View Full Version : Shock: 1 out of 10 Canadians Approve of Sex with Helpless Little Children
Divinus Arma
06-13-2006, 05:14
Dear God! How can this be? 10% of the neighbors to the North are in favor of butt plundering their own little helpless babies?
It's... it's... unspeakable. In honor of Dev Dave, I bring you the social atrocity of the maple leaf:
More than 10% of Canadians Do Not Believe Pedophilia Immoral
By Gudrun Schultz and John-Henry Westen
MONTREAL, Quebec, June 12, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Leger Marketing conducted a telephone poll of 1,508 Canadian adults between April 17 and April 23. The poll results, with a margin of error of ±2.6 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, have found that an alarming 11% of Canadians do not consider pedophilia immoral.
The question was in no way slanted. Respondents were asked: "Do you consider the following behaviour as immoral?" and to "pedophilia" 81% responded 'yes', 11% 'no', and 8% did not know or refused to respond.
Pedophilia did, however, rank as most immoral of the items in the poll. Second on the list were extra-marital affairs. 74% of respondents listed marital infidelity as immoral, while 23% did not believe it immoral. Interestingly, only 17% of respondents said they considered divorce to be immoral, with 78% not considering it such.
Article (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jun/06061204.html)
Kanamori
06-13-2006, 05:21
Dear God! How can this be? 10% of the neighbors to the North are in favor of butt plundering their own little helpless babies?
Well, If you put it that way in the survey, I'm sure that more than 50% of our neighbors to the north would not find paedophelia immoral.:2thumbsup:
English assassin
06-13-2006, 10:28
This is so odd I can only guess that, notwithstanding that they had a "don't know" option, the 11% who said no either didn't know what paedophilia meant, or got confused and thought the question was whether they thought it was moral?
It simply doesn't make sense that the difference between extra marital affairs (and aren't they puritan there?) and paedophilia is only 7%.
Let's not blow this out of purportion here. Time for a little number based perspective. Taking the poll numbers into account and the margin for error. That's 1508 with 11% as pro-pedo, with a deviation of +- 2.6%. That means 127 to 205, with 166 as the mean didn't think pedophillia is wrong. Also to be considered as speaking for all Canadians (which the article you linked doesn't that's all your exclaimations chicken little). In order to do that you'd need data from all provinces and territories. Some percentage of a people from all walks of life. Again this is something the article on the survey doesn't make a claim too. I'll read that PDF and see what it says about who they sampled and where.
Again this doesn't calim to speak for all Canadians just 1508. So 11% of 0.000047125% of Canadians don't think pedophillia is immoral. That's all that article says
doc_bean
06-13-2006, 13:46
That's what you get for allowing gays to marry !
What's wrong with the right side of the backroom these days ? sheesh, I have to play devil's advocate here...
EDIT: SARCASM !
Important question -- what's the age of consent in Canada? Because it's very possible some people were thinking of getting hot and heavy with a 17-year-old when they said they didn't think the big P was immoral. Just a thought. There's a world of difference between a person who finds teens hot and a person who wants to get it on with a pre-pubescent child.
In fact, I have a buddy whom I deeply enjoy tormenting because he found out after the fact that a girl he slept with had been less than honest, and was actually sixteen. He was terrified. We would tell him, "Eric, if you don't buy lunch, we're going to tell the cops about you." Worked every time.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-13-2006, 14:25
Isn't sixteen legal where you are?
Mithrandir
06-13-2006, 15:02
That's what you get for allowing gays to marry !
What's wrong with the right side of the backroom these days ? sheesh, I have to play devil's advocate here...
This has got to be the dumbest reply I've read for a few weeks. :no: :no:
Feel free to warn me on this one Soly/Ser.
doc_bean
06-13-2006, 15:08
This has got to be the dumbest reply I've read for a few weeks. :no: :no:
Feel free to warn me on this one Soly/Ser.
Wasn't the sarcasm obvious ?
:oops:
Important question -- what's the age of consent in Canada? Because it's very possible some people were thinking of getting hot and heavy with a 17-year-old when they said they didn't think the big P was immoral. Just a thought. There's a world of difference between a person who finds teens hot and a person who wants to get it on with a pre-pubescent child.
In fact, I have a buddy whom I deeply enjoy tormenting because he found out after the fact that a girl he slept with had been less than honest, and was actually sixteen. He was terrified. We would tell him, "Eric, if you don't buy lunch, we're going to tell the cops about you." Worked every time.
That goes by province. But most places it's 14 or 15. Like here NS it's 14, but if your a 20 yearold hit'n it with a 14 yearold your probably commiting statutory rape. As in there is age-gap modifier on the 14 yearold rule. Even then she, not her parents, has to cry rape for any legal action to happen.
Now I read that report and I can say, as a man who took statistics (and found it really interesting). That survey is BS. It's sampling is soo small vs. the population as a whole that the least little anomaly will skew the data in wierd ways. Like say 166 people who don't think Pediphillia is immoral. The one thing that my math teacher at the NSCC drilled into our heads in stats is small samplings are bad. This survey is why.
English assassin
06-13-2006, 15:25
Good grief Canada's laws on age of conswent are weird. Not only is the basic age 14, rather alarmingly, but :
The Criminal Code provides what is often referred to as a “close in age” or “peer group” exception: a 12 or 13 year old can consent to engage in sexual activity with another person who is less than two years older and with whom there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency
and yet:
The age of consent laws apply to all forms of sexual activity ranging from sexual touching such as kissing to sexual intercourse.
So, if the sample respondents were well informed about their laws, its possible at least that their "yes" meant "I agree that 12 year olds kissing each other is OK".
Dumb question. Tells us nothing.
Mithrandir
06-13-2006, 15:37
Wasn't the sarcasm obvious ?
:oops:
My apologies then.
Had 4 hours of tonight,spread over 2 periods.That must be my excuse for my reply.
Reenk Roink
06-13-2006, 15:57
Let's not blow this out of purportion here. Time for a little number based perspective. Taking the poll numbers into account and the margin for error. That's 1508 with 11% as pro-pedo, with a deviation of +- 2.6%. That means 127 to 205, with 166 as the mean didn't think pedophillia is wrong. Also to be considered as speaking for all Canadians (which the article you linked doesn't that's all your exclaimations chicken little). In order to do that you'd need data from all provinces and territories. Some percentage of a people from all walks of life. Again this is something the article on the survey doesn't make a claim too. I'll read that PDF and see what it says about who they sampled and where.
Again this doesn't calim to speak for all Canadians just 1508. So 11% of 0.000047125% of Canadians don't think pedophillia is immoral. That's all that article says
The thing is, this poll is very scientific. I read over the actual poll instead of the article (http://legermarketing.com/documents/spclm/060612ENG.pdf), and everything that a scientific poll requires is present.
The point that "it doesn't speak for all Canadians, just 1508" is ignoring the point of a poll. The poll's purpose is to give us an estimate of the population mean of Canada on what is immoral. With a random sample, a large sample size, and a stratified sample (according to gender, region and language to ensure a sample representative of the entire Canadian adult population).
I would say that this poll would be a pretty good indicator of Canadians as a whole, but I, unlike Divinus Arma, am neither shocked or surprised. I'm sure the same numbers would show up for America.
-Silent-Pariya
06-13-2006, 16:44
Honestly you cannot trust a phone survey...
If sumone called me and asked if i thought pedophilia was immoral i would laugh say no then hang up..
It's a phone survey half the ppl who take them are messing around
Like I said though the sample size ludicrously small. It can't give a good picture on our attitudes cause of the small size. Statistically the larger the sample size the less chance of catching a hundred pedo's at home will have on your end data.
And you notice I made another post after reading that PDF.
Good grief Canada's laws on age of conswent are weird. Not only is the basic age 14, rather alarmingly, but :
Not really I saw a chart in National Geographic that stated 14 is about the global average of nations that actually have a minimum consent law. Un surprisingly the nations that don't have min consent laws are mostly 3rd world countries.
So, if the sample respondents were well informed about their laws, its possible at least that their "yes" meant "I agree that 12 year olds kissing each other is OK".
Dumb question. Tells us nothing.
Actually that is to protect a 14 yearold boy from the parents of his 13 yearold girlfriend.
Reenk Roink
06-13-2006, 17:24
Too much is being made of the sample size.
Check this website out: http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm
Select a 95% Confidence Level (as the survey stated 19 out of 20).
The Confidence Interval would be 2.6.
And the Population would be 30 million (30000000).
This gives us a needed sample size of 1421.
Trust me, in my AP Statistics class, we were told that a sample size of 50 or greater will greatly reduce the effect of skewness on a distribution...
Also, on the comment on phone surveys, you really have no hard data on that do you? The fact is, most surveys are phone surveys...
Anyway, I hope that it is apparent that Divinus Arma's conclusion of Canadians "butt plundering their own little helpless babies" or any other "social atrocity of the maple leaf" is not supported by the data. The thread title itself is misleading...
Like I said though the sample size ludicrously small. It can't give a good picture on our attitudes cause of the small size. Statistically the larger the sample size the less chance of catching a hundred pedo's at home will have on your end data.
That is the same size of poll that is often used in the United States for similiar types of surveys.
As long as it has a scientific approach in its method of gathering information - one should not just discount the survey because they disagree with the findings of it.
If the survey is done following the scientific methods the statistics of the survey remain within the margin of error that is published. So your comment about statistically the larger the sample size the less chance of catching a hundred Pedo's at home is incorrect.
But like Reenk Roink states I'm sure the same numbers would show up for America.
Especially considering we have a group like NAMBLA in our midst.
All I'm saying is that with a sample that small I can't put much stock in the results.
Ser Clegane
06-13-2006, 18:32
All I'm saying is that with a sample that small I can't put much stock in the results.
But isn't the sample size pretty much standard for this kind of survey (and also reflected in the margin of error)?
A.Saturnus
06-13-2006, 18:46
All I'm saying is that with a sample that small I can't put much stock in the results.
Sorry but that's nonsense. The only relevance the sample size has is on the confidence interval (as long as it's >30). A significant result is a significant result whether your sample is 100 people or 10000 large.
Though as EA pointed out, the strange age of consent laws in Canada make the answers difficult to interpret. I for one don't think pedophilia is immoral. It's not a behavior after all, but a trait, and traits can't be immoral.
Byzantine Prince
06-13-2006, 18:47
Here's another survey as posted at wiki:
In 1989 Briere and Runtz conducted a study on 193 male undergraduate students concerning pedophilia. Of the sample, 21% acknowledged sexual attraction to some small children; 9% reported sexual fantasies involving children; 5% admitted masturbating to these fantasies; and 7% conceded some probability of actually having sex with a child if they could avoid detection and punishment.[24]
24:Briere, J. and Runtz, M. (1989) "University males' sexual interest in children: predicting potential indices of "pedophilia" in a nonforensic sample." Child Abuse & Neglect, 13 (1), 65-67.
It apears that it is a far more widespread perversion then common imagination allows.
Probably. I remember that while I found statistics interesting there were a few thing that I took issue with. This is one of them.
Kralizec
06-13-2006, 21:00
Though as EA pointed out, the strange age of consent laws in Canada make the answers difficult to interpret. I for one don't think pedophilia is immoral. It's not a behavior after all, but a trait, and traits can't be immoral.
Technicly, you're right. But most people think "pederasty" when they hear "pedophilia". That, and the question was do you consider this behaviour immoral?
The question was not slanted, but it was to vague, and as such a "no" is open to different interpretations. So with all respect to Divinus, I think you're jumping to conclusions to quickly.
I did a tiny bit of digging (almost sixty seconds' worth) and found that pedophilia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia) does, in fact, refer exclusively to the sexual desire for pre-pubescent children, as opposed to ephebophilia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia), which is the sexual attraction to teenagers and adolsecents. That's sort of reassuring. I was worried we were lumping all the perverts together. As I said before, there's a mighty big difference between a person who is turned on by the sight of a sixteen-year-old in the prime of health and a person who gets worked up looking at a ten-year-old.
And on the extreme end of the evil spectrum we have infantophilia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantophilia), which is so nasty that it should probably carry a mandatory life sentence ...
Reenk Roink
06-13-2006, 22:11
Gah! I must confess...I'm a ephebophile... :laugh4:
doc_bean
06-13-2006, 23:06
Gah! I must confess...I'm a ephebophile... :laugh4:
"If every man who had a picture of naked underage girl on his computer got sent to jail, there would be no more free men"
Goofball
06-13-2006, 23:25
Hmmm.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=59362
This thread was started with no intention other than to inflame and attack, and there can be no question that the title is deliberately "inflammatory" and "purposely inaccurate" with those goals in mind.
This thread was started with no intention other than to inflame and attack, and there can be no question that the title is deliberately "inflammatory" and "purposely inaccurate" with those goals in mind.
