I think the issue is you're confounding pedophilia with active pedophilia. If you go back, the initial phrasing was "pedophiliac tendencies." Also, you're not citing anything besides your own sense for quantification in the population. You're a lawyer, right? Come on... Here's the review that likely underlies most of the Google hits Schadenfred referenced: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153618 Finally, the (less than) 5% (cited) figure is in the male population btw, so perhaps that's more in the range of believability for you (<2.5% of population...even lower when you account for removal of children from the population total) and more of the issue with the disagreement here.
I understand the distinction, which is why I wrote the second and third paragraphs that you quoted. I’m not going to compose you a book report and full bibliography on pedophilia. FWIW, yes I am an attorney and I’ve worked on sex offense cases. I don’t see how that experience is particularly relevant, but I think if you’d take a couple seconds to think about the issue in relation to a) widely available statistics of crime generally; b) non-criminal expressions of the problem like the type I mentioned; and c) normal life experience—you’d probably agree 1 in 20 sounds improbably high. But I agree that my argument here is one based off inference and not conclusive, however persuasive it may or may not be. I can’t see anything but the abstract here can you link the full article or give some insight on its methodology and relevant findings? Yes, “even lower than less than 2.5%” is much more believable than 5%. My best guess is “less than” is also “a lot less than.”
If 40% of the voting population is okay with racism I don’t see how pedophilia is a far stretch for them. Just an abhorrent group.
Does this work? https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153618 I'm in academia, so sometimes I don't know if I have licenses active or not. This review's introduction suggests 5% is the upper limit for prevalence in males, so it could certainly scale down quite a bit from there. They also mention that the surveys upon which estimates are made are problematic when determining what meets the diagnostic criteria (but would probably still fall under relevant pedophiliac tendencies). Those surveys give numbers ranging from "3-9% of men acknowledging fantasies or contact involving pre-pubescent children" (thus, self-report methodology). Links (behind license wall): https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1992-05729-001 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0145213489900306
Very true. Very, very, very true. Not sure if internal guys are a lot better, but definitely less savage.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/08/jeffrey-epsteins-bodyguard-igor-zinoviev-on-his-old-boss.html RN, my opinion is that they made sure he had the conditions to kill himself. Maybe they had another plan to actually kill him if the first one didn't work? "You told me he would get phone calls the night before and eight o’clock the police are going to come. He would get a heads up from local police. [Silence.] You told me that, Igor. Want me to read the quote? Well, you can read whatever you want right now. Don’t just — you can put yourself in big trouble. You said: “He always do something wrong. There was some nights in question. There was at home arrest and police, before they come to the house, they call him and tell him they coming in at eight o’clock in the morning. It’s all corruption you know. It’s all bullshit.” Listen, don’t put yourself in trouble. Seriously"
This guy is staying on top of this story. I clicked around and it looks like he was some sort of hollywood insider/conspiracy theorist, but FWIW:
Here's a map of connections from another Hollywood Twitter Conspiracy theorist guy. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D_D9YQJUYAEaMoW?format=jpg&name=4096x4096 It looks like he may have some credibility though:
The entire article says that a fractured hyoid is not definitive of either cause, and mentions that it's more likely to happen in the hanging of older men.
1. Totally not shocked that some/most concierges in Sin City are able to connect you with some shady shit if you have enough money/power/fame. Or if you're on a winning streak and the shady shit keeps you at the casino. 2. I am shocked, however, that the FBI wouldn't give a well-known prankster celebrity the lowdown on all the ins and outs of a possible federal investigation. Shocked, I tell. I mean, if the FBI actually took his tip to heart, they probably would have given Cohen daily email updates, right?
It doesn't even make sense. Twitter verifying someone is who they say they are is a really weird cultural grievance.
Immediately see the pic all the way on the left of Clinton in a pool with George Nader... who was proven to be a completely different George Nader that anyone with non-failing eyesight and a couple firing neurons would have figured out. *insert rolling eyes here* CDaN is a bunch of vague shit thrown against the wall. Some sticks. Lots don't. And, again, a lot of it's vague. Moreover, many of the blinds are just Hollyweird articles/stories that are obfuscated with ambiguities and spiced up with lurid innuendo. I don't doubt that EntyLawyer is tapped in, but he churns out so many blinds every single day of the week that much of it has to be fabricated so the traffic doesn't wane.
ah. I think the blue checkmark brigade is used to refer to liberal journals and/or the PC crowd on twitter.
blue check mark brigade in barstool parlance is a bunch of people who are freelancers who are self important on the internet. the amount of poeple who make $30,000 a year but spend their entire day being outraged online is a big % of the blue check marks. Lyrtch Redav be mad about it i dont care
Goes back to the last presidential election. I do believe Portnoy coined the phrase ‘blue checkmark brigade.” And yes deadspin writers largely fall into that category.
this guy is the fucking worst fyi https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/5/1...-social-justice-activism-abuse-sexual-assault
Yeah, i'm gonna need a little more proof than some poorly written article from a random journo at a dog shit org like vox media.
My team oversees the claims that come out of all those deliveries. Some of those dudes are fucking nuts.