You won't believe these 8 OUTRAGEOUS beliefs of the PIC!!!

Societal problems, economics, etc.

Discovered by an aspie;

1. Photographs are magical voodoo dolls that cause what happened in them to happen again when viewed
2. There is a secret 20 billion dollar CP industry, that nobody has ever identified and no proof of exists
3. The nation of Germany has legalized the rape of children
4. Drug synthesis is a form of sorcery as described by the Bible
5. The only medically approved treatment for drug addiction is to convert to Christianity
6. The smoke of hell is from burning marijuana
7. The mental health community has been subverted by a pedophile Cabal
8. The majority of males are secret pedophiles

Prison Industrial Complex incase none of you know what PIC means.
Image

I'm trying to tailor my posts more so that people will read them, after taking the numerous complaints into consideration.

You could make your usual long posts and at the bottom a tl;dr version.

how has Germany legalized the rape of children?
mrz wrote:Those who argue against me are invariably religiously delusional with propaganda, or otherwise they are simply sociopaths, those are the only two possible reasons that anyone would argue against me.

OSTB wrote:how has Germany legalized the rape of children?


It's legal to have sex with 14 year olds in Germany, but according to the prison industrial complex of the USA this is always rape, therefore they believe that Germany has legalized the rape of children.

mrz wrote:
OSTB wrote:how has Germany legalized the rape of children?


It's legal to have sex with 14 year olds in Germany, but according to the prison industrial complex of the USA this is always rape, therefore they believe that Germany has legalized the rape of children.



ok, i see your rationale in the way you have come to your conclusion.

thankyou for answering in less than 5000 characters,
your answer was concise and straight to the point

Operative wrote:Prison Industrial Complex incase none of you know what PIC means.

thx, I thought he meant "picture", not that it changes anything significantly, but still

9. Looking at beautiful 14yo JB's in JPEG/MPEG form means you want to destroy 5yo kiddywinkles in real life, make them bleed and scream.
Potato-faced ones with nothing left inside
That girls cannot love
That girls cannot love
That we all...

Potato-faced ones with nothing left inside
That girls cannot love
That girls cannot love
That we all...

And now I know why 5+ women are messing me around
I don't want to know
I don't want to know
I don't want to know
(x3)

Broken hearts make it rain
Broken hearts make it rain
Broken hearts make it rain
(x14)

Pieces of a rag doll sub 6 mankind
That you can't create
That we can't control
That we can...

Pieces of a rag doll mankind
That you can't create
That we can't control
That we can...

But when I see you messing me around
And I don't want to know
I don't want to know
I don't want to know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmnS9jTcwJE

Peppers wrote:9. Looking at beautiful 14yo JB's in JPEG/MPEG form means you want to destroy 5yo kiddywinkles in real life, make them bleed and scream.

COPE

you certainly look for pictures of girls you wouldn't like to fuck IRL, certainly

then you certainly never watched girls under 14, certainly

COPE COPE COPE and some more COPE

mrz wrote:
OSTB wrote:how has Germany legalized the rape of children?


It's legal to have sex with 14 year olds in Germany, but according to the prison industrial complex of the USA this is always rape, therefore they believe that Germany has legalized the rape of children.


The reason why cp is illegal is because the viewing of it (alot of the time not always obviously) funds the abduction of more children and gives them more reason to keep doing it you sick retard

Rotting Penis wrote:
Peppers wrote:9. Looking at beautiful 14yo JB's in JPEG/MPEG form means you want to destroy 5yo kiddywinkles in real life, make them bleed and scream.

COPE

you certainly look for pictures of girls you wouldn't like to fuck IRL, certainly

then you certainly never watched girls under 14, certainly

COPE COPE COPE and some more COPE



There's no evidence that looking at pictures of sub 18 teens means you want to rape children or commit contact offences.

It's like saying because you have a hoard of Kristen Stewart pictures, you're a danger to Kristen Stewart in real life. You need to be prosecuted or even locked up.

It's like saying that looking at 9-11 videos or ISIS beheadings makes you a potential terrorist.

It's just mindless assumption, stupidty, bigotry, pathological lies that have no scientific backing. They just spout lies outta thier arse to back up their claim to the public that they're doing a good job at protecting the public. COPE COPE COPE.

Peppers wrote:
Rotting Penis wrote:COPE

you certainly look for pictures of girls you wouldn't like to fuck IRL, certainly

then you certainly never watched girls under 14, certainly

COPE COPE COPE and some more COPE



There's no evidence that looking at pictures of sub 18 teens means you want to rape children or commit contact offences.

It's like saying because you have a hoard of Kristen Stewart pictures, you're a danger to Kristen Stewart in real life. You need to be prosecuted or even locked up.

It's like saying that looking at 9-11 videos or ISIS beheadings makes you a potential terrorist.

It's just mindless assumption, stupidty, bigotry, pathological lies that have no scientific backing. They just spout lies outta thier arse to back up their claim to the public that they're doing a good job at protecting the public. COPE COPE COPE.

STFU, you don't fap to ISIS, do you?

Retarded much?

Rotting Penis wrote:
Peppers wrote:

There's no evidence that looking at pictures of sub 18 teens means you want to rape children or commit contact offences.

It's like saying because you have a hoard of Kristen Stewart pictures, you're a danger to Kristen Stewart in real life. You need to be prosecuted or even locked up.

It's like saying that looking at 9-11 videos or ISIS beheadings makes you a potential terrorist.

It's just mindless assumption, stupidty, bigotry, pathological lies that have no scientific backing. They just spout lies outta thier arse to back up their claim to the public that they're doing a good job at protecting the public. COPE COPE COPE.

STFU, you don't fap to ISIS, do you?

Retarded much?


Nice bro

Rotting Penis wrote:
Peppers wrote:

There's no evidence that looking at pictures of sub 18 teens means you want to rape children or commit contact offences.

It's like saying because you have a hoard of Kristen Stewart pictures, you're a danger to Kristen Stewart in real life. You need to be prosecuted or even locked up.

It's like saying that looking at 9-11 videos or ISIS beheadings makes you a potential terrorist.

It's just mindless assumption, stupidty, bigotry, pathological lies that have no scientific backing. They just spout lies outta thier arse to back up their claim to the public that they're doing a good job at protecting the public. COPE COPE COPE.

STFU, you don't fap to ISIS, do you?

Retarded much?



Why is fapping to a JB in picture format worse than seeing kids/adults getting blown up by RPG's in war zones?

Peppers wrote:
Rotting Penis wrote:STFU, you don't fap to ISIS, do you?

Retarded much?



Why is fapping to a JB in picture format worse than seeing kids/adults getting blown up by RPG's in war zones?

IDK if it's worse, never said that.

Just stop pretending like you fap to pictures of girls you wouldn't want to fuck IRL, because that's ridiculous. Only MRZ can come up with such retarded ideas, because he's a pathological liar.

AestheticPrincess wrote:
mrz wrote:
It's legal to have sex with 14 year olds in Germany, but according to the prison industrial complex of the USA this is always rape, therefore they believe that Germany has legalized the rape of children.


The reason why cp is illegal is because the viewing of it (alot of the time not always obviously) funds the abduction of more children and gives them more reason to keep doing it you sick retard


Except that it is actually virtually never of the time, claims of a 3 or 20 billion dollar CP production industry are completely unfounded;

http://libertus.net/censor/resources/st ... ering.html

"child pornography is one of the fastest growing online businesses generating approximately $US3 billion ($3.43 billion) each year"

This '$US3 billion' figure has no credibility and even if it was factual as at January 2008, (when it appeared in an opinion article by Bernadette McMenamin, CEO of Child Wise/ ECPAT in Australia, with citing a source), then it could be regarded as 'good news' because it would mean (based on previously promulgated 'statistics') that there had been no increase at all in the five years to 2008, therefore 'child pornography' could not be "one of the fastest growing online businesses".

