His posts did not stretch a little at times, at times he posted quotes of things that were all but completely unrelated to the topic at hand, and then he acted as if they proved that he is right and I am wrong. The positive result I expected from starting this topic was to stop people from taking all the damn security threads off topic ranting about CP in them. I posted this here because people in the security and silk road discussion forums were going off about how horrible CP viewers are, and when I politely disagreed with them they lost their cools and started ranting excessively and bringing many threads off topic trying to argue with me. So, I cannot make predictions about the future because I will be dead by then, but my predictions about what will happen in hundreds of years when I am dead means that I am a pedophile who is excited about what will happen when I am dead, in a few hundred years, an era in time that I cannot make predictions about? Censorship of any information is wrong, and child pornography is information. People who are for criminalization of child porn viewing are indeed in favor of information censorship. Yes I know there are such studies I linked to references to several. I agree that it does not explain why reported child abuse rates have been on a decline on a global level , I was merely destroying the argument of the person I was arguing with. His claim was that viewing child pornography leads to child molestation, I claimed that studies show that in all countries where child porn viewing was legalized there was a sharp drop in the cases of child molestation, his response was that this is because the number of child molestation cases has been falling globally, to which I pointed out that the cases of child porn viewing have been increasing exponentially on a global scale (regardless of the legality). Condoning illegal activity is not a crime anyway, there are plenty of neo-nazis who condone the holocaust and that is their fucking freedom of speech right to do, or do you want to censor them as well? Exactly how many people do you guys want to censor, anybody who thinks anything that you disagree with? condone: to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like). to give tacit approval to: By his silence, he seemed to condone their behavior. to pardon or forgive (an offense); excuse. I have no idea what you are talking about. I gave citations already that sexual development in females is reached at about age 14.5 http://www.mayomedicallaboratories.com/test-catalog/Clinical+and+Interpretive/91198 shows physical complete sexual development takes place between ages 11.8-18.6 in females and 12.8-17.3 in males. www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Puberty-Normal-and-Abnormal.htm shows average age in females is 14.6 as for peak fertility, I stopped looking for a study on that after the thread got locked, but when I did search for it I found ONLY studies that examined the fertility of females ages 22+ , so no shit when your set of samples starts at the age 22 that the peak fertility of the people in that study will be at age 22. I cannot currently find a study that compares the fertility of teenagers with the fertility of people in their twenties, but I do recall reading in the past that peak fertility is reached a few years after the onset of puberty, I believe around 14.5 years in females (the same time they reach peak sexual maturity), and it levels off until it starts to decline in the twenties. Indeed I already can find a study showing that fertility is the same at age 22 and 23, and starts to decline after 23 years old, but I cannot currently find a study with a high enough resolution that I can show the fertility of those who are 14 years old. This entire part of the debate was in response to my claim that peak sexual development and peak fertility is reached at about 14 years old in females, which was called bullshit, but I just gave two citations for peak sexual maturity and I showed the flaw with his study about peak fertility proving me wrong (since it only included people 22 or older and did not include teenagers). I can find a dozen studies saying that peak fertility is in the early twenties, but none of these damn studies even observe people below the age of twenty so they really mean "in our subset of studied patients, all over the age of twenty, the youngest twenty year olds are the most fertile". My interpretation of citations to quotes such as is not that 23-31 year olds are the most fertile, but rather that after age 23-31 females become LESS fertile. I think that we will find a 14 year old is infinitely more fertile than a 5 year old, just as fertile as a 20 or 21 year old, and MORE fertile than a 23-31 year old. here is a graph starting at 22: http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/health/blog/inpractice/age.jpeg notice that 22 and 23 are the same, and then a sharp decline in fertility starts taking place up to about age 48 where it is almost not existent. The 23+ year olds are not more fertile, after the age of 23 they continue to become less fertile, so the peak quote means that females start becoming LESS fertile between the ages of 24 and 31, not that they are MOST fertile at those ages, and as you see between 22 and up to the end of 23 they are just as fertile. My argument is that they reach the same level of fertility at the age of about 14.5 as they are at 22, but none of the studies I can find show such high resolution. As per your quotes, yes obviously sexually abused children suffer I don't think that was ever a matter of debate was it? Oh please explain to me how I have been immature? Was it when I called the people I was debating with bipolar mixed state schizoids? Was it when I called them filthy pedophiles who deserve to be castrated and murdered? I would love to know where exactly I was immature!