Did you know that shorter men are more likely to be pedophiles than taller men? (Also low IQs)
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/conditions/pedophilia
26-30, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
Ok. Ordinarily I wouldn't respond to questions like this because if you think there's more probability of a man being a sex offender because of his height which is what your question implies, that is truly stupid thinking.
By way of contrast. How tall is the 'average female sex offender' ?
Also worth noting that Psychology Today is just a magazine.
It is not peer reviewed and is therefore no more reliable in its stories than any other magazine.
By way of contrast. How tall is the 'average female sex offender' ?
Also worth noting that Psychology Today is just a magazine.
It is not peer reviewed and is therefore no more reliable in its stories than any other magazine.
Gouzi · 26-30, M
@Picklebobble2
That it isn't reviewed by academics doesn't mean its on an equal footing to all other magazines. It references, which gives it more authority than a magazine that doesn't base an article on references.
& Actually, i just thought it was funny and interesting to ask a question about this.
That it isn't reviewed by academics doesn't mean its on an equal footing to all other magazines. It references, which gives it more authority than a magazine that doesn't base an article on references.
& Actually, i just thought it was funny and interesting to ask a question about this.
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
@Gouzi The fact that you find it funny is concerning.
And your thinking that the article carries any weight is equally so.
Your question. Worded the way it is. May have some people treating the 'information' as fact.
To say nothing of survivors of abuse reading it and drawing all kinds of wrong paralels and conclusions.
And your thinking that the article carries any weight is equally so.
Your question. Worded the way it is. May have some people treating the 'information' as fact.
To say nothing of survivors of abuse reading it and drawing all kinds of wrong paralels and conclusions.
Gouzi · 26-30, M
@Picklebobble2 What is wrong with me thinking the article can be useful for educating someone about pedophilia? The answer is nothing. If people want to research further into it, they can. This article is a nice beginning point.
& I linked the article that they can check out for themselves.
That some people may interpret or think whatever they may is no grounds for saying something is wrong to post. People are responsible for finding the truth of a matter themselves, and further I cannot control how people interpret os misinterpret something.
"To say nothing of survivors of abuse reading it and drawing all kinds of wrong paralels and conclusions." - This sentence is pure rhetoric and means very little.
& I linked the article that they can check out for themselves.
That some people may interpret or think whatever they may is no grounds for saying something is wrong to post. People are responsible for finding the truth of a matter themselves, and further I cannot control how people interpret os misinterpret something.
"To say nothing of survivors of abuse reading it and drawing all kinds of wrong paralels and conclusions." - This sentence is pure rhetoric and means very little.
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
@Gouzi ok I think that's enough for me to flag it.
You post something that gives the impression of 'fact' when it clearly isn't.
And when questioned on it you find it amusing.
When you didn't make that clear in your original posting.
"People are responsible for finding the truth" again makes the assumption that the reader can distinguish
1.A story. 2.Your belief in it to be funny. And 3.The reader to be able to distinguish the difference.
Between what they're reading/your intent/whether there's any validity to it.
You post something that gives the impression of 'fact' when it clearly isn't.
And when questioned on it you find it amusing.
When you didn't make that clear in your original posting.
"People are responsible for finding the truth" again makes the assumption that the reader can distinguish
1.A story. 2.Your belief in it to be funny. And 3.The reader to be able to distinguish the difference.
Between what they're reading/your intent/whether there's any validity to it.
Gouzi · 26-30, M
@Picklebobble2 ? I am not a news source. This is a social community. my post doesn't have to be of the highest quality regard its reliability. Jesus. You'd be boring at a pub. Just relax.
Yes, i assume people can be responsible for their own beleifs. Yes, i assume people can make basic distinctions. You don't? You treat everyone like an idiot? Good for you.
Yes, i assume people can be responsible for their own beleifs. Yes, i assume people can make basic distinctions. You don't? You treat everyone like an idiot? Good for you.