> 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

> 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 In fact, I'm adding context and directly engaging with the quality of your source (which is inapplicable, outdated, and seems to actually undermine your argument).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.