Boy Scouts Introduce Merit Badge For Not Pirating

[Dark Moth]

*snip*

Studies have shown no correlation between a man's sexual orientation and a tendency to sexually abuse children

 

Child molesters tend to not be classified as either homosexual nor heterosexual, and restrict their sexual attraction to children, and are often attracted to both boys and girls.

Wow. Even after all I've said you still think I've implied that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals. Never did I say that. Read my posts more carefully next time. Also, I did take a good look at that site. For the record, of course most sexual abuse won't be done by homosexuals. Why do you think that is, Alan? Think about it.

 

1.  No it doesn't.  You're making a logical fallacy here.  You say that it is a common fact that biology and sociology that group behaviour can influence individual behaviour, and then state that homosexuality must fall under these conditions.  Environmental factors include things like "harsh postnatal conditions" and "low morale and downward mobility."  Environmental influences go far, far, far beyond social influences.  They typically refer to anything that happens outside of the womb and outside of genetics.

 

2.  Hanging around gay people can influence you.  You may like the food that they eat or the music that they listen to.  Hanging around gay people will not make a heterosexual gay.

 

3.  You're misinformed because those "documented cases" don't actually demonstrate people switching their sexual preferences.  Those documented cases are quite often homosexuals that have repressed their homosexuality (there's a social environmental effect) to avoid stigmatization and alienation.  Furthermore, it is also not uncommon for these homosexuals to actual have heterosexual relationships, and even marry and have kids.  The desire to fit in and be accepted is exceptionally strong.  But deep down they are still homosexual, ashamed of their attractions and willing to do anything to stop it.  This would also include homosexual males that enter reparative therapy.  If someone is openly ashamed of their lifestyle (here's some more social environmental pressures), seeking consul to repress it isn't that difficult.

 

It also ignores bisexual individuals.

1. You're the one making a logical fallacy. Environmental, my friend, means environmental, which is what I meant. The type of people you hang around is an environmental factor. Whether you realize it or not, what you're saying is actually supporting my statements. I suggest you think a little more before posting.

 

2. See, there you go again assuming you everything that goes on in these people's minds. The utter arrogance you show here by assuming that they do this only for the reasons you stated is just wrong. You don't know, so don't act like it. What you're doing right now is taking these examples and just spouting what you believe is the reason behind it and using to somehow counter my statements. Why does it seem so impossible to you that those urges can't go away completely? Even more, the fact that they can actually repress their homosexual urges pretty much proves that a person can have influence over their sexual orientation, does it not?

 

3. Once again, environmental influence. Take an adult or even a teenager and force them to hang around gay people all the time probably won't change his or her sexual orientation. Take someone really young though who is already supposedly heterosexual and do the same, you definitely would influence him or her. Would it make them automatically homosexual? We can't say. But I think it's rather arrogant of you to say it can't, especially since it defies logic.

 

Just because you're not saying it doesn't mean that that is not the foundation of your opinion.

Whether it does or doesn't is really not your concern. Unless you can't actually provide good counters against my reasoning, don't even bother bringing religion into it.

 

My example of the Catholic Priest was used because Catholic priests were sexually abusing little children.  If you're concerned about homosexual males (which typically aren't child molestors) molesting your children, then you should also be concerned about Catholic Priests molesting your children.  In fact, given history, you should be MORE concerned with a Catholic Priest doing it, because they seem to be doing it more than homosexual troop masters.  That's why I cited the example.

A Catholic priest is not a pedophile or a homosexual by definition. A Catholic priest can be a homosexual or a pedophile, but not because he is a Catholic priest. A homosexual though is a homosexual by definition. That's why you're example is weak and a bad one at that.

 

You HAVE judged them.  YOu have falliciously judged homosexual men as being more likely to be a child molestor.  This is not true! 

Never did, never implied it. You'd like me to have, otherwise that might give you more credibility here.

 

1.  I am just baffled by this statement.  You want to know why I think homosexuality is right?  Well, for the record, I don't think homosexuality is right.  Nor do I think it is wrong.  I find it utterly absurd to think you can try to place something like that as being either right or wrong.  It just is.  For homosexuality to be "right" or "wrong" is to put some sort of morality associated with it.  Given that homosexuality exists throughout nature, I'll even say that homosexuality is natural.  But I'm not going to be absurd and claim that it is either right or wrong.  It'd be like claiming that being white is right, and chinese is wrong.  Or that being Christian is right, and Islamic wrong.  Or even something simple, like right-handed versus left-handed.

