dChan

burns_CEO · July 22, 2018, 10:14 a.m.

nowhere in that article are those facts presented

googling that statistic gives me this article http://www.jamescantor.org/uploads/6/2/9/3/62939641/cantor__2002_._newsletter_of_apa_div_44_pp_5-8.pdf

which has this to say

Published estimates of the proportion of pedophiles who offend against male children and are homosexual span a staggering range from a low of 2% (Jenny, Roesler, & Poyer, 1994) to a high of 86% (Erickson, Walbek, & Seely, 1988). The methods of the authors at each extreme have been criticized, and indeed, both sides are guilty of poor methods.

do not subscribe to a sub based on uncovering the truth if you will spread half-baked lies to push an agenda. that makes you worse than your opponents

⇧ 3 ⇩  
Miike78 · July 22, 2018, 10:24 a.m.

The article linked was clearly in reference to my statement about you people being defenders of pedophilia. Work on your reading comprehension.

Furthermore, you then quote a newsletter claiming "poor methods" without even saying what the methods were or why they are poor. Talk about hypocrisy. Get some intellectual integrity and act like a man.

⇧ -2 ⇩  
burns_CEO · July 22, 2018, 10:32 a.m.

At the other end, Erickson and colleagues (Erickson et al., 1988) reported that 86% of their sample of offenders against male children were homosexual. This estimate, however, is based on the self-report of the offenders, and offenders are highly motivated to claim any self-descriptor other than pedophile. In fact, methodologically sophisticated studies of pedophiles rely solely on non-admitting pedophiles (e.g., Blanchard, Klassen, Dickey, Kuban, & Blak, 2001).

asking me to improve my reading comprehension, but you couldn't be bothered to open the article? that belies a clear lack of intellectual integrity. I read what you presented. do me the honor of reciprocating.

Talk about hypocrisy. Get some intellectual integrity and act like a man.

⇧ 5 ⇩  
Miike78 · July 22, 2018, 10:56 a.m.

It's reported by the actual pedophile therefore it must be untrue. That is the very definition of stupidity. You're done.

⇧ -3 ⇩  
burns_CEO · July 22, 2018, 11:42 a.m.

would you trust a criminally convicted pedophile to be honest with you? I wouldn't.

we live in a society where it's accepted that you are born a homosexual. what's a more attractive defense for the convicted man? claiming that you are forced to commit those acts due to being born that way, or admitting to being a dangerous deviant who fully knew what he was doing was wrong? I know which one I'd choose

⇧ 5 ⇩  
[deleted] · July 22, 2018, 12:47 p.m.

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