@Terry @fluffy Heterosexual men show up as about 40% pedophiles from phalometric studies, so that's wrong

I think even mainstream sources like the DSM5 put the estimate of the total population to more than 2x the amount of gays

@fluffy @Terry @applejack
ya they show someone in prison for life a naughty little girl pic and if they get a bonner then they're pedo. kinda silly considering reproducing at a younger age had been normal through most of human history in most of the world. would make more sense to look at convicted pedos since theyve committed the crime.
just wondering where they draw the line at pedo. got a link to the study so i can read it and find out?

wondering if it's, pre-puberty, or pre-18yo, or something else entirely.

@fluffy @Terry @Dave Ok, I misremembered, it's like 20-30
27.7% (Firestone et al. 2000)
14.3% (Marshall et al. 1986)
18.3% (Fedora et al. 1992)
19.4% (Freund et al. 1991)
25% (Seto et al. 2000)

@applejack @fluffy @Terry @Dave See this, he's citing these papers, he hasn't read these papers. The debate script says to cite them. I have read these papers; he can't even give the titles because he doesn't have them.

@p @Terry @Dave @fluffy I have looked at them, I went over one of them with you and it was exactly what it's saying

You tried to "own" me by saying that the study also said that pedos were more likely to be child molesters than non-pedos, by posting a similar number I post about the majority of child molesters not being pedos

@applejack @Terry @Dave @fluffy

> I have looked at them

Lie. I asked you for the titles, you refused to give them. You didn't even know what journal they were published in. I had to dig them up myself. They show the exact opposite of what you claim they show.

> by posting a similar number I post

I was using *your* numbers, dipshit.

> the majority of child molesters not being pedos

The majority of pedos are child molesters. You are using statistics deceptively because you were told by a debate script to say this if they say this, you don't actually understand the math, you're just trying to sprinkle it like magic because you're a goddamn bot:

> Conversations became one man with one microphone attached to a thousand megaphones, and replying was like talking back to the national news broadcast, because you could reply to a shill, but the man giving the shill her script was not listening, because he was running a hundred similar shills, and his shill would just stick to her script, the script he had assigned to her no matter what you replied to her script.
> Her replies to your reply would be unresponsive, because they came from a script written by a man who had never thought about or foreseen your reply.
> Conversations came to resemble the conversations you have with a non player character in a video game, a scripted robotic simulation of actual conversation, or the conversations on a help line with an unhelpful third world help line worker to whom English is a second language, and who is reading from a script, a script written by a man whose native tongue is English, but his script is designed to deal with certain common problems that do not in the slightest resemble the problem you have with the product, because the man writing her script did not foresee your problem.
Follow

@p @Terry @Dave @fluffy Nag, nag, you need to post a study AND memorise the title, ANd journal, AND date, AND the author's shoe size, otherwise you're not *legitimate*, unlike me, who posts no studies and makes shit up instead then tries to distract from it when you show I was just making shit up

· · Web · 1 · 0 · 0
@applejack @Terry @Dave @fluffy Bullshit. I have read these papers, all of them show the opposite of what you are saying, if they are even relevant to begin with. Nobody thinks you need to memorize anything, but you have yet to demonstrate that you have even a passing familiarity with the actual information that you are using because if you cite something, you expect everyone else will go "Ah, (Author, Year), it must be real!" You are relying on people being dumber than you and very few are.
@lunarised @Dave @Terry @applejack @fluffy Yeah, people cite things all the time to sound academic because they know nobody will look up the actual material and read it. In this guy's case, we're two steps removed: he hasn't read it, either.
@p @Terry @applejack @Dave @fluffy Im gonna go 3 steps removed and cite non existent sources about concepts I random on Wikipedia


Il get a news article written on my findings in less than a weem
weren't there a few scientific journal trolls that made up some bs research and had their papers published (and in once case I think even peer reviewed)?
@thatguyoverthere @Terry @p @applejack @Dave @fluffy

There's been a few

The bogdanoffs did that with some crackhead theory's on spacial relativity iirc
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Game Liberty Mastodon

Mainly gaming/nerd instance for people who value free speech. Everyone is welcome.