490abe No.5014
What is your opinion on pedophilia?
Personally, I would hate pedophiles, but I am a logical thinker. Don't get me wrong, I am against child molestors, but being a pedophile does not make one a molestor.
Also, many anti pedos believe that child molestation is worse than murder, why do they continue to hold on to these falsehoods, I have never seen more anger than antis in a pedo thread.
What is your opinion?
8b3b2d No.5027
Typo free version:
I think after gays and trans are accepted it can be the next issue. I like lolicon, but half of the western world bans it since society is derived from ignorant apes, and when there are no bears to kill we need to make witches to hunt and burn at the stake. There is no more slippery slope between reading lolicon or having fantasies and committing actual rape, than there is in reading smut about serial killers and doing the real thing.
Also in the future I suspect with genetic engineering we can have older people who voluntarilly take bodies of catgirl lolis. We already have people who look like juvenile elves due to genetics of accident.
Pedophillia was also less of a sin a hundred years ago in the west and I'm not sure what changed it. In the old stories people even married and fell in love at the age of 12, (see the old medieval stories.) In manga kids have relationships much earlier than in the west where they go to school and get a job before marrying when they're old men.
The perspective 100 years ago was such that the author of Alice in Wonderland was paid by parents to take risque photos of them, and there are many classical paintings of nude girls and cupids. Nowadays you can't even admire that beauty without being branded a pedophille/demon, and ostrachized much worse than gays (who have aquired some acceptance.).
Whenever a law is put on the refferendum by voters to punish pedophiles more, it always gets votes through with a 90 + percent majority because "how could you vote against protecting the children?" fallacy? That's why sex with a child or looking at cp has longer sentences than many murders sentences, and afterward you'll be tracked by patrol officers, have your computer checked, possibly be forced to wear and ankle tracker, and definitely be barred from living close to schools, which in effect means you can't live in any city even close to your work. Then too, you would have trouble finding work because of your record and what employers find if they google you.
Meanwhile there are younger people who will have sex with their peers and who would rather have sex with an adult due to their own fetishes. Their desire is ignored because it doesn't fit the narrative that kids are always innocent, which is what people want to believe. They would prefer to think the adult preyed on the child.
There's a brilliant uk comedy skit that makes fun of the irrational fear and hatred society has towards pedophilles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcU7FaEEzNU 8b3b2d No.5028
I can't delete my typo ridden post for some reason.
526c0f No.5035
We should give pedos plenty of Japanese loli so they'll masturbate instead of going out and hurting kids.
We should not stigmatize them for being born with a harmful sexuality.
We should absolutely root out institutionalized child rape, which is increasingly suspicious of being all over the world's powerful organizations. I'm by no means an expert, but my understanding is this. Most organizations are fairly corrupt (and the most powerful ones absolutely are) and they often use people's dirty secrets to obtain more power. This used to be shit like being gay or having sexual kinks and shit, but all that is accepted now. So instead of hiring gays because of the leverage, governments now hire pedos (And ephebophiles and hebephiles). They give them kids to rape and document it so they have dirt they can use. All they have to do is say "look we have evidence this guy's a pedo" and it's all over. That threat gives them the power to have those people do things they never would otherwise.
Hopefully getting over the pedo scare will happen in a generation or two. The internet seems to be good at opening people's minds. I would like to live to see a world where pedos can get treatment to manage their urges instead of living in fear and being more likely to hurt kids. I'd also like to see will-to-power shitstains in charge of much of the world lose a major point of leverage.
db4009 No.5038
It's a disease of the mind as bad as any other, and perhaps more dangerous due to its utter lack of support.
I have no problem with paedophilia, only the people who act upon it.
adf810 No.5048
My opinion is, without using muh feelings and trying to stay objective, that pedophilia is just another random preference that men or women happen to be born with, just like being gay, or being attracted to animals. And I think that people get really overly emotional when it comes to arguing what is worse: child pornography or child murder? They tend to be very aggressive and ignore everything else. It's a losing battle if you try to argue this point, it's like they switch to primal mode and want to kill in cold blood any humans who would even think of being a pedophile near them.
Another point that I would like to bring is that if people reduce pedophilia in fiction, such as drawn images or other things, pedophiles wouldn't have anything to masturbate too, causing sexual frustration and eventually possibly even leading to real life sex. Just like video games help in entertaining yourself with fictional violence, so then you could forget about causing actual real life violence.
I think child pornography is not worse than muder, just like I think that animal pornography is also not worse than killing the animal, and I also think that rape is not worse than murder. Basically people all over react at the though of these, they stop thinking logically. If the victim stays alive, and is not heavily damaged, how could anyone says these acts are worse than murder? With murder, you stop existing completely, forever.
My opinion is that people's judgement is clouded by rage and primal instincts and they are not able to think clearly when it comes to these issues.
adf810 No.5052
>>5048I also want to add two things to my post:
An interesting social experiment would be, asking parents: What would you choose between having your two kids murdered or molested? How many would say murder and how many molestation?
Molesters should also have more empathy. They should imagine themselves being parents, and as parents they would want to protect their children from other people. So, my question to molesters is, if they would be parents, would they actually feel comfortable letting their kids having sex with other grown up, possibly even disgusting people?
526c0f No.5054
>>5048Rape is a hot-button for people because of tribal evolution. Fear that the "others" are going to rape "our" women (and girls) was selected for because it's a reality in primate tribal warfare. This is a feature of primate evolution, not specific to humans. Part of it is because this kind of rape would only happen after another tribe wiped out all the men. There's an instinctual association between the "other" raping your innocents and you being dead if you're male. That's got a lot to do with where the fear comes from. The whole being dead thing can't leave a specific mark on individual behavior, so what's selected for is an appropriate level of fear to motivate people to fight for their lives.
>>5052There'd probably be a gender disparity in the experiment. Women are more likely to kill their children (not talking about abortion) to save them from perceived suffering.
I doubt most molesters who had kids would allow other adults to interact with the kids very much. AFAIK, they tend to be doing a power trip thing.
adf810 No.5056
>>5035>pedos can get treatmentThat's like saying that gays can get treatment for being gay. They can all delude themselves if they want too, but they are not sick to need a treatment. They were just born that way.
526c0f No.5057
>>5056It's not treatment to make them stop being pedo. It's treatment to teach them ways to slake their urges without hurting children, e.g. fapping to loli.
adf810 No.5058
>>5057I see, I misunderstood.
526c0f No.5059
>>5058This is probably a major barrier to fixing the problem because progressive types hear "treatment" and immediately think of gay camps.
5c908b No.5063
You would think with all these "think of the children" types, that orphanages across the globe would be empty. Instead it's quite the opposite. Why is it that people care so much about children that it can be used to pass so many bad laws that are sometimes barely related, but when it comes to how bad orphans have it, everyone turns a blind eye? If I ever get myself in a place in life where I want a kid, I'll just adopt.
As for pedophiles, the problem is nobody wants to truly nip the problem in the bud.
Let's imagine a situation: Once a pedo realizes they have a problem, they try to find support online without telling anyone. They then realize that everyone wants them burned at the stake, even if they haven't done anything and want to fix their problem, so they never tell anyone. They then begin to find out that people have gone to jail for just admitting to being attracted to children, that at the very least you'll be put on the sex offender list for admitting it, and on the sex offender list they'll be forced to wear a tracking device, be limited to where they go, be under risk of being attacked or having their house burnt down. They then learn that if they do get sent to jail, that pedo's are at the bottom of the food chain. Either way, there's a chance no one will ever love them or want to get close to them if their secret gets out.
At this point is probably when they start to mentally degrade over time, friendships probably begin to get more shallow, and some of them begin to loose their morals and grow apathetic as a way of coping with intense guilt and depression. Many stick to loli, knowing that it's the only chance they have of keeping shit under control, but loli is a legal grey area, and they have a risk of being jailed in the future if they get caught for it.
So I believe that there needs to be a reform. Instead of keeping pedo's from wanting to talk about their problem, make it to where coming out of the closet just like has no truly jeopardizing consequences. Loli should be completely legalized. If the person actually admits fapping to real child porn, throw them in a mostly harmless correctional place for several years and keep them there as long as need be but don't make them a sex offender when they get out. I'm not sure if people who have only jerked it to loli and know they can keep things under control should be legally required for this as well. If they actually took shit out on a kid, then you throw them in jail for a length depending on the crime, at the very least 5 years, and once they release keep them on the sex offender list until they can prove they wont do it again. If they repeat, then you don't take them off. Ethical castration will help some people, but it should be voluntary.
8b3b2d No.5064
>>5059>>5057> pedophiles should be given treatment to force them to follow the mores of the majorityHow about a thought experiment. Suppose in the dustant future we have sexy androids, and also the technology to change our own bodies however we wanted, with thr same conveinence of putting on a different shirt or a necklace. When what looks like a child is actually an adult with neither the years or innocence of a child; when the child isn't even human, there would be little reason to discourage those preferences of paraphillia.
Most would grant there would be no problem. Having established an extreme where it'd be fine, what if in the present day there were possible circumstances that made pedophillic relationships acceptable? Suppose an 18 year old met a genius, barely pubescent 12 year old and they voluntarilly entered a mutual relationship. Suppose she had even had sex before, either through rape or her own volition and come to enjoy it. In this scenario she has a relationship to gain and little innocence to lose, if we assume innocence is worth protecting. That's thought experiment #2.
Thought experiment #3:
Suppose a girl is a nude child model and enjoys it. Now to take the argument to an extreme, suppose she is also works in a brothel and it is safe either because of safe practices or medical advances. How is working in a brothel for pedophilles any worse than other forms of child labor such as working in a sweat shop? We already have laws prohibiting child labor, and if prostitution is legalized, brothels should be legal after the age of consent and after when child labor laws set in. (For the record I don't believe age of consent laws are ar too high a number, if they should be allowed to exist at all. If they were put aside, I'm guessing under this framework 16 year olds or younger could do sexual work with their parent's permission in America. Of course, the argument goes that these laws exist to prevent all forms of abuse tht even adults could inflict, but we already have child abuse laws to take care of bad parents, and contract law too.)
I'd like to point out the Spartans and Athenians had relationships between older men and younger boys, which was considered a beneficial thing since the older man could tutor the younger boy, and sex merely brought them closer. Seems like we are rediscovering how wise the ancients were in many things, (art, democracy, philosophy), and someday this may be one of those things,
6ed303 No.5066
Kill them.
490abe No.5067
6ed303 No.5069
>>5067>hurr everyone i disagree with is a theist durr 490abe No.5070
>>5069I never said that. I just said that you were.
5c908b No.5071
>>5064This argument would make sense if you didn't put into account that children are often very dumb and regret stuff they did as a kid. Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I think humans need to understand sex more before they have sex with much older people. 16, 17, or 18 are probably fine points for this.
526c0f No.5072
>>5063Irrational fears is why.
>>5064Fucking children is bad because they're not physically or psychologically equipped to handle it. Why would any reasoning person have a problem with fucking an adult or robot who looks like a child?
>Suppose an 18 year old met a genius, barely pubescent 12 year old and they voluntarilly entered a mutual relationship.An 18 year old is not mature enough to handle a relationship with someone 2/3rds their age. A 12 year old is nowhere near mature enough for a relationship with someone 1.5 times their age. This isn't an innocence thing it's a cognitive development thing. Having already been raped doesn't make sexual activity less harmful to a 12 year old.
>Suppose a girl is a nude child model Surely the only purpose for this is to arouse pedophiles. If she's nude, she's not modeling anything but her body.
>How is working in a brothel for pedophilles any worse than other forms of child labor such as working in a sweat shop?Aside from the general ethics of child labor, sweat shops only pose risks of physical harm. Children having sex with adults is basically a guarantee of physical harm. Both are bad things.
>I'd like to point out the Spartans and Athenians had relationships between older men and younger boysGreek sex culture centered around dominance and submissiveness. They very much had a "rape culture" where people would fuck anyone lower in the hierarchy because they could. Of course they painted it as a positive relationship because nobody wants to call themselves barbarians.
6ed303 No.5073
>>5070And you're still wrong.
490abe No.5075
490abe No.5078
>>5077
i think you might me in the wrong thread, mate.
5c908b No.5080
179c81 No.5084
Sadism is the tendency to derive pleasure, especially sexual gratification, from inflicting pain, suffering, or humiliation on others. A person can be a sadist without ever actually committing any harmful acts against other people to derive pleasure in this way, and that doesn't change the fact that their desires, regardless of whether they are acted upon, are enormously immoral.
Child molestation and rape are massively damaging to children for reasons that I shouldn't have to explain. The desire to do these things is an evil one. I have no reason to sympathize with people who have it.
That's my baseline stance. Now, onto counterarguments.
>Also, many anti pedos believe that child molestation is worse than murder, why do they continue to hold on to these falsehoods,
First, your use of the term "anti-pedo" makes it sound like outrage at the prospect of children being sexually abused is some kind of fringe stance taken up by political extremists. This is pretty close to Poisoning the Well, if only by implication rather than explicit allegation.
Also, you presume that it is a falsehood that child molestation is worse than murder. You loaded the question before you asked it. I highly doubt that you would seriously argue that death is the worst fate which can befall a person. Sexual abuse is torturous for a person to go through, especially in childhood when they are most vulnerable to it. You may not agree that childhood sexual abuse is a form of torture worse than death, but that's not really something you get to decide for others, especially if you haven't suffered it.
>I have never seen more anger than antis in a pedo thread.
You are responding to tone. If you want to claim the intellectual high ground, you should stop doing this.
>>5024
>I think after gays and trans are accepted it can be the next issue.
There is a significant different between homosexuality and, uh, whatever you call it that trannies do, and the sexual abuse of children. That difference is the capacity of adults to engage in consensual sexual behavior, and the inability of children to do the same. Children are not intellectually competent to manage their own finances, make career decisions, choose where to live, or decide what to do with their sex lives. They are not even physically mature enough for sex until after hitting puberty. It is nothing short of insanity to consider them viable candidate for any sort of sexual conduct, let alone sexual conduct with adults.
That said, gay rights activists really asked for this kind of slippery slope when they started banging on about gays being "born that way." They are probably wrong about that, but by pushing that narrative so hard, they swung the door wide open for pedophiles to come flooding in behind them using the same gateway. This is the shameful result of intellectual dishonesty.
>I like lolicon, but half of the western world bans it since society is derived from ignorant apes, and when there are no bears to kill we need to make witches to hunt and burn at the stake.
Remember that part about responding to tone? Now you're simply lashing out by implying that your opponents are ignorant and apelike, and that they are conducting witch hunts against you poor little victims. If you're going to criticize other people for being hateful, you shouldn't be demonstrating a hateful attitude yourself.
Much of the western world bans this stuff because they do not want people to entice themselves into becoming increasingly interested in pedophilia. While I don't agree that censorship is the best way to combat this sexual dysfunction, I can understand why they would want to do it, and certainly wouldn't consider it grounds to label them as ignorant apes going on a witch hunt.
>There is no more slippery slope between reading lolicon or having fantasies and comitting actual rape, an there is in reading smut about serial killers and doing the real thing.
I generally agree, but this is debatable to a degree. Women who indulge in sexual fantacies involving forceful men like to make requests of their boyfriends that they roleplay forceful sexual encounters in their real lives in order to get a better thrill out of sex. There is certainly a case to be made that pornography can whet peoples' appetites and require more self control to prevent themselves from acting on the urges they are entertaining to themselves in private. It's completely impossible to test for this in a controlled environment, but the hypothesis is plausible. There is no black-and-white answer to the question of whether media and private fantasies encourage people to attempt to act out their fantasies. It isn't a simple yes or no.
179c81 No.5085
File: 1427068441733.jpg (398.24 KB, 930x1314, 155:219, 10266edf32ba9e0084e258c6bb….jpg)
>Also in the future I suspect with genetic engineering we can have older people who voluntarilly take bodies of catgirl lolis. We already have people who look like juvenile elves due to genetics of accident.
If I were you, I'd sooner hold my breath for sexbots, but this is an enormous digression. Obviously there is nothing wrong with adults engaging in consensual sexual behavior or with a person pleasuring themselves using their own property. This is outside of the scope of the discussion, as such technology does not exist. Also, your proposal of genetic engineering is disturbing, as I find it much less likely that a person could grow to adulthood and then undergo some kind of genetic therapy to alter their bodies. This lies entirely within the realm of science fiction and is currently about as plausible as installing FTL warp drives into spaceships.
>Pedophillia was also less of a sin a hundred years ago in the west and I'm not sure what changed it.
So was genocide. Atheism used to be a crime as well, punishable by the state in all the countries of the western world. I do not understand why you would appeal to archaic laws of historical times which are better relegated to the history books.
>In old stories people even married and fell in love at the age of 12: see the old mideval stories, or even manga fwhere kids have relationships much earlier than in the west.
You are referring to stories in which both participants in romance are of a similar age to each other. The Childhood Friend trope is a relatively popular one in romance, because people like to believe that there is one special person out there made especially for them, and it is a romantic fantasy to discover that person at a very early age in life and grow up with the person whom you will spend the rest of your life with. These are only romantic fantasies. In reality, anyone marrying at such a young age was most likely involved in an arranged marriage. You are conflating some very different concepts here.
>The perspective 100 years ago was such that the author of Alice in Wonderland was paid by parents to take risque photos of them, and there are tons of classical paintings of nude girls and cupids. Nowadays you can't even admire that beauty without being branded a pedophille, and ostrachized much worse than gays (who have aquired some acceptance.).
I call this progress. Children should not be sexualized.
>Whenever a law is put on the refferendum by voters to punish pedophiles more,
Those poor oppressed pedophiles, they only want to sexually abuse children. How dare people want to shame them and suppress their morally defunct desires?
>it always gets votes through with a 90 + percent majority because how could you vote against protecting the children fallacy?
There is nothing fallacious about wanting to protect children from abuse. Children are all but defenseless against every form of abuse which exists. They require protection.
>That's why sex with a child or looking at cp has longer sentences than many murders sentences, and afterward you'll be tracked by patrol officers, have your computer checked, possibly be forced to wear and ankle tracker, and definitely be barred from living close to schools, which in effect means you can't live in any city even close to your work. Then too, you'll have trouble finding work because of your record and what employers find if they google you.
And this is a good thing. By raping a child, you ruined their childhood, and possibly their life. I see nothing unfair about yours being ruined in return. If you looked at CP and chose not to report it to the authorities, then you were complicit in the sexual abuse of children. If I knew about a murder and concealed the information I had from the authorities, I would be in a bad legal position, too. If you are aware of a crime taking place and take no action to stop it, you are enabling it.
179c81 No.5086
File: 1427068534047.jpg (83.54 KB, 671x698, 671:698, 26de3d1085cc90604e386754d8….jpg)
>Meanwhile there are younger people who will have sex with their peers and who would rather have sex with an adult due to their own fetishes.
Those younger people are teenagers, not children, and it is fine for them to engage in sexual behavior with their peers. They are not the same as prepubescent children, and you are conflating these two groups anyway. Still, we do afford teenagers protection against adults because they are still legally regarded as not being capable of making decisions for themselves in the same way that prepubescent children aren't. If you can't trust a fourteen-year-old to vote, own property, or decide where they are going to live, then what causes you to believe you can trust them to make decisions about whom they mate with? These are people who are so young that it is still mandatory for them to spend their day in school. They are at a tremendous disadvantage in the selection process when they deal with adults who are capable of living on their own and supporting themselves with careers. The playing field is so lopsided that we don't allow it, much for the same reason that we wouldn't allow professional athletes to play a serious game against little league players. The very notion is absurd.
>Their desire is ignored because it doesn't fit the narrative that kids are always in ocent, which is hat people want to believe. They would prefer to think the adult preyed on the child.
Again you are conflating adolescents with children. In either cause, however, the younger party is being exploited. Adolescents are very easy to impress with standards of living which are very unimpressive to adults, which puts adults at an enormous advantage when compared to teenagers, at no fault of the teenagers in question. Adults can drive their own vehicles, live in their own houses, and pay all of their own bills while deciding whatever they want to do with their free time. The degree to which this entices a teenager is nothing short of unfair, which is why sexual relationships between adults and teenagers are generally banned or at least strongly discouraged. It is an exploitative relationship which depends entirely on the younger person being overly impressed with someone who is simply not their peer in any way.
>There's a brilliant uk comedy skit that makes fun of the irrational fear and hatred society has towards Pedophilles.
I'm sure I would enjoy this, as it's labeled "Black Comedy," but you are asking me to watch a twenty-seven minute video to help you make a point. For the purposes of discussion, you should have included some kind of Cliff's Notes rather than expecting someone to just watch a TV show before talking to you.
8b3b2d No.5090
>>5072>An 18 year old is not mature enough to handle a relationship with someone 2/3rds their age. A 12 year old is nowhere near mature enough for a relationship with someone 1.5 times their age. This isn't an innocence thing it's a cognitive development thing. I said she is a genius, but perhaps I didn't imply enough that she's also emotionally mature. Suppose for a moment now that the guy is immature or a moron, and her emotional maturity is also unusually advanced for their age. Now their overall maturities are about equal. Is that still a problem?
This is not even as big a stretch as you might think. There are emancipated minors who live on their own, work on their own and take of themselves legally at the age of 14 (in certain states), because they moved out of abusive homes and the court decided they were capable of taking care of themselves.
I can see where a relationship between a young man and a smart and sophisticated 12 year old could work, under unusual circumstances. However, if 12 is still not acceptable in this exceptional example, for argument's sale increase her age and shrink the gap until it's acceptable to you. Say she's 14 or 16, resulting in a 4 or 2 year gap, (which is more than acceptable in countries like France.) At some point it will become acceptable to the lay person, although what the age and age gap must be is a personal matter. The courts are aware of this, and that's why we have Romeo and Juliet laws in America that forgive 18 year olds that have sex their 16/17 year old girlfriends - the age gap is not that great.
The problem is society wants everyone to fit into neat boxes, despite our individual differences. For the convenience of society, 18 was chosen as the magic number to put most questions to rest, but the courts still make exceptions under circumstances; The judges do so while conditioned by their culture and subconscious expectations about what is right and wrong.
My argument hinges on how arbitrary the numbers society has chosen are, and how even summaries of judgements by the judges that originally support the age of 18, agree that it's an arbitrary number. There can actually be unusually mature couples at a younger age, just as there can be people in their late 20's who are not mature enough to responsibly have a child. In fact I'd go so far to say there are adults who will never be emotionally mature enough to have relationships, and who should never raise children.
The difficulties of having an age gap don't stop people from doing it when they're adults either. In the real world, or in tabloids you commonly see 18 year old trophy girls who marry 50+ year old rich guys, and you can bet there's a huge maturity gap there, but because they're legally adults people merely roll their eyes but don't throw a fuss. I also know a doctor who married a girl 20 years younger than him. No one could understand why the girl wanted to do it, and claim it was only for money. They have to justify unusual behavior in their minds somehow.
>Having already been raped doesn't make sexual activity less harmful to a 12 year old.How about marriage? Or careful forms of sexual activity such as oral sex? Or fingering, or playing with toys and small dildos? Besides, there are individual variances in puberty, which is why you have early bloomers with large breasts, and then girls who only develop boobs around the age of 17. You also have 12 year olds with stretched out legs that are as tall as an adult, and short boys who grow taller only in their late teens. The fact that many 12 year olds can get pregnant shows their individual body is pretty much ready to have a child. In fact, studies show the age of pubescence has decreased in the developed world within the last century, and my theory is better nutrition made our bodies develop faster. (Studies also show our IQs have increased, especially for the lower class, which could again be partly attributed to better nutrition.) This alone is reason to suggest that by the time one reaches 18, they're more advanced than they were a century ago, which is when the age of consent was raised to that number.
tl;dr version:
So to recap, I pretended the 12 year old was a genius and emotionally mature. She might even be biologically advanced, and/or even be an emancipated minor. She knows what she is doing, and perhaps she's even smarter than her partner and takes college courses, or has a tutor for home schooling so she'll be more challenged. She wants to enter into a voluntary and mutually beneficial relationship, and practice safe sex with her partner. But if she does so it would fly against the law, and pose more risks to her adult partner than herself.
526c0f No.5091
>>5090Maturity isn't just psychological. Even a wunderkind has an underdeveloped emotional response anyway.
Sure, age of consent is arbitrary. Humans don't reach full maturity until about 25 (the last thing to crystalize is risk management and impulse control). But governments try to err on the safe side of this shit. 18 and 16 is probably not really bad in most cases, especially since people at those ages are at very similar life stages. 18 and 12 is ridiculous because the 12 year old is still figuring out a lot of social cognition, not to mention the serious amount of physical development left for any 12 year old.
Your anime images and adherence to this particular hypothetical suggest to me that you're basing your position on fantasy, not reality. You're using a very simple understanding of human cognitive development. There is a
lot going on in a human brain and body at these ages, and all the evidence we have shows that sexual activity with someone older will result in behavioral problems and emotional distress in the child. If you could actually find me a 12 year old supergenius with the body of an adult and she was actively seeking sex, I would first suspect it was an artifact of sexual abuse, but if I found that it wasn't, then I would have to consider whether she was inviting anything other than sexual violation (even if she was capable of a healthy sexual relationship, the people who would take her up would mostly be pedos). But I'm going to cross that bridge when I come to it IRL. You're going to have to come up with a much more reasonable scenario to be convincing.
490abe No.5093
>>5084>Sadism is the tendency to derive pleasure, especially sexual gratification, from inflicting pain, suffering, or humiliation on others.Not everyone who harms someone does it for the express purpose of deriving pleasure from their pain.
>First, your use of the term "anti-pedo" makes it sound like outrage at the prospect of children being sexually abused is some kind of fringe stance taken up by political extremists.Well, people who are against pedophiles are by definition, anti-pedos.
>Also, you presume that it is a falsehood that child molestation is worse than murder.Is it not? If you seriously believe that a woman being raped is worse than her being murdered, you may just be a terrible person.
> I highly doubt that you would seriously argue that death is the worst fate which can befall a person.The fact that you say this tells me that you are a theist.
> If you want to claim the intellectual high groundI never stated this. I asked a question. That's it.
>There is a significant different between homosexuality and, uh, whatever you call it that trannies do, and the sexual abuse of children.>Pedophilia = child molesterOh boy, here we go again.
>That said, gay rights activists really asked for this kind of slippery slope when they started banging on about gays being "born that way." They are probably wrong about that, but by pushing that narrative so hard, they swung the door wide open for pedophiles to come flooding in behind them using the same gateway. This is the shameful result of intellectual dishonesty.You have clearly never studied neurobiology.
>Remember that part about responding to tone? Now you're simply lashing out by implying that your opponents are ignorant and apelike, and that they are conducting witch hunts against you poor little victims. If you're going to criticize other people for being hateful, you shouldn't be demonstrating a hateful attitude yourself.That's not me. Try again.
>Much of the western world bans this stuff because they do not want people to entice themselves into becoming increasingly interested in pedophilia.I bet video games also cause violent behavior, too.
>There is certainly a case to be made that pornography can whet peoples' appetites and require more self control to prevent themselves from acting on the urges they are entertaining to themselves in private.People don't become rapist by watching rape porn, people who are rapists seek out rape porn.
> It's completely impossible to test for this in a controlled environmentKek.
490abe No.5096
>>5085>So was genocide.u wot m8?
>Children should not be sexualized.
>Art in which naked women are on display is porn.
>Those poor oppressed pedophiles, they only want to sexually abuse children.>they only want to sexually abuse children.>sexually abuse children.
>pedophiles>sexually abuse childrenPick one.
>How dare people want to shame them and suppress their morally defunct desires?Yes tell me about how gay people are sinful.
>There is nothing fallacious about wanting to protect children from abuse.I fear for your children.
>Children are all but defenseless against every form of abuse which exists.Gee, I wonder why crying evolutionarily developed.
> If you looked at CP and chose not to report it to the authorities, then you were complicit in the sexual abuse of children. If I knew about a murder and concealed the information I had from the authorities, I would be in a bad legal position, too. If you are aware of a crime taking place and take no action to stop it, you are enabling it. You are aware that the majority of CP was created by the children themselves, yes? Or are you 'completely' ignorant?
>Those younger people are teenagers, not children, and it is fine for them to engage in sexual behavior with their peers.
>Children are not intellectually competent to manage their own finances, make career decisions, choose where to live, or decide what to do with their sex lives. They are not even physically mature enough for sex until after hitting puberty. It is nothing short of insanity to consider them viable candidate for any sort of sexual conduct, let alone sexual conduct with adults.But it's okay if children take advantage of their inability to consent?
Son of a bitch, man.
Please, seek help.
8b3b2d No.5101
In response to your 3 part post…
>>5084>>5085>>5086
>There is nothing fallacious about wanting to protect children from abuse. Children are all but defenseless against every form of abuse which exists. They require protection.We already have multiple laws to “protect them” (from abuse or otherwise.) My point is that the laws have become draconian because no matter how much is done, it’s never enough for people short of life sentences and execution. As long as you don’t know any pedophiles, they can be painted as villains and no one cares what happens to them.
To repeat the line you replied to…
“Whenever a law is put on the referendum by voters to punish pedophiles more, it always gets votes through with a 90 + percent majority because how could you vote against protecting the children fallacy?”
…I forgot to add this very thing did happen in California, and the majority of Californians voted to extend the (already long) jail sentences of pedophiles a few years ago. They formed a super majority and voted for it with basically no debate or opposition, because there are few people willing to take the reprehensible position of arguing for the other side on such an emotional issue.
And this is a good thing. By raping a child, you ruined their childhood, and possibly their life. I see nothing unfair about yours being ruined in return.
Rape can be harmful for anyone. We already have laws making rape punishable for women and men. There is no need for extra laws, just enforcement of the ones we have. At the same time a momentary rape is far from the worse thing that can happen to you: I would argue the worst thing is being kidnapped and tortured for an extended period. Any emotional or physical wounds suffered from a few hours of sex will recover much faster than a period of abuse with malicious intent. There is far too much hyperbole that rape is the worst thing that could happen to you, as women like to say, even though many women actually fantasize about it happening while they rub the little bean.
If you looked at CP and chose not to report it to the authorities, then you were complicit in the sexual abuse of children. If I knew about a murder and concealed the information I had from the authorities, I would be in a bad legal position, too. If you are aware of a crime taking place and take no action to stop it, you are enabling it.
We have a lot of CP already even if no more was made, but making free copies of that is illegal. When a person looks at it or downloads it they should not be seen as complicit in a crime, because the crime of creation has in fact been committed long before.
In fact, I think it’s irony that much of the CP on the internet are kept online as honey pots with implicit government support so as to make it easier to catch some pedophiles. It remains online and the government uses it’s vast wiretapping apparatus not for searching for terrorists, but for ruining the lives of harmless people. For instance one of those convicted was a retarded and unemployed NEET with in Canada who wanted to fap to free old photographs. (Although I think he was caught because he tried to print the photos in a store and someone reported him.) He had no life skills, and imo committed no evil, but they still threw the book at him.
The official court argument against possession of cp goes that by having this material available people can profit from it, and criminals will be inclined to produce more. However, what’s done is done, and photographs taken belong to the past. It already exists for free on the internet. There are women who have taken photographs of themselves before they’re 18 and then publish them when they are of age for a profit. There was a case recently of a Middle school girl who was tried for creating cp…of herself. She took selfies of herself naked and sent them to her boyfriend who stupidly sent them to his friends which is how she was reported. I fail to see how this hurt anyone.
Criminalizing drugs hasn’t solved our drug problems either. People will continue to take risks and seek out the things they want, and criminals will provide it for a price, because it’s no longer easy to access.
>>5086 I pretty much have addressed this post by arguing there are exceptional children, or adolescents, and there are emancipated minors
>>5090 8b3b2d No.5102
>There's a brilliant uk comedy skit that makes fun of the irrational fear and hatred society has towards Pedophilles. But I don’t feel like watching it unless I know what it’s about.“Paedogeddon” is a comedy skit where the mass media goes into a fear-mongering frenzy about protecting the children at all costs. Children are wired with tracking devices and kept indoors so their parents may always know where they are at all times, resulting in emotionally sheltered children with stunted maturities. Angry mobs then storm prisons to torture and kill pedophiles, because we aren’t safe until every single one is killed, and the anchormen breathe a sigh of relief when they’re all dead. That’s the gist of it, and the themes of paranoia and overreaction are repeated in layers and iterations throughout the program.
>>5084I see someone else has already responded to your first post out of three, and my response to this post is best encapsulated above, or in that video. Here is a link to “Paedogeddon” again for the convenience of those who are interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcU7FaEEzNUI think on this issue you too are vulnerable to letting your emotions cloud your judgement. When I read posts like this I think you could be one of the extras in that video:
> First, your use of the term "anti-pedo" makes it sound like outrage at the prospect of children being sexually abused is some kind of fringe stance taken up by political extremists. This is pretty close to Poisoning the Well, if only by implication rather than explicit allegation.
> Also, you presume that it is a falsehood that child molestation is worse than murder.For the later posts this thread is moving so fast I haven’t even read them yet.
490abe No.5104
>>5035SJWs and morlafags are setting progress back almost more than religion. Though, most SJWs and moralfags are religious, so I see why this occurs.
179c81 No.5106
>>5093
>Not everyone who harms someone does it for the express purpose of deriving pleasure from their pain.I don't think you understood my point. The analogy to sadism was meant to demonstrate that not acting upon your desires does not make those desires any less evil, and entertaining them without acting upon them does not make you any less morally questionable. I'll use another example and try to explain it more explicitly: if someone really, really wanted to just hang all the black people from trees, but never actually did it, they would still be a horrible racist person. Not acting on their evil desires doesn't make their desires less evil. Privately stoking their own evil desires instead of rejecting them makes them at least complicit in fostering these desires in their own minds privately. It's not illegal to do this, and I don't want it to be, but there is a lot of ground to cover between "not illegal" and "morally defensible."
>Well, people who are against pedophiles are by definition, anti-pedos. You are not too stupid to know how to be manipulative with language. I will not insult you by insinuating that you are. Do not insult my intelligence by pretending not to know what you were doing.
>Is it not? If you seriously believe that a woman being raped is worse than her being murdered, you may just be a terrible person.>The fact that you say this tells me that you are a theist.Am I to understand that you would rather have your eyes ripped out of their sockets and be skullfucked by bonobos while a sociopath is given a circular saw and license to do whatever he would like involving it and your testicles than simply be shot in the head? Am I to understand that you cannot possibly imagine any circumstance which would be worse than death? Should I have to present you with increasingly disturbing examples so that you can deny the obvious reality that prolonged and horrible torture can be worse than death? Are you going to stop pretending you don't understand things that we both know you do?
>I never stated this. I asked a question. That's it.Far be it from me to contradict you if you are denying that you have the intellectual high ground.
>Pedophilia = child molester>Oh boy, here we go again.You are advocating for more than just the private indulgence of pedophilic fantasies. I am not going to tolerate a situation where to jump forward to argue for what you really want and then backpedal when you are called to task on it. You are advocating for sexual activities and relationships between adults and children to be legal or not reviled by the majority of modern society. You are playing games by suddenly pretending that this is not what you were advocating for when it becomes inconvenient for you to hold your ground.
179c81 No.5107
>>5093
>You have clearly never studied neurobiology.By all means, please make the claim that humans and their behavior are shaped completely by their genetics and that humans have no capacity to learn behavior and control themselves. Please just come right out and say that people are permanently slaves to their lizard brains and cannot be faulted for any of their urges or acts they take based on those urges. There is no need for you to continually skirmish around and imply this claim while sheepishly shying away from it when you are about to be called out on making it. I am growing impatient with your insistence on vanishing into formlessness the moment you are called upon to defend your stances.
>That's not me. Try again.Remember when you said that it was the anti-pedophiles who were the ones lashing out angrily? There is no need to get uncomfortable and defensive when you are proven wrong by examples in your own thread.
>I bet video games also cause violent behavior, too.Yeah, I figured you were giddy with excitement to jump on that one. The difference is that you are not stroking yourself to orgasm while running over hookers in GTA, you are just goofing around in a silly simulator to pass your free time away. Pornography is not the same as other types of entertainment. You are bringing yourself to sexual climax with the assistance of imagery, which you seek out to satisfy your sexual urges. This is worlds apart from sitting on the couch with a controller in your hand or hopping onto 2fort with your mouse and keyboard at the ready because you've got an hour to kill. The difference is between fantasizing about something you actually want to do and are tricking your body into thinking that you are doing it versus playing a game to combat boredom.
>People don't become rapist by watching rape porn, people who are rapists seek out rape porn.Again I direct you to women who fantasize about rape scenarios, indulge in erotic stories involving rape scenarios, and become increasingly interested in playing out rape scenarios in their real lives. This is not a black and white issue. Media does not absolutely influence people but it also does not completely lack influence either. I don't think the influence is strong enough to justify legislation, but I am not going to pretend that media never influences people.
>>5096
>u wot m8?I was quite clear. An appeal to historical practice is as silly as an appeal to nature, because for every example of a behavior you like in these appeals, there are many which you would not like to see enacted along with them. You are cherry picking the things you want to keep from old societies while ignoring the many things about them which you certainly would not like to keep. That eliminates your ability to appeal for these behaviors based on their historical precedent.
>Children should not be sexualized.>Art in which naked women are on display is porn.You are climbing down into the pit of argument by semantics. You and I both know that, as difficult as it is to define what absolutely counts as pornography and what does not, I am not going to pretend that you don't know an eighteen-page h-doujin about Kodomo no Jikan is not pornography. You are obfuscating the issue like a squid desperately escaping from an unfavorable situation.
179c81 No.5108
>>5096
>pedophiles>sexually abuse childrenI have made this quite clear by now. Pedophiles want to sexually abuse children. Not acting on these desires doesn't change what they want to do. There is nothing wrong with legislating against the commission of evil acts, and people who want to commmit evil acts and simply do not are not entitled to my sympathy when everyone else hates their guts. I don't feel sorry for the Klansman who is upset about the fact that everyone seems to hate him, and I feel the same way about lolicons who want to molest children and just can't understand why they are despised.
>Yes tell me about how gay people are sinful.I have made it abundantly clear that homosexuality raises no moral objections, as long as all participants are consenting. I only object to the notion that people are "born" with their sexuality grafted into them in an unchangable way. I have not seen sufficient evidence to suggest that humans develop primarily through instincts rather than learned behavior.
>But it's okay if children take advantage of their inability to consent? I will not deny that there is a grey area whereby examples of those in their late teens who are clearly as intellectually competent as they're ever going to get do things like trick adults by falsifying their identities. There is a reason why they are called jailbait. I do think that deliberate efforts on the part of an underage teenager to deceive an adult into thinking they are older should be grounds for acquittal of the adult, but that is quite different from an adult knowingly exploiting a teenager's low status and inexperience to get into a sexual relationship with them, and either way, this is a large digression from the topic of pedophilia. Pedophilia is not even an attraction to sexually mature teenagers. It is a sexual attraction to children, and I maintain that deliberately reenforcing that desire - especially in a world devoid of sexbots - is immoral and irresponsible, even if it does not necessarily have to be illegal.
