It's common knowledge, backed by statistics, that the majority of pedophiles were abused as children. They are not born, they're made.
I don't give a shit about their feelings; you come near my kids and you're losing a body part. If you were actually a "non-offending" pedophile, if you actually were acting in good faith, you'd be staying the hell away from kids on your own.
You don’t get it, the gay rights movement was to take down the barrier for pedophilia. When they could push sodomy as “biological” they could push sodomy with kids as “biological”. There is no age of puberty for anal rape. THERE IS STILL NO EVIDENCE THAT BEING GAY IS INHERENTLY GENETIC OR BIOLOGICAL. We pretended the gay community “dropped” nambla in the 70s, it was a lie.
I have never met a sodomite who didn't have a past of abuse. Those that say they haven't will later admit that it was a "consenting" relationship with someone much older than them....
you are aware that being exposed to extreme hardcore pornography at a young age and having it drilled into your head throughout your childhood is abuse, right?
The 'born this way' argument works for gays because being gay was accepted as not inherently evil, just deviant. That's where the "live and let live" gets used.
But for pedos, doesn't being 'born that way' just make a case for euthenasia?
You’re taking it a different direction, they want pedophilia to be considered biological so they can rush in and grant fake rights to fuck kids. Just as they did with gays and trans and now gay /trans kids.
THERE IS STILL NO EVIDENCE THAT BEING GAY IS INHERENTLY GENETIC OR BIOLOGICAL
I wouldn't say that. The two stats I've seen that would suggest a biological component was that the likelihood of son growing up and becoming gay looked something like this:
1st born son: less than 1% chance
2nd born son: less than 1% chance
1st born son with a sister: less than 1% chance
1st born son with 2 sisters: less than 1% chance
2nd born son with a brother and a sister: less than 1% chance
3rd born son: 30% chance
The fact that it's not a linear jump suggests that something might have activated in these kids by the time they were hitting puberty. It does make me think that there is something about homosexuality that functions as a kind of natural population control, because you see it emerge in populations that are heavily gender segregated, like in prisons. It's also pretty obvious that it happens in the Muslim world, even if they deny it. I have a longer hypothesis that it's actually a way of removing low-status men and women from potential breeding pools without resorting to the inevitable social violence that would occur if the disproportionality of men-to-women, or women-to-men got too extreme.
You realize you just posted two social components not biological right? What gene causes gay? What hormonal imbalances cause gayness? There is no biological proof that gayness exists… even the AMA, WHO, APA won’t make that claim. They just pretend it’s true.
Genetics doesn't typically work like that in any case. Particularly for behaviors. There's no "angry" gene. There's no "violence" gene. There's no "inquisitive" gene.
You realize you just posted two social components not biological right?
Why would you think that that the reaction to an environmental condition is purely social?
Put it like this: there is a specific species of lizard that has evolved to swim from one island to another in order to find more territory. However, due to the difficulties of these swims, many lizards may die. What's been discovered is that a certain percentage of these lizards are capable of actually changing their sex enough to create fertile offspring. I believe this case it was the females of the species that were larger and did the swimming. If only 3 of 20 lizards survived the trip and they were all female, sometimes they would die out on the island, but other times one of the females would actually partly change sex including producing sperm and inseminating other females. This cause the population to have male and female offspring, allowing the population to grow.
That's fucking weird and not human, and we know that the animals themselves don't have a "social construct" to talk about. However, there's no question that the environment caused a biological reaction. Specifically the lack of suitable males.
Obviously, genetics can create behaviors that modify your environment. However, environmental pressures can absolutely effect your genes.
I don't think it would be beyond reason to imagine that environmental stressors could cause a biological reaction in people that were predisposed to react in a certain way. If those stressors were a significant lack of potential mates of the opposite sex, it wouldn't surprise me that some small percentage of the male population would be predisposed to sexual activity with the male population, removing lower status males from the breeding pool of potential suitors for the few females, and creating a less violent and lethal environment for males fighting for breeding rights.
Really? Going with the 'born that way' argument?
It's common knowledge, backed by statistics, that the majority of pedophiles were abused as children. They are not born, they're made.
I don't give a shit about their feelings; you come near my kids and you're losing a body part. If you were actually a "non-offending" pedophile, if you actually were acting in good faith, you'd be staying the hell away from kids on your own.
You don’t get it, the gay rights movement was to take down the barrier for pedophilia. When they could push sodomy as “biological” they could push sodomy with kids as “biological”. There is no age of puberty for anal rape. THERE IS STILL NO EVIDENCE THAT BEING GAY IS INHERENTLY GENETIC OR BIOLOGICAL. We pretended the gay community “dropped” nambla in the 70s, it was a lie.
I have never met a sodomite who didn't have a past of abuse. Those that say they haven't will later admit that it was a "consenting" relationship with someone much older than them....
Guess I don't exist, according to this person.
you are aware that being exposed to extreme hardcore pornography at a young age and having it drilled into your head throughout your childhood is abuse, right?
The 'born this way' argument works for gays because being gay was accepted as not inherently evil, just deviant. That's where the "live and let live" gets used.
But for pedos, doesn't being 'born that way' just make a case for euthenasia?
and look where that got us
quite possibly the 2nd worst mistake we made as a civilization after allowing women to choose who to marry, but I'm not sure which was worse
You’re taking it a different direction, they want pedophilia to be considered biological so they can rush in and grant fake rights to fuck kids. Just as they did with gays and trans and now gay /trans kids.
I wouldn't say that. The two stats I've seen that would suggest a biological component was that the likelihood of son growing up and becoming gay looked something like this:
The fact that it's not a linear jump suggests that something might have activated in these kids by the time they were hitting puberty. It does make me think that there is something about homosexuality that functions as a kind of natural population control, because you see it emerge in populations that are heavily gender segregated, like in prisons. It's also pretty obvious that it happens in the Muslim world, even if they deny it. I have a longer hypothesis that it's actually a way of removing low-status men and women from potential breeding pools without resorting to the inevitable social violence that would occur if the disproportionality of men-to-women, or women-to-men got too extreme.
You realize you just posted two social components not biological right? What gene causes gay? What hormonal imbalances cause gayness? There is no biological proof that gayness exists… even the AMA, WHO, APA won’t make that claim. They just pretend it’s true.
Genetics doesn't typically work like that in any case. Particularly for behaviors. There's no "angry" gene. There's no "violence" gene. There's no "inquisitive" gene.
Why would you think that that the reaction to an environmental condition is purely social?
Put it like this: there is a specific species of lizard that has evolved to swim from one island to another in order to find more territory. However, due to the difficulties of these swims, many lizards may die. What's been discovered is that a certain percentage of these lizards are capable of actually changing their sex enough to create fertile offspring. I believe this case it was the females of the species that were larger and did the swimming. If only 3 of 20 lizards survived the trip and they were all female, sometimes they would die out on the island, but other times one of the females would actually partly change sex including producing sperm and inseminating other females. This cause the population to have male and female offspring, allowing the population to grow.
That's fucking weird and not human, and we know that the animals themselves don't have a "social construct" to talk about. However, there's no question that the environment caused a biological reaction. Specifically the lack of suitable males.
Obviously, genetics can create behaviors that modify your environment. However, environmental pressures can absolutely effect your genes.
I don't think it would be beyond reason to imagine that environmental stressors could cause a biological reaction in people that were predisposed to react in a certain way. If those stressors were a significant lack of potential mates of the opposite sex, it wouldn't surprise me that some small percentage of the male population would be predisposed to sexual activity with the male population, removing lower status males from the breeding pool of potential suitors for the few females, and creating a less violent and lethal environment for males fighting for breeding rights.
Even if they are born with it, I don't care. Sucks to be them. Lock 'em up.
I don't know that that's the case. The only statistic that I've seen is that 30% of abuse victims became abusers.