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.
“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)
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.
There are other hypotheses besides sexual abuse. None of them are “compelling,” though.
Did anyone else find this quote disturbing:
Eeek!
Blaron, freedom of speech doesn’t apply to a private message board. And it doesn’t always stop lawsuits.
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.
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.
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.
Diogenes: Just because you assert that it is so, repeatedly and ‘loudly’, does not make it so.
From the second reference:
emphasis added
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.
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.
Well then I suggest you quit stating it as fact until you can find some sort of cite to back it up.
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?
Fuck you, it’s a fact.
What are you going to do about it?
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 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.
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.”
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?
Is that anything like ‘my post is my cite’?
I’m not weaseling out, I just don’t give a fuck. My post is my fucking cite. Take it or leave it.
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.
Your cite has been shown to be incorrect.