/loli/ - Lolis

Just blame it on someone else and say you couldn't come up with enough songs so you had an online friend help you.

Just make sure your lie is convincing with enough made up facts. But don't flood them with details, let them pull the lies out of you one by one.

>>25629

>>25628

needless to say that you simply play dumb and ignore this whole matter untill someone brings it up to you. In that case pretend that you don't know what they're talking about.

>>25628

You have introduced the next generation to Unteralterbach. Good, more future supporters of loli when they grow up as functioning adults in society, maybe even in government positions.

>>25633

The world need more sexy techno dancing lolis.

This is why you separate your work files from your fap files. Different computers, virtual machines, user accounts, or whatever so they never intersect.

OP, you could say that you obtained the songs from a p2p program and didn't know the origin. Never make a scene by yourself.

Its hard to connect listening to a song straight to sex offender, just claim you didn't know it was related to loli, a friend just told you about it.

Hahaha, Nigga you what

Tell me the kids don't speak german

>>25628

At least it wasn't POMF=3 or something. You can easily play this off as not knowing where it was from.

>>25685

What the fuck, there's a general in here at all times, you must not be from here.

>>25697

Six million!

But I imagine that will just end with me dropping shitloads of spaghetti.

>>25700

This. Just say you found it on youtube and downloaded it using one of those youtube-to-mp3 things, but never looked into where it was from. The other people at the camp will want to avoid any backlash from it just as much as you, so it should be fine.

You need to be smarter next time like by not working around kids. I doubt it since you are probably 10 seconds away from fucking little kids. You are a fool so enjoy Your time now because it will end.

Yeah, must confess I find this thread pretty amusing. I think your best bet if someone starts grilling you about it is to say that you downloaded a batch of songs at some point, so you don't know where many of them come from. Say you don't even recall that song in particular.

also don't try to remove the song from the playlist or anything, you'd only thereby prove that you did know something about it after all

People on this board are unhealthily paranoid.

>>25788

I have literally been to jail for cp and shit

>>25685

Hi there! Welcome to /lolli!

>>25705

SJW Senses… TINGLING!

>>25788

Sing it, fellow anon.

>>25903

CP is 3D kids. We discuss 2D kids here. Posting any pics of 3D kids, even if fully clothed, is highly discouraged. So unless you're in a place like Britain, you can unpucker your sphincter a bit.

And before you say I have no idea what it's like, I got fucking grilled for having NN child models on my phone before. Not pleasant, but I got through it okay.

>>25909

You don't know what it's like

I had all of my computers confiscated, spent a year behind bars, five years on probation, three years in therapy, and got lifetime sex offender registration.

>>25914

Shoulda used an onion.

howd u fuck up?

>>25925

I was doing computer work with this guy who had a bunch of kids…his wife had been molestered as a child and was super paranoid, cast enough suspicion on me to get me investigated. I was young and naive at the time (I am old now, this was before Tor) and I managed to fuck it up pretty bad.

>>25909

Fine go act a fool go to prison get ass raped, lose your human rights and possible become homeless. It's funny how many pedophiles hang out around lolI communities giving us a bad name. Die bitch die.

>>25963

You are a paedosexual if you are a lolicon. It means the same fucking thing.

People like you only give normies more reason to keep us as a lower caste in society. You're like those gays who would speak out against homosexual rights for the sake of saving face, back when it was illegal for a guy to fuck another guy.

You only serve to damage and make sure we are kept being treated like shit In society. You are the white knight to every cunt feminist. You are a traitorous piece of shit who only concerns personal security at the expense of everyone else. How the fuck do you sleep at night?

>>25964

>You are a paedosexual if you are a lolicon

Not him but you are a normie is you believe that. You're that same projecting pedo that's awalys trying to call everyone else a pedo. You are the whiteknght here, spouting SJW shit. Your kind are the ones hurting the community with your 3D pedo rambling while others want fictional drawn images of non-humans.

>>25973

>hurr I don't fap to children

>I fap to to drawings of children and that's completely different!

>>25628

Just tell them someone linked you to the song on youtube, and then you downloaded it from there using a youtube to mp3 website. Jesus, how have you gotten this far in life without being able to think for yourself.

>>25982

100% correct, autist. Lines on a paper will never be a child. The drawings of them are no older than any drawing of an "older" fictional girl. You are one of those retards that think murder in video games should be considered real too.

>>25903

This isn't a CP board. No shit you should be worried about having illegal material. Waorrying about going to jail for loli is pure delusional paranoia unless you like in a shit country like UK or Canada

>>25964

I am glad other people had the bearings to explain to you in a civil manner why you are wrong. I sure did not have the ability to be nice about it.

>>25628

Firstly how the fuck did you "accidentally" list down a song like that? You can't be fucking that retarded to just put it down without knowing.

Secondly just knowing the song won't get the thrown in prison. You can easily decline knowing of the game and lie about getting it from a youtube download description.

Lastly the worst that will happen is that you get fired. All you can do is just break ties with that job connection and hope that your next employer doesn't find out you got fired for something like this.

>>25628

Just pour acid on you ass.

Jesus, last week I just wanted to push an African to the traffic, fuck them and their stupid superior genetics!

>>26001

I went to jail because of the Maximum hormone song F, they believed I wanted to blow up the earth.

>>26027

Jesus. Where the fuck do you live, m8?

>>25927

I dont understand how a coworker could land you in jail for porn. Tell me more.

>>25982

Holy shit. You are actually retarded. Not really even surprised since it turns out pedophilia is moderately correlated with lower IQ.

If I fap to a story about children, it's not the same as fapping to children. Abstract porn mediums like eromanga and ero-fiction are more occupied with the eroticism of ideas rather realism. In many cases, the more unlike a real child a loli is, the hotter it is. There are entire subgenres and themes dedicated to this gap (lolis raping teachers, for instance). Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, these levels of abstraction DO matter. For you to conflate it is, ironically, to engage in the same fallacious thinking that normalfags rely on.

>>26118

this isn't true as my IQ is 146 and i am kid fucker. pedos are generally smarter actually and are neglected geeks/nerds that get into anime and start off with 2Dlolicon then extrapolate that into 3D CGI then actual kids. if you want to deny you are an entry level pedophile and you don't like kids that is fine. i was like that for a while too its just a phase.

pedos in older days didnt have internet so they started out with actual kids and keeping it in the family first and they are generally uncles and cousins.

>>26118

There's no point in explaining it to him, this idiot has been spouting his pedo projection for months on end now. He's an idiot that can't separate fantasy from reality.

>>26125

So many lies form the projecting autist. Fuck off with your 3D, retard. You missed a decimal, your IQ is 14.6

PEDOS GO BACK TO /HEBE/

PEDOS GO BACK TO /HEBE/

PEDOS GO BACK TO /HEBE/

>>26125

>this isn't true as my IQ is 146 and i am kid fucker.

Right. An IQ of 146 and you think your made up anecdotal evidence holds any weight against empirical findings tying pedophilia to lower IQs and structural brain abnormalities. I will concede the other point though, you probably aren't making everything up here.

>pedos are generally smarter actually and are neglected geeks/nerds that get into anime and start off with 2Dlolicon then extrapolate that into 3D CGI then actual kids.

lmao. There it is, folks. There's that 146 IQ speaking. God help you shitters if you consider yourself one of the smart ones. Take your ridiculous posturing somewhere else.

What's funny is that I DO identify as a pedo to people I trust enough with that information. I'm just not so stupid that I think that a drawing and the real thing are one and the same. It's like saying the word "dog" is actually a dog. Being turned on by kids is not the same as being turned on by the thought of fucking kids. I guess it takes a special kind of genius to not see this fundamental difference.

>>25988

you dont understand how sexual attraction works do you.

>>26140

> I'm just not so stupid that I think that a drawing and the real thing are one and the same.

neither do you. noone thinks this stupid strawman of yours is true, so stop using it.

>>26145

I do, and lines are not children, and if you have no sexual attrition to real kids then that;s that. You simply have no idea how separating fantasy from reality works. It is 100% projection by someone who likes both at everyone MUST also like both and MUST be a pedo like him. Stop being so insure.

>>26145

>>26154

Gentlemen, gentlemen. Calm down. Please also consider that any argument you've so far tried to put forward can just as well be applied to any other kind of fiction. For instance, substitute slasher for loli and thus brutal murder for sex. ('Girl' can stay, right?) On the one hand, saying that anyone who's into slasher films would also appreciate real murders is clearly inappropriate (yet that's what those people this board calls 'normalfags' plead for when it comes to loli). On the other hand, it has been scientifically shown that violent computer games foster violent tendencies, so it's not entirely far-fetched to assume that the same could be true for artificial pictures (e.g. drawings) of children, i.e. that sexual depictions of children foster sexual tendencies towards children. It does not need to be the case, however, and it's also not quite clear what 'foster sexual tendencies' is supposed to mean (strengthening/reinforcing tendencies already present, initiating such tendencies, or something else). In fact, the opposite has also been shown scientifically, that is, there have been studies which found no behavioural difference between people who played violent computer games and people who didn't. As scientific literature on this topic therefore seems to be decidedly mixed, I would recommend not trying to deduce any implications those studies might have for the current subject, but rather staying with the facts.

