anymore than having heterosexual encounters makes a person a heterosexual.

Dude, get over yourself. A case has been made and the numbers stack up.

They do not and I have already explained why.

Whether it is people who have committed homosexual acts or the distinct (in your mind only) "homosexuals" that make up the over-represented numbers in the population of mass murderers the fact is that homosexuality is a reasonable profile for a serial killer.

How so? If the people have had homosexual encounters but these encounters are not visible then how is profiling ALL homosexuals of any use whatsoever?

Simple. Correlate the increase in homosexuality with the increase in mass murderers.

Um, increasing the number of homosexuals by changing the definition to include a larger number does not mean an actual increase in the population, only the recognized number. :mrt::duh:

Aren't statistics wonderful?

Not when misused so transparently...

In your mind only.

In the minds of everyone without an agenda of hate.

Dude, you do homosexuals no favours yourself. What have you got against people who claim they have a tendency toward mass murder when you accuse them of being created by sexual frustration?

What reason is that?

Facts. I know they aren't your friends, but they help the rest of us make informed decisions.

 

[Lighthouse]

You stated that makes a person a homosexual with that one encounter ... it does NOT. IF it was an isolated incident, it was a bi-sexual encounter.

Either way the person is a queer.

And, genius, a homosexual act is a homosexual act whether the person committing the act is strictly homosexual or not. Stripe said nothing of the person who committed the act. He only mentioned the act.