From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy)
Subject: Re: What is Clay's real motivation?
Followup-To: alt.sex
Organization: Kalamazoo College
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:08:00 GMT

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:
>> ... Assume that I think
>> NAMBLA, or any organization that expressly promotes adult-child sexual
>> relationships, to be despicable.
>> 
>> The question is:  does your opinion of me in any way depend upon whether
>> or not I am homosexual?
>
>No.

Mm-hm.  Two days ago, you wrote:

> The most dishonest, lying people I've ever met are homosexuals.  There
> probably are some honest homosexuals out there -- but so few as to be
> irrelevant.

You can understand why I don't believe you.  If I'm gay, I'm either a
liar or I'm irrelevant...

>But unless I know that a homosexual really disapproves of child
>molestation, I have to use the statistical evidence that suggests
>that you don't disapprove.

Interesting switch from third to second person.

I would like to see this evidence of yours that "suggests that [most
homosexuals] don't disapprove of child molestation."  Do you realize
what a strong claim you're making?  You've said that you believe that
the _majority_ of homosexuals don't disapprove of child molestation.
Can you back that up?

When someone asked you to do so a few days ago, you responded that you'd
done so many times already, and then proceeded to post your "proof."  As
I and others have demonstrated, the Redbook article is only talking
about a tiny fraction of child molesters, specifically the men who seek
out only boys.  What you're claiming is that you have "statistical
evidence that suggests that" a _majority_ of gays approve of child
molesting;  that article says absolutely nothing about that.

Please don't repost the hundreds of soc.motss' "I love screwing boys"
quotes you've collected, unless you can demonstrate that soc.motss
posters (not readers) are a representative sampling of homosexuals, and
that the authors of those quotes constitute a majority of soc.motss
posters.  I am asking you specifically for your "statistical evidence."

># If not, I might ask why you expend so much verbiage on homosexuals,
># rather than child molesters.
>
>Because homosexuals on USENET insist on lumping themselves in with
>child molesters [by saying that child-molesting is OK].

I presume that by "homosexuals on Usenet" you mean "some homosexuals on
Usenet."  Please try to be more precise in future.

You did not answer that question I might have asked.  I repeat it:
if you're against child molestation, isn't it more efficient to go after
child molesters?  If (say) 99% of homosexuals are child molesters, won't
it _still_ be more efficient to go after child molesters, rather than
homosexuals?

As long as your target remains, not child molesters specifically, but
homosexuals, you will be unable to defend yourself against my claim
that you have ulterior motives, viz., you dislike gays.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy      Internet: k044477@kzoo.edu      AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "The most dishonest, lying people I've ever met are homosexuals.  There
  probably are some honest homosexuals out there -- but so few as to be
  irrelevant."     - Clayton E. Cramer, three days after Christmas, 1992
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc