NAMBLA

Started by xmarksthespot27 pages

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Whoah..the sign of a desperate man above, bringing in arguments..that have no relation to the thread topic, in an effort to get their point across. Anyway..a lot of babbling in that one up there. As it has been stated to you countless times..in countless threads, despite you're opinion, Neandrathals..are considered fully human. The "genetic" differences you've asserted as existing..are no different then the "genetic" differences one would find in a normal human being, which would manifest themselves in a multitude of different physical ways. Some of these these "genetic differences" are listed below.

Must I really go on? These types of "genetic differences" are present in humans today. So by yours and others of like minded rationale, we should now start putting modern man in various "species" categories. This is a racist and diluted view of humanity, and I'm appalled that you and so many others have been so indoctrinated to the point that you actually believe such drivel. You and others like you are truly the ridiculous ones my friend. You have spent years studying such nonsense, and it's taken me less than 30 minutes to completely refute it. Based on this, I think it's clearly apparent to all, which one of us carries the greater degree of "common sense" my friend.

Off-topic:
Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans. Krings M, Stone A, Schmitz RW, Krainitzki H, Stoneking M, Paabo Cell. 1997 Jul 11;90(1):19-30.
DNA was extracted from the Neandertal-type specimen found in 1856 in western Germany. By sequencing clones from short overlapping PCR products, a hitherto unknown mitochondrial (mt) DNA sequence was determined. Multiple controls indicate that this sequence is endogenous to the fossil. Sequence comparisons with human mtDNA sequences, as well as phylogenetic analyses, show that the Neandertal sequence falls outside the variation of modern humans. Furthermore, the age of the common ancestor of the Neandertal and modern human mtDNAs is estimated to be four times greater than that of the common ancestor of human mtDNAs. This suggests that Neandertals went extinct without contributing mtDNA to modern humans.

Genomic differentiation of Neanderthals and anatomically modern man allows a fossil-DNA-based classification of morphologically indistinguishable hominid bones. Scholz M, Bachmann L, Nicholson GJ, Bachmann J, Giddings I, Ruschoff-Thale B, Czarnetzki A, Pusch CM. Am J Hum Genet. 2000 Jun;66(6):1927-32. Epub 2000 Apr 27.
Southern blot hybridizations of genomic DNA were introduced as a relatively simple fossil-DNA-based approach to classify remains of Neanderthals. When hybridized with genomic DNA of either human or Neanderthal origin, DNA extracted from two Neanderthal finds-the Os parietale, from Warendorf-Neuwarendorf, Germany, and a clavicula, from Krapina, Croatia-was shown to yield hybridization signals that differ by at least a factor of two compared to the signals obtained with the use of fossil DNA of an early Homo sapiens from the Vogelherd cave (Stetten I), Germany. When labeled chimpanzee DNA was used as a probe, Neanderthal and human DNA, however, revealed hybridization signals of similar intensity. Thus, the genome of Neanderthals is expected to differ significantly from the genome of anatomically modern man, because of the contrasting composition of repetitive DNA. These data support the hypothesis that Neanderthals were not ancestors of anatomically modern man.

Neanderthal cranial ontogeny and its implications for late hominid diversity. Ponce de Leon MS, Zollikofer CP. Nature. 2001 Aug 2;412(6846):534-8.
Homo neanderthalensis has a unique combination of craniofacial features that are distinct from fossil and extant 'anatomically modern' Homo sapiens (modern humans). Morphological evidence, direct isotopic dates and fossil mitochondrial DNA from three Neanderthals indicate that the Neanderthals were a separate evolutionary lineage for at least 500,000 yr. However, it is unknown when and how Neanderthal craniofacial autapomorphies (unique, derived characters) emerged during ontogeny. Here we use computerized fossil reconstruction and geometric morphometrics to show that characteristic differences in cranial and mandibular shape between Neanderthals and modern humans arose very early during development, possibly prenatally, and were maintained throughout postnatal ontogeny. Postnatal differences in cranial ontogeny between the two taxa are characterized primarily by heterochronic modifications of a common spatial pattern of development. Evidence for early ontogenetic divergence together with evolutionary stasis of taxon-specific patterns of ontogeny is consistent with separation of Neanderthals and modern humans at the species level.

