Typical right-wing anti-sciencism. If we don't do research on minor attracted persons, how will we know that shampoo is actually tear-free? Or that a medicine is safe for human use? Or how long it would take fire ants to eat a face?
In all seriousness, it's a complicated issue. A huge chuck of existing pedophiles were abused as kids by adults and there definitely seems to be a link. I think it's a terrible idea, generally, to hold people accountable for what they might do, rather than what they've done.
On the other hand, it's pretty obvious that this prof is an SJW trying to push "tolerance". It frames the protests as attacking the LGBETC movement, it's book praises pedos for not offending (a bit like praising a psychopath for not torturing animals), and it itself has acted on unhealthy urges that could very well harm itself or others.
If we're talking about research on pedophiles, we should be talking about hormone therapy, chemical castration, partial lobotomies, etc. Writing a book painting MAPs (an obvious trojan hourse for the normalization and martyrization of pedophiles) as sympathetic, that's not research.
I think the idea was trying to understand how people come to be this way, in an effort to stop it from happening (if possible). In reference to the above comment, not the prof from the article. He can get fucked, bc this was clearly in pursuit of normalizing pedophilia.
It probably would be a decent idea to actually figure out if people becoming pedophiles can be prevented. Whether it's an evil decision or something that can be medicated or somehow prevented it probably worth knowing.
Typical right-wing anti-sciencism. If we don't do research on minor attracted persons, how will we know that shampoo is actually tear-free? Or that a medicine is safe for human use? Or how long it would take fire ants to eat a face?
In all seriousness, it's a complicated issue. A huge chuck of existing pedophiles were abused as kids by adults and there definitely seems to be a link. I think it's a terrible idea, generally, to hold people accountable for what they might do, rather than what they've done.
On the other hand, it's pretty obvious that this prof is an SJW trying to push "tolerance". It frames the protests as attacking the LGBETC movement, it's book praises pedos for not offending (a bit like praising a psychopath for not torturing animals), and it itself has acted on unhealthy urges that could very well harm itself or others.
If we're talking about research on pedophiles, we should be talking about hormone therapy, chemical castration, partial lobotomies, etc. Writing a book painting MAPs (an obvious trojan hourse for the normalization and martyrization of pedophiles) as sympathetic, that's not research.
Sorry there are no “two-sides” to pedophilia. They can die.
I think the idea was trying to understand how people come to be this way, in an effort to stop it from happening (if possible). In reference to the above comment, not the prof from the article. He can get fucked, bc this was clearly in pursuit of normalizing pedophilia.
It probably would be a decent idea to actually figure out if people becoming pedophiles can be prevented. Whether it's an evil decision or something that can be medicated or somehow prevented it probably worth knowing.
Don't need to understand evil. You obliterate it.
Yeah I get that, but no need to be shortsighted. If it can be understood and PREVENTED its certainly worth doing so.
Did you know that research is often based on talking to people?
Comment Reported for: Sexualization of Minors
Comment Approved: He didn't. Christ, he advocated castration as research.