How can someone be pro-c and pro-research?

@nate_river Because anti-cs have no research backing their views

@nate_river I challenged you over a month ago to show me a single study backing the view that voluntary sex between adults and children causes harm. You're still welcome to show it, and prove that the anti-c stance is the pro-research stance.

@nate_river Research doesn't assume things. It studies and draws conclusions from the results. Do you know how the scientific method works?

@miria Yes, I know how science works. But it doesn't take things out of the ass and they don't start from scratch.

They have a base of studies that is how science works. No one starts from scratch unless it is a completely new area (and one that has never been studied before) is a very rare thing to happen.

Every psychiatrist starts from a moral and ethical basis to do research. And there is a consensus among them that it is morally and ethically wrong to have sex with children as this would be an abuse regardless of the situation (even if the child volunteered)

That's why you don't see anyone doing research on "voluntary sex between children and adults". No one would take a child and do research on them if in their mind the result is abuse. It would be considered unethical and the professional could be arrested or even lose their license.

@nate_river @miria

"A concept of legitimate instances of child-adult sex is supported both empirical evidence and reasoned definition. But this logical implication uncomfortably confronts the values and fears of many individuals in our society. It is precisely this fear of the unknown obverse to a familiar coin that has led to so much controversy and has hindered inquiry into the nature and effects of childhood sexual experiences."

The Effects of Early Sexual Experiences: A review and Synthesis of Research

Larry L. Constantine

(from Children and Sex – Constantine & Martinson (eds) Little, Brown, Boston, 1981

Presented at the conference, Enfance et Sexualite, University of Quebec at Montreal, September 1979.


?

@Haku @nate_river People here showering him with evidence that he's wrong, and the best he's done so far is linking to Lecter's blog posts

@miria @nate_river doesn't lecters blog post contain a compilation of studies on the topic one of which is the infamous left handedness correlation to pedophilia stduy that exclusively sampled prisoners with charges of sexual abuse of minors?

@Haku @nate_river Lecter's blog is an incredibly amusing read. To be fair not everything he says is terrible, but 99% of it is.

@miria @nate_river anti contacts approach to science is cuckery "I'm valid guys pls don't bully" while pro contact chads are beyond justification of our existence and instead argue for the right of children to enjoy some pedo cock

@Haku @nate_river @miria

me: chad
you: dumb

>beyond justification of our existence
>and instead argue for the right

Retard. You're like a redditor but more angry

@applejack @Haku @nate_river
>me: chad
>you: dumb
Yes.

@applejack @Haku @nate_river Additionally, we already tried the rational approach, as seen in this thread, and it clearly didn't work.

@miria @Haku @applejack @nate_river hope you get better nate. we'll welcome you into the epic pro-c club when you're ready, so dont be afraid of the nniafags!

@cum @Haku @applejack @nate_river That won't happen. He used to be pro-c but he got hit very hard with pedophilic disorder so he turned anti-c to cope. He'll tell you that's not the case, but it is.