> I try to be even-handed, so yes, I included a liberal-leaning wiki entry which synthesized sources bolstering my claim and refutations of them, with an obviou

> I try to be even-handed, so yes, I included a liberal-leaning wiki entry which synthesized sources bolstering my claim and refutations of them, with an obvious editorial slant toward the latter. I apologize for that? You need not apologize for it, but it certainly makes things rather confusing. A reasonable interpretation of a request for citations is “a request for citations [in support of the claim you make]”. —— > Why leave off the second half of that sentence? Mainly because I implicitly addressed it further down in the reply in the bit about “despite over-prevalence…”. > Now take a look at the preceeding sentence: "This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually." What, exactly, is the point you’re trying to make? Leaving aside all other doubts about the study, what practical point are you making? Yes; homosexuals are over-represented in this study, and that’s interesting. Yet the study clearly states that the majority of sexual predators are heterosexual. > The final line is just boilerplate CYA we don't want to suggest anything bad about homosexuals language at odds with the rest of the paper. Standard deferential genuflection for any research that contradicts liberal priors. This paper was published in 1992. Back then, societal attitudes towards homosexuality were far worse. Given that, I don’t buy the argument that this was any kind of standard deferential nonsense towards liberalism. Even many liberals didn’t like queers back then; you didn’t need to walk on eggshells. That said, my point about the author’s entire career still stands - which further casts doubt on the “deference” claim. Not everything is inauthentic lip-service; sometimes it’s a genuinely held belief. > Who made that claim? I certainly didn't. Sure, Jan. An especially irritating feature of this website is commenter’s tendency to pretend that “context” doesn’t exist. You made the claim by listing it as a source for a prior claim that gays were pedos. Retreating to verbatim textual analysis of your literal words doesn’t negate contextual understanding. —— > I only claimed correlation, not necessarily causation. But, come on, leaving out the whole preceding section of the abstract is hilarious In the preceding section you say that posting a link doesnt make a claim; and now you say it does make a claim. Fun! But, I did in fact reference that part of the abstract in my response; I just didn’t feel the need to word-vomit it all back to you. Even when you do, though, it still denotes a pretty small effect size … which is the comment I made about it earlier. Did you have any comment about that? —— I didn’t comment on your video because I didn’t watch it. I’d be happy to read a textual version of that information and respond to it. In any case, I don’t think it’s incredibly valuable to engage in that line of argument: you also didn’t provide citations for every single claim you originally made. That’s fine, honestly. —— Here’s an interesting idea: why don’t you list out what you think those sources are saying, and what claims you think they make? Or, if you’d like, maybe consider this discussion of recent results which seem to be fairly contradictory to your pedophilia paper, https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/fetishes-i-dont-get/201102/do-gay-men-have-more-sexual-interest-in-children https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/fetishes-i-dont-ge...