And the facts are, as a matter of fact, that lines are indeed not children and that our brain is indeed able to distinguish between drawings and the real thing. On the other hand, however, it is also a fact that our brain is capable of a level of abstraction sufficient for identifying a drawing as a drawing of what it is intended to depict. It seems to me that either of you is strawmanning the other by assuming a contradiction between these two facts that isn't necessarily there. Maybe you could try to resolve the issue by starting there, i.e. at the reasons why there should be a contradiction.

>>26118

>pedophilia is moderately correlated with lower IQ.

Your the guy that brought up the gay sexologist/psychiatrist with a confirmation bias aren't you?

>>26169

"Scientific literature" should come in quotation marks here, since you're talking about social "sciences" rather than ~real~ hard sciences with rigorous standards of evidence. The literature in question is the work of paid government propagandists.

>>26200

> social "sciences" rather than ~real~ hard sciences with rigorous standards of evidence

Psychology and sociology also have standards of evidence. Evidence must be reliable, valid, and objective. That's true for natural sciences, and it's true for the humanities as well. Both aren't immune to false conclusions. There's a nasty joke about a biologist pulling out an ant's legs one by one, each time shouting 'Jump!' and the ant jumps, until all its legs have been removed, then it doesn't jump anymore. The biologist then comes to the conclusion that ants must have their ears in their legs.

The problem social sciences have is that the theories they produce can yield probabilistic predictions at best. That makes it relatively hard to find counter-evidence as negative data might result from coincidence or too small-sized test sets. (Imagine a theory predicting that pilots are more suicidal than other people. Even if you manage to get a test group of several thousand pilots – thousand is one quite arbitrary 'threshold' for being representative –, you still have the problem that you have to wait until one commits suicide.)

Another problem is that most social theories are inherently hard to test because the entities they yield predictions about are fuzzy. For instance, take a theory stating that pilots are socially more active than other people. How do you measure the degree of social activity? Depending on how you measure it, you may come to fundamentally different data and conclusions.

> The literature in question is the work of paid government propagandists.

Is that a conspiracy theory of yours or can you support that claim with evidence? Because, if any 'scientific literature' on such topics is bought like that, neither party in any lolicon or paedophilia discussion can deploy any grounded argument. Then the whole discussion is superfluous, being solely an exchange of opinions. (Which isn't wrong but doesn't lead anywhere.)

Apart from that, isn't it the industry that pays scientists as the state isn't able to do so anymore? :)

>>26200

Lmao. Okay what is your excuse for science like biology? Stay living in a country where you can fuck kids the US will not tolerate you not your kind. No matter how many anonymous fits you throw bon obscure forums.

What the fuck happened to this thread

>>26140

>Being turned on by kids is not the same as being turned on by the thought of fucking kids.

>I am not turned on by this thing I am just turned on by the idea of fucking it

I was following the argument up to this point and now I am lost.

>>26200

That's dumb because it also follows rigorous standards. Or are you going to say that neurological evidence doesn't count as "hard" science?

>>26209

I agree with pretty much everything you're saying. However, the issues with social sciences you're bringing up are largely solved with more testing/research which leads to convergence. If many different kinds of studies, using different kinds of operational definitions and measures consistently achieve similar, statistically significant results, then you can say that your findings are valid (e.g., that construct A is related to construct B) even if what those two things actually are and how they're measured are "fuzzy." This is where meta-analysis comes in. I might not trust one study, but if a lot of them say the same thing, that's a different matter. Unfortunately, I don't think there's much literature on causes and correlates of pedophilia, or not that I've read at least.

>>26242

Think about the "taboo appeal" of it. That you aren't so turned on by a child's personality or body, but that it's the simple idea that you're doing something you aren't supposed to. Or like the novel twist of a kid raping her teacher. Abstract eroticism is much more than "i wanna fugg kids," and lolicon is very much in line with this.

People who have actually read Lolita should understand that HH is not so attracted to the girl as much as his fantasy of the girl. That's something like what I'm saying here.

>>26242

>>26245

Reading it back. Maybe it's still confusing.

