"This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. (Here comes the FAG apology).... This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children."
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756/
This appears to be our governments way of politely saying MALE FAGGOTS molest children at a far greater rate then that of heterosexuals...
Check out Websters definition of "androphilic": showing preference for males or for humans as distinguished from animals...
The illegitimate supposed word "androphilic" is only used to take the heat off of the fact that FAGGOTS are child molesters, it's the same concept as throwing dispersant on a massive oil spill catastrophe, the only accomplishment is damage control and the hell with the environment.
Do you understand my analogy? The environment is the common man and throwing a dispersant on crude oil in a pool of water doesn't accomplish anything but make the scenery more slightly and the hell with the FAGGOT societal pollution.
I understand the argument you're trying to make, however, the fact remains that there is no cumulative, convergent, quantitatively rigorous evidence to support it. Period. Collusion of external perceptions of tastes and predilection for crime is neither scientifically valid nor public policy-wise responsible or ethical.
From your word choice (including assigning "fact" to your opinion) and emphatic use of all-caps, however, it's clear where your personal, empirically unjustifiable biases lie, and how those prejudices influence your own judgments and claims--all which I'm confident others who read/hear your ... comments ... become quickly aware of.
I don't mean to be rude, but there's really no reason for us to continue the conversation.
It's not about "convincing." It's about rational arguments formed on convergent, rigorous, objective evidence over long stretches of time, made in different research settings the globe over. The tobacco industry wasn't "convinced" by the weight of the amassing medical evidence linking tobacco smoke with lung cancer, either. But that's exactly why empiricism is humanity's best means of discerning what's true. The overwhelming biomedical, anthropological, and historical evidence supports the evolutionary model of homosexuality as a natural variation, not just of human behavior, but of animal behavior across the animal kingdom.
You're welcome to your perspective. Just don't be surprised that very many, including very many of the planet's brightest minds, disagree with you.
Is it normal that I can't stand age restrictions?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
"This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. (Here comes the FAG apology).... This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children."
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756/
This appears to be our governments way of politely saying MALE FAGGOTS molest children at a far greater rate then that of heterosexuals...
Check out Websters definition of "androphilic": showing preference for males or for humans as distinguished from animals...
The illegitimate supposed word "androphilic" is only used to take the heat off of the fact that FAGGOTS are child molesters, it's the same concept as throwing dispersant on a massive oil spill catastrophe, the only accomplishment is damage control and the hell with the environment.
Do you understand my analogy? The environment is the common man and throwing a dispersant on crude oil in a pool of water doesn't accomplish anything but make the scenery more slightly and the hell with the FAGGOT societal pollution.
--
AB1234
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I understand the argument you're trying to make, however, the fact remains that there is no cumulative, convergent, quantitatively rigorous evidence to support it. Period. Collusion of external perceptions of tastes and predilection for crime is neither scientifically valid nor public policy-wise responsible or ethical.
From your word choice (including assigning "fact" to your opinion) and emphatic use of all-caps, however, it's clear where your personal, empirically unjustifiable biases lie, and how those prejudices influence your own judgments and claims--all which I'm confident others who read/hear your ... comments ... become quickly aware of.
I don't mean to be rude, but there's really no reason for us to continue the conversation.
--
LittleGirlRapedAndSodomised#S2
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You're not going to convince me I've looked a bit too far into this subject a couple years ago and have made up my mind.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ygrd29-_O3I
--
AB1234
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
It's not about "convincing." It's about rational arguments formed on convergent, rigorous, objective evidence over long stretches of time, made in different research settings the globe over. The tobacco industry wasn't "convinced" by the weight of the amassing medical evidence linking tobacco smoke with lung cancer, either. But that's exactly why empiricism is humanity's best means of discerning what's true. The overwhelming biomedical, anthropological, and historical evidence supports the evolutionary model of homosexuality as a natural variation, not just of human behavior, but of animal behavior across the animal kingdom.
You're welcome to your perspective. Just don't be surprised that very many, including very many of the planet's brightest minds, disagree with you.