Another Great Reason why ? Men should not raise children...
Options
Soloman_The_Wise
Members Posts: 2,817 ✭✭✭✭✭
Not all ? men are pedophiles and not all pedophiles are ? but a disproportionate amount are both in contrast to their hetero counter parts. Another sad fact is the ratio of Molested Males that later in life identify as ? . SOme may be born ? others are turned out...
HUNTSVILLE, Alabama - State prosecutors say they are "confident and satisfied" that Carl Philip Herold, accused of holding a child captive, sexually torturing him and producing child pornography of the torture, will show up for trial after a judge here raised Herold's bond to $1 million cash today.
Herold spoke to reporters outside the district courtroom saying, "I love and miss my son very much" and disputing a police investigator's testimony describing a trip Herold took to Disney World with the boy as at least in part about sex. Herold said the boy stayed with his grandmother during the trip and "turned 9 on Space Mountain."
Defense attorney Sam Dixon III argued in court that raising Herold's bond to $1 million was essentially holding his client without bond, which the Supreme Court says is unconstitutional. Assistant DA Jason Scully-Clemmons said after the hearing that Herold's attorney is being paid for by his employer, who might have the means to make a $1 million bond.
CARL PHILIP HEROLD.jpg
Carl Philip Herold (Huntsville Police Department)
Herold, 32, faces charges of producing child pornography, distributing child pornography, allowing his child to be depicted in pornography, ? , sexual abuse and aggravated child abuse. He is in the Madison County Jail and was before District Judge Alison Austin today on the state's bond increase petition.
Austin issued a similar order Monday raising to $1 million the bond against Charles Dunnavant, identified as Herold's domestic partner and suspected partner in the alleged crimes. Dunnavant faces charges including sexual torture, ? , aggravated child abuse and transmitting or exposing a person to a STD,
The judge told Herold Tuesday that "you do represent a threat and a risk of flight" as she raised the bonds on each of multiple charges against him to a total of $1 million cash. She ruled from the bench after a hearing that lasted just over 15 minutes and featured only one witness, Huntsville police investigator Chad Smith. The defense did not offer testimony.
Smith gave no graphic details from the stand but concentrated on evidence that Herold has lived in Huntsville less than nine months, has no ties to the community and has a history of moving around the country. The ability to flee and the possibility of flight are one part of the two-part legal test for higher bond. The other part is whether the defendant is a threat to the community, and Scully-Clemmons said Herold "is a special kind of threat."
One of the charges against Herold is holding the alleged child victim "captive," but Scully-Clemmons clarified that the reference was to keeping the boy under constant surveillance, not actually locking him up. The boy was never enrolled in school, never received normal immunizations and never had unsupervised play or outings, Smith testified.
Herold appeared alert and engaged before and during the hearing, conferring with Dixon and reacting to Smith's testimony. "That's not true," he told Dixon at one point, but he nodded to Smith that the investigator was right that Disney World was the destination of one trip out of state.
Smith testified that the boy's mother lives in Wyoming. She is separated, at least physically, from Herold, Smith said. Other sources said she "is not in the picture" as far as parenting.
Comments
-
Ether.
Even tho, I disagree. -
-
That two ? couple shouldn't be allowed to raise kids because of this incident.
It has to be more than that.
Those guys just like little boys.
What about the heterosexual couples who do the same thing? -
hope a lot of bad things happen to him and only him in the future.
-
@ohhhlaThat two ? couple shouldn't be allowed to raise kids because of this incident.
It has to be more than that.
Those guys just like little boys.
What about the heterosexual couples who do the same thing?
I agree in part I just find that a disproportionate amount of homosexuals male and female come from sexual abuse and sexual abusers tend to be the formerly abused. Their is a cycle and infection that occurs that the media and current public mindstate tends to overlook or dismiss. People want to ignore these connection and that is part of the problem... -
Soloman, any data you can show that can prove this? I've heard this before but never actually seen evidence of it
-
@kingblaze84kingblaze84 wrote: »Soloman, any data you can show that can prove this? I've heard this before but never actually seen evidence of it
yes the data is out there but it is not addressed and ignored by the lamestream media...
Here are a couple of articles on the matter...
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/179/6/482.full
http://www.statisticbrain.com/sex-offender-statistics/
breif abstract summary of article 2009 jesperssen sexofender research study...
a few more studies...Objective: The sexually abused–sexual abuser hypothesis states there is a specific relationship
between sexual abuse history and sexual offending, such that individuals who
experience sexual abuse are significantly more likely to later engage in sexual offenses.
Therefore, samples of adult sex offenders should contain a disproportionate number of
individuals who have experienced sexual abuse, but not necessarily other types of abuse,
compared with samples of other types of offenders.
Methods: We compared rates of sexual and other forms of abuse reported in 17 studies,
involving 1,037 sex offenders and 1,762 non-sex offenders.We also examined the prevalence
of different forms of abuse in 15 studies that compared adult sex offenders against adults
(n = 962) and against children (n = 1,334), to determine if the sexually abused–sexual abuser
association is even more specific to individuals who sexually offend against children.
Results:We observed a higher prevalence of sexual abuse history among adult sex offenders
than among non-sex offenders (Odds Ratio = 3.36, 95% confidence intervals of 2.23–4.82).
The two groups did not significantly differ with regard to physical abuse history (OR = 1.50,
95% CI = 0.88–2.56). There was a significantly lower prevalence of sexual abuse history
among sex offenders against adults compared to sex offenders against children (OR = 0.51,
95% CI = 0.35–0.74), whereas the opposite was found for physical abuse (OR = 1.43, 95%
CI = 1.02–2.02).
Conclusion: There is support for the sexually abused–sexual abuser hypothesis, in that sex
offenders are more likely to have been sexually abused than non-sex offenders, but not more
likely to have been physically abused.We discuss potential mechanisms for the relationship
between sexual abuse history and sexual offending, including the possibility that a third
factor might account for the relationship.
Practice implications: The most obvious implications of these findings is that the prevention
of sexual abuse of children, either through prevention programs directly targeting
children or through treatment programs targeting individuals who are likely to sexually
offend against children (e.g., known sex offenders against extra-familial boys), may eventually
reduce the number of sex offenders. This implication is dependent, however, on a
causal role of childhood sexual abuse, and on the effectiveness of prevention and treatment
practices.
©
http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/06/17/childhood-sexual-abuse-and-male-homosexuality/?skip_splash=1
http://www.frc.org/?i=IS02E3
the also factor the report rate of sexual abuse period and in particular amongst males...
http://www.victimsofcrime.org/media/reporting-on-child-sexual-abuse/disclosure-statistics
http://www.victimsofcrime.org/media/reporting-on-child-sexual-abuse/child-sexual-abuse-statistics
http://www.casaforchildren.org/site/c.mtJSJ7MPIsE/b.5525017/k.5115/Justice_Study_Prior_Abuse_Reported_by_Inmates.htm
can give you more if you need it fam but it is not had to connect the dots the info is out there but if you report the facts on it you become a Foxnews loving bigot in the eyes of these poor brainwashed drones...
-
That two ? couple shouldn't be allowed to raise kids because of this incident.
It has to be more than that.
Those guys just like little boys.
What about the heterosexual couples who do the same thing?
@bolded - That makes them ? . Just because it's a child doesn't make it NOT ? . -
So i guess the logic that some straight men like little girls means that all straight men shouldn't have kids? Anyone being attracted to a child is a whole other level of confusion if you agree with being ? or not. With that same logic, females who were molested or ? shouldn't have kids either. Does a man being molested always lead to him being ? ? Where is the evidence to that? How do you know if he isn't even openly ? or ends up being a famed couch and the most masculine of men. I'm not even saying ? people should have kids but i think that this argument is flawed. Actually, i work in human services and many ? people are around kids all the time and i never noticed an unhealthy attraction. Usually, they were in the business of protecting children. It was the straight men that were taking advantage of people with mental health conditions.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »So i guess the logic that some straight men like little girls means that all straight men shouldn't have kids? Anyone being attracted to a child is a whole other level of confusion if you agree with being ? or not. With that same logic, females who were molested or ? shouldn't have kids either. Does a man being molested always lead to him being ? ? Where is the evidence to that? How do you know if he isn't even openly ? or ends up being a famed couch and the most masculine of men. I'm not even saying ? people should have kids but i think that this argument is flawed. Actually, i work in human services and many ? people are around kids all the time and i never noticed an unhealthy attraction. Usually, they were in the business of protecting children. It was the straight men that were taking advantage of people with mental health conditions.
