By whom?
My fucking ass you are. You have come in here widely spouting stats and insulting anyone who dares disagree with you. But you know what I am gonna do it anyway:
Eat crow fuckface.
oops heres the link
No, but it doesn’t mean you have to be abusive or foul-mouthed when calling them on it, either.
Hey, moron, your link goes to a pro-pedophilia site. You should be more careful about vetting your own links. 
Dio, note the quote you cherry-picked from mhendo’s post. The woman is a psychologist, not a researcher. As she works in the court systems, her experience is naturally going to be entirely skewed; EVERY CLIENT she works with is either a molester or an abuse victim. This would hardly make her an expert on non-criminals who are yet attracted to children.
I’ve held my nose and done some googling (adding the word “pathology” to the search seems to have filtered out the uglier side of the internet) and as far as I can tell, pedophile != molester, and molester != pedophile.
Not only that, but apparently molester != prior abuse victim either. I’ve found my own cite here. Check the “Common Myths” link.
I don’t know what triggered your knee jerk reaction or your frothing at the mouth. It’s an ugly subject, true, but willful ignorance about its nature and possible causes only makes things uglier.
OK, I’ll consider the “desire” to pierce a scrotum and rob a gas station and address it has a valid analogy…
The thing is, no one is saying the equivalent of “not everybody robs gas stations so there must be a genetic component.” What I’m trying to say is “not everybody who was physically abused as a child robs gas stations, so there must be components that aren’t physical abuse. Perhaps some of those components are genetic.”
No, but if you’re going to attack someone for making “ignorant ass” assertions as though they were fact, you may want to refrain from doing this:
when you are in turn called on your own assertions. It just seems kinda intellectually dishonest, ya know?
I never said it did. I have made no comment at all about pedophiles acting out or not. I have spoken only in terms of what causes the desire.
Your cite only says that not all offenders were sexually abused.
I did not say that the abuse had to be sexual, I said there had to be trauma…and not all offenders are pedophiles.
I don’t know, nor much care, if pedophilia is genetic or learned. (Although I always assumed it was genetic, but WTF do I know?) However, your attack on PaulFitzroy is utterly stupid. Take a look at what he actually wrote:
Notice the bolded part there? Or heterosexuals. Or heterosexuals. He is equating pedos with gays and pedos to straights to exactly the same extent. The basic premise of his statement clearly relies on an assumed equivalency between heterosexuality and homosexuality, and the relationship of pedophilia to both orientations. This can not, in anyway, be reasonably interpreted as a homophobic statement, as you (and others) have done in this thread.
I think he was just covering his ass, but I already said if he was willing to clarify that he was drawing no equivalency between homosexuality and pedophilia then I would retract my statement.
What the fuck does Bricker have to do with anything?
Once again: The point people are trying to make isn’t that he made no such no equivalency, but that the equivalency that he did make wasn’t insulting to gays.
I beg to differ.
[hijack]
You step off the boards for a couple of days, and look what happens…
Has the original thread been taken down? What in the blue blazes happened?
[/hijack]
Carry on.
I didn’t realize that my cite was for a pro-pedophillia site. I retract it as a site.
This does not change that you are lying, posted incorrect facts and insulted people that called you on your bullshit. How is that crow tasting?
I apologize for reading your assertion wrong, but since pedophilia is such an understudied field it’s a fairly safe bet that the only remotely accurate stats you might find would come from studies of criminal sexual offenders. I doubt you’d get many non-offenders freely volunteering such information about their pedophilic sexual desires and their suspected causes.
Your next statement is incorrect:
Oh, yes, you did.
It’s no wonder you feel you’re being misunderstood, here.
And on preview,
Provide the cite for why you differ. “I was taught it in class, so it’s a fact” is not a cite.
What did I lie about?
Yeah, and the best way to do that is to call him a fuckface first.
Just doing my part as a member of the non-psychotic left. We all hope you come back real soon.
Actually I think we need a rule or at least a tacit agreement of just the oppostie. Our friend Diogenes the Cynic has admitted on a few occasions that he flies off the hand far more easily when he is not as familiar with a subject. Notice that his cite so far has been “I got it from a human sexuality class in college”.
I suggest we take him at his word and simply ignore him when he does this.
Perhaps we could alter our manifesto to fighitng polite ignorance and ignoring the rest?
Are we having reading comprehension troubles? I pointed it out to you, Jenaroph pointed it out to you and I will point it out again. I even bolded it for you.
OK, I was sloppy. The high correlation is with childhood trauma. That trauma can take many forms.
I need a cite for an opinion? It’s my opinion that equating homosexuality with pedophilia is insulting to people who are homosexual.