FTaPnTDXwAIBilK.jpeg

i wonder how many % of pedos are gay

@fluffy at least half

@Terry @fluffy Heterosexual men show up as about 40% pedophiles from phalometric studies, so that's wrong

I think even mainstream sources like the DSM5 put the estimate of the total population to more than 2x the amount of gays

is this using some weird fucking definition of pedo

@fluffy @Terry @applejack
ya they show someone in prison for life a naughty little girl pic and if they get a bonner then they're pedo. kinda silly considering reproducing at a younger age had been normal through most of human history in most of the world. would make more sense to look at convicted pedos since theyve committed the crime.

just wondering where they draw the line at pedo. got a link to the study so i can read it and find out?

wondering if it's, pre-puberty, or pre-18yo, or something else entirely.

@fluffy @Terry @Dave Ok, I misremembered, it's like 20-30
27.7% (Firestone et al. 2000)
14.3% (Marshall et al. 1986)
18.3% (Fedora et al. 1992)
19.4% (Freund et al. 1991)
25% (Seto et al. 2000)

@applejack @fluffy @Terry @Dave See this, he's citing these papers, he hasn't read these papers. The debate script says to cite them. I have read these papers; he can't even give the titles because he doesn't have them.

it's not too uncommon to only put author and date. i don't like it but i see it all the time

@fluffy @applejack @Terry @Dave

> it's not too uncommon to only put author and date

If you are citing inline and you have a bibliography, yes. He couldn't even name the papers, though, because these are opaque instructions in a retarded debate script: "If they say this, say this name and this year and this percentage."

It's actually the opposite. I might say casually, "Pistolero in his 2022 paper wrote about xyz". That's essentially always enough. Spoken language is not too different a situation from what's going on in these fediverse posts, and probably a better analogue than a formal paper.

anyway, he posted the titles later on. i'll add it to my reading list, and we'll learn how true it is. it's a pretty outlandish claim but my image of ordinary people has been shocked so many times at this point that if someone told me most people worship satan i wouldn't discard it offhand.

@fluffy @Terry @applejack @Dave

> I might say casually, "Pistolero in his 2022 paper wrote about xyz".

If that happens, you could be expected to have read it. If someone asks you for the title, you should be able to say what the name of the paper was or provide a copy. The guy is a bot, he has not read any of this.

> i'll add it to my reading list, and we'll learn how true it is.

Let me know if you want the actual papers. He has posted a PDF of an essay from IPCE. He has not seen the primary source. He is reading a debate script.

>you could be expected to have read it.

it still shocks me that people will drop articles, books, papers, without having even read and understood them

there are guys who will talk about topics ad nauseum and all they know about it is they watched a show

it feels like blackface but about scholars