 

2.  As for the organizations you mentioned, I have no beef with them.  And I wouldn't have any beef with the BSA if they weren't actively trying to promote myths about homosexuality.  If one of your organizations was say a woman's group, that exluded men, and then justified it on false information, and used the group to spread false information about men, then I'd be significantly less understanding.  At the same time, the groups you mention are examples of minorities as well as a heavily disenfranchised part of our society (women).  I can recognize those groupings as being places to find support in dealing with the difficulties of living in a different culture, or looking for support in dealing with systemic inequalities between male and female.  I also doubt they're getting huge amounts of public dollars from the government.

 

Another concern I have with the BSA, is that they are teaching children (whom are exceptionally impressionable) that homosexuality is indeed "wrong."

1. Well well, so you don't think it's right or wrong. Fine! But if that's your opinion, don't think you can judge me by my character just because I think homosexuality is wrong. Now you're the one pointing fingers here. And as I said to meta, don't go for the whole 'it's natural' argument, because that too is a weak one at best. It's weak for supporting homosexuality, and even weaker for trying to argue against someone who thinks it's wrong. It's natural for some animals to eat their young and show cannibalism, too.

 

2. Once again, you're ascribing motives. Whether or not you think it's wrong, fine. But if you do think boy scouts are wrong, then all my afformentioned organizations are wrong too, because they all discriminate and many often try to influence their members' opinions about others to suit their agendas. Whether or not they get public dollars is something we've already been over, but both groups can be guilty of the same thing.

 

1.  Not really.  Homosexuality is typically considered a sin by religious people.  If you have people that have strong religious convictions and believe that homosexuality is "wrong" and hence, a sin, it's not too surprising that they wouldn't want those people in their group.  Especially when their handbook says The Boy Scouts of America maintain that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing his obligation to God as well as comments in court hearings such as "If a youth comes to a Scoutmaster and admits to doing wrong, like stealing, lying, cheating or vandalizing, the normal procedure is to counsel the youth privately and sympathetically...If the youth admits to being a homosexual, the Boy Scouts' policy is to instantly terminate his association with Scouting."

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/bsa.htm

 

 

2.  I don't know that?  How would you presume to know that I don't know that?  Simply because of the (absurd) statement that I don't live in the United States?  Never mind the fact that you probably don't know where I grew up.  As for them not being racist, tell that to the Native Americans.  I'm sure they are huge fans of the heavy amount of stereotyping of natives that boy scouts commonly do.  And prior to the Mormon Church becoming the powerbrokers of the BSA, the Mormon-sponsored troops did indeed have troubles with racism.

 

So despite the fact that you were never affiliated with the BSA, you felt it prudent to point out that I don't even live in the US?

 

3.  And on a final note, later everyone.  This board just frustrates the **** out of me, and I am finally done with it.  Have a nice life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. Well, now we're going back to the religious argument. If you think their behavior is wrong, fine. There's nothing I can say to change you're opinion on that, so I won't bother.

 

2. It's one thing to say something about an organization, it's another to say it about it's members. I can't speak for the organization, but I've had my encounters with it in the past, and I have friends who either were part of or are still in the boy scouts, and none of them are racist. So please cut it with the racial accusations.

 

3. No, don't go! We love you! But seriously, sorry to hear that. We might be arguing now, but I like you as a person. But if you really want to leave, best of luck to you. Anyways, it probably would have been better to end this chat anyway, especially give this thread has been OT since the first page.

Edited October 25, 2006 by Dark Moth

[Dark Moth]

Dark Moth, there is one thing that kind of strikes a cord with me.  You said that your faith in God is based on logic and reason, but belief and faith, by their very nature, defies logic and reason.  Could you please elaborate?  If not, I understand but I am very curious by your choice of words.

 

Instinct cannot be denied.  It is the driving force behind every aspect of our nature.  It can be buried, ignored, pushed back temporarily, but in the end instinct will win.  It is the force that has driven human civilization from the moment we stood up right and looked at the stars.  The human instinct is one of the most powerful force on this world.  We need to embrace it, not fight it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you finally admitting you're Hades? Anyway, I base my belief on faith, reason and logic. By the way, faith and belief do not always defy reason and logic. But I'm not going to discuss this now. This is not a religious thread.

[kirottu]

OMG GAY GERMS!!!!

 

RUN MOTH RUN!!!

 

GAY GERMS ARE COMING AT YOU!!!!

 

NOOOOOO!!!

Edited October 25, 2006 by kirottu

[kumquatq3]

2.  See, there you go again assuming you everything that goes on in these people's minds.  The utter arrogance you show here by assuming that they do this only for the reasons you stated is just wrong.  You don't know, so don't act like it.  What you're doing right now is taking these examples and just spouting what you believe is the reason behind it and using to somehow counter my statements.  Why does it seem so impossible to you that those urges can't go away completely? Even more, the fact that they can actually repress their homosexual urges pretty much proves that a person can have influence over their sexual orientation, does it not? 

 

I stopped reading after this, but:

 

So straight guys who remain virgins, there by repressing their urges in the same way as a gay man might, are changing their orientation? That explains those pedo preists...

 

Also, are you honestly trying to argue that there isn't "proof" that hanging around gays doesn't make you gay? Well, I can't disprove faries or Zeus either, but if thats how you want to play it....

[Lucius]

Kumq, I think it's wrong to be as hunky as you are, and I simply don't agree with it, so stay away from them boyscouts m'kay, you'll just put dirty thoughts in their naughty minds! :angry:

[Dark Moth]

I stopped reading after this, but:

 

So straight guys who remain virgins, there by repressing their urges in the same way as a gay man might, are changing their orientation?  That explains those pedo preists...

 

Also, are you honestly trying to argue that there isn't "proof" that hanging around gays doesn't make you gay? Well, I can't disprove faries or Zeus either, but if thats how you want to play it....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, they're not 'changing' their orientation in this case, they're merely repressing their actions. They could still feel sexual desire for girls but just choose not to act on them. It's not exactly the same thing. If you had read just a little further, you would have seen this:

Take an adult or even a teenager and force them to hang around gay people all the time probably won't change his or her sexual orientation. Take someone really young [and impressionable] though who is already supposedly heterosexual and do the same, you definitely would influence him or her. Would it make them automatically homosexual? We can't say. But I think it's rather arrogant of you to say it can't, especially since it defies logic.

 

Also, to clarify for you and kirottu, my point to alanschu is not that hanging around gay people makes you gay, I've already said that. Rather, Alanschu seems to think that it's impossible for someone's sexual orientation to be influenced by hanging around enough people of homosexual orientation for so long, and I disagreed. Would it make them gay? Probably not. But I don't think it's correct to say it can't.

Edited October 25, 2006 by Dark Moth

[kumquatq3]

I stopped reading after this, but:

 

So straight guys who remain virgins, there by repressing their urges in the same way as a gay man might, are changing their orientation?  That explains those pedo preists...

Well, they're not 'changing' their orientation in this case, they're merely repressing their actions. They could still feel sexual desire for girls but just choose not to act on them. It's not exactly the same thing. If you had read just a little further, you would have seen this:

 

 

You proved my point, you said this:

Why does it seem so impossible to you that those urges can't go away completely? Even more, the fact that they can actually repress their homosexual urges pretty much proves that a person can have influence over their sexual orientation, does it not?

 

Then this:

Well, they're not 'changing' their orientation in this case, they're merely repressing their actions.  They could still feel sexual desire for men but just choose not to act on them.

 

 

Would it make them gay? Probably not. But I don't think it's correct to say it can't.

 

I might be the second coming of Jesus, there is a small chance, but I don't base my life or opinions on it. I see you're point, I don't agree with the idea tho.

Edited October 25, 2006 by kumquatq3

[Lucius]

Oh yeah so the problem is that these kids are actually hanging around a whole crowd of these gay scoutmasters, who act like ALL gays surely do, and by that I'm sure you're thinking femine and flaming from the vast knowledge you have gathered by watching... what, TV series?

[Sand]

Anyway, I base my belief on faith, reason and logic.  By the way, faith and belief do not always defy reason and logic.  But I'm not going to discuss this now.  This is not a religious thread.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Agreed, so I will not push it any farther than this, but nonetheless it is a curious stance. Perhaps another day then.

 

While I do respect your views in this matter, I do have to disagree on principle that being around a homosexual or a group of homoexuals will make one have homosexual tendacies. Sexuality is one of the most basest of instincts that is in every single creature on this planet. It is the instinct of physical pleasure and propagation. If one isn't geared toward homosexuality, on the genetic level, he or she cannot be influenced by peers in being a homosexual.

[kumquatq3]

By the way, faith and belief do not always defy reason and logic.

 

not always

[alanschu]

People have sent me messages requesting to stay, so I may consider hanging around longer. Before I go, a few last quips.

 

Logic is, and always will be, trumped by empiricism. It's a foundation of the scientific method, and logic and commonsense have routinely been shown to not coincide with actual reality.

 

Furthermore, understand that any comment regarding social sciences can only be made with respect to what has been empirically found. Going around making comments about how people shouldn't say stuff hanging around homosexuals won't make some people homosexual because "you just don't know" is an exceptionally poor argument. This statement can be applied to anything. I am entirely open to the possibility that homosexuals may turn other people into homosexuals, but given that the literature and research unequivocally refutes this claim, I'm not about to rescind my statements simply because "it might be." It's possible that our understanding of gravity, with the weak and strong nuclear forces isn't correct either, although our current evidence says it does. It's what science and the scientific method is all about. And just to reiterate, science and logic are not common bedfellows. Logic is overrated, and without empirical evidence can (and frequently does) lead people to incorrect conclusions.

 

 

And for any of you that questions the validity of homosexuality's presence in nature, I suggest reading Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity

 

Other pages I quickly found on the internets:

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20..._gayanimal.html

http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality...sexual_behavior

 

But seriously, read the book. It's very interesting and not written at too high of an academic level.

 

As for why I cite that it's natural, because if something exists throughout the animal kingdom, I'm not going to judge it as being "right or wrong" if it seems to be something that exists throughout species. To ascribe the label of "wrong" to it implies that it must be a choice. Given that creatures of significantly less intellect and reasoning abilities than humans share the same homosexual tendencies, I'm not convinced there's much "choice" in the matter. Furthermore, given the rather large body of research indicating that homosexuality is strongly influenced by biology, I see labelling it "wrong" as being similar to labelling left-handed people as "wrong" (heck, you can even choose to be left-handed), or a chinese person as "wrong."

 

 

And to be quite frank, I find it rather odd that many people against homosexuality are so quick to say it's a choice. I mean, did these people wake up one day and decide that life was too simple, and that they'd rather be part of pretty much the most stigmatized, ostracized, discrimated against group in the world? Did they go "Hmmm, you know, I think it'd be neat if I adopted a lifestyle that made it more susceptible for me to become a victim of hate crimes and to become a social outcast?"

 

Why someone would *choose* a lifestyle that, for the most part, is going to make life far less bearable and enjoyable, seems pretty illogical to me.

[Sand]

Alanschu, very well written and you make very valid points on both logic and homosexuality. I will have to check out that book at some point for I do love reading good books about the natural world, specifically on animal behavior and how it relates to the human condition. The Last book I read on that subject was Jane Goodall's In the Shadow of Man. Good read if are into that sort of thing.

[Pop]

Logic is, and always will be, trumped by empiricism. It's a foundation of the scientific method, and logic and commonsense have routinely been shown to not coincide with actual reality.

Eh. Empiricism is good for descriptive claims (it is the case that...), but it fails when it hits any kind of normative claim (it ought to be the case that...) Have you read any of David Hume's or Anthony Mackie's work? Empirical observation can only describe, it cannot prescribe, especially in ethical terms, lest we run into the is/ought fallacy. Hence, I'd say logic is just as important as empirical observation.

 

Besides, one requires a working knowledge of logic (1+2=3, "A" cannot be equal to "not A") to even be able to make sense of empirical data. Take correlation / causation, for example. One could make the claim that consumption of ice cream causes Summer, because empirical data shows heat and ice cream consumption rising at the same time. It could be the case that heat causes people to want ice cream, or people consuming ice cream increases heat. Without logic, both of those conclusions are completely plausible, but using logic it's plainly obvious that only one of them can be correct.

Edited October 25, 2006 by Pop

[Sand]

So, one needs both logic and empirical data to come to what is termed reality. Now what of those who have claimed to "experienced" God or some other divine spirit through 3 or more senses. They have gathered the empirical data for themselves proving that God exists. Should they be labeled as people with serious psychological problems or be taken seriously?

[alanschu]

I was referring to the scientific, not the philosophical, usage of the term empircism (which includes the entire idea of forumlating hypotheses and drawing conclusions from data).

 

I guarantee you though, that if you went somewhere making claims about the state of the world, using logic as the foundation of your argument, no academic will take you seriously.

 

Logic leads people to make "commonsense" assessments of situations. Since it was already mentioned in this thread, a common notion is that homosexual men are more likely to molest little boys. Logically, this makes sense, as a homosexual man is attracted to other men. So if there was a man that would be more likely to molest a little boy, it would make more sense for it to be a homosexual male rather than a heterosexual male. However, the empirical analysis indicates that this absolutely is not the case.

 

When making statements about the world, using logic as your foundation, your argument becomes significantly weakened.

[Dark_Raven]

So, one needs both logic and empirical data to come to what is termed reality.  Now what of those who have claimed to "experienced" God or some other divine spirit through 3 or more senses.  They have gathered the empirical data for themselves proving that God exists.  Should they be labeled as people with serious psychological problems or be taken seriously?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Quite unstable they are. God speaks to me! Um no that is your conscience in some twisted form speaking to you.

[Sand]

Following that thought, my dear Dark Raven,would that not mean the prophets of old, from Mohammad to all the way back to Adam, be considered unstable?

[Sand]

When making statements about the world, using logic as your foundation, your argument becomes significantly weakened.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So logic is the tool of reason which needs to be tempered with empirical evidence in order to accurately percieve the reality of our existence.

[Musopticon?]

And language is a tool that needs less raping.

 

Edit: By the by, the old prophets probably were mad as heck and rather epileptic, if they had visions.

Edited October 25, 2006 by Musopticon?

[Dark_Raven]

Following that thought, my dear Dark Raven,would that not mean the prophets of old, from Mohammad to all the way back to Adam, be considered unstable?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes.

 

Since people of that time did not have the science or knowledge that we now posses, they had to make do with their best interpretation of an event or meaning. Since people of that time were fascinated with god idols, what better way to interpret something than say god spoke to me. God said to do this, live by this, when in essence it's their own conscience speaking through them.

[Sand]

And language is a tool that needs less raping.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nah.

[Pop]

I was referring to the scientific, not the philosophical, usage of the term empircism (which includes the entire idea of forumlating hypotheses and drawing conclusions from data).

 

I guarantee you though, that if you went somewhere making claims about the state of the world, using logic as the foundation of your argument, no academic will take you seriously.

 

Logic leads people to make "commonsense" assessments of situations.  Since it was already mentioned in this thread, a common notion is that homosexual men are more likely to molest little boys.  Logically, this makes sense, as a homosexual man is attracted to other men.  So if there was a man that would be more likely to molest a little boy, it would make more sense for it to be a homosexual male rather than a heterosexual male.  However, the empirical analysis indicates that this absolutely is not the case.

 

When making statements about the world, using logic as your foundation, your argument becomes significantly weakened.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We're talking about sound logic, not common notions. Oftentimes common sense is not logical. The statement that "(1) Male homosexuals are attracted to males and (2) children are often male thus (3) homosexuals are attracted to children" is not a sound argument. The conclusion does not follow from the premises, since there are homosexuals who are not paedophiles, and thus that logic fails. The fact that children can be male is happenstance. It is certainly possible for a person to be both a homosexual and a paedophile, but those two conditions are connected via illogical assumption, not logical conclusion.

[alanschu]

Was this entire thread not about logical assumptions (look at the context in which Mothman is using the term logic, and see how much of it applies to the actual definition of logic)? I'll admit that my use of the word "logic" was not really accurate (though I doubt it's presense in this thread was used correctly either), but unfortunately this sort of stuff is what people consider logic. And the awesome thing about this "logic" (and philosophy in general) is that it's not too hard to manipulate it.

 

If (1) Heterosexual males are not attracted to males and (2) little boys are sexually molested by males. (3) Homosexual males are sexually attracted to males. Therefore (4), the people sexually assaulting young males are homosexual males.

 

It's not logically sound, because the premises are not all true. However, the only way to verify these premises is to have empirical data indicating that it's not true. Otherwise, people can (and WILL) continue to draw the same conclusions from this logical inference.

 

Another use of "logic" in this thread was relating to environmental experiences:

 

(1) Environmental experiences can affect the character of a person, and (2) hanging around gay men is an environmental influence. (3) Therefore, hanging around gay men will affect the character of a person.

 

These premises aren't true (thanks to empirical studies that don't show any indication that homosexuality is contagious), but people insist on thinking that it is true, regardless of the findings.

 

The problem is that people believe the premises to be true (and if they do believe it's true, then it's logically sound to them), and then make conclusions (and worse yet, government policy) based on those conclusions. If not for empiricism, you aren't going to be able to verify whether or not the premises is true, and won't be able to verify that your logic is, in fact, sound.

 

 

I will concede though that what I was referring to as "logic" before, was not truly logic. As a counterpoint though, I doubt "logic" was ever really used in this thread correctly. I was more talking about the (inaccurate) deductive reasoning that people often do, and often refer to as "logic."

[Dark Moth]

Aargh! *vader voice* That name no longer has any meaning for me!

[Sand]

Aargh!  *vader voice*  That name no longer has any meaning for me!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I know the feeling.