Does Homo neanderthalensis play a role in modern human ancestry? The mandibular evidence. Rak Y, Ginzburg A, Geffen E. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2002 Nov;119(3):199-204. Data obtained from quantifying the upper part of the mandibular ramus (the coronoid process, the condylar process, and the notch between them) lead us to conclude that Neanderthals (both European and Middle Eastern) differ more from Homo sapiens (early specimens such as Tabun II, Skhul, and Qafzeh, as well as contemporary populations from as far apart as Alaska and Australia) than the latter differs from Homo erectus. The specialized Neanderthal mandibular ramus morphology emerges as yet another element constituting the derived complex of morphologies of the mandible and face that are unique to Neanderthals. These morphologies provide further support for the contention that Neanderthals do not play a role in modern human biological ancestry, either through "regional continuity" or through any other form of anagenetic progression.

Neandertal evolutionary genetics: mitochondrial DNA data from the iberian peninsula. Lalueza-Fox C, Sampietro ML, Caramelli D, Puder Y, Lari M, Calafell F, Martinez-Maza C, Bastir M, Fortea J, de la Rasilla M, Bertranpetit J, Rosas A. Mol Biol Evol. 2005 Apr;22(4):1077-81.
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) was retrieved for the first time from a Neandertal from the Iberian Peninsula, excavated from the El Sidron Cave (Asturias, North of Spain), and dated to ca. 43,000 years ago. The sequence suggests that Iberian Neandertals were not genetically distinct from those of other regions. An estimate of effective population size indicates that the genetic history of the Neandertals was not shaped by an extreme population bottleneck associated with the glacial maximum of 130,000 years ago. A high level of polymorphism at sequence position 16258 reflects deeply rooted mtDNA lineages, with the time to the most recent common ancestor at ca. 250,000 years ago. This coincides with the full emergence of the "classical" Neandertal morphology and fits chronologically with a proposed speciation event of Homo neanderthalensis.

Molecular analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the northern Caucasus. Ovchinnikov IV, Gotherstrom A, Romanova GP, Kharitonov VM, Liden K, Goodwin W. Nature. 2000 Mar 30;404(6777):490-3.
The expansion of premodern humans into western and eastern Europe approximately 40,000 years before the present led to the eventual replacement of the Neanderthals by modern humans approximately 28,000 years ago. Here we report the second mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis of a Neanderthal, and the first such analysis on clearly dated Neanderthal remains. The specimen is from one of the eastern-most Neanderthal populations, recovered from Mezmaiskaya Cave in the northern Caucasus. Radiocarbon dating estimated the specimen to be approximately 29,000 years old and therefore from one of the latest living Neanderthals. The sequence shows 3.48% divergence from the Feldhofer Neanderthal. Phylogenetic analysis places the two Neanderthals from the Caucasus and western Germany together in a clade that is distinct from modern humans, suggesting that their mtDNA types have not contributed to the modern human mtDNA pool. Comparison with modern populations provides no evidence for the multiregional hypothesis of modern human evolution.

Evidence for a genetic discontinuity between Neandertals and 24,000-year-old anatomically modern Europeans. Caramelli D, Lalueza-Fox C, Vernesi C, Lari M, Casoli A, Mallegni F, Chiarelli B, Dupanloup I, Bertranpetit J, Barbujani G, Bertorelle G. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 May 27;100(11):6593-7
During the late Pleistocene, early anatomically modern humans coexisted in Europe with the anatomically archaic Neandertals for some thousand years. Under the recent variants of the multiregional model of human evolution, modern and archaic forms were different but related populations within a single evolving species, and both have contributed to the gene pool of current humans. Conversely, the Out-of-Africa model considers the transition between Neandertals and anatomically modern humans as the result of a demographic replacement, and hence it predicts a genetic discontinuity between them. Following the most stringent current standards for validation of ancient DNA sequences, we typed the mtDNA hypervariable region I of two anatomically modern Homo sapiens sapiens individuals of the Cro-Magnon type dated at about 23 and 25 thousand years ago. Here we show that the mtDNAs of these individuals fall well within the range of variation of today's humans, but differ sharply from the available sequences of the chronologically closer Neandertals. This discontinuity is difficult to reconcile with the hypothesis that both Neandertals and early anatomically modern humans contributed to the current European gene pool.

On-topic: Shows how much your verbal diarrhoea is based on absolutely nothing.

Originally posted by Lörd Sorgo
That's Ridiculous!

If a Male is having sexual relations with another Male, It is Homosexuality!

it is a homosexual act but your trying to warp logic and excape my point.
do you call a man who rapes a baby girl a heterosexual and leave it at that? does the word "heterosexual" even cross your mind? or does "sick bastard" echo in your mind? i believe that is the case, as it should be. thats why i smell a double standard for the sake of homophobia. oh but thats ridiculous right? little girls never get raped. its all just queers and little boys isnt it? please. dont be a whob

well, ive grown tired of the coded speak here. certain people are trying to gently spoonfeed their twisted logic that someone who rapes a little boy is simply a step past homosexuality.

again:

Originally posted by PVS
hetero-homosexual has nothing to do with the topic of peadophelia. its irrelivent

its a mental disorder, not a sexual orientation. we're talking about raping children.

Possibly the weakest of all the rebuttals I've ever received from you. We did a thread about this type of debating style once in KMC...I believe it was titled.."Being the artful dodger" Any way..shall we begin..

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Unnatural things are morally wrong.

The natural order of "coupling" in nature..is the "coupling" between a male and a female of a species. This is an obvious truth. Hell I don't even have to bring the whole "procreation" argument into play. You're a complete fool if you believe "same sex" unions, are the driving force behind a species survival. You should have learned this simple concept in freshmen level biology class my friend.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Thus homosexuality since in your personal view is unnatural is subsequently morally wrong.

In my personal view..homosexuality is wrong, because those who engage in it do so for the sole purpose of pleasing themselves, in addition to disregarding the "natural" functions of various parts of the human body. Those who engage in homosexual activity, do so knowing that their are no biological benefits to this behavior. That's of course...unless you count hemmoroids & STD's as being beneficial..😉

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Things that are natural are morally right. Sex is solely for the purposes of procreation, that is the natural purpose of sex.

The primary purpose of sex is for procreation. And from a Christian perspective..procreation is representative of "love." If you believe that two men who bang each other up the bungholes are demonstrating "loving" and "natural" behaviors, that's cool. Whatever floats your boat. Obviously the way in which you define "love" and "natural" is different than my own.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Sex for procreation is morally right.

Yep.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Sex between males and females is morally right.

Yes. When they are married of course and both the male and female are fully mature. Mature meaning.."fully developed" on a "physical" and "emotional" level. Most societies deem this age of maturity to be "18." However, some individuals develop emotionally and physically quicker than others.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
There are no grey areas, only absolutes.

Yup only absolutes.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
All homosexual sex is morally wrong.

Yup.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
All sex for procreation is morally right.

If done for unselfish reasons, and for the sake of not simply pleasing oneself. You're finally starting to understand my friend..if only all of our discussions could be this simple.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Wow, apparently you know the skin colour, hair colour and eye colour of neanderthal solely from the fossilised remains.

🙄 And this supports your argument of the Neanderthal being a different "species" of human..how so? Oh my mistake..it doesn't..😆

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
You should become a paleontologist. It'd be a shame to put that sixth sense to waste.

Common sense overrides sixth sense..and unfortunately my friend..you don't have either..😉

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I find it interesting that a person with no scientific background somehow believes that simply because he states "Neanderthals are fully human" makes it so.

You know nothing of my background X. And if you were truly a scientist, then you would answer questions truthfully..instead of trying to mix all of this "relativistic" religious jibe with science, as well as not attempt to dodge giving answers to obvious questions. By the way..you never answered my question in the other thread where we had this debate. Let me pose it to you again. Are Neandrathals classified as being "fully human?" Yes or no X. It's a simple question, all it requires is a simple answer.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
A few pages ago sithsaber told you you were making Christians look bad. Unlike you, I actually base my statements on things, rather than spewing out words and praying that they come out somewhat coherent.

Coherency? Ironic..seeing as how this is coming from an individual who "rationalizes" and "equates" two men ramming each other in the anus as being a "morally" acceptable and "natural" behavior. Is it just me or is the above comment come across as a bit hypocritical? 😕

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
In order to assign a higher level of "obscenity" to a male molesting male child than a male molesting a female child, even when all other factors are equal, is if one believes male-male sexual interaction in and of itself to be obscene.

Is it just me..or does there appear to be no "coherency" in the statement above...🙄

One is a boy. One is a girl. One has a penis, the other has a vagina. Thus all other factors can never be equal you moron!!! Is it that hard for you to understand..🙄

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
So you really don't know the meaning of the word "relative". You are assigning different levels of morality to acts relative to other acts, while saying things in the world are not relative.

The philosophy of "Relativism" my friend pertains to one who believes in assigning no moral values to anything. This means in essence..that there is no "right" or "wrong." Everything can be deemed either "good" or "evil"..depending upon one's circumstances.

I never attempted to justify "murder" in any sense X, you know this, however you've chosen to play with wording in a pathetic attempt to thrust your point across. Murder is obviously wrong. However, any 2nd grader who has been raised in a sensible household, can tell you that there's a distinct difference between maliciously killing a chicken..and maliciously killing a man. I believe I learned such concepts in 1st grade. Why haven't you learned them yet X?

Moving on X..you never answered my initial question posed in the previous post..that question being...Can you please tell me when molesting a 11 year old girl, might be deemed as morally right? While you're at it, why don't you also tell me when we can "relativize" the offenses of murder and rape. Again my friend the floor is now yours. And do attempt to actually answer the question this time.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Once again... you act as if it's somehow wrong to seek education. Do you actually have any sort of academic credentials, because this constant reference to the state of my studies is looking rather pathetic.

There's nothing wrong with one acquiring knowledge. However, I have a problem with those who utilize their knowledge for foolish things. You've failed in proving how one can "rationalize" and "relativize" Obscene behaviors "X", and thus you've ultimately failed in learning that having all of the knowledge in the world means nothing..when one has "morally" wrong and "unloving" opinion on life.

Fin

I've asked you twice whether you have any scientific background. I'll ask again now. Do you?

"If done for unselfish reasons, and for the sake of not simply pleasing oneself. You're finally starting to understand my friend..if only all of our discussions could be this simple."
Well glad we finally clarified your position. So the 60 year old man can rape the 11 year old girl all he wants as long as he's just in it for procreation.

You do realise heterosexuals have sex solely for pleasure too right? Oh, maybe you don't...

STDs are exclusive to homosexuals...? Right....

"And this supports your argument of the Neanderthal being a different "species" of human..how so? Oh my mistake..it doesn't.."
It didn't do that, so much as it showed how you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

The subsequent post with the array of recent articles served the former purpose.

The word human refers only to the species H. sapiens. So no H. neanderthalenses are not "fully human".

"Is it just me..or does there appear to be no "coherency" in the statement above...roll eyes (sarcastic)

One is a boy. One is a girl. One has a penis, the other has a vagina. Thus all other factors can never be equal you moron!!! Is it that hard for you to understand.."
Gender is the variable. Other factors can be identical. One act is only more morally reprehensible to you because you have pre-established bigotry.

I very much doubt anyone on here ascribes to your categories of moral "philosophy." You say there are only absolutes, there is right and there is wrong. There is no such thing as a mitigating factor. There is no relativity. Therefore acts are either equally morally wrong or equally morally right. Otherwise there are a million shades of grey within the black and the white but no grey between, and your "moral philosophy" is contradictory and hypocritical.

Insults, irrelevant comments about anal sex and smileys. Yawn.

why do you waste so much effort.
everyone should ignore whob.
why not? he's ignoring everyone.

How many times does whob finished before he is done?

And I thought your rebuttals couldn't get anymore pathetic..Obviously I was wrong...you barely even answered any of the questions posed in the previous post. Oh well, time to start it up once again..

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I've asked you twice whether you have any scientific background. I'll ask again now. Do you?

