Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Imposter101 wrote:
Hitler was raised Roman Catholic but despised the Religion (not all Religion, or not nearly as much as Judaism) and believed over time that organised Religion would fade away with the progress of society. He was well aware of the large amount of Christian's within Germany and played to that in Mein Kampf, and claimed his acts were done in the name of God in his speeches. In fact, Hitler out-lawed Atheistic or Secularistic groups in 1933, and even converted the German Freethinkers league into a bureau advising the public on church matters.

Again, Hitler's faith can be debated, but in no way was he driven to commit such acts in the name of Atheism, and it's doubtful he did it in the name of Religion ether.

I think what Allod did was replace "gay" in one of Fischer's speeches with "Christian".

 Orlanth wrote:
Sebster, there is no point trying to reason with you further.

I think that has been a total fething waste of time, yeah.

The bottom line is that you have provided no evidence whatsoever that the AFA has do anything to encourage discriminatory acts against LGBT people, if they cross that line then they cross the line, up until then they are expressing the right to profess an opinion different from you, me anyone else including the SPLC.

20 fething pages this thread has gone on, and since page 2 or 3 I've been pointing out that the AFA spreads lies linking homosexuality with paedophilia... and you remain completely oblivious of that.

Incredible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Imposter101 wrote:
Hitler was raised Roman Catholic but despised the Religion (not all Religion, or not nearly as much as Judaism) and believed over time that organised Religion would fade away with the progress of society. He was well aware of the large amount of Christian's within Germany and played to that in Mein Kampf, and claimed his acts were done in the name of God in his speeches. In fact, Hitler out-lawed Atheistic or Secularistic groups in 1933, and even converted the German Freethinkers league into a bureau advising the public on church matters.

Again, Hitler's faith can be debated, but in no way was he driven to commit such acts in the name of Atheism, and it's doubtful he did it in the name of Religion ether.

Yep.

Ultimately any effort to find any influence on Hitler's code of behaviour is basically completely wrong headed, because Hitler simply had no such code. He brazenly pursued power, and would use whatever rationalisation was convenient.

 sebster wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

20 fething pages this thread has gone on, and since page 2 or 3 I've been pointing out that the AFA spreads lies linking homosexuality with paedophilia...

There may be something in that. Look at groups like the Catholic church and their paedophile priests scandals. Pretty much all the victims were boys, meaning that the sexual offending was homosexual in nature. I've also never heard of NAMGLA but I have heard of NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association).

cadbren wrote:

 sebster wrote:

20 fething pages this thread has gone on, and since page 2 or 3 I've been pointing out that the AFA spreads lies linking homosexuality with paedophilia...

There may be something in that. Look at groups like the Catholic church and their paedophile priests scandals. Pretty much all the victims were boys, meaning that the sexual offending was homosexual in nature. I've also never heard of NAMGLA but I have heard of NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association).

So you have heard bad stories about homosexual paedophiles, therefore there is a definite link there...keep trying.

cadbren wrote:
There may be something in that. Look at groups like the Catholic church and their paedophile priests scandals. Pretty much all the victims were boys, meaning that the sexual offending was homosexual in nature. I've also never heard of NAMGLA but I have heard of NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association).

Actually, there's nothing in it. Almost all paedophiles are straight men. I know this sounds weird given they mostly pursue young boys and not young girls, but that's how it works. The science is pretty clear at this point.

Surely there are plenty of paedophiles who attack girls.

The reason why Roman Catholic priest paedophiles attack choir boys presumably is because choir boys are more commonly found than choir girls in Roman Catholic churches.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Surely there are plenty of paedophiles who attack girls.

Actually paedophilia is almost entirely straight men and they prey largely on boys. That's the thing about paedophilia - it's a disconnect from normal sexual behaviour.

 sebster wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Surely there are plenty of paedophiles who attack girls.

.

.....That's the thing about paedophilia - it's a disconnect from normal sexual behaviour.

Wow there is something quite ironic about the quote above. Maybe you guys can figure it out.

GG

I find it hilarious that this thread is now talking about NAMBLA.

 sebster wrote:

cadbren wrote:
There may be something in that. Look at groups like the Catholic church and their paedophile priests scandals. Pretty much all the victims were boys, meaning that the sexual offending was homosexual in nature. I've also never heard of NAMGLA but I have heard of NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association).

Actually, there's nothing in it. Almost all paedophiles are straight men. I know this sounds weird given they mostly pursue young boys and not young girls, but that's how it works. The science is pretty clear at this point.

I'll take your word for it. That connection though is why I believe there is a link being made between homosexuals and paedophiles due to the male on male nature of the offending. It also doesn't explain the priests who are choosing to break their vows with boys rather than women.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Surely there are plenty of paedophiles who attack girls.

The reason why Roman Catholic priest paedophiles attack choir boys presumably is because choir boys are more commonly found than choir girls in Roman Catholic churches.

They have choir girls now though I don't think all the victims were choir boys. Many were in boarding schools and I recall stories about priests and boys from the congregation that came into contact via youth groups, sunday schools, other church activities.

 generalgrog wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Surely there are plenty of paedophiles who attack girls.

.

.....That's the thing about paedophilia - it's a disconnect from normal sexual behaviour.

Wow there is something quite ironic about the quote above. Maybe you guys can figure it out.

GG

I can't really see anything. One is in psychological diagnostic aids as a problem, and one isn't (anymore). One is listed as a version of an intense sexual arousal to highly atypical objects, situations, or individuals, one is (rightly) not listed there. Where is the irony? Paedophilia is listed (rightly so) as a sick psychological problem, homosexuality (again, rightly so) isn't, and hasn't been since 1994. Sure, if you are thinking along the lines of the 1980s you could claim that they are similar, but then you need to give up all the other technological, medical and psychological advances we've made in the mean time.

 motyak wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Surely there are plenty of paedophiles who attack girls.

.

.....That's the thing about paedophilia - it's a disconnect from normal sexual behaviour.

Wow there is something quite ironic about the quote above. Maybe you guys can figure it out.

GG

I can't really see anything. One is in psychological diagnostic aids as a problem, and one isn't (anymore). One is listed as a version of an intense sexual arousal to highly atypical objects, situations, or individuals, one is (rightly) not listed there. Where is the irony? Paedophilia is listed (rightly so) as a sick psychological problem, homosexuality (again, rightly so) isn't, and hasn't been since 1994. Sure, if you are thinking along the lines of the 1980s you could claim that they are similar, but then you need to give up all the other technological, medical and psychological advances we've made in the mean time.

Don't forget societal advances, too. We are slowly leaving the dark ages behind.

cadbren wrote:
That connection though is why I believe there is a link being made between homosexuals and paedophiles due to the male on male nature of the offending.

No, the link is being made because of "eww, gross". There is no good argument behind it.

It also doesn't explain the priests who are choosing to break their vows with boys rather than women.

It doesn't need to explain it, because you're not really understanding the situation. As a general rule you don't have normal healthy priests being tempted into breaking their vows, you have people who want to rape children deliberately getting themselves into positions where they have trust and power over them. A priest who is tempted by adult women is more likely to just leave the church and go find sex the normal way, and if they break their vows while keeping their position it's unlikely to ever be news outside of the local church.

 generalgrog wrote:
Wow there is something quite ironic about the quote above. Maybe you guys can figure it out.

GG

There's no irony. There are consistent patterns of sexual behaviour that persist whether you're attracted to the opposite sex or the same sex. The portion of the homosexuals that are in to older partners, younger partners, fatter partners, butch partnes, weird gak with leather and whips etc... is the same as the portions within the straight community. And people who are bi tend to look for similar sexual relations whether it is straight or homosexual sex (a bi person who is attracted to redheads in straight sexual relations will most likely look for the same thing in their homosexual relations).

But then with paedophilia that gets thrown out the window.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cadbren wrote:
I'll take your word for it. That connection though is why I believe there is a link being made between homosexuals and paedophiles due to the male on male nature of the offending. It also doesn't explain the priests who are choosing to break their vows with boys rather than women.

You don't have to take my word for it, there's a mountain of writing out there on this stuff. And seriously, you don't get to just believe there is a connection because there simply isn't - in almost all cases of paedophilia it is men who are otherwise straight, and who have no sexual attraction to adult men.

 juraigamer wrote:
I find it hilarious that this thread is now talking about NAMBLA.

The National Association of Marlon Brando Lookalikes?

 Frazzled wrote:

 juraigamer wrote:
I find it hilarious that this thread is now talking about NAMBLA.

The National Association of Marlon Brando Lookalikes?

