Thanks for that Kenny.

Now 'anyone with a sound mind' can see that your furore is raised merely at a confusion of the two links. Perhaps it is YOUR 'reading and comprehension' that you are having problems with? :p

Aslan has clearly taken the 'stereotypic 'paedophile'' quote from the 'Homosexual Offenders' link that you so kindly pasted for us. (So we can safely say that, yes, he has read it!)

As for your assertions about the table, I read that report too and I believe that Aslan is referring to this quote: “More than three-quarters of the offenders reported an exclusively heterosexual orientation.” If this amount are reported to be heterosexual it would seem a logical claim that just under 25% were homosexual/bisexual. (unless there are some other major orientations we are not yet aware of!) Which is obviously worrying considering that the homosexual/bisexual community makes up less than 3% of the wider society!

Hope that clears up some of your confusion in the matter.

cheers

Read the table don't infer.

Kenny,

Your emotion has clearly clouded your objectivity in this. And yes I did read the links - where do you think I got those citations from!?

Let me step you through it.

1. The AIFS link states what they perceive to be a commonly held view: "The stereotypic 'paedophile' can be classified as being more likely to be an extrafamilial, preferential offender who indulges in same-sex or 'homosexual' offending."

2. The AIFS link offers evidence to show that this sterotype is unreal, and conclude: "the assumption that paedophiles who engage in same-sex sexual abuse are homosexuals is more a societal myth than a reality."

3. However, you cannot use this argument against myself or FOL or Paul Cameron or most others who object to homosexuality and have concerns about the link between homosexuality and pedophilia because we have never claimed that the stereotypical pedophile is homosexual. What we claim is that homosexuals are over-represented among child molestors.

4. The Aust Inst of Criminology link reinforces our claim. It notes that just under 25% of their sample was homosexual or bisexual.

Why is this a lying or being foolish?

Tom Hughs suggested that you may have got confused between the two documents, but I fail to see how you could be so reckless in your reading of my last post where I explicitly referred to the papers I was citing from and even gave you the page number (p. 2) from the Aust Inst. of Criminology report!

So who's really lying, misrepersenting the report, or not very good at reading/comperhension?

AK