At no point did the essay purport to be a complete causal study of the roots of anti-pedophile sentiment, going back to the child labour laws of the 19th century! There were two paragraphs touching judiciously on some important recent factors in society's violent turn against pedophiles, in relation to the evolution of gay-positive Christianity

The essay made claims about cause and effect relationships that you now admit are inaccurate.

It's like those commercials that there was an uproar against a few years ago. The commercials would advertise a fabulous new weight loss product and show you a person who lost 60, 70, 80, 100 pounds using that product. But they neglected to mention that the person was sought out to be their model because he was an athlete who had suffered an injury that prevented him from exercising for some months and gained a lot of weight during the lazy season. When the cast got removed he took the diet product and he got back to his athletic ways; he went back to his normal weight and made lots of money for using the product and letting the weight loss program feature him. There was an uproar against this practice because people realize that purporting to show a one to one relationship when there are other factors involved is a deceptive (dishonest) practice.

So, really, I wonder, why would you make seemingly authoritative statements about my worldview, a topic that you haven’t investigated? You simply leap from assumption to assumption.

I haven't made any claims about your world view. I pointed out why it is important to consider all angles and not just make up one to one cause and effect relationships for things that were the result of far more than one cause.

Despite your apology at the beginning, you've gone and called me dishonest again, and again spuriously! One wonders at the sincerity of the initial apology; the impugning of honesty develops a distinct tone of unintentional irony.

I apologized for not being more tactful, which was the result of not knowing you wrote the essay. Had I known you wrote it, I would not have called it dishonest, however it's too late to take that back. I am not going to now pretend that it isn't dishonest just to make you feel better. I still stand by the fact that presenting one to one cause and effect relationships for issues that had many different causes, purporting to present a history of how things got to where they are today that ignores all aspects that don't fit what you are presenting, and couching all of these opinions and hypotheses as if they were fact, are dishonest practices.