/loli/ - Lolis

>>26765

Lol no I'm sure the fool is White or Asian. No blacks here white supremacist .

>>26796

Wanna rephrase that in a way that makes sense? Who was talking about black people being here? No one. Also work on your grammar.

>>26609

> I just want to make the point that you can get by just fine on smaller samples as long as they are representative and useful for what you're trying to study. Sometimes it's done out of necessity, like a longitudinal study of rape victims or something.

I believe no scientist with an at least decent understanding of stochastics would content himself with or settle for a small amount of data unless there are financial and/or availability restrictions (there usually are). The rationale for any kind of statistics lies in the law of large numbers and the central limit theorem, respectively. Both deal with limits (n approaching infinity, where n can be interpreted as the number of tries or samples), so the larger the actual (finite) number of samples is, the more justified is any faith in your data being representative. In practice, this is connected with outliers: If you have only a small number of samples, outliers may distort your observed distribution severely, they may not be identifiable as outliers. So removing what might be outliers can mean ignoring the wrong portion of your data, depending on what you consider an 'outlier'. For instance, if you take samples far away from the arithmetic mean as 'outliers', it may happen that one single actual outlier shifts the arithmetic mean far enough away from the arithmetic mean of the remaining samples that some of them are far enough away from the distorted mean to be considered 'outliers', too. On the other hand, if you have a large number of samples, outliers will hardly affect or distort the distribution. They'd have to be far too many to be considered outliers anymore.

> I saw that he decided to skip the peer-review

Yes, he actually decided to publish in a magazine without peer review, which claims, however, to be peer-reviewed ('Although the Archives’ editor claims that “all articles submitted to the journal are reviewed in a rigorous way,” […]'). He also writes: 'To find out how many of those publishers are keeping their promise of doing rigorous peer review, I submitted ridiculously flawed papers and counted how many rejected them. (Answer: fewer than half.)' So the criticism of peer reviews being overrated stays justifiable.

> Researchers are biased in what they choose to research, how they research it, and how they interpret it.

Yes. Therefore, take research results with a pinch of salt.

> I'd like if they could just report things accurately. More often than not they totally misrepresent things.

Also true. I doubt it's intentional though.

> Not-fucking is just one thing out of a long list of things we don't want kids to do. Driving is another.

So kids shouldn't be driving cars, but shouldn't be not fucking either?

>>26615

> the truth isn't as important as what might happen if people believe the truth

Let's rephrase this: Even a truth that isn't dangerous itself might become dangerous if people actually know/believe it. It's been a common theme in science fiction, e.g. Men in Black, Stargate, or Battlestar Galactica. You always have to think twice what could happen if you tell someone the truth (or not even the truth; consider how much damage lies have caused throughout history). I'm not saying the truth should be hidden, I'm saying you have to be careful how you release it.

> Not nearly the same thing. People dramatize it a lot worse than it was.

Sure, but there were still people who were strongly against Darwin's evolution theory. There are even today people who don't believe it. The difference is that those people are a minority today, while they used to be a majority back then – of course. We don't live in a theocracy today, either, so the situations are indeed comparable; that is, comparable with the situation when Darwin's theory hadn't yet gathered as many people.

> racial characteristics in biology […] an environment where science doesn't do it's best

Some governments (those of countries which have biological weapons, I think, like Israel, the US, or India) do spend money on research into differences between races that could be exploited to design weapons that only kill one single specific race. I don't know either whether those scientists do their best, but I bet they do.

> Because when you get a study that confirms that narrative, people aren't going to look that deeply at potential methodological flaws

> Science isn't perfect… it's good, on the whole, but it's less good the more you ignore the ways it can go wrong.

True. But that's how people are.

>>26701

> Things like brain abnormalities and correlations with things like left handedness are new info. Correlation with homosexuality might be expected, but there's also stuff that shows that females are be pedophiles as well (contradicting the popular notion that all pedos are gay men).

Yet you should be careful with 'new info': They've also found a correlation between handedness and life expectancy implying that left-handed people don't nearly live as long as right-handed people. This article nicely explains why said statement shouldn't be taken at face value: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23988352

As for brain abnormalities, you should be even more careful with that. I haven't had the time to read the articles you posted links to, but 'brain abnormality' unfortunately usually refers to unexpected brain activation patterns, which can be a temporary thing and doesn't tell very much as we aren't even close to fully understanding it.

Correlation with homosexuality might be expected as well as contradicted, but I think the real reason why there's a connection between paedos and homos is that the same people fighting for homo rights back in the 60's and 70's were also fighting for paedo rights, just because it was one ideologically cross-grained conglomerate called 'the Hippies' (and that's a gross simplification as well). Astrology, homosexuality, laisser-faire, they had it all. People remember ideologies that went together as going together.

> The fact of the matter is that people within a race are more genetically different than between races.

I don't believe that. For instance, the Japanese are known to be the genetically most homogeneous people in the world. I don't think they could have acquired that reputation if two randomly taken Japanese were genetically more different than a randomly taken Japanese and a randomly taken person from another people. However, as you point out in >>26745, humans are one of the species on this planet with the least genetic diversity in general.

> "race" is an extremely antiquated and fabricated construct

No, race is a biological term that is fuzzy but widely accepted. E.g. dog breeds are 'races' of the species dog. That they tried it with humans, too, was only a logical consequence. The problems arose when people started to derive social consequences from it. Of course African blacks are of a different race than European whites, but does that imply anything social? Well, in some places it does, but is it supposed to? Usually not. It is even the case that you can track down a gene that's common among Jews and hardly ever found among non-Jews (the Jew gene, Google it), but that's because Jews used to (and still do) marry other Jews, within their own community that has due to diaspora always consisted of rather small groups of people. Does that mean Jews are a race, or even a sub-race? Maybe the former, but why the latter? The culprit with racism is that you read social implications into biological findings, not the findings themselves.

> Sex differences are a little different and I think they're actually quite relevant. Unlike race, sex is a real thing. Gender differences….a little fuzzier, but still useful.

Sex and gender are two words for the same concept. Some languages don't even have two separate words for that concept. Like sex, race is a real thing, and like into race, you shouldn't be reading too much into sex as well. Sex may be a fuzzy thing sometimes, but most of the time you have exactly two options: Male or female.

> Even more surprisingly, despite what your eyes and assumptions may tell you, the world isn't flat, and the Earth goes around the Sun instead of the other way around.

Now you're being deliberately, and unnecessarily, condescending. If someone doesn't believe a fact you know to be a fact, prove it with a citation. Or aren't you interested in a reasonable discussion?

just tell them you found the song via some internet friend who seems to have trolled you

>If they are loli for 16+ 4'11 under I'm all for

>If they are under 16/kids people need to burn

how stupid is this quotes seriously?

Also this just in: Fapping to yaoi is straight, and fapping to 2D in general makes you an objectophile.

>>25633

that is anime?

>>26952

Be gone projecting pedo. Only a literal autist would think lines on paper is a child.

>>26955

What am I projecting here? I have no shame regarding the fact that I 'm attracted to preteens. What in your mind are you fapping to if it isn't a representation of a child? If you like petite body types then they're anatomically very similar to that of a real child.

If a real life loli had a bigger head and bigger eyes would you like her then, you poor deluded fool?

>>26956

Some pedos are lolis. Not all lolis are pedos. Children don't turn me on. 2d lolis do. I raised two younger sisters and a younger brother so I would know if pedo. 'sides I like lolis that are innocent, but far more intelligent than a child could be.

>>26959

So did you have sex with your mother and thats how you know you like adult women or something?

Judging your sexuality based on how much you want to fuck your family members isn't exactly reliable.

>>26961

Restatement, I have no real life attraction to 3d child body types. Also, most children that are abused are abused by family members. So I think, is probably pretty good test.

>>26964

I don't think you have interacted with children much. At least not as a caregiver. Children are loud, noisy, petty, dirty, disgusting creatures. (Though I still love my siblings, I do not begrudge them one bit of my affection). Also, the intrinsic difference between 2d and 3d. The variations in skin tone, however minuscule, the minute differences in proportions. It is subtle, but there. I think it is safe to say "I dont find children attractive in the same an attractive but mean spirited women is unattractive". Yes I think that is it. The fantasy is important, the idea inside our heads. Those small differences break the fantasy, bringing all the negatives with them. The same way those with rape fantasies can be utterly disgusted by actual rape. Or why those who like adult women in real life may not like adult women in 2d (like me, I like my women to be well proportioned, with good muscle tone in real life but is repulsive in 2d for some reason). Sure someone might pop a boner to a jailbait doing something sexy, but is natural body reaction. Psychologically, could be very unattractive to you.

>>26956

By calling others pedo because you consider yourself one. Lolis more often then not don't even look like real kids, most animated characters don't look like real humans. By your poor logic if you like legal petite porn of 18 years olds you are a pedo, since many have the body of an underage person and many even act like kids in their porn vids.

>>26967

Perhaps you do not experience hyperbole often? And perhaps you did not read what I wrote. It is psychological. Also, I do not think pedophiles are bad, so long as they do not harm children. Also, in the situation with "jailbait" it is not that you feel guilty, but that the thought of sex with someone like that does not seem pleasant. Maybe because you like both you can not understand. But I don't enjoy both. Also, many others here do not like 3d. just as many who like 2d do, I do not really care so long as you do not harm children.

>>26970

I only enjoy lolis, but I don't get erections to adult women while thinking "wow shes really unattractive and I wouldn't want to have sex with her"

How can you get an erection while looking at something but also find it disgusting at the same time and not want to do anything sexual?

I can see someone feeling disgusted with themselves and feeling guilty over finding something attractive sure, but not physically finding something attractive while mentally finding it repulsive for no explainable reason.

>>26971

A physically attractive woman can cause someone to become erect, even if they don't want to act on their desires. Tits are tits and our lizard brain cannot differentiate. I have had the opportunity to have sex with a very attractive woman, I would say 8.5/10 for me, but she was a very manipulative and unpleasant woman, so while having an erection, I rejected her because I dislike what her personality was, how she acted, how she carried herself. But she was very attractive. I mean no disrespect, but if you only find mates who are physically attractive then you seem to have an issue in terms of your relationship. Or maybe you just like girls who are pretty. Like I said, that is you, so I would encourage you to seek emotionally fulfilling relationships, even if you are not attracted to adult women, you may find it beneficial to try to form close friendships with women your age.

>>26975

I was talking about sexual attraction so physicality plays pretty much the only role.

And my lizard brain can differentiate between cowtits and dfc any day thank you very much.

Besides I don't "find mates" at all, so the whole emotionally fulfilling relationship thing didn't cross my mind in this conversation, I was talking about just the sexual aspect not the romantic one.

I think making friends with other men is better, more in common and more likely to have the same hobbies etc.

I just can't relate to women my age at all, nothing I do interests them and vice versa so theres not much to build a friendship on.

>>26977

I will have to disagree. Mental attraction plays a great part in my sexual attraction. I don't enjoy the act of casual sex, it simply doesn't appeal to me. Maybe you just like the physical pleasure? Not judging you, just saying you may not understand, simply because you are different. But about the friends, having friends who are both male and female is beneficial in my opinion. I'm not saying that you shouldn't make friends with men, just that having both is important. From my experience anyways. Also, I should point out I am a nerd who happens to experience physical pleasure when working out. So I tend to be able to make friends with a wide variety of people, some are gym friends, some are D&D friends, etc. etc. So again, it's entirely possible that it may just be a difference between you and I. I enjoy the fantasy (a "silk hiding steel" fantasy to be exact, that is the loli is as smart or smarter than me, though she appears young, she would have the emotional and mental maturity of an adult, yet retain the innocence of someone who has not been ground down by the world). So I enjoy the fantasy, maybe you enjoy the reality?

>>25628

>>25628

>>25628

>>25628

>>25628

>>25628

>>25628

>>25628

>>25628

>>25628

>>25628

>>25628

>>25628

>>25628

>>25628

>>25628

Listen to me carefully OP- the only words you need to hear, and embody:

You have no idea where the song came from.

OP has been gone for 2 weeks…. Jail Rape in process?

>>26904

>>26242

>Being turned on by getting raped/raping someone is not the same thing as being turned on by fantasizing about getting raped/raping someone.

LOL THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE HAHA XD

>>27055

Women aren't supposed to make sense.

>>27092

Woman hater. Then again you are fantasizing about raping little girls so it makes sense.

>>26967

>Miniscule variations in proportions and shading don't apply when the artist is tracing the exact proportions and copying the colors from a real image of someone

You're making this out to be more common than it is. Lolicon as a style comes out of shoujo styles. Manga styles in general are not realistic. And for the record, I'm not particularly fond of the pictures you've posted, precisely because I could just look at child models if I wanted that.

But I DON'T want that. That's what makes me a lolicon and not a necessarily pedo. I don't want my dick in a kid. I want the idyllic sexual fantasies of middle-aged Japanese men and women. I want little kid characters that don't act like kids and rape adults. I want little dumb kid characters that are so dumb they get raped and don't even realize. I want sad, depressing kids-getting-raped-and-broken stories. I want corny they-fuck-and-live-happily-ever-after stories. I want layer upon layer of increasingly abstracted fetish fuel. Loli porn is supernormal anyway, so the bridge you're trying to build between 2d and 3d is dubious; your reductionism doesn't work due to the mental and fictional elaborations inherent in the medium.

What I don't understand is why you find it so hard to believe that some people prefer simulations over the "real" thing. They like it precisely because it can cater to them in ways that real life simply cannot and that this need is not simply one of "I wanna fuck kids" but one could be much more complex, often contradictory.

>>26811

>No, race is a biological term that is fuzzy but widely accepted

No. It's a social construct that's widely accepted because of the fact that people felt a need to create it. It comes out of Western colonialism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human_categorization%29

It is only relevant now because the belief in it creates profound social effects.

>Sex and gender are two words for the same concept.

They really aren't. Scientists usually use the former to refer to biological differences while the latter refers to social concepts. This is how transgenderism exists.

I'm not even going to tackle the research methods stuff because frankly I'm tired and bored of it and it just keeps going back and forth. I come here to beat off and this dumbass thread keeps distracting me.

>>26807

>I believe no scientist with an at least decent understanding of stochastics would content himself with or settle for a small amount of data unless there are financial and/or availability restrictions (there usually are).

Okay I'm done beating off. I know about all that shit you're talking about, but you've mentioned that pretty much anything has these limitations. It would be nice if we could have infinite n all the time, but no one has the resources for that. You can still get by with smaller n if the sample adequately represents the population of interest. I'm not sure what the point of all this even was.

>So the criticism of peer reviews being overrated stays justifiable.

I didn't read. If he only submitted to "peer-reviewed" magazines, then it's not as high of a standard as an academic journal.

>I don't believe that. For instance, the Japanese are known to be the genetically most homogeneous people in the world. I don't think they could have acquired that reputation if two randomly taken Japanese were genetically more different than a randomly taken Japanese and a randomly taken person from another people

They could clearly have that reputation by being so relative to other ethnicities.

That last quote wasn't me. But I think I'm going to drop out of this anyway. It's taking too much time away from fapping. Carry on or don't carry on.

>>27149

ah i guess i should say relative to other ethnicities, but not violating the general knowledge of higher intra- vs. inter-genetic diversity. Like it's possible they're more homogenous, but still not to the point that they're significantly different from whatever other race. I should've been more careful with my words there too: race and not ethnicity. It's possible that differences between ethnicities might be greater, I don't know. I just know that between races they're not that substantial just because race really isn't a "real" thing. There are better constructs to use, like ethnicity for one. But yeah.

>>25628

Say OP, are you there, we want an update. Were you v&?

>>27146

> No. It's a social construct that's widely accepted because of the fact that people felt a need to create it.

Just to make sure we aren't talking on cross-purposes: You're referring to the social misconcept of race, which, according to the Wikipedia article you linked, 'is not to be confused with Race (biology)'. That's however what I've been talking about, as you could easily have read from the dog example.

However, biological race is a concept that does make sense for humans, too, that is, on principle. They did scientific research on it at the beginning of the last century. The findings are summarized in the Wikipedia article:

> (1) most human differences were cultural; (2) what was not cultural was principally polymorphic – that is to say, found in diverse groups of people at different frequencies; (3) what was not cultural or polymorphic was principally clinal – that is to say, gradually variable over geography; and (4) what was left – the component of human diversity that was not cultural, polymorphic, or clinal – was very small.

Actually, 99.9% of all human's genes (at least their exons) are equal. That is, differences between human races (biological concept!) are, just as quoted, extremely small. However, 'race' (and 'species', for that matter) are extremely fuzzy concepts throughout biology that lack exact definitions. It is therefore not surprising that cultural differences between humans are usually bigger than genetic differences. But cultural diversity is not a matter of biology. Races are generally not discrete either, regardless of whether talking about humans or talking about, say, seagulls. That is, I can say that white Europeans and black Africans belong to different 'races' (today's science would prefer the term 'population') for sure, but it gets more difficult if I compare said European with a Saudi-Arabian, and when comparing Europeans among each other, clearly nobody would say they belong to different 'races'.