The '$US3 billion' figure has been promulgated far and wide since at least mid 2003, when Utah-based Jerry Ropelato commenced publishing it, without citing a source, on his web site InternetFilterReview.com, which has since become part of his TopTenReviews.com. According to Texas-based Red Orbit News (5 Nov 2006) Ropelato was "formerly chief operating officer of ContentWatch, a Salt Lake City-based developer of Internet filtering and virus protection software. He is also known locally as a speaker and presenter on Internet safety issues, and as a crusader against online pornography."[44]

The "fastest growing online businesses" claim originated with the U.S. NCMEC, in August 2005, which based its claim on the then two-year old US$3 billion 'statistic' promulgated by Ropelato. (The U.S. NCMEC has a long history of promulgating exaggerated/false statistics[45].)


"child pornography is a $20 billion industry worldwide"

This out-of-date/discredited $20 billion 'statistic' was given new life in March 2008 when it appeared in Australian media reports as a result of a joint media release between the Australian Federal Police and Microsoft. The statistic was disowned in April 2006 by the organisations to which it had been, and still is being, attributed (i.e. the FBI and Unicef).


And commercial CP production is virtually non-existent

http://www.sott.net/article/215448-Doct ... -porn-ring

Since the websites -- with names like "Excited Angels" and "Boys Say Go" -- went offline in January, the number of active commercial child porn sites has nosedived from perhaps 300 to the single digits, said Matt Dunn, of the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Custom's Enforcement (ICE), which was the lead law enforcement agency.


And every statistical analysis ever done has shown that as the rate of viewing CP increases child sex abuse rates decrease

https://www.springer.com/about+springer ... -1042321-0

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


http://unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV204%20CP%20possessors.pdf

One concern is that the accessibility of online CP has caused increases in child
sexual abuse. Some research suggests that CP may trigger sexual abuse by activating
and validating sexual urges in CP viewers that were previously suppressed or con-
trolled (Beech et al., 2008; Quayle & Taylor, 2003; Wilson & Jones, 2008). There is no
evidence of increasing abuse in the United States, however. In fact, rates of child sexual
abuse have declined substantially since the mid-1990s, a time period that corresponds
to the spread of CP online. Statistics from U.S. child protective service agencies show
that from 1992 to 2007, child sexual abuse declined 53% (Jones & Finkelhor, 2009),
including interfamilial abuse (Finkelhor & Jones, 2006). Evidence of this decline also
comes from victim self-report surveys and U.S. criminal justice system data (Finkelhor
& Jones, 2008; Finkelhor, Turner, Ormrod, & Hamby, 2010), as well as the child pro-
tective services data collection system. The fact that this trend is revealed in multiple
sources tends to undermine arguments that it is because of reduced reporting or changes
in investigatory or statistical procedures.


So although I appreciate that your argument did not invoke voodoo magic, which automatically causes it to stand out from the arguments of many, it is still completely unsupported and contradicted by science.
Last edited by mrz on Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

mrz wrote:
AestheticPrincess wrote:
The reason why cp is illegal is because the viewing of it (alot of the time not always obviously) funds the abduction of more children and gives them more reason to keep doing it you sick retard


Except that it is actually virtually never of the time, claims of a 3 or 20 billion dollar CP production industry are completely unfounded;

http://libertus.net/censor/resources/st ... ering.html

"child pornography is one of the fastest growing online businesses generating approximately $US3 billion ($3.43 billion) each year"

This '$US3 billion' figure has no credibility and even if it was factual as at January 2008, (when it appeared in an opinion article by Bernadette McMenamin, CEO of Child Wise/ ECPAT in Australia, with citing a source), then it could be regarded as 'good news' because it would mean (based on previously promulgated 'statistics') that there had been no increase at all in the five years to 2008, therefore 'child pornography' could not be "one of the fastest growing online businesses".

The '$US3 billion' figure has been promulgated far and wide since at least mid 2003, when Utah-based Jerry Ropelato commenced publishing it, without citing a source, on his web site InternetFilterReview.com, which has since become part of his TopTenReviews.com. According to Texas-based Red Orbit News (5 Nov 2006) Ropelato was "formerly chief operating officer of ContentWatch, a Salt Lake City-based developer of Internet filtering and virus protection software. He is also known locally as a speaker and presenter on Internet safety issues, and as a crusader against online pornography."[44]

The "fastest growing online businesses" claim originated with the U.S. NCMEC, in August 2005, which based its claim on the then two-year old US$3 billion 'statistic' promulgated by Ropelato. (The U.S. NCMEC has a long history of promulgating exaggerated/false statistics[45].)


"child pornography is a $20 billion industry worldwide"

This out-of-date/discredited $20 billion 'statistic' was given new life in March 2008 when it appeared in Australian media reports as a result of a joint media release between the Australian Federal Police and Microsoft. The statistic was disowned in April 2006 by the organisations to which it had been, and still is being, attributed (i.e. the FBI and Unicef).


And commercial CP production is virtually non-existent

http://www.sott.net/article/215448-Doct ... -porn-ring

Since the websites -- with names like "Excited Angels" and "Boys Say Go" -- went offline in January, the number of active commercial child porn sites has nosedived from perhaps 300 to the single digits, said Matt Dunn, of the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Custom's Enforcement (ICE), which was the lead law enforcement agency.


And every statistical analyses ever done has shown that as the rate of viewing CP increases child sex abuse rates decrease

https://www.springer.com/about+springer ... -1042321-0

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


http://unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV204%20CP%20possessors.pdf

One concern is that the accessibility of online CP has caused increases in child
sexual abuse. Some research suggests that CP may trigger sexual abuse by activating
and validating sexual urges in CP viewers that were previously suppressed or con-
trolled (Beech et al., 2008; Quayle & Taylor, 2003; Wilson & Jones, 2008). There is no
evidence of increasing abuse in the United States, however. In fact, rates of child sexual
abuse have declined substantially since the mid-1990s, a time period that corresponds
to the spread of CP online. Statistics from U.S. child protective service agencies show
that from 1992 to 2007, child sexual abuse declined 53% (Jones & Finkelhor, 2009),
including interfamilial abuse (Finkelhor & Jones, 2006). Evidence of this decline also
comes from victim self-report surveys and U.S. criminal justice system data (Finkelhor
& Jones, 2008; Finkelhor, Turner, Ormrod, & Hamby, 2010), as well as the child pro-
tective services data collection system. The fact that this trend is revealed in multiple
sources tends to undermine arguments that it is because of reduced reporting or changes
in investigatory or statistical procedures.


So although I appreciate that your argument did not invoke voodoo magic, which automatically causes it to stand out from the arguments of many, it is still completely unsupported and contradicted by science.


Virtually never is not good enough, it should be never/impossible.

AestheticPrincess wrote:
mrz wrote:
Except that it is actually virtually never of the time, claims of a 3 or 20 billion dollar CP production industry are completely unfounded;

http://libertus.net/censor/resources/st ... ering.html





And commercial CP production is virtually non-existent

http://www.sott.net/article/215448-Doct ... -porn-ring



And every statistical analyses ever done has shown that as the rate of viewing CP increases child sex abuse rates decrease

https://www.springer.com/about+springer ... -1042321-0



http://unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV204%20CP%20possessors.pdf



So although I appreciate that your argument did not invoke voodoo magic, which automatically causes it to stand out from the arguments of many, it is still completely unsupported and contradicted by science.


Virtually never is not good enough, it should be never/impossible.


However I respect that you find reasons that children aren't affected, proves you aren't that fucked in the head.

I don't care about CP, but LOL how these "studies" quoted by MRZ are retarded and have nothing to do with science. Their conclusions are totally baseless.

You can make paying for CP illegal still even if viewing it is legal you know. Sort of how it is legal to look at videos of 9-11, but not to fund terrorism. Your logic for why CP is illegal is completely invalid and unmapped to reality, it is a belief that was created through a concentrated propaganda campaign. In reality the overwhelming majority of people who look at CP never pay for it, and furthermore much of the commercially produced CP is not done with abducted children, but rather was legally produced with consenting JBs in the Ukraine with their parents permission.

The overwhelming bulk of underage porn was never produced for a profit. The overhwhelming number of people looking at it never paid for it. The overwhelming amount of it that was commercially produced was commercially produced with consenting JBs legally in Eastern Europe. Your argument is essentially that CP is illegal because a fraction of a fraction of a percent of people pay for it from a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of distributors, a fraction of a percent of which abused children. This is completely nonsensical and is obviously not the reason why.

Just for perspective, approximately .00045% of CP distributors are for profit.
Last edited by mrz on Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:25 am, edited 2 times in total.

