Topic: Mali
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos started this discussion 13 years ago #25,181
Discuss
Ashe joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later[^] [v] #385,008
Statist decadence. If Mali didn't have a government which was being opposed in war by another government (France), then all those poor hostages in Algeria would still be alive, also if Algeria didn't have a government.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #385,009
@previous (Ashe)
Literally every society with a state has people who die. Statism is evil.
Literally every society with a state has people who die. Statism is evil.
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #385,010
@385,008 (Ashe)Well that is true for these immediate events.
Any replies from neurotypicals would be appreciated.
Ashe replied with this 13 years ago, 12 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #385,011
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
Like you can talk about "neurotypicals", you child-lusting demagogue.
Like you can talk about "neurotypicals", you child-lusting demagogue.
squeegee !first/o5zA joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 33 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #385,014
lol the french will surrender
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 6 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #385,044
@385,010 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
As a pedophile, there is a high chance that you are not very neurotypical yourself. Studies have found that there is a high correction between pedophilia and brain abnormalities.
So really, Ash should be the one demanding a neurotypical to discuss this with. You idiot.
As a pedophile, there is a high chance that you are not very neurotypical yourself. Studies have found that there is a high correction between pedophilia and brain abnormalities.
So really, Ash should be the one demanding a neurotypical to discuss this with. You idiot.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 3 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #385,046
@385,011 (Ashe)
How am I a demagogue??
@385,014 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
I almost cried when I heard they failed that hostage mission
@previous (E)
Only studied on retards that get caught, not the best sample
How am I a demagogue??
@385,014 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
I almost cried when I heard they failed that hostage mission
@previous (E)
Only studied on retards that get caught, not the best sample
doctor dreamworks md !jdTkvovFCQ joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 10 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #385,047
what happened?
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #385,048
Anonymous E replied with this 13 years ago, 10 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #385,049
@385,046 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
Are you suggesting that there is a stronger relationship between circumstance and/or luck and brain structure, as opposed to sexual preferences and brain structure? Seems improbable.
Are you suggesting that there is a stronger relationship between circumstance and/or luck and brain structure, as opposed to sexual preferences and brain structure? Seems improbable.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 20 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #385,050
@previous (E)
Yes, I am claiming that intelligence is largely biological, and that stupid people are more likely to get caught. Fairly uncontroversial, I would have thought.
Yes, I am claiming that intelligence is largely biological, and that stupid people are more likely to get caught. Fairly uncontroversial, I would have thought.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 49 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #385,051
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #385,054
what about it would you like to discuss
Icarus !!fxtF/31b/ joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #385,056
@385,049 (E)
Anon E inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity, and gifted with an egotistical imagination
Anon E inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity, and gifted with an egotistical imagination
Anonymous E replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #385,058
@385,051 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
Yes, homosexual brains have often been found to differ to those of their heterosexual counterparts. In the sexually dimorphic nucleus, IIRC. This is of course not a problem in any way given that they're not attracted to goddamn kids.
@385,050 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
You're discounting circumstance. Is the pedophile who's heard about ways to secure his CP from all detection really all that different than one who hasn't heard of some other trick and slipped up? Or how about one who lives in a state where law enforcement is more vigilant than usual on pedophilia? Circumstance is a large factor. Furthermore, intelligence probably isn't going to greatly impact the parts of their brains that control their sexual urges.
Yes, homosexual brains have often been found to differ to those of their heterosexual counterparts. In the sexually dimorphic nucleus, IIRC. This is of course not a problem in any way given that they're not attracted to goddamn kids.
@385,050 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
You're discounting circumstance. Is the pedophile who's heard about ways to secure his CP from all detection really all that different than one who hasn't heard of some other trick and slipped up? Or how about one who lives in a state where law enforcement is more vigilant than usual on pedophilia? Circumstance is a large factor. Furthermore, intelligence probably isn't going to greatly impact the parts of their brains that control their sexual urges.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #385,059
@385,050 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
So since you got caught grooming a kid, you're one of the biologically inferior pedos, yes?
So since you got caught grooming a kid, you're one of the biologically inferior pedos, yes?
Anonymous E replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #385,060
Icarus !!fxtF/31b/ replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #385,062
@385,058 (E)
You draw out the thread of your verbosity finer than the staple of your argument. I was under the impression the Topic was entitled Mali
You draw out the thread of your verbosity finer than the staple of your argument. I was under the impression the Topic was entitled Mali
Ashe replied with this 13 years ago, 34 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #385,069
@385,046 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> How am I a demagogue??
demagogue [ˈdɛməˌgɒg]
n
(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a political agitator who appeals with crude oratory to the prejudice and passions of the mob
> How am I a demagogue??
demagogue [ˈdɛməˌgɒg]
n
(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a political agitator who appeals with crude oratory to the prejudice and passions of the mob
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 7 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #385,156
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 10 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #385,158
@385,058 (E)
> Yes, homosexual brains have often been found to differ to those of their heterosexual counterparts. In the sexually dimorphic nucleus, IIRC. This is of course not a problem in any way given that they're not attracted to goddamn kids.
So to confirm: homosexuals are not neurotypical?
> You're discounting circumstance.
Yes, and deliberately.
> Is the pedophile who's heard about ways to secure his CP from all detection really all that different than one who hasn't heard of some other trick and slipped up?
Yes. To get CP isn't easy. You would have to be really dumb to get caught, or have some other OCD type disorder, like the "collectors" do (100,000 images found on his computer etc.) which would also likely skew results.
> Or how about one who lives in a state where law enforcement is more vigilant than usual on pedophilia?
Just check out "To Catch A Predator". Everyone single one was a hopeless reject. They were the only ones stupid and desperate enough to fall for such a trick.
> Circumstance is a large factor. Furthermore, intelligence probably isn't going to greatly impact the parts of their brains that control their sexual urges.
So you would posit that Ph.D. holders rape as often as high school drop outs?
> Yes, homosexual brains have often been found to differ to those of their heterosexual counterparts. In the sexually dimorphic nucleus, IIRC. This is of course not a problem in any way given that they're not attracted to goddamn kids.
So to confirm: homosexuals are not neurotypical?
> You're discounting circumstance.
Yes, and deliberately.
> Is the pedophile who's heard about ways to secure his CP from all detection really all that different than one who hasn't heard of some other trick and slipped up?
Yes. To get CP isn't easy. You would have to be really dumb to get caught, or have some other OCD type disorder, like the "collectors" do (100,000 images found on his computer etc.) which would also likely skew results.
> Or how about one who lives in a state where law enforcement is more vigilant than usual on pedophilia?
Just check out "To Catch A Predator". Everyone single one was a hopeless reject. They were the only ones stupid and desperate enough to fall for such a trick.
> Circumstance is a large factor. Furthermore, intelligence probably isn't going to greatly impact the parts of their brains that control their sexual urges.
So you would posit that Ph.D. holders rape as often as high school drop outs?
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 31 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #385,159
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 19 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #385,160
@385,059 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
> So since you got caught grooming a kid, you're one of the biologically inferior pedos, yes?
> didn't groom a kid, so I
> didn't get caught grooming a kid
thanks.
> So since you got caught grooming a kid, you're one of the biologically inferior pedos, yes?
> didn't groom a kid, so I
> didn't get caught grooming a kid
thanks.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #385,161
@385,069 (Ashe)
> a political agitator who appeals with crude oratory to the prejudice and passions of the mob
yep because the prejudices and passions of this mob are liberty lolol
> a political agitator who appeals with crude oratory to the prejudice and passions of the mob
yep because the prejudices and passions of this mob are liberty lolol
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 13 years ago, 4 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #385,162
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 34 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #385,163
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 13 years ago, 38 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #385,164
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #385,165
Anonymous E replied with this 13 years ago, 7 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #385,217
@385,158 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> So to confirm: homosexuals are not neurotypical?
Technically, but it doesn't actually matter because there's nothing wrong with homosexuality. I don't see what this has to do with your argument that not all pedophiles have abnormal brains, anyway.
> Yes. To get CP isn't easy. You would have to be really dumb to get caught, or have some other OCD type disorder, like the "collectors" do (100,000 images found on his computer etc.) which would also likely skew results.
So you're saying that every pedo who isn't caught is automatically completely neurotypical? That sounds implausible. And again, you're completely disregarding circumstance. A pedophile could be the best encrypter alive, but he's still going to get caught if something misfortunate happens. Like a housmate walking in unexpectedly, for example.
> Just check out "To Catch A Predator". Everyone single one was a hopeless reject. They were the only ones stupid and desperate enough to fall for such a trick.
One of them was a fireman. IIRC correctly another was some sort of notable government worker. They weren't all desperate losers.
> So you would posit that Ph.D. holders rape as often as high school drop outs?
That has nothing to do with what I posted. I said that intelligence is unlikely to affect the part of their brain that controls sexual urges (what makes them a pedophile) not that intelligence controls how much they want to act on those urges. For their pedophilia to exist in the first place they must be abnormal somewhere in their head.
@385,059 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
By his own definition, yes.
> So to confirm: homosexuals are not neurotypical?
Technically, but it doesn't actually matter because there's nothing wrong with homosexuality. I don't see what this has to do with your argument that not all pedophiles have abnormal brains, anyway.
> Yes. To get CP isn't easy. You would have to be really dumb to get caught, or have some other OCD type disorder, like the "collectors" do (100,000 images found on his computer etc.) which would also likely skew results.
