1 3 Next
Topic: Proud Pedophile
Lpdon's photo
Thu 02/02/12 10:50 AM


Lpdon wrote...

Brain tumors dont cause pedophiles.


It seems that in this one case, it did. I think that the size and position of the tumor interfered with the guy's ability to control his impulses. Brain damage has been shown to turn a loving family man into a violent wife beater, I don't see why a tumor would be any different. But I do feel that this is exception and not the rule.


I know the rare cases where things like that happen, but I dont see a tumor giving a man a boner for a kid though. I maybe wrong but I don't see it happening and IF it does happen it would be very rare.

no photo
Thu 02/02/12 12:22 PM
Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Thu 02/02/12 12:25 PM
I know the rare cases where things like that happen, but I dont see a tumor giving a man a boner for a kid though. I maybe wrong but I don't see it happening and IF it does happen it would be very rare.
That you cannot see it happening illustrates how we (human beings) make conclusions from ignorance. (especially in emotionally charged topics like this one)

That you think its rare without statistic data is another example of this conclusion from ignorance. (You may be right, I do not have the statistics either.)

We do not know how rare it is, we do not know what other factors could cause such dramatic behavioral changes.

We do not understand human behavior at a physiological level, and that should preclude such generalized conclusions about that behavior and the person exhibiting the behaviors in question.

That was my real point.

As far as what we the public should do>???! Well that depends on 2 things.

1) can the person control themselves?
2) does the person know right from wrong?

If the person suffers from one or both of these factors then they need to be locked up if the behavior is dangerous to others, which pedophilia most certainly is, were they are locked up IMHO should not be a general population prison where they will not be studied nor treated.

If they know right from wrong, and can control themselves but do not, then we shouldnt worry too much about how they are treated . . . just my .02.

Now the hard part is determining how much control anyone has over there own behaviors. This isn't a black and white thing unfortunately.


It seems that in this one case, it did. I think that the size and position of the tumor interfered with the guy's ability to control his impulses.
I think that is exactly correct, and if so maybe this will help us understand how we control our behaviors. <crosses fingers>

no photo
Thu 02/02/12 01:24 PM

It seems that in this one case, it did. I think that the size and position of the tumor interfered with the guy's ability to control his impulses.
I think that is exactly correct, and if so maybe this will help us understand how we control our behaviors. <crosses fingers>


We've tried brain surgery to adjust behaviors before, that didn't work out so well.

no photo
Thu 02/02/12 01:40 PM


It seems that in this one case, it did. I think that the size and position of the tumor interfered with the guy's ability to control his impulses.
I think that is exactly correct, and if so maybe this will help us understand how we control our behaviors. <crosses fingers>


We've tried brain surgery to adjust behaviors before, that didn't work out so well.
Worked pretty good with the guy with the tumor.

I think context matters, as does the completeness of knowledge regarding the cause.

In fact its pretty simplistic the comment you just made. If you are referencing the turn of the century lobotomies then you are just talking smack.


no photo
Thu 02/02/12 01:47 PM



It seems that in this one case, it did. I think that the size and position of the tumor interfered with the guy's ability to control his impulses.
I think that is exactly correct, and if so maybe this will help us understand how we control our behaviors. <crosses fingers>


We've tried brain surgery to adjust behaviors before, that didn't work out so well.
Worked pretty good with the guy with the tumor.

I think context matters, as does the completeness of knowledge regarding the cause.

In fact its pretty simplistic the comment you just made. If you are referencing the turn of the century lobotomies then you are just talking smack.


Lobotomies were used from the early 1940's until the early 1960's. I don't see how it's talking "smack", it's talking "slippery slope". In case of a tumor, yeah, rip that sucker out. But if we did find a brain surgery that could eliminate these desires, do you really think some politician trying to make a name for himself wouldn't say "Hey, this new surgery will cure pedophiles, so let's make it mandatory."? It makes me nervous is all.

1 3 Next