Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

Anthropology, Economics, History, Sociology etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

User avatar
SpeedOfSound
RS Donator
Posts: 32093
Joined: Feb 27, 2010 2:13 am
Location: Bloomington Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

Post by SpeedOfSound »

The_Metatron";p="2509281 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis";p="2504220 wrote:...

The_Metatron";p="2503955 wrote:So, unless you can start showing this, empathy or not, there are a lot of kids that are getting fucked.

Pure burden shifting. Not to mention ignoring the difference between consensual sex between adults and raping children as Nicko already pointed out.

Burden shifting, my ass. You've toddled up here and claimed that pedophiles are safe because, well, they have empathy, or what they do is illegal. What you've failed to do is support either of those claims. I've supported claims I've made.

Here's what you don't want to accept:

It only takes once. One time. All any of those 43 million or so extant pedophiles need do is act on their attractions once, and some kid just got fucked, didn't they?

It was you who made the leap that claimed I said everyone fucks everything. I never said it, and don't claim it.

Some time in the next 30 years or so, about 42 million kids are going to be fucked. At least once.


First, have you considered that pedophiles may be made up in our heads?

Next, you posted stats about people having sex in their lifetime. You compare that to having sex with children. How is this the same set of numbers for you?

43 million? Is that worldwide? These imaginary boogey's, in your opinion, ALL rape children? I think you are confused. A certain segment of the population has imageable differences, apparently from some research, indicating that they have trouble controlling harmful impulses. A certain frontal lobe development went slightly wrong. Those are the guys that will steal your car, punch you, shoot you, rape you, or whatever happens to be the opportunity. Now it seems that that subset when intersected with the subset of those who gravitate toward this fetish, would be the ones we should worry about.

Now the impulse control people do a hell of a lot more than just this specific crime. In general I think this is what we should focus on. Isn't that reasonable?
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
Posts: 22599
Joined: Feb 28, 2010 8:32 pm
Name: Jesse
Country: United States
Location: Lewis County, New York

Re: Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

Post by The_Metatron »

SpeedOfSound";p="2509280 wrote:
The_Metatron";p="2509265 wrote:I once served as technical expert for defense counsel on a military court martial of a computer crime case involving child pornography. The exact same offense that epepke did.

During the preparation for that court martial, I saw shit you wouldn't fucking believe. I have direct knowledge of the kinds of monsters that exist out there.

Waddya think, I just woke up one day and figured "there's a group of people I wouldn't mind killing"?

I'm not overly concerned if you people accept this or not. I know for a fact there exist monsters out there who serve no purpose whatsoever in their continued existence. Expose me to the right circumstances, and I am quite likely to act on that knowledge.

So you were committing the same crime you were prosecuting, in order to prosecute the crime? That never sat well with me.

In Eric's case the FBI agent was committing the same crime as well. Does this give anyone pause?

Oh, well.

Unless of course, you prefer to simply take the accusers' word for it, eh?

Come on man, don't be dense. The legal teams are going to be exposed to that which the defendant is accused.

In the case where I served, the defense asked for special findings. That is, they required the government to specify specifically which of the many thousands of images the accused possessed were in violation of the law. It was a long list.

Curious thing about that case, and fortunately for the government, the accused wasn't particularly bright. He was downloading his child porn at work, as well as at home. As if we weren't watching at the firewall. We had every keystroke, every mouse click.

I asked the defense counsel how they stay motivated to come to work, knowing perfectly well they are going to lose. Aside from the fact that the adversarial legal system is designed to prevent kangaroo courts, they did win some. The accused could have been sent away for pretty much the remainder of his life. He wasn't. He got something less than five years in Ft. Leavenworth, if I remember. The defense won most of that guys life. But mainly, their job is to ensure the government's case complies with the law.

That experience was very enlightening, in many ways.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
Posts: 22599
Joined: Feb 28, 2010 8:32 pm
Name: Jesse
Country: United States
Location: Lewis County, New York

Re: Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

Post by The_Metatron »

SpeedOfSound";p="2509282 wrote:...

First, have you considered that pedophiles may be made up in our heads?

...

The more stupid thing than this I may have ever heard doesn't come to mind.

I know otherwise.

I think for you, this is some sort of academic exercise. For me, it is not. There is no need to continue, is there?
User avatar
SpeedOfSound
RS Donator
Posts: 32093
Joined: Feb 27, 2010 2:13 am
Location: Bloomington Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

Post by SpeedOfSound »

The_Metatron";p="2509283 wrote:...
Come on man, don't be dense. The legal teams are going to be exposed to that which the defendant is accused.
..

Right. Something is wrong with this. It's the same damned crime. It would be like the legal team had to shoot a shop owner to prosecute the shooting of a shop owner. I saw a news segment where the fbi team was in a room with what appeared to be hundreds of pictures scrolling to the thousands across tv monitors, redacted for the tv, that were all illegal. These people do this 40 hours a week. That's fucked up. These people that do this must be nuts. Worse, how do you know some of them aren't pedophiles themselves?

It's like South Park's Vindaloop when you think about it.
User avatar
SpeedOfSound
RS Donator
Posts: 32093
Joined: Feb 27, 2010 2:13 am
Location: Bloomington Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

Post by SpeedOfSound »

The_Metatron";p="2509286 wrote:
SpeedOfSound";p="2509282 wrote:...

First, have you considered that pedophiles may be made up in our heads?

...

The more stupid thing than this I may have ever heard doesn't come to mind.

I know otherwise.

I think for you, this is some sort of academic exercise. For me, it is not. There is no need to continue, is there?

So you are absolutely certain that their is some developmental or genetic difference inour brains that could make us prefer children in sex? You have medical research, not statistics, not anecdotes, but actual causal mechanism to explain this?


Cuz if you do not have that causal chain nailed down then skepticism is hardly the stupid side of this question.
Last edited by SpeedOfSound on Jan 03, 2017 2:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
Posts: 22599
Joined: Feb 28, 2010 8:32 pm
Name: Jesse
Country: United States
Location: Lewis County, New York

Re: Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

Post by The_Metatron »

SpeedOfSound";p="2509287 wrote:
The_Metatron";p="2509283 wrote:...
Come on man, don't be dense. The legal teams are going to be exposed to that which the defendant is accused.
..

Right. Something is wrong with this. It's the same damned crime. It would be like the legal team had to shoot a shop owner to prosecute the shooting of a shop owner. I saw a news segment where the fbi team was in a room with what appeared to be hundreds of pictures scrolling to the thousands across tv monitors, redacted for the tv, that were all illegal. These people do this 40 hours a week. That's fucked up. These people that do this must be nuts. Worse, how do you know some of them aren't pedophiles themselves?

It's like South Park's Vindaloop when you think about it.

What then, is your alternative? How would you do it?
User avatar
SpeedOfSound
RS Donator
Posts: 32093
Joined: Feb 27, 2010 2:13 am
Location: Bloomington Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

Post by SpeedOfSound »

The_Metatron";p="2509290 wrote:
SpeedOfSound";p="2509287 wrote:
The_Metatron";p="2509283 wrote:...
Come on man, don't be dense. The legal teams are going to be exposed to that which the defendant is accused.
..

Right. Something is wrong with this. It's the same damned crime. It would be like the legal team had to shoot a shop owner to prosecute the shooting of a shop owner. I saw a news segment where the fbi team was in a room with what appeared to be hundreds of pictures scrolling to the thousands across tv monitors, redacted for the tv, that were all illegal. These people do this 40 hours a week. That's fucked up. These people that do this must be nuts. Worse, how do you know some of them aren't pedophiles themselves?

It's like South Park's Vindaloop when you think about it.

What then, is your alternative? How would you do it?

I would have laws that went after the picture takers and purchasers and let this other shit storm go. I think you would also have to limit the viewing of the material to a very small set of individuals, maybe female psychologists only, that see the actual images. Having these images viewed by judges, lawyers, juries, and any cop in the room is a further violation of the subject of the image.

Let's consider going after people who actually harm others rather than those who have 'bad thoughts'.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
Posts: 22599
Joined: Feb 28, 2010 8:32 pm
Name: Jesse
Country: United States
Location: Lewis County, New York

Re: Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

Post by The_Metatron »

SpeedOfSound wrote:
The_Metatron";p="2509290 wrote:
SpeedOfSound";p="2509287 wrote:
The_Metatron";p="2509283 wrote:...
Come on man, don't be dense. The legal teams are going to be exposed to that which the defendant is accused.
..

Right. Something is wrong with this. It's the same damned crime. It would be like the legal team had to shoot a shop owner to prosecute the shooting of a shop owner. I saw a news segment where the fbi team was in a room with what appeared to be hundreds of pictures scrolling to the thousands across tv monitors, redacted for the tv, that were all illegal. These people do this 40 hours a week. That's fucked up. These people that do this must be nuts. Worse, how do you know some of them aren't pedophiles themselves?

It's like South Park's Vindaloop when you think about it.

What then, is your alternative? How would you do it?

I would have laws that went after the picture takers and purchasers and let this other shit storm go. I think you would also have to limit the viewing of the material to a very small set of individuals, maybe female psychologists only, that see the actual images. Having these images viewed by judges, lawyers, juries, and any cop in the room is a further violation of the subject of the image.

Let's consider going after people who actually harm others rather than those who have 'bad thoughts'.

It's pretty evident how far through you've thought that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
User avatar
SpeedOfSound
RS Donator
Posts: 32093
Joined: Feb 27, 2010 2:13 am
Location: Bloomington Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

Post by SpeedOfSound »

You are correct. Haven't given it much thought. What would interest me though would be how you explain a possible brain mechanism that makes one a pedophile. Have you thought that one through? Or are we just going to go along with whatever the grand old media sticks up our asses?
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
Posts: 22599
Joined: Feb 28, 2010 8:32 pm
Name: Jesse
Country: United States
Location: Lewis County, New York

Re: Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

Post by The_Metatron »

From where do you get the idea that I have the slightest interest in trying to explain such a thing? You seem to have some thoughts on the matter, though.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
User avatar
Macdoc
Posts: 17715
Joined: Feb 26, 2010 6:41 am
Country: Australia
Location: Australia

Re: Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

Post by Macdoc »

What would interest me though would be how you explain a possible brain mechanism that makes one a pedophile.


that's no more mystery than any other fetish ....the difficult issue is what to do about it. There are echoes of the same " these people are sick" knee jerk that used to be about gays tho there were lots of voyeurs for girl on girl sex.

The difficulty is with children they are not responsible participants ( I didn't say unwilling as kids are curious and pedophiles exploit that).

It's a predator impulse like the willingness to steal or light fires or have forced sex etc that needs curbing by society but to even think you can fundamentally alter a pedophile to NOT be sexually attracted is ludicrous...just as you cannot cure "gay".
It's wired.

Also given the reality that the vast majority is "close relation" molesting most often as a girl approaches puberty which is earlier and earlier .....it becomes a difficult issues.
Young girls want to dress sexy and play act in a sometimes not so innocent manner and are open to being groomed .....sometimes as a rebellion against supressed sexuality in the household or religious nonsense....so they rebel.

If they rebel in a sexual manner at 16 they are fine ....at 14 maybe with a close in age partner....at 12 and under .....the fallout is nuclear.
Yet the fashion industry feeds both the girl's "try out being sexy" urges and the pedophiles fantasies.

Answer ...just about none. Avoid the obvious of not allowing a vulnerable group with a single authority figure to keep both sides in check.
Recognise this is an outlier in the spectrum of human sexuality that needs to be curbed....it's not going to be cured.
Given the immense reported and unreported scale .....this is no easy problem.

As to pre-pubescent pedophilia that's a pretty dire mental condition that in many cases might require something like chemical castration for a repeat offender....
But it's the insidious molestation of both sexes from puberty up to 15 that there is no easy answer to given the sexualized nature of our media and mindsets - not to mention human nature. A female gets to child bearing age she's an object of male interest.....and it's not like the girls aren't wanting outlets as well....their biology conflicts with human laws.
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
SpeedOfSound
RS Donator
Posts: 32093
Joined: Feb 27, 2010 2:13 am
Location: Bloomington Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

Post by SpeedOfSound »

Macdoc";p="2509314 wrote:
What would interest me though would be how you explain a possible brain mechanism that makes one a pedophile.

...
It's a predator impulse like the willingness to steal or light fires or have forced sex etc that needs curbing by society but to even think you can fundamentally alter a pedophile to NOT be sexually attracted is ludicrous...just as you cannot cure "gay".
It's wired.
...

I have serious doubts about wiring not being changed. How is it wired in such a manner that it can't be changed?

Now I have wiring in my brain to be susceptible to alcohol and certain stimulant drugs. But I changed that wiring significantly and no longer use either. I suspect I have similar wiring that makes certain women attractive to me. But over the years this too has changed considerably. I would have once gagged over any woman over 40. Additions to types and a broadening of attraction to various races, not my own, has also changed. Probably from watching too much tv.

So I don't understand how you know this about this one fetish. Can you explain how it works. The Metatron says he doesn't care how it works, implying that he doesn't care if it's even true.
User avatar
SpeedOfSound
RS Donator
Posts: 32093
Joined: Feb 27, 2010 2:13 am
Location: Bloomington Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

Post by SpeedOfSound »

I do agree that you aren't going to rewire a homosexual but I see no reason to classify homosexuality as a fetish.
User avatar
Macdoc
Posts: 17715
Joined: Feb 26, 2010 6:41 am
Country: Australia
Location: Australia

Re: Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

Post by Macdoc »

It's not a fetish, never said it was .....it's part of the human sexuality spectrum and what has changed is social tolerance to it. Attraction to children under puberty tho is.

Aversion therapy is used as is drugs to "curb" impulses but you aren't going to cure it just as you don't "cure" heterosexuality or homo-sexuality.

There is no biological basis in attraction to pre-pubescent kids....it's something the person is born with.
IF they have impulse control problems then society has to step in.

Consider FAS kids....due to pre-birth alcohol from MOM they lack the structure that slows or stops petty theft after a certain age.
This is not something that they can control, can be cured ....can only be guarded against social consequences when the condition is known. People are not pedophiles by choice, your sexuality is not a choice you make ....it's who you are and there is a wide spectrum from strong heterosexuality to bi ....to strong homosexuality.
Sure your tastes may change over time and even as my long ago ex wife discovered...you could be gay and suppressing it.

Sexual urges outside that spectrum can be harmless....the Japanese and women's shoes...or harmful ...attraction to young children or other edgier desires that can be harmful to the self ( BDSM ) or others when acted on.

WIth children...there is no "pedophile club" they can go to as a BDSM afficianado can. So they become hockey coaches, priests, teachers, swim coaches ....etc covert and often horribly damaging especially when covered up and tolerated.
Then it becomes a social control of these desires and sometime chemical.

There are no easy answers here as it's very wide spread in the real world tho there is a biological base for pubescent kids, - sexual attraction to prepubescent counters the strong protection instinct most primates have in regard to their offspring.
Definitely aberrant behaviour with damaging consequences to society and the children involved.
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
SpeedOfSound
RS Donator
Posts: 32093
Joined: Feb 27, 2010 2:13 am
Location: Bloomington Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

Post by SpeedOfSound »

Macdoc";p="2509320 wrote:It's not a fetish, never said it was .....it's part of the human sexuality spectrum and what has changed is social tolerance to it. Attraction to children under puberty tho is.

Aversion therapy is used as is drugs to "curb" impulses but you aren't going to cure it just as you don't "cure" heterosexuality or homo-sexuality.

There is no biological basis in attraction to pre-pubescent kids....it's something the person is born with.
IF they have impulse control problems then society has to step in.

Consider FAS kids....due to pre-birth alcohol from MOM they lack the structure that slows or stops petty theft after a certain age.
This is not something that they can control, can be cured ....can only be guarded against social consequences when the condition is known. People are not pedophiles by choice, your sexuality is not a choice you make ....it's who you are and there is a wide spectrum from strong heterosexuality to bi ....to strong homosexuality.
Sure your tastes may change over time and even as my long ago ex wife discovered...you could be gay and suppressing it.

Sexual urges outside that spectrum can be harmless....the Japanese and women's shoes...or harmful ...attraction to young children or other edgier desires that can be harmful to the self ( BDSM ) or others when acted on.

WIth children...there is no "pedophile club" they can go to as a BDSM afficianado can. So they become hockey coaches, priests, teachers, swim coaches ....etc covert and often horribly damaging especially when covered up and tolerated.
Then it becomes a social control of these desires and sometime chemical.

There are no easy answers here as it's very wide spread in the real world tho there is a biological base for pubescent kids, - sexual attraction to prepubescent counters the strong protection instinct most primates have in regard to their offspring.
Definitely aberrant behaviour with damaging consequences to society and the children involved.


Aversion therapy doesn't work on any fetish. Diversion therapy does. There's one big fucking boo-boo we subscribe to. If a brain is wired to some preference you can rewire it to another. We are all participating in a grand legal experiment right now called 'internet porn'. Much to be learned about addiction and developmental perversion in that.

Ok. So it is your belief that there is homosexual, heterosexual, and pedophile types of human brains that enter the world via the womb. Are there any others? Perhaps blonde-sexual? Just three types? You are putting pedophilia on par with the the other two?

How is that pedo one wired into the brain? Can you make a guess? I can guess how heterosexuality is wired. I think. It really is a tough one to figure out but my guess is that it involves testosterone and timing in the womb. No idea how testosterone and timing would make a pedophile.

My interest in the brain started with trying to figure out how the 0.70 waist to hip ration was genetically wired. Still haven't cracked that one.
User avatar
SpeedOfSound
RS Donator
Posts: 32093
Joined: Feb 27, 2010 2:13 am
Location: Bloomington Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

Post by SpeedOfSound »

I grew up in the fifties and sixties. We had a local perv who was also our bus driver. We never called them pedophiles back then. They were considered bad men who preyed on what they could prey on. No one made guesses about how they were wired or what they were attracted to. There was no imaginary 'inner world' that we believed in. My dad called these people 'fruits'. In a very disparaging voice. Men like my dad would guard us against them and occasionally just kick their asses a little. It all worked out except when we had authority figures like the bus driver or priests. Secrets were a big problem as well.
User avatar
zoon
Posts: 3302
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 8:42 pm

Re: Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

Post by zoon »

I think the legal reason for the child pornography laws is not that the people watching it are likely to commit crimes in the future ( which would be going down the road to thought control), but that the images banned are photos (not drawings), so that actual children have been harmed when they were taken, and are still being harmed by their distribution. It would indeed be better to stop that crime at source, but this is almost impossible, reducing the distribution reduces the income to the original perpetrators. The legal reasoning is not about the thoughts or the future actions of the users, but the harm to the children in the photographs. Words and articles are not banned, as far as I know?
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
Posts: 51607
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 8:03 pm
Name: Alice Pooper
Country: Engerland na na
Location: The capital of Ireland - Liverpool.

Re: Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

Post by Fallible »

Macdoc";p="2509314 wrote:
What would interest me though would be how you explain a possible brain mechanism that makes one a pedophile.


that's no more mystery than any other fetish ....the difficult issue is what to do about it. There are echoes of the same " these people are sick" knee jerk that used to be about gays tho there were lots of voyeurs for girl on girl sex.

The difficulty is with children they are not responsible participants ( I didn't say unwilling as kids are curious and pedophiles exploit that).

It's a predator impulse like the willingness to steal or light fires or have forced sex etc that needs curbing by society but to even think you can fundamentally alter a pedophile to NOT be sexually attracted is ludicrous...just as you cannot cure "gay".
It's wired.

Also given the reality that the vast majority is "close relation" molesting most often as a girl approaches puberty which is earlier and earlier .....it becomes a difficult issues.
Young girls want to dress sexy and play act in a sometimes not so innocent manner and are open to being groomed .....sometimes as a rebellion against supressed sexuality in the household or religious nonsense....so they rebel.

If they rebel in a sexual manner at 16 they are fine ....at 14 maybe with a close in age partner....at 12 and under .....the fallout is nuclear.
Yet the fashion industry feeds both the girl's "try out being sexy" urges and the pedophiles fantasies.

Answer ...just about none. Avoid the obvious of not allowing a vulnerable group with a single authority figure to keep both sides in check.
Recognise this is an outlier in the spectrum of human sexuality that needs to be curbed....it's not going to be cured.
Given the immense reported and unreported scale .....this is no easy problem.

As to pre-pubescent pedophilia that's a pretty dire mental condition that in many cases might require something like chemical castration for a repeat offender....
But it's the insidious molestation of both sexes from puberty up to 15 that there is no easy answer to given the sexualized nature of our media and mindsets - not to mention human nature. A female gets to child bearing age she's an object of male interest.....and it's not like the girls aren't wanting outlets as well....their biology conflicts with human laws.


And yet a-fucking-gain, attraction to pubescent children is ephebophilia, NOT paedophilia. This discussion is about paedophilia, and you're not bringing anything to this discussion by continuing your previous conflation. We're not talking about maturing girls sending out signals that they want it. We're talking about children who have not begun puberty. There is no need to say 'pre-pubescent paedophilia' - that's the only kind of paedophilia there is.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Joined: Jan 30, 2012 5:22 am
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Country: Netherlands

Re: Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

Post by Thomas Eshuis »

zoon";p="2509329 wrote:I think the legal reason for the child pornography laws is not that the people watching it are likely to commit crimes in the future ( which would be going down the road to thought control), but that the images banned are photos (not drawings), so that actual children have been harmed when they were taken, and are still being harmed by their distribution. It would indeed be better to stop that crime at source, but this is almost impossible, reducing the distribution reduces the income to the original perpetrators. The legal reasoning is not about the thoughts or the future actions of the users, but the harm to the children in the photographs. Words and articles are not banned, as far as I know?

Correct.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Macdoc
Posts: 17715
Joined: Feb 26, 2010 6:41 am
Country: Australia
Location: Australia

Re: Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

Post by Macdoc »

Fallible ...I could give a fuck for your nit picking. Contribute something or go away. You take the average parent and say are you afraid of ephebophilia and they'd look at you cross eyed or think your mouth was full of marbles :nono:

Go argue with the courts..
The focus of pedophilia is sexual activity with a child. Many courts interpret this reference to age to mean children under the age of 18.

Read more: http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Pedo ... z4UgsPvihQ
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
Post Reply