Actually if you read the posts and data you would see that a disproportionate amount of people that reported sexual abuse later became sex offenders. Also almost 30% of homosexual males reported sexual abuse as children which coincides with the numbers on sex offenders that were sexually abused. Almost a third of sexually abused men turn out homosexual or sexual predators and again that is based on the reporting aspect and women are 5 times more likely to report a history of sexual abuse then men, Ironically enough less then 1% of women that reported abuse became abusers but roughly a third of those abused later in life identified as homosexual. Given The nurture aspect is real kats just have the ? agenda for population control in full swing so it is intentionally suppressed and overlooked. There are many wolves in sheep's clothing which is why the church has been inundated with ? /Pedophiles due to the positions of blind trust and opportunity they get the numbers on social workers are not so surprisingly unattainable as if the powers that be wanted everyone to believe that they did not occur... -
With your argument you can claim Black people should not raise kids because of the cycle of criminal behaviour.
Most homosexuals are not pedophiles, as most Blacks are not criminals. At best all your have is correlation, which is not enough to make a well informed legislative decision. -
Soloman the Wise wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »So i guess the logic that some straight men like little girls means that all straight men shouldn't have kids? Anyone being attracted to a child is a whole other level of confusion if you agree with being ? or not. With that same logic, females who were molested or ? shouldn't have kids either. Does a man being molested always lead to him being ? ? Where is the evidence to that? How do you know if he isn't even openly ? or ends up being a famed couch and the most masculine of men. I'm not even saying ? people should have kids but i think that this argument is flawed. Actually, i work in human services and many ? people are around kids all the time and i never noticed an unhealthy attraction. Usually, they were in the business of protecting children. It was the straight men that were taking advantage of people with mental health conditions.
Actually if you read the posts and data you would see that a disproportionate amount of people that reported sexual abuse later became sex offenders. Also almost 30% of homosexual males reported sexual abuse as children which coincides with the numbers on sex offenders that were sexually abused. Almost a third of sexually abused men turn out homosexual or sexual predators and again that is based on the reporting aspect and women are 5 times more likely to report a history of sexual abuse then men, Ironically enough less then 1% of women that reported abuse became abusers but roughly a third of those abused later in life identified as homosexual. Given The nurture aspect is real kats just have the ? agenda for population control in full swing so it is intentionally suppressed and overlooked. There are many wolves in sheep's clothing which is why the church has been inundated with ? /Pedophiles due to the positions of blind trust and opportunity they get the numbers on social workers are not so surprisingly unattainable as if the powers that be wanted everyone to believe that they did not occur...
This those numbers include sexual abuse acts against young females and the result of females who were sexually abused? What about people who were sexually abused but came out straight? Were they look for those numbers? If men are less likely to report it may be because they would be perceived as ? . But I'm sure that would obscure those numbers. -
FuriousOne wrote: »Soloman the Wise wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »So i guess the logic that some straight men like little girls means that all straight men shouldn't have kids? Anyone being attracted to a child is a whole other level of confusion if you agree with being ? or not. With that same logic, females who were molested or ? shouldn't have kids either. Does a man being molested always lead to him being ? ? Where is the evidence to that? How do you know if he isn't even openly ? or ends up being a famed couch and the most masculine of men. I'm not even saying ? people should have kids but i think that this argument is flawed. Actually, i work in human services and many ? people are around kids all the time and i never noticed an unhealthy attraction. Usually, they were in the business of protecting children. It was the straight men that were taking advantage of people with mental health conditions.
Actually if you read the posts and data you would see that a disproportionate amount of people that reported sexual abuse later became sex offenders. Also almost 30% of homosexual males reported sexual abuse as children which coincides with the numbers on sex offenders that were sexually abused. Almost a third of sexually abused men turn out homosexual or sexual predators and again that is based on the reporting aspect and women are 5 times more likely to report a history of sexual abuse then men, Ironically enough less then 1% of women that reported abuse became abusers but roughly a third of those abused later in life identified as homosexual. Given The nurture aspect is real kats just have the ? agenda for population control in full swing so it is intentionally suppressed and overlooked. There are many wolves in sheep's clothing which is why the church has been inundated with ? /Pedophiles due to the positions of blind trust and opportunity they get the numbers on social workers are not so surprisingly unattainable as if the powers that be wanted everyone to believe that they did not occur...
This those numbers include sexual abuse acts against young females and the result of females who were sexually abused? What about people who were sexually abused but came out straight? Were they look for those numbers? If men are less likely to report it may be because they would be perceived as ? . But I'm sure that would obscure those numbers.
look at it logically if about 4% of the populace is homosexual and roughly 23% of the populace has been sexually abused that shows that far more homosexuals come from the sexually abused populace. There is a correlation you can ignore it if you choose to but that does not change the facts on the matter.With your argument you can claim Black people should not raise kids because of the cycle of criminal behaviour.
Most homosexuals are not pedophiles, as most Blacks are not criminals. At best all your have is correlation, which is not enough to make a well informed legislative decision.
Now this is the same ignorant argument the rainbow brightgeist always tries to use in comparing their struggle to that of different ethnic groups. But this is not the same as saying blacks are more likely to be criminals as that has everything to do with a ? up judicial system that is more likely to charge and convict those of color with crimes then their pigment lacking counter parts same said for those with money to the poor counterparts. Did not say most homosexuals were pedophiles but almost a third have admitted to being a victim of them you do not find that fact odd or disturbing? Or are you of that group that does not believe those children were turned out and were rather asking for it or exhibiting their sexuality early??? -
Interesting thread. I agree mostly with t/s. One point that I’ve heard of, which might be corroborated by the evidence t/s posted, is that children who are sexually abused by adults of the same sex may consequentially grow up with homosexual tendencies even if they were born straight or not born ? . You can see the plausibility of this when you consider the fact that a person’s childhood is very important in constructing everything from his or her personality to his or her sexuality. So the link between homosexuality and ? (kids 11 and under), hebephilia (kids 11-15), or ephebophilia (kids 15-19) can be very strong.
But I think that one important point that we’re missing is that sexuality, like everything else in this world, is far more complicated and absurd than this false heterosexual-homosexual dichotomy that most people believe in. When it comes to ? , homosexuality might have nothing to do with it. It could even be argued that ? , much like transsexuality, can be an indication of heterosexuality (or something altogether outside of the sexuality dichotomy) since women and children share many “similarities.” But I do wonder why male pedophiles are exclusively into boys and not girls. The whole thing is all-around weird and repulsive, but I still want to try to understand it. -
MikeydaGawd wrote: »hope a lot of bad things happen to him and only him in the future.
I never really understood this reasoning. Like when people, oddly enough, hope that convicted rapists get ? in prison but don’t realize that they’re supporting the very crime that they’re condemning. I get that people hate bad people who hurt innocent people, but I don't think the "eye-for-an-eye" mentality helps anything. Even though that mentality seems to be human nature, I think that type of thinking is dangerous and only makes things worse.
It’s also kind of ironic. This same guy that you wish bad things to happen to could very well have been abused in this same way when he was a child. Many perpetrators of sexual crimes are usually victims of sexual crimes themselves. So if he was abused as a child, then you would be wishing bad things to happen to his abuser because you’d feel sorry for him. Of course, he could just be a psychopath instead. Regardless, I think that it’s much more progressive to study these types to try to understand them and prevent people like him from existing and treat other people like him before they abuse others. -
Interesting thread. I agree mostly with t/s. One point that I’ve heard of, which might be corroborated by the evidence t/s posted, is that children who are sexually abused by adults of the same sex may consequentially grow up with homosexual tendencies even if they were born straight or not born ? . You can see the plausibility of this when you consider the fact that a person’s childhood is very important in constructing everything from his or her personality to his or her sexuality. So the link between homosexuality and ? (kids 11 and under), hebephilia (kids 11-15), or ephebophilia (kids 15-19) can be very strong.
But I think that one important point that we’re missing is that sexuality, like everything else in this world, is far more complicated and absurd than this false heterosexual-homosexual dichotomy that most people believe in. When it comes to ? , homosexuality might have nothing to do with it. It could even be argued that ? , much like transsexuality, can be an indication of heterosexuality (or something altogether outside of the sexuality dichotomy) since women and children share many “similarities.” But I do wonder why male pedophiles are exclusively into boys and not girls. The whole thing is all-around weird and repulsive, but I still want to try to understand it.
I do not doubt that some people are born transgender and that some choose to be bisexual or homosexual or that same or traumatized into being such. There are numerous factors as you know to any person choosing their lives path but we have to start acknowledging social contagion as a legitimate factor in the nurture aspect of things. It is not nature versus nurture rather a combination of both that defines individuals lives...
This is not saying that Homosexuals are all sex offenders but it is pointing out the fact that Homosexuals have a larger representation in the sex offender population then they do in the non offender population... -
Soloman the Wise wrote: »Interesting thread. I agree mostly with t/s. One point that I’ve heard of, which might be corroborated by the evidence t/s posted, is that children who are sexually abused by adults of the same sex may consequentially grow up with homosexual tendencies even if they were born straight or not born ? . You can see the plausibility of this when you consider the fact that a person’s childhood is very important in constructing everything from his or her personality to his or her sexuality. So the link between homosexuality and ? (kids 11 and under), hebephilia (kids 11-15), or ephebophilia (kids 15-19) can be very strong.
But I think that one important point that we’re missing is that sexuality, like everything else in this world, is far more complicated and absurd than this false heterosexual-homosexual dichotomy that most people believe in. When it comes to ? , homosexuality might have nothing to do with it. It could even be argued that ? , much like transsexuality, can be an indication of heterosexuality (or something altogether outside of the sexuality dichotomy) since women and children share many “similarities.” But I do wonder why male pedophiles are exclusively into boys and not girls. The whole thing is all-around weird and repulsive, but I still want to try to understand it.
I do not doubt that some people are born transgender and that some choose to be bisexual or homosexual or that same or traumatized into being such. There are numerous factors as you know to any person choosing their lives path but we have to start acknowledging social contagion as a legitimate factor in the nurture aspect of things. It is not nature versus nurture rather a combination of both that defines individuals lives...
This is not saying that Homosexuals are all sex offenders but it is pointing out the fact that Homosexuals have a larger representation in the sex offender population then they do in the non offender population...
Yeah, I think that I agree with everything you said here, and you bring up an important point that more people should take more seriously and look into. But what is the essential cause of the fact that homosexuals have a relatively larger representation of the sex offender population? Is it simply homosexuality? And whether it's homosexuality or not, if we looked deeper, could it further be potential social contagions such as trauma, mental illness, etc. Could it even be "heterosexuality"? -
Soloman the Wise wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »Soloman the Wise wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »So i guess the logic that some straight men like little girls means that all straight men shouldn't have kids? Anyone being attracted to a child is a whole other level of confusion if you agree with being ? or not. With that same logic, females who were molested or ? shouldn't have kids either. Does a man being molested always lead to him being ? ? Where is the evidence to that? How do you know if he isn't even openly ? or ends up being a famed couch and the most masculine of men. I'm not even saying ? people should have kids but i think that this argument is flawed. Actually, i work in human services and many ? people are around kids all the time and i never noticed an unhealthy attraction. Usually, they were in the business of protecting children. It was the straight men that were taking advantage of people with mental health conditions.
Actually if you read the posts and data you would see that a disproportionate amount of people that reported sexual abuse later became sex offenders. Also almost 30% of homosexual males reported sexual abuse as children which coincides with the numbers on sex offenders that were sexually abused. Almost a third of sexually abused men turn out homosexual or sexual predators and again that is based on the reporting aspect and women are 5 times more likely to report a history of sexual abuse then men, Ironically enough less then 1% of women that reported abuse became abusers but roughly a third of those abused later in life identified as homosexual. Given The nurture aspect is real kats just have the ? agenda for population control in full swing so it is intentionally suppressed and overlooked. There are many wolves in sheep's clothing which is why the church has been inundated with ? /Pedophiles due to the positions of blind trust and opportunity they get the numbers on social workers are not so surprisingly unattainable as if the powers that be wanted everyone to believe that they did not occur...
This those numbers include sexual abuse acts against young females and the result of females who were sexually abused? What about people who were sexually abused but came out straight? Were they look for those numbers? If men are less likely to report it may be because they would be perceived as ? . But I'm sure that would obscure those numbers.
look at it logically if about 4% of the populace is homosexual and roughly 23% of the populace has been sexually abused that shows that far more homosexuals come from the sexually abused populace. There is a correlation you can ignore it if you choose to but that does not change the facts on the matter.With your argument you can claim Black people should not raise kids because of the cycle of criminal behaviour.
Most homosexuals are not pedophiles, as most Blacks are not criminals. At best all your have is correlation, which is not enough to make a well informed legislative decision.
Now this is the same ignorant argument the rainbow brightgeist always tries to use in comparing their struggle to that of different ethnic groups. But this is not the same as saying blacks are more likely to be criminals as that has everything to do with a ? up judicial system that is more likely to charge and convict those of color with crimes then their pigment lacking counter parts same said for those with money to the poor counterparts. Did not say most homosexuals were pedophiles but almost a third have admitted to being a victim of them you do not find that fact odd or disturbing? Or are you of that group that does not believe those children were turned out and were rather asking for it or exhibiting their sexuality early???
Almost a third of all homosexuals have not admitted to being sexually abused, those responses are only reflective of that sample.
I'm the group that says saying all homosexuals should not raise kids because some homosexuals sexually abuse children is like saying nobody can own guns because some people who own guns commit crimes.
Your correlation argument is weak and if it is acceptable than many other absurd notions would also have to be acceptable. -
Soloman the Wise wrote: »Interesting thread. I agree mostly with t/s. One point that I’ve heard of, which might be corroborated by the evidence t/s posted, is that children who are sexually abused by adults of the same sex may consequentially grow up with homosexual tendencies even if they were born straight or not born ? . You can see the plausibility of this when you consider the fact that a person’s childhood is very important in constructing everything from his or her personality to his or her sexuality. So the link between homosexuality and ? (kids 11 and under), hebephilia (kids 11-15), or ephebophilia (kids 15-19) can be very strong.
But I think that one important point that we’re missing is that sexuality, like everything else in this world, is far more complicated and absurd than this false heterosexual-homosexual dichotomy that most people believe in. When it comes to ? , homosexuality might have nothing to do with it. It could even be argued that ? , much like transsexuality, can be an indication of heterosexuality (or something altogether outside of the sexuality dichotomy) since women and children share many “similarities.” But I do wonder why male pedophiles are exclusively into boys and not girls. The whole thing is all-around weird and repulsive, but I still want to try to understand it.
I do not doubt that some people are born transgender and that some choose to be bisexual or homosexual or that same or traumatized into being such. There are numerous factors as you know to any person choosing their lives path but we have to start acknowledging social contagion as a legitimate factor in the nurture aspect of things. It is not nature versus nurture rather a combination of both that defines individuals lives...
This is not saying that Homosexuals are all sex offenders but it is pointing out the fact that Homosexuals have a larger representation in the sex offender population then they do in the non offender population...
Yeah, I think that I agree with everything you said here, and you bring up an important point that more people should take more seriously and look into. But what is the essential cause of the fact that homosexuals have a relatively larger representation of the sex offender population? Is it simply homosexuality? And whether it's homosexuality or not, if we looked deeper, could it further be potential social contagions such as trauma, mental illness, etc. Could it even be "heterosexuality"?
I would say no it could not be Heterosexuality because if in a warped sense people are equating childrens innocence to femininity they are rebelling against the Heterosexual societal structuring. I am not going to say that in some form of mental dysfunction some do not confuse impulses but ultimately it is not an expression of heterosexuality. Normalizing things is what society is currently doing so anytime you show a connection between sexual abuse and homosexuality you create a firestorm of those that any other time with any other group would be connecting the dots... -
your comparatives are asinine and you have not refuted the correlations you just keep spouting some unsubstantiated hyperbole meant to illicit emotional response of illogic. A better more honest comparison based on your premise would be some convicted criminals should not own guns because a larger percentage of them will use them in crimes then the general populace. But I guess using a realistic argument such as that would only undermine your point so please spin on...Soloman the Wise wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »Soloman the Wise wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »So i guess the logic that some straight men like little girls means that all straight men shouldn't have kids? Anyone being attracted to a child is a whole other level of confusion if you agree with being ? or not. With that same logic, females who were molested or ? shouldn't have kids either. Does a man being molested always lead to him being ? ? Where is the evidence to that? How do you know if he isn't even openly ? or ends up being a famed couch and the most masculine of men. I'm not even saying ? people should have kids but i think that this argument is flawed. Actually, i work in human services and many ? people are around kids all the time and i never noticed an unhealthy attraction. Usually, they were in the business of protecting children. It was the straight men that were taking advantage of people with mental health conditions.
