Starlight's "No NAMBLA Connection" Thread

[Adrift]

My dean, who's currently my acting chair, has an M. Div. He must not have gotten the memo.

You'll find, if you wander away from this odd fantasy you've adopted onto a real university campus, that it's made up almost entirely of students, with their typical beliefs, and a scattering of college educated employees, including professors, who are no more atheistic in general than your typical IT department.

I thought it was obvious that that was a joke, but it looks like it's one with a ring of truth:

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amarnath-amarasingam/how-religious-are-america_b_749630.html

While atheists and agnostics in the United States make up about 3 and 4.1 percent of the population, respectively, the prevalence of atheism and agnosticism was much higher among professors: 9.8 percent of professors chose the statement, "I don't believe in God," while another 13.1 percent chose, "I don't know whether there is a God." In other words, religious skepticism is much more common among professors than in the general American population. However, the majority are still believers.

How do these numbers break down by discipline? Gross and Simmons explore how belief in God is distributed among the 20 largest disciplinary fields. In terms of atheists, professors of psychology and mechanical engineering lead the pack with 50 percent and 44.1 percent respectively. Amongst biologists, 33.3 percent were agnostic and 27.5 percent were atheist. Interestingly, 21.6 percent of biologists say that they have no doubt that God exists. In contrast, 63 percent of accounting professors, 56.8 percent of elementary education professors, 48.6 percent of finance professors, 46.5 percent of marketing professors, 45 percent of art professors, and 44.4 percent of both nursing professors and criminal justice professors stated that they know God exists.

© Copyright Original Source

That was five years ago. I'm sure the numbers have grown since.

The numbers say you're wrong.

That means you're wrong, even if your religious beliefs get in the way of acknowledging it.

The numbers say you're wrong.

That means you're wrong, even if your religious beliefs get in the way of acknowledging it.

Don't be silly. Of course I know that there are fewer atheists in America than there are religious. What I don't buy is that you are some sort of persecuted minority who just can't get a fair shake, and have to remain in the closet to protect yourselves. Most of my friends are atheists. They have absolutely no problem finding jobs, and fitting in with the rest of their community, all while loudly proclaiming their worldview. Yes, people rather vote for those who share their worldview (as long as they're not too religiously aggressive). Is that so surprising? But we live in a new world brother. Millennials are leaving the church in droves, and future elections are certainly going to reflect that.

Sometimes it's a choice between saying too much or too little.

Oh

I've seen Catholic apologists insert that quibble into these discussions.

Why specifically Catholic apologists? And I don't see anything in NAMBLA's FAQ that suggests they're fighting for the rights of ephebophiles to the exclusion of pedophiles, rather they suggest that children as young as five can be attracted to men. And a pox on you for getting me to check their FAQ. Now I'm going to have scrub my browser.

Just this time, right?

Well, the thread's called "Starlight's 'No NAMBLA Connection' Thread".

Works for me. You remember the Gerbil's "Mac's are gonna die bwahaha" thread? And how $cir kept bumping it again and again over the years?

No.

This could never be that epic.

Hopefully we'll never have reason to think of this thread in 20 years.

If'n I were tempted to ride that horse, I'd probably choose to prick Pap by bumping his comments on Ebola.

I don't know what that's in reference to.

But I think I'll leave that kind of horseplay to Cervantes.

I don't know what that means. Is that a reference to Quixote and tilting and windmills? Stop trying to be so clever, I'm not that bright.

[Cow Poke]

Jesse,

Please stop derailing this thread with pertinent rational intelligent commentary. You're only encouraging Adrift!

[Adrift]

Jesse,

Please stop derailing this thread with pertinent rational intelligent commentary. You're only encouraging Adrift!

Oh...Sorry?

[Cow Poke]

Oh...Sorry?

I should have added smiley faces and sarcasm tags?

[Adrift]

I should have added smiley faces and sarcasm tags?

Told you I wasn't so bright.

[Cow Poke]

Told you I wasn't so bright.

I was enjoying the exchange between you guys - carry on!

[Adrift]

I was enjoying the exchange between you guys - carry on!

Meh

[Starlight]

No, linking homosexuality to pedophilia doesn't occur every time homosexuality is brought up on these boards.

While it's certainly not brought up every time, it is brought up a lot. On the whole, regularly talking about pedophilia in discussions of homosexuality has been a really common deliberate tactic among anti-gay groups over the past few decades. I've read that in the days where desegregation was a hot issue, there was a similar tactic used of spreading rumors about black men raping white women.

[Cow Poke]

While it's certainly not brought up every time, it is brought up a lot. On the whole, regularly talking about pedophilia in discussions of homosexuality has been a really common deliberate tactic among anti-gay groups over the past few decades. I've read that in the days where desegregation was a hot issue, there was a similar tactic used of spreading rumors about black men raping white women.

