# LadMirer shouldn't have been banned **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 29, 2004, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058 "2004-11-29T00:27:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/61 "2004-11-29T04:05:04Z")
> [@Q.E.D.](#): > > Of course not. But it does _suggest_ a genetic component is at least possible. You cannot just dismiss the possibility out of hand, as you have been doing. Anything is “possible.” It’s ridiculous to assert it as fact the way the OP did, and the evidence that it is caused by sexual abuse is almost overwhelming. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/62 "2004-11-29T04:05:09Z")
> [@Ferret Herder](#): > > Well, he was advocating illegal activity - basically the argument of the NAMBLA people, claiming that if it doesn’t involve violence, then it’s A-OK. Ignoring, of course, the issue of age of consent, among other things. “Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing _imminent_ lawless action and \*is likely to incite or produce such action.” [emphasis mine] \*. [BRANDENBURG v. OHIO, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=395&invol=444) Even having an admitted pedophile on the board, who advocates breaking the law, still appears to fall within First Amendment free speach rights. It’s understandable if the board administrators wants to avoid such things for reasons of reputation, morality, etc. But unless the guy is actually talking about boys he’s currently bagging I don’t see what legal propblems we’d run into. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/63 "2004-11-29T04:06:43Z")
> [@Larry Mudd](#): > > When it has been made abundantly clear that there are several compelling hypotheses concerning the root causes of paedophilia, none of which have been conclusively proven, on what basis do you so arbitrarily and vociferously propound one particular hypothesis? > > You may as well froth at the mouth and insist that it _is_ elven curses, for all the weight that carries. There are other hypotheses besides sexual abuse. None of them are “compelling,” though. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/64 "2004-11-29T04:08:36Z")
Did anyone else find this quote disturbing: > [@](#): > > Pedophilia usually begins in adolescence, although some individuals report they did not become aroused by children until middle age. Eeek! **Blaron** , freedom of speech doesn’t apply to a private message board. And it doesn’t always stop lawsuits. ---
**Author:** ![LibrarySpy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f9ae1b/32.png) [@LibrarySpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LibrarySpy)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/65 "2004-11-29T04:09:19Z")
As a homosexual, I’m just as offended by people using homosexuality being unlike pedophilia as the basis for condemning pedophilia as I am by people using pedophilia being like homosexuality to condemn homosexuality. Knock it off! Whether it’s genetic or pre-cognitive environmental or sexual abuse, a pedophile is not easily cured or treated. Pedophiles who do **not** act on their desires with children are not dangerous, nor are they breaking any laws by existing, and I’m an advocate for keeping it that way. (upon preview, what **Blalron** said). Regardless, I wholly support **Lynn Bodoni** ’s investigation and judgement. While banning someone for being a pedophile is questionable, banning someone for being a complete asshole should happen far more often. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/66 "2004-11-29T04:11:21Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Even having an admitted pedophile on the board, who advocates breaking the law, still appears to fall within First Amendment free speach rights. I think the legal danger I would be concerned about would not be from the state, as this would as you say fall under First Amendment protection, but the potential civil liability involved, even if it was only to the extent of having to defend a law suit brought by someone alleging their abuser was facilitated by the postings. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/67 "2004-11-29T04:12:22Z")
Keeping in mind that \*\* Diogenes \*\* believes that teens who have been attracted to older people are likely former victims of abuse, and permanently damaged (regardless of what the supposed victim says), I strongly doubt he’s going to move an inch away from his current stance when we’re discussing about actual kids. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/68 "2004-11-29T04:13:35Z")
**Diogenes** : Just because you assert that it is so, repeatedly and ‘loudly’, does not make it so. [Look here](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7810580) and [here](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12839890). From the second reference: > [@](#): > > The origins of variations in sexual age preferences are not known, but a number of potential causes can be ruled out. **Childhood sexual experience has been an intuitively appealing and popular etiological candidate but can be rejected on several grounds**. Within- and between-gender sex play among children is extremely common, whereas pedophilic preferences are uncommon in men and perhaps nonexistent among women. The fact that almost all sex offenses against children are committed by men and most of these against female children (Carlstedt, Forsman & Soderstrom, 2001) rules out any simple etiological role of early sexual experience in the development of pedophilia. In the most ambitious and best-controlled study of adjudicated offenders, Gebhard et al. (1965) found that a minority of sex offenders reported sexual contact with adults and the proportion so reporting was no higher among men who sexually offended against children than men who had committed nonsexual offenses. In societies where sex between boys and men is very common, the boys take wives and have children as adults (Herdt, 1984), suggesting that they develop male-typical sex and age erotic preferences. **The evidence supporting the early sexual experiences hypothesis is very weak** , mostly consisting of the retrospective reports of identified offenders contrasted with inadequate comparison groups (Garland & Dougher, 1990). > > Conditioning interpretations of the presumed effects of early sexual experience have frequently been advanced. Experimental attempts to condition sexual arousal to neutral or nonpreferred stimuli in adult subjects (e.g., Lalumière & Quinsey, 1998), however, suffer from the same ambiguities of interpretation as the treatment literature that uses conditioning techniques to eliminate arousal to preferred stimuli because it is entirely unclear whether the changes observed actually reflect changes in enduring underlying preferences, and there is good reason to believe from studies of instructional control that they do not (Quinsey & Chaplin, 1988b). > > \*\*The failure to find experiential determinants of pedophilic preferences, their early appearance, and their apparent stability encourage the development of a neurohormonal explanation. \*\*The central idea is that the male sexual preference system comprises a number of neurally based modules that correspond to ancestrally recurring reproductive problems. These include determining the appropriate sex and age of partner, as well as particular courtship patterns. We have seen how male homosexuality can be interpreted as resulting from a perturbation in the masculinization of the brain. Pedophilia could develop from a variant of the same process. emphasis added ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/69 "2004-11-29T04:14:54Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > When that correlation approaches 100% and there are virtually zero occurances of pedophilia _without_ that factor, I think it’s a pretty safe guess. No, it isn’t. Even if the correlation _was_ 100%, that would only demonstrate that it was a necessary condition for pedophillia, i.e., that if someone is a pedophile those factors were present. It _does not_ prove that those conditions are necessary and sufficient for pedophillia, i.e., that if those factors are present, someone will become a pedophile. Clearly, there are plenty of people who have “a history of neglect, child sexual abuse, physical abuse or emotional abuse.” But obviously not all of those people have pedophilic tendencies, so it’s safe to conclude that there are other factors that are also necessary for someone to become a pedophile. What are those factors? We obviously don’t know. But some kind of genetic component seems like a very reasonable assumption to me. I can see how a reasonable person could disagree, but I’d _hope_ that those people can disagree in a civil, “fuckface” free manner. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/70 "2004-11-29T04:14:58Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Where are you getting this 100% correlation number Diogenes? I got it from a human sexuality class in college (that the percentage was well into the 90’s) but my search skills are crap and I can’t find a cite. I also hate typing the word “pedophilia” into a search engine. I fear what may turn up. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/71 "2004-11-29T04:16:33Z")
Well then I suggest you quit stating it as fact until you can find some sort of cite to back it up. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/72 "2004-11-29T04:19:07Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > No, it isn’t. Even if the correlation _was_ 100%, that would only demonstrate that it was a necessary condition for pedophillia, i.e., that if someone is a pedophile those factors were present. It _does not_ prove that those conditions are necessary and sufficient for pedophillia, i.e., that if those factors are present, someone will become a pedophile. Clearly, there are plenty of people who have “a history of neglect, child sexual abuse, physical abuse or emotional abuse.” But obviously not all of those people have pedophilic tendencies, so it’s safe to conclude that there are other factors that are also necessary for someone to become a pedophile. What are those factors? We obviously don’t know. But some kind of genetic component seems like a very reasonable assumption to me. I can see how a reasonable person could disagree, but I’d _hope_ that those people can disagree in a civil, “fuckface” free manner. Some people react to abuse by getting their scrotums pierced or by robbing gas stations or by shooting up smack. It would be be stupid to say that since not everybody robs gas stations that there must be a genetic component. Anyway it was the OP who made a categorical assertion that pedophiles are born that way. Why is he getting a pass on that? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/73 "2004-11-29T04:20:36Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Well then I suggest you quit stating it as fact until you can find some sort of cite to back it up. Fuck you, it’s a fact. What are you going to do about it? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/74 "2004-11-29T04:23:16Z")
Ha we got a tough guy now. Don’t get mad at me that you are being called on spewing bullshit and then being called on trying to weasel out of giving a cite. ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/75 "2004-11-29T04:24:02Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Some people react to abuse by getting their scrotums pierced or by robbing gas stations or by shooting up smack. It would be be stupid to say that since not everybody robs gas stations that there must be a genetic component. I’m not arguing that there _must_ be a genetic component, only that it’s a reasonable assumption. Also, I think this is a flawed analogy, because scrotum piercing and robbery are actions, rather then sexual desires. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Anyway it was the OP who made a categorical assertion that pedophiles are born that way. Why is he getting a pass on that? Because he didn’t say that those who believed otherwise were “fucking ignorant,” nor as he said that what you say is “fucking garbage,” nor has he called you a “fuckface.” ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/76 "2004-11-29T04:29:47Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > I’m not arguing that there _must_ be a genetic component, only that it’s a reasonable assumption. Also, I think this is a flawed analogy, because scrotum piercing and robbery are actions, rather then sexual desires. How about the _desire_ to cut oneself or to binge and purge or to do violence to others? I think this is a distinction without a difference. Because he didn’t say that those who believed otherwise were “fucking ignorant,” nor as he said that what you say is “fucking garbage,” nor has he called you a “fuckface.” [/QUOTE] So as long as you don’t insult people you can post any ignorant ass assertion you want as though it were fact? ---
**Author:** ![fruitbat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/58f4c7/32.png) [@fruitbat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fruitbat)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/77 "2004-11-29T04:30:55Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Fuck you, it’s a fact. > > What are you going to do about it? Is that anything like ‘my post is my cite’? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/78 "2004-11-29T04:31:00Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Ha we got a tough guy now. > > Don’t get mad at me that you are being called on spewing bullshit and then being called on trying to weasel out of giving a cite. I’m not weaseling out, I just don’t give a fuck. My post is my fucking cite. Take it or leave it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/79 "2004-11-29T04:33:58Z")
By the way, anyone who is able is freely invited to find some numbers for that correlation on their own and post them. I can’t find any stats at all. I’m willing to be corrected. ---
**Author:** ![LibrarySpy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f9ae1b/32.png) [@LibrarySpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LibrarySpy)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2004, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058/80 "2004-11-29T04:34:07Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I’m not weaseling out, I just don’t give a fuck. My post is my fucking cite. Take it or leave it. Your cite has been shown to be incorrect. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladmirer-shouldnt-have-been-banned/277058.md?page=5)