Originally posted by radardog
Apparently Cameron didn't even do the study, but was just commenting on it.
Right. He commented making the same errors you just re-pointed out he did. I doubt his "analysis." That's what the article is reporting. It's a
hand in fist WorldNetDaily "reporting" of Cameron's secondary conclusions. The article spends all it's text on Cameron, hardly any on the
"study" and like most unsubstantiated WorldNetDaily...no links!
I posted what the "study" was presumably according to the article. Some group got some files of abuse cases from Illinois. But you can read the
"article" the same as me. If it breeds "confidence" in you (despite your own acknowledgement of the problems with these conclusions) then by all
But by your own post you already understand Cameron's conclusions are wrong. So one more time... here's the "study" source as per WND.
The Leader acquired information from DCFS through the Freedom of Information Act indicating most sexual abuse of children was by foster
fathers, but that foster mothers were responsible for over three-fourths of physical abuse.
The study found 966 foster parents violated their charges. Of those who engaged in both physical and sexual abuse, eight of the 15 abused children of
their own sex.
I think it's generous to consider an outside undertaking like obtaining DCFS records a "study" but okay, fine. It's a study. It determined what it
determined. Most sexual abuse came from foster fathers, but most physical abuse overall came from foster mothers. And among those engaging in both
physical and sexual abuse, about half were of the same sex.
Since I already pointed out the DCFS agency does not track the sexual orientation of prospective foster or adoptive parents IN MY FIRST POST along
with the spurious nature of the "study" then I think you can comfortably "doubt" at this point radardog...
All that's left are people like Cameron, ReaganWOG, EdSinger and now MWM1331, convinced (apparently) the soldiers at Abu Gharib are gay.
Or the woman in my prior example of abusing a little girl must be a "lesbian."
And MWM, I am using logic here as Brimstone just did as well.
Proof of abuse is not proof of homosexuality, even if the abuse is "sexual" and between members of the same sex. They could be
but that's not shown here, and unless they are specifically pedophilles seeking pleasure
from children that happen to be of the same
gender....they're all just sick puppies, with no bearing from sexual orientation.
a person who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex and not to people of the opposite sex
Interesting. A person attracted
to the same sex. Doesn't say a damn thing about hates members of the same sex younger than him or her and gets
his or her "jollies" off abuse of a sexual nature, does it?
Really look at Brimstone's explanation of pedophillia again, and further consider the implications you're trying to make here about abuse.
If a man drags a woman off the street into an alley, invades her genitallia with a knife, urinates on her with his own "sexual organ" then sets her
on fire...is that proof of heterosexuality? And further proof that a heterosexual orientation leads to rape and abuse? Or just proof he's a sick SOB?
I say the latter, as I believe such a thing as healthy heterosexuality exists.
Or does your "logic" only work on same sex abuse? Specifically men one would presume since it's a given you exuse demented women hurting their
female charges. Have ya seen the news and what people do to kids? Much less what adults do to each other?
People rape and sodomize each other for all kinds of sick reasons that aren't remotely homosexual OR HETEROSEXUAL in nature.
And here's what no gay bashing propagandist really gets. Even if all the abusers were gay (which all clearly aren't), healthy homosexuality still
exists! Sucks for your agenda, but it does. But without accepting that, you couldn't possibly get past your own fallacies so I don't expect any