Well, yes, I suppose so

Single injection could stop paedophiles abusing children

5 ccs of heroin would do it nicely I believe. 1 cc of an arsenic salt, 10 cc of pretty much any decent barbiturate.

13 thoughts on “Well, yes, I suppose so”

  1. Presumably they’ll be using this on new migrants, to prevent another “sexual emergency” as seen in Austria; or to prevent another Cologne new year’s eve.

  2. Two anti-man stories in one day.

    Does anyone imagine the femmi-scum aren’t thinking about trying to force this anti-testosterone shite on all of us–never mind paedos.

    And the fuckwit French? Banning paying for sex? Trying now to cut their own balls off while importing top notch RoP rappers at the same time?

    If the West can’t wake up from its dreaming then we are truly finished.

  3. “One injection”??

    Leaving aside the ethics of castrating folk who’ve done no harm, the report actually suggests one injection every three months.

    And is there really a society-wide plague of kiddy fiddling? I mean, at greater than historical levels, for example?

  4. BlokeInTejas: “And is there really a society-wide plague of kiddy fiddling? ”


    There is a plague of lying middle-class Marxist shite. Which we all have some responsibility for as we have sat back and done nothing for several decades and thus allowed the cunts to burrow in everywhere. So that even small-fry local newspapers are reporting the Marxist narrative as if it is Gospel.

  5. Studies have suggested that between one in 20 and one in 35 men are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children

    At first glance this statement struck me as poorly constructed. The claim itself is fine but only the low estimate provides a citation. I try to do the opposite and find a citation for the most extreme claim.

    As to the when the hell did we decide that it is ok to say it’s just genetics? The prevailing wisdom was that being abused as a child was the most likely indicator of being a kiddie fiddler. The first search result provided a reference that indicates a real link to upbringing. To ignore the non-genetic causes is dangerous as close-minded individuals will use the bias to support defending unpalatable things like eugenics.

    The study that supports the genetic doesn’t sit well with me. Instead of a link to a summary I need the actual study. There are obvious questions about the methods. How prevalent are the genes in question in non-pedophiles? How were inconsistencies in the upbringing of half-siblings accounted for? Citing a review of someone else’s work in your own paper does not count as an independent source.

    Could this drug help prevent pedophiles, possibly. I would think that in many cases the potential criminal would be better served by understanding their own past. Why is using a drug to mask a serious issue considered acceptable in this case but not in others?

  6. Surreptitious Evil

    Please note that, assuming the figures weren’t simply extracted from the anus of one of the researchers, that if one in 20 men are attracted to pre-pubescents, then pretty much all of us are “paedophiles” under the modern definition that includes anybody under 18.

  7. SE,

    Good point. Depending on how the study was set up then I could be classified as a pedophile when 14 year old me wanted to nail the 14 year old girl instead of focusing on the teacher’s droning. Is it really that bad for a man to look at a well endowed girl and think, ‘there’s grass in the field,’ and not actually act on it?

  8. Bloke in Costa Rica

    “Studies have suggested that between one in 20 and one in 35 men are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children”

    Studies. Suggested. The classic weasel words that indicate some puritanical cunt has an axe to grind. Are we supposed to take this shite seriously? Between 3 and 5 percent of men are attracted to pre-pubescent children? Are paedophiles, in thought if not in deed? That is utterly, utterly fucking stupid, on the order of claiming that 3-5% of Gloucestershire Old Spots are airborne at any given time. It is countered by common sense and by the the simple fact of observation. Anything that 5% of men are interested in will be pursued by a non-trivial subset of those men, and there simply aren’t enough cases of kiddy-fiddling to go round. It’s the classic SJW exaggeration to make whatever constituency they’re arguing for or against look more significant than it actually is. Compare homosexuals. They’ve convinced a large number of people that something like one in five people is gay, when the real number is more like one in 60, perhaps, and probably more like one in 120. And then there’s the travestis. The really floridly mad Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner contingent is at the 0.01% level, but to hear the campaigners you’d think the UK had half a million of them.

    It’s fucking stupid.

  9. The thing that got me was the fact that it was ‘double blind’: wouldn’t you notice if you suddenly didn’t have any testosterone anymore?

  10. “Anything that 5% of men are interested in will be pursued by a non-trivial subset of those men, and there simply aren’t enough cases of kiddy-fiddling to go round.”

    There aren’t that many rapists, either. Can we therefore deduce that hetero men are not attracted to women?

    There aren’t that many thieves. Can we therefore assume that men are not attracted to unearned wealth?

    The SJW narrative is that all men are evil and must be controlled. The counter belief to it is that almost all men are civilised, and can control themselves. We don’t steal, and we don’t rape and we don’t evade paying taxes – not because we don’t feel any desire for what we’d gain if we did, but because our moral desires can override our baser urges.

    As for an interest in children, Japanese pornography illustrates how things might be in a society without the taboo. The act is forbidden but the fantasy is not, and seems as common as most other non-mainstream inclinations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *