Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Penn St the grand liberal experimentFollow

#52 Nov 14 2011 at 2:06 PM Rating: Excellent
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
If it were a feminist saying men perpetrate most of the violence varus would deny this and call it sexism
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#53 Nov 14 2011 at 2:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,205 posts
You could sneak it by him if you qualified them as black men, though. Then he'd think you agreed with him about the race war.
____________________________
Banh
#54 Nov 14 2011 at 2:30 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,397 posts
Blacks and women are all lying liberal whores, so no matter what they say the opposite is true. Unless it's a Republican frontrunner.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#55 Nov 14 2011 at 3:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
LeWoVoc wrote:
It is a fact that there is a lot of "homosexual @#%^philia," as in young boys being exploited by men. This, however, doesn't work the way varus keeps telling himself it does. The gender of the child is immaterial. It's not that a person is attracted to males, and therefore touches male children, it's that a person is attracted to children and touches children. There is generally not a whole lot of sexual attraction to other adults in most cases. Are there a lot of cases in which someone who is normally attracted to the same adult **** touches a small child of either sex? No. There simply isn't. Not when compared to the whole of cases.


I'm not touching Varus' argument with a 10 foot pole, but I'm a bit confused by this post. I think it's pretty clear that most pedophiles have a preference in terms of the **** of their victims, and it does represent an attraction to that **** (but in many cases, it's hidden). This assumes we're talking about children (pre-adolescent) and not just minors. In the latter case, the alignment with adult sexual attraction would seem to be even more direct. I don't think it's surprising (or even particularly unusual) for a homosexual male to find 15 year old males attractive, any more than it would be for a heterosexual male to find 15 year old females attractive. One could argue that from a biological perspective, it would be strange for them not to. It's only because of social rules that we make a distinction in those cases at all.


When we're talking about children though, it's a slightly different ballgame. I happen to think that both sides are kinda arguing around the core issue though. The social pressures that may cause a **** male to hide his sexuality and then (potentially) seek his "dirty" pleasure with male children (whole host of reasons for that result btw) are frankly partly to blame on both groups. One side creates the social pressure, and the other works to hide the problem. Neither really helps.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#56 Nov 14 2011 at 3:28 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,397 posts
There's accessibility to consider, too. Main reason why when someone mentions pedophilia the first thoughts into anyone's heads are Catholic Priests and Choir Boys and Scout Leaders and Boy Scouts and such.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#57 Nov 14 2011 at 3:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I suppose not many volunteer career paths give an old man sauna/hotub access to a room full of ten year old girls. But there's a bajillion stories of older male relatives molesting prepubescent females. Just harder to do it en masse.

Edited, Nov 14th 2011 3:45pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#58 Nov 14 2011 at 3:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I don't think it's surprising (or even particularly unusual) for a homosexual male to find 15 year old males attractive, any more than it would be for a heterosexual male to find 15 year old females attractive.

This wasn't about 15 year olds. This was about, among other things, Sandusky raping a ten year old boy in a shower. Attraction to post-pubescent minors is more accurately termed as ephebophilia.

Quote:
The social pressures that may cause a **** male to hide his sexuality and then (potentially) seek his "dirty" pleasure with male children (whole host of reasons for that result btw) are frankly partly to blame on both groups. One side creates the social pressure, and the other works to hide the problem. Neither really helps.

What "two groups" are you talking about here?

Edited, Nov 14th 2011 3:50pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#59 Nov 14 2011 at 4:03 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,362 posts
gbaji wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
It is a fact that there is a lot of "homosexual @#%^philia," as in young boys being exploited by men. This, however, doesn't work the way varus keeps telling himself it does. The gender of the child is immaterial. It's not that a person is attracted to males, and therefore touches male children, it's that a person is attracted to children and touches children. There is generally not a whole lot of sexual attraction to other adults in most cases. Are there a lot of cases in which someone who is normally attracted to the same adult **** touches a small child of either sex? No. There simply isn't. Not when compared to the whole of cases.


I'm not touching Varus' argument with a 10 foot pole, but I'm a bit confused by this post. I think it's pretty clear that most pedophiles have a preference in terms of the **** of their victims, and it does represent an attraction to that **** (but in many cases, it's hidden). This assumes we're talking about children (pre-adolescent) and not just minors. In the latter case, the alignment with adult sexual attraction would seem to be even more direct. I don't think it's surprising (or even particularly unusual) for a homosexual male to find 15 year old males attractive, any more than it would be for a heterosexual male to find 15 year old females attractive. One could argue that from a biological perspective, it would be strange for them not to. It's only because of social rules that we make a distinction in those cases at all.


When we're talking about children though, it's a slightly different ballgame. I happen to think that both sides are kinda arguing around the core issue though. The social pressures that may cause a **** male to hide his sexuality and then (potentially) seek his "dirty" pleasure with male children (whole host of reasons for that result btw) are frankly partly to blame on both groups. One side creates the social pressure, and the other works to hide the problem. Neither really helps.
You seem to be arguing something completely different from me. Unless psychological research has changed the popular view so much over the past year or so that it's in another direction entirely, pedophilia is seen as a mental disorder and a sexuality preference. The preference is not towards male or female children, but rather towards children generically. There can be preferences within this, but that doesn't translate to the person's sexuality necessarily. A heterosexual male can molest a male child without that reflecting his sexuality preference. The precise opposite can be said about a homosexual male. In many cases, the adult has no sexual preference for adults whatsoever; however, in some there is one, and it doesn't always match up. The point I was making is this: You won't find a large amount of cases dealing with someone who is homosexual and carries on normal relationships and ends up molesting children. It's completely separate. And tolerating one thing does not mean tolerating the other.
#60 Nov 14 2011 at 4:17 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I don't think it's surprising (or even particularly unusual) for a homosexual male to find 15 year old males attractive, any more than it would be for a heterosexual male to find 15 year old females attractive.

This wasn't about 15 year olds. This was about, among other things, Sandusky raping a ten year old boy in a shower. Attraction to post-pubescent minors is more accurately termed as ephebophilia.


Yeah. But both cases are often lumped together (incorrectly) when making claims about sexual behavior. I was making the point that when looking at such things we need to make a clear distinction between sexual behavior towards pre-pubescent and post pubescent minors. Those really are two completely different things. Specifically, I was addressing some of the stuff in Varus' link which did include data about attraction towards 15-19 year olds. As you say, that has nothing to do with child molestation.

Quote:
Quote:
The social pressures that may cause a **** male to hide his sexuality and then (potentially) seek his "dirty" pleasure with male children (whole host of reasons for that result btw) are frankly partly to blame on both groups. One side creates the social pressure, and the other works to hide the problem. Neither really helps.

What "two groups" are you talking about here?


I suppose you could label them pro-gay and anti-gay if you want. The anti-gay folks absolutely work hard to create the environment where homosexuality of any kind is "dirty", which leads to some gays (men specifically) hiding their sexuality, feeling like there's something wrong with them, and increasing the odds that they might turn to child molestation. The chain of cause/effect isn't simple, but it doesn't take a degree in psychology to realize that if someone already believes that his sexual desires are sinful/dirty/whatever, that this will increase his likelihood when acting on them to not make distinctions which he might otherwise. If having **** with another man is ok, but having **** with a child is wrong, he's more likely to satisfy himself with adult men and avoid children. But if both are "wrong", he's less likely to limit himself, right?

On the flip side though, the acts of some pro-gay groups to sweep the very real statistical problems within the **** community under the proverbial rug don't help their cause much either. There are problems with coercive sexual acts within the community, especially among **** men. There is a pattern of preying on young men (not children, but teenagers), and of pretty strong social pressures to "be gay" that are arguably just as strong if not more so than the pressures applied by the anti-gay folks (and to some extent to the larger society) to "be straight". It's not nearly the "freedom to be yourself" picture that its presented publicly, and a combination of a desire to hide this within the community and a desire to those outside to present said community in the best light possible to foster acceptance results in some pretty bad social pressures as well.


