I could have saved him

>>17822867 (OP)
I don't know, Anon, if they harassed Trotsky, persecuted him, and tried to kill him, can you imagine what Stalin would have tried to do to the legitimate heir of the Romanovs?

>>17822903
Guess I´ll have to hire a professional

>>17822867 (OP)
I could have saved him, I could have saved the princes in the tower, Louis XVII, Joseph Bara, Hugh of Lincoln, Werner of Oberwesel, Herbert Norkus, I could have saved them all. If only I had a time machine.

>>17823633

>>17823633

>>17823782
I would have saved him...

>>17823782
Disgusting

>>17822867 (OP)
That would be extremly antisemitic.

>>17823782
This is what white people bring to the world. If you attraction-maxx humans, they become mentally and morally unstable. The boy is objectively not worth as much. Instability accelerates the rate of change in society, institutions fall and young revolutionary types gain an advantage.

>>17825021
Interestingly Nietzsche made the opposite argument

>>17825021

>>17825061
I can accept that he had objective value in their system or even genetically but it feels like an outlier to the broader world of men looking after their own interests, even when the other guy is hot.

>>17825061
>>17825062
>good philosophers are casanova coomers
>is a sexless incel
Fuck this overrated hack

>>17822867 (OP)
A shame. He could have been rehabilitated into a loyal member of the Communist party like Puyi but alas

>>17825085
Could have been rehabilitated into my loyal boywife.

>>17825021
>>17825061
>>17825062
Civilization is based on men's attraction to boys. When men start avoiding roast beef, and start dedicating their attention towards boys, civilizations flourish, but when it is suppressed, and men start orbiting cuntoids, like in Roman empire, or the modern West, society begins its decline. Boy-love is the only reason why civilization exists.

It's evil but what about all the boys the Tsars killed

>>17827266
you need Tolstoy to bridge the gap between monarchism and stalinism. Read war and peace.

>>17827266
>>17827270
basically the nation decided to go to WWI collectively even though it was supposedly due to monarchist alliances

>>17823633
Honestly I'd watch a TV show about a guy with a time machine saving and fixing ranom historical figures
>Anne Frank
I could save her
>Elizabeth Bathory
I could fix her

>>17825954
Where's your source for that

>>17828414

>>17827266
I could have saved them...

>>17822867 (OP)
He probably wouldn’t have lived many years or had good quality of life between the leukemia and Stalinist purges, poor guy :(

>>17825954
I thought we got rid of the pederasts on this board, I guess they are just hiding waiting to come back and infest the board with their filth.

>>17823782
This passage has been posted tens of times but the translation of lover comes from eros, a type of love in Ancient Greece which was not explicitly sexual. It's insane to me that you even bother trying to divine an argument from fragmentary sources spread out over centuries when you have pottery. That's like the only clear evidence of gay shit we have on the Greek peninsula.

>>17829123
>When Zeus fashioned man he gave him certain inclinations, but he forgot about shame. Not knowing how to introduce her, he ordered her to enter through the rectum. Shame baulked at this and was highly indignant. Finally, she said to Zeus: ‘All right! I’ll go in, but on the condition that Eros doesn’t come in the same way; if he does, I will leave immediately.’ Ever since then, all homosexuals are without shame.
- Aesop

>>17829123
>Erotic passion [ἔρος] is a desire that does not arise in virtuous men, for it is an impulse to form a relationship on account of physical attractiveness.
Diogenes Laertius, Life of Zeno 113

>Excitement about boys and women is one and the same thing: Love. [ἔρως]
Plutarch, Dialogue on Love 5

>He who has countless gold and silver ... is no more rich than the man who has just what he needs ... delight from a boy or woman.
Theognis 719-28

>Decide whether you consider those superior who love boys or those who delight in womankind. For I who have been smitten by both passions hang like an accurate balance with both scales in equipoise.
Lucian, Amores 4

>And many men, overall, prefer love with boys to love with females. In the very cities of Greece that have the best laws by comparison with others, this is the mode of behavior that fashionable.
Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 13.601

>>17829191
Bizarre translation since there is no Greek word for homosexual

>>17829208
Why was Eros going up his butt?

>>17829214
Not disagreeing that it’s about sodomy, I just wonder what word is being translated as homosexual. Pederast?

>>17829123
There's really no other way that passage could be taken though. He had never even met the boy, he just saw him walking around and started begging to have him.
Also
>he was a lover of boys (plural)
You want me to believe that he was known to love boys in some other way?

>>17829229
Not to mention Xenophon says he chose soldiers based on their looks lmao

>>17829195
Of course, like I said, scattered sentence or two descriptions from different writers over many centuries. It's strange to me that this is your form of substantive evidence when there is pottery that depicts all sorts of lurid acts. I understand that decorated pottery already pretty much exclusively belonged to aristocrats and as a percentage of the whole of decorated pottery a rounding error was dedicated to depictions of sexuality period, but that is actual evidence that there was any gay shit going on at all.

>>17829229
It's an exercise in cultural relativism to be sure these words clearly mean something to a modern viewer, but evidence does not point to them being accepting of homosexuality.

>>17829366
>but that is actual evidence that there was any gay shit going on at all
Yeah, not the extensive written descriptions of people engaging in homosexual activity, that isn't evidence at all.

>>17829398
The works you posted are not primarily devoted to homosexuality, these are fragments of works much more concerned with other topics, further it is also only given a sentence or two if that. Suffice it to say this doesn't really pass bar for modern historiography to claim something definitive one way or another.

>>17829414
I didn't post that. The excerpt attributed to Lucian is from a work which is devoted to comparing the love of women to the love of boys, concluding that the love of boys is preferable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amores_(Lucian)

The excerpt from Athenaeus is from a section of a work which is entirely dedicated to the discussion of (Greek) homosexuality.

>>17829236
Because the Greeks practiced physiognomy duh

>>17829366
>scattered sentence or two descriptions from different writers over many centuries
No I posted those specifically to address your point about the meaning of the word Eros. Yes the Greeks sometimes used the word Eros to denote non-sexual forms of desire (rather in the way I might say I have a craving or a lust for certain foods or experiences), but I cannot think of a single occasion where Eros for a human being could be interpreted as non-romantic or non-sexual. No Greek ever writes of a mother’s Eros for her children..
>decorated pottery already pretty much exclusively belonged to aristocrats
I might be wrong but I thought it was the opposite: decorated pottery was extraordinarily cheap and common.
>a rounding error was dedicated to depictions of sexuality period
I don’t know what that means. In any case, according to the academic literature I’ve seen, at least 1,000 artefacts contain visual depictions of pederasty, and many more have love inscriptions to beautiful boys. Pic related.
>>17829369
>evidence does not point to them being accepting of homosexuality.
Yes it does.

>>17829586
Well yeah they didn't use eros to describe familial love, that had its own word. Ancient linguistics aside, I don't think it is definitive proof that Greek's were a majority homosexual or even really accepting of it. Pretty much every ancient Greek city state we have records from seems to have serious disdained >>17829191 intra-citizen guy on guy, and where it did occur in acceptable circumstances it usually was between a slave and master. As stoicism rose to prominence even this was heavily looked down upon, yet it had a brief period of acceptance but I think its safe to say that isn't homosexuality as we would conceive of it, more akin to coercion. The pottery, however, does suggest it was present especially at higher levels of society at certain points in Greek history. Pair little anecdotes about mystery cults with the admitted archaeological evidence and you get a picture where in certain circles it was practiced, but heavy emphasis on certain circles.

On your other question, decorated pottery was quite common but the elaborate decorated pottery we are familiar with seeing in museums was not.

>>17829552
The works of Lucian are quite dubious in their actual authorship, we don't really know much about the author of Amores in particular, and the play is dedicated to much more than just pederasty, it is also a play for what that's worth. Yet again it comes from the 3rd century, well into the Roman period and nearly a millennia since Archaic Greece depending on when the play was authored. Using him in conjunction with Athenaeus to demonstrate the presence of homosexuality in Archaic Greece is strange to say the least. Similarly Athenaeus' work is sort of an epicurean tome and not really a definitive guide to what the Greek's which predated him by several centuries thought.

>>17829643
No one is saying the Greeks were “majority homosexual” since that would be retarded. The point is that pederasty - relationships between older and younger males - was widespread and coexisted alongside ordinary marital relations. This kind of thing seems, historically, to have been more amenable to what we would call heterosexual men today. Kind of like a form of situational homosexuality. You see similar things in the Islamic world, medieval Japan, African tribes, and so on. There were mixed feelings about the practice but it appears to have been widespread and tolerated, and even to some extent exalted. There were statues erected to the lovers Harmodius and Aristogeiton in Athens and other places. Aeschylus depicted Achilles and Patroclus as sexually involved. The characters in Plato’s Symposium say that the cities with the best laws permit it. And so on. Plato and Xenophon are probably two of the Athenian voices most hostile to pederasty, and yet both of them depict it as widespread, and attack it from a very unusual standpoint. Plato idealises pederasty. He depicts Socrates as excessively interested in young men but very chaste. This is obviously a very different kind of society to ours

I don’t know about your stoic claim. The founder of stoicism, Zeno of Citium, was a notorious pederast.

>>17829660
There are a series of pretty ludicrous claims in this post anon I'm not even sure where to begin. Lets just narrow this down to one thing I think we can both agree on, the Greeks seemed to be pretty vociferously "homophobic", many of the authors you cite in this were pretty stringently "homophobic" and Plato in particular condemns homosexuality in his later works. Xenophon to my knowledge never condemned it but the only mention he really gives to it is an offhand remark about pederasty during a discussion of the Spartans, to say he was for or against anything is something we simply do not know about the man.

With context established lets look at Greek civilization, we know they were anti-homosexual, but you argue that they viewed pederasty -- in particular pederasty which would have coexisted with marital relations; i.e sexual -- as acceptable. This is faulty for two reasons, one, when pederasty is described sexual elements to it are almost always absent, and we know pederasty existed as a non-sexual pedagogical relationship between an older man and young one with very deliberate idealizations of this practice. Two, homosexual pedophilia is still homosexual, we know the Greeks didn't like homosexuality barring cases involving slaves or people of unequal status. They appeared to have loathed everything about homosexuality, even down to the very physical expression of it, yet you argue that they viewed pederasty as somehow separate from this. On what basis do you make that claim because it's a pretty big leap?

>>17829708
Anon, personally I am very confused by the claims you're making here, since they contradict, to my mind, all the documentary evidence available. I think you are arguing in good faith though. You seem very genuine. We are just at odds. So I think our discussion will be productive.

I will address the claim "we know the Greeks didn't like homosexuality barring ... slaves or people of unequal status". Now, arguably, relations between men and boys fits into the latter category. Nevertheless I would like to know what evidence you can muster in support of this claim, especially the idea that they "loathed everything about homosexuality, even down the very physical expression of it". This is contradicted by artistic productions such as Aeschylus' Myrmidons:
>And you did not respect the chaste consecration of the thighs, oh ungrateful that you were for those countless kisses!
Aeschylus, Myrmidons, Fragment 135
>I honored the intimacy of your thighs by bewailing you
Aeschylus, Myrmidons, Fragment 136
That this is a scene indicating sexual intimacy is confirmed by later sources:
>Aeschylus talks nonsense in claiming that Achilles was in love with Patroclus (rather than the other way around), for Achilles was more beautiful than not only Patroclus but all the other heroes as well; and besides, he was unbearded, and thirdly, far younger than Patroclus, as Homer says.
Plato, Symposium 179e-180b
>No, pleasure was the mediator even of their friendship. At any rate, when Achilles was lamenting the death of Patroclus, his unrestrained feelings made him burst out with the truth and say "The converse of our thighs my tears do mourn with duteous piety."
Ps-Lucian, Amores 54
>Aeschylus, and Sophocles too, put sexual themes on the stage in their tragedies, Aeschylus showing Achilles’ love for Patroclus
Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 13.601

What does this have to do with Alexei Romanov?

>>17829721
I mean fragments describing homosexual sex or debates about mythology from a dialogue do not constitute evidence that they liked homosexuality. If you want evidence for my claims I would refer you to Plato's Laws, or Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, or the many slurs they had for homosexuals, or the legal cases we have which particularly condemn homosexuals, or the many laws that do similar. I can provide direct textual citations but I have feeling you know what I am talking about, if you are jumping between Symposium and Mymidons you surely would have read these texts no? You wouldn't happen to be asking an LLM to find you supporting evidence for your claim, would you?

You also correctly identified that the section of Amores you cited was written by Pseudo-Lucian and not Lucian, which I find to be hilarious, considering what the means about the section you cited.

You ignore the other and more important part of my question though, that being, what evidence do you have they viewed homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia as two separate things?

>>17829731
I have a feeling they posted a little boy and then derailed the thread to talk about what they actually wish to discuss, which is the horrific abuse of little boys.

>>17829734
Plato's Laws literally says that pederasty is widespread and that it will be difficult to outlaw. Pic related. Plato's views were utterly unconventional. I don't know what part of Nicomachean Ethics you're referring to, but he talks about homosexuality as an every day part of Greek life on multiple occasions.
>the legal cases we have which particularly condemn homosexuals
Non-existent.
>or the many laws that do similar
The texts you're thinking of literally say that Athenian law put homosexuality in a privileged position.
>if you are jumping between Symposium and Mymidons you surely would have read these texts no?
Yes, I have. Have you? I don't like how uncharitable you are being, considering I extended an olive branch to you, anon.
>what evidence do you have they viewed homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia as two separate things?
They didn't use these conceptual categories. They just liked pederasty and disliked equal-age faggotry.

>>17829731
>>17829735
There's resident schizos that always throw a tantrum whenever Greek faggotry is mentioned

>>17829739
Aristotle likens homosexuality/pederasty, in Nicomachean Ethics, to a disease and a bestial desire, book 7 in particular if my memory serves me. Plato pretty clearly condemns it as well, and though he argues that it would be difficult to outlaw given the degenerated nature of Greek society. I will leave that there for you to think about. As to the legal cases, Aeschines prosecuted a case against a known homosexual often citing his homosexuality as a sort of negative character witness. All of this paints a picture that the Greeks very much did not like homosexuality, the explicit laws would come in the later Roman period, but I think its fair of me to mention them if you are willing to use Lucian and Athenaeus in support of yourself. Notably these laws begin as early as the late republican period and stretch into the principate and dominate.

Your citations did not use uniform or legible references, it appeared very much like someone hurriedly asking an AI to do the work for them, especially considering that accidental(?) inclusion of Pseudo-Lucian. I would agree that they did not use conceptual categories, they appeared to have viewed all sexual contact between those of the same sex with equal disdain, you still argue that somehow ancients viewed pederasty as any more acceptable in spite of this. On what basis do you make this claim?

>>17829759
Your argument has become very conceptually confusing. You are saying now that Plato thinks homosexuality will be difficult to outlaw due to Greek society's "degenerated nature" (i.e. that homosexuality was widespread and tolerated) and yet you are continuing, at the same time, to argue that "the Greeks very much did not like homosexuality". Pick an argument and stick to it, please.

Aeschines makes it clear repeatedly that he is not against homosexuality per se, but against prostitution and unchastity. Pic related.

Note, I am using translations from the 1800s and early 1900s so that schizos like you don't throw a shitfit about "

I will address your other argument later because it's complicated and I don't have time right now.

>>17829759
*throw a shitfit about "biased modern translations"

>>17829653
>and the play is dedicated to much more than just pederasty
No, the entire dialogue is about the comparison of heterosexuality and pederasty, concluding that pederasty is superior.

>>17829708
>the only mention he really gives to it is an offhand remark about pederasty during a discussion of the Spartans
Xenophon mentions pederasty in Hieron, Anabasis, Cyropaedia, Agesilaus, Constitution of the Lacedaemonians, Memorabilia, and Symposium.

>to say he was for or against anything is something we simply do not know about the man
He makes a supportive comment regarding pederasty in his Constitution of the Lacedaemonians, by claiming that cities which allow men to have sexual relations with boys do not produce boys who are lacking in virtue, contrary to the Spartan belief.

>we know they were anti-homosexual
No they weren't, there are plenty of both pederast homosexuals and adult-homosexuals that were respected in Greek society, nobody cared about it.

>>17829759
>Aristotle
He's condemning sexual passivity, he uses a pederastic relationship in the same book as an example to highlight a positive aspect of friendships, which would be bizarre if he had just likened the practice to cannibalism. Also, this is just one philosopher's opinion, which is not at all representative of consensus.

>>17829721
>I think you are arguing in good faith though
He isn't, he is a genuine schizo boomer who believes there is a conspiracy involving the 4chan moderation team to promote homosexual pedophilia on /his/ through revisionist history, and that it's his duty as a Christcuck to refute anyone claiming that the Greeks practiced pederasty to foil this conspiracy. No, I am not kidding, he has admitted that these are his genuine beliefs in other threads.

>>17829805
>heathen pagans who sacrificed animals and walked around naked
>not muh white history!!!
lol

List of Greek mythological figures who had some sort of homosexual relation with each other according to extant ancient sources:
>Achilles and Antilochus, Achilles and Patroclus, Agamemnon and Argynnus, Ameinias and Narcissus, Apollo and Admetus, Apollo and Adonis, Apollo and Boreas, Apollo and Branchus, Apollo and Carnus, Apollo and Cyparissus, Apollo and Helenus, Apollo and Hyacinth, Apollo and Hymenaios, Apollo and Iapis, Ares and Alectryon, Artemis and Callisto, Asclepius and Hippolytus, Athis and Lycabas, Boreas and Hyacinth, Chiron and Dionysus, Cleostratus and Menestratus, Cycnus and Phaethon, Cycnus and Phylius, Cydon and Clytius, Dionysus and Ampelus, Dionysus and Prosymnus, Eurybarus and Alcyoneus, Helios and Nerites, Hephaestus and Peleus, Heracles and Abderus, Heracles and Eurystheus, Heracles and Hylas, Heracles and Iolaus, Hermes and Amphion, Hermes and Crocus, Hermes and Perseus, Hermes and Pollux, Hesperus and Hymenaeus, Hymenaeus and Argynnus, Hypnos and Endymion, Ianthe and Iphis, Kalamos and Karpos, Laius and Chrysippus, Marsyas and Olympus, Minos and Atymnius, Minos and Ganymede, Minos and Miletus, Minos and Theseus, Nisus and Euryalus, Orestes and Pylades, Orpheus and the Thracians, Orpheus and Kalais, Pan and Daphnis, Paris and Antheus, Polyphemus and Silenus, Poseidon and Nerites, Poseidon and Pelops, Polyeidos and Glaucus, Rhadamanthus and Talos, Sarpedon and Atymnius, Sarpedon and Miletus, Silvanus and Cyparissus, Thamyris and Hyacinth, Theseus and Pirithous, Zephyrus and Cyparissus, Zephyrus and Hyacinth, Zeus and Aëtos, Zeus (Artemis) and Callisto, Zeus and Euphorion, Zeus and Ganymede.

