In anti-gay attack, AIM falsely asserts "pedophile" Jennings was "teaching 14-year-old boys" about sexual practices
In attacking the media for allegedly insufficient coverage of Obama administration official Kevin Jennings, a blogger for Accuracy in Media, which purports to "set the record straight on important issues that have received slanted coverage" -- and which has a record of antagonism toward gays -- smeared Jennings as a "pedophile" and falsely claimed that "[v]ideos have surfaced of Jennings teaching 14-year-old boys the dangerous sexual practice of 'fisting,' and discussing with them the particulars of oral sex." In fact, Jennings did not conduct that seminar and, in fact, reportedly criticized it when he became aware of its content.
Blogger: Jennings is "President Obama's favorite pedophile," was "teaching 14-year-old boys the dangerous sexual practice of 'fisting,' " "particulars of oral sex"
From a December 10 AIM blog post by Allie Duzett, "an intern at the American Journalism Center, a training program run by Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia":
While CBSNews.com has 108 stories on the Salahis, the site only features one story on the "Safe Schools Czar" of the Obama administration, Kevin Jennings. The article on Jennings, entitled "Kevin Jennings Gets Boost from White House," was written on October 1, 2009. The article defends Jennings, who was selected for the position largely because of his work founding and directing the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a radical gay promotion group.
However, since October 2009, a lot has happened with President Obama's favorite pedophile. Videos have surfaced of Jennings teaching 14-year-old boys the dangerous sexual practice of "fisting," and discussing with them the particulars of oral sex.
Jennings did not conduct, nor did he support, seminar
Seminar conducted by non-GLSEN personnel at GLSEN-sponsored conference. As Media Matters for America has detailed, the controversial session -- one of "over 50 sessions" at the 2000 conference sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), according to Jennings, founder of the group -- was run "by two [Massachusetts] Department of Education AIDS-HIV education specialists and a consultant to the department," as reported in a May 18, 2000, Boston Herald article retrieved from the Nexis database.
Jennings reportedly "surprised and troubled" by accounts of the session. The May 18 Herald article reported that GLSEN "agreed yesterday that three workshop leaders crossed a line with raunchy content directed at students as young as 14 years old." In the article, Jennings, who was the executive director of GLSEN at the time, was quoted saying, "We need to make our expectations and guidelines to outside facilitators much more clear because we are surprised and troubled by some of the accounts we've heard." In a May 18, 2000, Boston Globe article (from Nexis), Jennings criticized the contents of the seminar, saying that "from what I've heard, I have concerns as well" and that sex-education programs "need to be delivered in an age appropriate and sensitive manner."
Even Gateway Pundit admitted Jennings himself did not conduct the seminar. In support of her claims that Jennings is on tape "teaching 14-year-old boys the dangerous sexual practice of 'fisting,' and discussing with them the particulars of oral sex," Duzett linked to two Gateway Pundit blog posts on the seminar. But while their headlines suggest that Jennings himself is on tape conducting the seminar, Gateway Pundit has noted that the Department of Education staffers, not Jennings himself, are the ones on tape.
AIM's claim that Jennings is a "pedophile" is false
The only purported evidence Duzett cites to support her assertion that Jennings is a "pedophile" is her claim that Jennings was "teaching 14-year-old boys" sexual practices -- as detailed above, a false claim. Further, no allegations of pedophilia have been made against Jennings.
AIM rehashes other discredited smears of Jennings
Duzett repeats attack on GLSEN "reading list for schoolchildren" without noting GLSEN's call for adult guidance. Joining other right-wing figures, Duzett wrote that "a team of 'independent researchers' came forth with a report on a reading list for schoolchildren that Jennings was involved in creating, as the founder and executive director of GLSEN," stating that "[t]hese researchers randomly selected 11 books off Jennings' GLSEN reading list, and what they found left them 'speechless.' " Duzett added, "It should frighten parents in this country to have the man behind this reading list functioning as the nation's 'Safe Schools Czar.' "
But Duzett failed to note that GLSEN's list of recommended books is accompanied by the following notice in red type: "All BookLink items are reviewed by GLSEN staff for quality and appropriateness of content. However, some titles for adolescent readers contain mature themes. We recommend that adults selecting books for youth review content for suitability. The editorial and customer reviews listed at Amazon.com often provide information on mature content."
Duzett: Wash. Times "merits recognition" for smear-laden attack on Jennings. Duzett wrote: "In the midst of so much willful ignorance on the part of the media, the Washington Times merits recognition: they recently published an op-ed discussing Jennings and his exploits in sex 'education.' " But as Media Matters has detailed, the Washington Times editorial Duzett cites falsely claimed that Jennings encouraged a sexual relationship between a student and adult, attempted to tie Jennings to the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), and falsely suggested that Jennings supported a controversial workshop at the 2000 GLSEN-sponsored event.
AIM has history of antagonism toward gays
Writers for Accuracy in Media have a record of attacks on gays and gay rights:
- AIM chairman Don Irvine wrote of "the first ever Pride month celebration at the White House": "Maybe next [President Obama] can repaint the White House a nice shade of pink and hang the rainbow flag in front to show his commitment to the gay cause." [6/30/09]
- AIM editor Cliff Kincaid asserted that news organizations should engage in a "Quit Gay Sex" campaign against "the dangerous and addictive homosexual lifestyle," using as justification for his argument the November "Quit to Live" anti-smoking campaign launched by ABC News after veteran journalist Peter Jennings died of lung cancer. Kincaid argued that news organizations should take up similar campaigns against homosexuality, given that "[l]ife-threatening sexually transmitted diseases among homosexuals are on the increase." [12/14/05]
- Kincaid claimed that the lagging ratings for the now-defunct MSNBC show The Situation with Tucker Carlson could be blamed on panelist Rachel Maddow, whom he described as "a lesbian with hair so short that she looks like a man." [8/1/05]
- Kincaid wrote that Howard Dean's "success" as a 2004 presidential candidate "will depend on concealing the facts about Dean's homosexual experiment -- and how he has used young people as sexual guinea pigs." Kincaid repeated a claim that "Dean was a key member of a sophisticated campaign that implemented the homosexual agenda in the state over a period of many years." [12/10/03]
And just like my spam-clogged AIM e-mail address, Accuracy in Media is completely useless.
I think of the toothpaste AIM.
Someone who is an adult who wants to have sex with a teenager who has reached puberty isn't a pedophile. They're a pervert, typically (depending on the age of of the teenager, the age of the adult, and the US state they're in) they're guilty of a crime, but they aren't a pedophile.
But there's no evidence that Jennings ever fit into either of these categories.
Then there's the question of the informational discussion and pamphlet that was available for teenagers to get. Jennings was not responsible for either of those events.
It's all baseless smears.
Because that's all they've got. They don't have a reasonable case for condemning Jennings. They have their overwhelming bigotry against gays and Obama. That's it.
AIM is to accuracy in media as a hole in the heart is to a long healthy life!!
pedophilia is not the same as homosexuality
contrary to what Conservatives would like all of us to believe and what these kinds of attacks on gay men try to reinforce.
And it comes from Andrew Breitbart, so logically ...
What a sick person you are. If your post doesn't get you banned from this website, nothing from anyone should.
Can you say "kneejerk reaction"?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Although I do still find you 'amusing.'
I didn't just post a drive-by - I posted a link to ACTUAL PROOF that the conservative portion of the political spectrum is lousy with perverts and pedophiles. As Jack Nicholson put it so nicely, "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THR TRUTH!!"
Sorry, I missed your link in this driveby :)
http://www.theurbangrind.net/?p=3364
http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/2008/09/top-10-democrat-sex-scandals-in.html
"Helen Chenoweth, Congresswoman (R-Id.). Admitted to a six-year adulterous affair with a married associate. In 1995, Chenoweth had denied the affair when asked about it by The Spokane Spokesman-Review, but now she claims a pardon from a higher authority: "I've asked for God's forgiveness, and I've received it," she revealed."
I demand that she provide a notarized copy of her 'Forgiveness Certificate'. LOL
And that leave's off a few that couldn't be verified (a very few taht tunred out ot be bogus) and well as dozens more "arrested for's", "charged with's" and "accused of's" or "sued over's"
50. Five-Zero. And that site hasn't even been updated in a while. There's yer party of "family values" for you.
Truth hurts, I know. And if that wasn't good enough for you, here another and another and another.
No one of the Right has any place to criticize the sexual practices or preferences of ANYONE else. Their house simply glows to brightly when exposed to UV light.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Your lot complaining about a pamphlet is like someone who lives in a septioc tank going into a house and noting that the water-filter on the faucet isn't working really well.
That's a laugh.
You're wrong I'm afraid. I may just be jaded, but the fact is I'm not impressed with the moral upstandingness of pretty much ANYONE, let alone politicians. And YES, that absolutely includes Democrats.
But the reality is that child molesters, closeted homosexuals, closested transgendered, and all manner of creepy fetishists have a LOOOONG history of hiding behind the Bible and attempting to use their self-procliamed "faith" and "holiness" as a cloak to mask their *ahen* nocturnal activities. This practice goes back to the dawn of man.
And, against Barry Goldwater's advice, the Right, the Republicans and the Conservtaives (which at varying points in history were not always the exact same group) have ALL chosen to line up behind RELIGION.
So you're wrong. It is far from a mere coincidence that the overwhelming number of sex offenders are registered Republicans, self-proclaimed Conservtaives and usually members of extremely conservative churches.
Conservtisam may not have caused the more deviant of these deviant behaviors - although it CAN be argued that the repressive nature of modern-day religious conservtaism can lead to more perverse behavior, it is NOT what I'm arguing here - but it is still far more than coincindence. There's a definite, clear connection. And anyone outside of your narrow world-view sees this.
Here's a test: Two [hypothetical] politicians were recently embroiled is sex scandals. One cheated on his wife with a younger (but still over 18) woman. The other cheated on his wife with a 12-year-old boy. Which one is more likely to be the Democrat or the Republican?
If you think the second one is more likely to be a Democrat, the evidence for this is OVERWHELMINGLY against you.
------------------------------------------------------------
Plus, besides... You missed the point once again:It's not about the VICE, it's about the HYPOCRISY.
...Other than to say that anyone who is so convinced that they're right, but can't fashion a well-reasoned argument, using evidence and logic to make their point is either a simple raging partisan hack incapable of fairness or a critical thought, or just an idiot.
-------------------------------------------------------
Hey: I could be wrong. Shocking as that prospect seems, it does happen! But if I am proven wrong, it obviously won't be by you.
There IS a correlation. That's a FACT. Sorry, but that's an exceedingly well-documtended FACT. And besides... you're not even really debating that yourself: You are disputing the implied CAUSALITY.
<snark>Now... I know you conservatives are anti-science and all, but CORRELATION doesn not imply CAUSALITY.</snark>
And, in my first or second post, I stated: "although it CAN be argued that the repressive nature of modern-day religious conservtaism can lead to more perverse behavior, it is NOT what I'm arguing here."
So I think I made it pretty clear that I was stopping short of implying CAUSALITY. All the correlation - which is as real as climate change - does is disprove your assertation that "Conservatism has as much to do with their crimes as their taste in music or food."
IOW: You claim there's no correlation (no relationship at all) and I PROVED that there was. I never set out to prove CAUSALITY.
You can decide for yourself if Conservatism causes them to be perverts or if being perverts them to be them Conservative. That's above my pay-grade. But you can no more deny the correlation than you can deny global warming, evolution or gravity.
--------------------------------------------
Try Again
Empty.
So I think we've proven the point that there are more conservative perverts than progressive ones.
Here's a link to the list I found.
If I were you, right ON, I'd quit - you're losing this argument big-time.....
All of these determinants have as much to do with their scandals as does their party affiliation or ideological persuasion.
Let us know what you come up with.
Not unlike functioning brain cells in your head. :-)
Where did you get that from? With Megan's law, I'm sure that states can tabulate the political affiliations of their registered sex offenders. But I'm curious whether you just threw that out there, or whether there's actually statistics in that regard.
In law school, I clerked for a Judge assigned to hear sexual abuse cases, oftentimes involving pedophiles. The city where I worked was overwhelmingly democrat. I'd be surprised if the political affiliations of the defendants were not representative of the city at large.
Beyond that, I agree with you that conservatives who come from religiously-repressive backgrounds, where they're taught that sex is a sin . . .., may in their private lives be more prone to engage in "non-vanilla" sex. But, in my mind, there's a distinction between pedophilia and kinky sex. The one I consider an incurable sickness, the other I don't . . . There's clear abuse in pedophilia, whereas the other is just two adults having fun. . .
You're right back where you started. You are still claiming there's no connection. I presetned evidence that there was. Is it weak? Perhaps. BUT...
That being the case, it shouldn't take much evidence on your part to counter mine. I mean: I can't PROOVE that there aren't any liberal pedophiles out there. (In fact, I'm sure there are.) But all it would takle is for you to find a few examples, and I'd be forced to cencede the point.
And as it only takes me about a minute to find 50-100 ducmented cases of conservative pedohiles, the fact that you've had like TWO DAYS now and STILL have yet to present any ecidence...
Well... If you are correct, and my evidence is bunk, that would imply that you could come up with a conuter-list just as (or almost just as) easily. If you COULD, I would think you WOULD HAVE done so by now, and you HAVEN'T. So either you CAN'T (because it doesn't exist) or you're just not doing that, and thus (again) fail logic.
Basically... either I'm right or you're lazy/stupid. Otherwise you'd have proivided a link to a site listing Liberal/Democratic pedophiles by now. (Or the results of a Nexus search, whatever.)
---------------------------------------------------
Oh well. Do they have color TV in your black and white world?
You are blinded by hatred for conservatives so you have chosen this as some validation for your own hatred, fine. Just admit that and stop looking like a fool saying the conservatism is some cause for child molestation.
Hey, dipstick: I'm getting tired of repeating myself, and I've already said this more times than I'd be willing to even for my 8-year old autistic son, so I'm going to stop being polite about it: I NEVER CLAIMED THAT CONSERVATISM WAS A CAUSE OF CHILD MOLESTATION. Correlation does not mean causality. Why don't you etch that into your thick, f---ing skull about 100 times, then maybe you'll start to get the message.
What's more, a correlation does not require causality for it to exsist. All it means is that two things trend in the same direction - it DOES NOT IMPLY A REASON FOR THIS! I provided evidence for a CORRELATION. If my conclusion and my evidence are as weak as you claim, it would take next to no effort on your part to provide a scrap of evidence refuting me, and I'd be forced to concede.
But, like most mentally-deficient conservtaives out there, you seem to labor under the delusion that if you hold an opinion really strongly, and repeat it often enough, it somehow becomes fact. It doesn't work that way. You keep demanding that I accept your conlcusion as a given. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.
All your doing is assuming you're right and then laboring under the delusion that you need not defend your position. OTOH, I'm going where the evidence takes me, and drawing a very narrow conlusion from it. IOW - I'm THINKING, as liberals are wont to do. You're REFUSING TO THINK, which is just as most conservatives are wont to do.
And I dont care WHAT you think. I don't have a problem with that at all. You're entitled to your OPINION. My problem here is with HOW you think. It's weak. You dismiss eveidence merely becuause it doesn't support your position. (A common Conservative disease.) MY position is supported by the evidence I've found. I'll abandon it once I'm presetned with evidence that counters it. You see how that works?! I won't dismiss YOUR evidence, just becasue it disagrees with my position, I'll REFINE MY POSITION! THAT'S how it's SUPPOSED ot be done!
But... you've shown me nothing here but your own intellectual arrogance. Which is pretty much all I'm EVER presented with by conservtaives. You people can never win an argument with anyone who doesn't accept your conclusions as a given - IOW: Your positions can't stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. They'll only prevail if they're ASSUMED to be correct right from the start, and evidence is then evalutaed only from that POV.
I wrote a blog awhile back spelling out what I think is wrong with HOW conservatives think. Not WHAT they think, but HOW they think. You have provided my readers with a text-book example of this. Thank you for that much, at least.
----------------------------------------------
"You are beaten. It is useless to resist." ~Darth Vader
Your post above is nothing but baseless gratuitous attacks on conservatives and how you think they think. You can't even logically present evidence of your bigoted assertions regarding conservatives and child molestation, anymore than you can with people who like the color blue and child molestation. The link or correlation for both is as weak as you even admitted in your prior post. So don't sit there and tell me how I think.
Get your own thoughts in order and rise above your anger and hatred at those you don't like politically and you might earn credibility with more than just like minded liberals who share your hate. That is no accomplishment.
While he's googling, I hope he finds time to look up the term "correlation." Then he'd realize that his lists do NOTHING to support his inane assertion of a statistical correlation between someone's political affiliation and pedophilia. These types of statistics probably aren't kept in any State, but if they were, I'd guess they'd expose his childish assertion for what it is -- asinine.
A better example of a correlation would be this: Let's say we measure the vacuity of NiceGuy's posts on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being his typical bluster, and 10 being absolutely senseless.) With each successive post (variable numer #1), the senselessness of what he posts increases dramatically (variable #2). Now there may not be a causal connection in the fact that the more he posts, the dumber he sounds, but there certainly is a correlation between these two variables.
I was clear as to why I was using CAPS. It is becuase you refuse to take what I'm saying (and keep repeating) and istead insists on twisting my very clear statements into some sort of strawman. If you don't want me to shout, don't make me say it six times. This strategy is not beyond either of my Autistic children, so it should not be beyond you.
You can't even logically present evidence of your bigoted assertions regarding conservatives and child molestation, anymore than you can with people who like the color blue and child molestation.
1) I did "logically present" my "evidence." And all you've done to counter it is insult me. Disagreeing with you is not the same as being illogical. I've eviscerated you with logic. And all you keep doing repeating the same tired conslusion, though it's now in tatters, in between bouts of lamely insulting me.
2) I wouldn't know about the color blue and child molestation, as I've never seen any evidence about it one way or the other. So (unlike you) I couldn't possibly form an oppinion on the matter. As for conservatism... See point (1).
3) My observations regarding how conservtaives think come from decades of listening to (and logically deconstructing and debunking) their poorly constructed arguments, consistenlty devoid of fact, evidence, logic and reason... your argument here is a beautiful example. There are conservtaives who really challenge me, but they are few and far between. This is NOT one of those times. (This is more like Remedial Intro to Logic and Statistics 101.)
4) My thought are quite well in order. That's the advatage of using evidence and logical analysis when you for an opinion. The derranged one here is YOU. One of us is trying to make an evidence-based logical argument. Rather than counter it with logic, the other is breathlessly repeating their opinion/conclusion ad nauseum. So... which one doesn't have their thoughts in order?
--------------------------------------------
Whatever I done with you. Go ahead and have the last word. It won't change anyone's opinion at this point. Everyone else has moved on. If your manhood demands a parting shot, I'll let you have it.
And the reason for that is because just like your ridiculous correlation between political ideology and pedophilia, it is irrelevant. They are unrelated, there is no correlation to make or link to establish. Citing conservatives who have molested minors is no more of a correlation than citing blue eyed men doing the same thing.
Why you cannot see that is beyond me.
I think this is a lost cause. Most of my family is conservative and these are the same kind of circular nonsensical arguments I get into with them. They think if they scream louder and longer they are right and you are wrong. This is the same logic the teabaggers were using this summer. Directly from the Rush Limbaugh School of Debate.
I think it may be more likely that there are those living in denial of their sexual impulses in general that are self-proclaimed "conservatives" than any other affiliation. And, I think it is this hypocrisy that is newsworthy and particularly stunning. I also find it amazing that so many on the right are so willing to casually link homosexuality with pedophilia. I think these same people would scream to the high heavens at Eddie's suggestion that conservatives are more likely to be pedophiles, yet they have no qualms about equating gays to pedophiles. There have been several of these posts lately on the threads here on this site. Having said all that, I also must take the time to say that I do not believe having conservative beliefs makes you any more likely to be a pedophile.
It may increase your likelihood of being a closet case, though. I will never forget when Alan Keyes told us all that homosexuality was nothing more than "selfish hedonism". Which, of course, means Alan wants to do a dude, but he has more self-control than that. I think this where (christian) conservatives give themselves a bad name on this subject. It nevers occurs to the closet cases amongst them that most of us never had to choose to be heterosexual, we just are. Which of course means in all likelihood the same goes for homosexuality. I think it is this line of reasoning that leads to the inherent hypocrisy and also the tendency to link homosexuality to all manner of perversions - which it is not.
Great point. And the best analogy yet to counter Eddie's argument. There is no link to conservatives and pedophilia or gays to pedophilia. Except to those who hate either one.
Conservatism DOES NOT cause pedophilia. Neither does liberalism. I never claimed it did. But you acknowledge the correlation (which is there, whether RightOn wants to admit of not) and explain it, or at least rather offer a very resonable hypothesis that I will be totally willing to accpet: That they hide their deviant behavior in a cloak of righteousnous. The 'closet case' will always be a conservative, becuase to belong to that group the activity must be kept hidden. And, of course... in case of pedophilia, one MUST keep it hidden. Or... they'll go to jail! And what better way to HIDE [any non-vanilla secual tendency] than to sign up with the party most vocally CONDEMNING it?
And THAT'S what I'm really getting at: It's not the vice that I'm so up in arms over, it the HYPOCRISY!
I realize that I'm way over-simplifying your post - you touched on being in denial, as well as several other points. Suffice to say that I agree 100% with everything you wrote. WELL SAID.
--------------------------------------------
RightOn? You could learn from Mikehuck1976. He's used logic and reason, and as much as our positions may differ, I've conceded to everything he's said. How does it feel to be so ineffective? Does it sting a little?
"Gay DOES NOT cause pedophilia. Neither does straight. I never claimed it did. But you acknowledge the correlation (which is there, whether RightOn wants to admit of not) and explain it, or at least rather offer a very resonable hypothesis that I will be totally willing to accpet:
And hey: You could try to claim a correlation there. If you suggest (for example) that MEN molesting BOYS was more common that men molesting girls, (or Women molesting bous) and that's same sex, and thus there's a correlation between pedo- and homo-. It would be a weak one, since it's completing against the number of men who molest girls, AND the number of homosexuals of BOTH genders who have never moleted ANYONE... But you could certainly try and make that argument, and we'd then need to try and refute it. But that's up to YOU to make that argument.
---------------------------------------------
Liberal thinking: Evaluate evidence, form opinion.
Conservative "thinking": Form opinion, evaluate evidence.
When you are argued into a corner go and throw your latest "bogeyman" into the argument and deflect the conversation away...
Then you're astounded that Right On hasn't proved that there's no correlation, when it is you who fails utterly in the first place to establish any correlation. You have nothing to refute. Just long-winded bluster demonstrating your incapacity for logic, and your exceedingly poor skills in debate. Time and again you've been asked to support your claim with demonstrable evidence, and time and again you fail.
Now he says he never said conservatism causes pedophilia but there is some correlation, which he has yet to prove and never will. Because he keeps grasping at straws when his link is nothing but offering up politicians he hates as perverts and extrapolates that into some correlation.
I suggest he stop writing drivel in his blog and take a statistics class.
The far more serious is is that of CORRELATION. So let's set up a hypothetcal:
1) First, assume that we as a population have a roughly 50/50 split of Pubs and Dems, or Cons and Libs. Since that propbably overstats Pubs, but understates Cons, it should be good enough for this demonstartion.
2) Take 100 pedophile cases. 95 of them involve Pubs/Cons.
Unless ~95% of the general population is Pub/Con, that's one HELL of a correlation.
Now.. If there really was NO correlation, the split would be round 50/50 (say, betweem 60/40 or 40/60 at most, depending on sample size.
Now, OBVIOUSLY I used a bias sample. My research was not objective. But to demonstrate this as both true and relevant, you would need to show me a population of stories that I ignored. ONLY THEN have you refuted the correlation.
You ask about EYE COLOR. You say that's an absurd variable. And YOU'RE RIGHT. And I'd be willing to bet that if you did the research, you find that distribution of eye color among pedophiles would roughly track that of the general population.
But if you found that 95% of pedophiles has green eyes? You simply cannot dismiss that. There a discrepency that need to be explained. There's a CORRELATION. Does it mean that having green eyes cause you to be a pedophile? Nah. But the might ba gene which predisposes one to pedophilia that also causes green eyes. And THAT could explain the findings. But it simply can't be dismissed.
How many times have I heard Conservtaives try to use the fact that prision have a much higher rate of Blacks in them than the general population? Are you saying there's no connection? No correlation? B*llsh!t. There IS! What IS it? Who knows? COuld be that Black are more likely to commit crimes, could be that the justice system is racist. You'll need more than the correlation to prove either point, BUT YOU CAN'T DENY THE CORRELATION. (Well, apparently YOU can, becuase that's waht conservative always do with evidence they don;t like. But it's not how ACTUAL research and statistics works.)
And no, I don't have numbers. Wow. You got me. Boo-firckin-hoo. But if you're claiming that the ratio of Pub/Cins among pedophiles is roughly the same as in the general population, you're CRAZY. And there HAS ABSOLUTLEY been evidence presented to support that. If the variables were unrealted, then there would be every bit as many reports of Dem/Lib molesters out there are there are conservtaive ones. (And thus they'd be easy to find and proove me worng.) Since there's NOT, either:
1) You're wrong, and there IS a correlation.
2) You right but, if so, you'll need to explain the lack of evidence of Lib/Dem molesters somehow. Liberal bias? IDK...
But it will take more that just endlessly repeating "the two variable are unrelated." Especially after a discrepency has been presented, and (thus far) has withstood scrutiny.
Calling me an "Idiot" or "Uneducated" will do very little for you. Presenting a Site with Dem/Lib molestors on it would shut me up, and probably even garner an apology. Every minute that goes by without someone showing this just convinces me I'm right.
And what's with this GOOD vs. EVIL nonsense? When did I ever say THAT? I'll leave that to YOU GUYS. That's the kind of crap LIMBAUGH and Co. dole out. Again: I don't have a problem with WHAT you think. I have a problem with HOW you think.
And if you're willing to write off a correlation (of say, eye color and pedophilia) simply becuase you don't believe it, then this is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. If two variables ARE NOT co-related, then the data will show that. If the data DOES NOT show that, if the data DOES NOT track the general breakdown withing the general population, then there IS a relationship.
A reasonable argument can then ONLY be over WHAT THAT relationship IS. And mere correlation data will not give you that insight on it's own. WHICH IS WHY I'M NOT SUGGESTING ANY CAUSAL RELATIONSHIPS HERE.
You guys as the ones who need to take a stats class. I've Aced every single one of mine, d this for a living, and occasionally even as a hobby.
---------------------------------------------
I've thought this through. I'm confortable concluding that there's a correlation, based on what I've seen. And you two have done more to convince me of it that any evidence I found on my own.
And no, I don't have numbers. Wow. You got me. Boo-firckin-hoo. But if you're claiming that the ratio of Pub/Cins among pedophiles is roughly the same as in the general population, you're CRAZY. And there HAS ABSOLUTLEY been evidence presented to support that. If the variables were unrealted, then there would be every bit as many reports of Dem/Lib molesters out there are there are conservtaive ones.
You admittedly have no data, but still insist that there's a correlation. Again, where the heck is your evidence? Your links are not evidence. Hate to tell you, but when you insist on the kinds of claims you made on this thread, the burden's on you to support them with evidence.
Again, you're the one who's certain that there's a correlation. Where is it?
To present a cogent argument in this regard, and assuming the population is equally split between cons and libs, you should take a random sample of pedophile cases in your State. Make it large enough to ensure that it's representative, and then get back to us.
