Limbaugh attacks “gay lobby” over Penn State child abuse

[Crezth]

It sounds like he's at least an MSM either way.

What is MSM?

Only because the audience makes some false association. The association only matters if one caused the other.

Let's say an atheist goes and kills people. Did he do it because he's an atheist? Most likely not; reporting an atheist did it, however, is disingenious because people make a subconscious association between atheism and murder as a result. Just look at how many view Islam as violent now, just because a few radical Muslims murdered thousands of Americans on 9/11.

In that regard, it doesn't matter if Sandusky is gay or not; even if he is, there's no need to bring that up.

OK, I completely agree with this, actually.

Personally, if any gay lobby did downplay the homosexual aspect, I'd support such. Because as soon as people hear "gay" and "<negative action here>" in the same sentence, a subconscious negative association is made.

Yes, actually. I agree again.

Our culture is strange. We're told stereotyping is bad, yet at the same time, a lot of brains seem wired to make those same stereotypes.

People are weird, yes, yes.

Though I suppose on review I can see why these comments aren't exactly well-worded. Oddly enough in the same breath, however, he said what one homosexual does means nothing. I suspect he has multiple personalities...

...that or he really sucks with choosing how to word things.

Bingo. And he has a long history of uneducated, bigoted comments.

 

[Tani Coyote]

What is MSM?

An MSM is a male who has sexual relations with other males, without pursuing them romantically. Doing the latter makes one gay, the former does not. Assuming you define sexuality by romantic pursuits, anyway.

OK, I completely agree with this, actually.

Yes, actually. I agree again.

Contrary to popular belief, I am not an archconservative.

Bingo. And he has a long history of uneducated, bigoted comments.

He and his fellow talking heads have very commanding voices, however, perfect for manipulating the masses. Passing off government insurance as a federal dictatorship of doctors' wages and hospital policies, for example. Strangely, I've never heard them condemn the FDA as a death panel; it'd be the next logical step.

It would be nice if there were conservative talking heads without a penchant for intentionally making bad implications. Or sometimes just jumping on whatever story confirms their biases - I remember when they were all over Obama's "million dollars a day trip to Asia" and whatnot, when it had zero basis in reality. They heard the story and, since it agreed with their idea of Obama = bad, they all licked it up.

Then again, bad implications = controversy, which equals more attention and thus more money. At times I think Rush isn't really a conservative, but an actor who gets people riled up to generate more money for himself.

And lo and behold, we're right here discussing his latest performance. It's working.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Is it wrong to point out that Sandusky [may be] gay? If so, is it also wrong to point out that Sandusky is a man, a coach and from Pennsylvania? Would it be wrong to call Sandusky by his name?

Limbaugh's point seems to be the fear amongst the mainstream media to state the obvious.

However, maybe because it is so obvious, it need not be stated?

Like there is a gay lobby with a gay agenda who pressures the media to keep the coaches gayness out of the media. Is that the obvious you are talking about?

If he'd just mentioned it, it'd be a different story, but he uses the orientation of the coach and links it to some sinister gay lobby who is able to pressure the media in not reporting something. Limbaugh at least suffers from Homolobbyphobia. How deep his rabbithole runs, I don't know.

 

[kochman]

His wife of 45 years is female.

So what, many gays have wives. He may still have sex with her too... making him bisexual at the minimum.

How do you know (he is gay)?

Because he had sex with boys... repeatedly. Sex with the same sex, regardless of age, is homosexuality.

If you want to set your world view around an immutable paradigm of gay / straight, then there's not much point in debating this. Your position is that you're right because you say so. For everyone else capable of a bit of reasoning, it's clear that once you get into pedophilia or bestiality, your previous divisions of the world are no longer easily applied.

Ummm... that is the discussion... gay/straight. Is it not?
Because you add new categories, suxh as pedophilia or bestiality, it doesn't necessarily take away previous definitions.
So, look up homosexual sense... sex with same gender/sex (generally within same race!).
Gay pedophile, or if we prefer, in his case if his marriage is not only a cover... bisexual pedophile with a penchant for young boys (and not girls).

If he is not a gay pedophile... is he a hetero pedophile that likes boys? What would you prefer that we call him?

Like there is a gay lobby with a gay agenda who pressures the media to keep the coaches gayness out of the media. Is that the obvious you are talking about?

Ummm... no.
Like, people don't want to offend people and the PC thing is a HUGE issue over here in the USA. That's the obvious.
Media, especially, which aims to sell its products to as many people as possible, is going to do its best to offend as few people as possible.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ummm... no.

Good, so at least you and I agree that that comment was loony. I'm glad to hear that.

