This. (1)Plenty of homosexuals aren't interested in the under-aged.
(2) A pedo is a pedo.
Arguing that they are one way or the other (3)just to denigrate a class of people is idiotic.
(1) Indeed, this is not in dispute. What is of concern is the rate.
(2) Rhetorical tautology.
(3) Assumption of motive, again. The market for assumption of ill will and character assassination is locked down tight. Who says the right can't learn anything from the left?
How's about, "Examining the problem using the best data available without ideological blinders."
In one instance, human behavior X results in ~10k deaths and there are
gov't-mandated behavior adjustment programs those who so behave must attend. In another instance, human behavior Y results in ~10k deaths and not only are there no mandatory behavior adjustment programs...but there is a call to outlaw those programs. Why is that? Should we have any such programs mandated by the gov't? What is the criteria? Are the victims of one sort of behavior more or less sympathetic than the victims of the other?
Our public debate has been so closed off and dumbed down recently that any instance of Noticing Things is suspect and analysis is looked on as witchcraft.
I was just watching the news, and there is something happening legally with the Sandusky case. This made me think about him: he is heterosexual, is he not? Married to a woman for decades and had several children, if I recall.
Revealed preference. When he thinks folks are watching he acts one way. When he thinks he is unobserved, he acts another way. Hawthorne Effect also provides insight (change in behavior when under observation/examination).
And I think the question, "Is he X?" with regard to complex human behavior is only pertinent as it relates to "Does he do X behavior?" Which approach makes the fewest assumptions is likely best. Ockham's Razor vs Ockham's Butterknife.
Another way of writing, "Our character is what we do when we think no one is looking."
(1)Tis why I put kid touchers in their own box. (2)A person can be heterosexual or homosexual, in addition to being a pedo.
(2) I don't think that is up for debate among reasonable folk. Different categories can be combined in a matrix for the most part.
(1) Understandable given the zeitgeist, but still just a way to avoid any analysis. Sort of how like Chicago PD re-defined "riot" so as not to have to address what occurs regularly when some of Chicago's public high schools let out. "No, Sir. No riots to report in 2013! And surely no need to examine where and why those not-riots occurred, especially given the political heat that would come down were we to analyze these not-riots that sit out here all...by...themselves and which I will now place in their own box."