Pedophiles of Sluthate AND Lookism (MRZ, Brian Peppers and many more!)

[Lurker]

@zrm

So out of curiosity. If you, god forbid, had a daughter of your own, you would be totally okay with disgusting pieces of shit like yourself having sex with her at 14? Please, enlighten me. I mean, this is all hypothetical, of course, because it's obvious you have never gotten laid, and never will, but just humor me.

 

[zrm]

If they have rape fantasy's but understand that rape itself is wrong then I would be more sympathetic.

Spoiler: tl;dr

You yourself said women are conditioned genetically by evolution to want to be raped so why exactly aren't you acting on your desires to rape them? Do you even understand how stupid the phrase "want to be raped" even is? Rape is not consensual therefore they cannot want it.

Spoiler: tl;dr

You are not arguing against me. See I do have rape fantasy but realize rape is wrong and wouldn't ever rape anyone, that is what I've said the entire time. I also know that cognitively females overwhelmingly don't really want to be raped, that is just as obvious as it gets. The problem here is that English doesn't really to my knowledge have two "want" words, one for cognitive and one for affective. I'm borrowing from language used in academic discussions of empathy here, but I think it is a proper use of the language.

Here are the definitions from discussions of empathy

http://blog.teleosleaders.com/2013/07/19/emotional-empathy-and-cognitive-empathy/ (sorry it isn't a pdf, not going to bother digging up an academic study for you)

Emotional empathy, also called affective empathy or primitive empathy, is the subjective state resulting from emotional contagion. It is our automatic drive to respond appropriately to another’s emotions. This kind of empathy happens automatically, and often unconsciously. It has also been referred to as the vicarious sharing of emotions.

Cognitive empathy is the largely conscious drive to recognize accurately and understand another’s emotional state. Sometimes we call this kind of empathy “perspective taking.”

See, affect is something that is kind of beyond your control. It's your intrinsic emotional response to something, and is more primitive than cognition. Cognition is your conscious thought process, the things you think, the beliefs you have, etc. These systems often are not in synch with each other, with actually leads to state called cognitive dissonance.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cognitive dissonance

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE: psychological conflict resulting from simultaneously held incongruous beliefs and attitudes (as a fondness for smoking and a belief that it is harmful)

Unfortunately English has this word want, which is a desire for something, but it doesn't specify if the desire is cognitive or affective. Females (many of them anyway) want to be raped in the affective sense, it is a primitive emotional desire. Cognitively they do not want to be raped. The overwhelming majority of females are not even cognitively aware that it can be evolutionarily advantageous for them to be raped by high quality males. The females affect was coded by evolution though, and it is well aware of this fact, and this manifests itself as rape fantasies being very prevalent in female populations. So females often do want to be raped, but only affectively not cognitively.

In the same fashion, I affectively want to rape people and be generally sexually coercive, but cognitively I actually don't want to rape people and even wish I hadn't the affective desire to do so (as it is inconvenient).

 

[EI 903]

Challenge for our Kiwi detectives- find one post from one of the Sluthate pedos that indicates that they have a normal human relationship with anyone IRL.

 

[Wizzrobe]

Challenge for our Kiwi detectives- find one post from one of the Sluthate pedos that indicates that they have a normal human relationship with anyone IRL.

That's like trying to find a needle in a haystack tbh!

 

[Zach_Kun]

Challenge for our Kiwi detectives- find one post from one of the Sluthate pedos that indicates that they have a normal human relationship with anyone IRL.

Are you serious? That's near impossible. Why would anyone have a relationship with a child molester?

 

[EI 903]

Are you serious? That's near impossible. Why would anyone have a relationship with a child molester?

Doesn't have to be romantic. Can be a healthy relationship with friends, or even family.

 

[Lurker]

Doesn't have to be romantic. Can be a healthy relationship with friends, or even family.

Well, I mean, maybe they all have "healthy" relationships with their mothers.

You know, like Holden.

 

[Chipmunk With A Banana]

Brian Peppers? As in THE Brian Peppers? I thought that mutant died years ago.

 

[The Dude]

I'm not going to read through this garbage as frankly I don't need to subject my mind to toxic people trying to defend being pedophiles. All I want to say is I support the execution of every single pedophile and child molester in the world, including those that simply look at CP or JB. Y'all fuckers are sick, broken people and have no business being on this planet.

 

[sugoi-chan]

Brian Peppers? As in THE Brian Peppers? I thought that mutant died years ago.

I knew that name sounded familiar.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/brian-peppers

 

[zrm]

The two points you make are only valid if we take your word on the two statements above.

Citation needed.

Spoiler: rambling bs

I already provided a citation for legalized CP viewing resulting in decreased child molestation rates. This was observed in Japan, Denmark, and the Czech Republic.

https://www.springer.com/about+springer/media/springer+select?SGWID=0-11001-6-1042321-0

Could making child pornography legal lead to lower rates of child sex abuse? It could well do, according to a new study by Milton Diamond, from the University of Hawaii, and colleagues.
Results from the Czech Republic showed, as seen everywhere else studied (Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sweden, USA), that rape and other sex crimes have not increased following the legalization and wide availability of pornography. And most significantly, the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen considerably since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible – a phenomenon also seen in Denmark and Japan. Their findings are published online today in Springer’s journal Archives of Sexual Behavior.
The findings support the theory that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children.

