Petition to the BSA

[log2]

And I do believe that I used it correctly.

I'm sure you do. That you believe it, and probably sincerely, portends problems for future interactions.

That you don't like being called out is not my problem.

I find your attempts to so do entertaining.

[log2]

Well, it's good to know, log2, that anyone who has differing viewpoints than yourself is clearly biased and torturing the data and the definitions. Thanks, also, for questioning my professional credibility.

You're welcome. Let me know if I can ever be of assistance in doing so again.

I guess this means I'll be adopting your line of logic.

1) the majority of men who abuse boys claim to be heterosexual

2) men who abuse boys are obviously homosexual

3) Therefore, if we deny positions of leadership to self-claimed homosexuals, our children will be more safe

Nope--no flaws there.

If only I ever said that. It's not just your professional credibility I question.

As an aside, I wonder if the picture changes for you if we throw pederasty into the mix, as well as statutory rape. After all, once they hit puberty or 13, whichever is first, pedophilia is not the sole issue, is it?

Edited May 2, 2012 by log2

[carlimac]

Because they think it is and are mistaken? Much like a Baptist can think Mormons aren't Christians without being paid off by Ed Decker? Or any other situation where people have differing conclusions without being paid to have them?

Just wondering if you know something Dr. Cummings doesn't know.

"In a rousing address, American Psychological Association Past-President Dr. Nicholas Cummings shared his experience from his 60-year career as a psychologist and clinician. Dr. Cummings said that he has always been a champion of gay rights, and during his many years of leadership within the American Psychological Association, he influenced the organization to support many causes, including gay issues. However, as a scientist, he began to have serious concerns over the direction the APA eventually was taking in becoming more influenced by politics than by science. He began to write extensively on the ways that the APA is politically based rather than scientifically based, describing one of his recent books, “Eleven Blunders that Cripple Psychotherapy in America” (Routledge, 2008). He described his own experience in treating homosexuals for various issues, including men and women who were troubled with unwanted homosexual attractions. Dr. Cummings says he personally worked with homosexual clients who went on to marry and live heterosexual lives, confirming the research that reports that change is possible."

Another article:

NARTH Dr. Nicolosi on the APA Task Force Report

Edited May 2, 2012 by carlimac

[MarginOfError]

If only I ever said that. It's not just your professional credibility I question.

You certainly implied it when you posted

Is there a petition one may sign in support of the BSA's decision? After all, the Boy Scout oath specifies that Scouts should be "morally straight," and if one cannot abide by this oath, one has no business in the organization. This is especially true for the leaders, and more especially if it is the case that homosexuals are responsible for a disproportionately high number of child sexual abuse cases.

Then you cried foul when shown references that discredit the report you cited. Obviously, the defintions, research, and experience of people who actually work in those fields is irrelevant if the functional definitions they use don't support your opinions.

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of men who commit sexual offenses against boys self-identify as heterosexual. The implication that denying homosexual leadership positions in scouting is necessary to protect the children is flawed simply because filtering on that criteria won't actually screen out the people more likely to be the offenders.

By the way, if you have read the thread, you'd have noticed that I have no objection to people saying they object to homosexuals in scouting because of the "morally straight" clause. But to try to defend that position with false information is intellectually dishonest and ignorant.

As an aside, I wonder if the picture changes for you if we throw pederasty into the mix, as well as statutory rape. After all, once they hit puberty or 13, whichever is first, pedophilia is not the sole issue, is it?

Relevance?

Edited May 2, 2012 by MarginOfError

[MarginOfError]

Just wondering if you know something Dr. Cummings doesn't know.

"In a rousing address, American Psychological Association Past-President Dr. Nicholas Cummings shared his experience from his 60-year career as a psychologist and clinician. Dr. Cummings said that he has always been a champion of gay rights, and during his many years of leadership within the American Psychological Association, he influenced the organization to support many causes, including gay issues. However, as a scientist, he began to have serious concerns over the direction the APA eventually was taking in becoming more influenced by politics than by science. He began to write extensively on the ways that the APA is politically based rather than scientifically based, describing one of his recent books, “Eleven Blunders that Cripple Psychotherapy in America” (Routledge, 2008). He described his own experience in treating homosexuals for various issues, including men and women who were troubled with unwanted homosexual attractions. Dr. Cummings says he personally worked with homosexual clients who went on to marry and live heterosexual lives, confirming the research that reports that change is possible."

Another article:

NARTH Dr. Nicolosi on the APA Task Force Report

It isn't about what any one of us knows that Dr. Cummings doesn't. It's about the evaluation of the body of evidence presented to the APA.

It should also be noted that Dr. Cummings has vested interest in reparative therapy. It was a topic of his research and practice for years. When the APA stated that "psychologists are advised to avoid telling their clients they can change their orientations," it was done so on the basis that the body of evidence around this practice produced insufficient evidence to support its efficacy. They also acknowledged that it had succeeded in some circumstances, but there was no evidence of a pattern to those successes.

When success appears to behave as a random event, what cause do we have to recommend its use?

[MarginOfError]

Anyway, I'd suggest, again, that these questions be moved to another thread as they really have nothing to do with the issue of homosexuals in the BSA.

[carlimac]

It isn't about what any one of us knows that Dr. Cummings doesn't. It's about the evaluation of the body of evidence presented to the APA.

It should also be noted that Dr. Cummings has vested interest in reparative therapy. It was a topic of his research and practice for years. When the APA stated that "psychologists are advised to avoid telling their clients they can change their orientations," it was done so on the basis that the body of evidence around this practice produced insufficient evidence to support its efficacy. They also acknowledged that it had succeeded in some circumstances, but there was no evidence of a pattern to those successes.

And the evaluation of the scientific evidence was done by a board consisting only of gay activists psychologists. Those with opposing viewpoints were not chosen to be on the review board. It's hard to believe those folks on the board wouldn't have a vested interest themselves. Just think about it.

OK I'm done with this topic.

[log2]

Then you cried foul when shown references that discredit the report you cited.

I read the citations, visiting first the definitions, saw what was going on, and reported it. There is opposition in all things, after all - the mere existence of opposition does not discredit anything.

Obviously, the defintions, research, and experience of people who actually work in those fields is irrelevant if the functional definitions they use don't support your opinions.

Obviously, those definitions are not shared by all professionals in those fields, and neither are the professionals the arbiters of reality; the research and experience depends critically upon defintions - you choose yours, I choose mine. Fight!

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of men who commit sexual offenses against boys self-identify as heterosexual.

While engaging in homosexual behavior, which quite contradicts their words. Self-identification as a homosexual is neither necessary nor sufficient to define an individual as a homosexual. Self-identification as a heterosexual is likewise neither necessary nor sufficient to define an individual as a heterosexual. If someone is willing to self-identify as a homosexual, however, I'm willing to grant they just might be.

The implication that denying homosexual leadership positions in scouting is necessary to protect the children is flawed simply because filtering on that criteria won't actually screen out the people more likely to be the offenders.

Nobody ever said it was necessary. It is likewise not necessary to wear a seatbelt while operating a motor vehicle; wearing a seatbelt will, however, prevent injuries otherwise foreseeably likely to occur in certain circumstances.

By the way, if you have read the thread, you'd have noticed that I have no objection to people saying they object to homosexuals in scouting because of the "morally straight" clause. But to try to defend that position with false information is intellectually dishonest and ignorant.

If only it could be demonstrated to be false information; as it stands, we agree upon the sufficiency of the Oath as justification for the exclusion. As I noted, you've picked your biased experts, and I am listening to other biased experts; and, I also said, "if it is the case..."

Relevance?

Postpubescent same-sex sexual molestation is a concern in Scouting as well as prepubescent same-sex sexual molestation. I'm curious if it can be statistically shown that self-identifying heterosexuals are just as likely, on average, to engage in it, and whether that might have any bearing on this discussion. I noted your sources shy away from that issue... hmm. Edited May 3, 2012 by log2

[FunkyTown]

And the evaluation of the scientific evidence was done by a board consisting only of gay activists psychologists. Those with opposing viewpoints were not chosen to be on the review board. It's hard to believe those folks on the board wouldn't have a vested interest themselves.

That's quite the claim. Quote source?

[carlimac]

That's quite the claim. Quote source?

NARTH Dr. Nicolosi on the APA Task Force Report

[FunkyTown]

NARTH Dr. Nicolosi on the APA Task Force Report

That... Doesn't have any proof at all in it. Not only that, but it doesn't have any proof and doesn't say that the task report was specifically loaded with anything you said, nor did it say the task force crowded out anybody with differing viewpoints. In fact, that said nothing close to what I found controversial in what you were saying. Are you... Sure that this is the source you used to determine there was a conspiracy?

[carlimac]

That... Doesn't have any proof at all in it. Not only that, but it doesn't have any proof and doesn't say that the task report was specifically loaded with anything you said, nor did it say the task force crowded out anybody with differing viewpoints. In fact, that said nothing close to what I found controversial in what you were saying. Are you... Sure that this is the source you used to determine there was a conspiracy?

I didn't say there was a conspiracy. I said those chosen to be on the task force were all of the same mind- pro gay. And that there was no balance from the other side. Moe suggests alterior motive by Dr Cummings, a reparative therapist in this statement: "It should also be noted that Dr. Cummings has vested interest in reparative therapy." I am suggesting that those who were chosen to be on the task force and subsequently shot down all the positive research on reparative therapy are gay activists who might have alterior motives themselves. A fairly biased group as Dr. Nicolosi points out.

[Vort]

That... Doesn't have any proof at all in it. Not only that, but it doesn't have any proof and doesn't say that the task report was specifically loaded with anything you said, nor did it say the task force crowded out anybody with differing viewpoints. In fact, that said nothing close to what I found controversial in what you were saying. Are you... Sure that this is the source you used to determine there was a conspiracy?

Maybe I'm not understanding the gist of the conversation. The link certainly claims that the task force was a hand-picked group of those with a demonstrable pro-homosexuality bias. If this report is true -- and I see no obvious reason to believe it is not -- then why don't you find that significant?

If I hand-picked a group of antiMormons to form a task force to determine whether the LDS Church were justified in its claims of truthfulness, would you wonder what the task force's determination on the matter might possibly be? More to the point, would you consider it a fair, impartial, critical, and reliable analysis of the important issues?

[FunkyTown]

I didn't say there was a conspiracy. I said those chosen to be on the task force were all of the same mind- pro gay.

So... There's no conspiracy, but the people who set up the task force specifically chose people of a certain agenda? An agenda that has nothing to do with proving the science of a thing, which is their stated purpose, but merely to push an agenda you find wrongful?

con·spir·a·cy

   [kuhn-spir-uh-see] Show IPA

noun, plural con·spir·a·cies.

1.

the act of conspiring.

2.

an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.

3.

a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.

4.

Law . an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.

5.

any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

Origin:

1325–75; Middle English conspiracie, probably < Anglo-French; see conspire, -acy; replacing Middle English conspiracioun; see conspiration

Related forms

con·spir·a·tive, adjective

con·spir·a·to·ri·al  [kuhn-spir-uh-tawr-ee-uhl, -tohr-] Show IPA, con·spir·a·to·ry, adjective

con·spir·a·to·ri·al·ly, adverb

non·con·spir·a·to·ri·al, adjective

pre·con·spir·a·cy, noun, plural pre·con·spir·a·cies.

Dictionary.com Unabridged

Example Sentences

They did this so they could spread the evil conspiracy that life might be on other planets.

The conspiracy theories and corruption claims make for great headlines, but they miss the point.

Conspiracy theorists and advertisers aren't the only ones to profit from the continuing mystery, either.

— n , pl -cies

1. a secret plan or agreement to carry out an illegal or harmful act, esp with political motivation; plot

2. the act of making such plans in secret

By definition you are accusing them of a conspiracy.

And where is your proof that this is the case? Carli, I respect your right to different beliefs, but don't think you have science on your side in a lot of these things. I'm sure you think you do, but I can promise you that you are only accepting sources that agree with you. That's not legitimate science.

[Vort]

By definition you are accusing them of a conspiracy.

So you're of the mindset that "Any time two bankers talk, it's conspiracy"? That's fine, but then don't change the definition of conspiracy mid-stream. If any behind-the-curtain activity constitutes conspiracy, then without any possible doubt this committee was appointed by conspiracy.

Do you believe that the article carlimac pointed to was false -- that pro-reparative-therapy experts were not intentionally excluded from the task force, and that it was not made up of homosexuals and those who identify with the pro-homosexuality lobby?

[FunkyTown]

So you're of the mindset that "Any time two bankers talk, it's conspiracy"? That's fine, but then don't change the definition of conspiracy mid-stream. If any behind-the-curtain activity constitutes conspiracy, then without any possible doubt this committee was appointed by conspiracy.

Do you believe that the article carlimac pointed to was false -- that pro-reparative-therapy experts were not intentionally excluded from the task force, and that it was not made up of homosexuals and those who identify with the pro-homosexuality lobby?

I believe there is no proof that they were. And I'm not saying 'Any two bankers'. In this case, Carli asserted that a group of people of a specific agenda came forth and created a massive lie about what their actual purpose was for the purpose of engineering society better to their liking. And they got together to do so. I'm not changing conspiracy mid-sentence. That's very squarely a conspiracy. Here's the difference:

Banker A: Hey, Banker B - Wanna get a sandwich?

Banker B: Yes. Let's get a sandwich.

Not a conspiracy. Or if it is, it's a conspiracy to grab sandwiches.

Alternate this:

Psychologist A: Hey, Psychologist B. Let's falsify reports showing that gender attraction alteration is harmful and lets get a whole bunch of people together to agree to that lie so we can make society more to our liking.

Psychologist B: WOOO!*tears off shirt and runs down the street*

That's a conspiracy.

Edited May 3, 2012 by FunkyTown

[Soulsearcher]

I think the article was true. the pro reparative people were left out. i don't how ever see that as a bad thing, and before you roll your eyes let me explain. i don't think it was just because of the reparative therapy stance. Reading into a lot of their background they also held very strong ideas as to the origins of homosexuality that also don't mesh with the standard and many of which have been dis-proven. It's one thing to say "we don't agree with your treatment options" i do think i'd have an issue with them being left out just for that. I don't have a problem with them being left out if they completely miss the understanding of the entire issue and ignore much of the facts on the issue which reading some of the work from the people suggested shows they do. to use vorts example, don't use anti's if you want a clear view of the subject.

[Vort]

Here's the difference:

Banker A: Hey, Banker B - Wanna get a sandwich?

Banker B: Yes. Let's get a sandwich.

Not a conspiracy. Or if it is, it's a conspiracy to grab sandwiches.

Alternate this:

Psychologist A: Hey, Psychologist B. Let's falsify reports showing that gender attraction alteration is harmful and lets get a whole bunch of people together to agree to that lie so we can make society more to our liking.

Psychologist B: WOOO!*tears off shirt and runs down the street*

That's a conspiracy.

How about:

Psychologist A: I am so darn tired of those stupid Christians imposing their ridiculous values on normal people. "Reparative therapy", indeed! Where do they get off calling for "reparation" of a normal, natural, completely beautiful expression of human sexuality like homosex?

Psychologist B: Amen, brother. (Pretty clever, huh?) Those troglodytes just refuse to understand the science behind it.

Psychologist A: Hey...what say we put together an expert task force to examine the matter? We can ask respected and credentialed psychologists to make a determination on the matter of whether their so-called "reparative therapy" has any value.

Psychologist B: Brilliant! Then we can get an official review of the matter by people who actually know!

Psychologist A: Shall we accept Dr. X, a published practitioner and open homosexual?

Psychologist B: But of course. Her intimate (heh, heh) knowledge of homosexuality can only be a bonus for our august committee. How about Prof. Y, who has published several papers on the normalization of homosexual thought into society?

Psychologist A: Absolutely! You can't easily replicate those impeccable credentials! Hey, how about Dr. Z, who has practiced "reparative therapy" for fifteen years?

[pause]

Psychologists A & B: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Psychologist B [wiping away tears]: How utterly absurd! Why might we want to put that sort of brainwashed fool onto our panel? We're looking for a solution, not an extension of the problem.

Psychologist A [gasping for breath]: The opportunity was just too good! I couldn't help myself!

Conspiracy? Or good, solid science?

[FunkyTown]

Hahah! In that case, it's a conspiracy of fools, but it's still a conspiracy. Why? Do you have source that this is the case?

[Vort]

I don't have a problem with them being left out if they completely miss the understanding of the entire issue and ignore much of the facts on the issue which reading some of the work from the people suggested shows they do. to use vorts example, don't use anti's if you want a clear view of the subject.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding. Was not the issue the efficacy of reparative therapy? If so, then who cares what the practitioners believe about homosexuality? If they can show that their therapy produces an actual change of sexual orientation, that's all that matters.

Right?

[Vort]

Hahah! In that case, it's a conspiracy of fools, but it's still a conspiracy. Why? Do you have source that this is the case?

Do you think it pure coincidence that the task force was staffed entirely by those with pro-homosexuality leanings and utterly excluded those who, by the very nature of their work, had intimate knowledge of reparative therapy?

[FunkyTown]

Do you think it pure coincidence that the task force was staffed entirely by those with pro-homosexuality leanings and utterly excluded those who, by the very nature of their work, had intimate knowledge of reparative therapy?

Not at all. The article I was linked to didn't go in to the members of the task force or who they were. It just made some sweeping statements.

Then again, I'd want to get more information like: "What percentage of psychologists practice reparative therapy?" in order to find out if there was a deliberate attempt to cover up the truth. Why? Do you have source that talks about the history and publicly held beliefs of the various members of that task force prior to this particular study?

[Vort]

Not at all. The article I was linked to didn't go in to the members of the task force or who they were. It just made some sweeping statements.

Then again, I'd want to get more information like: "What percentage of psychologists practice reparative therapy?" in order to find out if there was a deliberate attempt to cover up the truth. Why? Do you have source that talks about the history and publicly held beliefs of the various members of that task force prior to this particular study?

Nope. I'm just going off the links provided. I have no inside knowledge of any of this. I just don't think it's bizarre to believe that people in authority "stack the court" to swing judgments in their favor. If you want to call that conspiracy, that's fine -- but then, don't lump such conspiracies and conspiracy theorists in with the tinfoil-hat crowd.

[FunkyTown]

Nope. I'm just going off the links provided. I have no inside knowledge of any of this. I just don't think it's bizarre to believe that people in authority "stack the court" to swing judgments in their favor. If you want to call that conspiracy, that's fine -- but then, don't lump such conspiracies and conspiracy theorists in with the tinfoil-hat crowd.

Fair play, fair play, but... I didn't. I suggested that she needed to quote source if she were accusing someone of a conspiracy and provide proof. If she or whatever news outlet that was had said, "The psychologists were well known to have set fire to children.", then I would have asked them to quote source. Just because something isn't crazy doesn't mean it's true.

[carlimac]

Fair play, fair play, but... I didn't. I suggested that she needed to quote source if she were accusing someone of a conspiracy and provide proof. If she or whatever news outlet that was had said, "The psychologists were well known to have set fire to children.", then I would have asked them to quote source. Just because something isn't crazy doesn't mean it's true.

You're making this too complicated. Does the review board seem balanced? Why or why not? It's really very simple. No need to overthink it.