You've given nothing to refute. Your evidence is a link from google that names high-profile republican sex offenders. Are you seriously saying that if I can't find a google article that lists an equal number of high profile liberal sex offenders, then your correlation theory is sound? Do you honestly believe that would establish a correlation between conservatives and pedophilia? Seriously, I'm not asking rhetorical questions here.
If something's wrong with my data, if it's baised, or whatever, and in fact there are roughly the same number of deomcratic pedophiles? Then it shoudln't be to hard for SOMEONE to find a few. I've hardly ever seen ANY. And yet I can't seem to stop tripping over stories about Republican pedophiles.
ANd to repeat it yet again: I'm not claiming that most Republicans are peodphiles, only that most pedophiles are Republican. Besides: it's not up to me to disprove my argument. So again, YES, I would say that given the number of cons arguing with me at the moment, and the fervor with which they do, I'd say that if NONE of you can come up with any examples to counter balance my numerous examples (and those discovered by so many others) then what else CAN I conclude other than: THEY'RE SIMPLY NOT THERE.
If they were, someone would have shown me them by now!
-----------------------------------------------
I'm either tossing you guys a batting-practrice fast-ball and you're just missing it badly, or I'm Nolan Ryan throwing heat. Your move.
It's difficult to believe you're this unremittingly dumb. So your link establishes that most pedophiles are republican? Really? Please explain how you reach that conclusion from the evidence you presented.
When I read one of your earliest posts, in which you categorically asserted that there's a correlation between conservatives and pedophilia, I thought, wow, that seems improbable, but would be interesting if true. (I despise organized religions, and equally despise those who proselytize about morality. So I wouldn't have been heartbroken if you could establish your claim).
But I checked your links and found no data or other statistical study to support your assertion. Your links simply list high-profile republican sex offenders. That's it. That does not establish a correlation.
I, and others, therefore asked where's your evidence, and all you do is refer to your links as proof-positive evidence of a correlation. Sadly, you lack even a basic understanding of statistics, and apparently have no clue regarding how to determine whether a correlation exists between two variables.
So long as you continue to rely on the links you provide, then you have no argument, and nothing to refute. As they'd say in the law, you fail to establish a prima facie case of a correlation, and your claim would be summarily dismissed as baseless.
Let me know if you ever find any substantive data to support your claim. . . But as of now, your reasoning is entirely flawed, and you're revealing yourself to be a stubborn, partisan hack.
"Conservatives (apparently) want to PERFORM sex ON children"
was meant to be taken toungue-in-cheek. At least that is how I took it.
So... you're problem is that my evidence was't presented in a statistical manner?
Dude - I presented a site with over 50, confirmed, convictions of or guilty pleas by Conservatives/Republicnas. There are many others. If these were irrelvant... If there were no correlation, then it would be child's play to show me similar sites about Democrats. Yet (suprise, surprise) no one has. Even as weak as my evidence IS, not one of you has been able to show me any counter-evidence!
You want to know why I don't have NUMEBRS? Because this is a comment on a web-site and not my frickin' dissertation. But this guy DID do some research.
My favortie part?
During my research the Justice Department provided a great resource for all
federal offenders and I could easily observe that prominent Republicans produce 3
to 5 times more federal indictments than Dems. It may be higher. But that’s not
the embarrassing part for conservatives. So far, I have only found a few prominent
democrats that are pedophiles. It’s a huge discrepancy. If I had enough time to
research specific clergymen and examine their political affiliations, the numbers of
republican pedophiles would skyrocket. If you haven’t looked into clergy and
sexual abuse, do a few dozen google searches and take the time to open your
eyes to the problem. It’s not just the Catholic church.
You want a ratio? How about A WHOLE S#!TLOAD:VERY LITTLE. Unless you can provide SOME; cripes, ANY counter-evidence, I don't really need to give you actual numbers in this case. Thats a cop-out on your part. Look around a bit: The counter evidence is simply not there. If it was, someone would have presented it by now and made me look foolish.
And as arrogant as I've been on this thread, as much as I've baited you guys, not one of you has provided the onle thing that would shut me up good: A comparable list of Democrats and/or Liberals convicted of or pleading guilty to Pedophilia and similar offenses.
If you had that, THEN we would need to dig up some numbers and compare. Without that, what we have is TONS of stories involving Pubs and 1 or 2 involveing Dems. So there's your ratio: somewhere between 50:1 and 50:2, based on my quick research and that of several other posters.
(And besides: RightOn initially said that "he doesn't care if I find 5000" so why would I bother compiling numbers and comupting a cerrelation factor and P-value, if it's just going to be ignored anyway?! Sue me for not wasting my time!)
---------------------------------------------
I suppose the lack of stories on Liberal Pedophilia Convictions has to do with liberal bias on the part of the Judiciary, Media or Internet?
