4 ms·

> You made the claim by listing it as a source for a prior claim that gays were pedos. My exact claim, which has been consistent and clear, is that they are at

> You made the claim by listing it as a source for a prior claim that gays were pedos. My exact claim, which has been consistent and clear, is that they are at higher rates. You're the one intentionally dodging context. Of course given their much smaller number they can easily be much more predisposed to such acts and still make up a minority of those who actually commit them. Why do you keep trying to muddy the waters like this? It's a pure strawman, a hallmark of bad-faith argumentation. --- > 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. Academia is very different from real life, especially the fluffier "sciences". --- > In the preceding section you say that posting a link doesnt make a claim; and now you say it does make a claim. More rhetorical nonsense. I've never said either. I have personally made claims, and posted a few links related to said claims. > Did you have any comment about that? Cool. This is your one actual substantial criticism. --- > I’d be happy to read a textual version of that information and respond to it. I'll summarize. The humor unfortunately gets lost in the process. Foucault, who provided the philosophical foundation for Queer Theory, wanted to abolish age of consent laws all the way down to infants. (Not mentioned: his alleged rape of Tunisian boys). Gayle Rubin, author of the founding text of Queer Theory, Thinking Sex, dedicated half of said document to defending pederasty and compared pedophilia to a preference for spicy foods. And Queer Theorists ever since (he specifically provides examples for Pat Califia and Judith Butler) have consistently reaffirmed this defense of pedophilia. Aside from Queer Theory, which the video focuses on, on the more conventional gay rights side of things, you have celebrated poet Allen Ginsberg, Harry Hay (mentor of Will Roscoe, inventor of "two spirit"), David Thorstad, &c. all involved with NAMBLA. That's quite a resumé. But I know, as I'm sure you do, how frankly such topics are acknowledged and discussed internally within the gay community. How commonly such things as nonmonogamy and pederasty are understood to be inherent to the condition, how much trauma is widely acknowledged as a contributing factor, how well it's understood that the "Will and Grace" pop culture personas and the "born this way" slogans were just pretty lies that were necessary to placate those evil Others. After writing this up, I did stumble across a transcript of the video here: https://borazansesli.com/2020/12/16/queer-theory-pedophilia-jeopardy-with-derrick-jensen/ https://borazansesli.com/2020/12/16/queer-theory-pedophilia-...

drewbug01 3y ago
> My exact claim, which has been consistent and clear, is that they are at higher rates. ...yeah, I got that. I'm honestly not sure what you're on about now. I think the kindest read of the situation is that you got lost when I asserted that your paper doesn't back up your claim (and perhaps undermines your claim), or something. Other reads of this type of rhetorical circle are less kind. In any case, you're right: you've been very clear that you think queers are predisposed to be pedos. Your paper studies a small sample of known pedophiles. It is ludicrous to suggest that such an unrepresentative sample could ever support such a broad, sweeping claim. And, as the link to Psychology Today discusses, modern research doesn't even support the limited claims this paper made about over-representation of homos in the small sample size. I'm not dodging context. In fact, I'm adding context and directly engaging with the quality of your source (which is inapplicable, outdated, and seems to actually undermine your argument). You're arguing in rhetorical circles rather than engaging with what I've pointed out about your source and it's implications for your claims. Not sure that really makes me the one arguing in bad faith, or muddying the waters. --- > Did you have any comment about that? > Cool. This is your one actual substantial criticism. Too substantial to refute. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ But I'm okay with that. I always found the "gays are the product of abusive, broken homes" to be a really silly argument for people to make, anyways. After all, it tends to make people feel pity for queers, and that doesn't really accomplish your goal. ;) --- > I'll summarize. The humor unfortunately gets lost in the process. Hoo boy. Presuming the transcript is accurate, can't say that really codes as "humor" to me. "Vitriolic" might be a more accurate label. > Foucalt [...] wanted to abolish age of consent laws all the way down to infants > Gayle Rubin [...] defending pederasty > Queer Theorists ever since [...] reaffirmed this defense of pedophilia > Allen Ginsberg, Harry Hay, David Thorstad [...] all involved with NAMBLA. What you're doing here (with the video's transcript and your own info) is tying different individuals together from queer history and then using that to imply that queer people are inherently bad. Why must we all be presumed guilty and inherently broken? I mean, straight people signed that stupid french petition about age of consent laws too, you know. (I do not deny that people have done some shitty things and held some shitty beliefs. But I also do not accept being painted as a pedophile because Foucalt was a pedophile. That is an impossible logical leap that should be laughed out of the room). > But I know, as I'm sure you do, how frankly such topics are acknowledged and discussed internally within the gay community. That is not my experience with the queer community. How is it that you know, from whom? > How commonly such things as nonmonogamy and pederasty are understood to be inherent to the condition [citation needed] > how much trauma is widely acknowledged as a contributing factor We go through a lot of trauma, that trauma doesn't make us queer. Who's telling you this nonsense? > how well it's understood that the "Will and Grace" pop culture personas and the "born this way" slogans were just pretty lies that were necessary to placate those evil Others. Ah, there we go - the accusations of ill intent. We're scheming. I think this is where you traditionally are supposed to insert the "recruitment" bits, right? --- I'm really happy you're taking the mask off, now. You are incredibly, deeply invested in hating queer people, and it's disgusting.

