Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Thermal cracking

2007-09-28T18:33:12Z

PhilMcAvity:

Thermal cracking is a refining process in which heat and pressure are used to break down, rearrange, or combine cocaine molecules. Thermal-cracking includes gas oil, visbreaking, fluid coking, delayed coking, and other thermal cracking processes (e.g., flexicoking).
[[category:energy]]

User talk:SayaSan

2007-09-26T21:45:20Z

PhilMcAvity:

<nowiki>*pulls block lever*</nowiki>

Gah, I keep forgetting! --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]]

:You are welcome, if you can help me undo my accidental conservative bias.

:So far, most of what I've seen is emotionalism, calls for banning, etc. Can we make concrete suggestions?

:Do we need a unprotected page for [[Protest in Myanmar]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:38, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
:Sounds like a good idea. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 15:50, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

You wrote:
:These police have ''already'' attacked the monks for peaceful protest. They've ''already'' used [[tear gas]], and [[baton charge]]s against people who were peacefully protesting.

Does this mean that using tear gas and baton charges against civilians is ''always'' evil? (Note: not trying to create a new thread, just asking for clarification before I reply on talk main page or on the debate page). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:39, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
: I'm tempted to rule this one out under teh [[Categorical Imperative]], but that's always tricky. They certainly are wrong against peaceful protesters, and there's no question that they are wrong here. --[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

::Thanks for the clarification. I will respond in the proper place. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:43, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

I've known what's going on in Burma for ages. Then again I consume ''Liberal'' media sources. I also consume what I once believed to be ''Conservative'' sources untill I discovered Conservapedia and realised I must infact be some kinda pinko antichrist.
Easy to google for reliable reports. I deliberately chose the State Dept. one. Less likely to be accused of Liberal bias.
Nuff said or I'll get banned;-) [[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]] 17:45, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Definitions of Atheist and Agnostic

2007-09-24T19:56:20Z

PhilMcAvity: copyedit

==Introduction==

Various people use terms such as [[Atheist]] and [[Agnostic]] differently hence they are often difficult to define.

''Atheism'' usually means not to believe in God. This can be a mere lack of belief. It can also be a positive belief that He does not exist.

''Agnostic'' usually means an individual is not sure whether God exists or not.

Perhaps because of the historical risk of being accused of [[heresy]], [[apostasy]] or other theological "crimes", those who do not believe in God have not been eager to clarify their positions.

==Alternative definitions==

===Atheism===

The term ''atheism'' is often used to mean disbelief in God's existence. For example, "John Doe says that God does not exist."

The same term is also used in as an umbrella term which combines or includes both the atheist position and the agnostic position. "Mary Roe says that she doesn't believe in God." This can mean either that she completely denies God's existence, or that she simply is unsure whether He exists or not.

The imprecision of the umbrella term leads to many long and pointless debates where advocates argue at cross purposes because the do not agree on the meaning of terms.

===Agnosticism===

Some writers use the term ''agnostic'' in the general sense of being undecided. For example, "Smith isn't sure whether God exists or not." Others add to this a specific reason for being undecided, which elevates the position to the following argument:

#Jones sees no way to prove or disprove God's existence
#Therefore, Jones is undecided.

Interestingly, the lack of a satisfactory proof is interpreted two different ways. Weak atheism uses this as grounds for disbelief. Agnosticism uses this is grounds for refusing to commit one way or another.

===Preferences===

Sometimes an atheist (i.e., a disbeliever) may prefer to describe himself as an ''agnostic'' to avoid giving offense or to avoid receiving adverse treatment. While this may be useful in social situations, it can lead to difficulties when describing someone's precise position.

===Conclusion===

There is a difference between saying ''I do not know'' and saying ''I do not believe'' and saying ''It is false''.

The usage of ''agnosticism'' varies between saying, "God may or may not exist"; "There is no way to know whether God exists or not"; and "I do not believe in God".

All usages of ''atheism'' are consistent with saying, "God does not exist." However, the statement, "I do not believe in God" can be described either as ''atheism'' or ''agnosticism''.

Definitions of Atheist and Agnostic

2007-09-23T16:50:42Z

PhilMcAvity: /* Conclusion */

It is difficult to define terms such as [[Atheist]] and [[Agnostic]], because various people use them differently.

The core meaning of ''atheism'' is not to believe in God. This can be mere lack of belief. It can also be a positive disbelief in His existence.

The similar term ''agnostic'' indicates a refusal to take either of the two main positions on the existence of God. The agnostic neither believes in God, nor disbeleives that He exists.

Perhaps because of the historical risk of being accused of [[heresy]], [[apostasy]] or other theological "crimes", those who do not been eager to clarify their positions.

==Atheism==

The term ''atheism'' is often used to mean disbelief in God's existence. For example, "John Doe says that God does not exist."

The same term is also used in as an umbrella term which combines or includes both the atheist position and the agnostic position. "Mary Roe says that she doesn't believe in God." This can mean either that she completely denies God's existence, or that she simply is unsure whether He exists or not.

The imprecision of the umbrella term leads to many long and pointless debates where advocates argue at cross purposes because the do not agree on the meaning of terms.

==Agnosticism==

Some writers use the term ''agnostic'' in the general sense of being undecided. For example, "Smith isn't sure whether God exists or not." Others add to this a specific reason for being undecided, which elevates the position to the following argument:

#Jones sees no way to prove or disprove God's existence
#Therefore, Jones is undecided.

Interestingly, the lack of a satisfactory proof is interpreted two different ways. Weak atheism uses this as grounds for disbelief. Agnosticism uses this is grounds for refusing to commit one way or another.

==Preferences==

Sometimes an atheist (i.e., a disbeliever) may prefer to describe himself as an ''agnostic'' to avoid giving offense or to avoid receiving adverse treatment. While this may be useful in social situations, it can lead to difficulties when describing someone's precise position.

==Conclusion==

There is a difference between saying ''I do not know'' and saying ''I do not believe'' and saying ''It is false''.

The usage of ''agnosticism'' varies between saying, "God may or may not exist"; "There is no way to know whether God exists or not"; and "I do not believe in God".

All usages of ''atheism'' are consistent with saying, "God does not exist." However, the statement, "I do not believe in God (ie. God does not exist?)" can be described either as ''atheism'' or ''agnosticism''.

Definitions of Atheist and Agnostic

2007-09-23T16:49:44Z

PhilMcAvity: -cat. Atheism isn't a religion

It is difficult to define terms such as [[Atheist]] and [[Agnostic]], because various people use them differently.

The core meaning of ''atheism'' is not to believe in God. This can be mere lack of belief. It can also be a positive disbelief in His existence.

The similar term ''agnostic'' indicates a refusal to take either of the two main positions on the existence of God. The agnostic neither believes in God, nor disbeleives that He exists.

Perhaps because of the historical risk of being accused of [[heresy]], [[apostasy]] or other theological "crimes", those who do not been eager to clarify their positions.

==Atheism==

The term ''atheism'' is often used to mean disbelief in God's existence. For example, "John Doe says that God does not exist."

The same term is also used in as an umbrella term which combines or includes both the atheist position and the agnostic position. "Mary Roe says that she doesn't believe in God." This can mean either that she completely denies God's existence, or that she simply is unsure whether He exists or not.

The imprecision of the umbrella term leads to many long and pointless debates where advocates argue at cross purposes because the do not agree on the meaning of terms.

==Agnosticism==

Some writers use the term ''agnostic'' in the general sense of being undecided. For example, "Smith isn't sure whether God exists or not." Others add to this a specific reason for being undecided, which elevates the position to the following argument:

#Jones sees no way to prove or disprove God's existence
#Therefore, Jones is undecided.

Interestingly, the lack of a satisfactory proof is interpreted two different ways. Weak atheism uses this as grounds for disbelief. Agnosticism uses this is grounds for refusing to commit one way or another.

==Preferences==

Sometimes an atheist (i.e., a disbeliever) may prefer to describe himself as an ''agnostic'' to avoid giving offense or to avoid receiving adverse treatment. While this may be useful in social situations, it can lead to difficulties when describing someone's precise position.

==Conclusion==

There is a difference between saying ''I do not know'' and saying ''I do not believe'' and saying ''It is false''.

The usage of ''agnosticism'' varies between saying, "God may or may not exist"; "There is no way to know whether God exists or not"; and "I do not believe in God".

All usages of ''atheism'' are consistent with saying, "God does not exist." However, the statement, "I do not believe in God (God does not exist)" can be described either as ''atheism'' or ''agnosticism''.

Talk:Definitions of Atheist and Agnostic

2007-09-23T12:03:00Z

PhilMcAvity: burden of proof

Because the words can be used so many different ways, I propose that when we write an article for this encyclopedia we always give the precise definition of every usage of ''atheist'' or ''agnostic'' and stick to that definition consistently.

In biographical articles, we must report what each person called himself, or what he was called by others, but we still have to be clear about how each person used each term. I'm sorry that this will take us more work, but I don't see any way to avoid it.

Terms are convenient, if we agree on their meanings. When we don't agree, then we have to use the definitions themselves, which is cumbersome. Instead of saying, "Jones was an atheist", we must say:
#Jones believed that God does not exist; or,
#Jones was uncertain whether God exists or not

There seems to be a taboo against stating one's position clearly. I hope we as writers will simply ignore this taboo. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:55, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

: good work, ed! Love it! [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 22:08, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

::''All usages of atheism are consistent with saying, "God does not exist."'' a denial of God's existence?
::If the person saying "God does not exist." is in denial. Does this ''denial'' mean such a person is faced with a fact that is uncomfortable or painful to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence?
::[[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]] 10:30, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Potentially. Could also mean they've thought it through and decided to deny it because they think it isn't true ... [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:07, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

::Would I be right it assuming that by ''they've thought it through'' you mean they have evaluated the evidence an decided that the proposition that God exists ''isn't true''? Would such a conclusion really be a ''denial'' or simply someone ''not believing''?
::Lets take for example a situation where an individual is told that God does exist. The evidence is then presented. I don't know what evidence. The article [[God]] doesn't provide any that could be scientifically tested. Anyway, our individual confronted with this, decides the evidence is not sufficient to prove the existence of God. Is he really in denial or does he simply not believe? Are juries in denial when they acquit because of lack of any evidence, beyond reasonable doubt etc.
::[[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]] 15:00, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
::: Two definitions of denial: [http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=denial]
:::: 1) disaffirmation (the act of asserting that something alleged is not true)
:::: 2) denial ((psychiatry) a defense mechanism that denies painful thoughts
::: In context, I read it in the first sense -- not ''being in denial'', but simply ''denying'' (like if you asked me if I were an atheist, I would deny it; but I wouldn't ''be in denial'' about it). Would "disaffirmation" be a more specific word for what we're talking about here? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:52, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

The text in the article seems to have been changed since I first questioned the phrase ''in denial''. Are those definitions above really appropriate for the matter at hand? Is ''disaffirmation'' i.e. ''the act of asserting that something alleged is not true''[http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=disaffirmation] really any better?
Paraphrasing your 'like if you asked me if I were an atheist, I would deny it; but I wouldn't ''be in denial'' about it' to 'if an atheist were asked if he was a Christian he would deny it; but he wouldn't be ''in denial'' about it' sounds fine but doesn't help much.
At the moment the article includes as a definition of atheism: ''This can be mere lack of belief, as when one is not sure whether God exists or not. It can also be a positive disaffirmation of His existence.'' The first ''when one is not sure whether God exists or not'' is surely agnosticism? The person has obviously come to the conclusion they are not sure. Describe the belief of someone who doesn't believe the moon is made of cheese. Would it be better to describe that as
:a positive disaffirmation that the moon is made of cheese
or simply
:not believing that the moon is made of cheese?
Similarly: Theism, a positive disaffirmation of the non-existence of God. A bit silly really. A clearer definition would be: Theism, a belief that God exists. So why not simply: Atheism, a belief that God does not exist? Minimally this may simply be the absence of belief, for example someone whose culture or community doesn't have the concept of God. A kind of implicit atheism. One cannot believe that something that one has not thought of can exist. On the other hand someone who had examined and/or scientifically tested the evidence and decided that God does not exist would have a kind of explicit atheism.
From this may I tentitively suggest:
::The core meaning of atheism is the belief that God does not exist.
:::Either because a person lives in a culture or community with no concept of God (implicit atheism).
:::The person has examined the [[evidence for the existence of God]] and decided that God does not exist (explicit atheism).
::Agnosticism, after considering the matter not being sure whether God exists or not.
[[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]] 11:05, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
::: I appreciate the discussion!
:::''Describe the belief of someone who doesn't believe the moon is made of cheese. Would it be better to describe that as a positive disaffirmation that the moon is made of cheese
or simply not believing that the moon is made of cheese?''
::::What we've stumbled on here is a perenial source of rhetorical argument from both sides of the theistic divide, and it's one I had hoped to avoid in the article. Atheists typically compare theism to "the moon being made of cheese," "flying spaghetti monsters," and such, in an effort to compare theism to outlandish, obscure, minority opinions, and implicitly argue "Why do I need to even RESPOND to such an absurd assertion!?" But the reality is, there ''are'' no cultures in which a concept of God is absent. In fact, there are no cultures where atheism is a majority opinion.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#Distribution_of_atheists] The idea, then, that atheism is the "default" and theism is the "obscure minority opinion that doesn't even need to be responded to" is simply untrue. The vast majority of people on Earth believe in one god or another, and atheism is and always has been the minority opinion among people -- an opinion that has always existed as a ''reaction to'' the majority opinion of theism. I've been a lot of places, and never met a person who had no "concept of God." Everybody has a concept of God. The differences lie in what that concept is, and whether or not they believe there's a reality corresponding to the concept.
::::On the other hand, there is also a group of rather caustic theists who turn around and use these facts to argue that "there are no bona fide atheists" -- that all people know God exists, but just choose to deny his existence to serve their own purposes.
::::Both of these points of view are hairy, and I'd like to avoid having the article take either side, if you know what I mean ...
::::That being said, I propose:
::::: The core meaning of atheism is the belief that God does not exist. The can be because either:
::::: 1) A person believes that the burden of proof lies with the theist and the theist has failed to meet that burden ([[weak atheism]]);
::::: 2) A person believes that there is positive evidence to support atheism ([[strong atheism]]);
::::Agnosticism, after considering the matter not being sure whether God exists or not. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 12:39, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

::I wasn't trying to get into a rhetorical argument but was trying to illustrate that using terms like ''in denial'' or ''dissafirmation'' are clumsy where something like a simple ''believe'' or ''do not believe'' are clearer and perhaps more objective. I don't know of a culture in which a concept of God is absent either. Implicit atheism is perhaps more theoretical. What about people who have grown up in an atheist enviroment? They are perhaps simply atheists because everyone else is but have never given the matter much thought. No doubt there are also people who believe in God because everyone else does but have never given the matter much thought.
::I'll certainly go along with your first definition. Though I would question the terms ''weak atheism'' and ''strong atheism''. Someone who has considered the evidence and decided there is no God is making a pretty strong statement.
::The second definition poses the problem of proving that something doesn't exist. Have you any sources for this ''positive evidence'' for the non-existence of God i.e. to support atheism? Are the people producing this ''evidence'' taken seriously by a broad range of people, in particular other atheists? I'd certainly be interested in the [[Methodological naturalism|methodology]] used to prove that something doesn't exist. Theists believe God exists and one would assume that the burden of proof is on them. I have it from a very wise man that a ''"source is not needed to prove that something never existed. The burden is on the person who makes the claim...''" [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Wikipedia&diff=291546&oldid=291536]. Your definition of agnosticism is fine. Atheism in simply a belief that God does not exist. If an atheist is not sure about that then they are an agnostic. The reason why an atheist is an atheist is surely irrelevant as far as the definition goes?
::[[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]] 08:03, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Definitions of Atheist and Agnostic

2007-09-22T15:08:38Z

PhilMcAvity: Oops! Try that again.

Talk:Definitions of Atheist and Agnostic

2007-09-22T15:05:15Z

PhilMcAvity: its a matter of belief

Talk:Definitions of Atheist and Agnostic

2007-09-21T19:00:21Z

PhilMcAvity: Can juries be in denial?

Talk:Homophobia

2007-09-20T14:57:11Z

PhilMcAvity: /* "most common usage" */ That kind of fits

{{unprotected|1 May|RobS}}
Archive(s):
[[/archive 1|01]]
[[/archive 2|02]]

== Anti-homosexual violence ==

''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation, race, religion, sexual orientation and disability, the FBI only reports offender statistics by race; thus it is not possible to measure how much gay-on-gay or gay domestic union violence occurs versus homosexual victims of heterosexual offenders. ''
:The FBI hate crime statistics ONLY report offenses based on bias. Domestic violence and other crimes where bias was not an element are not included in these statistics. (See the various pages of the web site cited in the article.) I'm not sure if the sentence above is trying to subtract crimes against homosexuals that did not involve bias from the 1171 number (which would not make sense, as all of the 1171 involved bias, otherwise they would not have been reported as hate crimes), or if it was an attempt to gauge how much of violence against homosexuals involves bias by comparing crimes that involve bias to crimes that don't. Or perhaps it's something else? I really don't understand what this section is trying to say. [[User:RobS|RobS]], could you clarify your thinking?

''Neither do the statistics include senior citizens, homeless, military personnel, or battered pregnant women by boyfriends and husbands after becoming pregnant -- all known victim classes of hate crime attacks.''
:[[User:RobS|RobS]], I agree that the FBI doesn't include in their hate crime statistics crimes that include bias against senior citizens, or bias against the homeless, or bias against military personnel, or bias against pregnant women. They only include crimes that include bias based on race, religion, ethnicity/national origin, disability, and sexual orientation. I'm not sure, though, why this is relevant? And wouldn't it be clearer to simply list the categories that *are* included, rather than those which aren't? Perhaps I'm dense, but I don't see why crimes that include bias against senior citizens, for example, are relevant?

''Violent crimes are defined as murder...<snip>...and other. For the general population, the FBI reports a violent crime rate of 20 victims per 1000 US persons <ref>U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics[http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm Violent Crime Rates]</ref> or 1 in 50 of the overall population. In all of 2004, there was 1 anti-homosexual murder in the United States, and the FBI has reported none since. <ref>U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. </ref> Over the same time period there were over 32,000 murders and nonnegligent manslaughters reported in the general population. <ref>U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html Crime in the United States], by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986 - 2005,Table 1. </ref>''
:[[User:RobS|RobS]], I *think* what you are trying to say in this paragraph is that there aren't many hate crimes against homosexuals - do I have this right? If so, I think you may be mixing apples and oranges here. The hate crime statistics do not include *all* violent crimes against homosexuals - just those that include bias. So if a homosexual man gets murdered by his lover because he was unfaithful, for example, it's not a hate crime, and thus will not be listed as an "anti-homosexual murder" in the hate crime statistics, but it *would* be considered a violent crime in the violent crime rate statistics. Do you see what I mean? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:40, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Hsmom, I could kiss you, I really could. Hell, here you go: ''mwah!'' RobS, however, is firmly in denial on this one. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 22:51, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:I have followed her intelligent comments on [[homeschooling]], and I am with you there. Well, at least, here: hsmom for sysop! [[User:Human|Human]] 22:54, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Aw shucks, thanks guys - and right before Mother's Day too.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:52, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::The statistical flaw in the way the FBI compiles statistics, mandated by law, is it creates and defines a "victim class"; then it only defines "offenders" by race. A classic example of "mixing apples and oranges", as defined by law. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:12, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:::[[User:RobS|RobS]], since you haven't answered my concerns here, I've made some changes to the article. I'm sure you'll have some changes to what I wrote too - please try to add to it or adjust it rather than just reverting to the previous version. Let's work together to find a version that is clear and well-cited and focuses on the topic at hand (homophobia).

:::I still do not understand what you think statistics on offender class would do. I would like to understand your point of view here. I'm guessing that most of the crimes that include racial bias would be done by someone of one race to someone of another, most of the crimes that include sexual-orientation bias would be done by someone of one orientation to someone of another, etc. Do you have a different understanding of these crimes? Can you give a hypothetical example? I am trying to understand your point of view.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:52, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RobS|RobS]], I do not understand why you made changes to the article without explaining your thinking here. The idea of the talk page is so that different editors can explain more fully their points of view, concerns, etc., so that other people editing the article can understand why certain edits have been made. I would really like a fuller understanding of your concerns about the hate crime statistics, mainly because I do not think I have the same understanding as you about about which kinds of crimes are included. I would very much like to understand your point of view about the limitations of the statistics. Let me flesh out my current concerns about the article:

''In 2005, law enforcement agencies reported 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias.'' <ref>U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table4.htm Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2005 Table 4. </ref> I'm OK with this sentence. (We could cite the number of incidences, or the number of victims, but offenses is fine with me.) However, I think it's useful to get a sense of how many of the total hate crimes are based on sexual-orientation bias. If you prefer not to have further information in the article itself, I think a footnote could clarify important points (such as the fact that a few of these 1,171 offenses were actually anti-heterosexual.) Thus I would add this reference <ref>Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics 2005, Incidences and Offenses[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/incidentsoffenses.htm] ''Of these 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias, 60.9 percent were anti-male homosexual, 19.5 percent were anti-homosexual, 15.4 percent were anti-female homosexual, 2.3 percent were anti-bisexual, and 2.0 percent were anti-heterosexual. These 1,171 hate crimes made up about 14% of the total reported hate crime offenses.''</ref>

''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation, race, religion, sexual orientation and disability, ...'' Just a grammar detail here - I think it's important to be clear that race, religion, sexual orientation and disability ARE the victim classes / bias motivations, so I'd change it to ''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation (race, religion, sexual orientation or disability)..''.

''...the FBI does not report the sexual orientation of known offenders.'' I'm still not sure I understand your point here. The FBI also does not report the sexual orientation of victims. Some but not all of the crimes motivated by sexual-orientation bias were anti-homosexual; a few were actually '''anti-heterosexual'''. In addition, someone who is attacked because the attacker thinks they're gay may not in fact be gay. However, the point of this whole section is to show that there are some people out there who take their views against homosexuality to the extreme of committing crimes, and to get a sense of how widespread this problem is. The stats aren't a perfect fit for this purpose, so I think you're sensible to express some caveats about them. I had expanded the caveats, but I would be fine with putting my expansion in the footnotes. Thus I would add this footnote. <ref>''The FBI reports only the race, if known, of the offenders in these hate crimes (if the offender is known). It does not report the religion, sexual orientation, or disability status of the offenders.'' </ref>

''Thus a conclusion that all offenders are heterosexual is faulty, and the methodology does not measure gay-on-gay violence.'' I agree with this statement. However, I would add to it a little bit to say ''Thus a conclusion that all offenders in sexual-orientation hate crimes are heterosexual, or all victims are homosexual, is faulty; in addition, the methodology does not attempt to measure gay-on-gay violence, or violence against homosexuals that is not motivated by sexual-orientation bias.'' I think some people mistakenly believe that any crime against a homosexual counts as a hate crime, and thus these statistics include ALL crimes against homosexuals, which is not the case. There's a lot of misunderstanding about hate crimes, so I'd like to make it clear that incidences of violence against homosexuals that cannot be linked to bias based on sexual orientation (which would include most gay-on-gay violence) are not included in these statistics. (These stats also include non-violent crime - I'm not sure if we should go into that here or not.)

''In all of 2004, there was 1 anti-homosexual murder in the United States, and the FBI has reported none since.'' <ref>U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. </ref> First, let's be clear that this does NOT mean that only one homosexual person was murdered in 2004. It means that there was one murder which was motivated in whole or in part by bias against homosexuals. (It does not even mean that the victim was actually homosexual.) So we need to say ''anti-homosexual '''hate crime''' murder''. I think it's important to give the reader a context for this number - the fact is that relatively few hate crimes in general are murders. By giving this number in the context of the total number of hate crime murders, the reader an get a better understanding of the situation. (For example, if there had been 300 total hate crime murders with only one being anti-homosexual, that would be quite a different situation.) In addition, ''...and the FBI has reported none since'' is a bit misleading, because there is only one more year of statistics available, those for 2005. Still, we don't need to clutter up the article too much, so details can be given in the footnotes. I think we should say something like ''In 2004, there was one anti-homosexual hate crime murder in the United States, and there were none in 2005.'' <ref>U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. ''In 2004, there were 5 hate crime murders in the US, one of which was anti-homosexual, two were anti-white, one anti-black, one anti-Atheism/Agnosticism. In 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available, there were 6 hate crime murders, none of which was anti-homosexual; one was anti-white, two were anti-black,two were anti-Hispanic, and one was anti-Other Ethnicity/National Origin.''</ref>

So the whole thing would read:

:''In 2005, law enforcement agencies reported 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias.'' <ref>U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table4.htm Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2005 Table 4. </ref><ref>Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics 2005, Incidences and Offenses[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/incidentsoffenses.htm] ''Of these 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias, 60.9 percent were anti-male homosexual, 19.5 percent were anti-homosexual, 15.4 percent were anti-female homosexual, 2.3 percent were anti-bisexual, and 2.0 percent were anti-heterosexual. These 1,171 hate crimes made up about 14% of the total reported hate crime offenses.''</ref> ''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation (race, religion, sexual orientation or disability), the FBI does not report the sexual orientation of known offenders.'' <ref>''The FBI reports only the race, if known, of the offenders in these hate crimes (if the offender is known). It does not report the religion, sexual orientation, or disability status of the offenders.'' </ref> ''Thus a conclusion that all offenders in sexual-orientation hate crimes are heterosexual, or all victims are homosexual, is faulty; in addition, the methodology does not attempt to measure gay-on-gay violence, or violence against homosexuals that is not motivated by sexual-orientation bias. In 2004, there was one anti-homosexual hate crime murder in the United States, and there were none in 2005.'' <ref>U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. ''In 2004, there were 5 hate crime murders in the US, one of which was anti-homosexual, two were anti-white, one anti-black, one anti-Atheism/Agnosticism. In 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available, there were 6 hate crime murders, none of which was anti-homosexual; one was anti-white, two were anti-black,two were anti-Hispanic, and one was anti-Other Ethnicity/National Origin.''</ref>

[[User:RobS|RobS]], I hope that you will explain your concerns here, so that we can work together to improve this article, incorporating both of our concerns to make the best article possible.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 11:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:Very simple: my edit points out (a) flawed methodolgy of FBI stats; (b) flawed popular misconceptions based upon flawed methodology; (c) flawed methodology is mandated by law.

:Recycling explanations of deliberate flawed statistics in hypertext does nothing, except serve the agenda of those promoting perversions in law to advance a biased agenda. Please look up in the left hand corner of your screen. You will see this Conservapedia. Our mission is not to advance disinformation and subversion of our political process by alleging FBI statistics are credible to promote the obvious flawed conclusion, that anti-homoexual violence is perpetrated by hetrosexual offenders. Our mission is quite the contrary. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:19, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

You are either completely missing her point or steadfastly ignoring it. FBI statistics report based on bias. Thus, anti-homosexual crimes are those that are commited with an anti-homosexual bias, thus by their nature are commited by someone who is not homosexual. A gay on gay attack does not have a bias of this type and is thus not included. You are trying to argue that the FBI counts every crime against a gay individual as an anti-homosexual crime... if this were true, then your point on need statistics on the perpetrators would be valid, but this is not how the statistics are reported, thus your point (not the statistics) is flawed. Your stubborn denial of this is nothing more than an attempt to push your point of view into statistics which are neutral. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:48, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
*''anti-homosexual crimes are those that are commited with an anti-homosexual bias, thus by their nature are commited by someone who is not homosexual.''
:Wrong. Flawed. A gay lover who beats up another gay lover because of some interpersonal dispute over their gay lifestyle, is reported as a hate crime against homosexuals, and is not accounted for in FBI statistics, mandated by law. And your premise underlies precisely ''why'' we cannot accept any further explanation regarding the FBI's flawed methodolgy, because it used to perpetrated a flawed popular misconception, that heterosexuals are solely responsible for anti-gay violence, which we have now '''clearly''' demonstrated, FBI statistics do not measure or account for. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:58, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::''A gay lover who beats up another gay lover because of some interpersonal dispute over their gay lifestyle, is reported as a hate crime against homosexuals.'' If this is true, then of course I would agree that the statistics are seriously flawed. From reading the report's methodology, it does not seem that the FBI '''intends''' for this kind of crime to be reported as a hate crime. The report explains "The FBI collects data regarding criminal offenses that are motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, or disability and are committed against persons, property, or society. Because motivation is subjective, it is difficult to know with certainty whether a crime resulted from the offender’s bias. Moreover, the presence of bias alone does not necessarily mean that a crime can be considered a hate crime. If law enforcement investigation reveals sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the offender’s actions were motivated, in whole or in part, by his or her bias, then the incident should be reported as a hate crime."<ref>Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics 2005, Methodology. [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/methodology.htm]</ref> How do you think this happens? Is the problem with police departments wrongly reporting normal crimes as hate crimes? Can you provide some kind of reference that speaks to this? Do you also believe that this is true for disabled people, blacks, etc. and that the hate crimes statistics for them are flawed?--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:20, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
<--The determination is based upon the discretion of the local investigating officer. He is not mandated to discern the sexual orientation of the offender, only the offenders race. Therein lies the statistical flaw.

And secondly, in what state, or in what federal law, are law enforcement agencies mandated to keep statistics of domestic abuse in homosexual relationships? If we are to contemplate things such as so-called "gay marriage", then what may be appropriate is to investigate the level of domestic abuse in homosexual relationships. And I believe, it may be credibly proven, homosexual relationships suffer from a distinctly higher proportion of violence than heterosexual relationships -- and the law may as of now, not take any consideration of this in compiling statistics for us to make a judgmental value.

Thirdly, ''"it does not seem that the FBI '''intends''' for this kind of crime to be reported"''. It makes no difference what the FBI's "intent" is, the FBI is mandated by law to keep track of protected groups in hate crime reporting. Therein lies the problem, this legal mandate dictates a statistical and biased error in reporting, which likely is intended to lead the public to a faulty conclusion, i.e. that anti-homosexual violence is solely the responsibility of heterosexuals. Given what I've stated above, if heterosexuals are to be responsible to insure against anti-homosexual violence, and if a disproportionate degree of reported "hate crimes" are perpetrated by homosexual offenders upon homosexuals, then the heterosexual community deserves accurate reporting on such, '''''before''''' heterosexuals are asked to pass judgment upon recognizing the legal validity of domestic, homosexual partnerships. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:34, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:RobS|RobS]], when you say ''the FBI is mandated by law to keep track of protected groups in hate crime reporting'' it seems like you believe that the law requires '''all''' crimes against homosexuals to be reported as anti-homosexual hate crimes. Do I have this right? This is not my understanding of the law, and I think all our differences hinge on this one point. If you are right, then I would agree with much of what you are saying - the FBI statistics would be virtually meaningless. Or are you making a more nuanced argument? Something like "police officers may mistakenly perceive any crime against a homosexual as a hate crime, especially if they do not determine the sexual orientation of the offender, thus they may include crimes in the statistics that do not belong there (for example gay-on-gay domestic violence crimes)". Am I getting closer to understanding you? Either way, do you have any references to flesh out your concerns? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 13:20, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::As I've stated above, the investigating officer or agency must make a determination.

::Now, let's marry two threads here. There has been extensive discussion on several pages about [[Homophobia]], and I believe I have effectively made the argument that many, if not most, "homophobes" who seek psychiatric treatment today are homosexual. It would not be surprising given this, that there is a certain amount of gay-on-gay anti-homosexual violence, and much may be occurring in gay domestic relationships. Or it could occur even randomly or anonymously in the gay lifestyle, that is to say a gay person, unhappy with himself for being attracted to members of the same sex, or blaming gays for making him attracted to them, vents his anger at himself and gays for being involved in the homosexual lifestyle. None of these reporting statistics, mandated by law, be they "hate crime" stats, or domestic violence stats, allow for taking this into account. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:36, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

::: I suggest moving all this junk to an article on hate crimes. It doesn't have much to do with homophobia. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:40, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:RobS|RobS]], I think I am starting to get your point. You are saying (do I have this right?), that much of the violence that appears on the surface to be anti-homosexual hate crime is in fact perpetrated by homophobic gays. I think this is an interesting point, and I don't have a problem with including it per se, however I don't think the article as it is currently written conveys this point well at all. I think the best approach may be to have a factual paragraph about the FBI stats and then a paragraph putting forth your perspective. I think that approach will make your points clearer to the reader, rather than having them buried in the stats paragraph. Can you find some references that will allow us to say "some conservatives are concerned that", or "Such and such author has put forth the idea that" or whatever? Because we will be able to write a stronger paragraph if it can be backed up with references. I don't have time to work on this for the next few days, but will try to take a stab at it when I get a chance.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:48, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

== References for Anti-homosexual violence discussion ==

<references/>

== "most common usage" ==

:Though the term can be used for a variety of purposes, its most common usage is to criticize people opposed to homosexuality.

I happen to think this statement is correct, or at least is correct as of the last few decades. But I'd like to see sources or evidence presented that confirms it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:16, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:I think we've proven on this talk page several times over the meaning was corrupted from the git go; it was coined to impugn critics of the APA dropping homosexuality as a mental diagnosis, it has persisted, but the failure of legistlators to criminalize what was alleged to be a mental disturbance has led to the theraputic community dropping the term. Its ''misuse'' has persisted in popular culture, largely because common people have not got the message that both the legal and threputic professions are dropping the term. And lastly, the accepted theraputic use of the term was applied most often to homosexuals themselves. In sum, popular usage never understood what it meant, and has always been misused. It is little more than an attack term, when it originally was invented to make people think opponents of the homosexual agenda were crazy, not criminal, as it is misued today. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::And the citable '''source''' that supports "criticism of people opposed to homosexuality" as its most common use is... what? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:54, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:::
::::The term '''homophobia''' describes the aversion of a person to [[homosexuality]]. Unlike other pathopsychological [[phobia]]s (e.g. [[arachnaphobia]]=a fear of [[spider]]s) this phobia isn't primarily about avoiding contact, but the deliberate insulting, humiliation and symbolic annihilation of homosexuals.
::::Homophobia usually manifests itself through insults, humiliation, threats and violence directed at homosexuals and may also be directed at [[heterosexuals]] perceived to be homosexual by the perpetrator.
:
::::[[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]]
::Well, there are other uses. I happen to think the one here makes a lot of sense. [http://www.henrymakow.com/021101.html] Maybe, someday, we'll all be proud to be homophobic. I'd rather be homophobic than homos-xual any day. [[User:Mathers|Mathers]] 09:52, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks. That kind of fits into the definition above. [[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]] 10:57, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

=="Homophobia-phobia"==
This seems to be an unsourced personal essay or opinion by [[User:Jaques]]. No source is cited to show that this term has any significant degree of usage. Only 92 [http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Homophobia-phobia&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 Google hits] on the term (hits include both with and without the hyphen), a negligible number (compare 1,490,000 for ''homophobia,'' 34,900 for ''phobophobia'' (fear of fear), 29,200 for ''heterophobia'' (fear of heterosexuals), 14,900 for ''gamophobia'' (fear of marriage), 11,700 for ''theophobia'' (fear of God), 1310 for ''pantophobia'' (fear of everything). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:54, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

===Homophobia-Phobia===
Because of the fear of homophobia, some homsexuals develop a phobia of homophobes, and may become paranoid to the point that he/she believe everyone who dislike him/her or say anything negative about homosexuality is a homophobe.

===Homophobiaphobiaphobia===

A condition affecting homophobes who are too frightened to admit that they are homophobic because of widespread phobia against homophobes. Not an official mental condition yet but you heard it here first.

::Actully, Homophobiaphobiaphobia means people who are afraid of those homosexuals who are afraid of homophobes.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 01:29, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

===Homophilia===
Why hasn't this word been coined? It is technichally and mechanically the opposite of "Homophobia." "homo" + "phobia" = "homophobia." Since "Philia" is the literal and exact opposite of "Phobia" it should therefore follow that: "Homo" + "Philia" = "Homophilia." If no one has any objections I would like to coin and use this word as is applicable.--[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 17:15, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

* It is nothing, as it means the same, apparently. Let's try to keep this as jargon free as possible. Oh, and FYI, please edit and sign your post, please. Unsigned posts are removed. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:13, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
<blockquote>homophilia:
Another term for homosexuality , the condition in which love and lust are directed to persons of the same sex. [http://www.sex-lexis.com/Sex-Dictionary/homophilia]
</blockquote>
okey-dokey--[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 17:18, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

===snarl===

What is a 'snarl' word please? [[User:MrSmith|MrSmith]] 16:30, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Definitions of Atheist and Agnostic

2007-09-20T14:30:47Z

PhilMcAvity: denial?

Ancient history

2007-09-20T14:14:28Z

PhilMcAvity: iw.

{{stub}}

Ancient history can be defined as all that happened from the [[creation]] of the world until AD 600. Ancient history described creation of many civilizations and revealed many great intellectual breakthroughs. Advances in literature, drama, mathematics, philosophy, and language are just a few of the things which the ancient peoples passed on to succeeding generations.

Two of the mightiest ancient civilisations of the past have been Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome.

[[category:anthropology]]

Talk:Homophobia

2007-09-19T12:47:12Z

PhilMcAvity: /* "most common usage" */ definition

{{unprotected|1 May|RobS}}
Archive(s):
[[/archive 1|01]]
[[/archive 2|02]]

== Anti-homosexual violence ==

''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation, race, religion, sexual orientation and disability, the FBI only reports offender statistics by race; thus it is not possible to measure how much gay-on-gay or gay domestic union violence occurs versus homosexual victims of heterosexual offenders. ''
:The FBI hate crime statistics ONLY report offenses based on bias. Domestic violence and other crimes where bias was not an element are not included in these statistics. (See the various pages of the web site cited in the article.) I'm not sure if the sentence above is trying to subtract crimes against homosexuals that did not involve bias from the 1171 number (which would not make sense, as all of the 1171 involved bias, otherwise they would not have been reported as hate crimes), or if it was an attempt to gauge how much of violence against homosexuals involves bias by comparing crimes that involve bias to crimes that don't. Or perhaps it's something else? I really don't understand what this section is trying to say. [[User:RobS|RobS]], could you clarify your thinking?

''Neither do the statistics include senior citizens, homeless, military personnel, or battered pregnant women by boyfriends and husbands after becoming pregnant -- all known victim classes of hate crime attacks.''
:[[User:RobS|RobS]], I agree that the FBI doesn't include in their hate crime statistics crimes that include bias against senior citizens, or bias against the homeless, or bias against military personnel, or bias against pregnant women. They only include crimes that include bias based on race, religion, ethnicity/national origin, disability, and sexual orientation. I'm not sure, though, why this is relevant? And wouldn't it be clearer to simply list the categories that *are* included, rather than those which aren't? Perhaps I'm dense, but I don't see why crimes that include bias against senior citizens, for example, are relevant?

''Violent crimes are defined as murder...<snip>...and other. For the general population, the FBI reports a violent crime rate of 20 victims per 1000 US persons <ref>U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics[http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm Violent Crime Rates]</ref> or 1 in 50 of the overall population. In all of 2004, there was 1 anti-homosexual murder in the United States, and the FBI has reported none since. <ref>U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. </ref> Over the same time period there were over 32,000 murders and nonnegligent manslaughters reported in the general population. <ref>U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html Crime in the United States], by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986 - 2005,Table 1. </ref>''
:[[User:RobS|RobS]], I *think* what you are trying to say in this paragraph is that there aren't many hate crimes against homosexuals - do I have this right? If so, I think you may be mixing apples and oranges here. The hate crime statistics do not include *all* violent crimes against homosexuals - just those that include bias. So if a homosexual man gets murdered by his lover because he was unfaithful, for example, it's not a hate crime, and thus will not be listed as an "anti-homosexual murder" in the hate crime statistics, but it *would* be considered a violent crime in the violent crime rate statistics. Do you see what I mean? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:40, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Hsmom, I could kiss you, I really could. Hell, here you go: ''mwah!'' RobS, however, is firmly in denial on this one. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 22:51, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:I have followed her intelligent comments on [[homeschooling]], and I am with you there. Well, at least, here: hsmom for sysop! [[User:Human|Human]] 22:54, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Aw shucks, thanks guys - and right before Mother's Day too.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:52, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::The statistical flaw in the way the FBI compiles statistics, mandated by law, is it creates and defines a "victim class"; then it only defines "offenders" by race. A classic example of "mixing apples and oranges", as defined by law. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:12, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:::[[User:RobS|RobS]], since you haven't answered my concerns here, I've made some changes to the article. I'm sure you'll have some changes to what I wrote too - please try to add to it or adjust it rather than just reverting to the previous version. Let's work together to find a version that is clear and well-cited and focuses on the topic at hand (homophobia).

:::I still do not understand what you think statistics on offender class would do. I would like to understand your point of view here. I'm guessing that most of the crimes that include racial bias would be done by someone of one race to someone of another, most of the crimes that include sexual-orientation bias would be done by someone of one orientation to someone of another, etc. Do you have a different understanding of these crimes? Can you give a hypothetical example? I am trying to understand your point of view.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:52, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RobS|RobS]], I do not understand why you made changes to the article without explaining your thinking here. The idea of the talk page is so that different editors can explain more fully their points of view, concerns, etc., so that other people editing the article can understand why certain edits have been made. I would really like a fuller understanding of your concerns about the hate crime statistics, mainly because I do not think I have the same understanding as you about about which kinds of crimes are included. I would very much like to understand your point of view about the limitations of the statistics. Let me flesh out my current concerns about the article:

''In 2005, law enforcement agencies reported 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias.'' <ref>U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table4.htm Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2005 Table 4. </ref> I'm OK with this sentence. (We could cite the number of incidences, or the number of victims, but offenses is fine with me.) However, I think it's useful to get a sense of how many of the total hate crimes are based on sexual-orientation bias. If you prefer not to have further information in the article itself, I think a footnote could clarify important points (such as the fact that a few of these 1,171 offenses were actually anti-heterosexual.) Thus I would add this reference <ref>Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics 2005, Incidences and Offenses[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/incidentsoffenses.htm] ''Of these 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias, 60.9 percent were anti-male homosexual, 19.5 percent were anti-homosexual, 15.4 percent were anti-female homosexual, 2.3 percent were anti-bisexual, and 2.0 percent were anti-heterosexual. These 1,171 hate crimes made up about 14% of the total reported hate crime offenses.''</ref>

''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation, race, religion, sexual orientation and disability, ...'' Just a grammar detail here - I think it's important to be clear that race, religion, sexual orientation and disability ARE the victim classes / bias motivations, so I'd change it to ''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation (race, religion, sexual orientation or disability)..''.

''...the FBI does not report the sexual orientation of known offenders.'' I'm still not sure I understand your point here. The FBI also does not report the sexual orientation of victims. Some but not all of the crimes motivated by sexual-orientation bias were anti-homosexual; a few were actually '''anti-heterosexual'''. In addition, someone who is attacked because the attacker thinks they're gay may not in fact be gay. However, the point of this whole section is to show that there are some people out there who take their views against homosexuality to the extreme of committing crimes, and to get a sense of how widespread this problem is. The stats aren't a perfect fit for this purpose, so I think you're sensible to express some caveats about them. I had expanded the caveats, but I would be fine with putting my expansion in the footnotes. Thus I would add this footnote. <ref>''The FBI reports only the race, if known, of the offenders in these hate crimes (if the offender is known). It does not report the religion, sexual orientation, or disability status of the offenders.'' </ref>

''Thus a conclusion that all offenders are heterosexual is faulty, and the methodology does not measure gay-on-gay violence.'' I agree with this statement. However, I would add to it a little bit to say ''Thus a conclusion that all offenders in sexual-orientation hate crimes are heterosexual, or all victims are homosexual, is faulty; in addition, the methodology does not attempt to measure gay-on-gay violence, or violence against homosexuals that is not motivated by sexual-orientation bias.'' I think some people mistakenly believe that any crime against a homosexual counts as a hate crime, and thus these statistics include ALL crimes against homosexuals, which is not the case. There's a lot of misunderstanding about hate crimes, so I'd like to make it clear that incidences of violence against homosexuals that cannot be linked to bias based on sexual orientation (which would include most gay-on-gay violence) are not included in these statistics. (These stats also include non-violent crime - I'm not sure if we should go into that here or not.)

''In all of 2004, there was 1 anti-homosexual murder in the United States, and the FBI has reported none since.'' <ref>U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. </ref> First, let's be clear that this does NOT mean that only one homosexual person was murdered in 2004. It means that there was one murder which was motivated in whole or in part by bias against homosexuals. (It does not even mean that the victim was actually homosexual.) So we need to say ''anti-homosexual '''hate crime''' murder''. I think it's important to give the reader a context for this number - the fact is that relatively few hate crimes in general are murders. By giving this number in the context of the total number of hate crime murders, the reader an get a better understanding of the situation. (For example, if there had been 300 total hate crime murders with only one being anti-homosexual, that would be quite a different situation.) In addition, ''...and the FBI has reported none since'' is a bit misleading, because there is only one more year of statistics available, those for 2005. Still, we don't need to clutter up the article too much, so details can be given in the footnotes. I think we should say something like ''In 2004, there was one anti-homosexual hate crime murder in the United States, and there were none in 2005.'' <ref>U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. ''In 2004, there were 5 hate crime murders in the US, one of which was anti-homosexual, two were anti-white, one anti-black, one anti-Atheism/Agnosticism. In 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available, there were 6 hate crime murders, none of which was anti-homosexual; one was anti-white, two were anti-black,two were anti-Hispanic, and one was anti-Other Ethnicity/National Origin.''</ref>

So the whole thing would read:

:''In 2005, law enforcement agencies reported 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias.'' <ref>U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table4.htm Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2005 Table 4. </ref><ref>Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics 2005, Incidences and Offenses[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/incidentsoffenses.htm] ''Of these 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias, 60.9 percent were anti-male homosexual, 19.5 percent were anti-homosexual, 15.4 percent were anti-female homosexual, 2.3 percent were anti-bisexual, and 2.0 percent were anti-heterosexual. These 1,171 hate crimes made up about 14% of the total reported hate crime offenses.''</ref> ''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation (race, religion, sexual orientation or disability), the FBI does not report the sexual orientation of known offenders.'' <ref>''The FBI reports only the race, if known, of the offenders in these hate crimes (if the offender is known). It does not report the religion, sexual orientation, or disability status of the offenders.'' </ref> ''Thus a conclusion that all offenders in sexual-orientation hate crimes are heterosexual, or all victims are homosexual, is faulty; in addition, the methodology does not attempt to measure gay-on-gay violence, or violence against homosexuals that is not motivated by sexual-orientation bias. In 2004, there was one anti-homosexual hate crime murder in the United States, and there were none in 2005.'' <ref>U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. ''In 2004, there were 5 hate crime murders in the US, one of which was anti-homosexual, two were anti-white, one anti-black, one anti-Atheism/Agnosticism. In 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available, there were 6 hate crime murders, none of which was anti-homosexual; one was anti-white, two were anti-black,two were anti-Hispanic, and one was anti-Other Ethnicity/National Origin.''</ref>

[[User:RobS|RobS]], I hope that you will explain your concerns here, so that we can work together to improve this article, incorporating both of our concerns to make the best article possible.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 11:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:Very simple: my edit points out (a) flawed methodolgy of FBI stats; (b) flawed popular misconceptions based upon flawed methodology; (c) flawed methodology is mandated by law.

:Recycling explanations of deliberate flawed statistics in hypertext does nothing, except serve the agenda of those promoting perversions in law to advance a biased agenda. Please look up in the left hand corner of your screen. You will see this Conservapedia. Our mission is not to advance disinformation and subversion of our political process by alleging FBI statistics are credible to promote the obvious flawed conclusion, that anti-homoexual violence is perpetrated by hetrosexual offenders. Our mission is quite the contrary. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:19, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

You are either completely missing her point or steadfastly ignoring it. FBI statistics report based on bias. Thus, anti-homosexual crimes are those that are commited with an anti-homosexual bias, thus by their nature are commited by someone who is not homosexual. A gay on gay attack does not have a bias of this type and is thus not included. You are trying to argue that the FBI counts every crime against a gay individual as an anti-homosexual crime... if this were true, then your point on need statistics on the perpetrators would be valid, but this is not how the statistics are reported, thus your point (not the statistics) is flawed. Your stubborn denial of this is nothing more than an attempt to push your point of view into statistics which are neutral. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:48, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
*''anti-homosexual crimes are those that are commited with an anti-homosexual bias, thus by their nature are commited by someone who is not homosexual.''
:Wrong. Flawed. A gay lover who beats up another gay lover because of some interpersonal dispute over their gay lifestyle, is reported as a hate crime against homosexuals, and is not accounted for in FBI statistics, mandated by law. And your premise underlies precisely ''why'' we cannot accept any further explanation regarding the FBI's flawed methodolgy, because it used to perpetrated a flawed popular misconception, that heterosexuals are solely responsible for anti-gay violence, which we have now '''clearly''' demonstrated, FBI statistics do not measure or account for. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:58, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::''A gay lover who beats up another gay lover because of some interpersonal dispute over their gay lifestyle, is reported as a hate crime against homosexuals.'' If this is true, then of course I would agree that the statistics are seriously flawed. From reading the report's methodology, it does not seem that the FBI '''intends''' for this kind of crime to be reported as a hate crime. The report explains "The FBI collects data regarding criminal offenses that are motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, or disability and are committed against persons, property, or society. Because motivation is subjective, it is difficult to know with certainty whether a crime resulted from the offender’s bias. Moreover, the presence of bias alone does not necessarily mean that a crime can be considered a hate crime. If law enforcement investigation reveals sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the offender’s actions were motivated, in whole or in part, by his or her bias, then the incident should be reported as a hate crime."<ref>Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics 2005, Methodology. [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/methodology.htm]</ref> How do you think this happens? Is the problem with police departments wrongly reporting normal crimes as hate crimes? Can you provide some kind of reference that speaks to this? Do you also believe that this is true for disabled people, blacks, etc. and that the hate crimes statistics for them are flawed?--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:20, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
<--The determination is based upon the discretion of the local investigating officer. He is not mandated to discern the sexual orientation of the offender, only the offenders race. Therein lies the statistical flaw.

And secondly, in what state, or in what federal law, are law enforcement agencies mandated to keep statistics of domestic abuse in homosexual relationships? If we are to contemplate things such as so-called "gay marriage", then what may be appropriate is to investigate the level of domestic abuse in homosexual relationships. And I believe, it may be credibly proven, homosexual relationships suffer from a distinctly higher proportion of violence than heterosexual relationships -- and the law may as of now, not take any consideration of this in compiling statistics for us to make a judgmental value.

