Warner Christian Academy teacher arrested on child pornography charges

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/story/26016409/warner-christian-academy-teacher-arrested-on-child-pornography-charges ^

[Morgana]

SOUTH DAYTONA, Fla. (WOFL FOX 35) - A teacher at Warner Christian Academy in South Daytona has been placed on unpaid administrative suspension pending an investigation into allegations of possession and distribution of child pornography.

Matthew C. Graziotti,42, of Edgewater, was arrested on Monday following a joint investigation by the FBI, the Edgewater Police Department and the Volusia County Sheriff's Office.

According to a criminal complaint, Graziotti distributed 141 images and 6 videos depicting the sexual abuse and exploitation of children to an FBI agent, who was acting in an undercover capacity. During the execution of a search warrant, agents said they located thousands of child pornography images on Graziotti's computer. One folder on the computer was named "personally known." The folder contained 41 subfolders titled with different boys' names. In one of the subfolders, agents said they located a picture of Graziotti sexually abusing a prepubescent boy. According to the criminal complaint documents, the picture was produced with a digital camera that agents found in Graziotti's residence.

[ErnBatavia]

The Lavender Mafia always gets haughty when any tie-in between their homosexuality and pedophelia gets mentioned....like it ain’t so.

[coop71]

It’s also not unreasonable to ask the person making the statement to do the same. I’m puzzled by the reaction I’ve received here for asking for a source or two. My request for a source doesn’t imply the original poster is wrong or factually incorrect. Yet it’s met here with hostility and cynicism.

[NetAddicted]

You’ve got to pick the right sources. Apparently, there are lots of sources homosexuals won’t accept, because they’re “hate groups”. I only know because of arguments I’ve gotten into w/ homosexuals on a site.

[Durus]

When people do some research to discover facts on a subject they don't always keep all of their research to convince skeptics. I don't know about hostility, but cynicism is understandable. When having a discussion with a cultural marxists, they will rarely debate with intellectual honesty. They ask for "proof" and unsurprisingly they will refuse to accept any study no matter how stringent. Then they will provide "proof" that is provably incorrect invariably followed by name calling and accusations, then they begin working their way through logically fallacious arguments. After you have done this many times you realize that they will never be swayed because at their core is a fundamental belief that there is no such thing as truth, good and evil are a matter of perspective, and any means justifies the ends if it advances the movement.

When dealing with these people day in and day out, and they are everywhere from HR managers to IRS officials, it's easy to grow cynical.

So you ask a question that hints that you accepted the line that homosexuals are not more prone to child molestation and wonder why people might find your question off putting?

What evidence would you accept that homosexuals are more prone to child molestation?

[coop71]

Durus, cultural marxists don’t have a monopoly on debate without intellectual honesty. It happens here quite often. Someone makes a statement, can’t or won’t back it up, and people jump on anyone who questions it with name calling and accusations. That’s being intellectually lazy, at best.

And there’s certainly nothing wrong, in my opinion, of asking where someone heard or leaned or gathered their information, especially in light of your statements above.

Unfortunately, you flipped to the last page of this metaphorical book (the discussion about whether gays commit most sexual abuse) in your statements about HR, the IRS, etc. You have no idea why I asked for a source and instead made a flawed, unfair assumption.

For the rest of you, I looked up some information on sexual abuse. 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys have reported being sexually abused according to the Crimes Against Children Research Center. I’ve no idea which way this research center leans, politically. Hopefully it’s apolitical. But, for the sake of Durus’ argument about cultural marxists, according to the Religious News Service, the author Anna Salter reports that 38% of women were molested before the age of 18. 16% of men make the same claim. There’s also a claim that it’s 1 in 4 girls, 1 in 6 boys thrown around.

So, let’s roughly average the two sets of claims (from the two research studies above) for neutrality, because even conservative research can be highly biased - I claim that more girls than boys are molested.

So, are lesbians molesting all these girls? I have no clue. Based on the poster unread’s claim that “in nearly every case of sexual abuse on children it’s almost always the queers who are the offenders”, I will assume this claim is based on what people read here about child p*rn stings, Catholic priests, and random news articles.

And I will now ask, if homosexuals are in fact the primary molesters of kids, where does the higher number of girls being sexually abused come into this statement? Is it because there’s more evidence? More encouragement to come forward? Again, I don’t know.

I didn’t know any of this data about sexual abuse prior to my original request for some stats. It’s depressing and eye-opening.

[Durus]

Durus, cultural marxists don’t have a monopoly on debate without intellectual honesty.

With respect I disagree. Not wanting to be drawn into a debate is not intellectual dishonesty.

And there’s certainly nothing wrong, in my opinion, of asking where someone heard or leaned or gathered their information, especially in light of your statements above.

I only tried to explain why people can't become cynical with questions.

You need to re-read what I wrote. I was explaining the basis of cynicism not accusing of anything, therefore you in fact are making an unfair assumption.

[coop71]

Not wanting to be drawn into a debate isn’t really relevant in this discussion. By its very nature, FreeRepublic exists for reasonable discussion and sometimes debate. Furthermore, your reasoning that dealing with people like marxists, the IRS, etc., can make people here cynical, makes no sense. I’ve been a lurker since 2001 and have been registered since 2005. The bottom line is: if you can’t ask for a source or citation when you’re already presumed to be on the same “team” in terms of political ideology, then what the heck is this place for?

