>>17843351
>you insist that they made a rudimentary statistical error
They don't distinguish between voluntary and non-voluntary sexual contacts, this is a fundamental conceptual mistake which virtually all of these studies make. And yes, they do make other rudimentary statistical errors which have been addressed by Rind and various other studies which find a small effect size for "CSA" and harm, which are likely explained by confounding factors, and which find no association between voluntary adult-child sex and negative outcomes. This is what the best available scientific evidence tells us.
>as is the case with the psychobiological review, you insist that it's findings are useless
I never said that. I said it wasn't a study, next that it wasn't a meta-analysis, and you have admitted that it isn't, considering the fact that you are now referring to it as a review. I never claimed that the findings of the studies in this review were useless, or any other study posted. You are making this up. This is a lie.
>he did not stumble onto some grand conspiracy
I have never implied there was a grand conspiracy to suppress Rind's findings. This is a lie.
>his conclusions just merited little value to the field of CSA research
Apart from the fact that they have been widely accepted and assimilated by most psychologists. This again, is a claim which you have never substantiated, and have actually refuted with the studies you have posted yourself.
>>17843354
Those images weren't pornographic. There is nothing inherently pornographic of cartoon pictures of little boys. I was never banned for posting them. The mascot of this website is a cartoon little girl. Posting Japanese style cartoons is fine on 4chan, this is an anime website.
You must be a Jew considering how habitually you lie. Almost every single sentence you post is rife with lies. Or maybe you are just hearing voices in your deranged mind, and you genuinely believe that I have made all these claims that I haven't?
