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.
wondering if it's, pre-puberty, or pre-18yo, or something else entirely.
> it's not too uncommon to only put author and date
If you are citing inline and you have a bibliography, yes. He couldn't even name the papers, though, because these are opaque instructions in a retarded debate script: "If they say this, say this name and this year and this percentage."
anyway, he posted the titles later on. i'll add it to my reading list, and we'll learn how true it is. it's a pretty outlandish claim but my image of ordinary people has been shocked so many times at this point that if someone told me most people worship satan i wouldn't discard it offhand.
> I might say casually, "Pistolero in his 2022 paper wrote about xyz".
If that happens, you could be expected to have read it. If someone asks you for the title, you should be able to say what the name of the paper was or provide a copy. The guy is a bot, he has not read any of this.
> i'll add it to my reading list, and we'll learn how true it is.
Let me know if you want the actual papers. He has posted a PDF of an essay from IPCE. He has not seen the primary source. He is reading a debate script.
it still shocks me that people will drop articles, books, papers, without having even read and understood them
there are guys who will talk about topics ad nauseum and all they know about it is they watched a show
it feels like blackface but about scholars
> I have read them.
Bullshit.
> P makes up shit like it being only done on convinced rapists
One of the studies, yes.
> that I then show isn't true by actually quoting them.
You quoted a pederast's opinion piece; you have not yet actually demonstrated that you have even seen the papers.
> Okay, if I do, will you shut up
If you explain where you got the "27.7%" and what that figure actually means. (Hint: it is not a 27.7% rate of pedophilia, you idiot.)
@p @Terry @Dave @fluffy Firestone et al. (2000): Differentiation of Homicidal Child Molesters, Nonhomicidal Child Molesters, and Nonoffenders by Phallometry
https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.157.11.1847?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed#t1
Two phallometric indexes were used: the pedophile index and the pedophile assault index. The pedophile index was computed by dividing the subject’s highest response to an aural description of sex with a “consenting” child by his highest response to description of sex with a consenting adult.
[Table 1]
Pedophile index Non offenders >= 1.0 %
27.7
Method
Participants
The comparison group was recruited through an advertisement and paid a $50 honorarium. The men in the comparison group had no criminal record or serious psychiatric or medical history, and all reported that they had never committed a sexual offense.
There were two questions: where did that number come from and what does it mean? You pasted some shit from the paper (it took you a while to find it, I guess). Please explain what that number means.
Like I said:
> If you explain where you got the "27.7%" and what that figure actually means. (Hint: it is not a 27.7% rate of pedophilia, you idiot.)
You haven't, because you can't, because you don't know what the number means. The scores were way higher for pedophiles, the paper concludes that this is a reasonable predictor for child molestation. Do you know what the p value means? Χ²? Anything about statistics? What's that score measuring anyway?
So the "smug anime face" bit is right in your debate script, which—again—I have read. This is what to do when you're out of your depth. YHL. HAND.