>>122547984>I wonder how many fags were omittednone
>maybe even intentionally omitted from this "study"Feel free to post a study that shows the opposite, but you won't find it, because they all achieve the same conclusion. Either accept science or remain ignorant.
>Not to mention that the sample size is awfully small. 1,000 is better. It's a sample of convicted pedophiles, retard. You don't need to go with a thousand. Assuming the number of convicted pedophiles in Massachusetts is 1000 (and that's a high estimate), it means that there is a 90% change the number will be off by over 6% using a sample size of 175. In other words, the sample size is appropriate.
>Also, it's fucking Massachusetts, where there would probably be fewer homos to begin with.Massachusetts has the second largest LGNT population in the US (with 16%), you fucking retard.
https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2018/05/25/massachusetts-lgbt-demographics/>Doesn't matter anyway. Accept science.
>You "people" can't post constant nambla shit on this board and then tell us that you aren't all about grooming.No, "we" don't. Again, the statistics above speak for themselves, gay people rarely abuse children, it's straight people who do, even if you take into account the proportion of people for each.
So, now that you know the facts, why are you afraid of gay people? Who is trying to turn you into a homophobe despite the science saying that they do not actually commit more rape (the opposite, actually)?