You said you “only tried to explain why people can’t become cynical with questions”... Did you mean “can”?

“So you ask a question that hints that you accepted the line that homosexuals are not more prone to child molestation and wonder why people might find your question off putting?”

Your statement isn’t accusing me of anything, but it is implying with the word “hints” and the phrase “accepted the line” that I had an ulterior motive with my request for a source. I didn’t.

All that aside...the request for a source without hostility or cynicism is not unreasonable here. Maybe elsewhere, but not here. And now the issue at hand, a source or two providing proof behind the statement that homosexuals are the primary perpetrators of sexual abuse, has been clouded. For what? A lesson on the definition and basis for FreeRepublic cynicism? No thanks.

[Popman]

Based on the poster unread’s claim that “in nearly every case of sexual abuse on male children it’s almost always the queers who are the offenders”,

Bold is mine...which would account for the large difference in the level of boys versus girls being molested

Obviously males molest girls far more than women do which would account for the higher number of girls being molested...

It's pretty easy to infer from the numbers that homosexuals are far more likely to molest boys

[coop71]

The original statement didn’t say male, which is why I asked for some sort of source for the statement. It was a bold statement on unread’s part, yet lacked critical detail.

“In nearly every case of sexual abuse on children it’s almost always the queers who are the offenders”...

Had it said “male children” I’d have made the “male offender/boy victim = homosexual offender who is completely subhuman” connection. And I already knew the “male offender/girl victim = straight offender but completely subhuman” connection.

I’m still not fist bumpin’ with Obama, though.

[kcvl]

[kcvl]

Elementary school teacher and ex-pastor is charged with producing and distributing child porn

On Monday, police executed a search warrant and found thousands of images of child porn on Graziotti’s computer, including one where he is molesting a prepubescent boy.

Agents later found the camera that was used to take that photograph.
Graziotti teaches at the elementary school, is the director of the school’s summer day camp program and he previoulsy worked at a church in Edgewater as a youth pastor, the DOJ said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2693197/Elementary-school-teacher-ex-pastor-charged-producing-distributing-child-porn.html#ixzz37gW57jYt

[unread]

"Anna Salter reports that 38% of women were molested before the age of 18. 16% of men make the same claim. There’s also a claim that it’s 1 in 4 girls, 1 in 6 boys thrown around."

Thanks for getting back to me...

I've never been accused of being a cleaver fellow but... using your figures it would seem that homos being, what, 5% of the population (roughly) leaving 95% being straight, and considering that 1 in 4 girls as compared to 1 in 6 boys being abused would mean that queers are, by FAR AND AWAY more likely to be child molesters then straight folk....

That is assuming boys on girls and boys on boys... Am I wrong..??

I had two grandmothers (born in the late 1800's) that were married at 14 years old.. Both married men in their mid 20's... Back in those days it was quite common... Nowadays you can get arrested for that sort of thing

But, it goes with saying.... Boys on girls is the natural order of things.. whereas boy on boys is a perversion of nature..... Yes..??

[Durus]

Not wanting to be drawn into a debate isn’t really relevant in this discussion.
Of course it is. There is a fundamental difference between intellectual dishonesty and being tired of debating with those that are intellectually dishonest.

Furthermore, your reasoning that dealing with people like marxists, the IRS, etc., can make people here cynical, makes no sense. I’ve been a lurker since 2001 and have been registered since 2005.

I actually said cultural marxists not marxists, there is a profound difference, and yes there are some floating around here with registration dates that predate your own. Regardless, it does make sense that after decades of arguing with cultural Marxists and their ilk that have insinuated themselves into everything, that people are simply sick of them, and perhaps they come here to have honest discussion with fellow conservatives.

The bottom line is: if you can’t ask for a source or citation when you’re already presumed to be on the same “team” in terms of political ideology, then what the heck is this place for?

The bottom line is that I tried to explain why people are sensitive and cynical about cultural issues that very important to cultural marxists. You can disagree with me if you like, it's just a theory.

You said you “only tried to explain why people can’t become cynical with questions”... Did you mean “can”?

Yes, my mistake.

Your statement isn’t accusing me of anything, but it is implying with the word “hints” and the phrase “accepted the line” that I had an ulterior motive with my request for a source. I didn’t.

Again I'm just explaining the reaction you got. It's easy to read into subjects that are cultural hot button issues.

All that aside...the request for a source without hostility or cynicism is not unreasonable here. Maybe elsewhere, but not here.

One might think so, but this wasn't the case and I was simply trying to explain why.

And now the issue at hand, a source or two providing proof behind the statement that homosexuals are the primary perpetrators of sexual abuse, has been clouded. For what? A lesson on the definition and basis for FreeRepublic cynicism? No thanks.

I was just trying to answer your question about hostility and now you are being hostile to me? Interesting.

[metmom]

ANOTHER REASON TO HOMESCHOOL

This ping list is for the “other” articles of interest to homeschoolers about education and public school. This can occasionally be a fairly high volume list. Articles pinged to the Another Reason to Homeschool List will be given the keyword of ARTH. (If I remember. If I forget, please feel free to add it yourself)

The main Homeschool Ping List handles the homeschool-specific articles. I hold both the Homeschool Ping List and the Another Reason to Homeschool Ping list. Please freepmail me to let me know if you would like to be added to or removed from either list, or both.