Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - kmfkewm

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 249
496
Security / Re: Warning: TorMail compromised, FreedomHosting founder arrested
« on: August 11, 2013, 06:20 am »
It is really just a matter of having a little bit of empathy and compromise. You hate pedophiles and although it isn't right for you to do so, since they are not all child molesters, it is understandable why you do, because you cannot help but think with emotions any more than a pedophile can help that they are attracted to children. Pedophiles should not be assumed as child molesters and treated as such just because they might abuse kids, any more than men should be assumed as rapists and treated as such because they might rape females. Pedophiles need some outlet for their sexual feelings, and they cannot have sex with kids because it will hurt the kids and is bad. They are unlikely to resist looking at child pornography, just as a man who does not obtain sex is likely to use adult pornography as an outlet. The police and society take advantage of this to essentially make it illegal for them to even exist, technically there is no law against pedophilia but there are laws against everything a pedophile does. It makes more sense to me to divide what they do into categories of if they hurt people or not, and only prevent them from doing things that hurt people. Nobody can seriously argue that looking at child porn causes the kids depicted to be revictimized again, that argument is saying that some photographs are magical and it is clearly just bullshit. The argument that looking at child porn causes more kids to be molested is dubious and contested by many researchers and experts on the matter, some even claim that letting pedophiles look at pornography they like reduces their probability of molesting a kid. Sure you can find research in any direction, but I believe the researchers who say that it reduces the probability.

The only good argument against child porn is that it is an invasion of privacy for the child depicted, but I see that as just an unfortunate thing that is not so much the fault of the person viewing the material as it is the fault of the person distributing it and especially the fault of the person who made it in the first place. Go ahead and keep distribution illegal, and certainly make paying for it illegal, and beyond a doubt make creating it illegal, but to say that people can not look at the only pornography they find attractive because it depicts abuse, despite them having nothing to do with funding or distributing or causing the abuse by looking at the pictures of it, is just being full of hate and disgust for them. Laws against child porn have morphed from laws to protect child abuse from being funded into laws used to hunt down people with deviant fantasies, most of whom are not a risk to anybody and the vast majority of whom have never contributed to in any way the abuse of others. The law has changed from protecting children into policing the thoughts and desires of others. All you do by demonizing them for looking at pornography is give them more motivation to act out with a child, in either case they will be sex offenders for life and in many cases they get longer prison sentences for having viewed child porn than they would get for having sex with a child. Having 500 images of child porn is 500 different felony charges each of which can get you 5 years in prison, having sex with a single child will not leave you facing 2,500 years in jail. People should be happy for the pedophiles who only look at porn and do not abuse kids, and they should be glad that they control themselves and do not hurt people, instead of treating them like they are just the same as people molesting kids.

497
Security / Re: A warning about antivirus programs
« on: August 11, 2013, 05:57 am »
Quote from: astor on August 11, 2013, 05:52 am
Quote from: kmfkewm on June 19, 2013, 09:43 am
Quote
JS can't deliver malware without the user clicking Run in a dialog

Javascript can be used to deliver malware via browser exploits.

And once again how prescient that was.

In retrospect, this was the first remote execution vulnerability to be used against Tor users, it just wasn't as obvious because the people who got pwned copied the link into a regular browser.

Ironically, I used a disposable Win XP VM to look at and identify the malware in this case without getting pwned.

I have a contact who has been analyzing the malware, he tested it multiple times with Win XP and it was hit or miss in regards to if it worked or not. From an article I read from other hackers who analyzed it, some of it was specific to Windows 7, so on other versions of Windows it had a lower probability of actually working whereas on Windows 7 it had a high probability of working.

You really had to have the perfect storm of fuck ups to be compromised by this. Old version of Tor Browser, javascript enabled, on Windows and especially Windows 7, without isolation of the browser, without a VPN (although VPN would only help you somewhat), without firewall rules.

498
Security / Re: Do you trust the encryption and privacy of online cloud storage?
« on: August 11, 2013, 05:53 am »
It is too general of a question. The answer is that it depends on how they implemented it. I don't know how any of the cloud providers out there right now work, but I have read whitepapers on some cryptographically secure ones. The best designs use encrypted keyword search / private stream searching. Everything you upload to the cloud is encrypted client side, and you can retrieve it by searching for keywords, without the server being able to tell the keyword you are searching for or the encrypted file that you get from it. So that is pretty secure I think, although it still has some problems, unless files are padded they could possibly be fingerprinted based on their exact bitsize. I would in general suggest that you never store sensitive things on remote third party servers like that, but some of the whitepapers for cryptographically secure cloud storage look fairly solid to me.

499
Security / Re: BITMESSAGE should be the standard communications tool for S/R like TorMail was.
« on: August 11, 2013, 05:49 am »
Quote from: DefyCode on August 10, 2013, 10:38 pm
They are open source and the code looks very solid. Requesting an audit does not mean insecurity. It would be a great backup messaging source if SR goes down, and it certainly beats using clearnet email systems, passing pgp encrypted messages through the system would make it very secure. Their whitepaper is quite good on detailing how it functions.

But you know? You are right, it is still technically in beta and should only be used as back up and with pgp.

xoxo

I think you and I did not read the same whitepaper. BitMessage has all kinds of flaws it should be avoided.

500
Security / Re: A warning about antivirus programs
« on: August 11, 2013, 05:47 am »
Quote from: royalblue on June 19, 2013, 03:22 pm
Quote from: kmfkewm on June 19, 2013, 09:43 am
Quote
JS can't deliver malware without the user clicking Run in a dialog

Javascript can be used to deliver malware via browser exploits.
True, doesn't seem to be the case here though.

Doesn't seem to be the case where? It just happened to anybody who visited any site hosted by freedom hosting.

501
Security / Re: A warning about antivirus programs
« on: August 11, 2013, 05:46 am »
Quote
Quote
Quote
JS can't deliver malware without the user clicking Run in a dialog

Javascript can be used to deliver malware via browser exploits.

Anything that actually modifies the state of the machine has the potential to be used as an exploit.  You don't always have to execute code or evaluate a script to get machine code loaded into main memory; just reading data from a site can be enough (i.e. buffer overrun kind of thing).  It's not likely, of course, but it's possible.  Whether you should worry about it or not depends on how badly you think they wanna catch you.

Do you make DPR look like Mother Theresa?  Then yeah, I'd start worrying about it.

Not the kingpin of several international child slavery organizations?  Eh, have a cup o' tea and relax a spell... :)

Apparently just visiting sites on the same server as CP is enough.

502
Security / Re: A little bit of SR history, or why kmf has been right all along
« on: August 10, 2013, 04:46 pm »
Quote
Actually, it was Bruce Campbell who said you were a schizophrenic, and dysphoric.  I also don't remember calling you a pedophile once.  I don't recall ever even using the word through your entire fail of a thread that got locked.  Of course, you're more than welcome to comb through and provide actual quotes of me saying these things, and not just random teen-mentality level attempts at insulting my intelligence by quoting things no one ever said once.

I made that thread so other threads would stop going off topic when everybody felt the need to express their disgust at people who look at CP and I felt the need to tell them that they are bigots and fucking retards. The thread got locked but I am sure DPR would have said it is fine to unlock it considering he posted in other CP debate threads in the past. Regardless I deleted the thread after concluding you are incapable of rational discourse as your brain is an emotional rather than thinking one.


Quote
I definitely called you an idiot, because you lack tact and you're not educated enough on the topic you were 'trying' to talk about.  Censorship.  You were trying to justify some self-proclaimed validity in using Child Pornography as the catalyst for your argument; stating that it should not be illegal to 'simply view' it, because you 'are not causing that person any harm yourself.' 

I know a lot about this, you just refuse to accept that I am correct and refuse to acknowledge the citations I have given. When pressed on it, you quote various unrelated things and act as if they give any credibility to your argument or are even anything against mine. This manifested itself when you posted some general anti adult pornography bullshit and also when you posted something about females having a sexual rebirth in their late age, and also in all kinds of other examples. Almost none of your quotes made any sense to be added, and I think you just had to post a lot of text to make it look like you had done some research and had some facts yourself. Anybody who read anything that you wrote in the other thread would see that you were just posting blocks of random hardly related at all bullshit and then acting as if it proved you were the victor.

Quote
Yes, you cited valid sources; namely Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_child_pornography_and_child_sexual_abuse#Views_on_the_relation_between_child_pornography_law_and_sexualization_of_children       <--in which everything you posted in your other thread and this one could have easily been copied and pasted from.

Nothing I posted came from wikipedia, all of it came from memory and hunting down old things I have read in the past when actually researching shit.

Quote
Regardless; the argument is over.  Mods said they let it go for 11 pages waiting for you to get to some kind of point; but that point never came.

That is not what the single mod who locked the thread said, he said he had to ask DPR if we are allowed to have threads debating CP, which I am pretty positive we are as DPR has posted in them in the past, but regardless I deleted the locked thread because I am done arguing with someone who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the fucking ground. I should have seen that you are nothing more than a troll from the moment you claimed that almost all child pornography is snuff.

Quote
Using CP in wake of all the drama surrounding it, as an example of censorship is complete bullshit.  Any number of things could be used to form a better argument; achieving perhaps the very personal freedoms you're arguing on behalf of.  But, you're not thinking about this 4th-dimentially Marty... you're attracting all the wrong attention.

CP being illegal is an excellent example of censorship.


Quote
Anyway, hopefully you take my advice and stop wearing your ass as a hat one of these days... I look forward to seeing you stick to what you actually know --Tor. And stop pretending to be the SR spokesperson of personal freedoms, using CHILD PORN as an example.  It harms children period.

Viewing child porn does not harm children, period, end of story, game over. I know facts about CP and ages of development, I have read probably a hundred different documents and other things related to this, which is why I was able to flood you with citations and cause you to start posting random shit to make it look like you had done the same.

Quote
They make plenty of "barely legal" and animated shit to keep the creepers at bay; and some of those girls look 15-16(and are 18-22).  Perfectly fine, legal, consenting adults- and fucking pixels(literally).  There's no valid argument 'for' ACTUAL CP.   
 
                                                      End of discussion.

No such thing as a fucking non consenting pixel people don't live in photographs Harry Potter was a god damn work of fiction, you fucking retard, end of story end of discussion game over you lose go fuck yourself.

503
Security / Re: A little bit of SR history, or why kmf has been right all along
« on: August 10, 2013, 04:36 pm »
Quote
More paedophile logic. Just about every unrepentant paedophile trots out this kind of bullshit. We're just ahead of our time - in the future everyone will wonder what the fuss was all about. Actually, you people who want to stop us raping children are actually depriving children of their human rights!

But I don't think people should be able to rape children and I think pedophilia is a mental disorder... I just don't think there should be laws against looking at pictures of anything. And I don't think pictures are magic.

Quote
Now, let's talk seriously.

Do you deny that there's a strong positive correlation between consuming child pornography and sexually abusing children?

I am aware that there is a large body of evidence showing that availability of child pornography negatively correlates with the rates of child abuse, many researchers say there is no enough evidence one way or another, and some government groups that are funded via arresting people for viewing CP say that there is a huge correlation (but they have been debunked). It continues to emerge in research that the groups that abuse children are very distinct from the groups that view child pornography, they have minimal overlap. This will become more and more common knowledge as time passes. Regardless of this, there is a strong correlation between being a rapist and being a male, this doesn't mean we should arrest all males because they might rape somebody at some point. 

Quote
Do you deny that the demand for child pornography results in children being sexually abused to satisfy that demand?

I don't deny that this has happened in the past, I do say that in modern times it happens next to not at all. There is essentially no remaining financial market for child pornography, and nobody is going to run out and molest children just because people want to see pictures of it. Furthermore, there are technical solutions that would allow people to view child pornography without any demand being identifiable, and yet when I bring these solutions up none of the crusaders think they change anything, which shows pretty plainly that the crusaders are actually not arguing that child porn viewing should be illegal because of demand, even though they ostensibly are. I already have given citations to Ph.D researchers who claim that there has been no empirical evidence inherently linking child pornography consumption to the production of child pornography. Furthermore, if there is demand for photographs of you cutting your dick off and jamming it up your asshole, are you going to fill the demand? I guess demand is not inherently linked to supply after all. Furthermore, I have no demand for pictures of you taking a shit, are you going to stop taking shits now?

Quote
But you aren't talking about animation, are you? You seem to think that because you only jerk off to video of someone raping a child means you've done no harm. Wrong. Once you possess images of children being sexually assaulted, you become an accessory to that crime. Not being directly responsible for harming someone doesn't make you innocent.

And this is bullshit. What is the difference between pictures of a child being raped and pictures of the holocaust? There is no difference. You are attributing magical properties to pictures of child molestation. It is insane to think that someone is an accessory to a crime simply because they looked at pictures of the crime, end of story.

Quote
Let's say someone breaks into your house and steals your TV. Then they sell that TV to me. I know the TV has been stolen and I buy it anyway. According to your logic, I am totally in the clear and have done nothing wrong. Do you agree that I have done nothing wrong in purchasing your TV, which I knew to be stolen?

You funded theft. Someone who views a picture of child molestation has not caused child molestation. I already said it should be illegal to pay for pictures of child pornography.

Let's say you want a certain job, and you compete with someone else for it. Someone who you do not know brutally murders the person who was your competition, and now you got the job. Are you an accessory to murder because you benefited from the murder?

504
Security / Re: A little bit of SR history, or why kmf has been right all along
« on: August 10, 2013, 03:00 pm »
Quote from: metacontxt on August 10, 2013, 02:45 pm
Quote
I said nothing but factual statements
Oh you want to play it that way? OK, let's deconstruct.

I mean, when I say two factual statements and you say I have pedophile logic because of it, the only conclusion I can come to is that you think pedophile logic is solid and based on facts. So I guess that means you are a pedophile ?

I mean, I know what pedophile logic is. I know I don't have pedophile logic.
 
Quote
Quote
CP is legal to possess in half of the world

So?

So the original poster I replied to said

Quote

Have you never read any of Kmfkewm's posts about CP and "how it will be legal" and "doesn't hurt anybody" and how "a 14 year old should be able to fuck a 40 year old"?  :-\

and I pointed out that the "will" in "how it will be legal" is a bit misleading, in that it already is legal in half of the world. Does that explain it well enough for you, or would you like to be foam at the mouth some more?

Quote
Quote
fucking 14 year olds is legal in several countries as well?

So?

So I was pointing out that in many countries it is already legal for a 14 year old to fuck a 40 year old, I thought it was pretty self explanatory but clearly you are a little on the slow side.

Quote
Quote
Fucking 14 year olds was legal in Canada until a few years ago

So?

So before the imperialist US pressured Canda to raise their age of consent they already had an age of consent at 14. Many other countries still do. I am just pointing out that, like, it isn't so unthinkable to have an age of consent at 14, considering several countries do, and even a neighboring country of the US had such an age of consent. Have I clarified that well enough for you yet ?

Quote
For argument's sake, I'm happy to accept that these are indeed facts. And in your sick world I have no doubt they are irrefutable rebuttals to someone accusing you of being a collector of child porn, as if that's a bad thing or something. That's where the paedophile logic comes in.

