Typical American to recite whatever this poem is to a non-American. Am i supposed to know or care what it means?

Good

Sorry, i mistook you for the other commentor. Although my point still stands. The majority of pedophiles are heterosexuals yes, because 95% of the populace (in US) is heterosexual. But 21% of pedophiles are homosexual, while only around 5% of the populace is homosexual, meaning homosexuals are statistically way more likely to be pedophiles.

With quick maths when there are 750 000 registered child predators, of which 21% are homosexual, that means there are 157 000 homosexual child predators. That means 0,009 pedophiles per homosexual. The same number for heterosexuals is 0,0019 pedophiles per heterosexual. This means a homosexual is almost five times (4,7) more likely to be a pedophile compared to a heterosexual.

That is quite a significant difference, and certainly warrants discussion wouldn’t you say? Why is brining up these numbers forbidden?

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Since you want to split hairs and argue about some hidden implications, instead of actual substance, the comment obviously implied that a man from a “risk group” for pedophilia (for lack of a better term), working exclusively with children, getting so upset about anti-lgbt laws likely is a pedophile.

Now that i’ve microanalysed my own comment for you, would you care to tell me whether sexuality is an inborn trait one can’t change?

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

So one is born a pedophile? Typically your crowd claims people are born with their sexualities, and they cannot be changed.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

More like you care a bit too much for children.

Bailouts aren’t socialism, nor are subsidies or healthcare for that matter.

A gay pediatrician? Cant make this shit up

So victimless. That’s the definition.

Only to a selfish individualist who puts his one gain before the good of everyone else.

Is it? It is it just reasonable to realize that millions of years of mamillian evolution have led to leisure as normal a part of the species.

Literally only in the opulent West and in the last few decades is it considered normal for one to slack off doing absolutely nothing usefull for the better part of the day.

Increased brain activity in itself isn’t a benefit, not to mention relying on drugs to keep yourself going is the opposite of healthy. There are perfectly healthy ways to keep one’s brain activity up, exercise, healthy diet, enough sleep and so on.

I did say that anyone not addicted wouldn’t procure substances illegally, not everyone with a drug problem seeks medical help you know.

The use of drugs is nominally victimless.

It is not, society itself is the victim as the drug user is wasting their potential and time on drugs instead of something productive. Not to mention the wasted effort and resources on producing the drugs and dealing with trouble users.

Many leisure activities serve no immediate purpose other than relaxation.

And many such activities ultimately are harmfull and defending them is a result of one’s lack of self-discipline and lazyness.

I see you’ve ignored the socialization aspect of recreational drugs and their effects on the various arts too.

Both unnecessary, if one needs drugs to socialize, they need to seek medical help.

Uppers increase brain activity.

And typically have detrimental effects on the individual. There are risks and no benefits, therefor, ban.

Most recreational activies are productive and serve a purpose other than mindless pleasure, be it reading, exercising, creative projects or other such activites. Recreational drug use serves no such purpose and only exists to numb one’s mind from the outside world, and likely their troubles, this fact just is covered by pretty words about “relaxation” and such.

Banning a substance (with strategic eye of course, for example a total immediate ban on alcohol would cause more problems than it would solve, a incremental ban is better in this case) that complements this behaviour also discourages this behaviour, as no-one who isn’t addicted to the substance will take the risk of procuring it illegally. And the ones who are addicted obviously require medical care.

The decrease of organised crime in drug trade is no argument, one could argue that murder should be legal since the amount of convicted murderers goes down if it is legalised. Not to mention how the ban on certain drugs in America isn’t designed to lower the usage of drugs to begin with, rather simply profit off it in various ways.