Male rape prevalence, well let's see a quickly accessible citation is simply the percentage of males that claim they would rape if they could get away with it:

http://feministing.com/2015/01/12/s...en-would-rape-if-they-could-get-away-with-it/

According to the survey, which analyzed responses from 73 men attending the same college, 31.7 percent of participants said they would act on “intentions to force a woman to sexual intercourse” if they were confident they could get away with it. When asked whether they would act on “intentions to rape a woman” with the same assurances they wouldn’t face consequences, just 13.6 percent of participants agreed.

This is obviously a low quality citation though. These studies are also highly controversial, though ironically supported by feminists (who I typically don't care for).

A better higher quality citation is this:

KEVIN M. WILLIAMS, BARRY S. COOPER, TERESA M. HOWELL, JOHN C. YUILLE, DELROY L. PAULHUS, “INFERRING SEXUALLY DEVIANT BEHAVIOR FROM CORRESPONDING FANTASIES,” CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 36 No. 2, February 2009 198-222


a copy of which is available here: http://www.researchgate.net/profile...onsumption/links/0046351eff3d87021b000000.pdf

The results of this study (carried out in two parts with two sample sizes) showed that between 65 and 68 percent of males polled (from sample sizes of 103 and 88, selected due to being male students in a class at a university) fantasized about sexually assaulting females, whereas 20 to 25 percent of the students had sexually assaulted a female. Additionally, 72 to 76 percent of them had fantasized about frotteurism, which is the act of rubbing your penis on a non-consenting individual (strangely separated from sexual assault), whereas 42 to 44 percent of them engaged in the behavior.


Also here is a chart that compares the findings of studies on percentages of males engaged in sexually coercive behaviors versus the percentages of CP offenders who have contact offenses.

 

[Jaimas]

Women (at least the likely majority of them, not all of them though) only affectively like rape. It was genetically encoded into them by evolution. Cognitively they don't want to be raped at all. This mirrors my situation, affectively I like rape because it was genetically encoded into me by evolution, but cognitively I don't want to rape at all. I imagine this is the situation for many males actually, they just repress it, or use other defense mechanisms to deny it. I don't even care though, I don't need to deny I have rape instinct because it doesn't really make me feel bad or anything, like I'd rather not have it, but I don't feel shame for it, I just won't act on it and it shouldn't matter at all to anyone. I don't know why you want to pretend that things matter when they don't, ironically all of this moral puritanism and denial and construction of false matrix realities leads to more harm than it prevents, and makes people feel bad when they haven't any reason to (I don't though).

Spoiler

Why don't you have a seat. Your parents and this fine gentlemen are very disappointed in you.

 

[Lurker]

I already provided a citation for legalized CP viewing resulting in decreased child molestation rates. This was observed in Japan, Denmark, and the Czech Republic.

https://www.springer.com/about+springer/media/springer+select?SGWID=0-11001-6-1042321-0



Male rape prevalence, well let's see a quickly accessible citation is simply the percentage of males that claim they would rape if they could get away with it:

http://feministing.com/2015/01/12/s...en-would-rape-if-they-could-get-away-with-it/



This is obviously a low quality citation though. These studies are also highly controversial, though ironically supported by feminists (who I typically don't care for).

A better higher quality citation is this:

KEVIN M. WILLIAMS, BARRY S. COOPER, TERESA M. HOWELL, JOHN C. YUILLE, DELROY L. PAULHUS, “INFERRING SEXUALLY DEVIANT BEHAVIOR FROM CORRESPONDING FANTASIES,” CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 36 No. 2, February 2009 198-222


a copy of which is available here: http://www.researchgate.net/profile...onsumption/links/0046351eff3d87021b000000.pdf

The results of this study (carried out in two parts with two sample sizes) showed that between 65 and 68 percent of males polled (from sample sizes of of 103 and 88, selected due to being male students in a class at a university) fantasized about sexually assaulting females, whereas 20 to 25 percent of the students had sexually assaulted a female. Additionally, 72 to 76 percent of them had fantasized about frotteurism, which is the act of rubbing your penis on a non-consenting individual (strangely separated from sexual assault), whereas 42 to 44 percent of them engaged in the behavior.


Also here is a chart that compares the findings of studies on percentages of males engaged in sexually coercive behaviors versus the percentages of CP offenders who have contact offenses.

Have you ever actually been to college? Do you know what a "peer-reviewed source" is? Because I don't think you do. None of your sources have been credible. Therefore, I have to assume that you are an uneducated pseudo-intellectual pedophile who tries to justify his pedophilia by repeating what other pedophiles and pedophile enablers say.

Edit: Ah, and do you actually know how to interpret peer-reviewed articles correctly? I don't think you do.

 

[zrm]

Have you ever actually been to college? Do you know what a "peer-reviewed source" is? Because I don't think you do. None of your sources have been credible. Therefore, I have to assume that you are an uneducated pseudo-intellectual pedophile who tries to justify his pedophilia by repeating what other pedophiles and pedophile enablers say.

Uhm, you don't respect the journal of criminal justice and behavior, or whichever journal professor Milton Diamond published the results of his research in?

See, no matter what I say and no matter what I give citations to, you will just try to find some excuse to say I'm a degenerate pedophile and should be beaten to a pulp and then executed blah blah blah. You seriously have absolutely zero interest in hearing anything that even slightly goes against your preconceived notions.

 

[Lurker]

Uhm, you don't respect the journal of criminal justice and behavior, or whichever journal professor Milton Diamond published the results of his research in?

See, no matter what I say and no matter what I give citations to, you will just try to find some excuse to say I'm a degenerate pedophile and should be beaten to a pulp and then executed blah blah blah. You seriously have absolutely zero interest in hearing anything that even slightly goes against your preconceived notions.

I don't respect the interpretations of a pedophile when it comes to peer-reviewed sources.

And yeah, you are a pedophile, and you should be beaten to a bloody pulp. And you still didn't answer my fucking question, by the way. Better hop to it.

 

[sugoi-chan]

you will just try to find some excuse to say I'm a degenerate pedophile

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and cites flimsy studies to justify their predilections like a duck...

 

[skeletonfucker]

See, no matter what I say and no matter what I give citations to, you will just try to find some excuse to say I'm a degenerate pedophile and should be beaten to a pulp and then executed blah blah blah.

I think we have a pretty damn good reason for thinking like that, just saying.

 

[Orthodox Chrischanity]

https://www.springer.com/about+springer/media/springer+select?SGWID=0-11001-6-1042321-0

While Springer is a decent platform to start research, you often have to go beyond just that one article.

I noticed it only has a single reference listed on that page. One. Now I could dig up the article and check its citation pages, but I am already disappointed.

I dug up the one about womens' rape fantasies. It's obvious you didn't read the whole thing. Sure, we could sit here and pick apart the "science" in the paper, but I still think it more condemns your position than supports it.

 

[zrm]

I don't respect the interpretations of a pedophile when it comes to peer-reviewed sources.

And yeah, you are a pedophile, and you should be beaten to a bloody pulp. And you still didn't answer my fucking question, by the way. Better hop to it.

I'm not a pedophile according to any major diagnostic association. The mental health community of the USA actually explicitly rejected the notion that I'm a pedophile or that my chronophilia is indicative of any mental illness. Also there is a substantial probability that we have similar chronophilias as revealed by the phallometric penile response studies carried out in Czechoslovakia, and many others.

http://www.researchgate.net/profile...textuality/links/540738350cf2bba34c1e948e.pdf

In a subsequent study, Freund confirmed the normalcy of sexual arousal to
adolescents. His subjects were 48 young Czech soldiers, all presumed to be ‘‘normal’’
and heterosexual in orientation. He showed the men pictures of children (ages 4–10
years old), adolescents (ages 12–16), and adults (ages 17–36). As expected, most of the
heterosexual men were sexually aroused by photos of both adult and adolescent
females. They were not aroused by pictures of males of any age, and were aroused at an
intermediate level by pictures of children (Freund & Costell, 1970).
This unsurprising tendency of normal heterosexual men to be sexually aroused by
adolescents was confirmed by other researchers. Like Freund, a group of researchers in
Canada was attempting to perfect physiological tools for measuring sexual arousal.
These researchers found that their instruments could distinguish between the arousal
patterns of child molesters and a control group exposed to slides of female children
(ages 5–11), but both groups showed similar arousal patterns to slides of pubescent girls
(ages 12–15) (Quinsey, Steinman, Bergerson, & Holmes, 1975)

While Springer is a decent platform to start research, you often have to go beyond just that one article.

I noticed it only has a single reference listed on that page. One. Now I could dig up the article and check its citation pages, but I am already disappointed.

I dug up the one about womens' rape fantasies. It's obvious you didn't read the whole thing. Sure, we could sit here and pick apart the "science" in the paper, but I still think it more condemns your position than supports it.

This isn't even worth arguing about. I already provided multiple sources for the high prevalence of rape fantasies in females. It's a well known fact that rape fantasies are extremely common in females. If you want to counter my claim please feel free to do so with a citation, but as it stands I've provided two citations, not to mention this is just common fucking knowledge lmao.

 

[c-no]

While Springer is a decent platform to start research, you often have to go beyond just that one article.

I noticed it only has a single reference listed on that page. One. Now I could dig up the article and check its citation pages, but I am already disappointed.

Considering the whole citation and sources, having more than one would help this guy in proving his point. Then agian, it would be more than just one research done by some scientist from Hawaii. Who were the people from the Czech Republic and Japan who did this? Did this people have any credentials?