Yeah, really seems like a society that abhorred homosexuality.

>>17829805
>it's his duty as a Christcuck to refute anyone claiming that the Greeks practiced pederasty
That's strange, considering Christians generally liked to point out how common it was among the pagans.

>>17829767
>>17829768
>>17829772
It is strange that you somehow think a more modern translation would support my ideas less. I agree if you look at narrow excerpts with a sincere desire to believe the Greeks were ok with homosexuality or homosexual pedophilia, you might feel that these somehow support your stance. The broader picture we get from all texts you have mentioned and cited, barring the plays from the Roman period (a time during which stagecraft lost the respect it had in the Greek period), is that homosexuality was very much something Greeks looked down upon. The very first excerpt you posted mentions how these kinds of pedagogical relationships preserves the chastity of the boy, if he was being raped constantly I don't think they would say that.

It is so strange to me that you lean on fragmentary and largely unconcerned texts when you have pottery, that is your silver bullet. The image that pottery paints, is that in wealthy circles of a more debauched character, there was permissibility in all things and a general agreement that you could have sex with whoever you wanted. This would be similar to how pedophilia and homosexuality would express itself in societies well into the modern period, a sort of clear syncretism emerges. I am not sure why this makes you so upset. You also still have not answered why you think homosexuality and pederasty were viewed differently.

>>17829805
You seem to have very consciously ignored most of my argument. Pseudo-Lucian's writings in Amores aside, Xenophon mentions pederasty often, but as we know this was an extant institution with a non-sexual character and many of the city states he states he refers to by name have its sexual character quasi-outlawed or labeled as taboo. As for Aristotle he pretty deliberately is stated to say, in many translations, pederasty which engenders the youth with an inclination to bestial desires. He is also translated as referring to homosexuality, there is some difference, but chiefly these were men strongly opposed to all forms of homosexual sex, you have not explained why you think the Greeks viewed pederasty and homosexuality as different.

Homosexuality and in particular homosexual pedophilia appear to have been common in fairly high elite circles and it was sort of an open secret, because of the wealth and power of these people they were able to do whatever they wanted and made quite a bit of art, composing their perversions with pottery. This is the image we get of the actual practice, the broader and deeply paternalistic society outside of this viewed any act of sexual passivity of a man, even should he be a child, as a violation which upsets his chastity.

It is beginning to sound like you lean on whatever the ancient expression of this practice was as a justification for modern day pedophilia. Is that the case anon, do you really believe that because in your warped vision of the ancient past, you somehow can find justification for your own malicious intentions with children?

>>17829805
>He isn't, he is a genuine schizo boomer who believes there is a conspiracy involving the 4chan moderation team to promote homosexual pedophilia on /his/ through revisionist history

I also have no idea where you got this from, genuinely no idea, maybe you could post the thread you are referring to. It will be quite easy to find out who this is you are referring to.

>>17829828
You shouldn't confuse the behaviors of the Gods with the behaviors of mortals. Greek Gods had a strange character as metaphysical beings and were worshipped often in extremely powerful and secretive cults. Also many of the examples you cite are strange to say the least, these were not exactly clear cut homosexual relationships often and had very little if any text dedicated to them.

>>17830754
>we know this was an extant institution with a non-sexual character
Yeah famously teachers select their students on account of their beauty for non-sexual reasons.

>>17830774
Physiognomy

>>17830774
It could become sexual, and sometimes did, but the institution was never intended to be that. Moreover beauty is a complicated thing to ancient Greeks, they say it often in strange contexts and you need to practice cultural relativism so as not to inject your own assumptions into analysis. This is like infantile level historiographical dictates and you just want to blow by them. I guess my question to you is does this ancient expression of occasional homosexual pedophilia somehow justify modern day homosexual pedophilia? Is that really what you believe?

How does the schizo explain this text

>>17830789
Don't bother anon. They've been totally brainwashed. It's really impossible to get people not to believe the Greeks were raging faggots. The Jews have been brainwashing goyim with this lie for thousands of years (pic related). It's fucked up. I don't know why they push this narrative so hard. It might have nefarious purposes, as you said...

>>17830790
Do you remember what the point of Lysis was?

>>17830794
You are making a pretty deliberately disingenuous attempt here. Do you ever get tired of shitting up the board by spewing polemical shit that has very little basis in an actual argument, I realize you are completely robbed of agency in your day to day life and this makes you angry, but will you ever stop making that everyone else's problem?

>>17830802
I just don't understand how everyone misunderstood what the Greeks meant by eros until Leather Apron Club made a video?

>>17830805
Because there has been uncertainty to this thesis that the Greek were all raping boys well before any video or, more importantly, any historiographical work on Greece emerged. The nature of this argument is retarded, one side lacks firm evidence entirely and the other has to prove a negative. I have to prove a negative, you lack firm evidence, you rely on polemical arguments and modern readings of ancient passages spread out over centuries. You do all this while completely ignoring pottery, likely because of what this means for your argument, but in doing so ignoring the only actual evidence. If you had even a moment to reflect on this you would probably realize that there is no justification, ancient or modern, for the rape of boys, but that is entirely beyond the pale for you.

>>17830840
> there has been uncertainty to this thesis that the Greek were all raping boys well before any video or, more importantly, any historiographical work on Greece emerged.
Source?

>>17830844
The uncertainty, that exists independently of any source and is by virtue of the evidence you use. I'll get you some historiographical critiques of Dover and others but we both know you aren't going to read them.

>>17830852
By historiographical critiques you mean that one book written by a far-right Greek politician

Anon has impossibly high epistemic standards which you will never be able to meet. You can marshal all the evidence you want, even get him to accept its validity, and he will still refuse to accept the logical conclusion.

This is what is called selective scepticism. Notably he would not react this way to Islamic or Japanese pederasty, because he's not invested in those societies.

>>17830856
There are plenty more.

>>17830863
I find the idea that homosexual behavior of any kind, especially in Islam, to be equally insane. In fact I find it to be more preposterous than Greece, they are known for being pretty strict about that and I think you would be hard pressed to produce examples. I admitted it did exist in Greece, but only in certain debauched and elite circles, a character which many societies would retain well into the modern period, and in the case of homosexual pedophilia, well into the times of today. Going back to Muslims, you will very likely cite the Afghan war lords which were supported by the West and their inclinations towards little boys, but I do not think that is representative of Islam or even Afghani thoughts on the matter, I would point you to the Taliban if you need evidence on that. As is the case with most of humanity, homosexual pedophilia likely represents a small class of people powerful enough to do it or remote enough from consequences that they can rape as much as they would like. They create an identity from this, formulating symbols and in particular art to codify it was a secretive character of their success or happiness or whatever else. This is how the practice has always manifested, this is how it was always manifest, because most people feel the most extreme revulsion at engaging in sexual acts with people of their own sex, doubly so if that person is a child, it is counter to a base nature and not just decency.

>>17830930
https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/woy8c9/islamic_scholars_who_struggled_with_temptation/

>>17830942
kek, even reddit midwits btfo moslems

New hadith dropped

>>17830769
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
>"Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"
They were literally viewed as the arbiters of morality. Some mythological beings or gods were viewed as strange, impersonal beings who engaged in weird, disreputable behaviours like the Minotaur, but gods like Zeus and Apollo were not. They were highly personified and viewed as moral exemplars. To think that a society which was against homosexuality would create myths about their (respected and venerated) gods and mythological figures engaging in homosexuality is insane.

>>17830930
https://greek-love.com/index.php/near-east-north-africa/greek-love-pederasty-near-east
https://greek-love.com/index.php/near-east-north-africa/persia/introduction-to-persia

>>17830856
Well not just that, he has a few Leather Apron Club videos and /pol/ infographs he could show you as well!

>>17830863
He's a Christian schizo pizzagater who has a delusional belief that there's a secret pedophile cabal running 4chan. He projects his modern conspiracy theorist view that there are powerful homosexual pedophiles amongst the elite who control us and put secret symbolic messages into Disney movies and ice cream packaging onto past societies of which the historical record shows us engaged in pederasty, interpreting evidence as supportive of this conspiratorial belief of elite homosexual pedophilia. People in the past have to have shared his feelings towards homosexuality, because his feelings are representative of a deeply embedded fact of human psychology as reflected by the teachings of Rabbi Yeshua ben Pantera, even though the majority of people living today don't share these feelings.

>>17831119
You have very evidently created a carefully curated mind palace about a singular entity regarding the many people which show evident disgust at your attempts to justify an unthinkable act. You appear to be quite delusional and likely suffering from a persecution complex, I don't know if you should be posting on 4chan, it might be better for you to seek help.

>>17825954
>>17829708
I like having these two viewpoints together on /his/ even though they're both insane, dumb, and insanely dumb.

>>17831119
The Gods often had their stories censured when they were told to children, among other bits of evidence we get the understanding that the myths and understanding of the Gods we have today was not at all how the pagan tradition would have read or understood them depending on time, place, and status. Greek myth and understanding what religiosity meant to ancient Greeks, therefore, is a difficult subject to broach. We know what it was at specific instances but we also know that it was fluid both by geography and by time. Saying definitively that the Greeks viewed or even had Gods like Apollo and Zeus misunderstands a key feature of pagan worship, that being it supposes the existence of a Cannon. This is simply not the case. As to your website "greek-love" I find it's reading of the sources and conclusions to be dubious and heavily biased respectively.

Maybe it is best for you to log off for sometime, you seem to have quite a bit of anger and the paired hyper specificity of your allegations mixed with the simple errors strikes me as coming from a deeply fatigued and ill person. I think you should realize that many people will naturally feel disgust when they hear what you have to say, that is by virtue of your own actions, there is no unifying will or singular entity attempting to persecute you. People feel disgust because of your blatant disregard for the value of innocence, there reasons might appear similar but they are all unique individuals and they all have unique motivations.

>>17831119
Who the fuck brags about wanting to fuck kids and then makes the people who make fun of them for it basedjaks? Also since when do trannies give a fuck about the AoC? They want to cut up the dicks of 3 year olds.

>>17831182
Honestly if I had that basedjak made of me I would wear it like a badge. Can you imagine the honor of being deeply hated by pedophiles so hard that they resort to this cope. The fact that some tourist who stumbled into here owned them so hard they seethe about it months later is amazing.

>>17829195
>>17829191
You NAMBLA fags always look to the Greeks but the funny thing is the Greeks were purely platonic in their love of boys. The farthest they would go was thigh fucking. And that was already in their own eyes ruining the purity of the love in the relationship.

You fags are more closer to Roman boyfuckers who didnt give a shit and self admitted it was only to get their rocks off

Looks like the pedofaggots got the boot on their necks again, I expects bans to shortly follow. It's nice of the mods to always give you time to get BTFO'd before they clap your dumb asses.

>>17831159
Suppose that there were two societies of an extreme character where men entirely ignore other males, only interacting with them when necessity requires it, and spend all their time in the pursuit of women, and another where men invest all of their time in other males, particularly youths, and only interact with women when it is necessary (to reproduce).

These are two opposite extremes, but guess what? The latter is the ideal society and is the model followed by every highly successful civilization to ever exist. Just look around today, we live in a degenerated society where duty, philosophy, virtue, have all been abandoned so that men can chase females. The presence of male homosexuality is always what precipitates cultural development, as was the case in ancient Greece, Persia, Renaissance Italy, Victorian England...

Love and fraternity between males is what creates civilization. The education of youth, the bonds between men in war, the sweet erotic love between males which makes life worth living.

Women on the other hand are an ever present force which attempts to drag men back into barbarity. If they could have their way, men would give up their pursuit of all else and devote their time to squabbling over and worshiping women. The lesser races of the earth are notorious for their obsession with females, just look at black people. Arguably, their obsession with females is the reason why they never developed high culture.

>>17831173
Sources provided: 0
Evidence: 0
Opinion: 100

>>17831201
>yeah they were pretty platonic in their love of boys they just fucked their thighs that's all

>>17829191
The Greek gods were never role models. They were a protection racket. The point of Greek mythology is "There's a bunch of super powered assholes who will do whatever they want with you but they're also the only thing holding back Eldritch horrors like Tartarus, Kronos, and Gaea so be sure to donate to their priests every week." Zeus fucked kids because he could get away with it. Not because the Greeks thought fucking kids was good you retarded sodomite.

>>17831218
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
>"Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"

Seems the Greeks did seem to believe that their gods were role models, actually.

>>17831217
>lacks reading comprehension
Literally just said that was the farthest and most extreme case which naturally are the exception.
Kys namblafag

>>17831217
>Goes on a schizophrenic tirade about how everyone who disagrees with him is actually the same person
>UM ACKSHUALLY DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE IM SCHIZOPHRENIC

Apparently you believe there to be a pagan cannon that consolidates an academic tradition, mind pointing this out, mythology researchers would benefit greatly from having access to this documentation.

>>17831224
>checkmate atheists
>Zeus was the same exact guy to everyone and similarly a figure they aspired to be like
>no please don't look into divine epithets
>no please don't look into mystery cults
>no please don't look into patron deities
>please instead look at my Wikipedia page categorizing something that could maybe support my argument in a singular instance at a certain point in history

>>17831224
Yeah some of them. Zeus definitely wasn't one of them. Apart from killing Kronos he was almost always evil.

>>17831217
/LGBT/ is breaching containment again. Get the jumper cables.

>>17831293
From Hesiod's Work and Days:
>"Perses, lay up these things in your heart, and do not let that Strife who delights in mischief hold your heart back from work, while you peep and peer and listen to the wrangles of the court-house. Little concern has he with quarrels and courts who has not a year's victuals laid up betimes, even that which the earth bears, Demeter's grain. When you have got plenty of that, you can raise disputes and strive to get another's goods. But you shall have no second chance to deal so again: nay, let us settle our dispute here with true judgement which is of Zeus and is perfect. For we had already divided our inheritance, but you seized the greater share and carried it off, greatly swelling the glory of our bribe-swallowing lords who love to judge such a cause as this. Fools!"

>"For upon the bounteous earth Zeus has three myriad of deathless watchers, cloaked in mist, guardians of mortal men, who watch over judgements and cruel deeds. And Justice (Dike), maiden, born of Zeus, glorious and revered among the gods who dwell on Olympus, whenever anyone wrongs her by perverting her, sits beside her father, Zeus the son of Cronos, and reports the unjust nature of men, so that the people may pay for the wickedness of their kings, who pervert her and with crooked judgements turn her aside. Bear this in mind, kings, and straighten your discourses, you who devour gifts! For near at hand are the immortals among men, noting those who grind each other down with crooked judgements, and have no regard for the vengeance of the gods. For as Zeus ordained for men, he has given to fishes and beasts and winged birds to devour one another, for Justice is not in them; but to mankind he gave Justice, which is by far the best."

>let us settle our dispute here with true judgement which is of Zeus and is perfect

>>17831182
>>17831192
>not knowing the difference between children and minors
/his/

>>17831335
Oh so because the children you want to fuck just turned 13 that makes it totally okay, yeah sure bud.

>>17831329
A Hesiod dialogue? That's your evidence?

>>17831119
Anon I think you need some help .. you sound quite retarded.

>>17831366
I'm not the guy you are argueing with anon, just noting that you do not know the difference between the two and are trying to discuss history.

>>17831395
>one of the most respected and reproduced poets of ancient Greece? that's your evidence?

>>17831401
I mean really, no one mentioned minors or the age of consent until he did. He wants to fuck boys, in particular young ones, before puberty because they don't "smell" or some other such justification. You probably should have corrected him, not us.

>>17831397
Believe it or not, those genuinely are the beliefs of the guy I was referencing. It's very easy to tell it's him from his writing style. If it sounds insane, it's because he is.

>>17831403
Well you got rid of half of the dialogue, and the presence of it kinda shows ...

Listen man, you are very clearly deeply unwell. Have you slept recently? I think you should try, maybe you'll be well rested enough to realize that fucking little boys is wrong.

>>17831406
you sounded like typical retard zoomer that thought 18< = child which honestly comes off as some weird way to make paedophillia not look as bad. regardless I'm done posting, I poked the bear and don't want to argue anything on this shithole sight; return to your flamewar with the gay pedo.

>>17831411
>oh, you have a different opinion regarding history than I do? you must want to rape little boys
Are there child rapists in your basement as well? Are they trafficking children in cabinets and chopping their bodies up to put on pizza?

>>17831407
Anon read that post again >>17831119

You can tell from his writing style that this is the same random person who over a month ago told you to just wait till they were 18? This is like the hallmark of a persecution complex, the fact that you have that image saved and are accusing a random person of being the same person depicted in it is unbelievably cringe and you don't even know why.

>>17831419
Well everyone knows that you want to rape boys, you've said so yourself in many different threads, and you've spoken extensively about why people should be allowed to rape little boys.

>>17831420
I have argued with him on other threads, I can tell it's him. You think it's impossible to recognize posters on this board?

>>17831425
>everyone who disagrees with me is actually the same person

>>17831428
I would say, in your state, yeah it's impossible for you to recognize posters. Psychosis has many symptoms, but believing yourself to constantly in communication with the same person who is constantly persecuting you, well that's a pretty big indicator.

>>17831432
You have the same file names for all the images you post and to my knowledge are the only person who regularly posts this basedjak >>17831119

>>17831440
>everyone in this thread who disagrees with me is the same person
>people can't reuse filenames
>people can't post the same basedjaks
Get help.

>>17831448
Listen man, you sound young. I would guess probably 19, most of your pre-frontal cortex is still goop. You seem to have found yourself in a situation where you advocate for something quite stupid and you do so publicly. The people you surround yourself with are no good, you'll notice some are older and maybe have a rap sheet, do you really want to be like them? These years are more formative than you think and if you don't break out and claw your way to a version of normalcy, you'll be trapped just as they are.

>>17831454
>im going to pretend im not the same person who posted this >>17831119

>>17831457
Again man, I'm just trying to warn you.

>>17831335
Except the people sharing these wojaks don't want to fuck a 16-17 year old. They wanna fuck 12 year olds.

