Wrong, Cameron was kicked out of the APA in 83’ and this study was from 85’, I guess his work was considered legitimate since Freund used it to confirm his own data. (Still giggling about your indirect support for Cameron)
As you requested, I gave you my opinion of the book.
Liar in both cases, I didn’t ask for your worthless opinion and you plagerized the pro-perversion web site and then referenced it as a confirmation. We’re still waiting for some source other than your biased opinion that discredits Schmidt, Thomas (1995). Straight and Narrow?
If you didn't want my opinion, then you shouldn't have ASKED for it.
I asked for you to back up your assertions, not proffer some biased web site!
First of all, can I presume that you can offer incontrovertible proof that these members are "self-serving?"
Common sense would tell us that a disproportionate distribution of perversionists well outside the standard deviation says bias. Let’s have pedophiles researching pedophilia if you think that’s OK.
Secondly, can I presume that you can offer incontrovertible proof that these members are "homosexual?"
Yes, usually all by self-admission in their research.
Thirdly, your allegation was that the ENTIRE APA was "a soft science industry composed disproportionately of perversionists for perversionists." How does this minor independent affiliate of the APA prove your point?
Asked and answered in our last little debate, I was and am referring to Division 44, the minor independent affiliate of the APA that makes policy for perversionist by perversionists.
And… according to YOU… this group should be entirely staffed by… NON-homosexuals? Hmmm? Sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever. Who else is better qualified? That's not "bias," that's an effective use of human resources.
I would reiterate, let pedophiles research pedophilia if you thinks it’s OK… Who else is better qualified?
HOWEVER… I must THANK YOU for directing me to something that I have sought for years… The CONCLUSIVE ARGUMENTS as to why homosexuality is NOT a pathology!
And as usual you want me to cite from your reference? Get off your lazy ass and cite something so we can talk about it, I’m not doing your work for you. Show me the smoking gun.
The usual psychological well-being, self-esteem and psychological functioning arguments affect the concept of self, if that’s a good reason to remove it from the DSM then we should remove incest, bestiality and pedophilia too if the patient exhibits no emotional distress.
Regardless, this “biased” reference is by none other than whom? The APA! It’s saturated with the usual research form the Perversionists at Division 44, Herek, Liddle, James, Hancock, et al… Let’s just let the pedophiles research pedophilia and we’ll call it a day, OK?
I answered your question, and even took the extra step of GIVING you a reference. I told you EXACTLY where to find additional information. That is not "poor form," that is STANDARD form. Whether or not you chose to "get off your lazy ass" and further investigate is surely not MY problem.
More justification for me doing your work for you? Poor form madg!
You do not take a person, apply the K-scale, and arrive at the conclusion that that person is a pedophile.
Caught red handed and you’re still walking around the pink elephant in the room to make your point. Freund did cite the K-scale to differentiate between the perversionists and pedophiles, it’s in the study. Just get over it! You lost this one.
And THERE is the predicted "appeal to ignorance." Sexual orientation (homo-bi-hetero), sexual behavior, and paraphiliac mental illnesses are distinct concepts.
There is only one “orientation,” the rest are paraphilia.
This collection of concepts may be too complex for the simpleminded (or for the intentionally ignorant) to grasp, but they are distinct nonetheless.
Only when it comes to therapy, otherwise it’s just called perversion.
FACT FICTION: Regressed pedophiles are overwhelmingly heterosexual in their orientation, regardless of the gender of their victims.
FACT: Pedophiles who have same-sex sodomy are by definition homosexual.
FACT FICTION: You cannot take a symptom of a paraphiliac mental illness as a reliable indicator of sexual orientation.
FACT: There’s only one “orientation”, the rest are different degrees of pathology. The standard for homosexuality is same-sex attraction, it’s a simple concept even simpletons can grasp.
FACT FICTION: Study after study after study have consistently demonstrated that homosexuals are NO MORE (and no less) likely to be pedophilic offenders than ANYONE ELSE.
FACT: Except for Freund Watson (1992), Schmidt, Thomas (1995, and on and on.
FACT FICTION: The antigay brigade will always try to distort these irrefutable and repeatedly replicated findings.
FACT: The pro-perversion Division 44 at the APA will always be biased because they are disproportionately homosexual.
So what? "This is the best available scientific tool, although an even BETTER tool can be anticipated… even though it might not yet exist."
It’s not reliable and doesn’t preclude one to the other, it’s flawed soft science BS!
The BSA did NOT "[cite] Freund Watson 1992 in their brief." That was the Family Lying Council, trying to deceive the Supreme Court of the United States. (They are NOT nice people.)
You mean like the APA? Not only ARE the FRC nice people, they will help you. Get help madg and I’ll pray for you.