(October 27, 2016 at 2:14 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: I don't think they are necessarily celebrating his death. It's more his inability to continue to publish and distribute his particular world view. 

I wouldn't have walked across the street to piss on him if he was on fire. So him being dead doesn't exactly excite me. 

(October 27, 2016 at 4:23 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(October 27, 2016 at 9:06 am)Huggy74 Wrote: I used to listen to a radio show called loveline back in the day, and I'd say about 90% of the homosexual callers admitted to being sexually molested, now if you'd like me to look up specific episodes and quotes, I can do that.

Does this mean that sexual abuse causes homosexuality? I don't know, but evidence would suggest...

The evidence would suggest you're full of shit...

Quote:Also, the study does not indicate that sexual abuse leads to homosexuality. In the control group, 5.3% said they had engaged in same-sex relationships, whereas in the sexual abuse group, 27.3% did.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthroc...ive-study/

That 27.3% is miles away from your 90.  Those pesky facts!

Learn to read dummy, I said "I'd say about 90% of the homosexual callers admitted to being sexually molested"...

That is just a rough estimate of HOMOSEXUAL CALLERS TO THAT PARTICULAR RADIO SHOW, which you somehow interpreted it to include all homosexuals. Generally when people called into that show, they had problems, so it makes perfect sense.

http://borngay.procon.org/view.answers.p...nID=000029

Quote:Helen W. Wilson, PhD, Assistant Professor of Psychology at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, and Cathy Spatz Widom, PhD, Professor of Criminal Justice and Psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice at The City University of New York (CUNY), wrote the following information in their Jan. 7, 2009 article published by Archives of Sexual Behavior, "Does Physical Abuse, Sexual Abuse, or Neglect in Childhood Increase the Likelihood of Same-sex Sexual Relationships and Cohabitation? A Prospective 30-year Follow-up":

   "Findings from this investigation provide tentative support for a relationship between childhood sexual abuse and same sex sexual relationships, but this relationship appeared only for men. That is, men with histories of childhood sexual abuse were more likely than men in a control group to report same sex sexual partnerships... [T]his evidence of a link between court-substantiated cases of childhood sexual abuse and same-sex partnerships reported by adult men 30 years later is a notable finding that adds to the literature on this topic...

   However, the data available in this study did not provide information about when same-sex sexual attractions first emerged and whether this predated or followed the sexual abuse. We also do not know what characteristics associated with the abuse (e.g., frequency, intensity, duration) might account for the relationship with adult sexual partnerships. It is also important to note that very few participants reported exclusively same-sex sexual relationships. Thus, it is possible that childhood sexual abuse increased the likelihood that men would experiment with both same - and opposite - sex partners...

   While this prospective evidence linking childhood sexual abuse to same-sex sexual partnerships in men suggests an increased likelihood, these findings do not suggest that same-sex sexual orientation is caused by child abuse."

(October 27, 2016 at 4:23 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(October 27, 2016 at 9:06 am)Huggy74 Wrote: let me ask you something, if homosexual males account for 83% of HIV diagnoses (*among males), why is it being portrayed as if HIV affects everyone equally?

You do realize AIDS used to be called GRIDS (Gay-related immune deficiency).

But in today's society making those sort of connections somehow means you hate gays...

*edit forgot to specify

Nice tangent.   "But, but, but, but AIDS!"

Let me ask you a question.  It couldn't possibly be that the demonizing and ostracizing of homosexuals by the religious right has led to lower self-esteem and high-risk behavior, could it?  What incentive do gays have to take care of themselves when people like you are constantly telling them what horrible pieces of shit they are?

(October 27, 2016 at 5:17 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Learn to read dummy, I said "I'd say about 90% of the homosexual callers admitted to being sexually molested"...

That is just a rough estimate of HOMOSEXUAL CALLERS TO THAT PARTICULAR RADIO SHOW, which you somehow interpreted it to include all homosexuals. Generally when people called into that show, they had problems, so it makes perfect sense.

But you're the one using that as evidence to support your suggestion that "all homosexuals" are gay because they were molested when they were younger.   And yes, obviously people called that show because they were having problems, so it's a flawed study.  That also doesn't account for all the straight people out there who were also molested but grew up to be straight.

And I've never understood this "all gay people were molested by other gays" nonsense anyway.  If you as a young boy were molested or raped by a man, why would that make you want to prefer other men after puberty?  You'd think the opposite would be true.

At any rate, it's long-debunked bullshit that homophobes keep pulling out.

