Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Originally posted by: zinfamous
As ProfJohn already stated, mountains of data from plenty of studies over the years have clearly shown that pederasts are most often straight males, with no history of homosexual behavior. And the perpetrator is usually someone closely related to the victim.
The homosexual = pervert stereotype is nothing more than a scapegoated stereotype conjured from the fear-mongering ignoramuses of the 50s and 60s, usually through propaganda films, and never based on any evidence whatsoever.
That is quite true, and has been understood for some time now. Perhaps you owe it to yourself to join the current half-century?
The first thing you did was lump them all together as "pederasts", which is what the people who collect this data do. They dont want to draw the distinction between homosexual and heterosexual because the people who draw conclusions from it such as yourself, profjohn, etc like to ignore what common sense tells you - males attracted to male boys are homosexual and horny with no regard for the age of consent (like Jackson) and males attracted to baby girls are heterosexual and horny, with the same disregard for the age of consent and innocence of children. Thats where the deranged mind comes into play and prey on that innocence.
When they say, "the majority of pederasts are hetero" thats true.
But to say that because some sick men and women molest kids speaks badly for homosexuality OR heterosexuality is drawing the wrong conclusion, especially since the majority ARE heterosexual. You assumed I thought that way. I dont.
Bolded: There is no word in English, or any other language throughout human history, extinct or current, to properly convey the amount of uninformed (and possibly hateful) ignorance displayed in your statement.
Truly shocking--even for these forums.
as for the rest: yes, a sick mind is a sick mind. Very true. The thing is, you've made it very clear that MJ was indeed a homosexual, and that this was important issue to discuss, and that in your argument you strongly suggested that this (unfounded) determination of his sexuality was the root of his supposed pederasty.
Either way, it's impossible to take someone seriously who lumps "those of us who do these type of studies or read these studies" into some vat of liberal whacko/elitist science freaks/conspiracy propagandists.
You're crazy, and you probably shouldn't be allowed to vote (based on your immediate distrust of "those who publish data clearly have an agenda" mentality). Admit it.