If I may be a bit blunt, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like I've seen you and a few others do that to people who likely haven't done anything illegal, or as a comeback to loli antis. I know you probably aren't being serious about it, and calling someone a pedo is different from actively trying to slander someone, but I felt like I should point that out.
Plus we've basically already
documented several of them as being pedophiles.
Meanwhile, they can only present about 2 cases at best:
- The Miyazaki Case
- A case which is VERY questionable due to the fact the Japanese police probably fucked with the evidence to try to make all otaku look like child-raping monsters who stay shut-in all the time so they could openly get rid of what they considered parasites on society.
- "I was personally/My friend was called a loli"
- We will ignore burden of proof, because we're nice. Also, we don't need it to prove they're full of shit with all the contradictions with it.
- Lack of trauma; will openly engage with and share what supposedly traumatizes them hourly on Tumblr/Twitter.
- Lack of explanation; unable to recall any significant details about how they were harmed -- "I don't remember because my trauma shut of my memory"/"I only remember being abused"
- Same argument could be used against all dancers. "You're my little dancer/ballerina <3." Doesn't mean dancing promotes pedophilia, nor anything which can be used to exploit children, like candy and toys.
If they're unaware of the Miyazaki case (and often times they are), then they often will be unable to cite anything, and if anything, it is "personal accounts" -- unreliable and subject to bias, especially given the topic, and they refuse to prove it happened, and even then, the entire argument is essentially worthless because it proves nothing.
Finally,
Pedophilic Disorder has been estimated to affect
less than 5% of all adult men, and about
10 times less for females (of which really only comes from recorded convictions; there are probably more who haven't harmed anyone/the law doesn't care, no crime done/the law absolved said pedophiles; the victim was a boy who definitely craved sex at the age of 4 from our middle-aged wrinkly madame).
Now, I couldn't give you an exact count of how many Antis we've met, but I'll take a guess we've gotten at least one or two hundred, or at the very least, I have.
Of those who were documented (tbh cyberstalked, but not like they don't do it to their victims) and observed several months later after their public seething over lolicon,
about more than 38 of them showed attraction to children -- behind the scenes talking about how they like 'em young, don't give a shit about age, asking for nudes, etc.
We're of course ignoring antis that admitted that they see no difference between fictional representations of children and the real deal, yet decide to actively sexually pleasure themselves to such media they claim is pedophilia, because it's not enough to call them one, and expands our definition of "pedophile" to something that doesn't definitively refer to real children.
Of that group, about half of them (or so I guesstimate, go do the count yourself) admitted to possessing CSEM, have groomed a minor, exposed children to sexual topics, and other crimes.
If we called out a random group of people of n-size out as pedophiles at random,
we'd expect to get 5% of the cases right.
Technically less than that, but we're high-balling it in favor of the antis, because
if we predict under 5% correctly, it means we're wrong.
In this case, our group is "antis," and a high-bound of our sample population that we've met would be around 200.
But let's increase that size to "antis we've met in total" to 500 just in case I didn't keep count right, because I do not give a shit about keeping track of the total population for numbers.
I do hope half a thousand is an acceptable overestimate for everyone here.
Thus, the minimum we can expect from calling antis "pedophiles" would be
at most 25 people who are actual, genuine pedophiles.
That might not seem like a lot, because it shouldn't be a lot -- pedophilia is still rare, and you shouldn't have a good chance at calling one out and being correct.
We all caught about 38+ of them on this forum, KiwiFarms, and other stray threads on Twitter/TwitLonger/Tumblr/Google Docs/etc, of which I've kept some count of, but not all of them, especially since some threads that were known about, such as MomBot (who I never had the pleasure of knowing before they were suspended by Twitter), and a couple of Google Docs archiving more instances of which I didn't bother saving because I'd assume others would have it on hand.
If you want more math to go with that, with our over-guesstimate population to our cases of antis being pedophiles, and assuming an exact 38 that were caught, that's
7.6% of antis that were caught as pedophiles.
Which essentially means we are, or at least I am, either psychic, or antis as a group has a noticeably high chance of being pedophiles compared to a completely random pool of people selected at random.
This, of course, is bullshit statistics, and not done with any remote care, with only my recollection to get a rough estimate, but I made it up by trying to overestimate as much as reasonably possible with the cases of antis being retards that we've archived and collected.
I'd gladly compare the data, analyze the alpha value and standard deviations and crap, just to see if that 7.6% is within acceptable range, given its errors, and spend actual time refining the data into something actually presentable, but I've got other things to do.
And even if we prove that you could call an anti a pedophile and be right about 1 out of 13+ times, about no one would care.