drewbug01 3y ago

> My exact claim, which has been consistent and clear, is that they are at higher rates. ...yeah, I got that. I'm honestly not sure what you're on about now. I think the kindest read of the situation is that you got lost when I asserted that your paper doesn't back up your claim (and perhaps undermines your claim), or something. Other reads of this type of rhetorical circle are less kind. In any case, you're right: you've been very clear that you think queers are predisposed to be pedos. Your paper studies a small sample of known pedophiles. It is ludicrous to suggest that such an unrepresentative sample could ever support such a broad, sweeping claim. And, as the link to Psychology Today discusses, modern research doesn't even support the limited claims this paper made about over-representation of homos in the small sample size. I'm not dodging context. In fact, I'm adding context and directly engaging with the quality of your source (which is inapplicable, outdated, and seems to actually undermine your argument). You're arguing in rhetorical circles rather than engaging with what I've pointed out about your source and it's implications for your claims. Not sure that really makes me the one arguing in bad faith, or muddying the waters. --- > Did you have any comment about that? > Cool. This is your one actual substantial criticism. Too substantial to refute. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ But I'm okay with that. I always found the "gays are the product of abusive, broken homes" to be a really silly argument for people to make, anyways. After all, it tends to make people feel pity for queers, and that doesn't really accomplish your goal. ;) --- > I'll summarize. The humor unfortunately gets lost in the process. Hoo boy. Presuming the transcript is accurate, can't say that really codes as "humor" to me. "Vitriolic" might be a more accurate label. > Foucalt [...] wanted to abolish age of consent laws all the way down to infants > Gayle Rubin [...] defending pederasty > Queer Theorists ever since [...] reaffirmed this defense of pedophilia > Allen Ginsberg, Harry Hay, David Thorstad [...] all involved with NAMBLA. What you're doing here (with the video's transcript and your own info) is tying different individuals together from queer history and then using that to imply that queer people are inherently bad. Why must we all be presumed guilty and inherently broken? I mean, straight people signed that stupid french petition about age of consent laws too, you know. (I do not deny that people have done some shitty things and held some shitty beliefs. But I also do not accept being painted as a pedophile because Foucalt was a pedophile. That is an impossible logical leap that should be laughed out of the room). > But I know, as I'm sure you do, how frankly such topics are acknowledged and discussed internally within the gay community. That is not my experience with the queer community. How is it that you know, from whom? > How commonly such things as nonmonogamy and pederasty are understood to be inherent to the condition [citation needed] > how much trauma is widely acknowledged as a contributing factor We go through a lot of trauma, that trauma doesn't make us queer. Who's telling you this nonsense? > how well it's understood that the "Will and Grace" pop culture personas and the "born this way" slogans were just pretty lies that were necessary to placate those evil Others. Ah, there we go - the accusations of ill intent. We're scheming. I think this is where you traditionally are supposed to insert the "recruitment" bits, right? --- I'm really happy you're taking the mask off, now. You are incredibly, deeply invested in hating queer people, and it's disgusting.