Can Veeky Forums explain why homosexual pedophiles outnumber heterosexual pedophiles at a rate of 11:1?

Homosexuality is a mental disease that has many other comorbidities, pedophilia is one of them.

Reproduction is the goal of your body.
Pleasure is the goal of your own self.
Just because you have a brain, that doesn't mean you know it works.
Humans are ignorant to their body functions in a natural state.
The creature is a mere puppet to their body.

>Just because you have a brain, that doesn't mean you know it works.
right, which is why you've deluded yourself into thinking a 'self' exists

>I define the parameters of my own universe
Go somewhere else if you are going to be edgy. Providing an opinion in place of scientifically proven fact is just stupid.

>something that can not produce children

We're talking about pedophilia, not toddlercon.

literally nonsense

That's why stemfags are seen as ridiculous by philosophers. That's a basic naturalistic paralogism.

>DSM 1 and 2
>back when psychology was more scientific
What the hell are you talking about?

I can't tell if you're trolling or really stupid. Probably both

do you not even know what pedophilia is you brainlet?

> psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children
>prepubescent

No there are more hetero pedos than gay pedos.

what are you doing on a board dedicated to science and math when you lack even the most basic critical thinking abilities?

>pedophiles

Sorry, but the correct term is "pedosexual". Or as I like to call them -- "A child-loving friend". You don't want to be intolerant, now do you?

"""""alpha""""" dumb fuck.

So it's an issue with scarcity then.

If blacks are more likely to be poor then they are more likely to find themselves committing crime to get the resources they want. This is not only because they lack resources but because they lack the power to induce what is lawful or not. In the middle east for example there a number of actions committed by populations there that would be in violation of western laws and vice versa.

Meanwhile if homosexuals are more likely to be attracted to males they are more likely to be attracted to young males under the legal age. This is because the act of being homosexual does not invalidate the attraction to femenality along with the characteristics it has in common with prepubescence. And by being homosexual they reduce the selection of potential mates.

This of course is working under the presidence that the pedophilia in question within the study falls under the "broad" common definition which is inclusive to the age range between 0-16 and not the strict definition that is something akin to 0-10.

you're retarded.

the brain is a toll of the body, and both wish to reproduce

>instead of proving your wrong I will retreat to my own little fantasy world
>you can't prove anything anyway so nothing matters, right? Anyway hating fags isn't cool ok

I'd suggest looking up Haiti.

not a single argument to be found

fags and pedos simultaneously BTFO

Haiti was first ruled by the French as a nation and proxied by the U.S. and France after the revolt. It wasn't until much later blacks actually got true ruling power there.

Also those blacks did not go there under their own agency meaning there was no active interest by the population to establish government. It was mostly reactionary tendencies from being under the heel of foreign law.

If you watched any specials concerning Haiti you would know those people are desperate to not only change their official language to English instead French but are also desperate to put their kids in educational institutions to the point of making private schools more crowded and in demand than public.

They're probably the only black population that I'm aware of as a whole desperate to force their kids to school. Even if that means sneaking them in.

So you're basically saying that gay pedophiles like children, because adult males are too muscular and manly, and they want a cute twink instead.
Basically a girl but with a penis.
I suggest we deport all gay pedophiles to Thailand then

It's a crude simplification but yeah you are right. The issue is that since most populations of men do not express feminine/ prepubescence as common as women, homosexual males who seek those features in other males are stuck seeking it from those particular demographics.

>Previous investigations have indicated that the ratio of sex offenders against female children vs. offenders against male children is approximately 2:1, while the ratio of gynephiles to androphiles among the general population is approximately 20:1. The present study investigated whether the etiology of preferred partner sex among pedophiles is related to the etiology of preferred partner sex among males preferring adult partners. Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children.

>the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1

Hetero to homo pedos is 11:1,
Hetero to homo population is 20:1.

This means that homos are over represented in the pedo population.

>m-muh povertty xDDDDDDDDD

If you bother to take a look at poor white counties, you'll find that the crime rates are often below the national average.

I dunno, why did the greeks fuck boys? Why do muslims fuck boys? Why does Podesta have really creepy art about little boys?