So you're saying that every pedo who isn't caught is automatically completely neurotypical? That sounds implausible. And again, you're completely disregarding circumstance. A pedophile could be the best encrypter alive, but he's still going to get caught if something misfortunate happens. Like a housmate walking in unexpectedly, for example.
> Just check out "To Catch A Predator". Everyone single one was a hopeless reject. They were the only ones stupid and desperate enough to fall for such a trick.
One of them was a fireman. IIRC correctly another was some sort of notable government worker. They weren't all desperate losers.
> So you would posit that Ph.D. holders rape as often as high school drop outs?
That has nothing to do with what I posted. I said that intelligence is unlikely to affect the part of their brain that controls sexual urges (what makes them a pedophile) not that intelligence controls how much they want to act on those urges. For their pedophilia to exist in the first place they must be abnormal somewhere in their head.
@385,059 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
By his own definition, yes.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 15 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #385,332
@previous (E)
> > So to confirm: homosexuals are not neurotypical?
> Technically,
This is a simple yes or no question. You're not as rational as you like to pretend, are you?
> but it doesn't actually matter because there's nothing wrong with homosexuality.
Says you! Many disagree.
> I don't see what this has to do with your argument that not all pedophiles have abnormal brains, anyway.
Who said it had to do with it?
> So you're saying that every pedo who isn't caught is automatically completely neurotypical?
Or, at least, the cluster would be more centred on neurotypicality.
> That sounds implausible. And again, you're completely disregarding circumstance. A pedophile could be the best encrypter alive, but he's still going to get caught if something misfortunate happens. Like a housmate walking in unexpectedly, for example.
And setting up your computer to face the door? Impossibly stupid.
> One of them was a fireman. IIRC correctly another was some sort of notable government worker. They weren't all desperate losers.
> government employees
> not desperate losers
Seriously firefighters are the worst.
> That has nothing to do with what I posted. I said that intelligence is unlikely to affect the part of their brain that controls sexual urges (what makes them a pedophile)
If it has no affect on other thoughts behavior does it even fit the criteria of non-neurotypicality?
> not that intelligence controls how much they want to act on those urges. For their pedophilia to exist in the first place they must be abnormal somewhere in their head.
Just like gays are abnormal, and blacks and asians are abnormal (statistically significant difference in brain size).
> By his own definition, yes.
Except that I never got caught grooming a child.
> > So to confirm: homosexuals are not neurotypical?
> Technically,
This is a simple yes or no question. You're not as rational as you like to pretend, are you?
> but it doesn't actually matter because there's nothing wrong with homosexuality.
Says you! Many disagree.
> I don't see what this has to do with your argument that not all pedophiles have abnormal brains, anyway.
Who said it had to do with it?
> So you're saying that every pedo who isn't caught is automatically completely neurotypical?
Or, at least, the cluster would be more centred on neurotypicality.
> That sounds implausible. And again, you're completely disregarding circumstance. A pedophile could be the best encrypter alive, but he's still going to get caught if something misfortunate happens. Like a housmate walking in unexpectedly, for example.
And setting up your computer to face the door? Impossibly stupid.
> One of them was a fireman. IIRC correctly another was some sort of notable government worker. They weren't all desperate losers.
> government employees
> not desperate losers
Seriously firefighters are the worst.
> That has nothing to do with what I posted. I said that intelligence is unlikely to affect the part of their brain that controls sexual urges (what makes them a pedophile)
If it has no affect on other thoughts behavior does it even fit the criteria of non-neurotypicality?
> not that intelligence controls how much they want to act on those urges. For their pedophilia to exist in the first place they must be abnormal somewhere in their head.
Just like gays are abnormal, and blacks and asians are abnormal (statistically significant difference in brain size).
> By his own definition, yes.
Except that I never got caught grooming a child.
Anonymous E replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #385,382
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> This is a simple yes or no question. You're not as rational as you like to pretend, are you?
It was an affirmitive answer. Oh how quickly your resort to semantics.
> Says you! Many disagree.
Yes, but those people are wrong. I haven't seen one convincing argument against it.
> Or, at least, the cluster would be more centred on neurotypicality.
Probably not much more centred, if at all. Again, it's unlikely that their paranoia or intelligence "cancels out" their pedophilia to some degree in terms of neurotypicality.
> And setting up your computer to face the door? Impossibly stupid.
Hey man, just looking around my romm now the monitor would be exposed no matter which wall my desk was agianst. I could turn my desk to face the door but that would take up too much space and frankly be a little weird.
> Just like gays are abnormal
Only in the sense that they differ from the heterosexual majority.
> blacks and asians are abnormal (statistically significant difference in brain size).
Your new racism schtick isn't as funny as your fringe political belief one. Racism has been done to death, man! You had something relatively unique with the Lolbertarianism act!
> If it has no affect on other thoughts behavior does it even fit the criteria of non-neurotypicality?
No, that'd be their urge to molest children.
> Except that I never got caught grooming a child.
Then why were you ejected from your church? Was it over theological differences on exactly how much touching of children is acceptable?
> This is a simple yes or no question. You're not as rational as you like to pretend, are you?
It was an affirmitive answer. Oh how quickly your resort to semantics.
> Says you! Many disagree.
Yes, but those people are wrong. I haven't seen one convincing argument against it.
> Or, at least, the cluster would be more centred on neurotypicality.
Probably not much more centred, if at all. Again, it's unlikely that their paranoia or intelligence "cancels out" their pedophilia to some degree in terms of neurotypicality.
> And setting up your computer to face the door? Impossibly stupid.
Hey man, just looking around my romm now the monitor would be exposed no matter which wall my desk was agianst. I could turn my desk to face the door but that would take up too much space and frankly be a little weird.
> Just like gays are abnormal
Only in the sense that they differ from the heterosexual majority.
> blacks and asians are abnormal (statistically significant difference in brain size).
Your new racism schtick isn't as funny as your fringe political belief one. Racism has been done to death, man! You had something relatively unique with the Lolbertarianism act!
> If it has no affect on other thoughts behavior does it even fit the criteria of non-neurotypicality?
No, that'd be their urge to molest children.
> Except that I never got caught grooming a child.
Then why were you ejected from your church? Was it over theological differences on exactly how much touching of children is acceptable?
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 59 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #385,403
@previous (E)
> It was an affirmitive answer. Oh how quickly your resort to semantics.
All I want is some intellectual honesty! You attempted to play the semantics game, by claiming something was only so "technically", when it was actually so in every sense. It was a dishonest answer.
> Yes, but those people are wrong. I haven't seen one convincing argument against it.
It is an objective disordering of the human condition.
> Probably not much more centred, if at all.
What justifies this remark?
> Again, it's unlikely that their paranoia
Not paranoia. Is wearing a seatbelt when driving paranoia? A helmet when cycling? Please stay honest with your arguments.
> or intelligence "cancels out" their pedophilia to some degree in terms of neurotypicality.
I am not arguing against any differences in the "sexual" parts of the brain (such as the one differentiating homosexuals), but against other clusters of traits like left-handedness, low IQ, etc.
> Hey man, just looking around my romm now the monitor would be exposed no matter which wall my desk was agianst. I could turn my desk to face the door but that would take up too much space and frankly be a little weird.
Then that would be a poor room for conducting highly illegal online crime for those who share a dwelling, wouldn't it?
> Only in the sense that they differ from the heterosexual majority.
Semantic debate; but I feel they would remain abnormal even if common.
> Your new racism schtick isn't as funny as your fringe political belief one. Racism has been done to death, man! You had something relatively unique with the Lolbertarianism act!
stunning rebuttal! The point was to challenge your conception of normality, not to demean a race.
> No, that'd be their urge to molest children.
> molest
Come on now, please stay honest. What's the point of debate if you don't play nicely?
> Then why were you ejected from your church? Was it over theological differences on exactly how much touching of children is acceptable?
No, it was a combination af anticlericalism, paranoia, and jealousy.
> It was an affirmitive answer. Oh how quickly your resort to semantics.
All I want is some intellectual honesty! You attempted to play the semantics game, by claiming something was only so "technically", when it was actually so in every sense. It was a dishonest answer.
> Yes, but those people are wrong. I haven't seen one convincing argument against it.
It is an objective disordering of the human condition.
> Probably not much more centred, if at all.
What justifies this remark?
> Again, it's unlikely that their paranoia
Not paranoia. Is wearing a seatbelt when driving paranoia? A helmet when cycling? Please stay honest with your arguments.
> or intelligence "cancels out" their pedophilia to some degree in terms of neurotypicality.
I am not arguing against any differences in the "sexual" parts of the brain (such as the one differentiating homosexuals), but against other clusters of traits like left-handedness, low IQ, etc.
> Hey man, just looking around my romm now the monitor would be exposed no matter which wall my desk was agianst. I could turn my desk to face the door but that would take up too much space and frankly be a little weird.
Then that would be a poor room for conducting highly illegal online crime for those who share a dwelling, wouldn't it?
> Only in the sense that they differ from the heterosexual majority.
Semantic debate; but I feel they would remain abnormal even if common.
> Your new racism schtick isn't as funny as your fringe political belief one. Racism has been done to death, man! You had something relatively unique with the Lolbertarianism act!
stunning rebuttal! The point was to challenge your conception of normality, not to demean a race.
> No, that'd be their urge to molest children.
> molest
Come on now, please stay honest. What's the point of debate if you don't play nicely?
> Then why were you ejected from your church? Was it over theological differences on exactly how much touching of children is acceptable?
No, it was a combination af anticlericalism, paranoia, and jealousy.