Posts by Miwojedk

@anzu#12284 Why? Does this mean I can't watch lesbian porn?

@billy7oblos#12272

Quote

the concept of LGBT did not exist, no one would have claimed to be gay (you can claim it but you need to prove it too)

You are the one that makes the claim that LGBT was constant through time, so naturally you need to prove your claim.

I am not making a claim at all actually, I am citing history. Its a well known fact that people did not call themselves gay (or have gay sex) [at large] in the us

I mentioned in my last comment that if you once again said I had the the burden of proof I would quote you the first time you claimed that the number of LGBTQ+-people is growing:

Quote

LGBTQ+ includes a growing number of disgusting 'fetishes' such as maps, furrys and many more 'fetishes' we just made up.

the only reason lgbtq+ is increasing is because we normalized it, just like we are normalizing pedophilia and zoophilia

Feel free to look up the dates of said quotes. And again, please read these two links thoroughly before you engage in your nonensical attempts at shifting the burden of proof to me:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

The burden of proof lies upon the one making a claim. It is not my sworn duty to disprove a claim you make. I can’t say that God is real and then proceed to argue that – you – need to disprove me.

Quote

I don't say anything other than what is in history: (in the us) there were no gay rights, and no people identifying as gay.

[…] Saying "its a millennial old practice" is irrelevant because it did not exist [at all] in the majority of cultures.

Its a well known fact that people did not call themselves gay (or have gay sex) [at large] in the us

There were no humans until 300 years ago because the word “human” dates back to the early 18th century, therefore no “human” could identify as “human.

Quote

that does not mean it isn't influenced by society or that the number has remained consistent.

And I still have yet to say that it isn’t influenced by society. Do you like feeding on straws?

Quote

do you even believe in morality? watching child porn does not have to be supporting the uploader, you aren't giving the rapeist money directly or indirectly. as for the animals, we enslave animals to do our work and we don't HAVE to eat them in 2020 north America. And what if the animal comes to the human for sex? does it become ok?

we kill bugs and flies to feel more comfortable, and we kill animals specifically to make clothes and shoes. we don't NEED nutrition from the animal nowadays in north america, but we just like to eat animals. Is that really as bad as beastiality? with that logic here is a way you can have sex with an animal without hurting it: just wait till it dies

yea but you didn't do the rape in this example so you aren't "taking advantage" you would not be harming anyone at all sooo

Did you actually read my comment, or did you just attack a strawman again? We don’t enslave animals to do our work in the Western world in the 21st century besides for leisure. If you want to argue that having a dog as a pet is literal torture to the dog, then be my guest. Also, slavery implies that the slaver does not give the slave remuneration. Do you want to give a saddle horse money or…. Feed like…. Hay..?
And just like my comments above. I never said that eating animals is moral. To quote myself:
“I don’t necessarily disagree that it might be a better idea to be vegan in order to avoid killing overall, but so far, meat substitutes haven’t come far enough to replace meat.”
You, yourself, said in the quote above that we kill animals specifically for clothes and shoes – so you acknowledge that there is indeed a purpose in the killing. I also think it’s hilarious to compare dogs, sheep, cows and pigs to bugs and flies. Yeah, a fly has the same intellectual capacity as a horse. Lmao

I can’t think of a scenario where an animal would come to “the human for sex” besides animals “raping” humans (or not in this case). But I have a hard time believing you actually read my paragraphs because in my last comment I said that animals can’t consent to sex because we don’t regard animals as having the mental aptitude to understand the consequences that might be involved (or the fact that they can’t properly communicate). There’s reason for the debate as to whether or not a low-IQ (<70) individual can sexually consent.

By watching child porn you are indirectly supporting the uploader via views or the acknowledgement that one wants more of said content. If I were to watch somebody taped being tortured without anybody else knowing that I watch it would still mean that I am exploiting other’s suffering for my own pleasure.

Quote

with that logic here is a way you can have sex with an animal without hurting it: just wait till it dies

I have never claimed that fucking a dead animal is immoral. Funny enough, a quick google search noted that in the UK, it’s not illegal to have oral sex with a dead animal.
https://www.independent.co.uk/…dead-animal-10510869.html

Quote

oversimplification. The point about KSA still applies. About the gay people in KSA, can you prove that? (no and the suicide and depression statistics are also against it) If there are gay people in the KSA, they are probably less than 0.1% (and you would need to prove otherwise)

Saying “oversimplification” and then not providing a reason or example of me “oversimplifying” your argument is next to meaningless. I have no idea what y ou’re claiming I am oversimplifying, and I don’t know why you think I am oversimplifying. And why would your point still apply? Saying “it just does” is absurd.
And once again: it is on the one making a claim to prove their claim, not for others to disprove it. You claimed that gays don’t exist (or at least to a big extent) in the KSA. My argument was that I think that there is a proportionally big percentage of gays in the KSA as there are in the US. The difference being that the ones in the KSA are repressing their sexuality (either because of government, religion or culture) whereas the US is more accepting of it meaning you can be more open (again, this is why “coming out of the closet” is a common phrase).

Quote

Bringing up history is a bad argument because of the huge amounts of abuse

And I never claimed otherwise. Did you see my comment about your three points being a strawman?

Quote

you cant prove that there are gay people in the KSA, less than 27 people received the death penalty TOTAL lol, why would you compare that to natzi Germany

I never compared them to Nazi Germany. I asked why they couldn’t be compared, and you didn’t even answer my question. I also think it’s important to note that Saudi Arabia does not have codified criminal laws. According to the country’s interpretation of sharia, a married man who commits sodomy, or a non-muslim who engages in sodomy with a Muslim, can be stoned to death. And the fact that the KSA is a highly unreliable source just speaks levels of your clear cherry-picking. And the fact that you keep bringing up this point just further proves my point in that individuals would not “come out of the closet” if that would mean they get stoned to death.
I would also like to see your source for those “less than 27 people” who received the death penalty.

Quote

I did not check all the books/studies you cited but the ones I did check were written before 2015. also none has an answer to why people are gay

Yeah. I don't get why you had to mention that they were "written" before 2015, as if that has some sort of meaning? But the consensus is leaning towards biologically-based theories. I think it’s best to let the scientists make the conclusions.

@fssp#12262

Quote

I am confident that the majority of citizens and university freshmen surveyed for their political beliefs can reliably assign themselves either to the political left or to the political right with a considerable degree of reliability.

Then we can agree to disagree. I don’t think that the average American can accurately identify themselves as being “far left”, “left”, “right”, or “far-right”. Especially considering the fact that the overton window in American politics is so shifted towards the right that a good chunk of Americans believed that Obama was “far-left”. What I am broadly saying is that different people obviously have different ideas on what defines “left” or “right”, and you just agreed to my point that Americans have a poor understanding of political labelling. I wouldn’t call Bernie Sanders a “far-leftist”, but an American “conservative” (Republican) or “liberal” (Democrat) have defined Sanders as such and on a multitude of occasions called him a Communist/Socialist, even though most of his policies would fall under the blanket term “Social Democrat”.
Of course this discussion is much more nuanced than this, but in broad strokes I would certainly claim that this is a good summary. And as I mentioned in my previous comment another aspect of this conversation is the fact that the Traditional Political Spectrum (the one used in this context) oversimplifies the nuances of politics, whereas a more nuanced approach, which certainly still has its faults, would be a double-axis model.
Where would a Libertarian (economic and values) group themselves in this survey? They’re on the right due to their economic-leaning, but on the left due to their liberal values? Same could be said for pretty much every other political label. Plenty of self-identified “conservatives” (52% of Republicans if my memory serves me right) support a $15 minimum wage. A majority of Americans (incl. A rough half of Republicans) support a single-payer system in most polling. My point being that labels are utterly useless in this context, and we should instead be questioning people’s opinions on a variety of topics and afterwards identifying their beliefs with a label.

Quote

The shift towards liberalism in America comes with increased polarization between urbanized and rural counties in the United States, which means that academia is becoming increasingly detached from much of the country as it continues to identify with liberal politics (and will likely become more liberal in the future, if the information collected on professors indicates anything about the direction in which universities are heading).

I agree with the first part, but I don’t understand how would you amend this issue (if it could even be called an issue). And I don’t necessarily disagree with the notion that university faculty and students have indeed become more liberal, but my contention is that this is a natural progression. My paragraph and in my previous comment was my attempt to point out the shortcomings in your referenced study, and to assert that this is a more nuanced issue that can’t simply be surveyed by asking “are you x”, which was something that the director of HERI also noted. A quote I also quoted in my previous comment: “The attention the study is getting may be misplaced, as there may be trivial reasons for the shift towards liberalism”. Such “reasons” perhaps being that liberals are more inclined to apply for university (and thus by extension become professors), or that liberals tend to be wealthier thus being able to attend without cost being a hurdle, or perhaps science simply “agrees” with liberals. Which was why I used the example of climate change as a “liberal” issue.

Quote

I assumed that you would've made the connection by understanding why I referenced a nation which has "the youngest age of consent in the world" as opposed to "Scandinavia or just half of Europe as an example [of comparatively young age of consent laws]" when none of those European nations had age of consent laws that neared the age of 11.

And you point being? My point was that it was absurd to point to a socially-conservative country from Africa versus pointing to similar cultures/societies like Western Europe because that would certainly be misleading in that you (whether intenitonally or not) implied that only “backwards” cultures and countries like Nigeria have the age of consent below 18.

Quote

I am continuing this discussion because you see a need to continue implying that pederasty habitually involved a younger male "usually in his teens" when various historical studies taken on the subject show that there was a regular variance in the age of boys made to participate in these relationships, if not to the extent of a social custom, as demonstrated by inquires made into these phenomena, let alone the etymology of the word "pederasty." (Sources are provided in my previous reply.) If you truly know nothing of this subject, then why do you continue to entertain it? Clearly, we do not agree on the topic's relevance to the discussion at hand, nor is there a shared interest in the history behind this subject.

I don’t care what historical studies you reference when I was simply going off the consensus written on the Wikipedia article in which you linked. I never claimed that it didn’t happen to prepubescent boys, but I did assert that (perhaps) in a majority of cases it was indeed a teen. Let’s simply end it here.

Quote

Chemical castration.

I would argue that we should seek treatment for their illness before mutilating their body. Not all pedophiles want to rape children, and I think it’s sad if the first thing to do would be to castrate them because of the stigma against them. Nobody is going to seek “treatment” if the thing you do is remove their balls or throw acid on their pussy.

This is one of the worst formatted threads on the forum to date.

welcome back <>() ___

this is what videogamesm12 was talking about u fucker

@Rex2LostOldAccount#12260 so a mentally ill person who is not responsible for their situation should be shot?

@Rex2LostOldAccount#12248 pedophile =/= child molester

I can teach you ingame if you want some feedback or want to learn my techniques?

@billy7oblos#12224

Quote

point 2: it has nothing to do with how you were raised
yea it does, many studies link homosexuality with being molested as a child. if your claim was true why are there no gay people in the KSA (you need to prove that there are claiming they are repressed means nothing)

We never claimed it has “nothing to do with how you were raised”. Also you speak of many studies that link homosexuality with being molested as a child, yet the one you linked before didn’t claim so, and I have already stated this on a multitude of occassions in this thread. If you have these many studies, why would you link to one which doesn’t support your thesis? Also, there are gay people in the KSA, so I don’t understand why you would bring this up.

Quote

point 3: it is depicted in historical imagery
yea some societies were degenerate, they also had raped children and animals and did some horrible stuff, any society can start to have gay people in it

And we never argued that this was a good thing. All of your three points here have been strawman arguments.

Quote

look at KSA today where it is leagal, is natzi Germany your only example?

Why is Nazi Germany not a good example? And if your government would threatnen you with life in prison or capital punishment over your sexuality, don’t you think you wouldn’t openly show said sexuality in order to avoid these repercussion? I think reading the wikipedia on LGBT rights in the KSA might be an eye opener to the living conditions in which open LGBT-people experience.

Quote

sexual deviancy is morally wrong, where do morals come from? the come from religious scripture or from nature (where else)

Are you trolling? Who wrote the religious scripture, and who came up with the idea of (e.g.) determinism?

Quote

killing is harming animals for pleasure. its not necessary in our modern day. Are you a vegan?

Killing farm animals is not (and has not always) been simply for pleasure, but also nutrition which is crucial to survival. And again, I don’t necessarily disagree that it might be a better idea to be vegan in order to avoid killing overall, but so far, meat substitutes haven’t come far enough to replace meat.

Quote

so its ok if i don't let the rapist know that i am watching it

And how would you go about doing so? And if I were to grant you this point, you’d still be taking advantage of the abuse of children. If I rape a hermit in the woods and kill them would that make it okay? Nobody would know since they’re a hermit, but I still raped and killed them.

Quote

lmao (i actually laughed)

You might laugh, but it has been proven that once you’re injected with predominantly female hormones, or if you were previously a woman, you get to experience – symptoms – associated with a period. I am not saying that if you are a male -> female transgender that you will suddenly bleed out of your “fake” vagina without some sort of medical intervention being needed.

Quote

Citation needed.

Scientists do not yet know the exact cause of sexual orientation, but they theorize that it is caused by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences.

Frankowski BL; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescence (June 2004). "Sexual orientation and adolescents". Pediatrics. 113 (6): 1827–32. doi:10.1542/peds.113.6.1827. PMID 15173519.

Mary Ann Lamanna; Agnes Riedmann; Susan D Stewart (2014). Marriages, Families, and Relationships: Making Choices in a Diverse Society. Cengage Learning. p. 82. ISBN 1305176898. Retrieved 11 February 2016. The reason some individuals develop a gay sexual identity has not been definitively established – nor do we yet understand the development of heterosexuality. The American Psychological Association (APA) takes the position that a variety of factors impact a person's sexuality. The most recent literature from the APA says that sexual orientation is not a choice that can be changed at will, and that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors...is shaped at an early age...[and evidence suggests] biological, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality (American Psychological Association 2010).

Gail Wiscarz Stuart (2014). Principles and Practice of Psychiatric Nursing. Elsevier Health Sciences. p. 502. ISBN 032329412X. Retrieved 11 February 2016. No conclusive evidence supports any one specific cause of homosexuality; however, most researchers agree that biological and social factors influence the development of sexual orientation.

And they do not view it as a choice:

Frankowski BL; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescence (June 2004). "Sexual orientation and adolescents". Pediatrics. 113 (6): 1827–32. doi:10.1542/peds.113.6.1827. PMID 15173519.

Mary Ann Lamanna; Agnes Riedmann; Susan D Stewart (2014). Marriages, Families, and Relationships: Making Choices in a Diverse Society. Cengage Learning. p. 82. ISBN 1305176898. Retrieved 11 February 2016. The reason some individuals develop a gay sexual identity has not been definitively established – nor do we yet understand the development of heterosexuality. The American Psychological Association (APA) takes the position that a variety of factors impact a person's sexuality. The most recent literature from the APA says that sexual orientation is not a choice that can be changed at will, and that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors...is shaped at an early age...[and evidence suggests] biological, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality (American Psychological Association 2010).

Gloria Kersey-Matusiak (2012). Delivering Culturally Competent Nursing Care. Springer Publishing Company. p. 169. ISBN 0826193811. Retrieved 10 February 2016. Most health and mental health organizations do not view sexual orientation as a 'choice.'

Although no single theory on the cause of sexual orientation has yet gained widespread support, scientists favor biologically-based theories

Frankowski BL; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescence (June 2004). "Sexual orientation and adolescents". Pediatrics. 113 (6): 1827–32. doi:10.1542/peds.113.6.1827. PMID 15173519.

There is considerably more evidence supporting nonsocial, biological causes of sexual orientation than social ones, especially for males.

