Monica21 wrote...
You're painting a picture of Gacy and not of all predators. First, Gacy was not only sexually abused by a family friend, he was physically abused by his father. Yes, that will mess someone up. That however, does not mean that I choose to empathize with his actions. There is a difference. Gacy made the choices he did. He wasn't in some kind of haze when he tortured and murdered children. He actively sought them out and killed them. In addition, while nearly 90% of pedophiles claim to have been abused as children, the number actually comes out to 36% after a lie detector test. They try to cover their tracks and make you think there's a reason they're broken when they're just broken. They're wired wrong. Whatever you want to call it, but they try to make you empathize with them.
90% of pedos claim to have been abused? Lie detector tests are actually accurate? Wrong on both counts. The
vast majority of pedos have had absolutely zero abuse done to them, pedophilia is actually innate and natural to the person just as being straight or gay is. People are literally born pedo, the neurological and chemical changes to the brain to make them sexually attracted to kids is put in place while the person is still in the womb, and their attraction starts manifesting before even puberty. It is, by all accurate accounts, a sexual orientation. The reason they're "broken" as you call them had nothing to do with upbringing, they were born that way... Pedos themselves will even say as much. I've done much research and studying about this subject for years now, and I can tell you that you didn't go those facts of yours from any true study. For the record this isn't me defending them at all, this is just me correcting misinformation.
And lie detectors tests? I think I can use an article to speak for me on that one.
"It turns out that polygraphy is not only an incredibly inexact science, but that reading the results of a lie detector is almost entirely subjective. In short, lie detectors don't work. But people's lives have been ruined by them. The problem isn't that the machines don't record something—they do: heart rate, respiration, sweat-gland activity, and so on. But what the changes in those numbers
mean is entirely up to interpretation.Obviously there are two sides to this. On the one you have
the American Polygraph Association(APA) and some law enforcement agencies. Neither of these are what you would call objective. The APA's existence depends on people accepting that lie detectors work, and as we've seen all too often, police and district attorneys are happy to have something that appears to provide evidence that can convict someone. (Lie detector tests are rarely allowed as evidence against someone in court — that should tell you something — but "failing" a test can sway public opinion, and jury members aren't hermits.)
On the other side you have, well, dozens of groups and organizations with names like
AntiPolygraph.org and
StopPolygraph.com. If you're like me, you might at first blush think these are fringe groups with their own (hidden) agenda, and that they aren't about to provide unbiased information. After all, there's always a conspiracy theorist to be found. Except that also on the anti-polygraph side I found the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and
60 Minutes. They all found essentially the same thing: Lie detectors show what the examiners
want them to show.
In 1986,
60 Minutes demonstrated this rather dramatically. Using
Popular Photography magazine as a front, the producers hired several polygraphers to help find someone who had, they were told, stolen hundreds of dollars of photographic equipment. (No such theft had taken place.) Each examiner was told that a different one of the 'suspects' was probably the guilty party.
Lo and behold, each polygrapher fingered the suspect they were told ahead of time was probably guilty. Oops.
An American Medical Association expert testified before Congress that "the [lie detector] cannot detect lies much better than a coin toss." Further, an article published in the
Journal of the American Medical Association by the AMA's Council on Scientific Affairs said in part, "Though the polygraph can recognize guilty suspects with an accuracy that is better than chance, error rates of significant size are possible." Ouch. "
whole thing here-
http://usatoday30.us...08-kantor_x.htm
Modifié par andy69156915, 20 avril 2013 - 04:17 .
Retour en haut