(October 28, 2016 at 3:04 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote:

(October 27, 2016 at 5:17 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Learn to read dummy, I said "I'd say about 90% of the homosexual callers admitted to being sexually molested"...

That is just a rough estimate of HOMOSEXUAL CALLERS TO THAT PARTICULAR RADIO SHOW, which you somehow interpreted it to include all homosexuals. Generally when people called into that show, they had problems, so it makes perfect sense.

But you're the one using that as evidence to support your suggestion that "all homosexuals" are gay because they were molested when they were younger.   And yes, obviously people called that show because they were having problems, so it's a flawed study.  That also doesn't account for all the straight people out there who were also molested but grew up to be straight.

I just made a simple observation, if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it just might be a damn duck...

(October 28, 2016 at 3:04 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: And I've never understood this "all gay people were molested by other gays" nonsense anyway.  If you as a young boy were molested or raped by a man, why would that make you want to prefer other men after puberty?  You'd think the opposite would be true.

At any rate, it's long-debunked bullshit that homophobes keep pulling out.

There has always been the theory that abuse is a cycle, that victims of abuse become perpetrators of abuse, in fact Dr. Drew used to state that on loveline all the time.





further more I just linked a study that stated:

Quote:"While this prospective evidence linking childhood sexual abuse to same-sex sexual partnerships in men suggests an increased likelihood, these findings do not suggest that same-sex sexual orientation is caused by child abuse."

What that statement means is that, while the study does not suggest that sexual abuse causes same sex orientation, it DOES suggest however that victims of sexual abuse will have an increased likelihood of at least having a sexual experience with the same sex (a bi-sexual experience basically) which makes you gay in my book...

Again, you're ignoring all the straight people who were molested.

(October 27, 2016 at 8:16 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Even so, he's entitled to his beliefs just like anyone else.

The irony of people flaming a certain forum member for lacking empathy, yet THEIR lack of empathy is fine as long as it's towards someone who believes differently.

What's also catching me off guard is that most of these folks are supposedly against the dp. Yet act happy when someone dies? 

You're a nice person, you don't need to sully yourself over the likes of Jack Chick.

(October 29, 2016 at 11:11 am)vorlon13 Wrote: You're a nice person, you don't need to sully yourself over the likes of Jack Chick.

I don't even know who that is. But I remember when Bin Laden was killed there were a ton of college students running down the street cheering and celebrating and laughing. I thought that was pretty disturbing as well.

Jack was totally convinced (and convincing?*) ALL Catholics were evil and going to hell. His anti-Catholcism was the stuff of legends.

From Wiki:

Anti-Catholicism
However, of all the major religious groups, no one group has been the subject of more of Chick's tracts and other writings than Catholicism.
No fewer than 20 Chick tracts have Catholicism as their subject or as a major theme, including Are Roman Catholics Christians? (arguing that they are not), The Death Cookie (a polemic against the Catholic Eucharist), and Why is Mary Crying? (arguing that Mary does not support the veneration Catholicism gives her).
Chick also expounded his anti-Catholic views in several comics and other books. Most notably, he defended the controversial Alberto Rivera in at least one book and in an entire series of six full-length comics. Chick also asserted that the Catholic Church, in a grand conspiracy, created Islam, Communism, Nazism, and Freemasonry.
In The New Anti-Catholicism, religious historian Philip Jenkins describes Chick tracts as promulgating "bizarre allegations of Catholic conspiracy and sexual hypocrisy" to perpetuate "anti-papal and anti-Catholic mythologies". Michael Ian Borer, a sociology professor of Furman University at the time, described Chick's strong anti-Catholic themes in a 2007 American Sociological Association presentation and in a peer reviewed article the next year in Religion and American Culture.
Catholic Answers web published a response to the claims of Chick Publications against Roman Catholics and a criticism of Chick Tracts in general called The Nightmare World of Jack T. Chick, detailing the inaccuracies, factual errors, and how a "typical tactic in Chick tracts is to portray Catholics as being unpleasant or revolting in various ways".




* tee hee!

(October 29, 2016 at 10:44 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: What's also catching me off guard is that most of these folks are supposedly against the dp. Yet act happy when someone dies? 

Bold mine.

One of the reasons why I didn't participate in this thread so far. I didn't know the guy when he was alive, but I didn't even rejoice over Thatchers demise although I despised that crone with a vengeance. It may be different when someone is still in power and does incredible damage to the world. Not the rejoicing part but the sympathy part for some assassination attempt. Hitler would have been such a figure, Stalin too, maybe some others.

That guy was just a cartoonist of dubious nature, obviously. He preached to the choir, more or less. So what's so important about him dying anyway?