This is one of those takes that’s so controversial I’m afraid to post it, which is exactly why I have to.

I neither endorse nor disavow this, and no, I’m not in the picture.

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    I’m assuming some kind of anonymity was involved in gathering the statistics. In court the incentives to lie are pretty different.

    • angrystego@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      I think there are ways to psychologically assess an individual, so there’s no need to rely on self reporting.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        There are not. Not that I’ve ever heard of, anyway.

        There’s genital arousal monitors that have been used historically, but it turns out they’re as good as random chance in practice.

        • angrystego@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Oh, then I guess the only possibility is detabuisation. Those people need to know they will be treated, not persecuted in a super harsh way. Then they won’t be afraid to selfreport and we will know, whether we work with a pedo or a predator, and we can addjust the way we work with them accordingly.