>ratio of sex offenders against female children vs. offenders against male children is approximately 2:1

The burden of proof is on you, friends. A naturalistic paralogism is a naturalistic paralogism (I should say naturalistic fallacy), "is" isn't "ought" and all that.
Pedophilia is bad because it hurts people, that's why we don't condemn homosexuality. And well, it can hurt people in conservative societies, so it's fine if homosexuals are not free there, it's best for everyone (except militantist retards).

what part of the argument specifically do you have trouble with?

an average, healthy human brain is attracted to things it can reproduce with (or rather is attracted to visible characteristics that are associated with something you can reproduce with )

both pedophilia and heterosexuality are rare because they hamper your ability to reproduce because you are attracted to things you can't reproduce with

when you look at the homosexual population specifically, you are already looking at a population whose brain has deviated and become attracted to something they can't reproduce with.

So the barrier or filter that makes pedophilia rare in the whole population (the fact that you can't reproduce with it) has already been bypassed by homosexuals who are all already attracted to things they can't reproduce with.

so you would expect a higher proportion of homosexuals to be pedophiles than the general population

and similarly you would expect a higher proportion of the pedophile population to be homosexual than the regular population

Wait, where is the proof for your barrier theory.

How is that relevant? Those numbers include female pedos as well.

Does a homosexual's brain know instinctually the fact that they can't reproduce with another man?

there isn't proof , it's an argument that uses evolutionary principles.

So you can say that you aren't convinced by it as an argument or you find it tenuous.

But how is it a "naturalistic paralogism"?

>an average, healthy human brain is attracted to things it can reproduce with

You seem to imply that non-heterosexuality is a mental illness in itself, which is a debunked myth.

>a population whose brain has deviated and become attracted to something they can't reproduce with

You assume that the bias towards heterosexuality as the norm is inherent to our nature and not just the '''societal''' norm (hence your 'barrier' theory). Can you prove any of that?

Fail, I guess you can't get bold text with triple apostrophe...

>You seem to imply that non-heterosexuality is a mental illness in itself,

No, I'm not interested in the semantics of what you want to define as a mental illness or what qualifies as such.

I believe I mean what I said in the sentence you quoted.
>You assume that the bias towards heterosexuality as the norm
that is true.
>inherent to our nature
not interested in the semantics of whether something is "inherent" or is "our nature". not part of my argument.

The evidence that it is normal for reasons beyond societal happenstance for people to be heterosexual is evolution and natural selection.

members of a species possessing genes that resulted in behaviour where they were attracted to things that they could not reproduce with would not reproduce as much as members of a species possessing genes that resulted in behaviour where they desired to fuck thinggs they could reproduce with.

An explanation for deviance, abnormality and perversion? Good luck finding sanity in insanity.
What they want to do is masturbate on each other in public.

I meant to say that you assume sexual orientation is mostly a product of our genetic makeup, and as such most people are biased towards heterosexuality simply because our genes are programmed that way.

It is however likely that sexual orientation is heavily defined by nurture and societal factors.

Though I honestly don't think it's a good idea to make many claims on this subject since it currently remains controversial among scientists.

What are people like you doing on the Veeky Forums forum?

>that's why round-earthfags are seen as ridiculous by flat-earthers

>mfw OP doesn't know how to read a ratio

>you've deluded yourself into thinking a 'self' exists
>you've deluded yourself
>deluded yourself
>yourself
>self

not really

>color of crime
>book written by a white nationalist

>The whole point of sexual activity is to reproduce.
The only point of an activity is what you want of it. Nature has no intrinsic ends, she is a blind monster.

Actually for nature sex only means reproduction, the same way that eating provides nutrition. As a whole, nature has no meaning for its existence, but each activity has a meaning on itself.

>each activity has a meaning on itself
From a natural perspective things have no meaning, only consequences, consequences without meaning.
I can't see why an end has to be "natural" to be justified in someone's head. Also if sex for pleasure isn't natural, then what it is, supernatural?

Looks like we've proven the degeneracy again.

>can't debate the facts
>scream nazi

Do you think that all bonobos are mentally ill?

good catch, the enlightened version is
>one deludes oneself
eliminating the you or my, which implies 'others' exist outside of the experience of self, which is all but the perpetual, illusory nature of reality

Why does /pol/ worship terrorists, and why are domestic terrorists almost always right-wing?

Fuck off, Jew.

Free sex children

if you can't see what's wrong with that chart you need to take some epidemiology courses