What% of this foid is plastic?

[Deleted member 27511]

 

[bishōnenmaxxer]

Down to the heart.

200% plastic surgery.

 

[Lebgfinal]

probably 100%

 

[Deleted member 27511]

Down to the heart.

200% plastic surgery.

I would still fuck

 

[Deleted member 28904]

Not enough according to some users here

 

[bishōnenmaxxer]

Jesus, 2.5 million followers.

How much of that are women with body dysymorphia, and how of that is degenerate coomers?

 

[Deleted member 21467]

 

[Deleted member 27511]

Jesus, 2.5 million followers.

How much of that are women with body dysymorphia, and how of that is degenerate coomers?

It doesn’t matter how a woman looks there’s always a man who will desire her. Look up granny experiments on dating apps.

 

[Mako]

1000% fake

 

[OverCoper]

more than % of cucumber

 

[Deleted member 19174]

0

 

[Reckless Turtle]

OP is obsessed with dick lengths because he's concerned about his ability to reach through 3 inches of surgically added fat in the ass.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

Jesus, 2.5 million followers.

How much of that are women with body dysymorphia, and how of that is degenerate coomers?

A negligible percentage of women follow these bimbos.

 

[Deleted member 27511]

OP is obsessed with dick lengths because he's concerned about his ability to reach through 3 inches of surgically added fat in the ass.

still bitter towards me after that dickpill I shoved down your throat, keep coping with your 5 inch cock

 

[Reckless Turtle]

still bitter towards me after that dickpill I shoved down your throat, keep coping with your 5 inch cock

I've already been looking at penis studies for years before you even joined this site, and I'm over 7.5 inches BP. You posting a bunch of dick threads with schizo fantasies and not understanding the studies is what I'm referring to.

 

[aGreaterMii]

100%. You can buy her from American Sex Dolls dot com

 

[Deleted member 27511]

I'm over 7.5 inches BP.

Sure buddy, that’s why you got angry at me pointing out the fact that 5 inches is small. Sound more like you’re compensating for something.

 

[Deleted member 27511]

dick threads with schizo fantasies and not understanding the studies is what I'm referring to.

Retard you don’t understand the studies, first you complained the “study” which wasn’t really a study but a review article wasn’t peer reviewed but if you did any research you would have realized it’s published in one of the best journals in the world.

Then you complained the link was broken which was correct but isn’t really a problem with the review article itself but with technology. Then upon realizing the article you still said the article was shit despite the fact actual scientists deemed it worthy of publication.

I suppose they don’t understand the studies either. Yes scientists from literally the the number 1 ranked journal in the world understand studies less then you.

Jfl the state of .org filled with dunning Kruegers

 

[Deleted member 27511]

100%. You can buy her from American Sex Dolls dot com

She literally looks like a sex doll

 

[Deleted member 27511]

100%. You can buy her from American Sex Dolls dot com

AMERICAN SEX DOLLS CO. - Quality Sex Dolls USA

Best sex dolls directly from best USA sex doll vendor. Shop silicone dolls, real doll, tpe doll, adult dolls, silicone real doll, realistic silicone dolls from China

americansexdolls.com

 

[Astral Spectre]

gross, yucky

 

[Kamui]

99%

 

[Deleted member 27511]

99%

Try 200%

 

[Reckless Turtle]

Sure buddy, that’s why you got angry at me pointing out the fact that 5 inches is small. Sound more like you’re compensating for something.

I called you out for posting a weak dataset (that couldn't even be traced to the source) and then you got mad, which was my only agenda. I've already posted studies of the average length being over 5 inches.

Retard you don’t understand the studies, first you complained the “study” which wasn’t really a study but a review article wasn’t peer reviewed but if you did any research you would have realized it’s published in one of the best journals in the world.

Then you complained the link was broken which if correct but isn’t really a problem with the review article itself but with technology. Then upon realizing the article you still said the article was shot despite the fact actual scientists deemed it worthy of publication.

I suppose they don’t understand the studies either

I explained to you that review articles are dogshit if they aren't even using verifiable datasets with peer-reviewed methodology. Shoddy articles get published frequently, even in Elsevier. And the one you posted was one of the worst I've ever read from that publication.

 

[Deleted member 27511]

and then you got mad, which was my only agenda

Reread the conversation dumbass I only ever started insulting you when you called me a schizophrenic. Keep Coping with your 5 inch cock.

Shoddy articles get published frequently,

No they don’t not in reputable journals atleast that’s the reason why peer review exists

aren't even using verifiable datasets with peer-reviewed methodology.

Verifying sources is part of the peer review process. Which the scientists would have done before publishing the article. So you know they don’t damage the reputation of their entire journal

And there was literally only 1 broken link lol in an article where dozens of sources are mentioned. You could check out literally any of those sources if you want to so bad.

And if that doesn’t satisfy you, if you want to focus so badly on one broken link in an article with dozens of sources which you could easily check out you could try reverse image searching the table.

 

[Deleted member 27511]

I've ever read from that publication.

Was it really the worst or did you just not like the conclusion? You keep saying “I can’t verify the dataset” despite the fact that scientists already did that for you.

If your still not convinced sources are at the bottom. Except for the one broken link of course.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

Reread the conversation dumbass I only ever started insulting you when you called me a schizophrenic. Keep Coping with your 5 inch cock.

You got defensive and said that I was coping for stating a fact about what you linked. And you're a schizo for making up agendas when I've already shown you that I've posted actual sources that support your claim about the average penis length.

And there was literally only 1 broken link lol in an article where dozens of sources are mentioned. You could check out literally any of those sources if you want to so bad.

The entire basis of both of the threads you posted specifically involved the data from NY, which wasn't even cited in the references section.

Ironically, you're the one with the obvious bias here. I'm only biased to thorough scientific investigation.

 

[Deleted member 27511]

You got defensive and said that I was coping for stating a fact about what you linked.

I didn’t get defensive, thinking that 5 inches is average coping.

And you're a schizo for making up agendas

Posting a peer reviews article isn’t making up an agenda.

that support your claim about the average penis length.

Your source said that the average erect length was 5.79 bp.

Ironically, you're the one with the obvious bias here. I'm only biased to thorough scientific investigation.

You called the article dogshit because of the broken link despite the fact it uses dozens of other sources. And then complained the article wasn’t peer reviewed despite the fact that’s a blatant lie.

In response to the fact the link is broken I pointed out 1. The reviewers would have checked the source before publication so it’s probably fine.

But let’s just ignore that 2. The article uses dozens of more sources which support my point? Why is the article dogshit? Because of one broken link?

It’s clear you have the obvious bias dismissing a review published in one of the best journals in the world because of one failed link

 

[Deleted member 27511]

Ironically, you're the one with the obvious bias here.

I don’t think someone blatantly lying about the article not being per reviewed can call anyone bias. Despite the fact the name of the journal which published the article is in the top left corner.

I can’t imagine how you’d be blind enough to not see it. So I’m assuming you just chose to lie or either assumed it wasn’t peer reviewed because you didn’t like the conclusion

 

[mug]

single-handedly melting the icecaps

 

[Reckless Turtle]

I didn’t get defensive, thinking that 5 inches is average coping.

Are you plain stupid or trolling? Link where I said that. You were so defensive that you went straight into schizo Strawman mode.

Your source said that the average erect length was 5.79 bp.

Except I specifically referenced the BP stretched length because it eliminates variables caused by erection quality (age-related, mostly).

And then complained the article wasn’t peer reviewed despite the fact that’s a blatant lie.

The 800 sample from NY isn't from a peer-reviewed source and the link in the article is broken.

despite the fact it uses dozens of other sources.

The entire basis of both of the threads you posted specifically involved the data from NY, which wasn't even cited in the references section.

And then complained the article wasn’t peer reviewed despite the fact that’s a blatant lie.

The 800 sample from NY isn't from a peer-reviewed source and the link in the article is broken.

The reviewers would have checked the source before publication so it’s probably fine.

I'm not banking on "probably fine" without a peer-reviewed dataset (or at least a clearly explained methodology). This is standard practice in the vast majority of articles, hence me saying that it's one of the worse articles I've ever read.

Clearly, I'm not the only one with this opinion.

Now this study was seen to be Controversial: as Richard Lynn, professor of psychology at Ulster University, whose research has been criticized as lacking methodology. The subject of average male penis length which tends to be a sensitive subject has been taken on by Richard Lynn, Ulster University and of psychology.

The Professor has known for his controversial view on evolutionary aspects, has resulted in what he claims as national and racial difference in intelligence levels.

Professor Lynn goes on to say that the study found the average male penis length confirms his theory of ‘race differences in penis length’.

His view that Negroids are the more endowed and Mongoloids are the least endowed.

The Professor has concluded: ‘For most populations, penis lengths are very much predictable and have been confirmed.’

But there are definitely critics to his study who claim that Mr Lynn’s research is simply flawed due to his sample study and not correctly citing that his source of information comes from data obtained from various websites.

Jelte Wicherts, the professor of methodology at Tilburg University, Holland, has replied to the study :

‘This is a brave paper in a controversial area but the data has no methodology.’

The research is published in scientific journal Personality and Individual Differences.

So in knowing that the date may be somewhat limited for reliability the typical number still hold true if the date that has been taken is in fact correct and we will assume for this article they are.

What is The Average Male Penis Length?

It's normal to be curious how your penis measures up. Here's what to know about the length and girth of an average penis.

www.icgi.org

Lynn’s paper was an attempt to validate one of the claims of Rushton’s r-K theory that there are predictable differences between races in a range of physical and psychological characteristics, including penis length. However, this theory is unscientific and makes arbitrary claims, many of which have been refuted in considerable detail (Weizmann, et al., 1990, 1991). Furthermore, Lynn did not consult authoritative sources for his paper, such as urologists or urology journals. The data sources he did use for his paper are untrustworthy and therefore his results, like his theory, should not be taken seriously.[4] The very relevance of penis length to understanding whatever racial differences may exist would seem to be highly doubtful.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/unique-everybody-else/201210/the-pseudoscience-race-differences-in-penis-size

So I’m assuming you just chose to lie or either assumed it wasn’t peer reviewed because you didn’t like the conclusion

The 800 sample from NY isn't from a peer-reviewed source and the link in the article is broken.

 

[Deleted member 27511]

Are you plain stupid or trolling? Link where I said that. You were so defensive that you went straight into schizo Strawman mode.

When you put up a resistance to the idea that the average penis size is more the 5 inches the natural implication is that you think the average penis size is 5 inches. If you agree with something people tend not to resist it.

“The 800 sample from NY isn't from a peer-reviewed source and the link in the article is broken.” caught yourself in your own trap, by you’re own admission we don’t even know where that data is from. So how can you climb it isnt peer reviewed?

Which is why I assumed you were talking about the article itself because complaining that you can’t find the source for the data then claiming the data isn’t peer reviewed wouldnt make sense

Unless of course you had a habit of lying/ being intellectually dishonest really tried to give you the benefit of the doubt here man.

hence me saying that it's one of the worse articles I've ever read.

That criticism doesn’t even make sense, the link to data set doesn’t work that’s a technical issue not a problem with the actual article itself. It can’t be “one of the worst articles” and get published in one of the best journals in the world

Clearly, I'm not the only one with this opinion.

Doesn’t matter you can cherry pick a scientist who doesn’t believe in any sort of scientific subject. All that matters is the scientific consensus is what I’m trying to say.

“Lynn’s paper was an attempt to validate one of the claims of Rushton’s r-K theory that there are predictable differences between races in a range of physical and psychological characteristics, including penis length. However, this theory is unscientific and makes arbitrary claims, many of which have been refuted in considerable detail (Weizmann, et al., 1990, 1991). Furthermore, Lynn did not consult authoritative sources for his paper, such as urologists or urology journals. The data sources he did use for his paper are untrustworthy and therefore his results, like his theory, should not be taken seriously.[4] The very relevance of penis length to understanding whatever racial differences may exist would seem to be highly doubtful.”

This wall of text is worthless, rushton and Lynn were wrong in there interpretation of the data by the “interpretation” I mean trying to use the data to support a as of now debunked theory. But the data itself isn’t wrong the average dick size is indeed 6 inches and perhaps it’s even increased as time progressed wouldnt be suprised if 6.5 inches is average now.

Except I specifically referenced the BP stretched length because it eliminates variables caused by erection quality (age-related, mostly).

Fair enough

The first source you mentioned also isn’t to good for your case. The data I first referred apparently the data was collected by the state of new York

A quote from the article you linked

“This new report which happens to include a 2010 study from the state of New York”


It doesn’t get much more reputable then a government backed study no link unfortunately is given.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

When you put up a resistance to the idea that the average penis size is more the 5 inches the natural implication is that you think the average penis size is 5 inches. If you agree with something people tend not to resist it.

Yup, you're stupid and schizophrenic.

The 800 sample from NY isn't from a peer-reviewed source and the link in the article is broken.

caught yourself in your own trap, by you’re own admission we don’t even know where that data is from. So how can you climb it isnt peer reviewed?

Because peer-reviewed sources are cited in the reference section, dumbass.

Unless of course you had a habit of lying/ being intellectually dishonest really tried to give you the benefit of the doubt here man.

Ironic.

That criticism doesn’t even make sense, the link to data set doesn’t work that’s a technical issue not a problem with the actual article itself. It can’t be “one of the worst articles” and get published in one of the best journals in the world

The 800 sample from NY isn't from a peer-reviewed source

But the data itself isn’t wrong the average dick size is indeed 6 inches

Do a better job with your sources rather than writing schizo fantasies. But this is close to being correct, as the Western BP stretched length is 5.98" (SD 0.87) - n: 800.

calcSD - Dataset List

This is a dataset list of datasets used in calcSD.

calcsd.info

A quote from the article you linked

“This new report which happens to include a 2010 study from the state of New York”


It doesn’t get much more reputable then a government backed study no link unfortunately is given.

The article I linked is dogshit as well. I only linked it specifically to show the quotation from Jelte Wicherts, who is involved in peer reviewing (yet clearly not for the study you linked).

Jelte M. Wicherts

Tilburg University - Geciteerd door 18.878 - Methodology - IQ - Psychometrics - Reproducibility - Research Methods

scholar.google.com

The actual study says:

(2b) The second new data set consists of a survey carried out in New York City in 2010 of objectively measured and self-measured erect penis length in a sample of 800 adult men consisting of 200from each group of blacks, Hispanics, whites and Asians. The majority of the group identified as Asians will have comprised Chinese and Koreans, but may have included some South and Southeast Asians). These data are reported in http://www.targetmap.com/viewer.aspx?reportId=3073. Retrieved 20 June, 2011 and are given in Table 2

Once again, if the survey was part of a peer-reviewed study then it would be included in the references section.

 

[Deleted member 27511]

Yup, you're stupid and schizophrenic.

Not a response, just answer this simple question do people usuallly argue against things they agree with It’s a simple question which you already know the answer too I suspect. You

Because peer-reviewed sources are cited in the reference section, dumbass.

that’s not what the word reference means, the reference section just contains… references, references to any source peer reviewed or not. Take the reference to templers book for example.

The article I linked is dogshit as well. I only linked it specifically to show the quotation from Jelte Wicherts, who is involved in peer reviewing (yet clearly not for the study you linked).

You can find scientists who disagree on any scientific subject, all that matters is the consensus and the consensus atleast from the time the article was published it was good enough to be in one of the best journals in the world.

Once again, if the survey was part of a peer-reviewed study then it would be included in the references section.

That’s not what a reference section is for it’s just suppose to contain references. That’s it, it’s in the name peer reviewed or not, whether the authors agree with the reference or not. Any reference goes in the references. The nyc data should have gone in the reference but for some reason did not. Why perhaps he forgot to put it in there I don’t know the guy personally.

But the fact remains is that we don’t know exactly where the data is from originally something which you conceded to. So to claim that you know it wasn’t peer reviewed is bunk we don’t even know where the data is from.

And you can’t use the “if it were peer reviewed ir would go in the reference section” that doesn’t work because references just contain exactly as the name implies. Any references used in the paper, peer reviewed or not. We even have an example of this happening in the paper we’re discussing.

Ironic

What have a lied about so far in this conversation? Nothing I’ve said can even remotely be interpreted as lying. You may disagree with me but you can’t call me a liar that’s just bad faith reasoning. This is supported by the fact you can’t even give any justification for how I’m a liar you just simply say “ironic” because you know your talking out of your ass.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

Not a response, just answer this simple question do people usually agree with things that they disagree with? It’s a simple question which you already know the answer too I suspect.

I'm finished entertaining this stupidity.

that’s not what the word reference means, the reference section just contains… references, references to any source peer reviewed or not. Take the reference to templers book for example.

peer-reviewed sources are cited in the reference section

...as a mandatory component of the peer-review process.

You can find scientists who disagree on any scientific subject, all that matters is the consensus and the consensus atleast from the time the article was published it was good enough to be in one of the best journals in the world.

No, what matters most is whether the research is dogshit, and whoever approved the article did a dogshit job.

The nyc data should have gone in the reference but for some reason did not. Why perhaps he forgot to put it in there I don’t know the guy personally.

But the fact remains is that we don’t know exactly where the data is from originally something which you conceded to. So to claim that you know it wasn’t peer reviewed is bunk we don’t even know where the data is from.

So we can agree that whoever approved the article did a dogshit job.

And you can’t use the “if it were peer reviewed ir would go in the reference section” that doesn’t work because references just contain exactly as the name implies. Any references used in the paper, peer reviewed or not. We even have an example of this happening in the paper we’re discussing.

peer-reviewed sources are cited in the reference section

...as a mandatory component of the peer-review process.

What have a lied about so far in this conversation?

still bitter towards me after that dickpill I shoved down your throat, keep coping with your 5 inch cock

that’s why you got angry at me pointing out the fact that 5 inches is small.

Keep Coping with your 5 inch cock.

No they don’t not in reputable journals

And then complained the article wasn’t peer reviewed

When you put up a resistance to the idea that the average penis size is more the 5 inches

 

[Deleted member 27511]

I'm finished entertaining this stupidity.

Because you know your wrong? People usually don’t argue against things they agree with so it was reasonable for me to infer that you disagreed with my point

...as a mandatory component of the peer-review process.

It’s not just “peer reviewed sources” all sources go in the references section retard. Whether peer reviewed or not. That’s why it’s called the references section

For example if a scholar of the New Testament or Christianity quotes a work from the early church fathers. The book and page which the quote is from goes in the reference section. But the early church fathers clearly aren’t a peer reviewed source.

This only doesn’t make sense if you don’t understand what the reference section is for. It’s for any REFERENCE made in the publication. That’s it not just for references which are peer reviewed. The fact I had to explain this to you and give you two examples proves you’re a retard.

So we can agree that whoever approved the article did a dogshit job

letting an article go through publication when one of the references wasn’t in the section is sloppy, especially for the 1 ranked journal in the world. But it’s akin to making a spelling mistake in the writing of a letter it doesn’t really change the meaning of the letter

Same reasoning applies here assuming they did a good job assessing the rest of the publication then it should be fine.

Notice how you can’t give any reason why the article is dogshit other than the fact it has a broken link. You simply don’t like the conclusion the data in the article implies.

...as a mandatory component of the peer-review process.

You said that twice, also it’s mandatory to put any references whether the reference is peer reviewed or not in the reference section. That’s why it’s called the reference section, it contains the respective sources for all references in the publication.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

Because you know your wrong? People usually don’t argue against things they agree with so it was reasonable for me to infer that you disagreed with my point


It’s not just “peer reviewed sources” all sources go in the references section retard. Whether peer reviewed or not. That’s why it’s called the references section

For example if a scholar of the New Testament or Christianity quotes a work from the early church fathers. The book and page which the quote is from goes in the reference section. But the early church fathers clearly aren’t a peer reviewed source.

This only doesn’t make sense if you don’t understand what the reference section is for. It’s for any REFERENCE made in the publication. That’s it not just for references which are peer reviewed. The fact I had to explain this to you and give you two examples proves you’re a retard.

letting an article go through publication when one of the references wasn’t in the section is sloppy, especially for the 1 ranked journal in the world. But it’s akin to making a spelling mistake in the writing of a letter it doesn’t really change the meaning of the letter

Same reasoning applies here assuming they did a good job assessing the rest of the publication then it should be fine.

Notice how you can’t give any reason why the article is dogshit other than the fact it has a broken link. You simply don’t like the conclusion the data in the article implies.

You said that twice, also it’s mandatory to put any references whether the reference is peer reviewed or not in the reference section. That’s why it’s called the reference section, it contains the respective sources for all references in the publication.

No, because I'm correct and arguing with you is pointless because you're:
1. Stupid
2. Schizophrenic
3. Spend the entire argument creating strawmans, moving goalposts, and misquoting me

If you can't use your pea brain to read and understand the logic that peer-reviewed sources must go in the references section in legitimate scientific papers then it's over for you.

You can keep deflecting by writing paragraphs about information I'm already well aware of (such as non-peer reviewed books being referenced as well), but that does not change the simple fact that the dataset you based your argument on was not peer-reviewed and has no verifiable methodology, which was explicitly written to you in a single, basic sentence as my first response to your OP.

 

[Deleted member 27511]

1. Stupid
2. Schizophrenic
3. Spend the entire argument creating strawmans, moving goalposts, and misquoting me

Not an argument.

If you can't use your pea brain to read and understand the logic that peer-reviewed sources must go in the references section in legitimate scientific papers then it's over for you.

All sources go in the reference section retard, I explained this too you twice. And yeah no shit I’m aware the sources are suppose to go in the reference section are you so retarded that you can’t read

But in this particular instance it seems the publishers made and mistake and didn’t catch it. This is an anomaly that was the whole point of what I said.

which was explicitly written to you in a single, basic sentence as my first response to your OP.

Yep you can’t read, if we don’t know where the data comes from, how do you know it’s not peer reviewed. “But it would have been in the reference section” doesn’t work because all sources go in the reference section not just peer reviewed ones. Answer the question.

 

[Deleted member 27511]

already well aware of (such as non-peer reviewed books being referenced as well)

If you were aware of it then you wouldn’t have said “if it were peer reviewed it would have gone in the reference section” this point is irrelevant as all sources are suppose to go in the reference section, so the nyc source was suppose to go in the reference section as well but it didn’t likely due to an error of from
The publishers.

Fact is you can’t say conclusively whether the source is peer reviewed or not you just blatantly lied.

 

[Deleted member 27511]

No, because I'm correct

Not an argument

 

[Deleted member 27511]

has no verifiable methodology

The only valid point you’ve made this far, I’ve already conceded that, but the paper gives literally dozens of other sources which still prove my point. You just keep back peddling back to this subject because you know your wrong.

 

[Deleted member 27511]

was not peer-reviewed

You have no way of knowing that I suspect you’ll back-peddle to the “it would have been in the reference section” retort but I already responded to that above. Then you’re response to that response was “I already know that” which doesn’t disprove my point. You don’t peer review a dataset retard, you peer review a publication( books, articles, scientific papers). Stop using big words you don’t understand.

 

[Gengar]

View attachment 2243936
View attachment 2243939

So guys with beards are frauding weak chins?

 

[Gengar]

You have no way of knowing that, and you don’t peer review a data set retard, you peer review a publication( books, articles, scientific papers). Stop using big words you don’t understand.

Peer-reviewed peer-review.

 

[Gengar]

I've already been looking at penis studies for years before you even joined this site, and I'm over 7.5 inches BP. You posting a bunch of dick threads with schizo fantasies and not understanding the studies is what I'm referring to.

Good dick size bhai.

 

[bishōnenmaxxer]

only on the .org with there be paragraphs on dick size study accuracy

 

[Deleted member 27511]

by writing paragraphs

I only had to write paragraph to give you numerous examples of the fact that all sources go in the reference section because you were too stupid to understand the concept of a reference section properly

 

[Deleted member 21467]

So guys with beards are frauding weak chins?

yes

 

[Gengar]

yes

I got a slightly recessed chin but I always shave.

 

[Deleted member 27511]

only on the .org with there be paragraphs on dick size study accuracy

Correct hence the existence of retards like @Reckless Turtle and @GilfHunter