Just to settle this issue, let's recall how the notion of (social) 'races' developed. As I've explained, there is a reasonable concept of 'race' that can be applied to humans and was applied to humans. The time this was done, Darwin's ideas had just become mainstream, leading to a pseudo-scientific concept called 'Social Darwinism', which claims the survival of the socially fittest. As it was also the time of Western colonialism, Europe eagerly adopted it as an ideology of Europeans being 'socially fitter', having to help the 'lower races' (see Kipling's 'White Man's Burden'). They read social implications into a merely biological concept, which was the cause of all evil. It's like reading social implications into eye colour, it doesn't lead to meaningful conclusions. So the link between social and biological races is just a misunderstanding, followed by a misconception.

> They really aren't. Scientists usually use the former to refer to biological differences while the latter refers to social concepts. This is how transgenderism exists.

As someone whose mother tongue doesn't know more than one word for 'sex' or 'gender', I'd frankly deny that this distinction is justified. I mean, it's biological sex and it's mental sex. If you choose to use one word for the former and the other for the latter, that's an opportunity the English language offers. But both are the same concept, aren't they? The notion of 'male' and 'female' and anything in between. Which happens to be fuzzy both biologically and mentally (but more often mentally, lately).

>>27149

>>27150

> I'm not sure what the point of all this even was.

It all evolved around the question how reliable and valid paedo research is. I think the problem with the discussion is that we agree, but put things differently into words.

> They could clearly have that reputation by being so relative to other ethnicities.

> ah i guess i should say relative to other ethnicities, but not violating the general knowledge of higher intra- vs. inter-genetic diversity

The latter sounds like an obvious contradiction to me. Maybe you could provide a citation for your ominous 'general knowledge of higher intra- vs. inter-genetic diversity' (who was your biology teacher?) because to me this sounds like you try to avoid having to show evidence for that claim.

> It's possible that differences between ethnicities might be greater, I don't know. I just know that between races they're not that substantial just because race really isn't a "real" thing. There are better constructs to use, like ethnicity for one.

Then you have to provide a definition for ethnicity and race, otherwise I won't understand the difference between them. These are really just words.

>>27193

Yeah, race exists as an established concept in biology, sure. I was talking about social sciences here though, so it would be more relevant to refer to it as social/anthropological classification. But even then you admit that the biological concept isn't that clear either. The fact that a single word could generate this much confusion just makes me like it all the less. When people talk about race, it seems they just talk in circles and no one seems to get anywhere with it.

> I'd frankly deny that this distinction is justified.

It's useful for research. Sex differences would refer to things like hormonal differences, brain differences, genetic differences, etc. Gender differences refer to environmental factors. Just because certain languages don't separate the two concepts doesn't mean that the distinction isn't warranted.

>Maybe you could provide a citation for your ominous 'general knowledge of higher intra- vs. inter-genetic diversity' (who was your biology teacher?) because to me this sounds like you try to avoid having to show evidence for that claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics#Between-group_genetics

It's well-established enough that I've read this in every psych/bio text I've ever had to read. It's the second most common thing behind: "Correlation does not imply causation."

>Then you have to provide a definition for ethnicity

Ethnicity is more specific, referring to cultural heritage and such so it would be more useful if we're going to say that culture plays the largest role in human differences. It also allows you to look within broad race categories; Japanese won't be the same as Vietnamese or something, for example.

>>27871

Got v& and sent to a refugee camp as punishment. They said he found better understand some aspects of their culture

>>27908

>found

*could

>>26954

looks like the boondocks

probly the kickball episode

Just claim you were linked to the song by someone else and you didn't know anything about the source.

Men used to war to fuck women.

Why don't yall wall to get child brides?

Muslims do…

Men used to war to fuck women.

Why don't yall war to get child brides?

Muslims do…

>>25628

RIP OP

>>25628

I bet they probably forgot about it once they got home anyways. So there's little chance of them finding it out

actually that´s the white guy´s name

his best friend forever name is Leroy

>>25628

that is abso-fucking-lutely hilarious. dont worry about going to prison, at most you'll get kicked out of the camp and maybe get the shit beaten out of you by an angry dad, but i dont think prison is a possibility.

>>27871

No idea hopefully everyone at camp forgot along with OP.