Philly raises scouts rent $199,999/year

[DanKroh]

"The problem is that there is a significant portion of the homosexual community that is involved with such molestation.

 

Not surprisingly, studies have borne this out (see, e.g., http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/674504/posts)."

 

Then it would be nice if you referenced, you know, an actual *study* instead of a Freeper article that links to a WorldNetDaily article. Excuse me while I fall out of my chair laughing at your "sources".

 

I only noticed this post because for some reason, I can't squelch multi-page threads to blank out comments from ignored users. Anyone else notice this problem?

[BrentAllen]

Dan,

Get back in your chair and read away.

 

http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academics/lawreview/articles/14_2Baldwin.doc

[DanKroh]

Sorry, Brent, but what Mr. Baldwin wrote is not a "study", it's a literature review. And, frankly, I find anything written by Mr. Baldwin highly suspect, given that he's the president for a conserative activist council. Without reviewing all the original source material listed in his "citations", I am unable to tell whether this material is from equally biases sources, or with his degree in communications (can't find any mention of an law degree, despite the fact that he is writing for a law review), he has (purposely) misinterpreted the studies. Somehow, I suspect the latter.

 

But an article by Dr. Gregory Herek, a doctor of psychology who studies sexual orientation and sexual prejudice, had some rather unfavorable things to say about most of the works cited by Mr. Baldwin, when they are twisted to support Mr. Baldwin's premise.

 

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

This particular article is addressing a "study" similar to Mr. Baldwin's done by the Family Research Council, and Dr. Herek's main conclusion after reviewing the cited literature is:

 

"In summary, the scientific sources cited by the FRC report do not support their argument. Most of the studies they referenced did not even assess the sexual orientation of abusers. Two studies explicitly concluded that sexual orientation and child molestation are unrelated. Notably, the FRC failed to cite the 1978 study by Groth and Birnbaum, which also contradicted their argument. Only one study (Erickson et al., 1988) might be interpreted as supporting the FRC argument, and it failed to detail its measurement procedures and did not differentiate bisexual from homosexual offenders."

[evmori]

If 1/3 of what Mr. Baldwin wrote is true, that's sick!

[skeptic]

And so the apologists come out again, calling their opposers poor researchers or inadequate because they question similarly questionable studies on the other side. Meanwhile, the BSA stands up and says it will not take the "chance" by simply ignoring the possibility even 10% of the noted studies or evalutations may be true. Somehow, that seems the best tactic. But, as has been noted once or twice, common sense and basic reason appear to have little to do with this argument.

[DanKroh]

"And so the apologists come out again, calling their opposers poor researchers or inadequate because they question similarly questionable studies on the other side."

 

Well, assuming by "apologist", you mean me, I am not calling Mr. Baldwin a poor researcher because his opinion is contrary to mine. I'm calling him a poor researcher because he is passing off his unqualified opinion as fact by standing on the work of others that he has twisted and misrepresented beyond recognition.

 

If someone wants to present an *actual* scientific study with clearly outlined methodology and presentation of raw data, I'll be more than happy to read it.

[BrentAllen]

So, you are highly suspect of Baldwin because he is president of a conservative group, but not suspect of Herek, who is an advocate for homosexuality? Interesting...

 

I haven't read all the studies, and I'm not sure I need to. The literature provided, using the publication's and author's own words against them, is pretty damning.

 

Now, if you want to argue that only a small % of the homosexual community subscribe to and read those publications, then you might have a valid argument against Baldwin. It would be interesting to see how popular those publications are.

[DanKroh]

"So, you are highly suspect of Baldwin because he is president of a conservative group, but not suspect of Herek, who is an advocate for homosexuality? Interesting..."

 

Yes, I am suspect of Baldwin because his only "qualifications" to write on this subject are being the president of a conservative activist group and a politician who openly declares his anti-homosexual prejudice/agenda in the opening paragraphs of his review. Whereas Dr. Herek is someone who speaks against sexual prejudice in many venues because he is considered an expert by his colleagues, as a result of years of study and research in his field. But you seem ready to dismiss all of Dr. Herek's academic qualifications by labeling him an "advocate for homosexuality". Interesting, indeed.

 

[Beavah]

Yah, DanKroh, I hear your objection, eh? I think it's valid.

 

But can you name a single funder of real, objective research on the matter? I suspect yeh'd have to admit that this is a "taboo topic" that almost all funding agencies wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. Can yeh think of a single Institutional Review Board that would allow objective research of this kind on human subjects? Can yeh imagine how long that approval process would take? Most senior faculty already have a research agenda, eh? What junior faculty member would touch this topic before tenure, particularly in da typically liberal university environment?

 

Fact is, for all kinds of sociopolitical reasons, there just is no valid, objective research in the area worth talkin' about. That leaves the field wide open to pundits and lobbyists.

 

Beavah

 

[evmori]

It would still be a hoot if whoever rents this building sub-lets it to the BSA for $1!

[OldGreyEagle]

Lets just suppose on one of my business trips I perfrom the heimlich manuever on a fellow traveler who just happens to be Bill Gates and he gives me a billion dollars for saving his life.

 

And I want to end the whole gay=pedophilia thing once and for all. So, I hire a team of experts who do an exhaustive review of the literature and independent research through personal interviews and surveys. Lets say my research, named the GreyEagle report says that Pedophilia and Homosexuallity are not linked. Well, then, you can bet that somehow OldGreyEagles posts on this forum will be found and then "they" can say see, his study just says what he beleives and there is no reaon to beleive him or his study. Then again, the study may find that there is a link to Pedophilia and Homosexuality and then the opposing side can say, well, he is a boy scout leader what did you expect his study to say. I think we are at a point where even if hard clean non-biased information were to be found, it would be tainted somehow by those opposed to whatever it says. The local option with the local Chartering Institution on the block for leader selection liability would allow communties to live what they beleive

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

skeptic, if blacks were shown to be more likely to steal than whites, would that justify addressing the possibility of theft by excluding all blacks?

 

Plus, I don't think the BSA ever used molestation concerns in any of their legal arguments in excluding gays. If that's their main reason, they failed to even mention it in Dale.

[DanKroh]

Beavah, I agree that pedophilia is not a popular field among researchers. However, I disagree that funders for "objective research" cannot be found. Such funding may be small, but it is out there. I think objectivity is the purview of the researcher, not his/her funder. Yes, you can find all sorts of people willing to fund bad research when it advances their agenda. But you still need researchers willing to do that bad research. Whether the researchers are bad because they are biased toward a specific outcome or because they are trying to delve into fields where they are not qualified, doesn't really matter. There is certainly enough of both right now.

 

Perhaps part of why the topic is unpopular is because the good researchers who present objective findings get labeled as a "pick-your-perjorative activist" when their results don't agree with some groups preconceived notions.

 

BTW, I did do some research in the field of pedophilia as a postdoc fellow at a local psychiatric hospital. Can't say I ever felt pressured one way or another about what conclusions my data should or shouldn't support, as long as my methodology was solid and I didn't misrepresent my data.

[BrentAllen]

"I think objectivity is the purview of the researcher, not his/her funder."

 

I wish Global Warming advocates believed that. According to them, anyone who has a different opinion is branded as an oil industry hack. Those of us on the other side see the GW advocates as hacks seeking out grants to push the agendas of George Soros and other liberals. Yep, nobody is clean anymore.

[Beavah]

Yah, DanKroh, I'd expect some small funders for pedophilia.

 

But now, how many funders are there for links between sexual preference and pedophilia? And what IRB is goin' to let that by? Just ain't goin' to happen. The only funders are likely to be from one side, and it's a human subjects taboo topic. Heck, it would be darn hard to fund and get approval for links between sexual preference and family background (divorce, family life factors, etc.).

 

And small-scale research and self-report data ain't gonna cut it for these questions. Might be interestin', but nowhere near conclusive.

 

So we're back in da land of pundits and lobbyists.

 

Probably just as well. When was the last time yeh heard of a legislature actually payin' attention to data when making a decision, anyways .

 

Beavah