I think a good example is incest. Most people really don't want to fuck their irl sisters. There's even that saying that the only people who like little sisters are people who don't have any. But incest as a theme or an idea can be very sexually arousing. People engage in incest play and people (even those with sisters) like incest stories, maybe not even because it's taboo but because of the character relations and sexual tension and such. So I don't want to fuck my sister but I like the idea of sisters being fucked. That sort of thing.

>>26229

Paranoia paranoia everybodies comin' to get me

Daily reminder OP's chance of legal trouble for this is approximately 0.000000000000000000001%

>plays unteralterbach

>not a pedo

Literally how

>>26249

If you really think there's less than one in a billion chance of someone landing in hot water for dropping references to a game about fucking kids while working at tweenager summer camp, you're the one who is delusional.

>>26249

>Paranoia paranoia everybodies comin' to get me

Just say you never met me

>>26245

> the issues with social sciences you're bringing up are largely solved with more testing/research which leads to convergence

Yes. And that's relatively hard sometimes. What I wanted to get at is that convergence needs a lot of (independent, as far as possible) data, which usually isn't readily available. That makes research expensive. Of course you can gather lots of data on the internet, but that might cause validity problems, too. I expect most paedophiles like the opportunity the internet's anonymity provides, i.e. the chance to talk to each other about their situation. Unfortunately, however, that very anonymity makes it almost impossible to verify that data gatered from such discussions isn't distorted, biased.

> If many different kinds of studies, using different kinds of operational definitions and measures consistently achieve similar, statistically significant results, then you can say that your findings are valid

True. The question is, like always, where to draw the line, i.e. how many different (kinds of) studies and operational definitions you need to be convinced. For me, it's also a question of how much sense a definition or measure makes. For instance, I read in a newspaper a notice about a study finding that parents lose on average 1.4 happiness units in their first year of parenthood compared with the years before. Mor than one third of them declared a loss of two or more happiness units. I instantly asked myself – and the article didn't answer that –, what are happiness units, what information do they give me, and, most importantly, how were those parents supposed to measure their own happiness in happiness units objectively?

> Unfortunately, I don't think there's much literature on causes and correlates of pedophilia, or not that I've read at least.

That's my impression, too. Current legislation makes research on this topic notedly difficult to conduct appropriately, though.

>>26336

I'm not >>26249 but less than one in a billion sounds like a rhetoric exaggeration to me: As many posters in this thread have already pointed out, it's sufficiently unlikely that OP will get into legal trouble – at least if he behaves sufficiently cool-headed.

>>26246

You have put into words a vague jumble of thoughts lingering in the back of my mind. I thank you.

>>26118

>pedophilia is moderately correlated with lower IQ

According to what study/studies?

>>26370

>What I wanted to get at is that convergence needs a lot of (independent, as far as possible) data, which usually isn't readily available.

Definitely true. Well…to a degree. Quality of sampling is better than quantity of sampling. While finding pedophiles and getting them to speak is going to be difficult in a society that ruthlessly vilifies them, I think the confidentiality of a properly conducted study might be good enough. Hell, jails might consider factoring in research participation in prison sentences for child molesters or something. It's an idea, at least.

> I instantly asked myself – and the article didn't answer that –, what are happiness units, what information do they give me, and, most importantly, how were those parents supposed to measure their own happiness in happiness units objectively?

Always a good question to ask. Unfortunately, popular media reporting of research is always going to be simplified and will always lack these details. The best way is to look at the article itself. If it's peer-reviewed, you can pretty much be safe taking it as valid. I think it's uncommon that researchers use a measure without establishing it's reliability/validity, either by referring to previous use, or by conducting their own analyses in the event that they're creating a new measure. You will never find this in a newspaper, though.

>>26497

I can't remember the exact study, but here are some which show structural abnormalities like decreased gray and white matter which could manifest as lower IQ. I can't remember the details, but you're free to check them out:

http://www.brainmap.org/pubs/Poeppl_HBM_15.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16876824 (cited in this summary: http://neuroanthropology.net/2010/05/10/inside-the-mind-of-a-pedophile/)

This talks about it, but doesn't cite. It might be in Cantor's research:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Pedophiles-Have-Different-Brain-Wiring-72285.shtml

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/06/science-explains-pedophiles-brain-video_n_4640067.html

This is a counterargument which provides some possible issues regarding the methodology used in a big study but then devolves into really dumb cherrypicking at the end and it seems like he doesn't understand the need for statistical analysis despite talking about sampling bias: http://egomoral.com/pedophiles-do-not-have-a-lower-iq/

He talks about handedness and shit being due to brain abnormalities but I'm not sure why pedophilia can't be attributed also to brain abnormalities. It could explain both. And along with correlations between homosexuality and lefthandedness and pedophilia, it could very well be that they're all rooted in similar biological abnormalities (in conjunction with environmental factors of course). IIRC, homosexuality is also correlated with brain structure abnormalities.