Actually if you read the posts and data you would see that a disproportionate amount of people that reported sexual abuse later became sex offenders. Also almost 30% of homosexual males reported sexual abuse as children which coincides with the numbers on sex offenders that were sexually abused. Almost a third of sexually abused men turn out homosexual or sexual predators and again that is based on the reporting aspect and women are 5 times more likely to report a history of sexual abuse then men, Ironically enough less then 1% of women that reported abuse became abusers but roughly a third of those abused later in life identified as homosexual. Given The nurture aspect is real kats just have the ? agenda for population control in full swing so it is intentionally suppressed and overlooked. There are many wolves in sheep's clothing which is why the church has been inundated with ? /Pedophiles due to the positions of blind trust and opportunity they get the numbers on social workers are not so surprisingly unattainable as if the powers that be wanted everyone to believe that they did not occur...
This those numbers include sexual abuse acts against young females and the result of females who were sexually abused? What about people who were sexually abused but came out straight? Were they look for those numbers? If men are less likely to report it may be because they would be perceived as ? . But I'm sure that would obscure those numbers.
look at it logically if about 4% of the populace is homosexual and roughly 23% of the populace has been sexually abused that shows that far more homosexuals come from the sexually abused populace. There is a correlation you can ignore it if you choose to but that does not change the facts on the matter.With your argument you can claim Black people should not raise kids because of the cycle of criminal behaviour.
Most homosexuals are not pedophiles, as most Blacks are not criminals. At best all your have is correlation, which is not enough to make a well informed legislative decision.
Now this is the same ignorant argument the rainbow brightgeist always tries to use in comparing their struggle to that of different ethnic groups. But this is not the same as saying blacks are more likely to be criminals as that has everything to do with a ? up judicial system that is more likely to charge and convict those of color with crimes then their pigment lacking counter parts same said for those with money to the poor counterparts. Did not say most homosexuals were pedophiles but almost a third have admitted to being a victim of them you do not find that fact odd or disturbing? Or are you of that group that does not believe those children were turned out and were rather asking for it or exhibiting their sexuality early???
Almost a third of all homosexuals have not admitted to being sexually abused, those responses are only reflective of that sample.
I'm the group that says saying all homosexuals should not raise kids because some homosexuals sexually abuse children is like saying nobody can own guns because some people who own guns commit crimes.
Your correlation argument is weak and if it is acceptable than many other absurd notions would also have to be acceptable.
-
You did the same thing: Why target all homosexuals when you can just say pedophiles should not raise kids? Which is exactly what I am refuting.
You say it's because of the correlation but the correlation is weak.
Admit it: you hate homos. -
MikeydaGawd wrote: »hope a lot of bad things happen to him and only him in the future.
I never really understood this reasoning. Like when people, oddly enough, hope that convicted rapists get ? in prison but don’t realize that they’re supporting the very crime that they’re condemning. I get that people hate bad people who hurt innocent people, but I don't think the "eye-for-an-eye" mentality helps anything. Even though that mentality seems to be human nature, I think that type of thinking is dangerous and only makes things worse.
It’s also kind of ironic. This same guy that you wish bad things to happen to could very well have been abused in this same way when he was a child. Many perpetrators of sexual crimes are usually victims of sexual crimes themselves. So if he was abused as a child, then you would be wishing bad things to happen to his abuser because you’d feel sorry for him. Of course, he could just be a psychopath instead. Regardless, I think that it’s much more progressive to study these types to try to understand them and prevent people like him from existing and treat other people like him before they abuse others.
But, here's the thing.... Do you think a person should be locked up in a cage against his/her will?
If you answered "no", then you must believe that we should free everyone currently locked up in prison.
Because locking someone up would be supporting something that you condemn.
I'm just using your logic.
The truth is, people need to think about how they would feel if the tables were turned.
If you wouldn't wanna get ? , then why ? someone?
Think about it.
If some dude locked a little girl in a cage, you would say, "I hope that dude gets locked up!"
You would, therefore be supporting the very crime that you condemn. -
It's not so black and white though.
In scenario A where a little girl is locked up she is made to suffer for the criminal's pleasure. In scenario B where the criminal is locked up his suffering is intended to be a punishment which will change his behavior.*
*Yep I realize the recidivism rates are quite high in most countries. Emphasis on intention. -
Allah_U_Akbar wrote: »But, here's the thing.... Do you think a person should be locked up in a cage against his/her will?
If you answered "no", then you must believe that we should free everyone currently locked up in prison.
Because locking someone up would be supporting something that you condemn.
I'm just using your logic.
Like jewpac said, I think context and intent is very important here. If a criminal is put in a "cage" because he commits a crime, then that is simply justice and thus acceptable, especially given our "social contract" that says that if you want to live as a U.S. citizen, then you have to live by U.S. law, which makes crime a punishable offense. I'm not even a big fan of our prison system because it's commercialized, corrupt, inefficient, largely unsuccessful, and ironically criminal. But I think that everybody can agree that it doesn't need to be abolished and that we need it. It just needs major reform. So yes, I think that a person should be locked up in a "cage" against his/her will for the reasons that I've mentioned.Allah_U_Akbar wrote: »The truth is, people need to think about how they would feel if the tables were turned.
If you wouldn't wanna get ? , then why ? someone?
Agreed, but logic and reason doesn't apply to many criminals, especially psychopaths and sociopaths, because they lack empathy and/or are so egotistical to the point that other people, especially strangers, are essentially objects to be used. I remember reading about how serial killer Myra Hindley (along with Ian Brady, who's still alive in a mental hospital btw) helped ? and ? children in the UK in the '60s and never showed any remorse for her crimes. The only time she showed any emotion during her trial was when she found out that her dog, which the police took from her, died:Many of the photographs taken by Brady and Hindley on the moor featured Hindley's dog Puppet, sometimes as a puppy. Detectives arranged for the animal to be examined by a veterinary surgeon to determine its age, from which they could date when the pictures were taken. The examination involved an analysis of the dog's teeth, which required a general anaesthetic from which Puppet did not recover, as he suffered from an undiagnosed kidney complaint. On hearing the news of her dog's death Hindley became furious, and accused the police of murdering Puppet, one of the few occasions detectives witnessed any emotional response from her. In a letter to her mother shortly afterwards Hindley wrote:
I feel as though my heart's been torn to pieces. I don't think anything could hurt me more than this has. The only consolation is that some ? might have got hold of Puppet and hurt him.
This ? felt sad for her dead dog but didn't for the children she helped ? and ? . If you would've asked her your same question - if you wouldn't wanna get ? , then why ? someone? - she probably would've looked at you as if you were the crazy one.Allah_U_Akbar wrote: »Think about it.
If some dude locked a little girl in a cage, you would say, "I hope that dude gets locked up!"
You would, therefore be supporting the very crime that you condemn.
That's an interesting point. But I still think intent/context makes the two scenarios different. Unlike the dude, the little girl is an innocent victim, but if she was a criminal too, then I would want to see her punished as well. And like jewpac basically said, if I hoped that such a dude would get locked up, it wouldn't be because I would want to see him suffer like most people would, it would be because I would want to see justice served. That may sound hokey and all, but wanting justice is quite different from wanting revenge even though the two are commonly conflated. Also, a cage is very different from a prison. -
Soloman the Wise wrote: »
@ohhhlaThat two ? couple shouldn't be allowed to raise kids because of this incident.
It has to be more than that.
Those guys just like little boys.
What about the heterosexual couples who do the same thing?
I agree in part I just find that a disproportionate amount of homosexuals male and female come from sexual abuse and sexual abusers tend to be the formerly abused. Their is a cycle and infection that occurs that the media and current public mindstate tends to overlook or dismiss. People want to ignore these connection and that is part of the problem...
True but again the same can be said about hetero male or female.