Like, people don't want to offend people and the PC thing is a HUGE issue over here in the USA. That's the obvious.
Media, especially, which aims to sell its products to as many people as possible, is going to do its best to offend as few people as possible.

The media didn't report on him being gay because of political correctness. In what way would his sexual orientation towards men or women be relevant enough to be reported?

 

[Crezth]

Because he had sex with boys... repeatedly. Sex with the same sex, regardless of age, is homosexuality.

Wow. I guess the best way to describe your connection to reality is "tenuous with a shot of insanity."

Educate yourself so that you stop saying things that make you look like such an ignorant tool.

Moderator Action: The personal attacks are not necessary.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[kochman]

Good, so at least you and I agree that that comment was loony. I'm glad to hear that.
The media didn't report on him being gay because of political correctness. In what way would his sexual orientation towards men or women be relevant enough to be reported?

Well, let's be honest.
Do we need to advert that the guy is gay?
If he was abusing little boys, it's already known... just as it is known he is a pedophile. I really haven't heard the media using the word pedophile either (though I avoid much news)... as it's already known... I doubt half the (US) media understands such a long word with Greek & Latin roots anyhow.

 

[kochman]

Wow. I guess the best way to describe your connection to reality is "tenuous with a shot of insanity."

Educate yourself so that you stop being such an ignorant tool.

First, I don't think there is need to insult me.
Second, I am familiar with that UC Davis BLOG.
Third, I didn't say all pedophiles are gay, which you seem to be implying by using a blog on incorrect stereotyping as your reply.
Fourth, in this case, the pedophile is gay (or bisexual).

 

[Crezth]

First, I don't think there is need to insult me.
Second, I am familiar with that UC Davis BLOG.
Third, I didn't say all pedophiles are gay, which you seem to be implying by using a blog on incorrect stereotyping as your reply.
Fourth, in this case, the pedophile is gay (or bisexual).

One, I don't think there is a need to spout ignorant garbage.

Two, that BLOG is hosted on psychology.davis.edu and by and far has much more credibility on issues related to psychology than yourself.

Three, I can tell that you did not read that link at all because one of the things it points out is that pedophiles typically don't have adult sexual orientations such as heterosexuality, homosexuality. To wit: there is no positive correlation between a pedophile who molests boys or and the "corresponding" adult sexual orientation.

Fourth, begging the question.

Moderator Action: First line is trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, let's be honest.
Do we need to advert that the guy is gay?

Well, yeah, you seem to think the media had to do just that.

If he was abusing little boys, it's already known... just as it is known he is a pedophile. I really haven't heard the media using the word pedophile either (though I avoid much news)... as it's already known... I doubt half the (US) media understands such a long word with Greek & Latin roots anyhow.

I haven't followed the news on this guy either, so I don't know if he's admitted it or it has been proven he did it or if the investigation is still running. That could account for the media's reluctance in putting a label on him and take the risk of being sued later on.

I have rarely seen the media shy away from putting an as sensationalist as possible angle on a story because of political correctness.

 

[kochman]

One, I don't think there is a need to spout ignorant garbage.

Two, that BLOG is hosted on psychology.davis.edu and by and far has much more credibility on issues related to psychology than yourself.

Three, I can tell that you did not read that link at all because one of the things it points out is that pedophiles typically don't have adult sexual orientations such as heterosexuality, homosexuality. To wit: there is no positive correlation between a pedophile who molests boys or and the "corresponding" adult sexual orientation.

Fourth, begging the question.

1) Again? Just because you don't agree doesn't make it "ignorant".
2) Thanks, I know how to read.
3) I have read that link before, and again today. Just because one guy blogs (scientific blog? hahaha) that pedophiles don't typically have adult sexual orientations doesn't make it true. He doesn't set the definitions of the English language. By the definitions of the terms, they certainly can have sexual orientations. I imagine there are also pedophiles that abuse both boys and girls as well... no matter what, abusing a child is wrong.
Why does it upset you so much to agree that his pedophilia manifests itself in a homosexual format?
4) According to one doctor, who could easily have an ulterior motive, and has set your mind's accepted definitions... no, he is not a gay pedophile. According to definitions of terms used in the English language, which I prefer to use because I don't have to link people to blogs for them to understand me... The guy, if he is guilty, is a gay pedophile. It's really not a huge deal.

Well, yeah, you seem to think the media had to do just that.

No, I think you are missing my point. Limbaugh was pointing out what he thinks is a fear based on a larger power.

I haven't followed the news on this guy either, so I don't know if he's admitted it or it has been proven he did it or if the investigation is still running. That could account for the media's reluctance in putting a label on him and take the risk of being sued later on.

Very good point! It is still ongoing.

I have rarely seen the media shy away from putting an as sensationalist as possible angle on a story because of political correctness.

It happens all the time in 'Merica... they shy away from using certain terms (muslim, gay, etc)...

 

[Crezth]

1) Again? Just because you don't agree doesn't make it "ignorant".

It's not because I don't agree, it's because what you're saying don't agree with the facts.

2) Thanks, I know how to read.

I am not sure you do.

3) I have read that link before, and again today. Just because one guy blogs (scientific blog? hahaha) that pedophiles don't typically have adult sexual orientations doesn't make it true. He doesn't set the definitions of the English language. By the definitions of the terms, they certainly can have sexual orientations. I imagine there are also pedophiles that abuse both boys and girls as well... no matter what, abusing a child is wrong.
Why does it upset you so much to agree that his pedophilia manifests itself in a homosexual format?

Wow, it's like a Gish's Gallop in here. Play-by-play:

a) I like how you say "scientific blog" and then laugh, as if science is silly.
b) You don't seem to understand that not much is understood about pedophilia and according to science (hahahaha science can't explain everything herp blerp) the two phenomena - homosexuality and pedophilia - are as different as heterosexuality and homosexuality.
c) ...That is to say, pedophilia is not typically linked to an androphilia in any meaningful way, and comparing "preferences" across the two is also pointless. From that link:

Homosexual (androphilic) and pedophilic men differ in a number of ways and two sets of
differences are discussed in this presentation. Results from the literature suggests that there
are neurological and endocrine abnormalities in pedophilia but not in androphilia.

So you see, the sexual preferences of a pedophile are moot because the nature of his/her perversion already places them on a separate platform.

d) Abusing a child is wrong. That doesn't make the rest of your post correct.
e) On that note, in order to ensure my entire post is validated in a purely emotional way, allow me to say that I think kitten-murdering is bad.
f) Because you're taking the scientific definitions of the term, going "NOPE" and tossing them aside. Homosexual may be an "English word," but it's a scientific term, and specifically refers to having a sexual preference for other adult members of the same sex. There's a reason that we have an age of consent, and there's a reason that pedophilia is criminalized whereas heterosexuality (for example) is not.

4) According to one doctor, who could easily have an ulterior motive, and has set your mind's accepted definitions... no, he is not a gay pedophile. According to definitions of terms used in the English language, which I prefer to use because I don't have to link people to blogs for them to understand me... The guy, if he is guilty, is a gay pedophile. It's really not a huge deal.

OHHHH I see. So we can just say a term is defined by its usage in the English language, make it vague, and ignore any contributions scientific thought might have to make on proper terminology. Let me try:

"The word "Republican" means a member of the Republican party. This must mean they're communist because it's the People's Republic of China."

No, that doesn't work because that's a fallacy based on a misnomer. How silly of me! How about this:

"Tomatoes are vegetables because of definitions of terms in the English language."

There we go.

Trust me, I work in research, and nothing bothers me more than seeing people say something like "Yeah yeah yeah, I know what the 'science' (so-called) says, but anyone with a brain can tell you that a jet that flies backwards is going to make fuel, since flying forwards takes fuel. It's simple common sense and according to the definitions of terms in the English language you will see that I am correct."

Moderator Action: 'I am not sure you do' is trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[kochman]

It's not because I don't agree, it's because what you're saying don't agree with the facts.

*doesn't...
And, that's your opinion.

I am not sure you do.

More attacks.

a) I like how you say "scientific blog" and then laugh, as if science is silly.

Because a blog is one man's opinion. It isn't a fact, which you seem to be taking it as. I'm sure that within 2 minutes I could find other blogs contradicting, in a logical way, this blog.

f) Because you're taking the scientific definitions of the term, going "NOPE" and tossing them aside. Homosexual may be an "English word," but it's a scientific term, and specifically refers to having a sexual preference for other adult members of the same sex. There's a reason that we have an age of consent, and there's a reason that pedophilia is criminalized whereas heterosexuality (for example) is not.

One man's blog does not a scientific definition make. It is, at best, an operational definition.
I'll take Webster's definition.

Noun 1. homosexuality - a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex
Synonyms: gayness, homoeroticism, homosexualism

http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/homosexuality
Age is not considered.

OHHHH I see. So we can just say a term is defined by its usage in the English language, make it vague, and ignore any contributions scientific thought might have to make on proper terminology. Let me try:

As long as we are using the English language, we should at least agree on operational definitions if we are going to ignore the accepted, normal use of a term.

Trust me, I work in research, and nothing bothers me more than seeing people say something like "Yeah yeah yeah, I know what the 'science' (so-called) says, but anyone with a brain can tell you that a jet that flies backwards is going to make fuel, since flying forwards takes fuel. It's simple common sense and according to the definitions of terms in the English language you will see that I am correct."

No, using the dictionary definitions would not lead to that conclusion at all.

 

[dIZZyBlIZZy]

@kochman - Don't is correct there.

@crezth - by definition, a tomato is not a vegetable, a fruit.

But don't let me stop you two, this is entertaining.

 

[jtb1127]

@crezth - by definition, a tomato is not a vegetable, a fruit.

So is pizza actually a healthy fruit?

 

[Crezth]

*doesn't...
And, that's your opinion.

IT'S YOUR OPINION THAT I'M WRONG LOLOLOL

More attacks.

Oh you poor martyr.

Because a blog is one man's opinion. It isn't a fact, which you seem to be taking it as. I'm sure that within 2 minutes I could find other blogs contradicting, in a logical way, this blog.

One man's blog does not a scientific definition make. It is, at best, an operational definition.
I'll take Webster's definition.

http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/homosexuality
Age is not considered.

so then why do we have an age of consent

As long as we are using the English language, we should at least agree on operational definitions if we are going to ignore the accepted, normal use of a term.

ok

No, using the dictionary definitions would not lead to that conclusion at all.

a'ight

Nice job ignoring the scholarly article that I linked to I'll make sure to make this entire line a hyperlink so you don't miss it oh well close enough.

From whence came:

Homosexual (androphilic) and pedophilic men differ in a number of ways and two sets of
differences are discussed in this presentation. Results from the literature suggests that there
are neurological and endocrine abnormalities in pedophilia but not in androphilia.

Then you ignored this point of mine:

Homosexual may be an "English word," but it's a scientific term, and specifically refers to having a sexual preference for other adult members of the same sex. There's a reason that we have an age of consent, and there's a reason that pedophilia is criminalized whereas heterosexuality (for example) is not.

...by focusing on the fact that the Webster's definition does not define "adult" while completely ignoring the fact that children are sufficiently far removed from the realm of normal sexual attraction as to warrant a separate definition for people who feel attraction to children.

For Christ's sake, the bodies of children aren't even developed. There's absolutely no basis for establishing that there's any consistency there especially when it has been demonstrated to be inconsistent:

In homosexual pedophiliacs, the child of the non-preferred sex was preferred, in contrast to the findings with androphiliacs where female children occupied the last place.

I direct you not to the conclusion (it having been written in 1967) but the data.

So, in short, there's no basis for calling Sandusky a homosexual whatsoever except with a weak false equivalency.

Now, shut up.

@crezth - by definition, a tomato is not a vegetable, a fruit.

so says your science, but my common-sense knowhow will trump your hogwashery any day of the day.

Moderator Action: Please do not tell other users to shut up.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[kochman]

@kochman - Don't is correct there.

The first one is, the second isn't.

so then why do we have an age of consent

Really reaching here. Age of consent doesn't change gender.
If you cannot agree to use basic language, and I don't agree with your specific operational definitions from articles you have picked out, I believe we have arrived at an impasse.

 

[Crezth]

Really reaching here. Age of consent is relevant in outlining the difference in context but I refuse to see that.
If you are going to use scientific definitions and back your arguments up with facts and data that conflict with my narrow, pre-conceived world-views then I am going to ignore it all and walk away merry in the ignorance that I am right no matter what.

Fixed.

I don't know why but you keep arguing he's homosexual when there's no way you can prove that. I demonstrated that to you by citing two scholarly articles and one scientific blog (hahahaha) and you countered with a half-baked Webster definition that completely ignores the context of the situation.

Wow.

Moderator Action: Quote altering in such a manner is trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[dirtyparrot]

4) According to one doctor, who could easily have an ulterior motive, and has set your mind's accepted definitions... no, he is not a gay pedophile. According to definitions of terms used in the English language, which I prefer to use because I don't have to link people to blogs for them to understand me... The guy, if he is guilty, is a gay pedophile. It's really not a huge deal.

I don't see how whether the guy is gay or not is of any relevance, now that the man has been apprehended. I could see how it could be relevant in the police trying to solve a case, but I don't how it would be relevant in reporting it once in the investigation has concluded. It would seem like an analagous situation to a serial killer targeting busty brunettes whose first name is Nancy. I don't how it would be useful to label the person a busty, brunette, or Nancy killer.

 

[NovaKart]

Yeah the media has mentioned that a boy was the victim, what else needs to be said about that? Should this detail be given extra attention?