Just for Fun.

[neurosis]

You really think Biden/Pelosi give AF about anything beyond their own power and graft.

ooh ooh. I got this one.   NO. 

But then I could say that about *most* politicians.

[CNCAppsJames]

Didn't see that coming. 

I would think you guys would be proud to share where you're getting your information from but I guess not.

I expect you have your reasons.

Why on earth would I do YOUR homework for you? You doubt the veracity of my statement, fine. Here's the thing, I could post 1,000 different unrelated links and it would not change your mind one bit. That I have actual proof because you refuled to acknowledge WHEN you are wrong about anything; like "...well regulated..." for example. You pretend you never said what you said byt continuing to ignore the fact you are dead wrong on a definition.

So in closing, I'm not going to waste my time providing you with evidence that you don't want to see because it won't change your mind. So keep on living in your ignorance, keep on believing "...well regulated..." means the same thing today as it did in 1791 because at the end of the day you're still wrong no matter what you think or what you believe, and there's a Library of Congress full of documentation to prove it.

[Smit]

The good news is they are better than the Gateway Pundit but not by much.

But thanks for revealing your sources.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/

[neurosis]

Not to criticize anyone's favorite news sources, but I can't read Gateway Pundit.  The writing is usually pretty bad and the articles are written like they were written by Sean Hannity or Tucker Carlson. There is nothing journalistic about it.  That's problematic in that anyone who doesn't already agree with their opinions, whether there is any truth to their articles or not, is never going to take them serious. 

There are several left leaning sites that I feel the same way about. 

[beej]

The good news is they are better than the Gateway Pundit but not by much.

But thanks for revealing your sources.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/

these aren't publications that I read regularly, but I do read articles from rightwing sites, that are alarming and then I do my own research to see if this could possibly be true. It looks to me like it is, I bet that the people who are doing these studies vote for the same party that you do. After all, the Dems are the party of science, right?

University professors opinions
https://www.medicaldaily.com/science-pedophilia-it-sexual-orientation-242403

There to speak were Dr. Vernon Quinsey, then from Queens University, and Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem, a retiree from the University of Montreal. Naturally, the subject of therapy entered the discussion, to which Van Gijseghem said,

"When we speak of therapy or when individuals get therapy and we feel as though everyone is pacified, the good news is often illusory. For instance, it is a fact that real pedophiles account for only 20% of sexual abusers. If we know that pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small [offense] from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality, and if we agree on the fact that true pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation, everyone knows that there is no such thing as real therapy. You cannot change this person's sexual orientation."

There is a natural aversion to pedophilia in the United States and worldwide. But is that discomfort helpful? It has led to serious consequences for pedophiles - starvation and murder in prison, being forced out of neighborhoods by vigilante neighbors, even living under bridges like real trolls in an area of Florida for a period of time - and all for something that some researchers, most of them out of Canada, say that they cannot control. Because they say that it is a sexual orientation, no matter the amount of therapy, prison time, or beatings will change them.

USA today
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2022/01/10/pedophiles-pedophilia-sexual-disorder/8768423002/

'This is not something that people choose'

Michael Seto, forensic research director at the Royal Ottawa Health Care Group in Canada, said there is more neuroscientific knowledge of pedophilia than ever before. MRI research is showing how sexual interests develop in the brain.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34716500/

The stigmatization of people with pedophilic sexual interests is a topic of growing academic and professional consideration, owing to its potential role in moderating pedophiles' emotional well-being, and motivation and engagement in child abuse prevention schemes. Thus, improving attitudes and reducing stigmatization toward this group is of paramount importance.

"I think as a field, we've accepted the idea that this is not something that people choose," Seto said.

Seto said pedophilia is something people are born with or at least have a predisposition to. Evidence shows men are more likely to have pedophilia than women. This aligns with research showing men are more likely to have other paraphilias, including exhibitionism, voyeurism and sadism. Men are also more likely than women to commit criminal acts.

[crazy^millman]

The good news is they are better than the Gateway Pundit but not by much.

But thanks for revealing your sources.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/

Again your are using strong left leaning site as the meter for what is non biased fact checking.   

[YoDoug]

It's funny you put it that way.

The Gateway Pundit is among the worst of the worst, feeding its readers what they want to hear, even if they have to make it up or use somebody elses made up chit.

But at least you have nards enough to post it. Congrats on that.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-gateway-pundit/

The truth is, TGP, just like salon.com, the Atlantic, etc., are extreme websites. They make money by getting clicks and to do that you need to one up your competition. That means sensationalizing the stories to sound extreme. It also means never printing actual neutral, objective stories. Both sides do it. I can admit that. Can you?

As far TGP, I do read it occasionally. However I don't believe everything they post. In fact many of their stories are quite frustrating because they are so sensationally biased that only a morally corrupt or ignorant person would believe it. I see the same thing in many of the links you post, do you?

[Smit]

It also means never printing actual neutral, objective stories. Both sides do it. I can admit that. Can you?

Salon.com didn't fare very well but The Atlantic was rated pretty high for being factual but I'm sure you could find a better example if you tried. I've never read either btw.

I see the same thing in many of the links you post, do you?

No, but I can believe you do.

[Smit]

No.
Not my source.

Then I withdraw my thanks.

[Matthew Hajicek]

I don't want anyone beaten or killed, that is terrible. But the comparison you make is flawed. Sexuality is a behavior not an identity.

If it were the societal norm that was expected of you, under threat of persecution, could you make yourself only sexually attracted to men?  I highly doubt it.  How you are is how you are.  And yes, there are actual, physical differences in the brains of those who are nonbinary.  It seems to be a natural biological response to stress; if the mother is highly stressed during pregnancy, the chance of the child being nonbinary increases dramatically.  This would convey a survival benefit on the society in which it takes place, as it reduces competition for resources.  And yes, it occurs in many species other than human as well; it's entirely natural and normal, and was accepted as such in most societies throughout the majority of human history.

[Incogneeto]

Too late. You can't withdraw the spoken word....

What if he says it in Spanish??

[Del.]

No.
Not my source.
24 seconds of googling.
Sheesh
Edit - you do know who the Johns Hopkins University is?

Never heard of it. 

[beej]

If it were the societal norm that was expected of you, under threat of persecution, could you make yourself only sexually attracted to men?  I highly doubt it.  How you are is how you are.  And yes, there are actual, physical differences in the brains of those who are nonbinary.  It seems to be a natural biological response to stress; if the mother is highly stressed during pregnancy, the chance of the child being nonbinary increases dramatically.  This would convey a survival benefit on the society in which it takes place, as it reduces competition for resources.  And yes, it occurs in many species other than human as well; it's entirely natural and normal, and was accepted as such in most societies throughout the majority of human history.

I'm going to pick this post apart little by little:

1)
I find a lot of women to be attractive. that said, I waited until my wedding night to have sex with my wife and I've never had sex with a single other person. we were both 23 when we got married. If I had not married her, I would have waited till the right person came along or never at all. It's called discipline. sexuality is behavior. There is a difference between attraction and acting on it.

2) what are those differences in the brain you speak of. If that were true there would be genetic testing for SSA. but there is not.

3) wouldn't you agree with me that stress-free pregnancies are a relatively recent construct. I wonder how stress free pregnancies were for women, let's just say, 3000 years ago. or even 500 years ago. It's a wonder any of us are here at all based on that logic.

4)Homosexuality is not normal or natural by your own admission if it occurs due to stress. (which it doesn't) 4% of the population self-identifies as being gay. you seem like an analytical fellow. how does that compute in a statistics and probability study? Let's say there are %50 more in the closet that haven't come out yet. that would be 6%. That doesn't sound normal to me? I have a condition called vitiligo. it causes white spots on my skin. 2% of the world population have it. I wouldn't call that normal to have vitiligo.

[YoDoug]

Salon.com didn't fare very well but The Atlantic was rated pretty high for being factual but I'm sure you could find a better example if you tried. I've never read either btw.

No, but I can believe you do.

LOL, so none of your sources are ever wrong or never exaggerate or sensationalize the facts to fit their narrative.

[CNCAppsJames]

Not to criticize anyone's favorite news sources, but I can't read Gateway Pundit.  The writing is usually pretty bad ... 

There's a few right and left leaning new sources I read that make me want to gouge my eyes out. Piss poor grammar. Basic spelling errors. etc...

One would think with a degree in journalism it would be safe to say basic sentence structure would be a thing but apparently not these days. It's like 3rd graders are writing this drivel.