@Senpai-kun @admin @bot @graf @sjw @verita84 In sane societies before judaism it was just the norm to be a pedo. Marrying 12yos was the norm
And if you look at any sane way to measure men, very large portion of them just are pedos: phallometric studies indicating proportion of men more or equally sexually aroused by children (up to 13 years old) than by adults:
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)
@Senpai-kun @admin @bot @graf @sjw @verita84 I don't really care that much about porn pics nor my account. I am a spectre! Though I'm not going to doubt our lord and master Matrix either
I just like making people emotionally upset at things that are very obviously true if they're not retarded. Like now
>before the jews it was fine to be a pedo!
LMAO the mental gymnastics these niggers go through to justify their degeneracy and pedophilia is really something special.
This is the most fun fact about porn by far. Even if someone doesn't believe any of its detrimental effects, it can't be denied that the Jews deliberately use pornography as if it is a weapon. Even if you thought it was harmless, you'd have to wonder why they don't.
@kazcynski_stan @admin @bot @graf @sjw @verita84 @Senpai-kun Jews promote big boobers. So I guess we should all take flatchested wives
@bot @admin @graf @sjw @verita84 @Senpai-kun Actually, yes.
>While pregnancies from sex between first cousins do carry a slightly elevated risk of birth defects, this risk is often exaggerated.[406] The risk is 5–6% (similar to that of a woman in her early 40s giving birth),[406][407] compared with a baseline risk of 3–4%.[407] The effects of inbreeding depression, while still relatively small compared to other factors (and thus difficult to control for in a scientific experiment), become more noticeable if isolated and maintained for several generations.[408]
With 2nd and 3rd cousin there are no downsides. Meanwhile:
Third Cousins Have Greatest Number Of Offspring, Data From Iceland Shows
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080207140855.htm
It's another jewop fertility reduction measure. There's no legitimate basis for it
Behind the Crooked Cross @Donald_McRonald @admin @bot @graf @sjw @verita84 @Senpai-kun No, I'm Icelandic. I've looked 6 generations back in my Íslendingabók and I'm as White and native as can be
What gets me the most is that wignats have taken a firm pro-Karen stance on their podcasts. "Karen" is an anti-white meme, and Karens are actually normal white women trying to enforce normal societal standards.
Well, here she is, wignats. Here's a based and redpilled Karen, using public shaming to enforce an extremely reasonable social standard. I want to see some fucking turnout, because it's very weird when the strictest nazi in the room is just a racist lolbert.
@Angry_Norman @admin @bot @graf @sjw @verita84 @Senpai-kun You're a big guy
🇷🇺✨🎄🎉🎆
Yeah, that's fair. It's past time for me to drop my tolerance level for this garbage.
@RudolvonStroheim @admin @bot @graf @sjw @verita84 @Senpai-kun No, I am talking about marriage. Though marriage includes sex. Restore sanity and then ban porn and sex before marriage too
Granted, this has very little to do with (child) pornography, drawn or otherwise
The guy has my little pony as his profile. Figuring that one out isn’t exactly rocket science.
The only reason there’s any debate at all over loli is because fedi is infested with pedophiles.
@bot @admin @parker @Senpai-kun The only reason there’s any debate at all over loli is because fedi is infested with pedophiles.
@parker @admin @bot @Senpai-kun Fascism is when you hate cute drawings and follow modern moralism
> 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)
I'd like to see these papers. Do you have them? Do you have the names of the papers? As I said when discussing Hall (1995) ( https://freespeechextremist.com/notice/ABS6jYOAA6jXXpo6i0 ), I am skeptical of claims like this. They tend to get passed around without anyone looking at them, and sometimes they turn out to be complete horseshit. (As far as the case of Mr. and Mrs. Johns, it's a little ridiculous: nobody would have written anything about them if it was a typical occurrence in the 1930s.)
@p @admin @bot @graf @sjw @verita84 @Senpai-kun Yes, some of them referenced here
Sexual Arousal and Arousability to Pedophilic Stimuli in a Community Sample of Normal Men
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005789405800395
"Consistent with previous data (Barbaree & Marshall, 1989; Briere & Runtz, 1989; Fedora et al., 1992; Freund & Watson, 1991), 20 % of the current subjects self-reported pedophilic interest and 26.25 % exhibited penile arousal to pedophilic stimuli that equaled or exceeded arousal to adult stimuli. [...]
Eighty subjects completed the study. [...] Twenty-six subjects [approximately 33%] exhibited sexual arousal to the child slides that equaled or exceeded their arousal to the adult slides.