Are they a hate group? I wasn't aware they persecuted non marlon brando lookalikes.

 sebster wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
Wow there is something quite ironic about the quote above. Maybe you guys can figure it out.

GG

There's no irony. There are consistent patterns of sexual behaviour that persist whether you're attracted to the opposite sex or the same sex. The portion of the homosexuals that are in to older partners, younger partners, fatter partners, butch partnes, weird gak with leather and whips etc... is the same as the portions within the straight community. And people who are bi tend to look for similar sexual relations whether it is straight or homosexual sex (a bi person who is attracted to redheads in straight sexual relations will most likely look for the same thing in their homosexual relations).

But then with paedophilia that gets thrown out the window.

.

You forgot the part about how most, if not all, the above you just typed is from stuff you have read...most likely on the internet. No proof has been presented by you. You talk all the time about how people that disagree with you are reading biased info, and taking for face value what they read because it advances their world view......

Well, I think you are doing the exact thing you are so vehemently opposed to.

Edited by AgeOfEgos


GG

 generalgrog wrote:


Edited by AgeOfEgos

Not according to the psychological community. But if you want you can go back to trepanning people, or performing frontal leucotomies for any mild behavioural issues, or any of the other things from the past that you may find more useful than understanding current psychological knowledge. Actually, the leucotomy is a good example, since it is from the same era as when homosexuality was considered an abnormal psychological state. Any of your friends who act out in any way, you need to jam a leucotome through the soft area around their eye and sever the connections to their prefrontal cortex. You'll be helping them, according to your understanding of the mind.

Hell if you think that seb isn't providing proof, why not think of the DSM-IV(R) as a gigantic meta analysis, because that's basically what it is. It takes all the research up to the point that it was written and considers that in what it classes as a psychological disorder and what it refuses to class as one.

While I'm inclined to just close this thread due to the inherent direction such discussions end up taking---let's try a general warning first.


It is one thing to debate the science of certain ideological positions---it is another to insult a group of Dakka users. If you feel you cannot make your point objectively and without insulting other Dakka users---it's best probably just to avoid the thread.

Ryan

 generalgrog wrote:
You forgot the part about how most, if not all, the above you just typed is from stuff you have read...most likely on the internet.

You know major medical publications publish on the internet. It isn't 1997 anymore, you know.

And yeah, I've read a lot of this stuff on the internet. You can do it as well. I used to go an relocate this stuff and then provide links, and then spend a dozen odd pages asking people to please kindly read the links and actually learn something. That never really got me very far.

You asked me by PM if we can go back to being polite. Well maybe we can, but it won't be through me just pretending that your opinion on this matter is informed. Go and read. This kind of knowledge isn't a magic trick. A basic knowledge of what journals are highly reputable and a willingness to spend some time reading and learning will get anyone to a reasonably informed opinion on the subject, and that reasonably informed opinion will make it obvious that the likes of the AFA and FRC spread utter lies.

I'm not sure I'd define a class of male individuals who want to have sex with males of any age as 'straight.' There's a lot of evidence that the majority of pedophiles are straight, but I also believe the evidence says their prey is female children, not male.

 Seaward wrote:
I'm not sure I'd define a class of male individuals who want to have sex with males of any age as 'straight.' There's a lot of evidence that the majority of pedophiles are straight, but I also believe the evidence says their prey is female children, not male.

Who cares what word you use? If you don't want to say straight, then use quiche or cupboard or make up a whole new word for all it matters. The point is that the vast majority of paedophile do not have any attraction to adult men - they are not homosexual.

Pedophilia isn't about sex just as rape also isn't about sex; it is about power and control.

 Ahtman wrote:
Pedophilia isn't about sex just as rape also isn't about sex; it is about power and control.

I've always been a fan of Adam Carolla's take on the "rape isn't about sex, it's about X" argument.

NSFW language.

 Ahtman wrote:
Pedophilia isn't about sex just as rape also isn't about sex; it is about power and control.

From memory, studies measuring penile volume in paedophiles compared to regular adults (both gay and straight) have found that there is a significant difference between volume between the two, in that regular adults presented with their desired stimuli show more volume change than paedophiles. So there is something to that point.

Positives of the above post: Got to say 'studies measuring penile volume'
Negatives of the above post: It's about paedophiles.

Someone kill this thread with fire already...

We're well off the OT, which was ages ago anyway.