Mikeuk

It is the apparent correlation that counts. Nobody is suggesting that all homos are paedos.

Your pseudo-intellectual trollery is becoming tedious.

In my professional work (and it is the same for anybody with a responsible job) I have to make day-to-day decisions which are seldom based upon certainty but usually upon probability. I have no doubt whatsoever that a very large number of homosexuals are likely to provide adopted children which an environment which may at best be described as "dodgy"

I would be equally opposed to children being adopted by known wife-swappers or anybody else with a perverse lifestyle.

Why are you so keen on these people? Some private reason maybe?

Feldoon

No. It is apparent correlation that warrants further study to see if there is a causation. Nothing else.

Pot; kettle.

With justifiable causation I do hope.

I'm keen on them being judged by only their parenting skills.

Mikeuk

No, you are the anonymous troll. I have been a regular member of this list for a couple of years and everybody except you knows who I am.

Really. So we'll discount the gay orgy every Saturday night and the cupboard full of porn.

How the hell do you judge 'parenting skills' anyway?

Feldoon

Please don't appeal to age or tradition. It's never pretty.

Gay orgy every Saturday and the stash of porn is acceptable on the grounds that it doesn't negatively affect the child's nurturing environment.

Unless you wish to show that either of those two things cause someone to be a bad parent.

Phagocyte

Arithmetic won't help.
There are any number of reasons for such a split in jails, and part of it may have to do with a significantly more serious taboo when the bad man is touching a sixteen-year-old boy as opposed to a sixteen-year-old girl.
In short, as Feldoon mentioned, correlation does not mean causation. If there's some causal link that can be evidenced, it will become a moot point.

I believe this is the part where I start making derisive remarks about the US injustice system.

extra ordinary

section 28 ukip shouId offer to reintroduce urgently.



if we just offer the consensus politics of the main 3 parties what is point ?


I am tired of the stand up to no one and stand for nothing, left wing liberals in westminster in parties of all complexions.

Mikeuk

I don't think we need take this dialogue any further, Feldoon.

You stand to be judged - favourably or unfavourably - on the above.

Mikeuk

[quote="Phagocyte"]Hmm...

Phagocyte = Feldoon (but we all knew that already, didn't we?)

I suggest, Phagocyte/Feldoon that you read Hume on causality and come back when you have at least a vague idea what your favourite big words actually mean.

Phagocyte

I invite you to find a moderator willing to check our IPs. I'm pretty sure you'll find that we are not, in fact, the same person.
If you are unwilling to do this, I suggest you shut the **** up.
I have responded reasonably to every post of yours in every thread.
I have attempted to maintain a worthwhile debate.
If you cannot hack it, bow out gracefully and concede.
That Feldoon was correct in his assessment is fact.
That I agreed with his assessment is to be expected.
That you have decided to vilify him and all you associate with him, supporting him, quoting him or otherwise referring to him in a non-disparaging fashion is not my problem. If he is correct, and it bears noting, I will note it. If he is incorrect, and it bears noting, I will note that in like fashion. If you continue to throw out red herrings like "Phagocyte = Feldoon," and do not address my thus-gently-worded refutations, I will consider this debate to be at an end and you to be at a loss.

I suggest you take an elementary statistics course, or at the very least brush up on your argumentation. You have no clue what you are talking about, and it is showing. I suggest you see to that.

Neither Hume nor Patrick McGoohan nor Daffy Duck can tell you that causality can be proved through correlation, and if you've received such a message I suggest you go back and reread. What Hume claimed was that causality was utterly unprovable, which affirms what I pointed out.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is just another recipe for fallacy.

Marielitai

Okay. I'll do the arithmetic myself, taking into account the rampant homophobia of the United States of America which could lead to the fact that, if a 21 year old man has relations with a 17 year old boy, consensually, many parents will have that 21 year old brought up on charges of statutory rape and a jury is more likely to convict for this than the same situation with a man and a girl.

I'll also take into account the fact that some studies consider a homosexual to be anyone who has had sexual relations with a member of their sex. Which means that many studies, possibly this one included, would consider all paedophiles who were jailed for inappropriately touching young boys would thus be labeled as homosexuals. This is not the case. Paedophiles are interested in undeveloped children, not men.

In addition, I will take into account the fact that many men, whether homo- or heterosexual express homosexual acts in an all men's prison and are therefore considered by many researchers to be homosexuals.

See the problem with your statisistic?