Who gives you the "authority" to challenge my credentials? 😉
Perhaps I do have a scientific background, perhaps I do not. Being overly studied in a particular profession, does not make one an expert in it. And it doesn't represent one's ability to apply this knowledge practically in everyday life.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Well glad we finally clarified your position. So the 60 year old man can rape the 11 year old girl all he wants as long as he's just in it for procreation.

That has got to be the grossest example of a quote taken out of context, I have ever seen in my life. Please tell me my friend..how on earth does this quote...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
If done for unselfish reasons, and for the sake of not simply pleasing oneself.

..imply's that its okay for a 60 year old to have sex with an 11 year old?!! You've lost me there buddy. You could have at least "doctored" my quote up a bit..to add some semblance of logic to your argument.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
You do realise heterosexuals have sex solely for pleasure too right? Oh, maybe you don't...

You do realise that homosexuals can't produce offspring when engaging in sexual activities don't you? 🙄

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
STDs are exclusive to homosexuals...? Right....

And this supports the argument of how homosexuality offers biological benefits how now? Let me guess..it's kind of like taking a colonic..always good to have the ol bowels cleaned out every now and then..🙄

And let's not forget about iron and protein supplements that sperm offers. What was I thinking X..you were right all along...🙄

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
It didn't do that, so much as it showed how you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

The subsequent post with the array of recent articles served the former purpose.

The word human refers only to the species H. sapiens. So no H. neanderthalenses are not "fully human".

here's a modern picture of what "scientists" believe this "different" species of human looked like..

Just looks like another brother with a big nose to me..🙄

Different species of human my ass..😆 I've posted plenty of articles on this in many other threads. You just continue to disregard them. The bottom line my dear friend X is that the Neanderthal is clearly "human." Any simpleton who has a two eyes and half a brain can see this.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Gender is the variable. Other factors can be identical. One act is only more morally reprehensible to you because you have pre-established bigotry.

The problem being..duh..duh..duh..duh..the primary factor that defines each victim is variable!! Thus neither situation, can ever be equated to the other based on this changing variable!!!

By your rationale..one could say that raping a 2 year old..is really no different than raping a 20 year old, as long as all other factors are the same...🙄

You're a complete moron man..I can't believe you actually believe in such relativistic ideological nonsense.

Do you truly not realize how silly you come across?!!

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I very much doubt anyone on here ascribes to your categories of moral "philosophy." You say there are only absolutes, there is right and there is wrong. There is no such thing as a mitigating factor. There is no relativity. Therefore acts are either equally morally wrong or equally morally right.

Of course these acts are all morally wrong, but you are obviously too foolish or to hard headed to understand that certain illegal acts, carry greater penalties than others. Raping a 2 year old, is not the same as raping a 20 year old, and there is no justifiable way one could rationalize or "relativize" these morally bankrupt acts as being "beneficial" and "okay" depending on the circumstances.

Again X. You've failed in proving your points. But as always..I wish you the best of luck with your studies..😉

"Being overly studied in a particular profession, does not make one an expert in it." Is there some kind of KMC stupid posts and sentences awards? Can I nominate this sentence? What makes someone an expert on an issue than? Having absolutely no knowledge of it? Reading religious websites? Being Hitler?

You posted no articles whatsoever. You posted excerpts from religious sites based on work done by Rudolf Virchow which has subsequently been discredited. If you have actually done so, then it should be quite easy for you to repost them.

You obviously aren't an authority on anything scientific, you don't seem to be an authority on anything in particular at all except trying to generalise populations into fitting into one of your definitions of "how people think". I am assuming you have no scientific credentials since you've been asked several times whether you do and refuse to answer, (just like I'm pretty sure most are assuming you've never had sex since you seem to be avoiding that question too) and unfortunately Hitler died over 60 years ago so he can't turn you into a doctor.

No one in this thread has tried to rationalise child molestation into being anything other than a morally reprehensible act. No one needs to rationalise homosexuality, because there's nothing wrong with it. You're attempts to equate NAMBLA to all homosexual men are sad and pathetic. You really need to grow up and get out more.

Gay "jokes", the use of the word moron, and more smileys. These seem to increase the more people don't agree with your flawed bigoted rationale. Again: Yawn.

Coming to the conclusion that you're either an attention-desperate religious fanatic, and/or a repressed homosexual who hasn't come to terms with what he is, I've decided PVS is right and that people should just ignore the drivel you so love to impart on the forums.

Fin. And when I say it... I actually mean it.

Question for Whob...

If having gay sex serves no purpose and is so bad, Why did god "intellegently design" mens bodies to receive alot of peasure doing it? why do gays enjoy "banging each others bungholes" ? Surely god wouldn't make it an enjoyable experience if it is so wrong.

Question for Hit and Miss

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss

If having gay sex serves no purpose and is so bad, Why did god "intellegently design" mens bodies to receive alot of peasure doing it? Surely god wouldn't make it an enjoyable experience if it is so wrong.

Are you speaking from experience, because it sounds like it. Not that I have a problem with you or anyone else being gay myself.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Are you speaking from experience, because it sounds like it. Not that I have a problem with you or anyone else being gay myself.

No I am not gay, And I have no "experience" with men, But I'm not so repressed that I have a problem talking about it. After reading Whobs many, many post on evolution VS the bible. I thought it might be interesting asking him about this "flaw" that allows men to enjoy homosexual acts.

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
I thought it might be interesting asking him about this "flaw" that allows men to enjoy homosexual acts.

So you're just curious. 😉

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
So you're just curious. 😉

No sorry to burst your bubble. But I don't like men in that way. I realise this is nothing but an attempt to ridicule me so I won't rise up to your taunts...

What I'm curious about is what whob has to say about this.

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
I won't rise up to your tauts...

whats a taut? besides being a legal term. I didn't ask you to rise god forbid!

edited...

lay off the innuendos. Don't derail this thread in your search to embarrass me.

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
edited...

lay off the innuendos. Don't derail this thread in your search to embarrass me.

😂 "In my search to embarrass you" 😂 Just when I think I've read the stupidest post ever, you go and post another.
Now, if you care to apologize for wasting my shamefully wasted time, I'll consider accepting it.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
😂 "In my search to embarrass you" 😂 Just when I think I've read the stupidest post ever, you go and post another.
Now, if you care to apologize for wasting my shamefully wasted time, I'll consider accepting it.

So far you have post 3-4 posts with no point other then to question my sexuality. I think that qualifies as searching... If my orientation bothers you please feel free to question me in PM's... Don't derail this thread please... Your flaming is getting old now...

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
So far you have post 3-4 posts with no point other then to question my sexuality. I think that qualifies as searching... If my orientation bothers you please feel free to question me in PM's... Don't derail this thread please... Your flaming is getting old now...

No you seemed to be speaking from experience, so I asked you about it. I see - so you enjoy following others round but when someone actually bothers to ask you a question on your experiences and expertise on a post you become defensive because you have none. This though I see as a plus because when you are at a loss for words, your loss is our gain.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
No you seemed to be speaking from experience, so I asked you about it.

No as I stated I'm not gay, Nor do I have any experience. but this post wasn't to ask that, It was to imply that I am gay. (smilie says it all really!)

So you're just curious. 😉
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I see so you enjoy following others round but when someone actually bothers to ask you a question on your experiences and expertise on a post you become defensive because you have none.

Again with this "following others" rubbish.. Theres lots of straight people posting in here... Why am I the only one you "question"??? obvious bias... My sexuality has no baring here, Speaking of which. Have you ever had homosexual relations? seeing as you make a big point that I haven't It would be awfully hypocritical of you not too...

Are you more qualified to post here then me? have you molested young boys??

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
This though I see as a plus because when you are at a loss for words, your loss is our gain.

"our gain"??? whos gain whirly? Are you treating this as some sort of competition??? Get over it whirly. I asked a question...

Originally posted by Lana
Usually the association is incorrect, though.

Most adult men who molest children (boys and girls) are straight, not homosexual.

Not necesseraly. Most men who molest children, do so on boys not girls, claim not to be straight, and get into relationships with women to ''feel normal''. This info has been obtained from certain interviews with convicted peadophiles, and some from the reaserch done by PhD Rodger Kernsmith.
...

Beastality can be put in the same category as peadophilia, because in both of these, second party usually is not aware or is unable to give consent.

As for NAMBLA, I have heard about this before in Criminology but never really looked into it.