What? I don't understand dumbshit logic so I am not sure what you have even just said. Did anybody actually accuse me of being a child porn collector in this thread? I don't think so. I mean, I don't think being a CP collector is really is a bad thing, apparently you agree with me? Where exactly is the pedophile logic? Usually I hear them saying things like "5 year old kids love to be ass fucked by grown men" or "That 3 year old was really flirting with me!". I mean, if you actually had an argument with a real delusional pedophile, you would really think that nothing I have said sounds like anything a delusional pedophile would say. If you note, all of my arguments have been either based on research and statistics, or philosophy of freedom of information, or philosophy of leaving people the fuck alone unless they cause real harm to others, whereas real pedophiles arguments tend to be that having sex with kids is good for them and that 5 year olds love sucking cock.

505
Security / Re: A little bit of SR history, or why kmf has been right all along
« on: August 10, 2013, 02:44 pm »
It is funny because I have been right all along on this issue as well, and hopefully in the future society will be ready to accept that people should be free so long as they do not directly harm others, and hopefully people will grow out of their magical thinking. I deleted the locked CP thread in off topic, I don't think DPR will care about it at all and would let it be unlocked, but it is pointless to argue with people who think with their emotions. It is clearly censorship to tell people what they can or cannot look at , and it is absolutely horrible that people have their lives ruined for looking at pictures, but there are just too many stupid emotional people so we will just need to let time pass and wait for a brighter future (that I will probably never live to see) where people will be judged by the actions they take against others rather than the feelings they have or the pictures they decide to look at.

Time changes more things than you realize when you are stuck inside of your society and culture of an era, just a little over 100 years ago people took 12 year old wives regularly, prior to that black people were traded like livestock and if you asked a person then will this change in 200 years they would laugh and say no black people are animals and not humans and that will never change, and the thought that a black person could be treated as a human is preposterous. Today you say people will never be allowed to look at child porn without being sent to be tortured and raped in prison, and you say they are filthy vile child rapists, but in time people will look back and see your over reaction and your jumping to conclusions and they will be shocked at the barbaric way you treated people for looking at pictures without actually harming anybody. So have fun being smug in the present with the others supporting you, because in the future you will be seen as barbarians.

506
Security / Re: A little bit of SR history, or why kmf has been right all along
« on: August 10, 2013, 12:33 pm »
Quote from: HeatFireFlame on August 10, 2013, 10:34 am
Praetorian just handed you your ass on a plate kmf. Why dont you just go back to jacking off on little kids you sick fuck :)
People dont like it for a reason, I wonder if you have kids, If you do would you like some sick fuck taking advantage of them and sexually ABUSING them and then posting it all over the deepweb so paedophiles like yourself can jack off to it? If your answer is still yes, Then you are even sicked than I first thought. Now if your answer if no which i doubt it is, Then you must realize that you cannot treat some children one way and others another. It is wrong for a reason.

Praetorian has a bad habit of quoting random big articles and then acting like he has won the debate,when in reality what he quoted is completely and totally irrelevant to what we are talking about. It is really strange behavior.

Me - "Apples are fuit"

Praetorian - "

I TOTALLY JUST PWNT YOUR ARGUMENT LOOK AT THIS:

Bananas are the fruit of Musa acuminata. Acuminata means long-pointed or tapering, not referring to the fruit, but to the flowers giving birth to the fruit.

Antonius Musa was the personal physician to Roman emperor Octavius Augustus, and it was he who was credited for promoting cultivation of the exotic African fruit from 63 to 14 B.C.

Portugese sailors brought bananas to Europe from West Africa in the early fifteenth century. Its Guinean name banema, which became banana in English, was first found in print in the seventeenth century.

The original banana has been cultivated and used since ancient times, even pre-dating the cultivation of rice. While the banana thrived in Africa, its origins are said to be of East Asia and Oceania.

The banana was carried by sailors to the Canary Islands and the West Indies, finally making it to North America with Spanish missionary Friar Tomas de Berlanga.
Sweet bananas are mutants
These historical bananas were not the sweet yellow banana we know today, but the red and green cooking variety, now usually referred to as plantains to distinguish them from the sweet type.

The yellow sweet banana is a mutant strain of the cooking banana, discovered in 1836 by Jamaican Jean Francois Poujot, who found one of the banana trees on his plantation was bearing yellow fruit rather than green or red. Upon tasting the new discovery, he found it to be sweet in its raw state, without the need for cooking. He quickly began cultivating this sweet variety.

Soon they were being imported from the Caribbean to New Orleans, Boston, and New York, and were considered such an exotic treat, they were eaten on a plate using a knife and fork. Sweet bananas were all the rage at the 1876 Philadelphia Centennial Exposition, selling for a hefty ten cents each.


OH YEAH WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY NOW I EPIC PWNED YOU
"

me - "LOL"

Praetorian - "Wow dude you sure are manic shizoid dysphoric pedophile!"

Praetorian - "Almost ALL apples are poison"

me - "LOL"

Praetorian - " I WINZ TEH INTERNET"

507
Off topic / Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
« on: August 10, 2013, 11:35 am »
Quote
My post from earlier actually is currently unedited, and says "Most CP is Snuff / Rape" ...
                                                                                                           meaning one or the other.

        You - "A lot of it is probably rape though"  "but soft-core actually."  "i think"

You "thinking" and you "knowing" are two different things.  Just because you 'think' something is one way, doesn't mean it 'probably is' ... This is like the theme of kmfkewm's logic.  Thinking too much; knowing very little.  You've heavily researched?  But you think.  You don't know...

You are the one who made the original claim that almost all CP is fucking snuff and rape, so where is your citation? Or is it just what you think? I can give citations that studios in Ukraine produced millions of images of softcore CP, can you find a citation that there are millions of images of snuff (lol) and rape (less lol, probably way more rape than snuff) CP? Because I am still convinced that I am right, and I think it is absurd that you get to pull shit out of your ass and make outlandish claims but I don't get to say my opinion on the matter based off of the things I have read (which largely indicate that the Ukrainian studios produced the bulk of available CP).

This is like the theme of your logic, pulling shit out of your ass. Where is a single citation that the majority of CP is rape or snuff? Can you show me any links to stories about large scale amounts of rape or snuff CP? Because I can show you links to articles about softcore CP images being produced by the millions of images in Ukraine. And then we can pad that with all the self produced jailbait pornography. And then we can add all of the nudist shit. And then we can add all of the people who took naked pictures of their kids or random kids but didn't have sex with them. By the time all of the CP that is not rape or snuff is added up, I think we will see that rape and especially snuff consists of a tiny bit of CP. I can find statistic that 1 out of 5 people busted with CP have hardcore CP depicting rape or sadistic behavior, but that is not accurate enough as they could have 5,000 softcore images and 10 hardcore images. I don't think any information is available on the amount of CP images and videos that fall into one category or another.

Quote
Now we KNOW(not think) you have Zero credibility on this subject.

Where is your statistic that the majority of CP consists of rape/snuff from? How do you know that? Please show me the research I am really curious , since you have so much credibility on the matter. If you want I can give you citations that only 1:5 people busted with CP have sadistic images. I can give you citations that studios in Ukraine and Russia produced millions of softcore CP images. I can give you citations for the estimated numbers of teenagers taking naked photographs of themselves (it is a LARGE percentage). I can account for several million child pornography images that are not rape or snuff, how many images of rape or snuff can you account for?

Quote
Thanks Praetorian  ;) I don,t think people watching CP can sit there guilt free by watching they are abusers. It makes me sick to my stomach, and for all the pedo,s that can,t stop, well there,s one way to stop, kill yourself and save some kids from abuse  ;)

Anybody who kills themselves to stop looking at pictures must be fucking mentally ill lol. I can't believe you think that people should die rather than look at pictures, to me that opinion seems so barbaric and backwards and fucking insane that I think you must have come out of the past, people in this day and age are supposed to be much more rational than you. Also I think you must be British also, since they seem to call CP Vile Filth the most. I really get the impression that I am arguing with a bunch of people from the UK for some reason, lol.


Quote
Especially when the information known by the guy seems to change, or contradict itself from page to page.

You are the one who said that the majority of CP is rape or snuff, I find this to be extraordinarily unlikely, and like I said before, I can show you various figures for the number of softcore images made by big production studios, how about show me some figures for the number of hardcore sadistic images.

Quote
Shit, even within the same sentence...

Example please?

Quote
I have seen many valid posts from kmfkwem; this was not one of them.  Especially when you're making up facts about the sexual 'peak' of women being 14, or 14.5 years old 'on average' in sheer conflict with medical science.
 

None of the fertility studies I can find even consider the fertility of teenagers. They show sexual peak in the early 20's, and then it starts falling, but none of them have enough resolution to see before the 20's. It is still entirely possible, and I find it likely to be true, that peak fertility is reached in the early teenage years, probably around 14.5 when peak sexual development is reached, and continues to the late 20's at which point it falls. I will keep looking for a citation for this, but I would love to see a citation from you showing that 20 year olds are actually MORE fertile than 14.5 year olds, because I cannot find anything claiming this, all I can find is that in studies involving those ages 20 plus, fertility starts to decline in the late 20's. That does not mean that peak fertility starts in the early 20's, it just means that peak fertility starts to go down after the early 20's.


508
Off topic / Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
« on: August 10, 2013, 11:18 am »
Stage 5 (final stage) sexual traits are obtained on average at age 14.6

http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Puberty-Normal-and-Abnormal.htm

Quote
Adult breast contour with projection of papilla only (mean age 14.5 years).    Adult with spread to medial thigh but not up linea alba (mean age 14.6 years).

as for the fertility claim, I am having trouble to find *any* studies that show fertility information for those below the age of 20. In the studies done, fertility is at its peak in the 20's , but none of the studies I can find even observe teenage years. I believe in the past I have read that peak fertility is from the start of reaching full sexual maturity (14.5 about) to sometime in the 20's. I will continue looking for a citation, but please find me a citation that people in their 20's are actually more fertile than teenagers, rather than a citation that people are at peak fertility in their 20's (because I can find that citation all over the place as well, but the studies don't have information for people below their 20's so it doesn't disprove what I said).

509
Off topic / Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
« on: August 10, 2013, 10:41 am »
Quote
Abnormally elevated or expansive mood - your first response to me started off with "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH", I'd call that indicative of elevated excitement, and an expansive mood.

That was indicative of the fact that I found it hilarious that you think the majority of CP is snuff. A lot of it is probably rape though, but I think the majority is probably softcore actually.

Quote
An increase in goal-directed activities - See your OP.

lol

Quote
   
Rapid, pressured speech - You've been arguing with like 12 different people, keeping up post for post, even though your posts are a bunch of jumble facts and opinions.

What else could my posts contain other than facts and opinions?

Quote
Incoherent speech - You've made more grammatical and spelling errors than anyone else in this thread.

Have I made many spelling errors? I don't know, I have not got spell check right now. I certainly don't feel as if I have made many spelling or grammatical mistakes.

   
Quote
Hypersexuality - I wouldn't doubt that you've been beating off frequently during all this talk of children, and porn.

Well I have not but that is pretty funny.


Damn I guess I am manic after all.

510
Off topic / Re: The final one and only debate about CP thread, to avoid cluttering all others
« on: August 10, 2013, 10:32 am »
Quote from: BruceCampbell on August 10, 2013, 10:29 am
Notice I didn't get a reply from my dysphoric mania diagnosis and appeal to motive. I guess kmf-whatever never heard of a mixed state then? Considering he's cherry-picking I'm assuming the schizoid thesis will be ignored as well.

Trolololololololo.

I actually have heard of mixed state before, that guy who shot up the theater during batman movie had it. I don't think I qualify.

I gotta say though, The Dysphoric Manic Schizoid Pedophiles sounds like a good name for a band.

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 249