>>25876
>Your evidence for this is?
>m-muh evidence!
My evidence for this is the same (that) one may have if one had a murder-weapon planted on them and their hair on the scene.
Just a simple suspicion, that hey, maybe seeing as this guy has an alibi, or because the methods to come up with such results were outdated or outright invalid, or because of the test takers, there may just be something more to this investigation.
If you knew much about the guidelines that you're supposed to follow when conducting studies, or the methods they used in them and the science behind them, you'd understand why they aren't exactly evidence, at least evidence that points to the problem, such as the murderer in the case of the murder weapon.
>Rest
Awfully defensive and autistic.
Great job, m80.
>>25877
>It doesn't measure your fucking boner you idiot, it can detect minute changes in blood pressure.
I didn't say it did.
Again, if you knew the science behind it and how it is used, you'd know it is really not valid whatsoever.
And for your information, blood pressure indicates arousal to some extent, and blood pressure causes boners to some extent regardless, thus both arguments are correct to some degree, although the one you're projecting appears to be less developed.
>>25862
>James Cantor genuinely cares about paedophiles well being and his work.
How exactly?
From what I have seen it appears that he's just trying to be a friendly face to validate the same flawed bullshit they've pulled from prisons previously, just another "by the way pedos are literally sub-human" type of fellow.
>(identified through penile plethysmographs
As I said in my last two posts as well, these aren't very accurate or trustworthy and are generally meaningless, especially in the way it appears he conducted them.
There's a reason why they're not "admissible in court cases in the United States." If you want to know why, just look it up, even on wikipedia.
In short, it's very inaccurate and has almost no scientific basis for it being correct, and it can me manipulated easily, both by the test givers, and the test takers.
This is also not mentioning how the testing materials cited in >>25848 may incite erections/arousal in many non-pedos due to, quite simply, a power dynamic and/or the innocent destruction potential and/or the lack of sexual release in a patient.
It can also not incite erections in many pedos, like myself, or any sort of arousal due to not being as sexual as others, due to potential medicine/mood, due to not liking the situation, due to thinking of the situation in a bland intellectual way, etc.
It's really just not accurate no matter how you look at it, and there's huge holes in such a testing method, so much so that I, and many others, including scientific/law/etc, basically consider it a worthless trash test.
>So It is by far the most reliable.
Not when the other tests used more accurate measuring tools.
>Yeah you're right not all paedophiles are technically mentally ill, but paedophilia is a mental illness when it causes distress which I expect it does for most people.
Does it cause distress because you like kids, or does it cause distress because you hate yourself and think you're a mistake? I never felt distress till I was suffocated in normie-hate and indoctrination. I just loved little girls.
That seems to be the case virtually always, if not literally always, as you wanting to cuddle a little girl and make them feel happy, and possibly rub your dickles on them, isn't some kind of mental illness. What is a mental illness is depression, self-hate, anxiety, etc, which is caused by how society is.
Which if you read what I quoted, it suggests that if society is to blame for some of the effects, or all, it may not be an illness at all.
I mean, tell me, did you naturally hate yourself, or think it's wrong to do things with kids sexually, or were you told that till you believed it?