How so? If anything, the title is technically accurate. The poll question was specifically in reference to pedophilia- which lemur showed is indeed defined as pre-pubescent children. It also appears that the poll is scientific and as accurate as any.
Where's the innaccuracy or the inflamatory statement? Perhaps the post itself was a bit bombastic- but I dont see an issue with the title or the thread.
More on-topic, is this something unique to Canada? Does anyone know of similar polls for other countries?
Reenk Roink
06-14-2006, 00:08
How so? If anything, the title is technically accurate. The poll question was specifically in reference to pedophilia- which lemur showed is indeed defined as pre-pubescent children. It also appears that the poll is scientific and as accurate as any.
Where's the innaccuracy or the inflamatory statement? Perhaps the post itself was a bit bombastic- but I dont see an issue with the title or the thread.
The title is inaccurate.
The poll asked whether one considers a variety of things 'immoral or not'. Just because 11% of adults don't considered pedophilia immoral, does not mean that they 'approve' of it.
The elaboration on the first post is inflammatory. Statements such as "butt plundering their own little helpless babies" were inferred by me to be nothing else. The "social atrocity of the maple leaf" further underscored the attack.
The title is inaccurate.
The poll asked whether one considers a variety of things 'immoral or not'. Just because 11% of adults don't considered pedophilia immoral, does not mean that they 'approve' of it.Fair point. Saying you dont disapprove of something isnt the same as saying you approve and that's certainly a distinction worth pointing out. Still, saying over 10% of a nation's population doesnt think its wrong to have sex with small children is disturbing- at least on the face of it.
Goofball
06-14-2006, 00:20
Hmmm.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=59362 (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=59362)
This thread was started with no intention other than to inflame and attack, and there can be no question that the title is deliberately "inflammatory" and "purposely inaccurate" with those goals in mind.How so? If anything, the title is technically accurate. The poll question was specifically in reference to pedophilia- which lemur showed is indeed defined as pre-pubescent children. It also appears that the poll is scientific and as accurate as any.
Where's the innaccuracy or the inflamatory statement? Perhaps the post itself was a bit bombastic- but I dont see an issue with the title or the thread.
Of course you don't...
:juggle2:
See below:
The title is inaccurate.
The poll asked whether one considers a variety of things 'immoral or not'. Just because 11% of adults don't considered pedophilia immoral, does not mean that they 'approve' of it.
The elaboration on the first post is inflammatory. Statements such as "butt plundering their own little helpless babies" were inferred by me to be nothing else. The "social atrocity of the maple leaf" further underscored the attack.
I thought it was rather obvious; I'm surprised you needed to have it pointed out to you, Xiahou.
The title and the following post were both inaccurate and inflammatory by the numbers. Quite clear cut really.
Thank you RR, for summing it up so nicely.
Louis VI the Fat
06-14-2006, 01:48
Oh come on. People need to advertise their threads with a catchy title to draw an audience. And spice up their language a bit to get a debate going.
A.Saturnus
06-14-2006, 01:54
Oh come on. People need to advertise their threads with a catchy title to draw an audience. And spice up their language a bit to get a debate going.
Yeah, the offence one causes is just a bonus...
Divinus Arma
06-14-2006, 05:48
Apparently, in Canada, If there is NO grass on the field...
then play ball anyway.
Sick. Molestation of little helpless babies. What the heck is wrong with 10% of Canada anyway? What are they smoking? :inquisitive:
Oh... right. Marijuana. Sorry. I forgot about that one. Heh.
Ser Clegane
06-14-2006, 08:06
The starting post was indeed rather inflammatory - after that a meaningful discussion ensued, however, the last post seems to show that the original purpose of the thread was not to start a discussion.
Thread closed
Thanks for the meaningful contributions - if anybody would like to continue discussing this topic, please start a new thread (perhaps that one works out better.
:bow:
solypsist
06-14-2006, 14:17
i was very tempted to lock this thread yesterday but then saw your replies and so figured it was okay to leave open. i should've gone with my first instinct
The starting post was indeed rather inflammatory - after that a meaningful discussion ensued, however, the last post seems to show that the original purpose of the thread was not to start a discussion.
Thread closed
Thanks for the meaningful contributions - if anybody would like to continue discussing this topic, please start a new thread (perhaps that one works out better.
:bow:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.