Not every pedophile does the exact same thing. Are you honestly saying that because he said nothing happened, that makes it okay? That if you knew someone who was around kids all day, say, a teacher or coach or boy scout leader, who told you he had sleepovers with young boys but nothing happened and he just did it because he was so-child like himself and you saw him at a party/local event snuggling on the couch with some boy, that well, “Of course, a real pedophile wouldn’t do it in public!”?
No, apparently you didn’t bother to read what I actually wrote. Clearly, you didn’t as you took away from it something I didn’t actually say. I said that your idea of a pattern sucks out loud.
Take the pattern:
0, 2, 3, 9, 26, 27, 28, 79, 81, 83
It predicts nothing though it has in it some weak pattern, which if removed from all the other shit in it would be an actual pattern. As such, you can’t say with any reasonable confidence what the next number would be. It be 3^5, or not. So, as a pattern, it blows.
Similarly, your alleged pattern isn’t a pattern of anything. You read into what you want to see instead of evaluating it on its own merits. And it’s worth noting that all of the people who have seen the evidence you claim is steadfast have rejected it. Well, minus the prosecution. But otherwise, 100% of the people who’ve seen it all have rejected it. That is telling.
I’m not sure where you’re going with analogy, but for my part, I would definitely be disinclined to take him at his word for that. If only there was some sort of formalized process by which we could hear the best arguments in support of two conflicting accounts, and then apply logic and reason to determine what is actually true…
I see, you want the Easter Bunny to be real. I think we should start a nation which has an adversarial process whereby we could do this. I think, for the sake of novelty, we should call it a “court”. I’ll give more thought to its construct later, but I’m tentatively leaning towards some kind of authority figure who deals with issues of a “law” and then some other people, a panel like thing, which deals with facts.
That’s actually what I wanted to say! I think he was batshit and so emotionally stunted that he didn’t realize that people would see his acts with boys as bizarro…
Frudian Slit… yes, it was really weird…but you have to understand that you’re talking about someone who IS really weird.
I just don’t see why him being weird means he can’t also be a pedophile. It also seemed like he was really playing up the “I’m just a strange, odd little boy type” persona in the documentary. Apparently it worked.
I don’t understand how you take one to imply the other. The two might happily occur in the same person, but there’s no good reason to think they must and several good reasons to think that neither implies the other.