Thank you, Bakers!
It is NOT accurate to use the term pedophilia for attraction to POST-puberty minors. The term pedophilia is specifically attraction to PRE-pubescent children. I don't think it's OK or healthy in any way for an adult to have a sexual relationship with a minor at all, but it is confusing different issues and downplaying the monstrous evil involved in raping a CHILD to compare that in any way to someone finding a teenager attractive….especially when today many young people dress and make up to look much older and could easily entrap someone with a fake ID, etc.
Why is Liz saying that attraction to minors = pedophilia? Is she saying that this is what the definition used to be, and it has been changed to be pre-puberty? I don't believe that is true, but I guess I've been wrong a few times, maybe.
I would never ever ever be a pedo defender. They are sick and need to be locked up, probably forever, if they ever touch a child. I find the whole thing very sad because they probably got that way from being abused. Some might be healed with enough therapy, love and finding God. But if that effort is not done, and they continue the cycle…they need to be taken out of society.
Proper word usage and legal terminology is important so people know exactly what you are referring to. I think they are trying to water down the term pedophile by making it seem like an almost 18 year old who is trying to look 24 is the same thing as a 2 year old. Show a bunch of pictures of made up minors who look much older and keep calling that pedophilia, and then when a headline says someone got busted, that's what people will think it means…..instead of the horrific truth of abusing VERY young children. Again, I don't like the idea of adults being with minors of any kind at all, but the idea of anyone harboring sexual feelings toward a toddler is so sickening and terrible. Keep the terms explicit and accurate so people know what is happening….and how bad it really is.
Oh no, what's that? Never mind. I am a little afraid to, but I'll add it to my list to look up.
>I wonder sometime if pedophiles are not necessarily attracted sexually to minors, but minors are easy prey
See, there's my point. You are using the term pedophile to mean attraction to minors, but I believe that technically, legally, in psychology, the term explicitly means attraction to PRE-PUBESCENT children. Pre-puberty, before a person has developed sexually, while they are still a CHILD completely.
If you keep using the term incorrectly, it loses its impact.
I totally agree about young people being easily abused and manipulated. It's wrong for someone to take advantage of them, and there must be a legal term for abuse of a minor that is not strictly pedophilia. Delinquinting a minor? Sexual abuse? Rape?
Ahh, but now I see >>17417671 who makes an excellent point. Especially since puberty is often coming on earlier than before (estrogens in environment?). Emotionally, the term does seem like it should apply to an 8 year old no matter what. I cannot stomach that. I suppose though, if a young person goes through puberty early, they would no longer look like a pre-pubescent child, and in theory, a pedophile would no longer find them attractive according to the definition.
They still deserve prison and castration.
This is total hearsay, but someone once told me that in working with convicted child sexual abusers, they discovered that most of them had been abused and were stuck at the age at which they were sexualized and found a sick form of both comfort and excitement in being with a child of the same age as they were when they were abused. Unless they get serious help to break free from that, they are drawn to it emotionally.
The sicko commies want to keep breaking down all the positive social frameworks that help restrain a person from acting on such bad impulses. We can never ever let them normalize such sickness. The cycles must be broken either by healing or by prison, and the children must be protected.
Has anyone done any research on their local Freemason office? How would you go about doing that without putting a big target on your back? Is there a way to find out who members are for a particular chapter? I'm too afraid really to go digging, but I also want to know who in my area is involved with that group.
I saw a truck once with a decal on the back that was the punisher face combined with the square and compass…totally confused me.
CDC Used the Wrong Primers: Dr. Lee's
Letter to Director Rochelle Walensky
On August 14, 2021, Walensky was informed that the CDC was using the wrong primers for a reasonable PCR test for SARS-CoV-2.
Dr. Lee has subsequently determined that Sanger sequencing is required to confirm any RT-PCR amplicon targeting SARS-CoV-2.
Dr. Rochelle Walensky Via Email Delivery
Director
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
1600 Clifton Road
Atlanta, GA 30329
director@cdc.gov
August 14, 2021
Subject: Implement CDC’s 2003 SARS-CoV Testing Protocol
Dear Dr. Walensky:
As reported by Jon Miltimore in an article titled “What Is the True Vaccine Breakthrough Rate? The CDC Doesn't Want You to Know” on August 13, 2021, the data have been a total mess throughout the pandemic. COVID, the New York Times recently observed, has shown the CDC is utterly broken. https://fee.org/articles/what-is-the-true-vaccine-breakthrough-rate-the-cdc-doesnt-want-you-to-know/
This letter urges that the CDC immediately switch to its 2003 amplicon sequencing protocol, the SARS-CoV Specific RT-PCR Primers https://www.who.int/csr/sars/CDCprimers.pdf?ua=1 , for accurate diagnosis of COVID-19 and determination of variants by sequencing a 348-400 bp cDNA PCR amplicon to verify the authenticity of the amplified product. The currently widely used RT-qPCR and whole genome sequencing technologies have not been proven useful for patient management and case tracing. All commercial RT-qPCR test kits were granted EUA “for the presumptive qualitative detection of nucleic acid from the 2019-nCoV” only. The entire country is now under siege from the scare of Delta, Lambda or other created variants without even a method to test for them. We cannot make public health policies based on presumptive data because it has serious negative impacts on the national economy.
It must be pointed out that the CDC abandoned its established 2003 SARS-CoV Specific RT-PCR Primers test protocol to promote its flawed unproven RT-qPCR test kits for SARS-CoV-2 in February 2020. This action of the CDC was primarily for its institutional agenda rather than for national interests based on US patent 7,776,521. Among others, the latter CDC-owned patent specifically claims “6. The kit of claim 4, further comprising a SARS-CoV probe that hybridizes to the SARS-CoV nucleic acid amplified by the pair of primers, wherein the SARS-CoV probe is labeled with a 5'-reporter dye and a 3'-quencher dye.”
Now is the time for the CDC to change its course to use PCR amplicon sequencing for accurate case diagnosis to avoid further chaos, which will continue to negatively impact on the lives of all citizens.
Sincerely yours,
Sin Hang Lee, MD
Director
Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory
James Lyons-Weiler:
https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/cdc-used-the-wrong-primers-dr-lees?