A higher occurrence of pedophilia among homosexuals, however, is not a rumor. You just want to pretend it's not true. In the case of the Catholic Church, for example, the "pedophilia" was homosexuality, as over 80% of the children abused were young boys.

[Starlight]

A higher occurrence of pedophilia among homosexuals, however, is not a rumor.

It's factually false, but conservatives seem to love repeating it.

The American Psychological Association says:
"Despite a common myth, homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are."

There's an extensive discussion here of the science of the topic by the leading researcher in the field. And the SPLC has a lengthy section debunking the myth.

You just want to pretend it's not true.

I want anti-gay conservatives to stop their malicious lies on the subject. It's no better than the "black men are all out to rape white women" scaremongering of the desegregation era.

In the case of the Catholic Church, for example, the "pedophilia" was homosexuality, as over 80% of the children abused were young boys.

The Catholic church told gay Catholics that they weren't allowed to have sex, and it listed celibacy as a requirement for its priests. It is then unsurprising that numerous straight Catholics who might have otherwise wanted to become priests decided not to because they felt they couldn't handle celibacy, while only those very few who truly felt called to celibacy became priests. Where numerous gay Catholics were forced into the struggle with celibacy by the teachings of their church, regardless of whether they felt they could cope with it or not, and many of those people thought "well, since I'm already trying to be celibate anyway, I might as well be a priest." So the Catholic church gained for itself a massively disproportionate number of priests who were gay, and who were struggling with the issue of celibacy. There was a rather predictable outcome and the church largely reaped what it sowed.

It's also a fundamental error of word-definition to assume that any male who molests boys is "gay". The word "gay" in English is used to refer to who a person is attracted to, not who they have sex with. A gay man doesn't become straight by having sex with a woman. And a straight man doesn't become gay by molesting a boy.

Some other things worth considering before jumping to any conclusions on this general topic:
1. Often there is gender-segregation in social activities - men supervise boys and women supervise girls - and so any man looking for an opportunity to molest a child may never have any easy opportunity to molest a girl, but may have many easy opportunities to molest boys, so a man who given a choice of gender might have always picked girls to molest might end up molesting mainly boys due to lack of choice.

2. The development of a strong physical distinction between the sexes is a process that largely begins at puberty and carries on into adulthood. Any underage boy or girl is androgynous to a certain extent, having not yet fully developed the distinctive characteristics of their own sex. When researchers interview male pedophiles who happened to molest boys, the offenders almost always describe themselves as straight, and all their adult relationships have always been with women, and when asked what attracted them to their victims they consistently cite feminine characteristics present in the boy.

[Abigail]

It's factually false, but conservatives seem to love repeating it.

The American Psychological Association says:
"Despite a common myth, homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are."

There's an extensive discussion here of the science of the topic by the leading researcher in the field. And the SPLC has a lengthy section debunking the myth.

Perhaps because of the fact that most abuse by Catholic Clergy was same-sex abuse and because the media were so vigilant to expose paedophilia in the ranks of the Catholic Church while ignoring the paedophiles in their own ranks (thinking BBC and celebs here in UK) and other places (eg Rotherham UK), people got a skewed view of all this and the unintended consequence was paedophilia and homosexuality became conflated.

[Cow Poke]

I think that's why your brain doesn't work so well.

It's factually false, but conservatives seem to love repeating it.p

No, it's not false - it's disputed. I can find recent research both supporting and opposing.

I want anti-gay conservatives to stop their malicious lies on the subject.

And I want anti-Christian idiots to stop their goofy attacks on Christianity.

It's no better than the "black men are all out to rape white women" scaremongering of the desegregation era.

Yeah, I saw that goofy example on the gay websites trying to "prove" no association of gay men with little boys.

The Catholic church told gay Catholics that they weren't allowed to have sex, and it listed celibacy as a requirement for its priests.

And these gay priests agreed to those terms when they were ordained. Does that mean homosexuals are necessarily liars and covenant breakers?

It is then unsurprising that numerous straight Catholics who might have otherwise wanted to become priests decided not to because they felt they couldn't handle celibacy,

and that's honorable....

while only those very few who truly felt called to celibacy became priests. Where numerous gay Catholics were forced into the struggle with celibacy by the teachings of their church

"forced"? You really do live in an imaginary world. Nobody "inducts" or "drafts" them into the priesthood. They volunteer, knowing the rules.

, regardless of whether they felt they could cope with it or not, and many of those people thought "well, since I'm already trying to be celibate anyway, I might as well be a priest." So the Catholic church gained for itself a massively disproportionate number of priests who were gay, and who were struggling with the issue of celibacy. There was a rather predictable outcome and the church largely reaped what it sowed.

So, it was predictable that these gay priests would prey on little boys? Are homosexuals, then, MORE likely to have sex with little boys than straight priests?

It's also a fundamental error of word-definition to assume that any male who molests boys is "gay". The word "gay" in English is used to refer to who a person is attracted to, not who they have sex with. A gay man doesn't become straight by having sex with a woman. And a straight man doesn't become gay by molesting a boy.

And the spin machine kicks into high gear! When the molestation of children by gay priests is overwhelmingly little boys..... walks like it, talks like it....

[Kristian Joensen]

The SPLC is not a reliable source of information about ANYTHING.

[Juvenal]

I thought it was obvious that that was a joke, but it looks like it's one with a ring of truth:

[HuffPo cite]

That was five years ago. I'm sure the numbers have grown since.

We atheists are still a minority in academia, I'll betcha. Now if you were to look at the National Academy ...

That said, my answer was sharper than I intended, and I apologize for that. I really should stop posting when I don't have time to lighten my language. But no, I didn't take it as a joke, because it's all too commonly used otherwise. The "evil atheist professor" memes out as a regular boogeyman on Facebook.

Now, mechanical engineers? Hmm, I knew about biologists and psychologists, but that's a new one. Besides, at 1417, the sample's too small for meaningful breakouts, and can't even give overall results accurate to more than +/- 5 percent. I don't much care for HuffPo as a source, either.

Don't be silly. Of course I know that there are fewer atheists in America than there are religious. What I don't buy is that you are some sort of persecuted minority who just can't get a fair shake, and have to remain in the closet to protect yourselves. Most of my friends are atheists. They have absolutely no problem finding jobs, and fitting in with the rest of their community, all while loudly proclaiming their worldview. Yes, people rather vote for those who share their worldview (as long as they're not too religiously aggressive). Is that so surprising? But we live in a new world brother. Millennials are leaving the church in droves, and future elections are certainly going to reflect that.

Hmm. It's almost always a mistake to dump personal info into one of these threads, but criminy! You're talking to a dude who spent 15 years as persona non grata to half his family after it came out that I was atheist. I did my best to stay in the closet, because I knew it was likely, but dammit, I never suspected it'd be 15 years. I've got plenty more stories like that, but I'll keep them to myself. Every atheist I know has similar stories, too, not to mention the monster threads detailing the same for atheists I never met back on Internet Infidels. Please never again suggest atheists aren't subject to discrimination just because we can get jobs. Man doesn't live by bread alone. That's right on the borderline between ignorant and viciously ignorant, with the only defense being you don't know any better.

Oh

Yeah.

Why specifically Catholic apologists? And I don't see anything in NAMBLA's FAQ that suggests they're fighting for the rights of ephebophiles to the exclusion of pedophiles, rather they suggest that children as young as five can be attracted to men. And a pox on you for getting me to check their FAQ. Now I'm going to have scrub my browser.

My abject apologies, this time. Nobody should have to study NAMBLA FAQs to answer me. Catholic apologists ... because I learned the "true" word on Catholic Answers, where the locals were busily defending against attacks on their priesthood.

Well, the thread's called "Starlight's 'No NAMBLA Connection' Thread".

And the connection to pedophilia occurs more often than not. By quite a bit.

I'm not especially impressed by the connection here, either. I didn't, and won't, read the original thread, but I did google up the gal on the obverse of that sign. I'd say it's clear he was making a statement about folks being silenced, which isn't at all the same as supporting their cause. I personally supported the rights of the nazis to march through Skokie, but hardly because I sympathize with nazis. It's a first amendment thing.

No.

Gerbil started that thread some time before Jobs returned to Apple, back when they were in dire straits. As it turned out, it's a good thing the Gerbz didn't try that in the Old Testament times. He'd have been stoned as a false prophet, dug up and stoned again.

Hopefully we'll never have reason to think of this thread in 20 years.

What thread?

I don't know what that's in reference to.

Too many of these folks get their news from the mouth-breathing right-wing conspiracy fringe, where the EBOLA APOCALYPSE was RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER!!!1111337 Pap was right in there with them, ended up right in line behind the Gerbil for some OT justice, as it turns out. No amount of real data could shake him. He had plenty of company on that, too, but they were mostly also-rans.

I don't know what that means. Is that a reference to Quixote and tilting and windmills? Stop trying to be so clever, I'm not that bright.

Now you can deny being clever enough to follow the Quixote reference, or you can follow the Quixote reference, but you really shouldn't do both without at least the customary caution of splitting the play up into at least two acts.

As ever, Jesse

[Juvenal]

You are hardly running for president are you, and people will always look for some deeper connection in someone who is going to be their president. I agree with Adrift and don't buy your atheist spiel. In fact I think in this day and age, atheism, like being gay it is increasingly a door opener.

Abby, I really don't need more examples of Christians who reject numbers they don't like, but when I do, I'll be sure to look you up again.