>>17831419
Dude the only reason the other other anon even brought up Zeus is he thinks fucking kids is okay because the Greeks did it. If you don't want people to assume you agree with him don't jump in in the middle of the argument to debate semantics.

>>17831490
>erm yikes sweaty, that 10 year old doesn't have a developed pre-frontal cortex and can't consent to sex, it's gross and problematic!
>erm yikes sweaty, that 15 year old doesn't have a developed pre-frontal cortex and can't consent to sex, it's gross and problematic!
>erm yikes sweaty, that 20 year old doesn't have a developed pre-frontal cortex and can't consent to sex, it's gross and problematic!
>erm yikes sweaty, that 25 year old doesn't have a developed pre-frontal cortex and can't consent to sex, it's gross and problematic!
When does the feminist insanity end? The slippery slope is real, and it's leading us into extinction.

>>17831505
When I'm in a misrepresenting complicated trends and creating false equivalencies challenge and my opponent is a pedophile

>>17831505
"I CAN'T RAPE A 10 YEAR OLD!!! HUMANITY IS GOING TO GO EXTINCT!!!!"

>>17831521
Why do they keep blaming it on feminism? Do they just not know about all the pedophile French philosophers and male feminists or do they just think painting all of their opponents as feminists makes touching kids magically less abhorrent.

>>17831521
>forbidding men from having sex with girls for a significant period of their fertility and demonizing young marriage and young childbirth has no relation to decreasing birth rates, it's complex bro you just don't understand the complexity, you just don't understand these complicated historical trends okay??

>>17831531
I thought you preferred boys or are you a different anon?

>>17831529
>Do they just not know about all the pedophile French philosophers and male feminists
Those handful of (largely male, non-feminist) philosophers who had no real influence and were rejected by virtually all feminists, besides maybe one or two who made obliquely supportive comments about their ideas which they have since retracted?

>>17831529
They have to battle a voice in their head every day telling them "hey maybe I shouldn't masturbate to this animated image of a little boy crying and soiling his diaper". To them cognitive dissonance is second nature and they get quite upset when you don't accept their insane premises.

>>17831531
It doesn't, people retain fertility well into their 30s, and modern medicine means that they usually live into their 70s or 80s. We are experiencing a decline in overall fertility because of birth control, abortion, and economic stagnation/collapse, as well as a multitude of other factors which really are too numerous to list. This is a complicated issue with multi-faceted causes, you have narrowed it down to one, that being that you are not allowed to fucking little boys. It is utter insanity.

>>17831540
In your own head cannon of events, I'm sure this makes perfect sense. To absolutely everyone else you sound insane.

>>17831540
Imagine being so insane you try to present a post by someone named "AryanBoyLover1488" as an argument.

>>17831573
You think there's ever going to be a civil war between people who think normalizing pedophillia was invented by the Jews and those who think banning pedophillia was invented by the Jews?

>>17831540
That book and that woman's work is like so totally irrelevant to "boy loving" yet these faggots post it on repeat. They try and use an irrational claim that father-daughter incest was common to then say

>LOOK HOW UNREASONABLE THIS IS, SHOULDN'T I JUST BE ABLE TO RAPE LITTLE BOYS BECAUSE THIS IS SO UNREASONABLE

>>17831579
I'm only confident that three pro-pedophile nazis exist, and all of them seem to post here. Suffice it to say I don't think they would measure up, sort of a night of the long knives situation.

>>17831560
>We are experiencing a decline in overall fertility because of birth control
Birth rates for hags in most Western countries have actually been increasing, but because they are approaching the end of their fertility, they can not continue to have children. Simultaneously, birth rates among young women, particularly teenage women, have decreased dramatically.

Generally, mothers who have their first children when they are young do not then cease having children as they get older, they continue having children throughout their fertility. The decrease in birth rates in Western countries is largely due to the delay of marriage and childbirth, which was precipitated by raising the age of consent to 16-18 from 10-12.

When you demonize and criminalize marriages with young women, you don't just cut off the lower end of marriageable women and childbearing, you shift the entire median upwards, which is the root cause of the birth-rate crisis. This in conjunction with society's rejection of pederasty is the reason why the West is in terminal decline.

>>17831585
Her book was the origin of the pseudoscientific 'child sexual abuse' theory which is used as a justification against adult-minor sexual relations in the current day.

>>17831596
You're complaining about pseudoscience while basing your entire argument on one chart and a gay Nazi pedophile.

>>17831596
Birth rates have been dropping below replacement for a long time, and its not because women are approaching the end of their fertility when they have children. This has been happening around the world in many highly industrialized and urbanized societies, is it because they raised the age of consent? No, because age of consent has been raised almost universally and marriages/childbirth occur much later even in areas of the world where populations are growing and not receding. It is likely a multitude of factors, but a big one, perhaps the most important one, is that when people are put under economic strain they do not desire to have children. You could probably more accurately chart population decline to the establishment of the federal reserve with a more clear causal relationship than to any changes in age of consent.

Young marriages were demonized far before even the 20th century, moreover, and some of the most prosperous societal conditions for growth have emerged from cultures which essentially cloister their women until adulthood, just look at the early modern Anglo expansion in the Americas and elsewhere for evidence of that. I would not go so far as to state a causal relationship between age of marriage and civilizational growth because that's just fucking retarded, but it's also pretty much what you are doing. Either way this matter is of little concern to you, because you are into little boys.

>>17831596
It was the origin of a theory on father-daughter incest, you fucking mouth breathing retard. The idea that it is not okay to fuck children has been around since at least Plato's time, and it has had many legal implementations through out history to varying degrees of success. The reason it practically does not exist today is because of advances in medicine that have allowed us to understand the harm sexual abuse causes children.

is it possible to post a picture of a boy on /his/ without it devolving into an argument over whether you should/shouldn't be allowed to molest them?

>>17831875
This point plays into what he is going to say, which is that Jewish feminists invented the idea that children are traumatized by sex. He will then try and offer the Rind study as a counter point, the issue with that study is that it is fundamentally flawed and rejected by the scientific community. He doesn't really have an answer for that and will just repeatedly call you Jewish or tell you that you all other studies besides the Rind ones are suffering from the exact same rudimentary statistical mistake of sampling bias. You will know you've won because he'll start talking about statistical concepts which he has no knowledge of, such as "representative sampling" not realizing that representative sampling requires samples which select for all groups within a population. He will then pretend not to know that representative samples include members of his desired population of children "untraumatized" by an adult sexually abusing them and thus their conclusions are more robust and also accounted for weight. If you try and explain to him that statistical observations in these fields account for confounding, lurking, or skewed data sets by using different tests to determine the validity of hypotheses his complete interest or understanding of even simple post-secondary mathematics will become apparent.

Expect him to be very angry this entire time, calling you Jewish, and posting shota. Know that his mind is one which cannot be helped, he is deeply mentally ill and quite young. Pair that with the fact he has surrounded himself with the absolute dregs of society and you'll come to understand that no matter what he says, his continued existence does more damage to any movement he co-opts than it helps it by spamming.

>>17831908
complete lack of interest or understanding*

>>17831872
>Birth rates have been dropping below replacement for a long time
Coincidentally, they just happened to drop dramatically immediately after the age of consent was raised to 16: >>17831505

>perhaps the most important one, is that when people are put under economic strain they do not desire to have children
Which is why the only demographic in Western countries which are above replacement level fertility are people who live in poverty.

>>17831875
>The reason it practically does not exist today is because of advances in medicine that have allowed us to understand the harm sexual abuse causes children.
Yes, this conception you have that science elucidates a causal link between adult-child sex and psychological harm is a pseudoscientific theory that was devised by feminists starting in the 1970s.

>>17831886
You'll come to understand anytime some posts a picture of a little boy on this God forsaken website, they likely want to molest them.

>>17831908
>the issue with that study is that it is fundamentally flawed and rejected by the scientific community
No it isn't:
James Cantor, PhD:
>The research is much more consistent with the conclusion that harm is caused instead by coercion, manipulation, secrecy, and by courting kids who already have problems, not the sexual interactions per se.
Michael Bailey, PhD:
>Indeed, the best scientific evidence suggests that the most typical experiences considered childhood sexual abuse may not be as harmful as most people think. Specifically, sexual activity that children engage in voluntarily (albeit illegally) with adults is nearly uncorrelated with undesirable outcomes
Jordan Peterson, PhD:
>Did you know that about 20 years ago the American Psychological Association published a paper showing that most people who were sexually abused as children recovered with very little psychological damage? This is an unsayable truth.
Richard Green, PhD:
>Ultimately, scientists, if no one else, must be objective in their approach to this emotional issue. Judgmental terminology regarding intergenerational sexuality is more dramatic than that in the earlier psychiatric literature on homosexuality. There, patients were labeled perverts and psychopaths. Here, the experience is always abuse, the children are invariably victims, the adults are perpetrators, and those who later report childhood sexual experiences are, without apology to victims of the Nazi Holocaust, survivors.

>all other studies besides the Rind ones are suffering from the exact same rudimentary statistical mistake of sampling bias
Yes, that is true actually.

>>17831913
>Coincidentally, they just happened to drop dramatically immediately after the age of consent was raised to 16

yeah, correlation, not causation

>Yes, this conception you have that science elucidates a causal link between adult-child sex and psychological harm is a pseudoscientific theory that was devised by feminists starting in the 1970s.

I refer you to this post >>17831908

>>17831921
>preventing men from having children with fertile young women and demonizing teenage marriage and childbirth doesn't lead to a decrease in birthrates, even though data clearly shows that the decrease in birthrates is mostly due to the delay of marriage and first birth

>>17831919
Aside from the Juden Peterstein citation which I find to be hilarious, these men are not representative of the scientific community which rejects Rind's study. Single quotes from guys with PhD do not reflect a meaningful endorsement or acceptance from the academic field Rind hails from, he was hauled before congress if you remember and the member of the APA board were brought under direct scrutiny. And no, every other study is actually much more statistically sound, you don't understand why this is the case because I suspect you have never gone beyond basic algebra, if that, but nonetheless they are.

>>17831927
You got a linear correlation coefficient or are you just going to admit you do not have any basis to make this casual claim. More over do you notice how even if they start at 20 they can still have 8 children? How many octomoms do you know? More over how many children do you think a couple needs to make in order to be above replacement rates. Also are you going to acknowledge that birth rates have been rising and falling independently of the age of consent or age of marriage for quite some time?

>>17831930
He was condemned in congress by a bunch of fat ziocons that hadn't even read the study they were condemning, because they didn't like the outcome of the study:
>Representative Brian Baird, who has a Ph.D. in clinical psychology and was one of the 13 Congressmen to abstain from the condemnation of the study, stated that of the 535 members of the House and Senate, fewer than 10 had actually read the study, and even fewer were qualified to evaluate it based on its merit

>>17831933
>erm, do you have mathematical proof that refraining from having sex with fertile women is causally linked with not producing children??

>>17831937
He was rejected in his own field as well, the hauling before congress part was funny because it made pedophiles mad, but he has had hundreds of counter studies conducted which refuted his claims and pointed out errors in his statistical methods. He responded to the hearing and two of those studies before taking a sabbatical and never again trying to claim what he did in the 98 study. It seems even he knows that he was maybe a little bit wrong.

Also yeah in that case you would need to provide one, because birth rates have been falling or rising depending on region independently of changes to the age of consent.

>>17831937
Either way using Rind as an example and then referencing Peterson types as evidence he is accepted is dumb and disingenuous. Rind is like the Graham Hancock of pedophilia, his work is not taken seriously by anyone actually studying in the field and the rest of science has moved on past his claims and authorship.

>>17831933
Literally the first thing I would do if I was a mastermind plotting the genocide of a race of people I wanted to exterminate, is to raise their age of consent and demonize them marrying and breeding teenage girls. But this is not just a hypothetical, this is actually happening. This is how they destroy nations. I don't need to use the Shekelblatt correlation coefficient to figure that out.

>>17831948
>He was rejected in his own field as well
No he wasn't, psychologists accept his conclusions >>17831919
And his study has been replicated:
>"In 1998 Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman conducted a meta-analysis using a college sample which challenged the prevailing belief that childhood sexual abuse (CSA) has inherent deleterious effects. Resultantly, the authors proposed alternative terminology (e.g., child-adult sex), without adequate investigation into what distinguishes child-adult sex from CSA. In response, the current study investigated the relationship between CSA, consent and adult functioning in a college sample [...] These results suggest that based on CSA status, a college sample does not exhibit significant deficits in psychological functioning or family environment and may not be comparable to samples of CSA survivors in the general population."
Daly, N. R. (2021). Relationship of Child Sexual Abuse Survivor Self-Perception of Consent to Current Functioning, PhD thesis.

>>17831961
Juden Peterstein is a rabid anti-pedo, but even he accepts the conclusions of Rind's study, because it is undeniable.

>>17831964
You live in a truly insane world, but no, age of consent being raised by 6 years, was not the opening act of white genocide. It is strange to me you care so much considering your desired form of pedophilia is homosexual. A linear correlation coefficient is easy for even an amateur to establish. You just need a data set of birth rate by age of consent, and then plug it in to excel or SPSS and ask for the linear correlation coefficient. Just because you didn't complete algebra doesn't mean that basic mathematics are Jewish tricks.

The replication of his study still rejected some of the conclusions, they also adjusted for his statistical errors, he did not. His study has been routinely rejected by almost all statisticians and psychologists which look at it.

>https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/critical-appraisal-1998-meta-analytic-review-child-sexual-abuse

>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17521995/

On the second page you will find roughly 70 similar articles, and almost every one which is concerned with Rind's conclusions reject them. Juden Peterstein is a jewish servant, his input does not matter.

>>17831964
>using a college sample
Yes, because everyone knows twenty year old college kids in the '90s were more or less representative of the broader population kek

>>17831988
Mind you the Rind study excluded cases which had legal or clinical outcomes, as pointed out in the Whittenburg refutation, and this is the o n l y guy they have to support their claim that children are not affected by CSA.

>>17831983
>His study has been routinely rejected by almost all statisticians and psychologists which look at it.
Except the peer reviewers who approved it for publication by the American Psychological Association for some odd reason.

>>17831988
Around half of the American population in the 1990s attended college, and roughly the same percentage of college respondents reported experiencing sociolegally defined 'CSA' as national samples which Rind used in an earlier study, which came to the same general conclusion:
>"The self-reported effects data contradict the conclusions or implications presented in previous literature reviews that harmful effects stemming from CSA are pervasive and intense in the population of persons with this experience. Baker and Duncan (1985) found that, although some respondents reported permanent harm stemming from their CSA experiences (4% of males and 13% of females), the overwhelming majority did not (96% of males and 87% of females). Severe or intense harm would be expected to linger into adulthood, but this did not occur for most respondents in this national sample, according to their self-reports, contradicting the conclusion or implication of intense harm stemming from CSA in the typical case. Meta-analyses of CSA-adjustment relations from the five national studies that reported results of adjustment measures revealed a consistent pattern: SA respondents were less well adjusted than control respondents. Importantly, however, the size of this difference (i.e., effect size) was consistently small in the case of both males and females. The unbiased effect size estimate for males and females combined was ru = .08, which indicates that CSA, assuming that it was responsible for the adjustment difference between SA and control respondents, did not produce intense problems on average."
Rind, Bruce & Tromovitch, Philip (1997). "A meta-analytic review of findings from national samples on psychological correlates of child sexual abuse"

>>17832014
>Except the peer reviewers who approved it for publication by the American Psychological Association for some odd reason.

You are referring the AAAS, the APA was the one that actually requested the review.

>>17832032
>The paper was published by the American Psychological Association (APA) in July 1998, in Psychological Bulletin.

>>17832014
This was a meta study, he included data from studies as far back as 1956, he didn't literally collect data from the 90s. You are one dumb faggot.

>>17832035
The APA requested an independent review, the AAAS declined to do so, the study was not independently reviewed.

>>17832038
It was peer reviewed before being approved for publication.
>In September 1999, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), upon a request by the APA to independently review the article, stated that it saw no reason to second-guess the peer review process that approved it initially and that it saw no evidence of improper methodology or questionable practices by the authors. The AAAS also expressed concern that the materials reviewed demonstrated a grave lack of understanding of the study on the part of the media and politicians and were also concerned about the misrepresentation of its findings.

>>17832014
>college students that cheerfully respond to a questionnaire about getting molested as kids are more or less representative of the broader population o algo

>>17832050
Yes they refused to review it upon a request from the APA, it only underwent the APA review process; i.e it was not independently reviewed.

>>17832050
In the age of the replication crisis "peer review" means jack shit
>Yeah, a tenured professor skimmed the paper and was OK with it so please assume he had his assistant drones rigorously pore through the study and corroborate every single result o algo

>>17832038
>>17832053
The vast majority of the studies included in the meta-analysis were from the 80s/90s, when roughly half of US adults attended college, and the percentage of respondents reporting 'CSA' is consistent with national samples, i.e. they are representative samples, and much more so than psychiatric and criminal samples which sex cultists prioritize.

>>17832058
>it only underwent the APA review process
>review process
>His study has been routinely rejected by almost all statisticians and psychologists which look at it.

>>17832053
He also rejected any data which came from cases where clinical or legal outcomes were pursued. So he literally sliced like a majority of CSA cases out in just his selection process, and somehow every one else has an issue with sampling bias. You can't make this shit up.

>>17832064
>He also rejected any data which came from cases where clinical or legal outcomes were pursued.
Proof?

>>17832061
Yes being accepted by the APA board and then being categorically rejected by everyone else while similarly not having an independent review conducted is a pretty grave sentence for the validity of a study's conclusions, especially if the same guy who was categorically rejected is the only guy in the entire field actually continuing to study the validity of his own outcomes and coincidentally agreeing with himself.

The argument is still pointless, because he has been rejected, and he is the only one in the field who even supports 1/10th of what you think. You are arguing from a place of bias and refuse to acknowledge that every other study conducted on this matter might have people conducting them which are more capable and knowledgeable than you. The entire field evidently does not find Rind's conclusions to be meaningful, otherwise the language and science would have shifted.

>>17832070
>https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/critical-appraisal-1998-meta-analytic-review-child-sexual-abuse

>The effects of the removal of clinical and legal cases from the Rind et al. research sample ...

>>17832085
>while similarly not having an independent review conducted
Because the AAAS did not consider it necessary to independently review the paper because they trusted and had no reason to doubt the peer review process. They immediately recognized the politically motivated nature of the backlash against the paper.

>especially if the same guy who was categorically rejected is the only guy in the entire field actually continuing to study the validity of his own outcomes and coincidentally agreeing with himself
Because it's an extremely controversial topic and publishing an honest paper in this area is likely career ruining, as evidenced by the massive controversy surrounding this study, including by the United States congress which was unprecedented.

>The entire field evidently does not find Rind's conclusions to be meaningful, otherwise the language and science would have shifted
Yes, and black people are equally as intelligent as White people, women are the same as men, and men can become women by cutting their dick off because the science says so.

>>17832088
So he didn't actually remove all data from cases which had clinical or legal outcomes (as that wouldn't even be possible considering the studies he was using), he just didn't use clinical and legal samples, which you would know if you actually read the study instead of just reading (and miscomprehending) the abstract of a paper which talks about the study. There would have still been cases which had clinical and legal outcomes included in his samples. You can stop repeating this mistruth now.

>>17832105
*including condemnation by the United States congress which was unprecedented

>>17832105
Again you draw a false equivalency, the Rind study and its conclusions aren't akin to say a book like the Bell Curve. They appear similar if you put a heavy rhetorical spin on it, but Rind's conclusions exist on the basis of changing language surrounding CSA, even a goal with as little scope as that he was still categorically rejected and his conclusions were ignored. Was he barred from study or publication? Did he have his article pulled? Did he ever have any legal or civil cases brought against him? In all of those cases the answer is no, there is no grand conspiracy against Rind or boyfuckers, the results he produced were simply not sufficient. The study was formally rejected by Congress because pedophiles (like you) attempted to use it as justification for changing of laws, they shut that down quick but it was not some unprecedented witch hunt or even really a personal attack on Rind. They just signaled that no progress would be made legally with respect to the legalization of pedophilia on the basis of the article.

>>17832105
>So he didn't actually remove all data from cases which had clinical or legal outcomes

That's literally what he did, if a sample had clinical or legal outcomes he removed it from the sample. Clinical and legal "samples" are under seal; i.e not available for research. He cannot go through public records and find out if someone was molested as a child, these samples cannot be included in any study. I also can almost guarantee that even if you did read the study you did not read the raw data, and the fact that you argue from clear ignorance here kind of catches you in a lie.

>>17832123
>but Rind's conclusions exist on the basis of changing language surrounding CSA
This is a nonsensical statement. The basis of Rind's conclusions was changing language? The basis of his conclusions were the results of his study.

>Was he barred from study or publication? Did he have his article pulled? Did he ever have any legal or civil cases brought against him? In all of those cases the answer is no, there is no grand conspiracy against Rind or boyfuckers
There was no backlash against Rind for publishing this study. There is no backlash against anyone who challenges the orthodox view that sexual contact harms children. This is not a controversial topic at all. People are completely unperturbed by the suggestion that children are not harmed by sex. The APA did not receive any pressure or any threats in the aftermath of publishing this article. Rind did not face three completely arbitrary outcomes which you just listed, therefore none of the backlash he received mattered.

>>17832126
No, you read the abstract of a critique of a study which you are too afraid to actually read yourself because it will refute your preconceptions, and you have come to a set of fantastical conclusions on the basis of a misinterpreted sentence. He did not exclude data from cases which had clinical or legal results, full stop. He used college samples, of which many respondents would have had clinical and psychiatric involvement, which he never excluded. The fact that you refer me to some irrelevant critique of Rind's study instead of actually pointing out where in Rind's study he did what you accuse him of is indicative of the fact that you have no clue what you are talking about.

TIL: Black people are equally as intelligent as White people, women are the exact same as men, and transwomen are valid. You chuds can try to publish an article about it in a scientific journal, you won't be prosecuted legally or barred from publishing further papers or anything, but it won't be accepted because the science unequivocally disavows your bigotry (all of which is further proof of the veridicality of these facts btw).

>>17832140
>This is a nonsensical statement. The basis of Rind's conclusions was changing language? The basis of his conclusions were the results of his study.

His conclusions exist on the basis of a desire to change language surrounding CSA, that is kind of why he published the study. It was insufficient for this purpose.

>There was no backlash against Rind for publishing this study ... etcetera

There was academic backlash because of the poor quality of the study. Average people were perturbed by what Rind has to say because it is inherently disgusting to most people, but they are not perturbed in an organized fashion. There were no serious attempts made to silence Rind, remove him from his position, or otherwise threaten him. There is no grand conspiracy against you, you have a persecution complex because you know your own behavior to be abhorrent. You are asking people not to feel personal disgust when they see you advocating for the rape of little children, this is something over which you have no control. You can either accept that or rope.

I hate faggots

>>17832140
>you are SCARED of reading Rind's BULLET PROOF and NEVER DEBUNKED study
>I will continue to make myself look like an idiot by insisting that even though this was a meta-analysis he choose to exclude data sets which no study can include on the basis of serious ethical issues
>See HE DIDN'T exclude cases with legal and clinical outcomes, he just didn't look at sealed legal and clinical pools of subjects in his questionnaire based survey of random college students


This is you, this is what you sound like. He rejected cases which had clinical and legal outcomes precisely because he believed those were confounding or lurking, that was the point of the study, you moron.

>>17832151
>>17832160

He's already dead man stop

>Dallam and Anna Salter have stated that Rind and Bauserman have associated with age of consent reform organizations in the past. In the years before the paper was written, both Rind and Bauserman had published articles in Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia, a journal which was dedicated to "demonstrating that pedophilia has been, and remains, a legitimate and productive part of the totality of human experience". In addition, Dallam and Salter stated that Rind and Bauserman were keynote speakers at a pedophile advocacy conference occurring in the Netherlands.

the jokes write themselves

Can you guys shut the fuck up about the pedo shit and focus on the historical facts. Now I’m in some weird fucked up position of defending the (literally objectively true) thesis that the Greeks practiced homosexual pederasty, simply for the fact that is literally the fucking truth, but there are namblafags in this thread now too

>>17832151
>There was academic backlash because of the poor quality of the study.
Peer reviewed and published by the American Psychological Association. Rejected for independent review by the AAAS because they had no reason to doubt the peer review process and understood the political nature of the backlash against the paper. Independently replicated >>17831964 Conclusions of the study largely accepted by psychologists >>17831919

>There were no serious attempts made to silence Rind
Doesn't matter, this is not the only way that research into this area can be suppressed. For example, he could be (and has been) blackballed from further publication in certain journals, without ever being "silenced", legally, or by having his credentials revoked. The controversy surrounding the publication of the study creates a massive chilling effect against further publication of such studies. The area which the study concerns is a massively controversial one, people who talk honestly about it receive death threats, etc. Rind actually has received many death threats over the publication of this study. General opprobrium to the topic due to cultural bias exists and has implications for research. Congress condemning this particular study in an unprecedented move is a major response with far-reaching implications, and the fact that you ignore all of this or pretend it's unimportant is a reflection of your own personal bias.

>>17832152
We hate you too.

>>17832160
Are you having a stroke? I don't even understand what you're trying to argue at this point. Maybe you should step away from the computer.

Can we argue about the Greeks again guys

>>17822867 (OP)

Why would you want to have saved a nihilist degenerate Satanic faggot?

This was Harmoidius and Aristogeiton. It’s over for namblachuds…

Looks like consenting adult faggot chads win again. The Greeks were not all pedos after all

>>17832205
I'm the namblachud and I don't deny that adult-homosexuals existed and were accepted in Greece >>17829805

>>17832211
Most recorded relationships were between men and boys.

>>17832184
We already went over why Peterstein and other isolated psychologists do not reflect a broad acceptance by psychologists, most other literature and science as a whole has moved on from his conclusions and found even the limited scope of his advocacy in the 98 paper to be insufficiently supported. His work is no good and this is just the objective truth. The results, moreover, were not replicated, the statistical errors were reconciled in the replication and a good chunk of the conclusions were debunked with only some being accepted.

I also doubt he was blackballed, he has published quite a bit since 98, but even if he was de-facto banned certain publications it would be totally understandable. The man openly associates with pedophilia advocacy groups and produces bad science which they use in turn to try and lobby for instituting child rape. He is not a man who should work or have any credentials, this has not happened, him receiving death threats is funny but any public figure of significant enough notoriety usually gets them, I guess he and you can cry about it. The congressional hearing was just to shut down the pedophile advocacy groups, it probably made him mad but I guess he just has to deal with that, it would be narcissistic for him to assume that it had anything to do with him.

>Are you having a stroke? I don't even understand what you're trying to argue at this point. Maybe you should step away from the computer.

This is a great way of telling me that you have no response, I know you had none because I read the article and follow ups, it seems you did not.

>"They defended their deliberate choice of non-legal and non-clinical samples, accordingly avoiding individuals who received psychological treatment or were engaged in legal proceedings"

>>17832213
This is the aussie one btw

Speaking of Greeks, Greek paganism was a degenerate religion that encouraged:

- hedonism

- unjustified killing / murder

- cannibalism

- weakness / sloth

- inaction

- physical weakness

That's why they happily accepted Christianity. Lol.

>>17832225

Those, and many others...

>>17832184
>>17832218
I genuinely don’t mean to insinuate anything but how do you guys both know so much about this shit

>>17832183
Pretty much everyone concedes that Greeks had homosexuality in certain circles, they wouldn't have produced all the pottery if this weren't the case. It wasn't the homosexuality you conceive of, however, it was more like extremely rich and powerful people fucking whoever they wanted mostly in secret, unless the passive partner was a non-citizen or slave. They were not a majority or even plurality of the population, likely a small fraction, about the same percentage as today give or take.

The namblatards try to argue that homosexuality, and especially homosexual pedophilia were wildly common and on this basis it should be okay today because of Aryan traditions or some other nonsense depending on which flavor of pedophile they are. There are obvious issues with this and that is the only reason Greek homosexuality is ever debated on this board, it is vehicle for nambla people to try persuade or find other predators to trade pictures with.

>>17832235
>that is the only reason Greek homosexuality is ever debated on this board
No it’s because I find it so fucking annoying that schizos like you deny objective historical facts just because they make you uncomfortable. He is defending them because they suit his agenda. You are the same

>>17832218
>and a good chunk of the conclusions were debunked with only some being accepted
No, all of his conclusions were supported by the replication, the author only did not agree with using the alternative terminology of 'adult-child sex' in cases of volitional sex between adults and children, which is a purely prescriptive proposition.

>I also doubt he was blackballed
He was.

>The man openly associates with pedophilia advocacy groups
Guilt by association.

>The congressional hearing was just to shut down the pedophile advocacy groups
No, they condemned a scientific study because they didn't like the conclusions.

>"They defended their deliberate choice of non-legal and non-clinical samples
Which is a far cry from your original claim that he rejected any 'data which came from cases where clinical or legal outcomes were pursued' >>17832064

Words have meanings, stop being so cavalier with them.

>>17832230
I'm an avid, recondite reader of Newgon, the NAMBLA bulletin, IPCE, Tom O'Carroll's blog, greek-love.com, boywiki, etc. The other guy doesn't understand much about this, he just misreads the abstracts of studies which he hasn't read.

>>17832237
Yeah man sure, I have an "agenda" that makes me just as bad as the pedophile because I call into question the broad acceptance of sexual abuse in the ancient world.

>>17832243
No because you’re just motivated by homophobia, since I doubt you deny that ancient Greek men tended to marry young girls, and you deny adult homosexual relationships too.
>>17832241
>all those websites
Jesus Christ

>>17832241
>No, all of his conclusions were supported by the replication

Anyone with access to the replication knows this is false and they also rejected his advocacy claims, nullifying the study's purpose. He wasn't blackballed, he has published quite a bit since 98. They condemned the study explicitly because pedophilia advocacy groups were using it as vehicle to lobby for legal change, that was the purpose of this. He is guilty, of at the very least ethical negligence, the association only deepens the guilt. My original claim was exactly that, you have been reduced to semantics and pedantry to save your flagging argument.

>I'm an avid reader of [polemical publications that all happen to agree with me] I live in an echo chamber so loud someone can glance at a study and debunk my entire world view with in the space of a couple of minutes.

>>17832243
Also when you have lover pairs like Achilles and Patroclus or in the Sacred Band of Thebes, although there was an age gap, I doubt the younger partner was a child.

>>17832249
Really maybe you are starting to see now, I am not homophobic, I simply disdain pedophiles. No homosexual activist would find anything I say on Ancient Greece to be disreputable or hateful, they practiced homosexuality differently, he wants to argue they absolutely loved fucking children and culturally it was totally okay across most of antiquity. He does this with a clear agenda and should not be trusted.

>>17832259
I am gay and I think that is literally true though. It doesn’t matter what my feelings are about the subject because it’s what happened. I would prefer if it were all based chad adult lover pairs (like what I imagine the Sacred Band of Thebes must have been) but I can’t rewrite history to suit my private feelings. Pedophilia was super widespread in antiquity, the heterosexual kind too. So was slavery, and infanticide, and genocide. So even though there are things we find virtuous and admirable about these cultures, we can’t just erase the bad parts because they make us uncomfortable.

>>17832241
Several of those websites are meeting points or literal vectors for the trading of CSAM btw. He just essentially told us he routinely consumes child pornography, I think this is a violation of both site rules, Australian and U.S law and his own parole agreement.

>>17832265
Heterosexual pedophilia was quite common and acceptable. I don't think the same about homosexual pedophilia, not because I have an agenda, but because the evidence is simply not there.

>>17832259
Also the Symposium has a precedent for the age of consent, where one of the speakers (I forget who) says you shouldn’t have relationships with young boys who can’t reason yet. Which also proves that they thought of these relationships in a serious way

>>17832252
>Anyone with access to the replication knows this is false
Not true.

>nullifying the study's purpose
Not the study's purpose.

>He wasn't blackballed, he has published quite a bit since 98
In obscure journals.

>They condemned the study explicitly because pedophilia advocacy groups were using it as vehicle to lobby for legal change
Irrelevant, they condemned the study.

>My original claim was exactly that
No, your original claim was wildly different to your concession.

>>17832255
Teenage boys fought in wars in the ancient world >>17823782

>>17832267
No they aren't, most of those websites have been up for well over a decade.

>>17832222

>>17832225

FACT.

>>17832271
Yes the trading is done clandestinely, or it is just a meeting point for invitations to later sites, but some of those especially are pretty much explicitly CSAM bazzars.

>>17832225

>>17832226

FACT.

I don’t feel comfortable talking about ancient Greek faggotry any more after this thread :(

>>17832276
No they're not, three of them are static websites, two are heavily moderated wiki sites, and one is a wordpress blog with a heavily moderated comment section. All of them are under heavy scrutiny and would have been taken down long ago if they hosted or were vectors for illegal material. Are you going to next accuse the jannies and moderators of being involved in a secret pedophile cabal which controls /his/, as you have done in other threads?

>>17832279
The fuck it is, dipshit

>>17832285
Also, is this fag in almost every thread on the board?

>>17832271
>Teenage boys fought in wars in the ancient world
I can imagine them being 17-19 but not younger

>>17832287
14 year olds can do rear echelon duties or use a sling just fine.

>>17832287
Alexander first commanded an army at 16. Even in recent times, boys as young as 12 have participated in war.

>>17832271
You appear to have been reduced to babbling about how unfair this all is or how imprecise my language was. I'll accept your concession, you'll likely get a ban again for posting CSAM trading sites again, hopefully you won't come back and shit up this board with more pedophilia shit after you are done.

The reproduction disagreed with scope of his conclusions after adjusting for his statistical errors, and the senate hearing was hilarious, also Rind in his follow up study defended the decisions to avoid those with legal and psychological outcomes. He defends this on the basis that he believes those are lurking/confounding variables, he tried to use this as evidence for changing the language surrounding CSA, the claims were totally rejected by most of the other studies in response to his own, with his advocacy being rejected by the reproduction. It is dead in the water, the man simply lacks the intellectual ability and factual information to adequately defend pedophilia, you presenting it as a refutation of modern science is simply dishonest both by its own merits and on the merit that you lack the understanding to even grasp why it is wrong.

>>17832286

I'm only in 4 threads right now, dumbass.

>>17832280
What a horrible fate. How incredibly sad that you won't be able to idealize the sexual practices of a people which routinely enslaved, raped, and killed anything which displeased them.

>>17832294
I find it funny you’re able to BTFO the namblafag on his pedo advocacy but get BTFO on the Greek history, which would be fixed by recognising that we don’t have to get our morals from the Greeks

>>17832294
>how imprecise my language was
You made a radically different claim to your eventual concession.

>you'll likely get a ban again for posting CSAM trading sites again
I've never been banned for posting about this. The janny locked the thread the last two times and didn't ban anyone, retard. And none of those sites contain or act as vectors for illegal material.

Congratulations on continually being the most retarded and dishonest poster on /his/.

>>17832301
>I find it funny you’re able to BTFO the namblafag on his pedo advocacy
He isn't. He's just making stuff up about the study and its author at this point.

>>17832301
Why would you assume he isn't using the same dishonest argumentation and selective scepticism re. studies on adult-child sex that he does, egregiously so, in regards to Greek pederasty?

>>17832279

Speaking of Greek faggotry...Greek Paganism is a faggot religion. Read the 2 posts linked.

>>17832306
The difference is that on the subject of Greek pederasty I've read the same primary sources and it's just the mainstream historical view. 99% of historians and classicists are not pedos I assume kek

>>17832284
Have you ever heard of a honey pot?

I've never seen the namblafags get BTFO'd this bad holy shit, the shota spammer called for back up and still got absolutely fucked

>>17832315
Tangential, but one of the most widely regarded scholars (William Percy) of Greek pederasty wrote about the subject presumably because he enjoyed having sex with adult men when he was a teenage boy himself. He also associated with pederasty advocacy organizations. Basically he knew the Greeks were actually right and the Christcucks were full of shit. Gay sex is a fun human activity which is generally good for society, and it doesn't matter if one participant is under some arbitrary age determined by feminists.

>>17832345
You can not privately communicate with anyone on those websites. The two wiki sites are heavily moderated and curated, and the blog moderates comments and does not allow users to share contact information with each other. All but one of those websites have been up since the 2000s. I also know who (or what organization) operates each of those websites, they are not law enforcement. No, they aren't honeypots. They are websites which host scholarly and historical information. You don't conduct a honeypot by attracting visitors to a website which hosts completely legal content.

>>17832355
Being BTFO is when some schizo starts citing his own delusions as evidence?

>>17832382
Fuck off. You have completely ruined the fun I have posting about historical homosexuality. You've made it feel sordid.

>>17832391
>historical homosexuality
By which you mean historical sex between men and young boys, because that is what virtually all historical homosexuality is.