Looking over it, considering how many pedophiles are themselves abused as children, I wouldn't be surprised if childhood trauma and living conditions themselves also contributed to a lower IQ. I don't know if any of these studies factored that in. At any rate, it's definitely not a stretch.

>>26502

>>26370

Ah, also you talk about measuring happiness "objectively." It's fine if it's a subjective scale as long as it produces reliable results within a participants responses, between participants, and between studies. It's like a measure for pain. While they aren't objective, they're still useful and accurate (we tend to scale our pain similarly despite the subjectivity of experience). A good example of this at work is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits. I think at this point the five factor model has demonstrated its validity; It's so reliable I've even heard of it being asserted as "universal." Not perfect, of course, but nothing is. In the end it's all probabilistic. It's about how well we can make predictions.

>>26502

> Quality of sampling is better than quantity of sampling.

Depends on what you're going to do with the data. Google, for instance, is hoarding terabytes of user (and other) data. It's the only company in the world which has enough data to power a fifth-order Markov model translator service. On the other hand, Google Translator usually doesn't perform very well (especially with languages sufficiently different from English), but in my opinion that's rather due to their data-driven approach to modelling. I'd say a model that exploits the available data as best as possible is always able to outperform any model that would require data not available and therefore needs tons of other data to infer (with enough certainty) the information it would originally have needed.

> If it's peer-reviewed, you can pretty much be safe taking it as valid.

I don't want to create my own conspiracy theory, but peer-reviewed might mean they pay some willing scientists an obol to look over a paper, with these 'scientists' taking the money and just coasting. At least this made me think:

http://io9.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800

(They intended to produce an unreliable, invalid study, so I'm not sure whether they were good enough at forging it to fool the peer reviewers or whether the reviewers just didn't properly review it. The sixth paragraph suggests the latter.)

> I think it's uncommon that researchers use a measure without establishing it's reliability/validity, either by referring to previous use, or by conducting their own analyses in the event that they're creating a new measure. You will never find this in a newspaper, though.

It's certainly uncommon for scientists who know what they're doing and don't want to twit anyone. I'd like newspapers to explain concisely what exactly some study has found out, including its measuring setup, but it's admittedly difficult to explain this concisely, especially if the topic is particular or if you're a newsman who doesn't understand the study himself.

>>26504

> It's fine if it's a subjective scale as long as it produces reliable results within a participants responses, between participants, and between studies.

Depends. Scientific/empirical research needs to be objective. You can objectively measure subjective cues, but often you cannot measure the cues themselves objectively. For example, you can design Likert scales for something like love, but you cannot measure love directly. You can then derive statistical measures like the arithmetic mean etc., obtaining objective measurements of the subjective impression your test subjects have of love. If that subjective impression is what your study is about, it can be objective. If your study is about love itself, there's no way it could be objective when using the Likert scale.

For happiness, I'd say a subjective Likert scale is acceptable because we're talking about the subjective notion of happiness, but as long as you don't have any information about the scale (like, was it from 1 to 10 or from 1 to 100 etc.) the numbers are meaningless. That's also why I dislike the wording that the parents declared a loss of happiness themselves: It reveals (if it's true) that the test subjects were given the opportunity to directly supply the data which are the core of the study's findings. A study can also gain objectivity from separating the data-collection process as much as possible from the conclusion-finding process. For instance, they could have had the subjects declare their happiness (not the loss of it) on some Likert scale and later deduced the loss of happiness by subtraction.

Now, I think I've forgotten to say something I wanted to say, but I don't know anymore.

>>26502

>believing any study about pedophiles.

ahahahahaha.

>>26246

I wasn't so sure before, but that's honestly a good explanation/point. I already agreed with the argument of lolita and real child attraction being two different things, but the way you worded it before just confused me initially.

I wish more people could understand it like that tbh, so that I wouldn't have to hide all my loli shit from my semi normie friends.

>>26525

This. I mean, let's say you're doing a study about, say, the effects of zucchini on diabetes, and you come up with a surprising bit of evidence… people who eat zucchini seem to have less diabetes! Even when you control for every other aspect you can think of! Now, you might want to check some more to be sure, but you'll follow up and maybe publish.

Now let's say you're studying pedophilia. And, surprise, you come up with a surprising result: sex with kids is actually harmless or even beneficial if force or threats or blackmail type coersion isn't involved, and they feel like they can back out at any time (I'm not saying this actually is the case, before you jump all over me, I'm just saying you're a scientist and that's the seeming result of the data set). Or maybe that pedos are on the whole smarter than everybody else. You instantly realize that if you reveal these results, you're going to be accused of being a pedo sympathizer. Even if you're completely 100% right, people will still accuse you of being a moral reprobate just because of the data, and other scientists will jump to publish studies discrediting you. So maybe you fudge the numbers, or decide not to release. You could be wrong, after all. And even if you're not, you're not sure it couldn't be an excuse for the more violent pedos would use and so releasing the study would do more harm than good. And maybe, when you went into the study, you went in hating pedos, so you think "no, that's not possible, I made a mistake somewhere… you know what, I'm going to toss this out!"

I mean, this is a world where a simple paycheck can convince scientists to release data that supports whatever their employer wants it to say, and I know I personally wouldn't believe a report about how smoking is healthy from the cigarette companies… now imagine if it's not an employer forcing your hand, but the fear of everybody thinking you're the scum of the earth (including your employer who might fire you just to keep the peace)? I wouldn't trust their studies either.

No other field is so emotionally charged, and all in one direction, than this. As such, evidence about it can't REALLY be trusted to the degree other science is, at least until we completely destigmatize, not the act itself, but doing things that can be seen to support it.

>>26556

While you're making valid points, I think you're mixing something up. There is, on the one hand, the issue of bribable scientists. Which is an important issue around science, important because problematic. You're of course right that we shouldn't trust a study whose main sponsor is the tobacco industry. The question of the independence of science is a generally much bigger issue, but that's not the matter here.

On the other hand, there's the issue of scientists who disbelieve their own findings or fear unpleasant consequences – or both. The better ones of the former category do publish, but already say in their publication that they think their data or interpretation must be flawed, even if they cannot explain why. (That offers others the opportunity to find an explanation.) As for the latter category, we're not living in some kind of weird dictatorship which inhibits science. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean freedom of speech is an easy thing. Noam Chomsky once said that the US provided one of the highest levels of freedom of speech in the world, nevertheless facing an overwhelming amount of voluntary conformity. Scientists who give themselves up to voluntary conformity are an evil, but if it were many, we'd have to worry about science in general. Almost any of the great scientific ideas that led to the fundamentals of our current knowledge were believed wrong the time they got brought up. There is no real reason why a scientist should conduct research on paedophilia if he has made up his mind beforehand, and a scientist who fears that publishing his non-conformable findings may be bad for him needn't publish at all. (Maybe he needs to because of monetary reasons, but then if he wasn't prepared to publish uncomfortable findings he should have been wise enough to choose a less controversial topic.)

Hence, while you shouldn't believe any study denouncing paedos, why shouldn't you believe those in favour of them?

>>26524

More data is almost always going to be better so long as the results are accurate, but they rarely are. Most researchers get rid of outliers and "junk" responses under the assumption that they are, in fact, junk. Maybe they aren't sometimes, but that depends on the purpose of the study. I think beyond that anything else we could say is just truisms. 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.

>http://io9.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800

I skimmed it and I saw that he decided to skip the peer-review and for good reason. It's totally bunk. It's hard to beat the peer-review. They need to be approved, and then constantly checked up on by the IRB. That doesn't mean that some don't get by. The whole issue with "vaccines cause autism" is due to a single guy falsifying data for money. He's since lost his job and the article has been pulled; he won't be doing research anymore. Instead he now parades around with dumb (and rich) bitches spreading nonsense. This stuff works on popular media and the general public. That's exactly why peer-reviewed research is the thing you trust instead of that. It's not perfect, but the fact that it was detected quickly and rectified is better than nothing at all.

I think a more valid criticism of research is that it seeks to support itself more often than not. Researchers are biased in what they choose to research, how they research it, and how they interpret it.

>I'd like newspapers to explain concisely

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

>For happiness, I'd say a subjective Likert scale is acceptable because we're talking about the subjective notion of happiness

AFAIK there are at least a couple fairly established happiness scales. I think both are Likert.

>>26525

What else is there to believe? Nonsensical ramblings on 8ch?

>>26556

>Even if you're completely 100% right, people will still accuse you of being a moral reprobate just because of the data, and other scientists will jump to publish studies discrediting you

To counter that hypothetical, what if there are a bunch of secret pedophile researchers that are happy to support you? There's already research that you could describe as "pedophile apologism." I think this is a step forward from irrational hatred. You will not get to "kiddy fucking is a-okay" in a day. Actually, you probably won't ever get to that point considering what we know about child development and their capacity for reasoning. Kids are really, really stupid. Not-fucking is just one thing out of a long list of things we don't want kids to do. Driving is another.

>if force or threats or blackmail type coersion isn't involved

That's a really big "if" and it's one that we wouldn't be able to properly regulate (private spaces and all). If it happens it's already too late. On the other hand, guns are legal under this idea that "it's okay as long as you don't shoot innocent people" and here innocent people are getting shot on the regular.

>No other field is so emotionally charged, and all in one direction, than this. As such, evidence about it can't REALLY be trusted to the degree other science is

That's silly. Evolution was an incredibly controversial concept in its day since it turned all these assumptions about humanity around. It still is! Researchers can't help but be invested in their research, but that doesn't make it worthless. For every guy trying to prove something, there are shit tons trying to disprove him and one-up him. There are checks in place, and again, with more research comes a convergence that would show you the general trends despite the bias.

It doesn't make sense to deny an entire field's work just because it isn't as old and it's assumptions haven't been so firmly rooted in "fact." But the truth is, even in an established "hard science" like physics, the assumptions that we take as facts are just that, assumptions. We find evidence to support our theories and we continue to use them, but it's not like alternatives don't exist. Every researcher wants to be right.

The evidence should be the ONLY thing you trust, because unlike everything else in life, it's actually undergone some sort of system to ensure its validity. It would be like the only time you don't trust it is when you want to avoid what it's saying, like how fundamentalists don't trust evolution or biology or whatever they disagree with.

>>26609

>To counter that hypothetical, what if there are a bunch of secret pedophile researchers that are happy to support you?

Said secret pedophile researchers would have to be also willing to stick their necks out and be accused. Look how much trouble it is just for people to host a loli site

>There's already research that you could describe as "pedophile apologism."

Exactly. And every time it appears, that's exactly the accusation. I've seen it before.

>>if force or threats or blackmail type coersion isn't involved

>That's a really big "if" and it's one that we wouldn't be able to properly regulate (private spaces and all). If it happens it's already too late.

Thank you for brilliantly illustrating the mindset I'm talking about, the person who decides fro homself "the truth isn't as important as what might happen if people believe the truth." Even in this wholly hypothetical situation that I explained that I wasn't arguing was true at all, you jump in to point out how that could still be a problem.

>That's silly. Evolution was an incredibly controversial concept in its day since it turned all these assumptions about humanity around.

Not nearly the same thing. People dramatize it a lot worse than it was. Sure, it was controversial, but it also came about in a time where a climate of "the truth is everything" began to prevail in science, coming out of the age of Enlightenment. It wasn't like we lived in a theocracy - the ideas were controversial, but the climate was ripe for those kind of controversial ideas, and for any chunk of people against evolution, you had an equally respectable chunk of people for it. In this case, you've got virtually nobody willing to take the other side, and when somebody does release studies that do, the media jumps on them and they get accused of pedo apologism.

That's not an environment for finding the truth. And of course, you have the usual problems of selection bias (the children and pedophiles you study are most likely going to be the most damaged and most damaging)… it can be factored out, yes, to a degree, but in the factoring out you're adding another area where people's personal biases can influence things.

The only field that might come close to this is racial characteristics in biology, where anyone who suggests that racial groups inherently different levels of intelligence or other ability tends to get labelled a racist and ignored. I'm not skilled enough in the field to know how accurate the science is, but I at least know that's an environment where science doesn't do it's best.

>but that doesn't make it worthless

Here we agree. I didn't say worthless (though I can see how you might think that I think so, I did initially launch my post by replying to one that was more completely dismissive, and didn't sufficiently clarify my own position… my bad), but I do believe you shouldn't completely trust it, you should keep the biases in mind, and be more sympathetic and open-minded to studies that provide data that contradicts the popular narrative rather than dismissing it as pedo apologism. Because when you get a study that confirms that narrative, people aren't going to look that deeply at potential methodological flaws, sampling errors, small sample sets. Because it confirms what we already know… they're just going to hold up the study as "yet another study that proves what we're saying!" (I wish I could remember what it was, but there was an unrelated field where some deeply held truths were unquestioned for decades and somebody recently, finally went back and realized the methodology was all wrong, but because it confirmed what most people tended to think anyway, nobody actually followed up). 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.

feign ignorance

>>25628

Just say you got the list off the internet searching for pop-techno songs, the name of the group sounded german so you didn't really look into it any deeper than that.