Rotting Penis wrote:I don't care about CP, but LOL how these "studies" quoted by MRZ are retarded and have nothing to do with science. Their conclusions are totally baseless.


Why are they not retracted from the major peer reviewed jorunals they were published in then?

AestheticPrincess wrote:
AestheticPrincess wrote:
Virtually never is not good enough, it should be never/impossible.


However I respect that you find reasons that children aren't affected, proves you aren't that fucked in the head.

He is, he is just pretending like he cares.

He is a high-functioning psychopath so the knows what he has to say in order to seem like he understands what empathy is.

mrz wrote:
Rotting Penis wrote:I don't care about CP, but LOL how these "studies" quoted by MRZ are retarded and have nothing to do with science. Their conclusions are totally baseless.


Why are they not retracted from the major peer reviewed jorunals they were published in then?

There is shitload of bogus science floating around

Rotting Penis wrote:
mrz wrote:
Why are they not retracted from the major peer reviewed jorunals they were published in then?

There is shitload of bogus science floating around


Why haven't the people who always make the completely unsupported claim that CP viewing leads to child sex abuse rates increasing published any contradictory science? All they seem to do is make that unsupported claim, which has peer reviewed scientific research contradicting it, they never seem to publish any proof of their completely unsupported rhetoric.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ipsedixitism

ipsedixitism - an unsupported dogmatic assertion

declaration that is made emphatically (as if no supporting evidence were necessary)

mrz wrote:
Rotting Penis wrote:There is shitload of bogus science floating around


Why haven't the people who always make the completely unsupported claim that CP viewing leads to child sex abuse rates increasing published any contradictory science? All they seem to do is make that unsupported claim, which has peer reviewed scientific research contradicting it, they never seem to publish any proof of their completely unsupported rhetoric.

I don't know. Maybe they did. I never checked.

But I don't give a shit, because it would probably be bogus too.

Rotting Penis wrote:
mrz wrote:
Why haven't the people who always make the completely unsupported claim that CP viewing leads to child sex abuse rates increasing published any contradictory science? All they seem to do is make that unsupported claim, which has peer reviewed scientific research contradicting it, they never seem to publish any proof of their completely unsupported rhetoric.

I don't know. Maybe they did. I never checked.

But I don't give a shit, because it would probably be bogus too.


Anything published by anyone tangentially related to the prison industrial complex has a high probability of being fraudulent, the research they do on things like this and drugs is equivalent to the research that Big Tobacco does on smoking.

Image

That's why they infiltrate their agents into the scientific community, so they can bypass the safeguards against corruption, as we saw when they tried to pathologize hebephilia, and in this infamous MDMA study;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retracted ... ty_of_MDMA

Another remarkable aspect of this episode is the public endorsement of the study, at the time of its publication, by Alan Leshner, chief executive of the AAAS and former director of NIDA. It isn't clear why an officer of the AAAS should be involved at all in publicly promoting a particular result published in its journal, least of all one whose outcome was questioned at the outset by several experts. The AAAS issued the retraction late in the afternoon on Friday 5 September, resulting in low-key media coverage, which contrasts sharply with the hype surrounding the initial paper.
— Nature 2003[8]


forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/2012/12/apa-rejects-hebephilia-last-of-three.html

To hear government experts on the witness stand in civil detention trials in recent months, the novel diagnosis of "hebephilia" was a fait accompli, just awaiting its formal acceptance into the upcoming fifth edition of the influential Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

They were flat-out wrong. In a stunning blow to psychology's burgeoning sex offender processing industry, the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association rejected the proposed diagnosis outright, not even relegating it to an appendix as meriting further study, its proponents' fall-back position.

....

Next time around, the APA might want to do a better job selecting committee members in the first place. The "paraphilias subworkgroup" was heavily biased in favor of hebephilia because of its domination by psychologists from the Canadian sex clinic that proposed the new disorder in the first place, and is the only entity doing research on it. But what a waste of time and energy to create a committee that comes up with wild and wacky proposals that are only going to end up getting shot down when the rubber meets the road.


Canadian sexology clinic was headed by a researcher with known history in the Prison Industrial Complex.
Next

Topic Tags

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest