Jimquisition: Mass Effect 3: A Gay Erotic Love Story

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NEXT
 

THANK YOU BASED JIM! THANK YOU!

El Luck:

njsykora:

El Luck:
Ok this doesn't have anything to do with the video but why am I being asked to verify my age?

When you watch the video, you'll know.

Yeah I'm watching it and I get the reason for it. But if they're able to see if i'm a pub club member or not to give me the advertising accordingly, surely they can use the same thing to see that I'm old enough without needing me to put in the information.

Well you see, everybody knows that when you make your account you can just write a fake age, but when prompted suddenly with the imminent question about your birthday, it leaves you completely flabbergasted, and compels the truth from your finger tips.

evilthecat:
[

Okay, you've taken the SPRCs upper estimate on the rate of suicide ideation among LGBT youth (not the 'homosexual suicide rate', if you've done research you should know better than to be inspecific).

Suicide ideation means basically 'contemplating suicide', and most research doesn't put the number at 40%. It's between 30 and 40 percent, making LGBT youth under the age of 24 between twice or three times as likely to contemplate suicide as heterosexuals. Assuming a similar ratio of ideation/attempt, the actual rate of suicide attempt among young LGBT people would be about 10%, though that probably won't be accurate at all.

If this is how badly you handle one statistic which you probably got from wikipedia (where it is mislabelled as the rate of suicide attempt, so I still don't know where you got the idea that it is the suicide rate), I don't think you have any right to present yourself as having done any research on this.

When you pull this shit, you're just outright lying. It's lying to present an upper estimate as a generally accepted fact, it is lying to present a suicide ideation rate as a suicide rate. What else have you lied about to try and make this ridiculous case?

Therumancer:
Your typical Pedo doesn't look like the movie stereotype, he's basically the ordinary looking, "acceptable" gay dude, and almost guaranteed he says all the right things about hating pedos, and supports the community in exactly the right and acceptable ways. This is why saying it's not true, and producing statistics gather with that specific intent is meaningless.

No, your typical "pedo" (by which I assume you mean child sex abuser, not just a paraphiliac because we have no reliable evidence in that regard) is someone the child already knows. Usually it's a family member, a close family friend or someone else with unrestricted access to the child, not some dude who hangs around at the arcade. Please learn this before making completely incorrect generalizations.

If the average child molester is a gay man, then explain to me why reported rates of child sex abuse are twice as high for young girls, and that this pattern crops up globally. It's not even confined to a single country, practically anywhere where there is child sex abuse girls are suffering it more, or at least reporting to do so.

If you're talking about "personal experience" then please bother to factor in visibility issues. The guy who hangs around in the arcade may be obvious, but you have no evidence that he's "typical" of child abusers.

I'm not re-entering this discussion, but I want to clarify two things for a related point, about why I'm not even really bothering to try and make a point here.

You sit here and say the 40% suicide rate is stupid, and present it as my information and attack it that way. The thing is, that's not MY information, that's something someone else claimed. Yet here you are jumping down my throat because that claim isn't specific, and is in fact quite ridiculous. It's especially ridiculous in the context I mentioned it in since one of those using the figure (it showed up more than once) did so pretty much in the same breath that they mentioned an overwhelming support for homosexuals that was going to change the world utterly in a couple of decades, the implication being that it's really a small group of people that can somehow force a 40% suicide rate.

I don't bother because your not even paying attention to what is being said, or where that information came from in the course of this conversation. You see a fact that is wrong, or at least presented out of context, and you attack ME as being the one who presented it when that came from YOUR side I've mentioned it largely for th same reasons, where it was actually presented in a far more ridiculous way than what you accuse me of when you get down to it.

Otherwise, I'm going to ask a simple question... how many Pedophilles have you dealt with? I mean seriously. What kind of training have you received for dealing with situations like that? What kind of authority or pseudo-authority did you have that lead to you getting that training and entering into a situation where you would routinely deal with such people?

See, the thing is I used to have to deal with people as part of my job, and did it for close to a decade. You quote a hollywood-type profile about things, and but actually don't know anything because you've never been trained, you don't even stop to think about how the profile YOUR spouting makes little or no sense.

Yes, there is a profile for people who use a relationship with a child to exploit them, however that's FAR less common than you might think. It has a high statistical representation because the risks in exploiting someone your that close to are substantial, leading to people being caught, so there are a lot of people like that to study. In reality your typical predator, sexual or otherwise, will hunt outside their immediate area, to increase the chances of getting away with it. A fairly random attack with no pre-existing ties makes the criminal FAR harder to catch especially if they have nothing on record to begin with. Your typical "stalking" is nothing like in the movies either, while these long, drawn out period of cat and mouse with a killer or rapist learning everything about their victim to be make for compelling drama, the simple fact is that crimes work best the less variables are involved. You go to a high traffic area with children left along, watch one for a short period of time, and then take action. Most people who do this kind of thing, tend to be charismatic because they need to inspire confidence to be able to get the victim in position. Your typical pedo rapist isn't going to be that creepy loner, prison inmate stereotype, pathetic fatso or the quiet guy nobody notices, like on TV. it's going to be a guy people haven't generally seen before, but left behind a generally positive impression. If he's openly gay he's going to make the guy who makes it seem like a good thing, or at least acceptable in his case (ie the guy bigots in denial will be referring to when they say "I have this gay friend, but otherwise...). It's about inspiring trust, acting quickly, and moving around.... Predators, real ones, very rearely shit where they eat so to speak because it makes it too easy to create a pattern.

The thing is though that with all of the politics and civil liberties out there proof, especially if the guys are careful, can be tricky, and even in cases where your right about the accusation and win, there can be bad press involved. At the casino where I worked forever the casino really cared less about protecting kids than making money, as long as nobody got raped so they wouldn't deal with liability issues, they really didn't care. Groups like NAMBLA which were at the time hiring a lot of lawyers to defend pedophilles were creating bad press and such for people who caught them behind the scenes. As a result the casino didn't really want to see many Pedos caught and put into police custody, and have the resulting battle fall back on the casino. Indeed from a certain pragmatic sense the liability from an occasional failure/rape and bad press if it went public, was worth the price of the press that could come from say 10 Pedos being actually caught, even if they don't cause all kinds of problems by claiming discimination (and being falsely accused) with or without groups like NAMBLA, at the very least they are going to have press out there making it look like they are a magnet for sexual predators (which they are, the fault of management for not forcing parents to have their kids attended despite policies, it cares more about the money the parents are spending than the safety of the children which creates the whole issue of how Security is forced to deasl with the situation because we're the guys who take the blame for anything that happens).

The point of the above is that if you catch a dude trying to lure a young boy into a stairwell, and chase him off, your typical security guy not just at a casino like I worked out (the casino is simply copying general policies intending to avoid the fate of businesses that got themselves eaten alive by liability in doing the right thing due to the way the system works nowadays) isn't going to have him arrested, and that's something predators tend to keep in mind in selecting their hunting grounds as well. Buisnesses that will put press and risks of liability ahead of seeing justice done. The guy is going to be chased off, perhaps even walked out of the building with a security escort, and then we might not see that one again specifically, but at the same time there is no record of him being caught anywhere official because the idea is for nobody to know it happened.

The thing is that Code Adam training, will usually come along with a pretty solid reality check on what your employer actually wants you to do with this information. As a security officer for any big place, not just a casino, your not a cop, your there to protect your employer and that means their money. Their concern about the safety of kids and stuff is entirely based around a fear over liability, and how far your going to go is dependant what benefits the employer most. Employers generally want security to keep things quiet, and make it so nothing happens, any kind of noise, catching someone or not, is by definition bad. The employer wants to forget there is a security department (and not shockingly that happens, do your job too well and they cut you back until you don't have the people to do your job... then they realize it was only quiet because you had enough security and the right policies, things quiet down again, and then the beancounter starts to think your a waste of money again.... ad infinium).

Now yes, people can play semantics about gay and pedo not being synonomous because I'm not adding more paragraphs explaining my thoughts there yet again, and that I know the differance, and am simply writing it that way for the sake of simplicity, or whatever else. It doesn't matter because I'm pretty much done, but you might as well no waste the time feigning ignorance just the same when the intent should be painfully obvious, and if it's not read the thread to this point to catch up (nobody seems to).

The point I'm making is that while you can call me a liar, what I say about how gay pedophilles act, their numbers in relation to say straight pedophilles, and similar things, all comes from experience and training. As in people have taught me what to look for and how to deal with this (in a certain context) and I have gone out doing my job, seen this with my own eyes, not just someone elses assurances, and dealt with real pedophilles trying to lure real children, for real rape. Don't tell me it's not so, because I know otherwise. If you don't believe me, then we really have nothing to say to each other here anyway

I'm done, save argueing the specifics of anything above for another time (it will doubtlessly occur). The point is that if your going to get into a serious topic, at least try and verify what the guy your talking to is actually saying. Don't put someone else's factoid into my mouth, and really if I tell you I'm speaking from experience, it's kind of pointless to try and throw out a profile. I mean either your wrong, or I'm going to say you are as I'm already saying that I'm speaking from experience, and if you think I'm lying, why bother? I don't deny the profile exists in this case, just that reality has shown it's not as applicable as hollywood makes it out to be. Of course anyon who has learned anything about the old VICAPS system and it's later successors (ie profiling in a very basic way, it wasn't the focus of what I was learning in school) should probably be able to recognize the problem with some of these profiles especially when they have been around for a while. For example there used to be a lot of focus on the "least effort" principle, which is to say that a criminal who wants to committ a crime can be typically found around the area of the crime because someone who say wants to rob a store isn't going to go to a store accross the state any more than they would if they wanted a gallon of milk instead. There is a certain kind of logic to that in specific situations, but for the most part someone who actually plans a crime like a rape, murder, or robbery and isn't absolutly desperate is going to want to do it someplace where they are less likely to be recognized. You don't generally rob the store you shop at every week because even with a mask someone might recognize or remember you far more likely than someplace you don't normally go. If your a pedophille sexual predator you don't go after a kid from the local school or one you know well as a general rule for the same reasons. Likewise guys who do this kind of thing are usually ones confident enough to get away with it and have the tools. Guys who can make people trust them, not some creepy old dude in a van cruising along saying "hey kid, want some candy" or just trying to grab a kid in an arcade and wrestle them into a bathroom or whatever.

You are... A flippin... Genius!

Hadn't had such fun in a good while! Also, I think that's an interesting talent you've got there...

Furthermore, I just don't understand why on earth it's such a big deal. I can respect the arguement that it slightly contradicts established canon a bit, but... It's not like people don't experiment sometimes. You know, like Shepard (possibly) did with the aliens.

As for the pandering... Couldn't you argue that Mass Effect have been pandering to heterosexuals all along, then? What makes an -optional- homoseuxal encounter any different?
And then, there is the arguement that adding one in is going to detract valuable time and resources. Were it somehow magically different when they programmed the heterosexual romantic options in one and two?

Of course, there's also the satirical "arguement" over why they won't add beastiality and the likes while they're at it... Unlike the other arguements that does at least have some ground in logic, there's absolutly nothing but homophobia beneath this one. I'm sorry, but there isn't. Put simply: those are both illegal for rather compelling reasons and are rather rare. Homosexuallity isn't illegal (in the less retarded bits of the world) and there is no reason for it to be that. There.

But above all... It's just there, it's -optional-, you don't have to pursue it unless you want to, yourself. Why on earth is it even an issue?

And, at last... I am willing to bet there wouldn't be a -single- peep in objection about this if the homorelations were restricted to women only.

I lost it at "ill-advised goatee". XD I loved this.

Probably the best video I've seen so far this year. Well done Sir. :D

Did you really just read that to 'Rose of May'...

...Stop making me feel dirty about final fantasy 9.

Syntax Man:
Real mature, seems that this world still has a long way to go.

As for the actual episode...what the flying fuck was that?

1: Society isn't mature, this is why we have prudish mothers protesting Toys'r'US having comics of a gay marriage.

2: Jim was trying to point out how ridiculous the fears of homophobia are when it comes to video games by doing a "Reductio ad absurdum". Showing where illogical would take us if we went to it's most absurd logical conclusion, then letting the contrast between that ridiculousness and reality educate us. As some people really do feel that by playing a video game that lets you have man-on-man sex it will turn you gay, even if woman-on-woman sex was there before...

And just after I watched this I saw an advertisement for pre-ordering ME3. Teehee.

The notion that femShep can be lesbian but maleShep can't be gay really rustles my jimmies. I thought this whole "homosexual option in games" debacle was resolved after Dragon Age 2.

piscian:
Wow that was complete asinine garbage. I got about 4 minutes in before I realized the video was still playing in the background and shut it off. Penis penis throbbing penis. I get how that might be funny if it didn't remind me so clearly of waiting in line at the DMV.

...Why do throbbing penises remind you of the DMV, I think you might be doing something wrong...

Oh God, I was laughing so hard I had tears in my eyes.
Best Jimquisition yet!

Stick Antolini:

piscian:
Wow that was complete asinine garbage. I got about 4 minutes in before I realized the video was still playing in the background and shut it off. Penis penis throbbing penis. I get how that might be funny if it didn't remind me so clearly of waiting in line at the DMV.

...Why do throbbing penises remind you of the DMV, I think you might be doing something wrong...

When Im at the DMV I always pull every ticket until i hit 69.

Now yes, people can play semantics about gay and pedo

No, they are being factual, and you obviously have rather bad training on the subject and are simply reiterating what you read somewhere on the internet.

The science on the subject is clear: Statistically, pedophiles do not have proportionally more gays than straight people. In fact, there are several studies that focused on this particular subject. These studies actually tested for sexuality, based on arousal.

And oddly, every single time, the perentage of homosexuals among pedophiles is single digit. What happens is that even people who molest boys are usually straight (as expected, since people usually are straight). They only have interest in women. Why boys? They fit into the pattern. Smooth skin, soft voice, lack of body hair, smaller size: Pre-puberty boys are often taken as mini-women.

Objectively, this pedophile is straight. He picks his victim for, in his eyes, feminine traits, and only shows arousal towards women as adults. He will usually have a happy marriage as well, with women thinking he performs well in bed. Men will disgust him.

Homophobic people will call these people gay, however, to make a point to bash gay people by skewing these numbers. But the perps usually aren't gay, would never see themselves as gay, and in fact could never be seen as gay.

You go to a high traffic area with children left along, watch one for a short period of time, and then take action.

This too is false, and proves you never had much contact with real police work (or were really, really bad at it). Usually, child molesters do not do this. This is TV series child molestation, not real child molestation. High-traffic areas are among the least likely area for a child molester to act. The areas a child molester are likely to act in are areas with very low traffic, like their own home, their school, or the church.

This is why by far the overwhelming majority of child abuse cases happen within the confines of the family, or other areas considered "safe", not in "high-traffic areas".

is going to want to do it someplace where they are less likely to be recognized.

Wrong. This is a hollywood-level of understanding, not what happens in the real world. In the real world, the child molester usually does not think that far, and assumes they can keep the child quiet by the authority they have over the child.

And it works! Look how long it usually takes for child abuse victims to talk. It can take decades. Since it's done by friends. Teachers. Someone the child knows, respects and/or fears.

Meanwhile, a complete stranger will have the children MUCH more likely to report something. Because the adult is a stranger, and not someone with power over the child. Raping a child that doesn't know you is simply a much higher risk.

That is why these cases end up with murder at MUCH higher rates, whereas all the family/school/priest rapes do not. And which is why the later are much more common. This fact already proves you wrong, wrong, wrong.

The point I'm making is that while you can call me a liar, what I say about how gay pedophilles act, their numbers in relation to say straight pedophilles, and similar things, all comes from experience and training. As in people have taught me what to look for and how to deal with this (in a certain context) and I have gone out doing my job, seen this with my own eyes, not just someone elses assurances, and dealt with real pedophilles trying to lure real children, for real rape. Don't tell me it's not so, because I know otherwise. If you don't believe me, then we really have nothing to say to each other here anyway

And I know you're making this up (or had really terrible training), because due to my job I have actual experience with dealing with children that went through child abuse. Unlike you, I have more than a cursory knowledge on the subject, as well.

And considering that the science on the subject agrees with my point, it's quite unlikely that I'm wrong. You meanwhile kept reiterating falsehoods that were proven wrong 20-30 years ago. Worse, these falsehoods are used today to protect child molesters. Your bad arguments are usually used to deny that a coach, a priest, or a father could be the perp, which leads to blame on the child ("the child made it up!" "he couldn't have done it, he's too kind"). People with your arguments are the very people that blame the victim in child abuse cases, and cause SO much trauma on the victims.

It is horrible and you should feel horrible. How dare you turn something as serious and damaging as this into a point to bash a group of people you evidently dislike, fully knowing that your "point" actively helps to hurt children? If you had any training with proper police, you would know that nearly everything you said is wrong.

How can you live with this?

Yes, there is a profile for people who use a relationship with a child to exploit them, however that's FAR less common than you might think. It has a high statistical representation because the risks in exploiting someone your that close to are substantial, leading to people being caugh

This is utterly wrong. It's exactly the other way round. The risks are LOW, not HIGH, as proven by, you know, these cases taking an average of over twelve years(!) to even have the victim ABLE to accuse their molester, at which point the evidence is already gone. Most of these cases never manage to reach court, and the perp gets away scot free.

Hell, this is why teachers or priests usually can molest dozens of children. Even if the children say something, people with your flawed understanding of reality accuse them of lying and shame them into silence. They think most rapists are strangers. This is a persistent narrative that flies in the face of research, and that people nevertheless cling to, because they don't want to believe that nice teacher could be a rapist.

And they are objectively wrong. You should be ashamed. If you had any training at all, you would know that you're lying, in one of the most disgusting ways possible, for compltely terrible reasons, only to bash a group of people you hate so much that you seem to think sacrificing real children to bash them is an acceptable thing.

Guys, come on. An idiot is still an idiot, no matter how verbose.
When arguing with him, he'll first drag you to his level and then defeats you with experience.
There's just no point.

I'm not sure whether to be amused, aroused, offended, or all three at once.

Loethlin:
Guys, come on. An idiot is still an idiot, no matter how verbose.
When arguing with him, he'll first drag you to his level and then defeats you with experience.
There's just no point.

I love how the latest person he talked to is actually qualified to speak on the subject, and he bragged about being the one with actual knowledge and experience on the subject.

Taunta:
And just after I watched this I saw an advertisement for pre-ordering ME3. Teehee.

The notion that femShep can be lesbian but maleShep can't be gay really rustles my jimmies. I thought this whole "homosexual option in games" debacle was resolved after Dragon Age 2.

Dragon age 2 only made it worse??? :?

5ilver:

Taunta:
And just after I watched this I saw an advertisement for pre-ordering ME3. Teehee.

The notion that femShep can be lesbian but maleShep can't be gay really rustles my jimmies. I thought this whole "homosexual option in games" debacle was resolved after Dragon Age 2.

Dragon age 2 only made it worse??? :?

Did it? Well damn. Nevermind then. I'm pretty sure we've already had this discussion over DA2 though.

chiefohara:

Tanakh:

Volf:
Your arguing over symantics now.

No, he is saying gay assholes don't do fucked up shit due being gays, but due being assholes, same as straight assholes don't ruffie girls due being straight.

Volf:
It's not him, though. It's Shepard.

It's still his image, and he should have final say over that. Actually if Bioware really want this option in the first game, why not just get a model that was ok with it?

I did a bit of research, Mark Meer never objected to it at all. He even recorded the dialogue for the gay Kaiden scene's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPMOlEfhWGE

Mark Meer is just the voice actor of Shepard. Mark Vanderloo is the model for DefaultSheps face and presumably he is the one that objected to having his image attached to anything gay. It's just a rumor though and begs the question why he would be ok with it now.

Therumancer:

Jimothy Sterling:

Therumancer:
The problem with Jim's rant, is that I think he's characterizing the majority of the opposition entirely wrong, which kind of ruins what otherwise might have been a pretty impressive way of making a counter arguement about it's ridiculousness. But then again one of the problems with the left wing and those defending left wing issues is that they tend to create an image of the enemy in their own mind, and beat up straw men, without ever dealing with the actual issues.. and that's one of the reasons the US at least remains so polarized despite the left wing blowing it's own horn and trying to act like it represents a massive, clear majority when it doesn't (which is an issue well beyond this)

There is an irony in you accusing me of being left wing, and thus inventing an enemy in my head.

Because I am not left wing. I am a centrist.

So ... maybe not rely on that strawman too heavily!

Despite what you might think I do have a decent amount of respect for you. I will however say that you can only judge someone by the positions they espouse. While you DO have some centrist views, as I do, such as in regard to the game industry getting too greedy and corrupt, without being anti-capitalism in a general sense, when it comes to social policy and a lot of other things you seem to have been saying you are definatly at least a social liberal. Your entire point and humor in this column relies largely on the belief and projection of the people who don't want male homosexuality being inherantly flawed, before exagerrating that to the extremes that you do for Jimquisition for humor value.

I'm perfectly willing to say that I'm right wing, but accross my span of beliefs, or those that can be verified, I am closer to being a centrist than what you've actually presented in these forums, given your limited participation on subjects that can be given an outright political affiliation. You've pretty much espoused one centrist point of view on the gaming industry, and one left wing point of view (here), which has you definatly leading into the leftward camp. I do not ever seeing a single right wing point of view espoused on any subject you've covered, but perhaps you can remind me?

I myself (and I've actually taken some of those polls for it) wind up being moderate right wing a Republican almost on the line with Libertarian on graphs (to put it into US parties). Overall my social politics are pretty much dead center, my international political views are far, far right, and I'm mid-leftward on the subject of civil liberties. In recent trends I'm a guy that say opposes most goverment electronic surveillance, but feels that once the goverment has already met the requirements to seize property and data (which are pretty high on their own) they have the right to force the owner to decrypt it, because largely once they have gotten that far a ridiculous number of hoops have been jumped through and requirements met to begin with. Social policy simply seems to be a hot topic of debate on these forums so comes up fairly often, but I've sounded off on enough subjects where people should have a pretty good idea where I stand accross the board. Admittedly in your case there is far less data availible, at least through this site.

I'll also go so far to say that when it comes to politics, this site does lean so heavily left in most cases that people don't recognize a centrist when they see one, and I confess that could be the case here, if you are simply on the left for this paticular issue. As I pointed out, and people seemed to miss, on this paticular kind of issue I am really in the central area, with both the extremes finding me an anathema with the left wing settling for nothing but complete acceptance and assimilation, and treating anyone who doesn't embrace that as a moronic enemy, and those equally to the right saying the same thing from a differant perspective. Basically I'm one of those people who believe in tolerance, but is against forced acceptance, and that applies to a lot of things accross a large spectrum even if I've become more personally invested in this specific issue due to a large body of experience. A kind of experience that creates what science fiction fans would call an out of context problem, because someone without actual experience is incapable of really understanding the other point of view. In general (not directly focused on this) it's one of the reasons why I believe that police/civil enforcement experience should be a requirement to hold public office and set policies, especially social policies. An idea I've taken from guys like Robert Heinlan (and no, not specifically from Starship Troopers, while not directly stated I think Gulf and it's sequel/apocolyptic ending Friday sort of made the point as to why fairly well).

Now granted you might dislike me right now, and especially on this issue, but I hope that won't last for the long term, and lead to enemity. I do apologize if I mislabel you, but at the same time, I can only call it as I see it.

So in short, if you've read this far, I do apologize if I offended you.

Neither angry nor offended. I am simply saying that to disregard someone for assumed political positions is pretty strawmannish in its own right.

could not stop laughing :D

Therumancer:
You see a fact that is wrong, or at least presented out of context, and you attack ME as being the one who presented it when that came from YOUR side I've mentioned it largely for th same reasons, where it was actually presented in a far more ridiculous way than what you accuse me of when you get down to it.

Genuine Evil misquoted the statistic in obvious exasperation then corrected himself later, it was clearly a mistake. You, however, ran with it for two posts as a part of your argument.. in the same post where you honestly have the balls to accuse other people of being selective about data.

Even without this.. 99.9% of of the population isn't gay? Science ties human sexuality to "chemical reactions"? Gay men are twice as likely as anyone else to molest children?

I can't even argue against this stuff because (other than, possibly, the second one) I have no idea where you're even getting it, and I've researched human sexuality for a large section of my adult life.

All I can concretely see is the fact that Genuine Evil made a relatively minor error which would have been obvious and wouldn't even have required explanation to anyone who had the slightest clue what they were talking about, because noone in their right mind would believe that 40% of gay people kill themselves, and yet you took it completely literally.

Therumancer:
Yes, there is a profile for people who use a relationship with a child to exploit them, however that's FAR less common than you might think. It has a high statistical representation because the risks in exploiting someone your that close to are substantial, leading to people being caught, so there are a lot of people like that to study.

Fucking hell.. do you honestly believe this?

Firstly, 'high statistical representation' doesn't cut it. We're talking about something between 7 and 25 percent of reported incidents being committed by strangers, that's generally less than the reported rates of people being sexually abused by family members, let alone other acquaintances.

1) The "risks", or the number of arrests, don't even matter. A crime can be reported without there being any suspect. Many incidents of child abuse are actually reported when the victim is an adult.

2) Since the largest "risk" in terms of the crime showing up on statistics is the child reporting, who are children more likely to report? Strangers, or people they know and trust?

Therumancer:
Predators, real ones, very rearely shit where they eat so to speak because it makes it too easy to create a pattern.

Basic mistake. Most child abusers who appear in the criminal justice system don't see themselves as predators.

There is a demonstrable correlation between people who are brought in for child sex abuse and low self esteem, poor social skills, cognitive distortion, psychopathy and diminished self-concept. They often rationalize their behaviour by believing that what they're doing is consensual or doesn't harm the child. There are many many studies on this both in the prison population and in support/social groups. Here's a few random abstracts.

http://sax.sagepub.com/content/13/2/123.abstract
http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/14/9/955.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/019188698390154X

You talk about Hollywood and TV, but your head seems to be stuck in tabloid journalism. Self-conscious sexual predators, regardless of the crime they commit, are a tiny minority of overall sexual criminals.

Therumancer:
The point I'm making is that while you can call me a liar, what I say about how gay pedophilles act, their numbers in relation to say straight pedophilles, and similar things, all comes from experience and training.

I don't care whether you're lying or not, though yeah, you are lying when you use stats out of context (or, as I suspect is likely in this case, make them up).

The point is that at best, you're seeing a tiny fragment of the overall picture. What you've personally seen doesn't mean a damn thing when you're trying to claim that gay men are twice as likely to attack children.. There is no way your personal experience can evidence that, so I don't care about it. There are countless reasons why you personally might see a lot of male paedophiles targeting boys while working security for a casino which aren't actually related to any kind of broad social trend.

Moreover, in making this assertion you're (probably without realizing it) wheeling out a debunked, laughable 19th century theory which is socially harmful. That isn't lying, but it's pretty fucking despicable nonetheless. Paraesthesia doesn't exist. Noone with any background in modern psychology, medicine or social theory believes in it. There is no demonstrable psychological mechanism by which a person who is gay is also more likely to become a paedophile. Jumping on the corpse of a dead theory because it might still have enough weight to carry a homophobic argument is abhorrent, and a perfect example of why your "side" is losing this one so incredibly badly, and the growing number of people who aren't particularly bothered by gay people are increasingly sick of you.

Taunta:
rustles my jimmies.

^Funnier than the video! Especially from a girl... what are your jimmies, and why are they rustling???

Actually, Jim makes a good point overall but why did it need to take so long?

Wolfram01:
Actually, Jim makes a good point overall but why did it need to take so long?

Maybe to really...

*cool shades on*

...ram it in.

Volf:

trollnystan:

Volf:
agreed, but there are homosexuals in prison that have raped people, which is why I provided that as a example

Again, the fact that they are homosexual is (most likely) NOT why they raped. It was (most likely) not their sexual desire that made them want to rape someone, but their need for control/dominance/etc. There ARE exceptions of course, but from what I've read/heard those are few in comparison to the ones that rape for control/dominance/etc.

The fact that they may or may not be gay is completely incidental in the majority of cases. In fact, you're probably more likely to find that a homosexual in prison is targeted to be raped by his heterosexual fellow inmates than the other way around.

well then, I'm referring to the exact cases where a gay man rapes in prison out of lust

Well, if we're going to narrow it down to that TINY percentage then one would have more cause to say that being heterosexual has hurt people, as a bigger percentage of straight men have raped out of lust than gay men have ever done. It's a rather rotten argument against homosexuality is what I'm saying.

trollnystan:

Volf:

trollnystan:

Again, the fact that they are homosexual is (most likely) NOT why they raped. It was (most likely) not their sexual desire that made them want to rape someone, but their need for control/dominance/etc. There ARE exceptions of course, but from what I've read/heard those are few in comparison to the ones that rape for control/dominance/etc.

The fact that they may or may not be gay is completely incidental in the majority of cases. In fact, you're probably more likely to find that a homosexual in prison is targeted to be raped by his heterosexual fellow inmates than the other way around.

well then, I'm referring to the exact cases where a gay man rapes in prison out of lust

Well, if we're going to narrow it down to that TINY percentage then one would have more cause to say that being heterosexual has hurt people, as a bigger percentage of straight men have raped out of lust than gay men have ever done. It's a rather rotten argument against homosexuality is what I'm saying.

...and now we have totally derailed from my original comment that an example of homosexuals that hurt people are those in prison.

Um, I played as Femshep in all the other games and went with Liara in ME1 and ME2.

4RT1LL3RY:
Um, I played as Femshep in all the other games and went with Liara in ME1 and ME2.

Nah, that's cool. We just don't want them there gays to get all up in our video games, lesbians are totally different.

Orange Monkey:
I'm not sure whether to be amused, aroused, offended, or all three at once.

The answer is yes.

I threw up, but in the Scrootie McBoogerballs kinda way. Good job Jim, fine episode this week.

tlgAlaska:

chiefohara:

Tanakh:
No, he is saying gay assholes don't do fucked up shit due being gays, but due being assholes, same as straight assholes don't ruffie girls due being straight.

It's still his image, and he should have final say over that. Actually if Bioware really want this option in the first game, why not just get a model that was ok with it?

I did a bit of research, Mark Meer never objected to it at all. He even recorded the dialogue for the gay Kaiden scene's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPMOlEfhWGE

Mark Meer is just the voice actor of Shepard. Mark Vanderloo is the model for DefaultSheps face and presumably he is the one that objected to having his image attached to anything gay. It's just a rumor though and begs the question why he would be ok with it now.

Ahh.... fair enough, thank you for the clarification.

Wp Jim, I hadn't heard of this moral panic, but I suppose it was bound to have come up at some point. Mind you I have also never met a person who took life lessons from South Park (actually that might have been one of Moviebob's vids, but whatever).

While I have no problem at all with same-sex relationships in games and films, it will irk me a bit if it turns out they've decided to ret-con Mass Effect so almost everyone who previously served on the Normandy is now bisexual. Doing that is just pure fan service- it's not empowering the lgbt community at all, although i suppose it is at least acknowledging it.

Perhaps there'll be a scene where Garrus says "uh, no thanks Shepard, I'm good. Might wanna speak to Kaiden though..."

I had to admit, that was pretty damn hilarious.

Thank you, Jim.

This was......different?

Sorry, this didn't do much for me, but then I remembered... I'm straight.

You know, I've never liked Jimquisition and I've avoided all the episodes after the first three or so, but I just had to watch this one due to the amount of comments and the intriguing title and I was not disappointed this time.

This was truly hilarious and hot... REALLY hot...

Seriously though, I was laughing so HARD all the way through.

funny idea, boring execution

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here