Within the **** community the pressure to not just be gay, but to be openly, actively gay, and essentially be a walking advocate for gay-rights is very very strong. What I'm getting at here is that this can push people to stay in the closet just as much as the pressure from the other side. Both have some blame here. Most people just want to live their lives, not get involved in some larger political conflict.

Edited, Nov 14th 2011 2:19pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#61 Nov 14 2011 at 4:25 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,187 posts
I will second that most "liberal academics" hate and despise the sports programs. My husband went on a rightious Facebook rant about the subject the other day. He feels that all sports programs should end and universities should instead focus on the business of educating.

I think that was after he was stuck in football traffic here in Athens for about two hours.

No, what Virus's OP proves is that when you have a culture of Good Ol' Boyism, bad **** happens. And that's exactly what this was: Sandusky was a Good Ol' Boy. Fine, upstanding Republican. Friend of Bush! He ran a charity to help boys from broken homes! He'd never do anything like that. Surely the people whispering horrible things about him are just out to get him!
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#62 Nov 14 2011 at 4:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,674 posts
catwho wrote:
He feels that all sports programs should end and universities should instead focus on the business of educating.
I guess he doesn't understand where the most donations to the schools come from, eh?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#63 Nov 14 2011 at 4:59 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,885 posts
catwho wrote:
No, what Virus's OP proves is that when you have a culture of Good Ol' Boyism, bad sh*t happens. And that's exactly what this was: Sandusky was a Good Ol' Boy. Fine, upstanding Republican. Friend of Bush! He ran a charity to help boys from broken homes! He'd never do anything like that. Surely the people whispering horrible things about him are just out to get him!

Imagine if he ran for President!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#64 Nov 14 2011 at 5:12 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
catwho wrote:
He feels that all sports programs should end and universities should instead focus on the business of educating.
I guess he doesn't understand where the most donations to the schools come from, eh?

I'm not sure what you're after here. At my school the athletics department keeps its budget separate from the university.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#65 Nov 14 2011 at 5:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Honestly, Gbaji's **** is retarded enough that I'm not even going to dignify it with a response Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#66 Nov 14 2011 at 5:48 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
gbaji wrote:
I suppose you could label them pro-gay and anti-gay if you want. The anti-gay folks absolutely work hard to create the environment where homosexuality of any kind is "dirty", which leads to some gays (men specifically) hiding their sexuality, feeling like there's something wrong with them, and increasing the odds that they might turn to child molestation. The chain of cause/effect isn't simple, but it doesn't take a degree in psychology to realize that if someone already believes that his sexual desires are sinful/dirty/whatever, that this will increase his likelihood when acting on them to not make distinctions which he might otherwise. If having **** with another man is ok, but having **** with a child is wrong, he's more likely to satisfy himself with adult men and avoid children. But if both are "wrong", he's less likely to limit himself, right?

On the flip side though, the acts of some pro-gay groups to sweep the very real statistical problems within the **** community under the proverbial rug don't help their cause much either. There are problems with coercive sexual acts within the community, especially among **** men. There is a pattern of preying on young men (not children, but teenagers), and of pretty strong social pressures to "be gay" that are arguably just as strong if not more so than the pressures applied by the anti-gay folks (and to some extent to the larger society) to "be straight". It's not nearly the "freedom to be yourself" picture that its presented publicly, and a combination of a desire to hide this within the community and a desire to those outside to present said community in the best light possible to foster acceptance results in some pretty bad social pressures as well.


Within the **** community the pressure to not just be gay, but to be openly, actively gay, and essentially be a walking advocate for gay-rights is very very strong. What I'm getting at here is that this can push people to stay in the closet just as much as the pressure from the other side. Both have some blame here. Most people just want to live their lives, not get involved in some larger political conflict.

Edited, Nov 14th 2011 2:19pm by gbaji


Every once in a while, you say something that is so close-minded, so baseless, and so offensive, I'm left absolutely speechless.

Thanks for reminding me just how far your douchebaggery goes. I had forgotten.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#67 Nov 14 2011 at 6:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Every once in a while, you say something that is so close-minded, so baseless, and so offensive, I'm left absolutely speechless.

Thanks for reminding me just how far your douchebaggery goes. I had forgotten.


Uh huh. So saying that the issue is more complex than "this side==bad; that side==good" is now douchebaggery, and closed-minded? Ever consider you're the one with the closed mind in that you're unwilling to see any faults at all in a group you've decided to champion in some way? There's fault enough to go around, so let's not make the same mistake that we're accusing all those folks at Penn State of doing (ignoring problems because they don't want the institution to look bad).


There's irony here somewhere, I'm sure.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#68 Nov 14 2011 at 6:21 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
gbaji wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Every once in a while, you say something that is so close-minded, so baseless, and so offensive, I'm left absolutely speechless.

Thanks for reminding me just how far your douchebaggery goes. I had forgotten.


Uh huh. So saying that the issue is more complex than "this side==bad; that side==good" is now douchebaggery, and closed-minded? Ever consider you're the one with the closed mind in that you're unwilling to see any faults at all in a group you've decided to champion in some way? There's fault enough to go around, so let's not make the same mistake that we're accusing all those folks at Penn State of doing (ignoring problems because they don't want the institution to look bad).


There's irony here somewhere, I'm sure.


There's no irony. There's no hypocrisy.

There's just you being a complete fucking idiot.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#69 Nov 14 2011 at 6:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
There's no irony. There's no hypocrisy.

There's just you being a complete fucking idiot.


Why? For saying what you know is true but don't want said? For saying that all is not peaches and roses within the **** community? For saying that there are issues within said community (especially males) with regard to underage sex, coercive sex, and prostitution? For saying that there are cycles of such behavior in said community and that they do have some negative and destructive effects on members of said community?

Or are you most upset for correctly observing that there are many who, for what amount to political PR reasons, want very much for those things to not be made too public, and will actively dismiss any talk about them, ignore any data which might show a problem, and even attack those who dare to actually mention said problems (like you're doing right now btw)?


The irony is that the administrators, faculty, and god knows how many others at Penn State ignored/excused Sandusky for exactly the same reason you are attacking me. They didn't want negative publicity towards an institution they cared about and so they pretended the problem didn't exist and attacked anyone who might raise any questions. You really don't see how those are similar?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#70 Nov 14 2011 at 6:47 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
There's a veritable ton of things that are wrong with what you're saying. A ton. It's so much, that I know it's just going to be an exercise in extreme frustration to try to go through point-by-point with you.

Then add on the fact that you're about as likely to acknowledge the errors and offenses as **** is of freezing over.

It'd be a waste of time, and an unpleasant one at that.


But you do deserve to be called an asshole for it, and I'll happily do that. Kindly go fuck yourself.

Edited, Nov 14th 2011 7:47pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#71 Nov 14 2011 at 6:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Uh huh. So saying that the issue is more complex than "this side==bad; that side==good" is now douchebaggery, and closed-minded? Ever consider you're the one with the closed mind in that you're unwilling to see any faults at all in a group you've decided to champion in some way?

Really, the fact that you need to divide it into "teams" (or try to make it about homosexuals) is pathological enough.

Hint: everyone else was mocking Varus by talking about Republicans or whatever.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#72 Nov 14 2011 at 6:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,281 posts
gbaji, I hope you're trolling.
#73 Nov 14 2011 at 6:59 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,674 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
catwho wrote:
He feels that all sports programs should end and universities should instead focus on the business of educating.
I guess he doesn't understand where the most donations to the schools come from, eh?

I'm not sure what you're after here. At my school the athletics department keeps its budget separate from the university.
Fair enough as it was poorly worded. What I should have said was "Do you have any idea how many donations are a result of the national exposure a school gets due to it's athletic departments?"
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#74 Nov 14 2011 at 7:14 PM Rating: Excellent
I always love it when Gbaji does his "I'm not agreeing with varrus or anything because I'm an independent thinker, but he's totally right" shtick.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#75 Nov 14 2011 at 7:15 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
catwho wrote:
He feels that all sports programs should end and universities should instead focus on the business of educating.
I guess he doesn't understand where the most donations to the schools come from, eh?

I'm not sure what you're after here. At my school the athletics department keeps its budget separate from the university.
Fair enough as it was poorly worded. What I should have said was "Do you have any idea how many donations are a result of the national exposure a school gets due to it's athletic departments?"


This'd be a great segway to a debate about the pros and cons of paying student athletes, and a much more interesting discussion.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#76 Nov 14 2011 at 7:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Eske Esquire wrote:
This'd be a great segway

And an even better segue Smiley: wink2
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#77 Nov 14 2011 at 7:45 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
catwho wrote:
He feels that all sports programs should end and universities should instead focus on the business of educating.
I guess he doesn't understand where the most donations to the schools come from, eh?

I'm not sure what you're after here. At my school the athletics department keeps its budget separate from the university.
Fair enough as it was poorly worded. What I should have said was "Do you have any idea how many donations are a result of the national exposure a school gets due to it's athletic departments?"
I'd wager that the majority of donations a university receives are from successful alumni who want to give back to their alma mater. At least the ones that don't go directly to the athletic department's coffers.

I doubt many donations to University academic programs are based upon a school's football winnings.

Edited, Nov 14th 2011 7:45pm by Bardalicious
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#78 Nov 14 2011 at 7:48 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
This'd be a great segway

And an even better segue Smiley: wink2


Yeah, as I wrote that, somewhere in the back of my head I knew it was wrong. I think I use the word so infrequently that I let this spelling take over in my brain.

/sigh. Smiley: glare
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#79 Nov 14 2011 at 8:13 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,674 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
I doubt many donations to University academic programs are based upon a school's football winnings
You do live in America right? And you're on the internet, so you do use forms of media. Are you intentionally lying or just super naive?

You are aware of how much money the entrainment industry generates, yes?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#80 Nov 14 2011 at 8:24 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Uh huh. So saying that the issue is more complex than "this side==bad; that side==good" is now douchebaggery, and closed-minded? Ever consider you're the one with the closed mind in that you're unwilling to see any faults at all in a group you've decided to champion in some way?

Really, the fact that you need to divide it into "teams" (or try to make it about homosexuals) is pathological enough.


I didn't do this though. I responded to a post addressing the question as to whether attraction to children of the same **** is associated at all with homosexuality. While I'll fully admit to leading the argument a bit, I don't think it's a stretch to see the usual anti-gay suspects on one side of that argument, and the usual pro-gay suspects on the other. You also have to remember that I'd just finished skimming through Varus' link when I replied to the post in question, and there was a **** of a lot BS as well as a smattering of valid statements.


Put more simply, the fact that there are folks who oppose homosexuality on principle and will exaggerate their position, does not mean that every claim they make is wrong. The attempts by **** advocacy groups to distance homosexuality (especially male homosexuality) from molestation of boys by older men is a pretty clear attempt at PR and is pretty questionable in terms of honest evaluation of what's going on. And certainly when we're looking at a case like Sandusky, who targeted boys just barely pre-adolescent, this is less about generic attraction to children, and far more likely to be some form of displaced sexual (homosexual in this case) targeting, most likely deriving from some form of abuse he suffered when he was the same age.


I just jumped ahead a bit and played out the argument for *why* that happens from a broader sociological perspective and presented the two sides of that argument and attempted to play middle ground by saying that both bear some blame.


Quote:
Hint: everyone else was mocking Varus by talking about Republicans or whatever.


Yeah. I didn't say anything about political party's either Joph. That's the "I wont touch this with a 10 foot pole" bit I started out with. Again though, it doesn't invalidate some other aspects of the issue. And judging by the "hit a nerve" like response, I'd say I was justified to bring those other aspects up.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#81 Nov 14 2011 at 8:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smiley: disappointed

Whatever. This would be like arguing with your racist uncle; not fruitful nor amusing. Have fun being... whatever.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#82 Nov 14 2011 at 9:25 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Whatever. This would be like arguing with your racist uncle; not fruitful nor amusing. Have fun being... whatever.


And by racist, you mean someone who argues that unfair discrimination against minority groups is wrong, but that those same minority groups using their minority status as a crutch for socio-political gain is wrong as well and that both groups represent part of the problem as it exists today. Because that's such a one sided and unfair assessment! Smiley: tongue


What I was trying to say (and perhaps didn't do a good job saying) was that the cycle of young/old **** sexual interaction is absolutely initially caused by anti-gay social pressures which cause teens to conceal their sexual orientation and be afraid to experiment with their peers as heterosexual teens do. This is why the percentage of **** men who's first sexual experience as a teen is abnormally more likely to be with an adult male instead of someone their own age when compared to heterosexual males (and females for that matter). But this is something the **** community doesn't like to talk about (for obvious reasons).

That cycle is very very similar to that of pre-teen boys and older men as well, and unfortunately the same mechanisms used to conceal the former also tend to conceal the latter (even if unintentionally). And the same social pressures apply as well. In the mind of someone like Sandusky, he's not doing anything more wrong than a **** man in his early 20s picking up a 15 year old runaway and introducing them to the lifestyle. It's just a matter of degrees unfortunately. Degrees that really ought to matter to us a **** of a lot, but because of the earlier mentioned tendency for data about **** with minors to be conflated for a variety of political reasons, we make it harder to pick out the truly problematic cases (like this one).


Put another way, the **** community's unwillingness to accept that there's any problem at all with their own actions and behaviors makes it easier for people like Sandusky to rationalize what they're doing *and* for others to possibly look the other way. And while I certainly heap a large helping of blame on the anti-gay social pressures out there which help such things along, we all know about those pressures already. Simply saying "those **** haters really ought to stop making **** teens afraid to come out", while true, only addresses part of the problem and isn't really anything new. We can all sit around blaming one "side" of the issue, but that's not going to solve everything. Call me a glutton for punishment, but I look at the other aspects of the issue as well, and I'm going to point out the parts of the issue which most people don't look at. Because IMO we tend to over focus on the simple and easy positions to take, and a lot of times some equally important parts get lost in the discussion.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#83 Nov 14 2011 at 9:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
No, by "racist" I meant it was like arguing with someone so disgusting in their thoughts that it was neither amusing nor fruitful to have a discussion with them.

But apparently I "touched a nerve" so I guess you needed to hear it Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#84 Nov 14 2011 at 10:30 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:
I doubt many donations to University academic programs are based upon a school's football winnings
You do live in America right? And you're on the internet, so you do use forms of media. Are you intentionally lying or just super naive?

You are aware of how much money the entrainment industry generates, yes?
Yes, but the money generated by the entertainment industry stays with the athletics department treasury, and does not suddenly jump over to the academic university's budget.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#85 Nov 14 2011 at 10:37 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
that sounds mighty anecdotal to me. Smiley: dubious
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#86 Nov 14 2011 at 11:55 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,562 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:
I'm not sure what you're after here. At my school the athletics department keeps its budget separate from the university.
Fair enough as it was poorly worded. What I should have said was "Do you have any idea how many donations are a result of the national exposure a school gets due to it's athletic departments?"

I'd just like to make a few points.

1. A lot of colleges do mix fees from students for tuition into the athletics departments.
2. Most athletic departments lose money.
3. It's hard to find data on how athletic departments affect donations, but one small study doesn't show significant results.
Quote:
When a male graduate's former team wins its conference championship, his donations for general purposes increase by about 7 percent and his donations to the athletic program increase by about the same percentage. Football and basketball records generally have small and statistically insignificant effects; in some specifications, a winning basketball season reduces donations. For women there is no statistically discernible effect of a former team's success on current giving; as is the case for men, the impacts of football and basketball, while statistically significant in some specifications, are not important in magnitude.


It seems fairly unlikely that many athletic departments earn their schools significant money in any form, and quite possible that they take away money from academic programs.

Edited, Nov 14th 2011 11:57pm by Allegory
#87 Nov 15 2011 at 5:00 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,674 posts
Allegory wrote:
It seems fairly unlikely that many athletic departments earn their schools significant money in any form, and quite possible that they take away money from academic programs.
Possible, but probably unlikely. Successful athletic departments also draw more students and sell more paraphernalia, like shirts, shorts, etc...
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#88 Nov 15 2011 at 7:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,929 posts
gbaji wrote:
The chain of cause/effect isn't simple, but it doesn't take a degree in psychology to realize that if someone already believes that his sexual desires are sinful/dirty/whatever, that this will increase his likelihood when acting on them to not make distinctions which he might otherwise. If having **** with another man is ok, but having **** with a child is wrong, he's more likely to satisfy himself with adult men and avoid children. But if both are "wrong", he's less likely to limit himself, right?


Jesus, man. Sometimes you say something so off-the-wall, I really do wonder if you're the forum's most successful troll. I am incredibly interested to see your scientific data that men who like men but don't admit it are more likely to rape children, as opposed to men (or women) who are attracted to children of either sex. From what you're saying here, it's clear that you believe (closeted) gays are more likely to be child rapists, which is almost exactly what varus said.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#89 Nov 15 2011 at 8:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Except it's also the **** community's fault because they're pressuring everyone to be Hard Gay and poor souls like Sandusky* were too scared to come out and had to rape little boys instead!



*Of course, just saying he's a "homosexual" would make more sense if there was evidence of him even hitting on post-pubescent teens. He's just a pedophile and a child predator and it's fucking repulsive that people like Gbaji would use this to try and school us all on the giant **** conspiracy or whatever.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#90 Nov 15 2011 at 8:12 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,397 posts
Not **** conspiracy; Liberal conspiracy.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#91 Nov 15 2011 at 8:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Gbaji wrote:
Because IMO we tend to over focus on the simple and easy positions to take, and a lot of times some equally important parts get lost in the discussion.


Like the fact that pedophiles whom attack children of the same **** don't usually view themselves as **** & there's no correlation between homosexuals & pedophiles. Much like in prison, where only the victim is considered "gay"; even though the only person choosing to have homosexual **** is the attacker.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#92 Nov 15 2011 at 8:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
Not **** conspiracy; Liberal conspiracy.

Is there a difference?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#93 Nov 15 2011 at 8:18 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,397 posts
Jophiel wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Not **** conspiracy; Liberal conspiracy.
Is there a difference?
Gay conspiracy has more show tunes.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#94 Nov 15 2011 at 8:20 AM Rating: Excellent
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Not **** conspiracy; Liberal conspiracy.
Is there a difference?
Gay conspiracy has more show tunes.
This is a thread about Guys and Dolls now!
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#95 Nov 15 2011 at 8:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,929 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Not **** conspiracy; Liberal conspiracy.
Is there a difference?
Gay conspiracy has more show tunes.
This is a thread about Guys and Dolls now!

True story; the first time I visited Provincetown on Cape Cod, I saw a flyer for a musical called "Guys As Dolls."

Edit: I was too young at the time to get it, but my parents were amused when I asked what it was about.

Edited, Nov 15th 2011 9:27am by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#96 Nov 15 2011 at 8:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Whatever. This would be like arguing with your racist uncle; not fruitful nor amusing. Have fun being... whatever.