>>26615

Have you read the philosopher of biology Philip Kitcher's book Science, Truth, and Democracy?

It has a disturbing section on how scientists shouldn't pursue research that could have socially 'disruptive' or 'harmful' implications.

The general context was racial genetics and biological differences between genders, but I could see how it would apply to studies of female sexual attractiveness at different ages.

>>26615

>Exactly. And every time it appears, that's exactly the accusation. I've seen it before.

It's still early in the game and people aren't used to being contradicted like that. It's changing the way we look at pedophilia, and in a direction that I think is for the better. Sympathy rather than hate.

>Thank you for brilliantly illustrating the mindset I'm talking about, the person who decides fro homself "the truth isn't as important as what might happen if people believe the truth." Even in this wholly hypothetical situation that I explained that I wasn't arguing was true at all, you jump in to point out how that could still be a problem.

I have no clue what you're trying to say here. I was pointing out that all those qualifiers you have to add makes the whole issue suspect. Your whole hypothetical was absurd to begin with. There's no way to test what you're talking about in your hypothetical so it's pointless to even discuss it. But even so I made it a point about the precautionary principle and why, even if i ran with this impossible hypothetical it would not be allowed in social policy. Maybe I should've ignored it…

>In this case, you've got virtually nobody willing to take the other side, and when somebody does release studies that do, the media jumps on them and they get accused of pedo apologism.

You're begging the question. As soon as public notions change to sympathy, I'm sure there will be people to take up for pedos. The only problem is that it takes a long time. Look to any civil rights struggle for comparison.

>The only field that might come close to this is racial characteristics in biology, where anyone who suggests that racial groups inherently different levels of intelligence or other ability tends to get labelled a racist and ignored.

Racist research was the norm until recently. The people pushing these differences are labeled racists because most of them ARE racists who don't know proper methodology. They got to enjoy their time not being ignored for over a century doing really bad science. Thankfully scientific rigor has improved in that time.

If you want a better environment for finding the truth, then you should encourage the things that allow us to discuss it. Until now, people just hated pedophiles. Now at least they're treated as "sick." It's not where I want it to be. I think it should be fine to be a pedophile, because being a pedophile and being a rapist are two different things. I hate when people treat them the same.

I will say that I don't think future research will point the way of your hypothetical. I think what we know so far points in the opposite direction. I'm also saying that when you talk about "the truth," this is what it might be.

>Because when you get a study that confirms that narrative, people aren't going to look that deeply at potential methodological flaws, sampling errors, small sample sets. Because it confirms what we already know… they're just going to hold up the study as "yet another study that proves what we're saying!"

This was the central issue with racial differences studies. I don't know if I mentioned it, but a big problem with science is that it seeks to prove itself. You've brought it up here. Still, in the long run it's a system that DOES work as has been demonstrated time and time again.

Also, what we're finding out about pedophilia now are not supporting common assumptions. 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).

>>26641

I have not, but I do think I've seen it cited in an article I've read that was talking about studying biological differences (point-counterpoint stuff).

Studying anything should be fair game, but then again, some stuff has been so beaten to death you should really leave it alone. Racial genetics stuff is one of them. The fact of the matter is that people within a race are more genetically different than between races. Couple that with the fact that "race" is an extremely antiquated and fabricated construct and it makes the whole direction pretty worthless for study. The only time race comes into play is when it deals with the social consequence of race (i.e. "race" as a widely-held social belief). 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.

Yes I can see how it applies to pedo stuff, but you have people doing the research right now and it's still a pretty recent field as opposed to race/sex research.

>>26701

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

but that's wrong fagtron

>>26727

But that's right, Luddite. A sample of individuals from within a "race" will show greater genetic variance than a sample of individuals from a mixed population.

Also, two random seemingly identical fruit flies will have a greater genetic difference than you and a person of another race.

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.

>>26745

You're misquoting Lewontin.

In any case, there is significant genetic distance between geographically distant populations, unique mutations that extend far beyond skin, hair, and eye color, and nigs persist in nigging wherever you go.

>>26750

Having grown up in the South, I can tell you, white trash nigs right up there with actual nigs.

>>26757

Everybody there is retarded. I don't know if it's the humidity or what.

>>25685

>Unteralterbach

>What the fucking hell is this shit

A game where you fuck children, are you paying atention?

>>26758

It's the result of making ignorance a point of cultural pride.

>>26758

Maybe in what ever inbred back woods area you grew up in.

>>26762

That's the niggers you're talking about. Just look at the news, they make head lines every day based off of their ignorance and (lack of) cultural pride.

>>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.