[...] a sizable minority of men in normal populations who have not molested children may exhibit pedophilic fantasies and arousal. In recent studies, 12 to 32% of community college samples of men reported sexual attraction to children (B &R, 1989, H,G & C. 1990) or exhibited penile response to pedophilic stimuli (B&M, 1989, F et al, 1992, F&L, 1989, F & W, 1989). Thus, arousal to pedophilic stimuli does not necessarily correspond with pedophilic behavior (Hall, 1990; Schouten & Simon, 1992), although there are arguments to the contrary (Quinsey & Laws, 1990)."
>nobody would have written anything about them if it was a typical occurrence in the 1930s
It was in the middle of the shift [first pic], so some people made a problem of it but it was still permitted. Look at anything earlier and it's just the normal. England, Rome (who kept good records), or Vikings, or any other place
https://www.thecollector.com/pedophilia-ancient-greece-rome/
https://www.historyonthenet.com/viking-society-women-and-children
It’s amazing how distorted your perspective of the world is. You’ve already answered these questions implicitly, but I’d appreciate if you could do so explicitly:
1. Do you find prepubescent girls sexually attractive?
2. Do you find the idea of engaging in sexual activity with prepubescent girls arousing or otherwise appealing?
3. Have you ever engaged in sexual activity with a prepubescent girl? If not, do you think it’s likely that you will in the future?
@bot @admin @p @graf @sjw @verita84 @Senpai-kun None of what you said is true. Read the post. Several studies over many decades, not "a study", and "men in normal populations" and "community college samples of men", none of them raped anyone
>small sample size
Learn what a p value is. 30% out of 80+ is actually pretty good. Replicate that over several studies and it's great
>The purpose of the current study was to examine sexual arousal to adult and to pedophilic stimuli in the largest community sample of men studied to date
>Samples of normal men have been small and unrepresentative in previous studies of physiological sexual arousal in response to pedophilic stimuli.
The men in that study had a mean age of 38.3, and they were all over 18. That means that those 3 men admitted to (in the kindest of words) statutory rape.
Why didn’t you answer my questions?
@bot @admin @p @graf @sjw @verita84 @Senpai-kun
>you’re being dishonest. It’s no 80+, it’s 80
No, but you're being very uncharitable. I'll rephrase it to: "a theoretical sample of 80 or above with a sizeable percentage is pretty good"
>That means that those 3 men admitted to [...] statutory rape
You meant these three? "Engaging in pedophilic behaviour" doesn't mean they "raped" anyone. Now that's actually being dishonest. You wouldn't even quote what you meant
But if they did, if you compare it to necessarily normal samples, like the collage samples, and 6+ other studies, it's just telling me that underage sex is common and unreported, which it probably is anyway
The way they acquired the sample wasn't anything that would oversample pedos, and in their own words: "These latter 3 subjects were not removed f r o m the analyses in an effort to m a i n t a i n the representativeness
o f the sample." (weird formatting from pdf)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005789405800395/pdf?md5=5d3b8312cfe2905dc463b9c01127e8fd&pid=1-s2.0-S0005789405800395-main.pdf
>Why didn’t you answer my questions?
Because it's obvious emotional wellpoisonbait and I was running late to the gym so kept it short. Yes, little girls are hot, no, I'm not committing crimes
I was asking specifically for the papers (or at least the names of the papers) so as to avoid the entire pedo diatribe linkspam, because I have seen it before. (I've seen you post it, in fact, though I don't believe it was this account.) The sources are questionable, it's all such shit; I just wanted to see the papers you were talking about so that I could see if they had anything credible in them, whether or not they were being misrepresented.
Where are these papers? You have them, right? Hall (1995) cannot possibly have cited Firestone (2000). Surely you're not citing papers that you haven't read, papers that you can't even name, just tossing authors' names around to give the appearance of credibility without actually being credible. There's no way you'd lie like that, right? You're not so stupid that you don't know how to give a proper citation (that is, you provide enough information that people could look up these papers and read these papers), and you don't think everyone else is so stupid that they'll believe what you're saying if you just toss in enough occurrences of "$name ($year)"? So, what is the title of the paper? In what journal was this paper published? What about the others? You've got the PDFs laying around, right, because you've read these papers. You're not just making shit up, you want people to believe what you're saying. You're aware, I'm sure, that when someone writes "Firestone (2000)", that's in the body of the paper and they list the title of the paper, the name of the journal, etc., in the bibliography.
Of course you're not making shit up. You are copying and pasting from a list of rebuttals: I've *seen* the wiki you're using.