As I have also said, if we found out that a vast majority of these conservatives had blue eyes, then it would be perfectly reasonable for me to say these is a correlation on that basis as well if I used the same standards as you. But that would be foolish because eye color, and political affiliation, have no bearing on whether or not someone is a pedophile. Period.
Stop viewing every element of one's being, good or bad, through a political prism. It isn't always relevant, or material. Sometimes a pig is just a pig, not a liberal or a conservative one.
I have not concluded that one way or another. As I've said before: I'll go where the evidence takes me. If 95% of pedophiles are in fact Republicans, that can not simply be dismissed. Explained? Sure, knock yourself out, that's above my pay grade. Analysed further, controlling for other variables? Sure, again knock youself out: I don't have that info handy. Refuted by demonstrating how the data is biased, or the analysis flawed? Sure, go ahead: I've been waiting.
But you kleep saying "there's no connection."
That's a conlcusion, not a starting assumption. And considering that it's no doubt an embarrassment to your side that you seem to have all the pedophiles, I think you should do more than simply dismiss my argument and my examples, like you do any other "liberal data" you don't like.
-----------------------------------------------
And let's stop with "good" and "bad" stuff, huh? I never brought moral judgement into this! I've met many a "good conservtaives" over the years and I've identified MANY a "bad liberal" on my blog. I took a recent entry to list out my top 10 for Pete's sake! So you're barking up the wrong tree BIG TIME if you think I can't be objective here.
You made the claim, now you need to back it up. Why should anyone go do research to refute your claim when you don't understand what "correlation" means, let alone provide any data that supports a correlation.
It's not that you're arrogant, that's fine. The problem is that you're uncompromisingly stupid. There simply is no evidence of a correlation in any of the links you cite.
I'm assuming you're uneducated, and likely haven't spent much time interpreting statistical data, but you should spend some effort researching the proper method in which to draw a correlation between two variables.
If you're convinced that the link to which you just cited establishes a correlation, then I have some property to sell you.. .. That blogger, like you, gives no data to support a correlation. . . . Little wonder why he convinces you. . ..
Since my reply to RightOn will likely address the rest of your post as well, I'll limit my reply to this part:
Bachelors in Mechanical Engineer from Viginia Tech
MBA from University of Michigan, graduated with Honors
10 Years engineering experince in Automotive
with 6-Sigma Green-Belt training.
I work with, generate and interpret scientific data for a LIVING. My Scientific, Engineering and Statistical cred in well in order, at least relative to what's require to post on a website. That being said, I'll stand by my position. (Your and RightOn's continual distortion of it notwithstanding.)
--------------------------------------------
Whatever.
There's no distortion of your position. You just make unwarranted logical leaps.
As for his educational background, I will submit I wrote 300 books on pedophilia and their correlations, so there. Poof, end of discussion I guess.
And that is fine with political issues where their ideology is relevant, but not other irrelevant areas of their lives where political affiliation plays no part. And in pedophilia political affiliation has no bearing.
That is why you cannot find any direct correlation or link beyond a list that someone compiles who also is way too knee deep in the us vs. them political game.
It's like a useless drug, nothing productive comes from it.
Take your psychological findings to the APA and save them the research.
These people say they are Conservative, other Conservatives call them Conservative and in many cases still associate with them and support them even when they turn out to be hypoctites.
Sexual morality is no longer a part of the Conservative movement any longer....and they need to quit hitting everyone else over the head with it.
Think Dick Cheney here. His daughter is gay and now he suddenly supports gay marriage. The same goes for nearly every "hot button" issue in the country. Take abortion, for example. In freshman year of high school, a girl in my grade got pregnant and had an abortion. 10 years later, she's a Harvard graduate with a successful business career and a newborn. What are the odds that A) she would have finished high school, B) she would have attended Harvard, or C) she would have met her husband and gotten married and started a happy family if she kept the child? It just makes it much more difficult to hate somebody you know compared to a caricature you make up in your mind to scare other people who don't know any better.
The more I get to know THEM, the SCARIER and MORE IGNORANT they appear!
(And yes, I've had many very religious friends and co-workers over the years. I debated frequently with the more reasonable ones, and kept my thoughts to myself around the less reasonable ones.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry to de-rail the spirit of your post! You ARE absolutely right, BTW!
These kinds of things have been done to other minorities in the past, and are probably still done. One of the most important powers the State wields is the protection of minorities from the abuse of the majority. This is also a power that the Right claims is neither a perogative or a right of the State.
As for why they aren't doing something else, like simply refuting it in public, I don't know, guess it's just politics. They probably figure it's much too ridiculous for 80% of the population to believe, and that the 20% who do believe it aren't going to change their minds by something as insignificant as refuting it with factual evidence.
Jeez. I had sex education in Grade 3 (mostly where do babies come from) and more education as the years go on. What in the hell?