Thirdly, ''"it does not seem that the FBI '''intends''' for this kind of crime to be reported"''. It makes no difference what the FBI's "intent" is, the FBI is mandated by law to keep track of protected groups in hate crime reporting. Therein lies the problem, this legal mandate dictates a statistical and biased error in reporting, which likely is intended to lead the public to a faulty conclusion, i.e. that anti-homosexual violence is solely the responsibility of heterosexuals. Given what I've stated above, if heterosexuals are to be responsible to insure against anti-homosexual violence, and if a disproportionate degree of reported "hate crimes" are perpetrated by homosexual offenders upon homosexuals, then the heterosexual community deserves accurate reporting on such, '''''before''''' heterosexuals are asked to pass judgment upon recognizing the legal validity of domestic, homosexual partnerships. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:34, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:RobS|RobS]], when you say ''the FBI is mandated by law to keep track of protected groups in hate crime reporting'' it seems like you believe that the law requires '''all''' crimes against homosexuals to be reported as anti-homosexual hate crimes. Do I have this right? This is not my understanding of the law, and I think all our differences hinge on this one point. If you are right, then I would agree with much of what you are saying - the FBI statistics would be virtually meaningless. Or are you making a more nuanced argument? Something like "police officers may mistakenly perceive any crime against a homosexual as a hate crime, especially if they do not determine the sexual orientation of the offender, thus they may include crimes in the statistics that do not belong there (for example gay-on-gay domestic violence crimes)". Am I getting closer to understanding you? Either way, do you have any references to flesh out your concerns? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 13:20, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::As I've stated above, the investigating officer or agency must make a determination.

::Now, let's marry two threads here. There has been extensive discussion on several pages about [[Homophobia]], and I believe I have effectively made the argument that many, if not most, "homophobes" who seek psychiatric treatment today are homosexual. It would not be surprising given this, that there is a certain amount of gay-on-gay anti-homosexual violence, and much may be occurring in gay domestic relationships. Or it could occur even randomly or anonymously in the gay lifestyle, that is to say a gay person, unhappy with himself for being attracted to members of the same sex, or blaming gays for making him attracted to them, vents his anger at himself and gays for being involved in the homosexual lifestyle. None of these reporting statistics, mandated by law, be they "hate crime" stats, or domestic violence stats, allow for taking this into account. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:36, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

::: I suggest moving all this junk to an article on hate crimes. It doesn't have much to do with homophobia. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:40, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:RobS|RobS]], I think I am starting to get your point. You are saying (do I have this right?), that much of the violence that appears on the surface to be anti-homosexual hate crime is in fact perpetrated by homophobic gays. I think this is an interesting point, and I don't have a problem with including it per se, however I don't think the article as it is currently written conveys this point well at all. I think the best approach may be to have a factual paragraph about the FBI stats and then a paragraph putting forth your perspective. I think that approach will make your points clearer to the reader, rather than having them buried in the stats paragraph. Can you find some references that will allow us to say "some conservatives are concerned that", or "Such and such author has put forth the idea that" or whatever? Because we will be able to write a stronger paragraph if it can be backed up with references. I don't have time to work on this for the next few days, but will try to take a stab at it when I get a chance.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:48, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

== References for Anti-homosexual violence discussion ==

<references/>

== "most common usage" ==

:Though the term can be used for a variety of purposes, its most common usage is to criticize people opposed to homosexuality.

I happen to think this statement is correct, or at least is correct as of the last few decades. But I'd like to see sources or evidence presented that confirms it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:16, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:I think we've proven on this talk page several times over the meaning was corrupted from the git go; it was coined to impugn critics of the APA dropping homosexuality as a mental diagnosis, it has persisted, but the failure of legistlators to criminalize what was alleged to be a mental disturbance has led to the theraputic community dropping the term. Its ''misuse'' has persisted in popular culture, largely because common people have not got the message that both the legal and threputic professions are dropping the term. And lastly, the accepted theraputic use of the term was applied most often to homosexuals themselves. In sum, popular usage never understood what it meant, and has always been misused. It is little more than an attack term, when it originally was invented to make people think opponents of the homosexual agenda were crazy, not criminal, as it is misued today. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::And the citable '''source''' that supports "criticism of people opposed to homosexuality" as its most common use is... what? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:54, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:::
::::The term '''homophobia''' describes the aversion of a person to [[homosexuality]]. Unlike other pathopsychological [[phobia]]s (e.g. [[arachnaphobia]]=a fear of [[spider]]s) this phobia isn't primarily about avoiding contact, but the deliberate insulting, humiliation and symbolic annihilation of homosexuals.
::::Homophobia usually manifests itself through insults, humiliation, threats and violence directed at homosexuals and may also be directed at [[heterosexuals]] perceived to be homosexual by the perpetrator.
:
::::[[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]]

=="Homophobia-phobia"==
This seems to be an unsourced personal essay or opinion by [[User:Jaques]]. No source is cited to show that this term has any significant degree of usage. Only 92 [http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Homophobia-phobia&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 Google hits] on the term (hits include both with and without the hyphen), a negligible number (compare 1,490,000 for ''homophobia,'' 34,900 for ''phobophobia'' (fear of fear), 29,200 for ''heterophobia'' (fear of heterosexuals), 14,900 for ''gamophobia'' (fear of marriage), 11,700 for ''theophobia'' (fear of God), 1310 for ''pantophobia'' (fear of everything). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:54, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

===Homophobia-Phobia===
Because of the fear of homophobia, some homsexuals develop a phobia of homophobes, and may become paranoid to the point that he/she believe everyone who dislike him/her or say anything negative about homosexuality is a homophobe.

===Homophobiaphobiaphobia===

A condition affecting homophobes who are too frightened to admit that they are homophobic because of widespread phobia against homophobes. Not an official mental condition yet but you heard it here first.

::Actully, Homophobiaphobiaphobia means people who are afraid of those homosexuals who are afraid of homophobes.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 01:29, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

===Homophilia===
Why hasn't this word been coined? It is technichally and mechanically the opposite of "Homophobia." "homo" + "phobia" = "homophobia." Since "Philia" is the literal and exact opposite of "Phobia" it should therefore follow that: "Homo" + "Philia" = "Homophilia." If no one has any objections I would like to coin and use this word as is applicable.--[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 17:15, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

* It is nothing, as it means the same, apparently. Let's try to keep this as jargon free as possible. Oh, and FYI, please edit and sign your post, please. Unsigned posts are removed. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:13, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
<blockquote>homophilia:
Another term for homosexuality , the condition in which love and lust are directed to persons of the same sex. [http://www.sex-lexis.com/Sex-Dictionary/homophilia]
</blockquote>
okey-dokey--[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 17:18, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

===snarl===

What is a 'snarl' word please? [[User:MrSmith|MrSmith]] 16:30, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Universal common ancestry

2007-09-19T10:41:41Z

PhilMcAvity: mmmm?

Removed from intro:

:The idea is that every species has descended from a [[common ancestor]] or ancestral [[gene pool]].

Where is this supported or even amplified later on in the article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:49, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
:: Hmm ... not sure what you mean ... do you mean that the article doesn't provide any support for the proposition that universal common ancestry means that all life descended from a common ancestor? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:08, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

''Creationism vigorously rejects this idea, based on their belief that the scientific evidence makes universal common ancestry appear highly improbable or impossible.'' Some sourced examples of this ''scientific evidence'' would improve the article.

''Universal common ancestry is an ancient idea'' Did ''pagans'' really believe ''that '''all life''' on Earth is related via a single family tree'' from a common ancestor?

The ''cars'' argument about ''common design characteristics'' makes creationists look silly. Life forms (species) reproduce themselves. Makes of car don't.

[[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]] 06:41, 19 September 2007 (EDT)