And by racist, you mean someone who argues that unfair discrimination against minority groups is wrong, but that those same minority groups using their minority status as a crutch for socio-political gain is wrong as well and that both groups represent part of the problem as it exists today. Because that's such a one sided and unfair assessment! Smiley: tongue


What I was trying to say (and perhaps didn't do a good job saying) was that the cycle of young/old **** sexual interaction is absolutely initially caused by anti-gay social pressures which cause teens to conceal their sexual orientation and be afraid to experiment with their peers as heterosexual teens do. This is why the percentage of **** men who's first sexual experience as a teen is abnormally more likely to be with an adult male instead of someone their own age when compared to heterosexual males (and females for that matter). But this is something the **** community doesn't like to talk about (for obvious reasons).

That cycle is very very similar to that of pre-teen boys and older men as well, and unfortunately the same mechanisms used to conceal the former also tend to conceal the latter (even if unintentionally). And the same social pressures apply as well. In the mind of someone like Sandusky, he's not doing anything more wrong than a **** man in his early 20s picking up a 15 year old runaway and introducing them to the lifestyle. It's just a matter of degrees unfortunately. Degrees that really ought to matter to us a **** of a lot, but because of the earlier mentioned tendency for data about **** with minors to be conflated for a variety of political reasons, we make it harder to pick out the truly problematic cases (like this one).


Put another way, the **** community's unwillingness to accept that there's any problem at all with their own actions and behaviors makes it easier for people like Sandusky to rationalize what they're doing *and* for others to possibly look the other way. And while I certainly heap a large helping of blame on the anti-gay social pressures out there which help such things along, we all know about those pressures already. Simply saying "those **** haters really ought to stop making **** teens afraid to come out", while true, only addresses part of the problem and isn't really anything new. We can all sit around blaming one "side" of the issue, but that's not going to solve everything. Call me a glutton for punishment, but I look at the other aspects of the issue as well, and I'm going to point out the parts of the issue which most people don't look at. Because IMO we tend to over focus on the simple and easy positions to take, and a lot of times some equally important parts get lost in the discussion.
So you're saying a man who is astute enough to coach a big10 football team doesn't understand that **** with kids is not only illegal but highly immoral.?

Furthermore the reason he doesn't understand it's wrong is because **** between two consenting adults of the same **** is ok? It's all same-sex **** after-all.

And I think you go on to say that the acceptance of a **** lifestyle excuses those who knew or suspected because, you know, if it's ok for a man to fuck a man it's probably ok for him to fuck a boy....or at least it's nobody's business but the boy-fuckers.

I, uh,.....Lol.

Do you ever read what you write?






Edited, Nov 15th 2011 3:30pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#97 Nov 15 2011 at 8:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
the saddest thing (about this thread, not the situation) is the absolute certainty that Gbaji is going to double down and continue to spout his shit, saying "You guys just don't want to hear it!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#98 Nov 15 2011 at 8:34 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Did anyone hear the interview Costas did with Sandusky? Positively creepy. The most damning part (to the best of my recollection):

Costas: "Are you sexually attracted to young boys?"

Sandusky: [long pause]

....

"Sexually attracted?"

....

"No, I'm not sexually attracted to them..."

Smiley: um
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#99 Nov 15 2011 at 8:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Ahh, Provincetown, home of my uncle.

This is his claim to fame.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#100 Nov 15 2011 at 8:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,281 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Did anyone hear the interview Costas did with Sandusky? Positively creepy. The most damning part (to the best of my recollection):

Costas: "Are you sexually attracted to young boys?"

Sandusky: [long pause]

....

"Sexually attracted?"

....

"No, I'm not sexually attracted to them..."

Smiley: um

Yeah, I heard that part and had the same reaction. This guy is really scary.
#101 Nov 15 2011 at 8:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,929 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Did anyone hear the interview Costas did with Sandusky? Positively creepy. The most damning part (to the best of my recollection):

Costas: "Are you sexually attracted to young boys?"

Sandusky: [long pause]

....

"Sexually attracted?"

....

"No, I'm not sexually attracted to them..."

Smiley: um

I just found it hilariously horrific that his autobiography is called "Touched."
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 28 All times are in CDT
Poldaran, stupidmonkey, Anonymous Guests (26)