But here we are, so:
> some of them referenced here Sexual Arousal and Arousability to Pedophilic Stimuli in a Community Sample of Normal Men
Yes, I've read it; that is the Hall paper I mentioned, and the one I discussed in the post, the one you haven't read. You're explaining it because you are just copying and pasting shit from the canned rebuttals on that cursed internet pedophilia activism wiki, and "Actually, I've read that paper" wasn't on the list.
The research conducted in that paper was an attempt to determine whether it was possible for most men to consciously suppress physical arousal, the idea being that this would help evaluate treatment for pedophilia, and they were looking at "general arousability": some guys chubbed up for anything, some got more excited the more unusual it was. They note that their sample seems consistent with the other figures: not a primary source, just noting the sanity check on their data. If we're going to try to exatrapolate from things that were related to the study but not the focus of the study, their sample set showed it was more likely for pedophiles to have molested a child than for normal males to have gotten laid with someone their age. (Makes plenty of sense: a guy needs to find a girl that's interested, but a pedophile just needs to wait until nobody is looking.)
> It was in the middle of the shift [first pic]
This doesn't mean what you think it means. The shift was the the government, not acceptable behavior; prior to this, local morality kept that kind of thing in check. The urban shift meant that you were often no longer living among people that knew you, and your father, and your grandfather, and the same for the girl's family. People conducted themselves a little differently when they knew that the community they were born in was likely to be the one they died in, where there was one church and attendance was all but compulsory, and where there were no secrets; before then, it would have been considered very intrusive for the state to step in. More directly, if you got near a girl, you had better have had her family's blessing.
At any rate, if it were in the *middle* of the shift, nobody would have documented it: it still would not have been unusual. But at no point in history has it been common for someone to marry at 9. (You seem to need this to be the case so that the timeline coincides with the things you mentioned earlier in the thread, but it does not.)
> so some people made a problem of it but it was still permitted. Look at anything earlier and it's just the normal. England, Rome (who kept good records), or Vikings, or any other place
England established statutory rape laws in 1275, you could not fuck children, even if the girl said yes! Statute of Westminster I, chapter 13: "And the King prohibiteth that none do ravish, nor take away by Force, any Maiden within Age (neither by her own Consent, nor without)". Minimum two-year sentence plus a fine, longer sentence "according as the Tresspass requireth." You aren't even making shit up, because you are copying and pasting from a wiki where someone else already made shit up for you. They got this from Rome, which had similar laws.
1275. First shit King Edward I did after he got back from the Ninth Crusade was put pedos in prison. The Catholic Church forbade marriage before 14 for boys and 12 for girls, the Vedas forbade marriage before puberty, Islam forbade child marriage, every culture, society, and religion. We've got all of these long histories across thousands of cultures of formal coming-of-age ceremonies, and that was the cutoff, you didn't marry someone off before then. It's as close to universal as any dimension of human behavior gets. So please, try that "This is how it used to be!" shit: it doesn't get much more "trad" than crusaders.
> [here is my citation: some random dick's blog]
lol no
So, let's look at just the first one from the list: Firestone (2000). You said:
> if you look at any sane way to measure men, very large portion of them just are pedos: phallometric studies indicating proportion of men more or equally sexually aroused by children (up to 13 years old) than by adults:
> 27.7% (Firestone et al. 2000)
It took a minute, but I did manage to find a paper on this topic by someone named Firestone, published in the American Journal of Psychiatry in 2000. The paper is entitled "Differentiation of Homicidal Child Molesters, Nonhomicidal Child Molesters, and Nonoffenders by Phallometry." This does not seem to be a survey of normal men: their sample set is 27 pedophiles that murdered their victims (or attempted it), 189 pedophiles that committed rape but did not kill the child afterwards, and 47 random guys that answered a newspaper ad that offered them $50. Where would you get this 27.7% figure from, what *is* that 27.7%? Let's look:
> Homicidal child molesters, nonhomicidal child molesters, and nonoffenders were not significantly different in age or IQ. Homicidal and nonhomicidal child molesters had significantly higher pedophile index scores than nonoffenders. Significantly more homicidal child molesters (14 [52%] of 27) and nonhomicidal child molesters (82 [46%] of 180) than nonoffenders (13 [28%] of 47) had pedophile index scores equal to or greater than 1.0, but homicidal and nonhomicidal child molesters did not differ from each other. Significantly more homicidal child molesters (17 [63%] of 27) than either nonhomicidal child molesters (71 [40%] of 178) or nonoffenders (17 [36%] of 47) had pedophile assault index scores equal to or greater than 1.0, and nonhomicidal child molesters and nonoffenders were not significantly different from each other.
I guess (because you've specified nothing) that you mean the 13/47 ≈ 27.7%.
The paper's conclusion is that the higher the pedophile index, the more likely they are to rape a child. The conclusion is that the index is useful for predicting the likelihood that a person is a pedophile and likely to rape a child.
Everything you cite ruins your own argument. You would know this if you bothered to read any of it, but you're just playing a "find what person said, paste rebuttal" game. Cope harder, you miserable pederast.
firestone_graph.png
differentiation_of_homicidal_child_molesters,_nonhomocidal_child_molesters,_and_nonoffenders--firestone2000.pdf
vagrantstory_e-210430-135311.png
Eight-year-olds, dude.
@p @admin @bot @graf @sjw @verita84 @Senpai-kun
You seem very upset, friend.
That's a lot of text just to not give any countering information to it being normal historically but say "nuh uh"
>At any rate, if it were in the *middle* of the shift,
Nearing the end of the shift, whatever, I posted the picture of it.
Then you just say a bunch of shit that's bad shit wrong garbage without backing it up.
>Islam banned child marriage, leader married a 9yo
It wasn't a moral problem because it wasn't a moral problem
>The Catholic Church forbade marriage before 14 for boys and 12 for girls
12 by modern definitions is pedophilic. What are you arguing against? Marrying a 12yo is child marriage, and you posted this yourself
>Firestone, published in the American Journal of Psychiatry in 2000. The paper is entitled "Differentiation of Homicidal Child Molesters, Nonhomicidal Child Molesters, and Nonoffenders by Phallometry.
>Nonoffenders, %, 27.7
>Everything you cite ruins your own argument
You didn't cite anything. You don't have an argument. Just nitpick that none of mine can come from papers with unrelated topics
I've actually argued about this before, and this fits in line with that. And this was supposed to be your big gotcha. A thing I post about myself
>Estimates for the rate of pedophilia in detected child molesters generally range between 25% and 50%.[105]
You've accomplished nothing. Very sad.
> You seem very upset, friend.
"Try to provoke them so that they sound upset, then accuse them of being upset" is right there in the script, yes, I know.
> That's a lot of text just to not give any countering information to it being normal historically but say "nuh uh"
Zero information in your post; I actually gave the information and cited sources. I even attached the research paper that you had not read and could not even name.
> whatever, I posted the picture of it.
A picture that you have been trying to use to demonstrate that it was normal. It was really fuckin' unusual, so unusual that people are still talking about it.
> Then you just say a bunch of shit that's bad shit wrong garbage without backing it up.
Literally all of it was backed up. I don't know why I'd go to the trouble with someone following a pedophile telemarketing script.
>Islam banned child marriage, leader married a 9yo
> It wasn't a moral problem because it wasn't a moral problem
Details are murky; he may or may not have, and in any case he didn't consummate until several years afterwards. Doesn't matter what kind of legends they have about
or what's disputed: it was another society where you could not marry a prepubescent child, like every society. A warlord more or less gets to do what he wants.> 12 by modern definitions is pedophilic.
I thought you didn't like those definitions. Maybe it is if she's 12 and he's 40, but it is not if she's 12 and he's 14. Most parents would have strung up a guy that was 40 that came courting their 12-year-old daughter, same as today.
"The minimum that will be tolerated, even in exceptional cases" is very different from "the usual case". My great grandmother, way out in the countryside, had her first son in 1931, a couple of years after she got married at 19 to a man that was pretty close to her age. My grandparents were 20 and 23 when they got married.
It has not ever been typical to marry a girl that was 12, and the law was not the determining factor: society was. Under Cromwell, marriage was moved out of the church, and required parental consent if either party was under 21, a long way from 12. Marriage at that age was just selling your children's future, it was a betrothal rather than a marriage, invariably with an economic motive, even among the poor; you have tenants promising their sons to their landlord's daughter. (You'll find it in Howard.)
An excessively legalistic view of the world, like you have (and if I can speculate a minute, this is probably common to anyone that argues by looking at a table of "argument"→"rebuttal") is a symptom of an immature worldview. Most people aspire to make more money than the minimum wage, and in order to get anywhere in any society, you can't have a habit of pushing past the acceptable all the way to the edge of the tolerable. 1,500 years ago (very traditional) we had the Corpus Juris Civilis, the basis for most western law, and a fairly remarkable achievement, given the scope of the work. It formed the basis of English Common Law, and it's also where we get the proverb "Non omne quod licet honestum est." "Not everything that is lawful is honest." This is a fairly important point you've failed to grasp: the law is the boundary of the tolerable. Once you're on the other side of this line, you are removed from society. Imagining that they've set a target there and that everyone jumped up and down on the line is naive.
I don't know what you're crying about anyway; you can marry a girl that's 14 in California, for example. You do need, if she's under 16, parental consent as well as a court-supervised psychiatric evaluation and finally the judge's approval. If you were actually interested in marriage law, you'd know more about it; you are fixated on fucking children. Kill yourself before you have an impulsive streak one day and forget the consequences. It's the only way.
>>Firestone, published in the American Journal of Psychiatry in 2000. The paper is entitled "Differentiation of Homicidal Child Molesters, Nonhomicidal Child Molesters, and Nonoffenders by Phallometry.
>>Nonoffenders, %, 27.7
>>Everything you cite ruins your own argument
> You didn't cite anything.
You wrote that directly below the citation.
> You don't have an argument. Just nitpick that none of mine blah blah blah I'm trying to be tedious, this is a tactic to defend the indefensible
The argument was, very briefly:
1. At no point in history has it been acceptable to marry or fuck prepubescent children.
2. Your argument, that Jews snuck in and ruined your opportunity to fuck 9-year-olds, is retarded.
> this was supposed to be your big gotcha.
What was? I think you're seeing things that aren't there because you are trying to play a game that I'm not playing. It's like cherry-picking data: you'll find it when it's not there. So you expect a gotcha, you expect a cope, you expect a meltdown, you're looking too hard, you're pointing out hallucinations, phantoms.
> Estimates for the rate of pedophilia in detected child molesters generally range between 25% and 50%.
Numerically illiterate. (Pedophiles tend not to be to clever.) The people that love to quote statistics are the people least likely to understand the first thing about statistics.
Let's take the lower bound, let's say it's 25%. Then, because you're just copying and pasting from Wikipedia, let's take the upper bound from that same paragraph on the rate of pedophilia, 5%. We're being as generous as possible.
So, with "A" representing "convicted child rapist" and "B" representing "pedophile", it's actually really goddamn easy to plug into Bayes, because we have these numbers:
P(A|B) = (P(B|A)·P(A))/P(B)
P(A|B) = (0.25·P(A))/(0.05) = 5.0·P(A)
For non-pedophiles, we have P(B)=0.95, P(B|A)=0.75, so P(A|B)=15/19≈0.789. Whatever P(A) is, this makes pedophiles 6⅓ times as likely to rape a child. That's with the extremely generous numbers, though! What if we use slightly more conservative figures from the following sentence in the article you quoted, 35%? (0.35/0.05)/(0.65/0.95) is a little over 10, the upper bound of 50% from your own quote makes it 19 times more likely that a pedophile will be convicted of raping a child. If you're able to read a fraction (ask a child, I believe that this is covered in the 5th or 6th grade), you can see that it gets worse even more quickly the lower that 5% rate of pedophilia in the general population gets.
So the most favorable (to you) numbers that we have, the most generous we could be, and you're still more than six times as likely to be convicted of of raping a child. We could figure out the absolute rate, but that's not super relevant to your point, which was some sort of oblique comparison (you didn't quite spell it out) between you spineless fuckers and people that don't rape kids.
> I've actually argued about this before
All this does is prove the point that you don't think very hard about what you're saying.
> You've accomplished nothing. Very sad.
Pretty sure you're pulling the ripcord on the demoralization-chute a little fast. Doesn't work anyway: you're playing at internet debate to push a position that you thought sounded in line with your own sensibilities when someone handed it to you. Like I said, I'm not playing that game. I wandered over to ask what all those papers with no titles were. You didn't know the titles, you hadn't read them, you apparently don't understand research, you don't understand methodology, you don't understand statistics, you don't know what a citation is, and you don't know how to argue a point, but you just started saying dumb shit. Maybe pedophilia's a refuge for you, a desperate grasp to escape from the confusing and difficult adult world, a world for which you are completely unprepared. You know how that ends, though. It may be too late for Stefoknee, but maybe it's not too later for you.
stefoknee_yes_it_is_spelled_like_that.mp4
@p @applejack @Senpai-kun @admin @bot @graf @sjw @verita84
Man, I love the way you do this. The TL;dr version for short-attn-span pedos: kill yourself.
> (As far as the case of Mr. and Mrs. Johns, it's a little ridiculous: nobody would have written anything about them if it was a typical occurrence in the 1930s.)
I'd also note that they're always the only case ever presented. Surely, if it was a typical occurrence, there'd be more than one case to show.
You are a very politically confused person.