Bailey JM, Vasey PL, Diamond LM, Breedlove SM, Vilain E, Epprecht M (2016). "Sexual Orientation, Controversy, and Science". Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 17 (21): 45–101. doi:10.1177/1529100616637616. PMID 27113562.
LeVay, Simon (2017). Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why: The Science of Sexual Orientation. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199752966.

Balthazart, Jacques (2012). The Biology of Homosexuality. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199838820.

@billy7oblos#12200 @Darth#12237 already stated some of my positions so I will only reply with what hasn’t already been said.

Quote

you cannot claim that the number of LGBT did not increase because they never used to exist before.

You fail to explain why I can’t claim this.

Quote

You are the one making the claim that somehow the number was constant through time so you must prove your claim.

Are you a record player? You made the claim that homosexuality is increasing in today’s society, but apprently I’m the one who has to disprove your claim. The burden of proof falls upon the one making the claim, and I asked why you thought so, yet you have failed, insofar as this thread is concerned, to demonstrate why you believe so.

Quote

The percentage has not only increased, it went from 0 to whatever it is today (because the number of people identifying as lgbt went from 0-whatever it is today)

Again, homosexuality is a millenial-old “practice”. The number of people identifying as LGBT has indeed “increased”, but that’s because different cultures and time periods had different views on what we now call homosexuality.

Quote

we did not used to kill them "en mass" they were just not as many of them to kill, i cant prove this historically because of lack of data but if we look at the KSA; >200 people received the death penalty total , soo no.

I won’t bother arguing with your if you continue to simply regurtitate the same point over and over. You literally said in your previous comment:

Quote

“the most simple explanation would be that the number of LGBT people has increased from very little to 5%+ because we used to kill LGBT people,”

ergo they were killed en mass, because the homosexual population was kept below 5% at “very little” (your words).

Quote

what i was trying to show is how little homoseuxlity was accepted, 74% of societies either hated, ignored or did not even know about homosexuality. (surely this statistic would be much less if 5% of people are born gay)

Am I not being clear? I don’t disagree with you that a big majority of previous generation despised homosexuality. I don’t get your reasoning that the statistic would be much less if 5% of people are born gay. I have on so many occassions in this thread said that homosexuality has been a taboo for generations, and only recently has become some-what culturally accepted. This is why there is a saying called “coming out of the closet”, because people who were gay either tried to hide it or tried to identify as straight to fit in with the broader society at the time. Far-right Christians in the US hate homosexuals, despite the population being 4%, so I don’t understand your reasoning.

Quote

pedophilia is more stigmatized than LGBT so according to your logic they can be a huge % of people

I never claimed otherwise. I don’t think this is the case, which all empirical data suggests, but I can’t be certain as I don’t involve myself in this topic enough to have a truly educated opinion besides what the science says.

Quote

he still wrote 5%

And later made sure to note that 5% was the UPPER estimate. Why do you feel the need to point this out besides being completely disingenuine when the fact of the matter is that the author himself would disagree with your usage of "5%"

Quote

morally wrong and inherently bad are two different things; for example torturing someone is morally wrong but its not inherently bad, it can even be inherently good if you are torturing them for information.

I don’t necesarilly disagree if that’s how you’re making the distinction between something being utilitarian vs. being moral. But your example is ridiculously poor since almost all studies show that torture is a poor way of extracting reliable intel.

Quote

ok what about bestiality? we kill animals for food, surely rape is less better than killing? would you accept bestiality? what about watching real child porn, as long as you don't pay anyone you are not supporting the child being raped, you are only enjoying it. would you really advocate for child porn? what is inherently wrong with it as long as you don't support the rapist? these things are morally wrong, but morals can be twisted. You wont be able to find inherent harm in these things but you can tell they are morally wrong.

I don’t think raping an animal is a good rebuttal to my point. Killing an animal has an inherent purpose of getting nutrition to survive, whereas fucking a pig is merely for pleasure. And I don’t even necessairly think that killing an animal is moral, so you won’t get me to argue that one is somehow better than the other. So no. I don’t accept beastiality because an animal cannot consent therefore I view it as an immoral act. Same can be said for child porn in that a child does not have the mental aptitude to consent to a sexual act.
However there is indeed a distinction to be made between child porn (abused children) and CGI child porn, where no children are harmed in the making. And child porn is not inherently wrong because that all depends on the context. If studies showed that pedophilia could be treated in some manner wherein child porn is involved as a form of therapy, then I wouldn’t see that as unethical IF the individual filmed in the child porn is now above the age of consent and has agreed to their footage being used in a clinical setting to combat child predators.
So yes, you can indeed find inherent harm in these things in that if you watch child porn you’re supporting the uploader / supporting the act of filming children being abused.

Quote

sorry about the wrong link, i thought i posted another one. When i said transgenders cant get a period i was talking about the mental stress and hardships of a period. It is laughable to think that someone can have 30 trillion cells with a y chromosome and still claim to get a period. this article the first thing this article says is "Why isn’t the medical community looking into this phenomenon?" lol

You didn’t post the wrong link because I already responded to your reference, and it is clear you didn’t read the post.

Quote

https://theestablishment.co/ye…s-e43a43979e8c/index.html Is about a woman feeling symptoms of having a period, not that she’s having an actual period. She doesn’t claim that blood is gushing out of her pussy.

yea but you would need to prove that because you are the one making the claim that the gay people we say now were always there

Do you want me to go and quote your own post in this thread where you make the first claim that the gay population is increasing? The burden of proof falls upon the one making the claim. Kindly read this:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

Quote

not really, the link i was replying talked about "the link of genetics and LGBT community" and claims there is a gay gene or similar

And I have continually said that I am not talking about a “gay gene”, yet you continue to regurtitate the same talking point over and over.

@fssp#12170 I apologize for missing the links in your previous comment. I was writing in a browser which apparently didn’t make your embedded links visible.

I think it is misleading to only link to a single (overly-)simplistic study on the matter. The article you linked does not do the study justice; in fact, it does a poor job of explaining the methodology leading to an (un)intentionally misleading conclusion for the reader. The Director of HERI also noted that the attention the study is getting may be misplaced, as there may be trivial reasons for the shift towards liberalism (https://www.insidehighered.com…l-have-moved-further-left)
The study referenced in the article is including the single question asking respondents to self-identify their political orentation as far left, liberal, moderate, conversative or far right. I won’t go into depth on why mixing economic policy and value policy on a questionaire is silly, but liberal does not necessairly mean one is on the left in terms of economic policy. To further expand: what defines “far-left”, liberalism, conservatism, and “far-right” is up to each individual being surveyed. Is a social democrat advocating for a minimum wage and collective bargaining a “far-leftist”? If compared to US politicians, then most definitely, but compared to the average US citizen, not so much (and especially not if compared to Europe), but generally: Americans don’t understand formal political labels, which explains why a big chunk of self-proclaimed libertarians / conservatives are in favour of a single-payer system. It would be much more interesting to examine in detail the political views of the faculty vs. students and afterwards grouping people into each category.
This is also neglecting to mention the fact that religiosity is on a steep decline in the US which would naturally correlate with a decline in conservatism based on religious principles (e.g. abortion). And the fact that there is a well-known correlation between education level and political leanings. The more educated one gets, the more liberal you get.
Therefore my point still stands: There is a natural for universities to be more liberal than the general populus. And I don’t understand how you would amend this issue, if this can even be called an issue.
Climate change is a “liberal” issue in the US, but the scientific consensus (99% of scientists in relevant fields) support the conclusion that the current globla warming is anthropogenic. Not long ago, a big part of the religious right (not economic policy) didn’t think evolution was real. This is not to say that people on the right (non-economic) are inherently stupid. I am merely pointing out that misinfomation, indoctrination, religion and the mainstream media’s quest for “neutrality” instead of objectivity are all elements in the broader spectrum of this conversation.

Quote

Nigeria has the youngest age of consent in the world. "A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child aged eleven years or less shall upon conviction be sentenced to imprisonment for life." (Section 7, Provision 2, Sexual Offences Act Bill 2013.)

I have a hard time understanding how this is meant as a direct response to what I said in my previous comment.

And this is not a response to anything I said in my previous comment. I asked why didn’t you point to Scandinavia or just half of Europe as an example instead of a socially-regressive country like Nigeria? The fact that you point to this country specifically makes me think that you’re being disingenious. I’m not going to argue whether or not the legal age of sexual consent should be 15, 18 or 21 because that wasn’t what I was saying. I made the point that there is a big gap between an adult having sexual relations with a 15-year old vs. an adult having sexual relations with a minor (e.g. 6-year old), and the fact that many countries consider individuals below the age of 18 mature enough to sexually consent was my example. I am not arguing that legality equals morality, I was merely using this an example that the general public (publically elected officials) do indeed see the difference.

Quote

I fail to see the point you are making, considering historical pederastic (and archaic homosexual) relationships took place between prepubescent children and middle-aged men, while also including children who had approached or passed the Greek standard of puberty.

I honestly can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse, and/or if you’re obfuscating.

I made it quite clear that this is not a topic that I am knowledgeable of, so I don’t think it is productive to continue this part of our discussion. I also mentioned that I don’t think this has anything to do with the topic at hand.
I linked you to a reference in the same Wikipedia article you previously mentioned wherein it was stated that pederasty in ancient Greece was a socially acknowledged romantic relationship between an adult male and a younger male, where the younger male was usually in his teens. I acknowledged that it certainly happened to prepubescent boys, so I don’t even get why you’re continuing the conversation. I cited a source stating that the younger male was usually a teen, and that’s all.

Vouch

@fssp#12153

Quote

During the period through which "homosexuality" (homophilia) became prevalent in media and politics, I fully agree that the layman would generally reject the aforementioned "movement," however it goes without saying that scientific communities do not originate from identical sources to those of average citygoers, and are more likely to have liberal alliances based on what we know about beneficiaries. Professors have become strikingly more liberal over the past twenty years and there have always been recorded tensions between universities, their students, and governments.

The fact of the matter is that students have (almost) always been more liberal than their professors and the general public. And of course professors have become more - liberal -over the past years. a natural tendency also seen in society as a whole, with the University in front. But this has nothing to do with your claim; at least what I interpreted it as. Research is not being stiffled in any Western University besides issues involving grants or other forms of funding, and to insinuate otherwise without any evidence is fitting of how most would describe a conspiracy theory. Of course, if you could find anything to contrary, then I would have something to work with.

Quote

This reply understates the extent to which pederasty was practiced in Ancient Greece, and some laws from the time address children as young as twelve being "engaged" in relationships with grown men. Because romantic relationships between men and boys were not considered to be immoral, there have been depictions of younger boys being courted by middle-aged men.

And again, evem if I were to grant you this to be true, I still don’t think this is relevant to the conversation at hand.

Quote

For you to put the word "raping" in quotations somewhat downplays the issue at hand. There is no question in my mind that a fifteen-year old boy cannot submit to the kind of act described above, especially at the hands of a grown man. Certain nations have laws which permit this, but certain nations (such as Nigeria) set the age of consent at 11, which is equally unacceptable.

I can’t help but think you’re being disingenuine here. I clearly explained why I put “raping” in quotations, and that was because I wanted to make it clear that I was – not – downplaying the issue. And the fact that you point to a socially-regressive country like Nigeria is even more reason for me to assume that you’re being obtuse/insincere to somehow construe it as only staunchly conservative countries having a low sexual age of consent. Why not point to the fact that average (sexual) age of consent in Europe (or the Western world for that matter) is 16-17 years old? Sweden, Denmark, France, Iceland, Poland, Czech Republic, Croatia, Greece and more all have a legal age of consent at 15. UK, Spain, Norway, The Netherlands have it at 16. And Germany, Portugal and Italy have it at 14. Of course this is not to say that it would be morally justified for a 40-year old man to have sexual relations with a 15-year old, and it is indeed looked down upon in these countries, but that wasn’t the point I was making – I was merely stating that there is a distinction to be made between an adult male (>30) having relations with a 15-year old vs. an adult male (>30) having relations with a 6-year old.

@fssp#12092

Quote

the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually, however continued to assert that the aforementioned information does not indicate that androphilic (homophilic) men would have a greater propensity to offend against children.

I’m assuming that you’re talking about this study. The major quarrel I had with the claims in this thread was that it was implied (or said) that there was a natural proclivity for homosexual men to be child predators, which was absolutely not what said study found.

Quote

It should be mentioned that the majority of studies which avoid this conclusion were published after the "homosexual liberation" movement spanning the mid-seventies and eighties, while the majority of studies which make the conclusion that androphilic (homophilic) men would have a greater propensity to offend against children were published before said "liberation." In conclusion, the likelihood of recent studies not having made a conclusion regarding Billy's claim for reasons of political viability appears to be higher than that of recent studies not having made the conclusion for scientific reasons, as it was deemed methodological with studies predating certain political events.

Unless you have some sort of evidence to back this notion up, then I am going to classify this as conjecture. This same "skepticism" is applied by a a lot of climate-skeptics as well in that their research is simply “silenced” because it isn’t “politically viable”. However, this is ignoring the fact that general acceptance for homosexuality (that’s not even to mention LGBTQ+) was far from a normality. I want to make sure I don’t put words in your mouth, but if you meant that academic research is indeed being censored due to the inherent political nature in LGBTQ+-related research, then I don’t understand why research coming from less-accepting nations wouldn’t be publishing this research, unless you’re of the opinion that academic scholars in KSA or Nigeria are all liberals wanting to further the gay agenda.
It just sounds like an easy out to say that the academic consensus is (likely) wrong because of associated political consequences (across the globe) instead of just adhering to the scientific consensus.

Quote

Yeah, they supported doing it with little boys and teenagers.

This is ripped from your linked Wikipedia article, note 4:

Quote

“Pederasty in ancient Greece was a socially acknowledged romantic relationship between an adult male (the erastes) and a younger male (the eromenos), usually in his teens”

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty#cite_note-4).

I will admit that I am not well-enoughed versed in this subject to speak in detail about the prevelance of child (0-13)-adult male relations, but I think that there should be made a clear distinction between an adult male raping a 7-year old and an adult male “raping” a 15-year old. Raping is in inverted commas because the age of consent is different from country to country, and some do define 15-year olds today as legally competent to consent to sexual acts.
I don’t think it’s worthwhile to further induldge in this topic, because I don’t this this is relevant to the overarching theme of this conversation.

Vouch

@videogamesm12#12046 no ty

This sounds like a failed attempt in the making

(I Wish you good luck tho)

@sergio24m#12010 I don't see any point in closing a thread wherein no participant has insulted the other party and no drama is going on. Of course it's a touchy subject, but this exact thread is a great example as to why the "Deep Discussion" subforum exists.

If people don't want to participate (or even view) the discussion, then they're free to not click on the thread. But insofar as this thread is concerned: no forum guidelines has been broken.

@fssp#12029

Quote

Going back to the topic of child molestation being prevalent among homosexuals, the idea that every scientific or academic study which has made this link is somehow flawed in its nature is absurd. A variety of studies have found that homosexuals constitute roughly one third (this figure varies marginally between each study, conceded or not) of child molesters. (K. Freund and R. J. Watson, "The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study," Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy). It is also estimated that approximately eighty percent of children molested by pedophiles are boys who have been molested by adult males.

I don’t think that’s the point Darth was arguing against (At least I wasn’t). I asked the individual above as to why they would assert that their linked study claimed that homosexuals are more prone to child molestation, when that is in fact not what said study examined. The study examined the commonality of child abuse (child molestation) in straights vs homosexual children.

@billy7oblos#12018

Quote

Yea no we can leave suicide, i just explained why i used it as an example. You can realistically link every example i give with something else

Correlation does not equal causality. And what examples are you thinking of?

Which is why I called you out on your falicious reasoning that I should somehow be able to disprove an unfalsifiable claim.

Quote

no, i said that the unfalsifiable claim is the claim that the number of LGBT people has remained steady through history, this claim cant be falsified but it cant be proven either. If we want to go by Occam's razor, the most simple explanation would be that the number of LGBT people has increased from very little to 5%+ because we used to kill LGBT people, to claim otherwise is essentially claiming that 5% of society being forced to hide their "sexuality" is the simplest and most logical explanation (especially in contrast to many other explanations).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

You’re using Occam’s Razor wrong. The tool is a suggestion that the most simple explanation with – least – assumptions typically is the correct one. So no, the explanation with the least amount of assumptions is not that the percentage of homosexuals has increased overtime, as that is predicated on the assumption that as society becomes more open thus will magically appear a vast amount of new homosexual individuals. My contention was that the percentage of homosexuals (repressed or not) has remained relatively constant throughout time. Also, the burden of proof lies upon the one making the claim (you were the one to first assert that the percentage of homosexuals is increasing), and you have yet to supply a single source examining this – specific - notion. I never said that the percentage can’t have increased slightly, since homosexuality is indeed somewhat correlated with nurture / culture as well, but by your wording, one would be lead to assume that it has increased dramatically, which you haven’t showcased as of yet.

This is your own quote. Can you honestly tell me that your claim is the one with the least assumptions?

Quote

the number of LGBT people has increased from very little to 5%+ because we used to kill LGBT people

vs.

Quote

5% of society being forced to hide their "sexuality" [therefore the number of homosexuals, repressed or not, has remained relatively constant throughout history]

And going by your own logic, if we used to kill homosexuals en mass, wouldn’t that just mean that the percentage of homosexuals nowadays has “risen” to the natural percentage of the population? i.e. meaning that the natural percentage of homosexuals throughout history has indeed remained relatively constant?

Quote

strong disapproval of homosexuality was reported for 41% of 42 cultures; it was accepted or ignored by 21%, and 12% reported no such concept. Of 70 ethnographies, 59% reported homosexuality absent or rare in frequency and 41% reported it present or not uncommon." -Adolescence and puberty By John Bancroft, June Machover Reinisch, p.162

It is common courtesy (or just academical practice) to explain your citation instead of copy-pasting it without further explanation. I have no idea what you want to tell me with this quote.

Quote

On top of this we already have many studies and anonymous questionnaires implying that a huge amount of the population are attracted to children

Citation needed.

Quote

pedophiles were also forced to hide their "attraction" for thousands of years

Are you implying that pedophiles don’t have to hide their illness today, be it in a Western country or in the KSA?

Quote

according to wikipidia estimated 5% of people are pedos

You’re being deliberatively misleading and lying. Wikipedia doesn’t claim that 5% of people are pedos. The quote you cited is literally:
“The prevalence of pedophilia in the general population is not known,[25][33] but is estimated to be lower than 5% among adult men”.

This could mean that 4,99% of men are suffering from pedophilia, or that 0,001% of men are pedophiles. To state bluntly that 5% of people are pedos is a blatant falsehood.
It is tough to get an accurate estimate on the prevelance of pedophelia in society. One reason being that pedophilia is very much a taboo, and even mentioning that you’re suffering from pedophilia will in most instances get you in trouble with your peers.

Quote

5% but 1% if a strict definition is used

This is from your link:

“One person who has attempted an estimate is Dr Michael Seto, a clinical and forensic psychologist at the Royal Ottawa Healthcare group. “

“In 2008 he wrote a book in which he put the prevalence of paedophilia in the general population at 5%.”

“But Seto stresses that 5% was an upper estimate, and that the studies were limited in what they revealed.”

“What those surveys don't include are questions on the intensity of those thoughts and fantasies, whether they were repeated or not. Someone might say 'Yes' because they once had a fantasy but our understanding of paedophilia would be that that person recurringly had sexual thoughts and fantasies about children."

"Now, with more data and better methodology, he has revised his figure down to about 1% of the population, though he makes clear this is still only an educated guess. “

“One problem is that the term "paedophile" means different things to different people.

"It's very common for regular men to be attracted to 18-year-olds or 20-year-olds. It's not unusual for a typical 16-year-old to be attractive to many men and the younger we go the fewer and fewer men are attracted to that age group,"

Quote

religious source dont read unless you want to get super angry

If you acknowledge that your source is unreliable, then why would you even link it in the first place?

I never claimed that homosexuality contributes to a longer life. Just as you can’t claim that being straight contributes to a longer life. And I don’t even get why this is relevant if something contributes to a longer life or not, when that has nothing to do with the ethical nature of homosexuality.

Quote

lmao, "ethical nature of homosexuality", homosexuality is about as ethical as watching simulated child porn (or using a child sex doll), it does not hurt anyone or lead to anyone getting hurt (99.9% of the time). its just someone "being how they were born". there are hundreds of articles defending this online . saying "it leads to rape" is wrong in most cases and is not a valid argument, can you ban video games for leading to violence?

Nice tautology argument there. Circular reasoning seems to be your specialty. I said “ethical nature of homosexuality” as another way to say that homosexuality is an unmoral act. i.e. it has nothing to do with morality.

The fact that you claim homosexuality “ is about as ethical as watching simulated child porn” is silly. Why? Because you don’t demonstrate why either of those things are morally abhorrent. Also, you have still to answer my previous question:

Why is simulated child porn or child sex dolls inherently bad? Kindly answer specifically, and not just that “it might lead to child molestation” because that has nothing to do with the inherent moral nature of child sex dolls.
If you said this, you’d be forced to agree that cars are inherently morally bad as well, because some people kill others with them.

Quote

can you ban video games for leading to violence?

I never advocated for this. But it seems as though you would ban it, because you’re for the banning of child sex dolls, hmm.

Quote

“its just someone "being how they were born"

Thank you for agreeing with me.

Quote

a simple google search yields many results, when you tell someone that they are a different gender in their heads its easy for them to think that they are getting periods. example, example and example 3

I don’t want to do a “simple google search” I want you to link me to the vast amount of articles about transgender men (F>M) claiming they have periods. I want you to link me to them, because I don’t know of them. Your own sources don’t even say what you think they say. Your first example (https://helloclue.com/articles…-period-when-you're-trans) is about transgender men (Female > male) sad about the fact that they still might menstruate: “Menstruation is a reminder that my body will never be the way I want it”, even though they now have transitioned to being a male. You’re saying the opposite, which is not what the article is about. Deeply disingenuine argument once again.

Quote

https://theestablishment.co/ye…s-e43a43979e8c/index.html

Is about a woman feeling symptoms of having a period, not that she’s having an actual period. She doesn’t claim that blood is gushing out of her pussy.

Quote

https://www.emmavalentina.com/…ns-women-can-have-periods

Please read your own articles before citing them.

Quote

logical thinking is not a conspiracy theory (note that most psychologists and such will not explicitly say that you can be born in the wrong gender, they will say "its very complicated and we don't fully understand it"). Nice that you brought climate change, because thats another huge issue but its also filled with alot of fake studies and scientists and corporations with personal interests. the issue of homosexuality and the issue of climate change are both not addressed nearly enough.

Claiming your own belief to be “logical thinking” is awfully convenient, don’t you think (also a logical fallacy ironically) This is once again a nice example of an appeal to tautology. And to assert that , “Most psychologists” won’t claim that you can be born in the wrong gender” is once again a falsehood. And even if I were to grant you this notion, you have still to actually link me to any scientific articles on the matter.

Quote

Nice that you brought climate change, because thats another huge issue but its also filled with alot of fake studies and scientists and corporations with personal interests

Yeah, the fossil fuel corporations have deliberatively mislead the public for years. Here’s NASA’s own words on the topic (https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ “The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling: Global Temperature Rise […] Warming Ocean, […] Shrinking Ice Sheets, […] Glacial Retreat, […] Decreased Snow Cover, [...] Sea Level Rise, [...], Declining Arctic Sea Ice, [...] Extreme Events, [...] Ocean Acidification.

Quote

the issue of homosexuality and the issue of climate change are both not addressed nearly enough.

Yeah, the fact that 99,97% of all scientists in relevant scientific fields agree that anthropogenic climate change is the cause of global warming is definitely not “addressed nearly enough”. The fact that homosexuality and gender both have their own specialized fields in psychology and sociology is not “addressed nearly enough”.

Quote

My disapproval of homosexuality is a mixture of the fact that its harmful and that i find it disgusting (just like how i disapprove of zoophilia)

Except you have yet to demonstrate why it is harmful except for saying “because it is”.

Quote

but the number [of homosexuals] has and continues to change? logically when a ton of people come and say they are gay, that means the number has changed, what is wrong is to than say that the number has remained constant through history.

except you have not demonstrated that it “continues to change”. IF you think you did, then kindly re-link said article / study. And no, when a “ton of people come and say they are gya” that doesn’t mean the number has changed, as I have explained to you time and time over in this thread. It can simply mean that as acceptance of homosexuality becomes more prevelant the more homosexuals will come out of the closet.

Quote

this is the delusion part, there is no "core sexuality", there is no test that will tell you if you are gay or not. Its not part of your "brain" or genetics. for millions of years people have managed to act normal. the article you linked to talks about "the genetics of sexual orientation", it has been proven many times that there is no "gay gene" and that being LGBTQ is not based on genetics.

It is indeed part of your brain and somewhat tied to genetics, but you still continue to link to studies only showcasing that there is no “Gay gene” which is not what we’re claiming at all, but you continue to fight this strawman argument. All your 3 links are attacking a strawman argument.

Quote

and somehow still have a lower suicide rate than countries who don't ban it? and you still have a higher disapproval rate? if "suppressing your sexuality" was really so hard that "you feel your mind being torn apart", no religion could stop you from killing yourself, or at least advocating for LGBT rights.

You just agreed that suicide is irrelevant to the discussion in your previous comment my dude. Why do you continue to bring this stat up: "Yea no we can leave suicide". And your reasoning for why you wouldn’t kill yourself is absurd.

Quote

i thought hiding it tears your brain apart?

If by “tears your brain apart” you mean that it damages you mentally with illnesses such as anxiety, depression or gender dysphoria, then yes it does.

Quote

legality has nothing to do with anything, i was referring to morality. simulated child porn is disguising, deviant and amoral

It’s fine if you think that, but you still have yet to actually give any reason for it being “disguising, deviant and amoral”. At the moment, you’re just arguing it’s wrong because it’s wrong.

Quote

There is no place in the world that will kill you for "admitting you are a homosexual" (they kill you if you have gay sex)

Citation needed.

Quote

did you not read the part that says "it comes with a ton of problems"?

What problems?