>>5101Allow me some time to follow up on your post. I regret having replied to the other anon before you, honestly. Yours is much more worthy of a response.
490abe No.5109
>>5106>desires>evilWe thought police now!
>if someone really, really wanted to just hang all the black people from trees, but never actually did it, they would still be a horrible racist person.Being a racist is quite different than commiting a crime. The majority of people have likely fantasized about killing someone, or at least had a cursory thought, should we lock them up, too?
>but there is a lot of ground to cover between "not illegal" and "morally defensible."No, there isn't.
>Do not insult my intelligence by pretending not to know what you were doing.You must not have much intelligence if you accuse me of being manipulative just by using a word how it's meant to be used.
Black people have dark skin. Are you going to call me a racist now?
>Am I to understand that you would rather have your eyes ripped out of their sockets and be skullfucked by bonobos while a sociopath is given a circular saw and license to do whatever he would like involving it and your testicles than simply be shot in the head?I think that's a little different than having a cock in your cunt, or having your balls touched, which is something most people find quite pleasurable. I don't see many pedos doing the things you described. Please try to refrain from sensationalism.
>Should I have to present you with increasingly disturbing examples so that you can deny the obvious reality that prolonged and horrible torture can be worse than death?I never said that torture was worse than death, and most people don't kill themselves after they're tortured, so they disagree with you.
I just stated that rape isn't worse than death. And if you truly think that it is, than you must be an SJW or never been raped.
>Are you going to stop pretending you don't understand things that we both know you do?Why do you keep assuming that I agree with your faulty logic?
>Far be it from me to contradict you if you are denying that you have the intellectual high ground.Once again, I never stated I didn't. I might very well have the high ground, I just never stated it as you claimed I have.
>You are advocating for more than just the private indulgence of pedophilic fantasies.Give me one example where I have. And you're going to have to define "indulgence of pedophilic fantasies", because something tells me that you are going to include molestation or rape within there.
>You are advocating for sexual activities and relationships between adults and children to be legal or not reviled by the majority of modern society.Oh boy, you lost the argument so now you respond with outright lies now.
I have never advocated for that.
>You are playing games by suddenly pretending that this is not what you were advocating for when it becomes inconvenient for you to hold your ground.Hold my ground on what? Asking a simple question? I have not advocated for that, and you won't be able to find any evidence that i did, because I did not.
8b3b2d No.5111
>>5106> Muh morals> Muh slippery slope> Muh strawman> Pedophiles and those who defend them are monsters.> They make my skin boil so much my glasses fog over and I can't even see straightThis is why I've come around to thinking we need thread IDs. I want to know when it's safe to ignore a post because it's from our resident Christfag. There are flexible Christians I can argue with on certain things, but it's a proven exercise of frustration to argue with this particular Christian on anything.
Part 2:
Okay against my better judgement, here we go…
>>5107>By all means, please make the claim that humans and their behavior are shaped completely by their genetics and that humans have no capacity to learn behavior and control themselves.This is the familiar /christian/ argument that is used to argue against gays and other natural biological things. I say why stress yourself out repressing things that are not necessarily always evil. Because God said to do that? On this forum we don't take that premise for granted. If I want to fap to lolis or satanic porn let me do it. It's not like it will hurt anyone except the Christians who can't stand that I get to enjoy what my body was designed to do.
> Women enjoy rape fantasies because it's in the media.Mixing up cause and effect as the church's self help pamphlets like to do
> appeal to historical practice is as silly as an appeal to nature…….you are cherry picking…. That eliminates your ability to appeal for these behaviors based on their historical precedent.I see you're reading about logical fallacies. That's a good thing! Maybe someday you'll read enough to figure out the point of learning them is to recognize fallacies in critical thinking, rather than to decorate with them on top of a paragraph that doesn't at all flow from premise to conclusion.
>porn will ruin your lifeIf you could stop being such an intolerable christfag I could link you to some inspiring porn sites that have been more inspiring than the bible for me
> I am not going to pretend that you don't know an eighteen-page h-doujin about Kodomo no Jikan is not pornographyAnd so what if it is pornography which someone desires? Who is going to be abused by the lust of the viewer? Rin? She's composed of paper and black ink.
>I have made this quite clear by now. Pedophiles want to sexually abuse children.Noooo….. unless it's true that all Atheists want to forcibly destroy all religion…..
> Homosexuals aren't born gay.Except some are even if /christian/ refuses to accept it. A study has proven if you delete a gene from a mouse it will seek out homosexual relationships, and it stands to reason this happens in nature. We can talk about this derailing point elsewhere.
490abe No.5112
>>5107>By all means, please make the claim that humans and their behavior are shaped completely by their genetics and that humans have no capacity to learn behavior and control themselves.>completelyDo they have to be? Why can't it be a combination of biological or environmental? Apparently, you've never studied psychology either.
>Please just come right out and say that people are permanently slaves to their lizard brains and cannot be faulted for any of their urges or acts they take based on those urges.People are not permanently slaves to their reptilian brains and they cannot be faulted for any of their urges, but they can be faulted for the actions they take based on those urges.
Oh, that's not what you wanted me to say? Well, I am sorry if the words you put into my mouth do not actually represent what I have stated already, but perhaps that's not actually my problem, and perhaps it's yours.
> I am growing impatient with your insistence on vanishing into formlessness the moment you are called upon to defend your stances.What stances? Oh, those ones you insist I have that I actually don't. Well, i am sorry that I cannot defend stances that I don't actually have.
>Remember when you said that it was the anti-pedophiles who were the ones lashing out angrily? There is no need to get uncomfortable and defensive when you are proven wrong by examples in your own thread.
>Who's lashing out? I'm just correcting your false assumptions.
>Yeah, I figured you were giddy with excitement to jump on that one.No, it's just a common response to a commonly debunked argument.
>The difference is that you are not stroking yourself to orgasm while running over hookers in GTASo it only happens when it's sexual. Okay.
>Pornography is not the same as other types of entertainment. You are bringing yourself to sexual climax with the assistance of imagery, which you seek out to satisfy your sexual urges. This is worlds apart from sitting on the couch with a controller in your hand or hopping onto 2fort with your mouse and keyboard at the ready because you've got an hour to kill. The difference is between fantasizing about something you actually want to do and are tricking your body into thinking that you are doing it versus playing a game to combat boredom.It's the same thing. What about hentai games?
>Again I direct you to women who fantasize about rape scenarios, indulge in erotic stories involving rape scenarios, and become increasingly interested in playing out rape scenarios in their real lives. This is not a black and white issue.It is a black and white issue. People seek out media that conforms to their tastes, people who cannot stand the sight of blood are not going to play Doom.
>I was quite clear. An appeal to historical practice is as silly as an appeal to nature, because for every example of a behavior you like in these appeals, there are many which you would not like to see enacted along with them.Genocide was never condoned in history except by the groups who wanted to genocide.
There are people in /pol/ who want to genocide blacks and fags, there are black people who want to genocide whites, other people think they are crazy. This is why America went to war with the Nazis.
> for every example of a behavior you like in these appeals, there are many which you would not like to see enacted along with them.It's a good thing I never made a appeal. Where did I make an argumentum ad antiquitatem?
>You are cherry picking the things you want to keep from old societies while ignoring the many things about them which you certainly would not like to keep.I don't recall making such claims at all. I actually oppose such claims, once again another example of you putting words into my mouth.
>You are climbing down into the pit of argument by semantics.Semantics is one of the most important aspects of debate. This must be why your logic is fucked up.
>You and I both know that, as difficult as it is to define what absolutely counts as pornography and what does notI bet you think the Dost test is accurate.
Pornography is very easy to define.
> I am not going to pretend that you don't know an eighteen-page h-doujin about Kodomo no Jikan is not pornography.That's good, you're not misrepresenting my position.
>You are obfuscating the issue like a squid desperately escaping from an unfavorable situation.Oh wait, nevermind…
490abe No.5113
>>5108> Pedophiles want to sexually abuse children.And straight people want to rape women.
>Not acting on these desires doesn't change what they want to do.Well, it does if it's what you're claiming they want to do.
>not entitled to my sympathy when everyone else hates their guts.So it's okay if everybody hates them?
Do you think being gay is a sin?
> I don't feel sorry for the Klansman who is upset about the fact that everyone seems to hate himReplace Klansman with atheist and you begin to see how ridiculous that truly is.
>and I feel the same way about lolicons who want to molest children and just can't understand why they are despised.Lolicons want to molest children? I learned something new today. Straight and gay sex is rape. Thank you for enlightening me.
>I have made it abundantly clear that homosexuality raises no moral objections, as long as all participants are consenting.I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say homosexual sex, I said homosexuality.
> I only object to the notion that people are "born" with their sexuality grafted into them in an unchangable way.Which says that you don't know enough about science to have an accurate opinion.
>I have not seen sufficient evidence to suggest that humans develop primarily through instincts rather than learned behavior.Of course you haven't because you're right. They don't. They develop through both of them.
> Pedophilia is not even an attraction to sexually mature teenagers. It is a sexual attraction to childrenA sexual attraction? So just like every straight and gay couple. So by that definition, are children ever sexually attracted to anyone? Or are they Asexual?
> immoralOh boy, here we go.
adf810 No.5114
>>5106Not the guy who you are debating but I want to step in and tell you how wrong you are at some points.
>I don't think you understood my point. The analogy to sadism was meant to demonstrate that not acting upon your desires does not make those desires any less evil, and entertaining them without acting upon them does not make you any less morally questionable. I'll use another example and try to explain it more explicitly: if someone really, really wanted to just hang all the black people from trees, but never actually did it, they would still be a horrible racist person. Not acting on their evil desires doesn't make their desires less evil. Privately stoking their own evil desires instead of rejecting them makes them at least complicit in fostering these desires in their own minds privately. It's not illegal to do this, and I don't want it to be, but there is a lot of ground to cover between "not illegal" and "morally defensible."Not acting on your evil desires makes you a good person, all humans have evil desires, and the better they are at not doing them, the better they are as a person. It is human to have thoughts of any kind, no matter how extreme or weird. And not acting on these thoughts does not make you an evil person as you say just because you are thinking about those acts. This is in fact ridiculous that you are even saying this, and if you were right, then all the violent video game players who have violent thoughts of fights, shootings etc. are actually evil just because they enjoy fiction. No matter how twisted your thoughts are, if you don't act on them and only do good things then you are a good person with self control. Actions are what define you. Even now when I'm talking to you, the action of me talking to you defines me, not what I personally think about you.
>Am I to understand that you would rather have your eyes ripped out of their sockets and be skullfucked by bonobos while a sociopath is given a circular saw and license to do whatever he would like involving it and your testicles than simply be shot in the head? Am I to understand that you cannot possibly imagine any circumstance which would be worse than death? Should I have to present you with increasingly disturbing examples so that you can deny the obvious reality that prolonged and horrible torture can be worse than death? Are you going to stop pretending you don't understand things that we both know you do?This is a ridiculous comparison. This thread was about pedophiles, and now you go and say that being penetrated no matter how gently is exactly the same as having your eyes ripped out of their sockets and being skullfucked by bonobos while a sociopath is given a circular saw and license to do whatever he would like involving it and your testicles than simply be shot in the head.
Are you fucking kidding me? This is an appeal to emotion and nothing else, and an absolutely ridiculous comparison. Next time you'll tell us that being punched in the face is the same as getting burned alive and then cut into pieces.
How anyone talk to you rationally when you make these absurd comparisons and tell people that they are evil by having thoughts? This is crazy talk, get off your high horse right now, you aren't the perfect thinker and you had your own thoughts that are not perfect plenty of times, and you are not evil for that as long as you do not act on them.
adf810 No.5115
>>5107>Yeah, I figured you were giddy with excitement to jump on that one. The difference is that you are not stroking yourself to orgasm while running over hookers in GTA, you are just goofing around in a silly simulator to pass your free time away. Weak argument, you are basically saying what everyone knows, playing games is not the same as jacking off. But you fail to realize that in the end as long as no one is hurt, the outcome is the same. Nothing happens.
Watching movies and playing games are also two different things, you can sit on your ass eating food and watch a violent or funny movie, or sit on your chair and constantly try to win the game by yourself. Two very different things, yet they are both fictional, entertainment and do no harm.
adf810 No.5117
>>5108> I have not seen sufficient evidence to suggest that humans develop primarily through instincts rather than learned behavior.Being gay is not a choice, if it was then all the people in the world could instantly change their sexuality to whatever they want too. And they don't. And you also have no evidence that being gay is a choice, your post reeks of /pol/
490abe No.5119
>>5111>This is why I've come around to thinking we need thread IDs. I want to know when it's safe to ignore a post because it's from our resident Christfag.I think it would distract from his actual argument. Who knows, he might actually have a stroke of genius and you learn something new. It's happened to me before.
Playing devil's advocate, because I'm bored.
>If I want to fap to lolis or satanic porn let me do it. It's not like it will hurt anyone except the Christians who can't stand that I get to enjoy what my body was designed to do.It does hurt them, every time you jerk off to that, you create a market for more children to be abused.
> I could link you to some inspiring porn sites that have been more inspiring than the bible for mePorn destroys families and makes you lazy.
>She's composed of paper and black ink.Didn't you know loli is modeled on real victims.
>A study has proven if you delete a gene from a mouse it will seek out homosexual relationshipsI haven't seen it so it must not exist.
179c81 No.5120
>>5101
>We already have multiple laws to “protect them” (from abuse or otherwise.) My point is that the laws have become draconian because no matter how much is done, it’s never enough for people short of life sentences and execution.You and I may have different views on law enforcement and punishment of crime. I hate to presume, but it appears that you favor rehabilitation, whereas I favor harsh punishment. I am particularly harsh on adults who commit crimes which are not victimless, as they have had more than enough time to set themselves on the straight and narrow without having to be coddled by everyone else, and it is not really the obligation or responsibility of everyone else in society to cater for the dysfunctional and criminal elements in their societies. I believe the rehabilitation approach places an unfair burden on law-abiding citizens to provide services to criminals to which those criminals are not entitled.
More specifically, I feel that all rights come with responsibilities, and all laws which protect people are counterbalanced by the requirement to abide by those laws. Prison itself is an example of how a person can lose their rights by violating the rights of others. Law is meant to be blind and to treat all people equally or at least fairly, and it is certainly not fair to allow some people to ruin other peoples' lives and still get on with their own.
If an adult ruins someone's childhood by raping them, we can't exactly throw them into a time machine and ruin their childhood in response. But we can ruin their life, and I do not view this as being too harsh a punishment for the crime of ruining someone else's. It's not possible for me to say this without sounding harsh, but I feel that this is as fair a policy as can be realistically enforced in human society.
>As long as you don’t know any pedophiles, they can be painted as villains and no one cares what happens to them. The reason most people don't know any pedophiles is because most people want to keep open the option of having children of their own sometime in the future, and consequently, they immediately shun anyone whom they discover to have an ill intentions toward children in general, because for them, that is the surest way to reduce the risk of molestation to their own possible children, or the children of any of their friends and family. There simply cannot be any compromise on this behavior because, from their perspective, they are driving hungry wolves away from their flocks of sheep. Maybe the wolves will never attack even if they are allowed to remain nearby, but there is no benefit to allowing them to do so, and driving them away keeps the sheep safe from harm. It is not their concern what is fair to the wolf who has never eaten a sheep.
The onus is on the pedophile to prove that they are not a threat if they do not want to be shunned. This sounds unfair, but it is true of everyone, not just pedophiles. Most parents viciously guard their children from danger, even potential danger, and they are prone to shunning anyone whom their perceive as a threat for any reason. Everyone has to earn their trust. Being sexually attracted to children, especially if you are unrepentent about it, shatters that trust irreparably.
>They formed a super majority and voted for it with basically no debate or opposition, because there are few people willing to take the reprehensible position of arguing for the other side on such an emotional issue.And this is the result of that. Not having any allies or anybody willing to stand up for you is what happens when you are a threat to everyone around you, especially if you argue that you are the victim of their aggression and show no signs of understanding why people would not want you to be allowed anywhere near their children. If you knew someone who was a cannibal, it would be difficult to have a debate with them about the topic of allowing them to live two blocks down the road from you in the city, especially if they said that they find people of your ethnicity to taste like particularly flavorful bacon. How do you reason with that?
179c81 No.5121
>We already have laws making rape punishable for women and men. There is no need for extra laws, just enforcement of the ones we have.
This is an excellent argument against rape shield laws, but that is a different issue from the rape of children. Above all else, children are still in their developmental stages, so anything which happens to them is going to have a much more dramatic impact than if it were to happen to them as adults. This is why religious people insist on being allowed to indoctrinate their children into their faiths from an early age, it is why physical abuse of children, not even of the sexual variety, is taken more seriously than physical abuse of adults, and it is why the education system attempts to push for as much rote memorization as possible in the very early years of a child's schooling. It is much easier to screw up the raising of a child, and traumatic events which occur in childhood have a much higher likelihood of causing dysfunction in their lives than if the same trauma were to occur to adults.
And given the impressionable nature of children as well as their physical helplessness, they are much more likely to become victimized by sustained sexual abuse rather than one-off events. Adults can fight back, escape, and accurately remember enough details to competently file police reports. Children are powerless to physically resist adults, will likely have no idea where to go even if they do escape, and cannot be relied upon to testify adequately enough to support a conviction. Their increased vulnerability justifies the increased sensitivity to threats directed against them as opposed to threats directed against adults.
>We have a lot of CP already even if no more was made, but making free copies of that is illegal. When a person looks at it or downloads it they should not be seen as complicit in a crime, because the crime of creation has in fact been committed long before.
It may be too far to expect witnesses to a crime to always report the crime, but I find it difficult to justify failure to report CP and the source from which it was obtained. On one hand, it is understandable if someone stumbled into it on the darknet of redchanit and immediately backed out in shock, but it is quite a different story if someone is regularly downloading images and videos of real children being abused and simply continuing to go about their business without blowing a whistle about it. I would define that as complicity. I would understand if someone just got accidentally shocked and fled without a thought other than getting away from what they saw.
>It remains online and the government uses it’s vast wiretapping apparatus not for searching for terrorists, but for ruining the lives of harmless people. For instance one of those convicted was a retarded and unemployed NEET with in Canada who wanted to fap to free old photographs. (Although I think he was caught because he tried to print the photos in a store and someone reported him.) He had no life skills, and imo committed no evil, but they still threw the book at him.
At this point, I am disturbed by the negligence of the caretaker who was meant to be in charge of a mentally handicapped person. This strikes me as criminal negligence on their part.
>There are women who have taken photographs of themselves before they’re 18 and then publish them when they are of age for a profit. There was a case recently of a Middle school girl who was tried for creating cp…of herself.
I would agree with trying an adult who publishes CP of themselves, but not of an underage person. I see no problem with sexually mature teenagers engaging in sex and romance among their peers.
>Criminalizing drugs hasn’t solved our drug problems either.
The difference is that recreational drug use is a victimless crime. We don't say of all crimes that criminalizing them won't stop them or that they will just be driven into the underground. That argument doesn't work for theft or assault, for example, because those are not victimless crimes. I don't think victimless crimes should be crimes at all, but media which is produced by abusing children is evidence of child abuse. Having and witholding evidence of crime is what I would call complicity. It may be that the crime is too old or has already been solved, but if someone doesn't know that, then their intent in keeping it concealed is clear.
>I pretty much have addressed this post by arguing there are exceptional children, or adolescents, and there are emancipated minors
I'll try to get into the thought experiments tomorrow, but my short and perhaps unsatisfactory answer to this is that if I had a nickel for every underage moron who claimed to be mature for their age, I'd be filthy rich. The notion of someone who is or looks extremely young but is mentally better off than an adult genius is something which shows up with regularity in fiction, but it's just not realisitic.
179c81 No.5122
>>5102
>“Paedogeddon” is a comedy skit where the mass media goes into a fear-mongering frenzy about protecting the children at all costs.Now I remember why it looked so familiar. I've seen snippets of it from the ManWomanMyth series. I hadn't realized that those snippets were actually from satire. Well, I'm not opposed to criticizing paranoia, at least.
This is taking quite a bit longer than I expected. I'll have to come back for another round tomorrow.
179c81 No.5126
>>5121
>I would agree with trying an adult who publishes CP of themselves, but not of an underage person. Before I go, I should clarify, as my phrasing was very poor here. I meant to say that I would agree with trying an adult who publishes CP of themselves, but I would not agree with trying an underage person who creates CP of themselves.
490abe No.5127
>>5120Not him, but…
> I hate to presume, but it appears that you favor rehabilitation, whereas I favor harsh punishment.You seem to love presuming my motives, so I think you're being dishonest.
You favor Harsh punishment? What does that even do to help the situation? Rehabilitation helps, harsh punishment does not.
>without having to be coddled by everyone elseThis is your perception of the situation? This explains a lot actually.
> it is not really the obligation or responsibility of everyone else in society to cater for the dysfunctional and criminal elements in their societies.You expect dysfunctional people to help themselves? Well, if they were able to do that, they wouldn't be dysfunctional.
> I believe the rehabilitation approach places an unfair burden on law-abiding citizens to provide services to criminals to which those criminals are not entitled.Law-abiding citizens are not entitled to make sure that criminals do not commit crimes?
> Law is meant to be blind and to treat all people equally or at least fairly, and it is certainly not fair to allow some people to ruin other peoples' lives and still get on with their own.That is why they are rehabilitated.
>If an adult ruins someone's childhood by raping them, we can't exactly throw them into a time machine and ruin their childhood in response. But we can ruin their lifeOkay, so for the sake of argument we will assume that somehow, sticking your dick in an orifice fucks up your life until the day you die.
It's okay to fuck up someone's life if they do it to someone else? This makes you just like them.
> they immediately shun anyone whom they discover to have an ill intentions toward children in general
>Love>Ill intentionsCome on, bro.
>The onus is on the pedophile to prove that they are not a threat if they do not want to be shunned.I agree with this.
>Being sexually attracted to children, especially if you are unrepentent about it, shatters that trust irreparably.Are you unrepentant for being straight?
>How do you reason with that?Most cannibals today who aren't serial killers do not kill people to eat them.
490abe No.5128
>>5126>Adult>cp of themselvesWut?
adf810 No.5135
>>5111You don't need IDs to spot the stupid one ITT, here's a hint, he is a massive moralfag who thinks he is above everyone else and thinks he is perfect in every way
8b3b2d No.5137
>>5114>>5111>>5109It's truly something that this argument was so flawed that 3 people bothered to match it's length with different words. You also mentioned kodomo no jikan doujins which implies you know enough about the series to have read one. How familiar are you with the series and ero manga? "Child's time" is an old series, but did reading a doujin make you want to go out and rape some kindergartener? Or are you living proof your of a false dichronomy?
>>5091Your counter argument says that I'm speaking about fantasy that's not founded on reality. Even so, fantasy can be a tool for understanding reality. Fantasy can prepare us for those surprising "what ifs" before they happen. We've written fascinating stories about landing on the moon, or running societies within the internet before either happened. With this hypothetical I mean to touch upon your imagination, and suppose that a rare biological set of flukes could make for an extremely acceptable relationship, even in the present day. I don't claim you're likely to ever meet this person, but I'm more than willing to play the devil's advocate and think of ways that reality could imitate fiction, as it so often does.
> Humans don't reach full maturity until about 25 (the last thing to crystalize is risk management and impulse control). But governments try to err on the safe side of this shit.I will readily admit my 2nd thought experiment is not a common enough objection for lawmakers to cope with in this day and age. But then again how often do we meet prodigies to know what they're like? Not often enough right? Certainly, if there is a rare one that is also emotionally advanced, that's a very rare subset of prodigies indeed. A chance meeting with such an incredible individual could still happen, and I'd rather keep an open mind for that possibility than make a hard and fast rule that no man may ever fuck a girl that's under a certain age, and especially not for iffy moral reasons.
A brain doesn't need to be fully developed to do adult tasks adequately enough to accomplish great things before reaching the age of consent. At the very least it can be acceptable to in the future lower the age of consent; we can have more independenece sooner since our bodies and brains will develop faster according to the current trend, with or without the accelerative effects of genetic engineering or computer augmentation.
One of my friends in middle school skipped about 4 grades (2nd grade to 6th), and although he had the maturity of a kid, I've also met women than were more mature than me despite being younger. We have proof of even greater extremes on the internet, and so I think it's more credible to find someone who had both than it is to believe in meeting pink unicorns. Certainly, there probably is a correlation between intelligence, brain development, and emotional maturity. I welcome hearing any objections, including ethical ones, regarding why the 18 year old
should definitely not have a sexual relationship with such an intelligent 12 year old / ideal "adolescent."
>>5119This is actually pretty funny.
9a65f8 No.5141
>>5064wtf is going on here
490abe No.5142
>>5141Logic.
You must not be used to it where you're from. Stick around for a while, let it sink in.
2f02ad No.5151
Do you pedos have to avatarfag though?
345cd6 No.5152
Replying to thread and no one in particular:
To those who are anti-pedophilia, one of the main arguments you guys seem to have is that sex is inherently harmful to children. You seem to define all sex with children as rape or molestation And that children (I'll define it as prepubescent child to avoid differing opinions on consent age) are inherently unable to consent to sexual acts.Here are refutations/musings:
1. Sex with children is inherently harmful
Disregarding obvious things like Rod A being way to big for Slot B, I think this phenomenon is largely cultural. Children are raised their entire lives (in the US at least) on "stranger danger". The idea the no adult should touch you in your "private" parts and those who do are bad and evil. Of course if a child is raised to think something wrong, they will find it wrong. Consider children shamed for feeling gay, or for masturbating. Another example would be nudity. In many cultures being nude is not much of an issue, the bare human body is not an embarrassment alone. Yet in other cultures a child whose nudity's exposed feels embarrassed and ashamed. A personal example: when I was about 7 I had a minor issue with my testicles (I can't remember the condition's name) and had to have a (female) doctor check them out. I was given no prior notice to this, and the doctor put on a glove on and rammed her hands down my pants. While I did have an issue (resulting in a 2 hour surgery later on) and the examination was objectively a good thing, my up bringing led me to believe it was wrong. I felt molested like those kids in books and tv shows. A situation that was in no way harmful felt harmful, because I had been conditioned to find it so. Could it not be that children in a society who are not only kept in the dark about sex, but are actively told its a bad thing feel molested simply because they are told to feel molested? No doubt there are actual cases where an adult does hurt a child, and that is wrong, but to say every case of sexual acts (not limited to penetration, but blow jobs, masturbation ,etc.) are all permanent harmful?
2. Children can not consent to sex
My first argument is pedantic: in a society where boys freely have parts of their penis cut off without consent, why does consent matter to sex?
I posit that sex is not sacred, and should not require any more consent than any other normal activity. Its not really any different than whether a child consented to be spanked or to be tickled or hugged. Again this is a cultural thing, societies where sex isn't seen as some mystical sacred ritual don't have as much problem with this. In the same way that many societies also allow drinking at younger ages than america, and have less of a problem with alchohol abuse. If it's seen as a normal activity, then no stigma is attached to it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexuality#Modern_timeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexuality#In_non-Western_cultures 1b0a6a No.5162
>>5111> I could link you to some inspiring porn sitesNot the guy you were arguing with but now you have my curiosity. I've never heard porn called "inspiring" before.
6ed303 No.5164
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
Watch this and tell me you don't think pedophiles deserve the death penalty. Also realize that when you imprison them you're paying for them to live.
inb4 but muh skywizard or skywizard derived morals said killing is wrong
59db34 No.5165
>>5014First I'll answer the overall thread.
I don't really think being a pedophile is bad in the sense of having that sexual attraction. You can't really control that, and to vilify someone over something they can't control, I believe that's wrong to do.
Having said that, acting on these urges can and does cause major, long term harm to the children affected by it. I don't think there's a situation where a child can handle sexual interaction, because they're not cognitively developed enough, and I think the Pedophile is caring more about getting his rocks off then the well being of the child.
As for the last question - I think most people just view any sort of crime against a child as much worse then if it were to happen to an adult. I've never heard anyone really make the argument of "Ruining a child's life is better then ending it." Both are terrible things.
>>5027
>I think after gays and trans are accepted it can be the next issue.I doubt that. At least, not as an issue in and of its self. Maybe tact on to another issue, like perceptions of sexuality and crime or something like that.
>Also in the future I suspect with genetic engineering we can have older people who voluntarilly take bodies of catgirl lolis. We already have people who look like juvenile elves due to genetics of accident.Maybe, I wouldn't hold my breath, though.
>Pedophillia was also less of a sin a hundred years ago in the west and I'm not sure what changed it. In the old stories people even married and fell in love at the age of 12, (see the old medieval stories.) That's because we didn't understand the damage it could have caused. This is an appeal to history/tradition.
>>5056I don't know enough about pedophilia to say what it is, but we do need to find an outlet for pedophiles that isn't just the prison system.
>>5063For the most part, I agree anon.
>>5064
> Suppose in the dustant future we have sexy androidsSure, why not. I'm still not holding my breath for the sexbots, but it's more likely then the genetic engineering.
> Suppose an 18 year old met a genius, barely pubescent 12 year old and they voluntarilly entered a mutual relationship. I'm sorry anon, but your magical dream girl doesn't exist. Even if a 12 year old is a prodigy on the level of Hawking, that doesn't mean they're cognitively developed enough to understand the drives behind sexuality.
Shit, I've met some child prodigies, and for all their intelligence, they're some of the most ignorant kids I've seen. At least normal children don't assume they know everything.
>Suppose a girl is a nude child model and enjoys it.Again with your fantasies. This girl doesn't exist. At least, not in the way you want for your thought experiment.
>Thought experiment #3Because now you're not only exploiting that child for labor, but their bodies as well. Assuming a child is not really up to banging older men all day, you're forcing them into this. Even if they are, we still go back to the problem of children not cognitively able to understand the damages this could cause to them.
>I'd like to point out the Spartans and Athenians had relationships between older men and younger boys, which was considered a beneficial thing since the older man could tutor the younger boy, and sex merely brought them closer.Appeal to history and tradition fallacy again.
>>5090
>I said she is a genius, but perhaps I didn't imply enough that she's also emotionally matureDoesn't exist.
What
>>5091 said.
And holy shit this thread went into a completely new direction since I got back home. >.o
>>5093>Well, people who are against pedophiles are by definition, anti-pedosTechnically, but I don't think you need to specify since it's culturally normal to be against pedophilia.
It's not like it's so divided like the abortion issue or anything.
>>51521. Sex with children is inherently harmful
It can be, especially if a child is not old enough to understand what they are doing. You're making this argument that this whole thing is cultural, but it's not.
When someone does something to you that you don't fully understand, then you will feel uncomfortable. It will probably fuck with you on some level. This is why we consider any sexual encounter with a child as abuse.
This whole thread though.
Pic unrelated.
8b3b2d No.5166
>>5162There's a lot of tasteful erotica, or stories with erotic elements.
>>5152Yes I think our biases against child sexuality are mainly cultural and not just instinctual, and those biases are even reflected in our studies. Only in the past hundred years have we began to accept women, non-whites or gays as equals. It will take more time to accept that some children are legitimately interested in sexual activity, and that it might not hurt them.
Very early on kids develop an interest in genitals partly because they are forbidden, and one of my friends said when he was in elementary school he created a "private parts sharing club" which was a show and tell club with kids in his neighborhood. Many kids develop crushes early on or sexual attraction, towards their peers or even teachers. When non-moral-fags admit having sex is healthy for adults, they are still reluctant to seriously consider that it could also be healthy for children. When searching for the optimal solution we need to be willing to look past our Victorian / Western biases. It might be acceptable for a pedophile to form some kind of relationship with a child. For instance we already have middle aged men who pay for dates with high school girls in Japan, and Japan is a country that venerates the aesthetics of the young.
8b3b2d No.5168
>>5165> You just used appeal to history/tradition. I don't see a problem with pointing out that cultures of the past allowed it. Such an observation is little different from pointing out that other countries might be more accepting of it, and cross-cultural studies are useful for breaking our own deep biases on the subject.
You wouldn't call it a logical fallacy if I told you France's age of consent is 15, but you're calling it a fallacy when I give the fact that America's age of consent used to be lower. I'm fond of using France as an example because one of my law professors was chuckling about how insane it was that France didn't have a problem with that exiled Jewish pedophile director marrying a young girl in France a few years ago. It just goes to show that even lawyers aren't immune to cultural biases. Check out the age of consent laws in Europe. If you can just broaden your mind, it might be that one of these countries has a better solution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_EuropeWhat's funny is an American still can't go to France and fuck a 15 year old because America expects you to follow American law even when you're abroad! Or a 13 year old in Spain!
> It can be [harmful], especially if a child is not old enough to understand what they are doing. You're making this argument that this whole thing is cultural, but it's not.
>When someone does something to you that you don't fully understand, then you will feel uncomfortable. It will probably fuck with you on some level. This is why we consider any sexual encounter with a child as abuse.Seems to me this wouldn't have such potential for harm if we just educated our children on sex earlier rather than telling them not to display or their "birdie" / "flower," or that babies are born when a stork drops them at your doorstep. Waiting until middle school to explain the facts of life, and then waiting longer to fully explain why contraception is important is not the optimal solution. Condoms have been controversial for too long thanks to Christianity/Catholicism, but we've overcome that. And yet, we still can't shake the idea that telling kids about sex will ruin their precious innocence forever.
Protecting one's innocence presupposes that having more knowledge can be a bad thing. How can more knowledge ever be a bad thing? I find it amusing that we still hold this cultural bias for "protecting the lambs," even though we're on a board that encourages the dispersal of knowledge.
59db34 No.5171
>>5166The question here is: Can you name any studies that might point to this? What is this hypothesis standing on?
We know that sexual abuse at early ages cause a lot of problems for people later in life. We know that growth and development happens in stages:
http://www.education.com/reference/article/Ref_Growth_Ages_Six/Also, what are the ages that we are talking about here? I understand that individuals who are attracted to children often are attracted to different and specific age groups.
>>5168
>Some countries have lower consent laws.That literally means nothing. Some countries have anti-gay laws. Some countries have laws that make atheism punishable. America has laws that forbid having icecream in your pocket, and tying your alligator to a fire hydrant.
Another thing is that you don't provide 1.) When these laws were placed, and 2.) what public perceptions are of these laws, and what these countries do in terms of culture.
Just because something is okay in the eyes of the law doesn't mean it's okay in the eyes of culture or society. And I'm pretty sure most of these countries, no matter how they view these laws, are probably mostly against pedophilia.
>Seems to me this wouldn't have such potential for harm if we just educated our children on sex We do, actually. We might tap dance around it, or even vilify sex (which I'm against.), but we do educate. And if you refer to my link, kids as young as 8 start to experiment with themselves and other people their age.
But the operative word here is THEIR age. By an adult coming into the picture, their potentially hurting their development.
490abe No.5173
>>5165>I don't really think being a pedophile is bad in the sense of having that sexual attraction. You can't really control that, and to vilify someone over something they can't control, I believe that's wrong to do.I agree with that.
> I don't think there's a situation where a child can handle sexual interactionYou haven't really thought about it then.
>because they're not cognitively developed enoughOh boy, here we go again…
>and I think the Pedophile is caring more about getting his rocks off then the well being of the child.You must not have met any pedos, because you must be thinking about child molesters, as most child molesters aren't even pedophiles. It's like you've never read the DSM-V
>Both are terrible things.I agree, but it is important to keep in mind which is worse, and the fact that you don't state your position tells me that you haven't really thought about it all that much and the only reason that you're opposed to it is because of "muh feels."
490abe No.5174
>>5165>>5173>That's because we didn't understand the damage it could have caused.What damage? Pedophilia doesn't cause any damage? What are you going to say next? "Degeneracy?"
>I don't know enough about pedophilia to say what it is>That's because we didn't understand the damage it (pedophilia) could have caused.>I don't really think being a pedophile is bad in the sense of having that sexual attraction.> I don't think you need to specify since it's culturally normal to be against pedophilia.Care to try again?
> Even if a 12 year old is a prodigy on the level of Hawking, that doesn't mean they're cognitively developed enough to understand the drives behind sexuality.
>implyingAnd even so, what does it matter? Children make all types of choices that they will regret later in life, this is just like saying if a woman has sex and later regrets it, it was rape. You think children are so stupid. Why?
>This girl doesn't exist.They do. You have never heard of the Ukranian modeling studio scandals?
>Because now you're not only exploiting that child for labor, but their bodies as well.There's a difference?
>Appeal to history and tradition fallacy again.Fallacy fallacy.
He's not saying it's okay 'because' it happened in antiquity, he's just saying it happened in antiquity for a reason.
>I'd like to point out the Spartans and Athenians had relationships between older men and younger boys, which was considered a beneficial thingthis is a historical fallacy. What he posted was not.
>Doesn't exist.It does.
>It's not like it's so divided like the abortion issue or anything.You're correct. it's even more divided. There's more science supporting pedophilia than abortion. Though those two couldn't possibly be equated.
>It can be, especially if a child is not old enough to understand what they are doing.http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3812441?sid=21106215947593&uid=3739256&uid=2&uid=4Here, you're welcome.
>When someone does something to you that you don't fully understand, then you will feel uncomfortable.You never thought that someone would explain what they're doing?
Imagine you just picked up a deeply religious girl who fears sex and is not even allowed to touch her cunt while she bathes. And now you see how this argument makes no sense.
8b3b2d No.5175
>>5171>what age are we talking about?That's the real question to determine isn't it?
> your foreign country laws mean nothing. This is AMERICA! Those laws must be old and I'm sure everyone in Europe wants to copy America, but I'm not going to bother clicking on your link to confirm it.If you'd actually read it you'd know Spain used to have Aoc at 12, but increased it drastically in the 90's…..to 13. Yes, and a few years ago someone tried to increase it to 16 and it didn't even make it to the vote. As a side note one of my internet acquaintances is a lolicon from Barcelona and I wonder if there's a correlation.
Hang out with Europeans and you'll hear them make many jokes about how repressed Americans are about their sexuality. Topless beaches blow their minds and nude statues make them giggle. They know what age the think is right, and to suggest an entire continent want to increase it to 18 is farfetched and an ethnocentric position.
If you'd like next I can link you to the age of consent in Africa and Asia. Guess what? It's lower on average around the world. America doesn't have the only view on the matter.
490abe No.5176
>>5171>The question here is: Can you name any studies that might point to this?I just posted one such study here
>>5174Check it out.
>We know that sexual abuse at early ages cause a lot of problems for people later in life. We know that growth and development happens in stages:Yes, any abuse causes problems, but sexual abuse is quite different than sexual activity.
This is why laws on 'statutory' rape exist, because it's not actually rape.
>That literally means nothing.I remember a study that I can't quite put my finger on stated that when CP was legal in countries like Denmark, Japan, and Germany, the Sexual abuse rate dropped phenomenally, and when it was illegal, the rate jumped back up.
>Just because something is okay in the eyes of the law doesn't mean it's okay in the eyes of culture or society.You would be surprised. This is why Americans still have the Patriot act.
>By an adult coming into the picture, their potentially hurting their development.This is not true. Do you have a source that states that? Because my source states the opposite, and I believe the Rind study also supports his claims.
b4610a No.5182
Let me ask the people ITT who say that being molested is the same as being brutally tortured or being dead.
What would you prefer in this imaginary scenario:
1. To be molested
2. To be dead
759861 No.5183
>>5182I want a survey too, which is more annoying
1. Dirty filthy pedophiles who use invalid and fallacious arguments to defend their sick perversions.
2. Assholes who defend them using idiotic false equivalences and false analogies
3. Fucken weebos
59db34 No.5184
ITT Lolicons try to justify wanting to fuck kids, apparently.
>>5175Nice strawman. In the US, there are states that ban oral sex - that doesn't mean people don't engage in it, or find oral sex terrible. Some laws aren't even enforced. Some things are legal simply because there is no law forbidding it.
My point is - If you're going to make a case, stop trying to use consent laws. They don't say anything about how pedophilia will affect people. It just means that they have lower consent laws.
someone in here talked about lower rates of rape and molestation before consent laws - GREAT, post shit on that, because that's actual data. Mentioning consent laws proves nothing except that they have consent laws, and they are lower then Americas.
And just because Europeans might be more sexually liberated doesn't mean they'd be all for some pre-pubescent poon. I've personally tried to look for the information on the views of pedophilia in europe, but I haven't found anything that didn't have a political agenda behind it, but your anecdotal accounts of Europeans laughing at Americans means, once again, nothing. It proves nothing.
>>5173
>Here we go againYep
>The Study. From what I can see, this doesn't really specify anything, except that sexual experimentation for children/young teens *may* be good. It doesn't say "With an adult" either. Nothing about this implies that it would be A-okay for kids to sleep with adults.
>Yes, any abuse causes problems, but sexual abuse is quite different than sexual activity. Yes, but the question is if a kid (Let's say a child up to age 12) is mentally ready for sexual activity. A kid doesn't have the life experiences to know when someone is genuine in their intentions. They are not fully developed cognitively. Again. Development. Stages. Not complete.
Allowing children to develop to an age to where they have more life experience, better understand themselves and the world around them, I don't believe that's a bad thing, and If you're gonna say that it wouldn't be a bad thing to allow kids to fuck adults, you better have some damn good evidence to support this.
>>5182Again, my whole problem with that question is I've never heard anyone arguing this before. Just that atrocities against children are much worse then ones against adults.
b4610a No.5197
I am asking people to respond to a simple question, what would they choose, to be molested once and left alive, or to die? And the response is instantly "MY FEELINGS I cannot answer this, pedo pedo!". Jesus christ people, no one asked you to support pedophilia or to even like people that are pedophiles. I was asking this question because a lot of people here are stating that being penetrated is the same as violent torture or dying. And I do not think they are all equal. I am not saying it's right so get this in your thick heads, I am saying that being penetrated is not the same as being violently tortured and skull fucked and having your eyes plucked out, or dying.
They are all different. And it's suspicious that no one answers the question.
>>5183So you basically got butthurt and called me a pedophile for no good reason when I just asked a simple question. Did I tickle your white knight senses or what? Answer the question or tell me how the question is wrong and stop being such a salty faggot.
>>5184>Again, my whole problem with that question is I've never heard anyone arguing this before. Just that atrocities against children are much worse then ones against adults.Incredible, so you have give no answer because you never heard anyone arguing this? What kind of a defense or response is this? You aren't even stating your opinion, you are basically saying "I don't want to answer this."
6b59fd No.5198
>>5184The main problem with this is you're coming from the premise than children having sex is inherently a destructive thing, and then trying to find grouds to justify the premise. I am not convinced it's harmful. Abuse is harmful for anyone, but not all sex is abuse. To suppose otherwise is to be a moral fag, or have solid evidence I haven't seen.
Even if a child's brain is less developed that does not have any bearing on whether sex would hurt them, and the studies you might someday link me to tend to be cases of abuse. Even if sex with a child were like sex with a retard, it does not follow that either could not have enjoyed it, or that he will be fucked for lile.
In fact, I wish I had good sex as a child. It would have given me a unique set of experiences and possibly built my confidence with sex. There are cases of women who seduced and fucked their students, violated parole to have a child with him, and then still wanted to marry the kid when they got out of jail. If I had a hot teacher I would be for it. Like one of those sassy art teachers that accepted motorcycle rides from her students, even going to their house for parties. Or the local gym teacher who married a high school athlete once she graduated at 18. These were cool teachers, and we all feel a connection with a teacher at some point.
b4610a No.5200
Another thing that people tend to ignore, parents can legally cut of parts of their child's penis, and that will be permanent, for life, and without any consent from the child. This should not be legal, and it's terrible and no one speaks up against this.
759861 No.5203
>>5197First you answer my question
Man for a board that prides itself on logic this you faggots are a mess of logical fallacies
b4610a No.5205
>>5203You did not ask me any question. And I do not know who you think you are arguing with, I originally posted this in reply to no one:
>>5182Then you mocked the question instead of answering, and yet you are still avoiding an answer. It's not a fallacious question, I simply asked what would you prefer, to be molested, or to be killed. There is nothing contradicting about it, because if molesting was the same as killing you would say "I'd choose any of the answers" yet you did not say a single thing, no one did.
759861 No.5206
>>5182your loaded question
>>5183me mocking your loaded question
>>5197you responding to me mocking you and admitting it was you who posted it
>>5203me calling out yoru logical fallacy
>>5205you being a faggot and claiming "oh no you were arguing with someone else man"
6b59fd No.5207
>>5206Not him but just answer the quesfion. We know a moral fag (probably you) already implied on this thread that molestation is a fate worse than death. Stop stalling and admit you feel that way, to let us chuckle at your idiocy, so we can move on to another point.
b4610a No.5208
>>5206If you had an ID right now, I would refuse to respond to you anymore, sadly we don't have it enabled yet and you are wasting my time.
Look at your post, it basically says nothing of value. I asked a question and then you mocked it and continued to call it fallacious without even bothering to answer it or telling why the question is wrong itself. You are going in circles just trying to avoid an answer. Why do you avoid an answer? Because I am right, molestation is not worse than murder. And you know this, it's fallacious to think that penetration is the same as violent torture (physically beaten up with objects/fists/legs) or dying. And I even proved this because you don't want to have an opinion on this, you are afraid that it makes sense but your feelings tell you to not answer the question. This question was not meant at a single person, or as a response, but basically to the whole thread. I did not say that I support pedophilia, but I do think dying is worse than being penetrated, you stop existing if you die, forever.
So basically your petty image of the "loaded question" does not apply here, it's not ridiculous to ask yourself in a situation of life and death if you want to be be raped and left alive or beaten up until you die. It's a possibility that can happen, and it's nothing extraordinary or divine, or even involving emotions. You aren't answering it because you think that by answering "I'd rather be molested than killed", you are supporting molesters. And I assure you that if everyone would pretty much prefer to not be beaten up with an iron bar and rather be penetrated instead, so it's illogical to place molestation as the worst crimes in human history that can be possibly done. It's just like rape, feelings first, logic later. Rape is the worst… you know the rest.
Stop responding to me until you get and ID
6b59fd No.5209
>>5174Not the guy you replied to but I only see a preview and I would like to see the study with my own eyes. I do go to a community college so I might be able to access it in a database…maybe…but is there an easier way to read these studies on the dark net? I find it sily it is easy to find pirate games and porn, but when it comes to studies I have no idea where to look or if anyone bothers to pirate them aside from industrial spies in North Korea or Russua.
759861 No.5213
>>5208
>or telling why the question is wrong itself.the question is wrong because it is a logical fallacy it is a loaded question because it already assumes the point you have the burden of proving, which is that torture and molestation are different (that molestation is not like torture) which is exactly the point being argued
759861 No.5214
>>5213To continue from here
It is also loaded because it compares rape with murder to suggest that rape is somehow okay (with bringing in the addition of torture to death.
There is so much wrong with your logic and style of arguing
179c81 No.5215
File: 1427153935000.jpg (1.17 MB, 1000x1613, 1000:1613, 1dc2bc94a2f9fd9ef0123e2044….jpg)
>>5207That is a different guy. I just got back, and am about to respond to eleven posts.
I know. I apologize.
Okay, on with the thought experiments.
>>5064
>Suppose in the dustant future we have sexy androids, and also the technology to change our own bodies however we wanted, with thr same conveinence of putting on a different shirt or a necklace. When what looks like a child is actually an adult with neither the years or innocence of a child; when the child isn't even human, there would be little reason to discourage those preferences of paraphillia.With you so far. Though I would argue that the desire to do harm to children by means of sexual abuse is still an immoral one, containing the fantasy to a means which keeps children from suffering such harm is an acceptable alternative and does not need to be punished by law.
>Suppose an 18 year old met a genius, barely pubescent 12 year old and they voluntarilly entered a mutual relationship. Suppose she had even had sex before, either through rape or her own volition and come to enjoy it. In this scenario she has a relationship to gain and little innocence to lose, if we assume innocence is worth protecting.What you are describing is a hypothetical outlier whereby we are being handed all of the relevant information on a silver platter - for example, we are being assured that this twelve year old is actually mature and psychologically and emotionally well-adjusted despite having been sexually abused in her earlier childhood. There are many problems which preclude the notion of sexual relationships with wide age gaps involving people at very young ages. Physical and psychological maturity are not anywhere near being complete in humans at twelve years of age. The older person, especially if they are at least 18, has numerous social and legal advantages over the younger person, including eligibility for jobs, the ability to drive their own car, and the ability to live in their own house (emancipated exceptions being very much outliers). These differences would not mark an 18 year old as being exceptional among their peers, but to a twelve year old these are the sorts of things that are wild fantasies to them. An 18 year old loser can easily impress a 12 year old and also massage their ego by making them think that they must be very mature for their age to be able to attract the attention of one who is so much older than themselves.
It would be a very difficult case to prove that the younger person was not entering into an exploitative relationship with the older person every time it happened. There's no objective way to measure that, and you risk allowing a child to be sexually exploited by permitting it. And unless the 12 year old is emancipated, they are still under the legal custody of their parents, who can bar them from seeing said 18 year old. If twelve-year-olds could be trusted to make their own decisions involving sexual relationships, it would also follow that they would have no need to be held under the legal custody of their parents. An outlier such as this could not possibly cause a change in policy for the majority. Even obtaining individual exception would require an extremely in-depth investigation, after which allowance would serve as a precedent to enable more cases to be presented before the courts. I don't see this being practical. I wouldn't warp an entire legal system around the claims of two people who insist that they are special and different from everyone else.
>Thought experiment #3:This suffers from some of the same problems as number two; that much of the mitigating information is simply granted to us without the requirement of a resource-intensive investigation. One of the biggest problems in determining guilt in cases of child abuse is that children are absolutely miserable at giving testimony. They are easily influenced, lied to, coached, and made to believe that the life they are living is normal or even better than one which most other children are living. They are susceptible to threats from adults which other adults would easily know to have no credibility. They are terrible at remembering critical information accurately and reliably.
A child who is made to be a sex worker by their caretakers (it cannot be any other way unless you are considering emancipating children en masse) cannot possibly have experienced enough of life to know that they would enjoy prostitution over any other career. There is no way their word can be taken as to whether they are actually happy or prefer any line of work, especially if it was not voluntary on their part to participate in it. I do not think I need to make a detailed case for why children should not be sent into brothels or sweatshops to work, let alone mines or battlefields. Pressing children into any of these areas is plainly child abuse.
179c81 No.5216
File: 1427154012278.jpg (242.93 KB, 500x797, 500:797, 1fc79db0ae5a1009893fcb3e1a….jpg)
>>5111
> Muh moralsIf you don't care about morality, why bother calling out religion on anything? Why even break from it? Why not just pretend to be religious for your personal advantage if morality is so irrelevant to you?
> Muh slippery slope> Muh strawmanMuh fallacy fallacy. We have to go deeper.
> Pedophiles and those who defend them are monsters.> They make my skin boil so much my glasses fog over and I can't even see straightWell, I didn't mean for you to actually go ahead and do just that. Straw manning your opponent immediately after declaring them to be straw manning (without explaining what they were straw manning), real classy move.
>This is why I've come around to thinking we need thread IDs. I want to know when it's safe to ignore a post because it's from our resident Christfag. There are flexible Christians I can argue with on certain things, but it's a proven exercise of frustration to argue with this particular Christian on anything.You are mistaking me for a Christian who does not capitalize any of the first words of any of his sentences on the basis that you disagree with me about pedophilia. This is a huge leap for you to make, particularly in light of the arguments I have had against that Christian which are easily distinguished by my posting habits. Even then, thread IDs do not persist from one thread to another, so no, they would not have prevented this incident of mistaken identity.
It would, however, have made it much easier for me to track which anons in this thread are supporting child molestation versus only supporting the private enjoyment of CP, or further still, only support lolicon and not actual CP. It's difficult to argue with multiple people who take different stances on these things and conflate their arguments together without acknowledging the differences in where they stand among each other.
>This is the familiar /christian/ argument that is used to argue against gays and other natural biological things.It is just as idiotic to claim that humans are trapped by their instincts as it is to claim that we are all born with original sin or to claim that we have absolutely no instinctive drives. The greatest power of humanity is in our capacity for cognitive thought and our ability to override our instincts and even overwrite them with learned behavior instead. It is too bad you cannot surrender and donate your cognitive abilities to another creature, because I can think of a few dogs who would appreciate having it more than you seem to.
>I say why stress yourself out repressing things that are not necessarily always evil.This is precisely my point about the "born with it" argument which was used to support the gay rights movement. I have no problem with gay rights, but I do have a problem with using poor arguments to promote a good cause. It undermines that cause and generates resentment from the opposition when you bowl them over with popular support and bad arguments instead of arguing with reason. Gays never needed a "born with it" excuse because they never needed an excuse in the first place. Making one is weak and damaging to the cause.
>Mixing up cause and effect as the church's self help pamphlets like to doAnother misrepresentation. I spoke of reenforcing fantasies and desires, not of creating them out of whole cloth. It would be impossible to write rapefics in the first place if nobody could think of them first. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.
>Maybe someday you'll read enough to figure out the point of learning them is to recognize fallacies in critical thinking, rather than to decorate with them on top of a paragraph that doesn't at all flow from premise to conclusion.Not that you'll point out the ways in which I am doing that. I very clearly explained why appeals to nature and history are faulty - because that very same appeal can be used to justify things you don't agree with just as easily as things you do - but you seem content to have skimmed over my posts and are now pretending that I did not even explain the position.
You are demonstrating a habit of using buzzwords and calling out me for using them, but you are neither reading any of my substantiating arguments nor making any of your own. If anyone can be accused of simply recognizing and spouting these buzzwords as a form of decoration, it's you. You are projecting in an extremely obvious manner.
b4610a No.5217
>>5213>the question is wrong because it is a logical fallacy it is a loaded question because it already assumes the point you have the burden of proving, which is that torture and molestation are different (that molestation is not like torture) which is exactly the point being arguedIt would be a waste of time to tell you why you are wrong, again. I will not argue this with you anymore, let other people who are not moralfags answer the question.
179c81 No.5218
File: 1427154056983.jpg (590.04 KB, 858x1200, 143:200, 2c85039db5a81906e6c7a2add1….jpg)
>>5111
>porn will ruin your life>If you could stop being such an intolerable christfagNot anywhere close to anything I ever stated. At all. A complete misrepresentation. But keep barking up that christfag tree. Surely everyone who disagrees with you must not be a fellow atheist.
>And so what if it is pornography which someone desires? Who is going to be abused by the lust of the viewer? Rin? She's composed of paper and black ink.Again we are at a point where legality is being conflated with morality, and loli is being conflated with CP. My stance on viewing CP and not reporting it to the authorities is due to the criminal negligence involved in finding evidence of child abuse and deliberately concealing it from authorities. No such crime takes place in illustrations, so there is no evidence of crime to be concealed.
It is incredibly difficult to keep the argument straight when all of the different stances keep getting tossed into the same stew.
>Noooo….. unless it's true that all Atheists want to forcibly destroy all religion…..If you thought that whining about my previous pointing out of logical fallicies was going to shame me into not calling out this non-sequitur, you were mistaken. But unlike you, I will explain why this is a non-sequitur rather than simply saying so and leaving it at that. It's really quite simple: Atheism is not a desire to destroy all religion. To borrow your method of argument, that is a judgment that an overzealous religious apologist would make.
Pedophilia, by contrast, is absolutely by definition the desire to engage in sexual activities with children, and an adult engaging in sexual activities constitutes sexual abuse. Sexually desiring children is by definition desiring to abuse children as long as all sexual conduct involving an adult and a child is defined as child abuse. Only by not defining this as child abuse can you say that Pedophilia is not the desire to commit acts of child abuse. If that is the sort of definition by which you operate, we fundamentally disagree.
>A study has proven if you delete a gene from a mouse it will seek out homosexual relationships, and it stands to reason this happens in nature. We can talk about this derailing point elsewhere.Ever since I learned that one in four women will become rape victims according to a study riddled with problems, I have become enormously skeptical of studies. I would like to see this study you are citing, because the most important thing about studies to me are not the declared findings, but how the study was conducted, how its data was gathered, and how its results were analyzed. It's too easy for people to twist and warp data so that they can declare a study to have supported their political agenda.
As for derailing, the argument that pedophiles are "born that way" is a direct descendent of the argument that homosexuals are also "born that way." I was not the one to bring this point to the discussion. I would rather we not infantilize adults and remove their agency from them.
179c81 No.5219
File: 1427154074304.jpg (394.25 KB, 592x1500, 148:375, 2e15c1e81e717b0f652e002e76….jpg)
>>5114
>It is human to have thoughts of any kind, no matter how extreme or weird.There is a significant difference between having thoughts occur to you involuntarily and deliberately entertaining thoughts which you are aware that, if acted upon, would be sufficiently damaging to someone else to be rightly considered an immoral or even a criminal act. Having some demented loli thought occur to you because you hang around /a/ too much is very different from deliberately fantasizing about molesting or raping children. Yes, there is still a world of difference between that and acting on said thought, but it is still an intermediary to favorably entertain it nontheless.
And before you go all slippery slope on me, I am not suggesting that this intermediary necessarily results in enacting the thought. I don't think you would consider the thoughts of anyone who posts unironically under #killallmen to be moral or morally neutral. A lot of those people aren't acting on their thoughts and desires either, but don't you think they'd like to, if they could get away with it? Does it really speak to their good character that they restrain themselves?
>This is a ridiculous comparison. This thread was about pedophiles, and now you go and say that being penetrated no matter how gently is exactly the same as having your eyes ripped out of their sockets and being skullfucked by bonobos while a sociopath is given a circular saw and license to do whatever he would like involving it and your testicles than simply be shot in the head.No. That was given as an example of a fate which could be worse than death as a response to an argument that there is no fate worse than death. It was an extreme example used to illustrate how easily that stance could be refuted with a mere hypothetical which took all of two seconds to imagine.
>This is an appeal to emotion and nothing else,At worst, it could be called argumentum ad absurdum, not an appeal to emotion. I used a shockingly exaggerated example to demonstrate how far the stance that death is the worst fate which could befall a person could go if it were taken to a logical extreme.
>How anyone talk to you rationally when you make these absurd comparisonsIf you had remembered what point the comparison was being made in response to, I don't think you would have found it so absurd.
759861 No.5220
>>5217>wah moral fag ad hominem
>It would be a waste of time to tell you why you are wrong, againad homenim again
didn't respond to the points and just threw insults like a child, you lost this round faggot, better luck next time
490abe No.5222
>>5200Freedom, motherfucker! Unless it's for people we don't like.
>>5208Muh IDs
This isn't /christian/, the only reason why anyone would want IDs here is so they don't have to insult them based on their argument, but their identity.
>>5198This brings up an interesting question.
Is there a medical condition that makes someone find sexual activity displeasurable?
179c81 No.5223
>>5115
>But you fail to realize that in the end as long as no one is hurt, the outcome is the same. Nothing happens.Remember, the argument was that someone who is predisposed to having immoral thoughts is entertaining fantasies of enacting them, rather than rejecting those thoughts as they occur. This is not about the surface level of people playing games or watching shows and then doing nothing. This is about what is going on inside their head at the time.
There is no way you would be creeped out by someone who runs over a pedestrian in a car in GTA and giggles at the ragdoll results. By the same token, there is no way you would not be creeped out by someone who did the same thing while slowly masturbating and muttering sexually-charged comments to themselves. And you know exactly why that would creep you out.
b4610a No.5224
>>5216>If you don't care about morality, why bother calling out religion on anything?If you didn't think about this before, moralfags aren't bad because they have morals. They are called moralfas and muh feelings faggots because they just tend to think with their feelings first and logic later.
179c81 No.5225
>>5117
>Being gay is not a choice, if it was then all the people in the world could instantly change their sexuality to whatever they want too. And they don't.Not all choices are of the coin flip variety. I cannot choose to become a professional athlete at any moment I desire, but that doesn't mean I couldn't have been. If I had made a series of small choices starting in early childhood, it would have been possible for me to do just that. Likewise, if I had done that, I wouldn't then have simply been able to choose to become a pianist.
Not all choices are obvious and overt, nor can they all be made instantaneously.
>And you also have no evidence that being gay is a choice,No, that's not how the burden of proof works. I make no claims about the nature of human sexuality. I treat claims that human sexual orientation is the uncontrollable result of genetically inherited traits with skepticism, and until I see sufficient proof to substantiate that claim, I maintain my skepticism.
179c81 No.5226
File: 1427154215778.jpg (774.88 KB, 1000x1414, 500:707, 7e439ece1eeabbb89ec58093ce….jpg)
>>5127
>You seem to love presuming my motives, so I think you're being dishonest.But you said you weren't the person I was responding to. It's bad enough that the issues are being conflated due to me arguing with multiple people, do you now want to conflate your entire person with someone else too?
>This is your perception of the situation? This explains a lot actually. Buddy, if you thought that was insensitive of me, you'd better get ready to be triggered harder than a rainbow-haired landwhale.
>You expect dysfunctional people to help themselves?No, Mister Bond, I expect them to die!
Or to be hauled off to jail in the event that they cannot keep their dysfunction to themselves and harm someone else as a result. I have no care or concern for the rights of people who themselves have no care or concern for the rights of others. It's the only way that human rights can work. And before you go jumping the gun, I am not suggesting that people should be sent to prison for whacking it to lolicon. Nobody gets hurt in that situation, so there is no need to bring in crime and punishment.
>Law-abiding citizens are not entitled to make sure that criminals do not commit crimes? Nobody is obligated to fix other people. That is the mentality of an enabler. Due process and just punishment for the commission of crimes is as fair as we can be to everyone. People who are abusive of others are not entitled to compassion or gentle treatment. The kid gloves are so named for a reason.
>Okay, so for the sake of argument we will assume that somehow, sticking your dick in an orifice fucks up your life until the day you die. I appreciate that. I understand that I have not strongly presented the case that child rape is traumatizing enough to be considered life-destroying, and I'll try to get to that.
>It's okay to fuck up someone's life if they do it to someone else? This makes you just like them.This is the message in just about every anime I've ever seen, and it makes me want to rip out my hair every time. Punishing someone for the commission of a crime is not the same as abusing someone who is vulnerable to you. In the event of execution as a response to murder, all of the focus on this moral teaching which I find to be incredibly bizarre is only on the matter of killing. But it really does matter when the target in question is being targeted because they are killing people and not because they are an unaware soon-to-be-victim of ill intent.
We don't call all imprisonment kidnapping or hostage taking. Legal justification - specifically, punishment as a response to the commission of a crime - is the critical element which differenciates crime from law enforcement.
>Love>Ill intentionsReciprocation and consent are critical elements. Not being able to tell the difference between love and rape is the mark of a sociopath.
>Are you unrepentant for being straight?Being straight isn't inherently rapey. Pedophilia is. Children can never consent to sex. Men and women can.
If you were aroused by rape and did not try to overcome this flaw in your character, telling your girlfriend's father that he should accept you for being born with a predisposition for enjoying rape is rightly going to earn you his scorn. He would be in the right to be suspicious of you if you showed absolutely no sign of guilt over it.
>Most cannibals today who aren't serial killers do not kill people to eat them.Perhaps if we lived in a society fed by Soylent Green. We are losing track of the point in these hypotheticals. It is not unreasonable for parents, or indeed anyone concerned for the welfare of children, to be unnerved at the very least at the prospect of the presence of a pedophile in their neighborhood. Why should they trust one, especially one who openly states that he finds nothing immoral about the way he thinks or damaging about the way he would like to treat children?
179c81 No.5227
File: 1427154264262.jpg (136.43 KB, 640x461, 640:461, 8e70fb552a745b7bf489a01d26….jpg)
>>5128
>Adult>cp of themselves>Wut?The situation presented was of a person who took CP of themselves while they were underage and waited until they were 18 to publish it for money, knowing that it would be more lucrative than their barely-legal porn.
In the first place, I don't consider material with teenagers in it to be CP, but they are still underage. I still think adults should be punished for engaging in sexual relations with those in the jailbait age range, but not as severely as for screwing with prepubescent children.
I don't often use this argument, but in this particular case, an adult who posts pornographic images of themselves from when they were a child is obviously cashing in on feeding a black market. Someone who does this is encouraging pedophilia and profiting from doing so, and they are doing it while themselves being old enough to know better.
179c81 No.5228
>>5135
>he is a massive moralfag who thinks he is above everyone else and thinks he is perfect in every wayPeople who think they are perfect would probably not consider the time and effort spent in this debate to be worthy of them.
>>5137
>It's truly something that this argument was so flawed that 3 people bothered to match it's length with different words.Come now, are we going to fall back on ad populum, too? Imagine where that pendulum would swing if we were to expand the scope of this discussion beyond 8chan. I think I have been more than fair in refusing to take the low road by reminding you what a small minority your advocacy represents. You disappoint me to fall into it yourself after getting support from three anons.
>You also mentioned kodomo no jikan doujins which implies you know enough about the series to have read one. How familiar are you with the series and ero manga? "Child's time" is an old series, but did reading a doujin make you want to go out and rape some kindergartener? Or are you living proof your of a false dichronomy?Hang out with /a/ long enough and you'll stumble across all sorts of loopy shit. You know this. I like to think that the pedoshit that goes on there is tongue-in-cheek or just typical dark humor, but situations like these refresh my disappointment. You make it hard for me to stick up for you guys as much as I'd like to.
179c81 No.5229
>>5151
>Do you pedos have to avatarfag though?Without thread IDs, there isn't really any other practical way to keep our posts sorted out so we don't confuse who's saying what to whom. When the thread fills up with samefagging or people accusing each other of samefagging, that doesn't contribute to the thread in any meaningful way.
That said, I'll take any excuse to post images on an image board.
179c81 No.5230
File: 1427154553586.jpg (866.5 KB, 1000x1333, 1000:1333, 9d2e62f197a9315e9984103a0f….jpg)
>>5152
>The idea the no adult should touch you in your "private" parts and those who do are bad and evil. Of course if a child is raised to think something wrong, they will find it wrong. Consider children shamed for feeling gay, or for masturbating. Another example would be nudity. In many cultures being nude is not much of an issue, the bare human body is not an embarrassment alone. Yet in other cultures a child whose nudity's exposed feels embarrassed and ashamed.There's a huge difference between a child being made to feel ashamed about their body and a child being made aware that an adult who exploits their vulnerability to assault them, even painlessly and sexually, is wronging them by taking advantage of their inability to physically resist them and also their inability to give meaningful consent. This exploitation of a child's inescapable vulnerability is what makes it morally repugnant to do. That it is done for such an asinine purpose as achieving sexual satisfaction is what makes it so heinous.
I also have an anecdote, if you don't mind. It involves the first time I ever put on a pair of roller skates, at an indoor rink when I was five. I spent a lot of time wobbling around on them outside of the rink itself where all the benches and lockers were. I was so focused on learning how to keep my balance and move without falling that I took no notice of anything else going on around me. That came to my detriment when a hard impact at my shins took my feet out from under me and flung them up behind me. Without the slightest warning, I fell to the floor and slammed into it as hard as you might expect from a child who hadn't even had the reaction time to throw out his arms. Dumbfounded, I rolled over to find a guy who looked to be in his late teens pulling his leg back from the air. He had, with no warning and for absolutely no reason other than to derive laughter from the sight, swept my legs out from under me. As soon as I realized that this was what had happened, and not that I had somehow stumbled over someone's bag, I felt immediate shock and despair. I was angry, of course, but I could see how insanely lopsided the odds were between me and him. It was impossible to consider retaliation. There was nothing I could do. I was absolutely powerless in the face of his laughter. I was completely at his mercy. He could have done anything he wanted and there was no way I could stop him.
Fortunately, that ended in a few seconds when some girl who appeared to be around his age stormed up to haul off and slap him across the face with a surprisingly sharp crack. By now, enough attention had been drawn to the scene that he was no longer willing to escalate the situation further, so he shrugged to save face and went on his way. I hated it. Everything about the whole situation disgusted me. Even when she knelt down to check me for injuries and ask me if I was alright, I couldn't even feel appreciative. I had been reduced to the status of a kicked puppy. Or rather, I had always had that status. That guy just gave me a spontanious reminder of it. The realization had set in that the only reason I could go through a day uninjured was because all the giants around me allowed me to, through the grace of their unpredictable whims. I got a lot more paranoid around strangers real fast, even in public places with sufficient crowds around, and I became notable for my timid body language and tendency to flinch at every little thing, much to others' amusement. I hated that feeling of helplessness. Of being readily under anyone else's power the moment they so much as acted on the whim to exercise that power.
And that was just a leg sweep out of nowhere. As outraged as I was, there was no way I could fathom being forced or coaxed into being on the wrong end of a penetration I had no realistic way of being able to stop. Something like that would have certainly broken me.
There's no way I would have been able to give word to any of these thoughts back then, but the sentiment was there. I wouldn't wish that kind of an experience on anybody. Let alone with the added grief of sexual exploitation on top of it.
>My first argument is pedantic: in a society where boys freely have parts of their penis cut off without consent, why does consent matter to sex?Circumcision outrages me. As much as child rape. I think that makes things clear enough.
>I posit that sex is not sacred, and should not require any more consent than any other normal activity.Of course there's nothing sacred about sex. The issue here is children being abused and exploited by people who have way too much power over them to be mistreating them this way. Children aren't just physically incapable of resisting adults, they're also intellectually incapable of resisting an adult's capacity for coercion. The power balance is too lopsided to be anything more than a joke.
490abe No.5231
>>5216>If you don't care about moralityWe're having a logical argument, emotions and morals do not enter into this. What is moral is logical.
>Muh fallacy fallacy.I agree with you, but your argument is still shit.
>Well, I didn't mean for you to actually go ahead and do just that. Straw manning your opponent immediately after declaring them to be straw manning (without explaining what they were straw manning), real classy move.Is he wrong, though? I mean, you were just talking about a fallacy fallacy.
>You are mistaking me for a Christian who does not capitalize any of the first words of any of his sentences on the basis that you disagree with me about pedophilia.I agree, considering where we are, you are likely an atheist, so I usually try to treat everyone like one unless proven otherwise.
You would do well to try to not make your arguments sound like a Christian's.
>It would, however, have made it much easier for me to track which anons in this thread are supporting child molestation versus only supporting the private enjoyment of CPWhy would you need to? Hmm.
>It's difficult to argue with multiple people who take different stances on these things and conflate their arguments together without acknowledging the differences in where they stand among each other.Just ask them outright, it's not that difficult.
> The greatest power of humanity is in our capacity for cognitive thought and our ability to override our instincts and even overwrite them with learned behavior instead.You can control what you desire? Can you turn yourself gay?
>Gays never needed a "born with it" excuse because they never needed an excuse in the first place.They did when people said that it was a choice.
>Another misrepresentation.He was making a comparison, not a misrepresentation.
b4610a No.5233
>>5219>There is a significant difference between having thoughts occur to you involuntarily and deliberately entertaining thoughts which you are aware that, if acted upon, would be sufficiently damaging to someone else to be rightly considered an immoral or even a criminal act. The difference exists, but it doesn't mean that thinking about something makes you a bad person, even if you intentionally thought about that thing. Maybe you should stop being such a thought police faggot and look at yourself first. You don't have clear perfect thoughts, and judging by your rules, if you'd ever even imagine violent thoughts done by you, you should be arrested. Even if you do not commit them.
>No. That was given as an example of a fate which could be worse than death as a response to an argument that there is no fate worse than death. It was an extreme example used to illustrate how easily that stance could be refuted with a mere hypothetical which took all of two seconds to imagine.No, you made a ridiculous comparison and here it is your quote:
>Am I to understand that you would rather have your eyes ripped out of their sockets and be skullfucked by bonobos while a sociopath is given a circular saw and license to do whatever he would like involving it and your testicles than simply be shot in the head?It's simply ridiculous and you are exaggerating it to appeal to emotion. If you would replace the long ass violent part with being penetrated, and being shot with being brutally tortured and murdered it wouldn't be the same argument anymore. Don't back down on your comparison, you are trying to portray penetration as the worst possible thing ever by adding all those other violent thoughts.
>Remember, the argument was that someone who is predisposed to having immoral thoughts is entertaining fantasies of enacting them, rather than rejecting those thoughts as they occur. This is not about the surface level of people playing games or watching shows and then doing nothing. This is about what is going on inside their head at the time.I stay by what I said, you think about beating up your best friend, as long as in real life you don't actually do it and you continue to be a decent human being. This isn't fairy town land, by thinking anything you aren't hurting anyone. If you do actually do it, you are a psychopath who doesn't have empathy and doesn't separate reality from fiction.
>Not all choices are of the coin flip variety. I cannot choose to become a professional athlete at any moment I desire, but that doesn't mean I couldn't have been. If I had made a series of small choices starting in early childhood, it would have been possible for me to do just that. Likewise, if I had done that, I wouldn't then have simply been able to choose to become a pianist.Being gay is not the same as growing as a pianist or an athlete. Your sexuality can be influenced by the way you were born, otherwise we wouldn't automatically know how to have sex. Stop it with these stupid comparisons already.
>No, that's not how the burden of proof works. I make no claims about the nature of human sexuality. I treat claims that human sexual orientation is the uncontrollable result of genetically inherited traits with skepticism, and until I see sufficient proof to substantiate that claim, I maintain my skepticism.Oh but yes you do, you claimed that being gay is a choice. You said that if you did different things when you were little, you could turn out with a completely different sexuality when you were grown up, and that is just bullshit. If this was true then letting boys play with barbie dolls when young should turn them all gay by adult hood.
>People who think they are perfect would probably not consider the time and effort spent in this debate to be worthy of them.You are on a moral high ground right now, all this thread you said how people who have dirty thoughts are evil. This at least implies that you are the perfect one who is able to make all the judgement on these people leading a normal life and calling them evil because they think about whatever they want.
In conclusion, thank you for avatar fagging with your chinese cartoons, you can have this thread to post in since I can't argue in these circumstances. You are thinking illogically by making ridiculous comparisons to make a point, appeal to emotion by saying that every molestation is the same as being VERY violently tortured and you say that dying is better. No thanks, I don't want to respond to this kind of shit anymore.
Basically you are all faggots ITT who can't handle being objective and think you are some sort of moral supermen, I hope this thread goes to hell.
759861 No.5235
so if it's not wrong based on 'muh feeligns' to rape children
why is it wrong for me to spam your board with multiple messages of your hypocrisy
why was my thread locked here
http://8ch.net/atheism/res/4450.html why is it wrong to have get threads and stale copypatas and memes like here
http://8ch.net/atheism/res/4709.htmlIf atheism honestly believes that decisions be based on logic and not subjective feelings, I ask that you put your money where your mouth is and unlock my thread and allow complete posting anarchy.
What is a quality post is subjective, what is bad behavior on image boards is subjective. We can see that spam, memes and repetitive positing is allowed on some image boards. Since the standards of posting are subjective and no objective standards exist outside of muh feelings I should be allowed to post whatever I want whenever I want without any interference.
surely if it's okay to sexually molest a child, then it must be okay for me to shitpost here to my heart's content right?
So if atheism really believes that morals and standards are merely a result of muh feelings, than I demand that you put your money where you mouth is, unlock my thread and allow me and others to post here without restriction.
and it is absolute hypocrisy that people decried my thread by calling it spam because there can be no objective standards as to spam (bane posts the same thing all day every day and no one calls that spam .: spam is subjective)
In conclusion, I demand you be consistent, stay true to your retarded principles and let me fuck up and derail your board beyond recognition
b4610a No.5236
>>5235>so if it's not wrong based on 'muh feeligns' to rape children No one said that you should rape children, this isn't black or white. People disagreed and agreed on certain points but no one said "go and rape children". Why are you lying? Appealing to emotion again?
759861 No.5238
>>5236I'm simply pointing out that your board rules and things like restrictions on spamming and copypastas are based on appeals to emotions and feelings because there is no objective logical standards by which we can judge post quality and post quality is a subjective value based judgment (kinda like those morals you were critiquing) and thus based on appeals to emotional (non-rational) considerations
b4610a No.5241
>>5238Your islam thread, if it's yours, had a very similar active thread so you should had posted in that instead of creating a new one. Plus, I also responded in your thread saying why /christian/ is judged more than /islam/ on this site, and you know what? I just tested the thread and it's not locked, why are you lying? Go post in it if you want too.
>why is it wrong to have get threads and stale copypatas and memes like hereBecause this board is meant for discussion about religion mostly, why are you even bringing up this point? I mean, you don't go to /mu/ to discuss movies, you go to /tv/. You can discuss epic memes on /b/ if you want too or on /bane/.
b4610a No.5242
>>5238>there is no objective logical standards by which we can judge post quality and post quality is a subjective value based judgmentActually there is. If you make a thread with
>yfw god existsYou bring no questions or statements, you are basically making a joke.
759861 No.5243
>>5241>Because this board is meant for discussion about religion mostly, why are you even bringing up this point? I mean, you don't go to /mu/ to discuss movies, you go to /tv/. You can discuss epic memes on /b/ if you want too or on /bane/.but my post was devoted to religion, and the stale copypasta was related to religion
> I just tested the thread and it's not locked, why are you lying? Go post in it if you want too.sorry I meant you can't bump it
The point you are missing is you haven't given a logical reason other than muh feelings why this shit should not be allowed,
in my opinion the two threads are different not the same, and I said it in the thread
even if they are the same, what is the logical standard that says you can't have more than one thread on the same subject
who's to say that religion boards should always only have religion threads and nothing else
the whole decision to allow some kinds of posting and not ohters are based on feelings and values, not logic
>>5242yeah but you are applying standards by saying certain threads are no allowed, and those standards are feelings based, I've never seen anyone provide logical reasons for them
490abe No.5244
>>5226>But you said you weren't the person I was responding to.You do realize that you were responding to multiple people, yes?
>Buddy, if you thought that was insensitive of meI never said you were insensitive, in fact I think you are too sensitive.
>No, Mister Bond, I expect them to die!Now you're just being ridiculous.
>Or to be hauled off to jail in the event that they cannot keep their dysfunction to themselves and harm someone else as a result.I thought that taxpayers shouldn't pay for someone else's dysfunction?
>Nobody is obligated to fix other people. That is the mentality of an enabler.No, it's the mentality of a sympathetic human. Are you misanthropic?
>People who are abusive of others are not entitled to compassion or gentle treatment.>implying every pedo is a child molester.Until you can understand simple logic, there is nothing more I can say to make you understand such a complex topic.
> I understand that I have not strongly presented the case that child rape is traumatizing enough to be considered life-destroying,That's because it's horrible, but it's not life-destroying. It's only life-destroying because people are treated like it is.
If you are treated like a victim, you start to act like a victim. Multiple studies state this.
>This is the message in just about every anime I've ever seen, and it makes me want to rip out my hair every time.And yet Japan has a lower crime rate than almost if not every country in the world taking population density into account.
Even their resident crime organization is somewhat benevolent. The Yakuza gave rescue aid during the Earthquake/Tsunami disaster. That mentality somehow worked for them. So why does it enrage you so much?
>We don't call all imprisonment kidnapping or hostage taking.Of course not, I'm a Libertarian, but I'm not one of the crazy Anarchists who believe that taxes are theft. There is a reason that words have definitions.
>punishment as a response to the commission of a crimeI agree, but what you state is not punishment, it is retribution.
>Reciprocation and consent are critical elements.You'd be surprised how often those requirements are fulfilled. Statutory rape isn't rape, you know.
>Not being able to tell the difference between love and rape is the mark of a sociopath.I doubt that. You must not study Psychiatry very much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder
>Being straight isn't inherently rapey. Pedophilia is.See picture.
>Children can never consent to sex.Many "victims" of statutory rape would disagree with you. And yet, somehow, they magically become able at age 18. 13 if you are in Spain.
>If you were aroused by rape and did not try to overcome this flaw in your character, telling your girlfriend's father that he should accept you for being born with a predisposition for enjoying rape is rightly going to earn you his scorn.>If you enjoy rape, you are going to rape someone.>if you enjoy violence, you are going to murder someone.See picture.
>He would be in the right to be suspicious of you if you showed absolutely no sign of guilt over it.Why is rape one of the most popular sexual fantasies amongst women?
Anyway, i wouldn't be, he didn't rape anyone. He literally did nothing wrong. You must be a misanthrope.
>Perhaps if we lived in a society fed by Soylent Green.You've never heard people defend cannibalism.
>It is not unreasonable for parents, or indeed anyone concerned for the welfare of children, to be unnerved at the very least at the prospect of the presence of a pedophile in their neighborhoodSo if you have a child, you're never going to let them have a relationship, because you're afraid someone is going to try to give them pleasure and make sure they're happy?
Wow, what the fuck. And I reject altruism!
>Why should they trust one, especially one who openly states that he finds nothing immoral about the way he thinks or damaging about the way he would like to treat children?
>If you are attracted to women, you want to rape them?Something doesn't make sense here.
b4610a No.5245
>>5243Wow now hold on there. I see this as a very defensive move from you, so now you are saying that I am not being objective (I say I because /atheism/ isn't a single entity) because there are certain rules that you must follow so you don't spam the board with inane shit. And you are saying that these rules are all based on emotions. If that was the case all these rules would be here so all we atheists would not be offended, but this isn't the situation. These rules are there so we can see more threads about discussing religion and less things that are unrelated. If you put your copypasta there then what would you like us to do? Rate the copypasta? You can't respond to the copypasta since it's a copypasta and you are meant to just read it, it doesn't need a response. What else can we say besides 'cool meme'? Certain things aren't allowed because they are not related to the board.
And what else can I say, if you really dislike the rules, you should complain on the sticky or something and tell you why you don't agree with those rules. Also, another thing, if there were no rules on this board, what's stopping the admin for banning you just because he feels like it? Free speech allowed is also a rule you know.
179c81 No.5246
File: 1427157400217.jpg (4.04 MB, 1890x2675, 378:535, 21e31aa55eb30ea5b93cb44d69….jpg)
>>5182If I were to find myself in a dimly-lit room with someone who presented this question to me, my response would be to assault them.
If you have a plausibly realistic scenario to pose as a question, I would be happy to answer that. But these hypotheticals which are presented devoid of any context or explanation as to how this choice is being pressed upon someone are not useful in forming decisions about real world issues. People do not generally find themselves in situations whereby they must make an obvious selection between being raped and being killed. If they find themselves under threat of one, they are usually also under threat of the other at the same time, and it is not within their power to make a choice about what happens to them.
This is especially true in cases where pedophiles kidnap children to rape them. These children are not usually released alive. The kidnapper generally kills them and dumps the body after having their way with them, out of fear that the child will lead the police to them if they are left alive.
490abe No.5247
>>5227>The situation presented was of a person who took CP of themselves while they were underage and waited until they were 18 to publish it for money, knowing that it would be more lucrative than their barely-legal porn.Keeping it for that long is illegal in the first place.
>In the first place, I don't consider material with teenagers in it to be CP, but they are still underage.That's the definition.
> I still think adults should be punished for engaging in sexual relations with those in the jailbait age rangeWhy?
>I don't often use this argument, but in this particular case, an adult who posts pornographic images of themselves from when they were a child is obviously cashing in on feeding a black market.It's a good thing that there's not really a black market for CP.
And yet, you never hear people talk about human trafficking as much as they do about CP.
>Someone who does this is encouraging pedophilia and profiting from doing so, and they are doing it while themselves being old enough to know better.And yet again…
6b59fd No.5248
@statuefag kindly fuck off. I don't want to hear you shutting up a thread I, myself enjoying with your meta faggotry about how the board manager won't let you keep a dumb thread bumped forever. Start a new thread but don't hit up my favorite non atheism thread.
>>5206 >> It's truly something that this argument was so flawed that 3 people bothered to match it's length with different words.
> fallacy alert!Come on, we can be aware of these fallacies and still use them for a little joking fun with our rhetoric as long as the central point is still refuted in a logical way.
I myself am overwhelmed and although I have read every post I cannot immediately respond to everything.
759861 No.5249
>>5245>These rules are there so we can see more threads about discussing religion and less things that are unrelated. If you put your copypasta there then what would you like us to do? Rate the copypasta? You can't respond to the copypasta since it's a copypasta and you are meant to just read it, it doesn't need a response. What else can we say besides 'cool meme'? Certain things aren't allowed because they are not related to the board.these are still value based judgments you moralfag
who says posts you can respond to are more valuable
who says that this board should maximize religious based dicussion
perhaps some people value copypasta, and religion based shitposting and in my case accusations and indictments
on what logical basis can you say that your standard of maximum religious dicussion is the right one or even the one traditonally followed on this board
fuck, the instant thread isn't even about religion it's about pedos so there goes any claim your stadnard have to objectivity and logic right there,
it's fucken subjective
now be a man, be consistent and let me fuck up this board
490abe No.5250
>>5246>If I were to find myself in a dimly-lit room with someone who presented this question to me, my response would be to assault them.That wasn't one of the responses.
>This is especially true in cases where pedophiles kidnap children to rape them.Which is so rare, it might as well not even happen. 95 percent of children are "kiddnapped" by a family member, and the other 4 or so percent are by someone the family is close friends with, less than one percent is by complete strangers, and consider that the majority of people who molest or rape children are not pedophiles, that ends with us having a massive amount of pedos not committing any crime and yet still being some of the worst people in existence.
>>5182Not one of those people, but I'll answer.
Hmm, having someone give me pleasure as opposed to them ending my existence, gee this is a hard choice.
I'd rather be molested. In fact, I'd want to be molested.
>>5183> Dirty filthy pedophiles who use invalid and fallacious arguments to defend their sick perversions. Well, this doesn't happen often, so not this one.
>Assholes who defend them using idiotic false equivalences and false analogies What false analogy? It was a hypothetical situation. You might need to go back to school.
>Fucken weebosWell I think this is a trick survey because this is the only real choice.
>>5238I agree.
>>5242>You bring no questions or statements, you are basically making a joke.Well there is a thread with exactly that tag, and it's generating quite a bit of conversation. It's what you make of it. Whether or not a conversation develops depends on what you can make of it. Just because you have no imagination doesn't mean that everyone else is the same.
490abe No.5251
>>5248This thread is actually pretty good. More insightful debate than on any other board this type of topic is brought up in. I didn't expect this.
6b59fd No.5262
>>5248 was meant for >> 5228
>> 5230You cannot apply the time when a thug tripped you to a case of child sex. We all have simular stories but we don't need to get revenge for every time someone slights us or bumps in the elevator, and if we entered such vicious cycles of vengeance we would not still exist as a race. Your story is not connected to a relationship a child has voluntarily entered either.
Are you against sex between minors? I bet so, and yet they commonly play doctor all the time as a natural part of growing up.
Your other arguments have already been answered well which is a benefit of having multiple debaters except when I am the one that need a to reply to all of them.
By the way can we all agree there is no more harm from a young girl having sex than there is for a young boy?
9a65f8 No.5283
>>5198pedophilies is WRONG
6ed303 No.5284
chemfag, is this how you spend your days now?
345cd6 No.5286
File: 1427196159020.jpg (232.14 KB, 850x679, 850:679, michelangelo_sistinechapel….jpg)
>>5165>You're making this argument that this whole thing is culturalI didn't say it was all cultural, I didn't even make an absolute statement about anything. What I am saying are deductions from research, personal experience, and thinking through things. If anyone has concrete studies to prove me wrong I'll gladly change any of my views.
>When someone does something to you that you don't fully understand, then you will feel uncomfortable. It will probably fuck with you on some level. This is why we consider any sexual encounter with a child as abuse.According to that then what the doctor did to me was child abuse, I do not think it was. Children can be explained sex (but "child grooming" is illegal in the US funnily enough) like any other subject. Even if a child has a bad experience I do not automatically consider it abuse, just like anyone having sex for the first time is awkward but that doesn't mean it was rape. Children can learn from and get over negative
experiences like anyone else can. Also this all hinges on "ifs". Like anything else child sex should be taken on a case by case basis. Jacking off an 8 year old who enjoys it and violently raping an 8 year old's asshole are two separate things and should not be within the same blanket statement.
>>5230>exploits their vulnerability to assault themYou misunderstand from the get go. Not all sex with children is assault.
>even painlessly and sexually, is wronging them by taking advantage of their inability to physically resist themIf they consent does their ability to resist matter? Many women have sex with men they could not possibly fend off, yet we do not say the male is inherently taking advantage of them. If they don't consent, regardless of physical ability, then its rape (which I am against), as would be any other case.
>inability to give meaningful consentI'd like this explained. To me a child is capable of giving consent or recanting it at any time during sex just like an adult could. If you're argument is that a child "can't understand" because they are ignorant then my answer would be to educate them. Everyone is ignorant the first time they try something, even many adults are ignorant about the finer points of sex. That ignorance does not cancel out their consent (unless their ignorance stems from being purposely lied to).
>exploited by people who have way too much power over them>physically incapable of resistingThat is not exclusive to children. And my original argument is that sex with children is not inherently exploitive in nature, it can be a mutual act; abuse is abuse regardless of a person's age.
>adult's capacity for coercionDefine coercion. If you mean black mail or threats then I'd agree thats wrong, but again its independent of age. If you mean an adult convincing a child to have sex with them in the same way an adult coerces a child to eat their vegetables then I don't see that as harmful.
See
>>5198 who might put it in clearer words then I can.
>If atheism honestly believesTroll post, disregard.
759861 No.5288
>>5286there's tons of studies out there. Whenever someone comes along and says "muh no studies" I aways think they must be a pedophile because there are tons of studies and they are freely available.
I've been through these types of before on halfchan they are always the same
first pedophiles argue cultural relatvism
they get shot down
claim that there are no studies and they will change their mind on seeing studies
people post studies like this one
http://www.jimhopper.com/pdfs/dube_(2005)_childhood_sexual_abuse_by_gender_of_victim.pdfthen pedophiles will invariably claim "but dem studies about abuse, not my kind of loving sexual funtime >insert retarted re-labeling of sexual abuse here<.
It's always the same, because those pedos arguing for pedophilia are not ruled by logic, they are ruled by their perversions.
490abe No.5289
>>5235>so if it's not wrong based on 'muh feeligns' to rape children Ah, statuefag. I know it's pointless, but i'll do it anyway.
It's wrong to rape children. Emotion doesn't come into this. Not one person in this thread has defended the rape of children. Strawman fallacies might fly on /christian/ but you forget where you are. Your thread was locked because it was a copy of a dead thread. Making copies of threads counts as spam. Hey at least you aren't banned. /atheism/ isn't as ban-happy as /christian/
>why is it wrong for me to spam your board with multiple messages of your hypocrisy>why is it wrong for me to spam your boardYou just answered your own question.
>why is it wrong to have get threads and stale copypatas and memes like hereRefer to
>>4860
>If atheism honestly believes that decisions be based on logic and not subjective feelings, I ask that you put your money where your mouth is and unlock my thread and allow complete posting anarchy.I would consider /atheism/ a libertarian system rather than an anarchic system.
We also believe in order.
That isn't even relevant to this thread. You want to whine about why nobody falls for your christfag bait, take it to the moderation thread.
>What is a quality post is subjectiveTrue, but spam is objective, and regardless of it's quality, it's still spam.
>what is bad behavior on image boards is subjective.I seriously doubt that you believe this.
>Since the standards of posting are subjective and no objective standards exist outside of muh feelings I should be allowed to post whatever I want whenever I want without any interference. There are objective standards, but you haven't been banned. So you haven't really been punished for it. Consider it a warning.
>surely if it's okay to sexually molest a child, then it must be okay for me to shitpost here to my heart's content right? Wrong, because it's not okay to molest a child. Seriously, mate. Just stop.
>So if atheism really believes that morals and standards are merely a result of muh feelings, than I demand that you put your money where you mouth is, unlock my thread and allow me and others to post here without restriction. Atheists do not believe this. Your morals might be a result of muh feels, but my morals are based on logic. Which is why this discussion is taking place.
>and it is absolute hypocrisy that people decried my thread by calling it spam because there can be no objective standards as to spam>there can be no objective standards as to spamhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_%28gaming%29You really are fucking stupid.
>bane posts the same thing all day every day and no one calls that spam .: spam is subjectiveI don't really see that many bane posts, but bane posts are unique because no two bane posts are the same. They might be 'for you' though.
>In conclusion, I demand you be consistent, stay true to your retarded principles and let me fuck up and derail your board beyond recognitionWhy would you want to?
I have just responded to your off-topic whining post just because I felt like it.
490abe No.5290
>>5283And you state this based on? Your feels?
>>5284Nobody in this thread even sounds like chemfag.
you should see someone about those delusions.
>>5286
>I'd like this explained. To me a child is capable of giving consent or recanting it at any time during sex just like an adult could. If you're argument is that a child "can't understand" because they are ignorant then my answer would be to educate them.They're not going to explain it, because it can't be explained.
>>5288
>there's tons of studies out there. Whenever someone comes along and says "muh no studies" I aways think they must be a pedophile because there are tons of studies and they are freely available.And yet, you haven't posted any.
>first pedophiles argue cultural relatvism Well, are they wrong?
>they get shot downkek
Your perception of reality isn't actually reality.
>then pedophiles will invariably claim "but dem studies about abuseSexual activity and sexual abuse are not the same thing. Please try to use some logic in your argument.
>It's always the same, because those pedos arguing for pedophilia are not ruled by logic, they are ruled by their perversions.And yet, you haven't talked about pedophilia, you have talked about child molesters.
It seems your argument isn't based on logic, because you can't even define your words correctly.
759861 No.5291
>>5289wow
>And yet, you haven't posted any.you mother fucker
>>5288>>5288http://www.jimhopper.com/pdfs/dube_(2005)_childhood_sexual_abuse_by_gender_of_victim.pdfwhat the fuck is this, Fuck you
>And yet, you haven't talked about pedophilia, you have talked about child molesters. Im tired of this fucken back and forth, so lets get this definition straightened out so you cant go back and forth to obscure the argument
are you talking about people who have sexual acts with children or the people who have the desire to have acts with children
Reading the thread, it seems entirely about acts, not desires, until you moved the goalposts
>>5289
>That isn't even relevant to this thread. You want to whine about why nobody falls for your christfag bait, take it to the moderation thread.missing the point
there is no objective standard that says repeat posts (spam) is less valuable than unique posts (non span) logic doesnt dictate the value of uniqueness, muh feelings and values do
>but spam is objective, and regardless of it's quality, it's still spam. yes but your aversion to it isnt objective, the notion that it isnt allowed
>Atheists do not believe this. Your morals might be a result of muh feels, but my morals are based on logic. Which is why this discussion is taking place.and thats why I bring up things like spamming and shit posting, because they are not based on logic, they are based on values. They are based on valuing unique posts, and discussion over memes,
these values are not universal, they are not logically derrived, and they are not objective. They are subjective and based on my feelings.
Thus if you insist only on rules derived from logic, you should start by letting me fuck up your board and shut down discussion. Because those rules against spam and shit posting cannot be traced to logical arguements they are based on values, and feelings, you value unique discussion over shitposting. Whereas others, in fact most people judging from b and bane and etc. prefer shitposting and memes. These are subjective values based on personal preference not logic.
(now do you get the point, you do appeal to values and feelings and non-logic derrived rules in some areas such as shit-posting, etc but not when it comes to these issues like child rape because of muh edge, not because of muh logic)
>Why would you want to? Why do you think, Im the enemy at the gate, Thats the point.
8b3b2d No.5292
>>5291> I found a study! It's titled "Long-Term Consequences of Childhood Sexual Abuse by Gender of Victim"Note the word abuse in the title. Your study is irrelevant to pedophilia that doesn't come from molestation (which is word for rape). Dig deeper.
759861 No.5293
>>5292Thats because you havent defined pedophilia so you can go back and forth like you have been all thread
are you talking about sexual acts with children, desire for children, kissing children, intimacy with children.
and I believe that is intentional because most of this thread has been about acts,
And when I posted the study in the post which you clearly did not read, I already predicted this would happen, I said you would ignore it by saying,
> oh but it doesnt apply to me or my version of pedo because what I do aint rape. And I know this not because I am a prophet and I can see the future, but because this is how every singe discussion with pedos goes.
So you want to continue, define clearly what you are talking about, are you still talking about sexual acts with children, or do you concede now that this is in fact wrong.
8b3b2d No.5294
>>5293I did read your study. Give me evidence or GTFO.
490abe No.5295
>>5291>A study against CSA.It's a good thing most pedophiles don't do CSA.
>are you talking about people who have sexual acts with children or the people who have the desire to have acts with childrenNeither.
A pedophile is a person who has a sexual attraction to prepubescents.
>Reading the thread, it seems entirely about acts, not desires, until you moved the goalpostsI didn't move goalposts. I am just responding to people who don't really understand pedophilia, but think they do.
Read the DSM-V.
>missing the point You may not be statuefag, but I'm going to refer to you as him. i apologize if you are not him.
I don't see how I'm missing the point.
You come in here in a discussion about pedophilia and use the topic as a justification as to why you are a poor persecuted christfag.
And all I have to say to that is, "You haven't been banned." You've just had spam taken care of.
>there is no objective standard that says repeat posts (spam) is less valuable than unique posts (non span) logic doesnt dictate the value of uniqueness, muh feelings and values doNobody said that they weren't valuable. They just clutter up the board. Nothing against you personally. If anyone else did it, it would happen to us, too.
>yes but your aversion to it isnt objective, the notion that it isnt allowed I don't have an aversion to it. I actually find it humorous, because it makes the person seem desperate.
>and thats why I bring up things like spamming and shit posting, because they are not based on logic, they are based on values. They are based on valuing unique posts, and discussion over memesValues can be based on logic. I actually think that shitposting can spark a conversation. Spamming the same thread when one already exists doesn't. Just redirect people to that thread. or wait until it dies to make a new one.
>these values are not universalYou forget where you are.
>They are subjective and based on my feelings.Yours, perhaps.
>Thus if you insist only on rules derived from logicWhat you define as logic isn't logic.
>you should start by letting me fuck up your board and shut down discussion.Oh, so you don't want to start discussion with your spam, you want to end it. Well judging by your dead thread that you're complaining about, I'd say you're doing fairly well, and that's why you've come here to complain about your dead thread, because this place isn't dead. What was that about logic again?
>but not when it comes to these issues like child rape because of muh edge, not because of muh logicIt's a good thing this thread isn't about child rape, because logically rape can't be defended logically.
759861 No.5296
>>5295A pedophile is a person who has a sexual attraction to prepubescents.
so you are talking about desire - attaction
the thing about desire and attraction is that they are a part of your internal life and so no one would know about it unless you acted on it. Thus, it is a non issue
>these values are not universal>Yours, perhaps.fine by your same defence I can defend banning or jailing of pedos is okay
because you forget where you are, in America, the feelings about pedos is nearly universal. and it is based on logic (studies which you reject)
Every single argument you use to stop my shitposting and ending discussion I can use to end pedophiles and their acts
>It's a good thing this thread isn't about child rape, because logically rape can't be defended logically.this thread is about nothing because you keep changing the definition of the central theme to suit your position,
490abe No.5297
>>5293>Thats because you havent defined pedophiliaYou really need someone to define a word whose colloquial definition is universal? Just look at a wikipedia article on it, or look it up in the dictionary, goddamn, you're pathetic.
>sexual acts with childrenNo.
>desire for childrenThat's the same thing.
>kissing children>Every parent is a pedophile.Good to know.
> intimacy with childrenAnd no.
Attraction is the phrase you are looking for.
>and I believe that is intentional because most of this thread has been about acts.No it hasn't. It has been about people like you trying to make it seem that way.
>And when I posted the study in the post which you clearly did not read, I already predicted this would happen, I said you would ignore it by saying,> oh but it doesnt apply to me or my version of pedo because what I do aint rape. Wow, you predicted it so you must be right!
He's not wrong, and just because it's a common rebuttal to a stupid claim doesn't mean it's not wrong.
>And I know this not because I am a prophet and I can see the future, but because this is how every singe discussion with pedos goes.You must be a prophet, because as far as I know, nobody has said that they were a pedophile. And it's how every discussion goes, because they're right.
>All sex is abuse.This is you.
>So you want to continue, define clearly what you are talking aboutIt already has a concise definition, but I'll spoonfeed you anyway.
A pedophile is someone who is attracted to children.
A heterosexual is someone who is attracted to someone of the opposite sex.
A homosexual is someone who is attracted to the same sex.
It's not that difficult is it?
> are you still talking about sexual acts with children, or do you concede now that this is in fact wrong.Nobody has been talking about sexual acts with children, except for the claims from people who say that we are, or who think that pedophile=child molester.
I can't concede that I'm wrong when I never admitted I was right, but I think there is a term for what you're trying to do. Ah yes, a strawman fallacy.
490abe No.5298
>>5296>A pedophile is a person who has a sexual attraction to prepubescents. Yes, you've got it now!
>so you are talking about desire - attaction And you've lost it.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/DesireYou can read, can't you?
All pedophiles have a sexual attraction, not all have a sexual desire.
>fine by your same defence I can defend banning or jailing of pedos is okayBased on what? Because I can say that jailing or banning christians is okay, but I don't because I'm a decent person.
>because you forget where you are, in America, the feelings about pedos is nearly universalNo, they're not. The majority of psychiatrists disagree with you and I'd wager that we know more about the subject than you do.
>and it is based on logic (studies which you reject) You mean that study about CSA you posted? No I don't. It was a valid study. The methodology seemed clear and the study discovered something. It just doesn't apply to this thread, because we are not talking about CSA.
>Every single argument you use to stop my shitposting and ending discussion I can use to end pedophiles and their acts No, you can't. You want to, but you can't. I never even said that I wanted to end your shitposting. I never even said that you were shitposting. We were talking about spam.
This thread is about nothing to you because you keep changing the definition of the central theme to suit your position.
>this thread is about nothing because you keep changing the definition of the central theme to suit your position,Ooh, you beat me to it.
Methinks you doth protest too much.
759861 No.5299
>>5298>t"No, you can't. You want to, but you can't. I never even said that I wanted to end your shitposting. I never even said that you were shitposting. We were talking about spam.but you cant even say that shit because fuck the majority of modern psychologists see nothing wrong with spam, same with the majority of modern programmers, its all dsiagreed upon you know
bane and b seem to love it, as such the majority of internet users also have no problem with
let me spam faggots
>A pedophile is a person who has a sexual attraction to prepubescents. Yes, you've got it now!
>so you are talking about desire - attaction who cares, the point is attraction or desire or however argumentative a faggot you want to be, they are not acts, thus no one would judge them or know about them or criminalize them without some overt pedophilic act, thus as a moral debate, the point is moot, its like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, no practical significance
759861 No.5300
>>5299see second part of
>>5299
>>who cares, the point is attraction or desire or wathever, they are not overt acts, thus no one would judge them or know about them or criminalize them without some overt pedophilic act, thus as a moral debate, the point is moot, its like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, no practical significance 759861 No.5301
>>5300fucken pointers sorry that was meant for
>>5297 490abe No.5302
>>5299>but you cant even say that shit because fuck the majority of modern psychologists see nothing wrong with spam, same with the majority of modern programmers, its all dsiagreed upon you knowNow, this is going into full-blown schizo territory.
>bane and b seem to love it, as such the majority of internet users also have no problem withSo go there, or create an /atheismbane/ or /b/ board and live the dream.
>let me spam faggots What's stopping you?
>Yes, you've got it now!I've had it.
>who cares>Give me a definition!I gave you a definition.
>Who cares
> they are not acts, thus no one would judge them or know about them or criminalize them without some overt pedophilic actAnd yet, they do. A pedophile can't get help without being treated like a criminal.
>thus as a moral debate, the point is mootIt's not just a moral debate, it's an ethical and practical debate.
>its like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, no practical significanceOh, you just compared it to something that doesn't exist. I can't take you seriously now.
345cd6 No.5303
>>5288First off, I said concrete, not just any "study". Studies must themselves be scrutinized and discussed, and because a study says something does not make it a 100% fact (which is why most have margins of error calculated) nor does it mean the study shows 100% accurate data. Posting a study that agrees with your view point does not automatically make you right.
Criticisms the study:
1. The study is a survey, and do not go off criminal reports or convictions. Those surveyed could have lied about their experiences or reported experiences that the researches would not have considered child abuse. Though I suspect the amount lying/misunderstanding would be low, it's still an issue to keep in mind.
2. It defines Child Sexual Abuse as
>Some people, while they are growing up in their first 18 years of life, had a sexual experience with an adult or someone at least 5 years older than themselvesAlready this is conflicting with the definition of pedophilia and sex with children many are using here. According to this study, a 17 year old raped by a 22 year old qualifies as a sexually abused child. This is absurd, even by current legal standards in most developed countries 17 is above the age of consent and are not considered children. The study does not list the individual ages (nor the mean, median, or mode) at which these evens were reported to have happened. For all we know most of the participants could be reporting events that happened when they were of legal consenting age, and hence not "children". The act of pedophilia is normally scientifically defined as the attraction to prepubescent humans. I see this as reason to throw the study into serious doubt of its accuracy of harm caused towards children.
3. It defines all sexual encounters with children as inherently abusive, even if the participant did not report it as abusive themselves. If we are to find out if children are being harmed, we must first determine what is abuse. A better study would frame its question as "Do sexual actions and relations with children result or strongly correlate to negative effects, either immediately or later in life?"
4. This study's main purpose was not even to find if sex with children was harmful, but whether boys experience it with similar frequency to girls. It's literally the first thing on the study. While not a case for outright dismissal, the study was not targeted at determining what I was asking for (does sex harm children?).
490abe No.5304
>>5301You must be the same person because no sane person can tie this guy's rebuttals to my arguments. You must legitimately have a mental disorder. Or just being statuefag.
490abe No.5305
>>5303Not the person you are responding to, in fact, I'm the one who thinks he's an idiot.
>The study is a survey, and do not go off criminal reports or convictions. Those surveyed could have lied about their experiences or reported experiences that the researches would not have considered child abuse. Though I suspect the amount lying/misunderstanding would be low, it's still an issue to keep in mind.That's true, but as a survey, it holds it's own merit.
>Already this is conflicting with the definition of pedophilia and sex with children many are using here.I agree, so it's a good think they aren't talking about pedophiles, but child molesters.
>According to this study, a 17 year old raped by a 22 year old qualifies as a sexually abused child.According to a few people in society, this applies.
Which is ridiculous, but it exists.
>The study does not list the individual ages (nor the mean, median, or mode) at which these evens were reported to have happened. For all we know most of the participants could be reporting events that happened when they were of legal consenting age, and hence not "children".True.
> The act of pedophilia is normally scientifically defined as the attraction to prepubescent humans. I see this as reason to throw the study into serious doubt of its accuracy of harm caused towards children.That is so, but the study doesn't make note of pedophiles in any definite regard. It just refers to the "sexual abuse" the child "experiences."
> It defines all sexual encounters with children as inherently abusive, even if the participant did not report it as abusive themselves.Interesting note, in the Kilpatrick study, the majority of "victims" of CSA in that study reported that they found the "abuse" enjoyable to some degree, but it made them feel bad.
A better study would frame its question as "Do sexual actions and relations with children result or strongly correlate to negative effects, either immediately or later in life?"
I recall a study, it might be the Kilpatrick or the Rind study, but the researchers found that in societies in which Child-adult sexual activity was ingrained had a lower rate of murder, rape, theft, assault, and even corruption. Such countires as Denmark, The Netherlands, Germany, Iceland, and Japan. When controlled for all factors including population, age, and reported crimes vs prosecuted crimes, the study seemed to hold up.
>This study's main purpose was not even to find if sex with children was harmful, but whether boys experience it with similar frequency to girls. It's literally the first thing on the study.Which is a bit odd, but taking it at face value, it seems to do what it sets out to do.
>While not a case for outright dismissal, the study was not targeted at determining what I was asking for (does sex harm children?).The study I posted here
>>5174Gives you what you need.
If you can find the other studies I mentioned, they explain the same thing but to a greater degree. I would post them, but I can't locate them.
8b3b2d No.5307
Speaking of how pedophiles cannot get help, I can explain that for those who haven't read about the issue. Here is an article describing a 20 year old who has been attracted to cp since he came of age at 16. The first psychologist was in denial he could be so young, and was so offended she started shouting at him like a normal Christian would in America. Then she broke confidentiallity to tell his mom his secret at the first meeting.
Still, it could have been worse since in the US (unlike Germany) it is mandatory for them to tell the authorities about those who possess cp (and I suspect related those who are inclined toward similiar thought crimes.) Frankly, it is a broken law.
For those that know this there is no longer any trust, and they won't seek help if it means an automatic jail sentence. It is why they cannot safely get counseling or medical help. If he were older than 16 this prejudiced psychologist probably would have followed her cultural biases about older pedos being potential child rapists. Instead of breaking the law she would have followed It and reported him, which would have ruined his life.
His next counselor told him to delete the harddrives which he did, and now he runs a small online community for those that deal with the problem. However, the group is just a loose forum, so it's not nearly as good a solution as if they could actually talk to those trained in the issue with confidentiality. There lies the problem: Dumb laws based on scapegoating are preventing pedophiles from safely getting the medical help they might desire.
https://medium.com/matter/youre-16-youre-a-pedophile-you-dont-want-to-hurt-anyone-what-do-you-do-now-e11ce4b88bdb 490abe No.5308
>>5307>Frankly, it is a broken law.It's Murika, what did you expect.
>It is why they cannot safely get counseling or medical help.And people can't admit that they actually want to help people or they are derided as criminals.
>and now he runs a small online community for those that deal with the problem. However, the group is just a loose forum, so it's not nearly as good a solution as if they could actually talk to those trained in the issue with confidentiality.I'd imagine it's a honeypot now.
759861 No.5309
>>5302>>5302this board really is home to some of the stupidest people on the chans
>It's not just a moral debate, it's an ethical and practical debate.no because ethics and morals exist in the context of society, your inner desires or attarctions or whatever word you want to substitute it with to change the goalposts does not have over actions, does not affect society and thus is not the subject of ethics.
being a pedophile, as you describe it, is not a moral or ethical issue, because it doesnt affect society to the point that no one will no it (because no one can read your mind)
it will only become an issue when you act like a pedophile
>Now, this is going into full-blown schizo territory. >What's stopping you?What is stopping me is the fact that some people on this board are too stupid to understand what an argument by analogy is
If ethics must be logically derrived, I should shit up your board because the rules preventing me from doing so are not logically derrived. Do you understand now.
Seriously if this is the logical power of you faggots, and you rejected God on the basis of logic like this, I would be very very worried about hell if I were you
If were as supid and irrational as some of you, I would never risk hell based on my logically derived conclusions,
8b3b2d No.5310
>>5309>ethics! > Logic!You don't understand logic, so you cannot begin to understand ethics. You are simply doing whatever you feel like doing at the moment.
759861 No.5311
File: 1427220923435.jpg (33.46 KB, 600x214, 300:107, 3cf6a0f08fd8982554cfe0c0fd….jpg)
>>5310>>5310I understand what an ad hominem is, do you
490abe No.5314
>>5309>this board really is home to some of the stupidest people on the chansThen why are you still here? Go somewhere where you feel more welcome.
>>>/christian/
>no because ethics and morals exist in the context of societyIf you seriously believe this, you must be a christian. I cannot believe I would have ever had to explain this.
Why is cannibalism considered acceptable in certain societies but not others. Why is it considered acceptable among certain individuals and not others.
Society is a collection of entities, society is not an entity. This is one of the basest mistakes one could make. Please learn some formal logic before you reply. You sound like a kid complaining that he has to go to school to better himself.
>being a pedophile, as you describe it, is not a moral or ethical issueI never said that. You're putting words in my mouth. I never even said something similar.
>because it doesnt affect society to the point that no one will no it (because no one can read your mind)It does, and that's precisely because people can't read minds. A man in Florida was burned alive in his front yard for being suspected of being a pedophile.
It is a problem.
>it will only become an issue when you act like a pedophile How the fuck does one act like a pedophile? This is just as stupid as saying that someone acts straight or gay. That is a matter of culture. In western culture, gay people are seen as feminine. In Japan, gay people are seen as masculine. This is why Japanese women prefer feminine men.
>What is stopping me is the fact that some people on this board are too stupid to understand what an argument by analogy is You haven't made one in response to the question.
>If ethics must be logically derrivedThis is not true. Look at Christian ethics, those are based on muh feels.
> I should shit up your board because the rules preventing me from doing so are not logically derrived. Do you understand now.I have always understood what you were trying to say, you don't have to keep repeating it. It's not going to make it any truer.
>and you rejected God on the basis of logic like this>rejected GodYeah, you're a christian.
>I would be very very worried about hell if I were youNow come the hell threats.
Ahahahaha!
>If were as supid and irrational as some of you, I would never risk hell based on my logically derived conclusions
>If were as supid and irrational as some of you>I would never risk hell based on my logically derived conclusions>as supid and irrational as some of you>my logically derived conclusionsLet that sink in.
490abe No.5315
>>5311You must not understand it, because he didn't attack your character, he attacked your logic, which is your argument to begin with.
>>5307So then why aren't Americans allowed to research Pedophilia?
6b59fd No.5325
>> 5314 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478285/Innocent-man-burned-death-vigilante-neighbours-mistook-paedophile.htmlThe innocent guy burned alive in his front yard was actually a disabled Iranian in the uk, not florida. The whole story is typical mob justice fueled by rumors like any good old fashioned witch hunt. Even today you never know when your neighbors will turn on you and takenthe law into their own hands because of their irrefutable gut feelings. That's a good reason to become a hermit, and live apart from the insanity of humanity. It's like that men in black quote, "A person can be smart, but people are large, dumb, panicky animals and you know it."
490abe No.5327
>>5325No, there was an event that also occurred in Florida.
7db274 No.5330
>>5309Fuck off, people should stop responding to your shitty bait posts. You clearly avoid informing yourself and you wouldn't like to admit you are wrong.
I cannot understand how people keep replying to you and did not see that you are a man who doesn't want to reach a conclusion.
Seriously faggots, stop responding to this retard, you are wasting your time, shouting at a blank wall.
7db274 No.5332
>>5325Very sad article, I can't believe we can live in modern times and in big cities, and shit like this happens. Imagine the terror the guy felt as he was dying, all he did was that he took photos so he would have evidence of kids fucking up his garden:
Bijan Ebrahimi, 44, took pictures of youths vandalising his flower baskets
A court heard he planned to give the images to police as evidence
But a neighbour saw him with a camera and reported him as a paedophile
Police arrested Mr Ebrahimi but let him go when they realised the mistake
But two days after his release he was attacked by vigilante neighbours
Lee James has pleaded guilty to murder after beating Mr Ebrahimi unconscious before dragging him into the street and setting him on fire
Stephen Norley pleaded guilty to assisting an offender
Both will be sentenced at Bristol Crown Court next month
Holy shit, this is just sad to see these neanderthals burning people alive for stupid shit like this, even if we actually was a pedophile, how can anyone call themselves a decent human being with empathy when they beat up a man who did no harm, and set him on fire? People freak out so much and they get so emotional when it comes to this, they stop thinking.
490abe No.5336
>>5330I do it, because I used to be him. I used to be an idiot who would not listen to reason and someone took the time to call me out on my bullshit.
>>5332This is just depressing.
8b3b2d No.5337
I just realized that scorning a pedophile is how many parents deflect the shame of realizing they were poor parents. If a child leaves a parent to seek the attention of another adult, that parent would naturally feel indignant at being abandoned or betrayed, and maybe even jealous.
"Did I not spend enough quality time with my kid? How could he do this when I'm a good parent that taught him the proper values? That man must have the forked tongue of the devil to make MY child do this to me!"
If the parent told his kid to break away from an adult and the child still met him anyway, you'd feel doubly betrayed by the rebellion. When your child says "No," and you feel like a failure of a parent it's easier to imagine the other adult is the evil thing that corrupted your little angel's thoughts. It's easier to blame the pedophile than it is to admit you cannot live a busy life and still utterly control your child's life.
>>5332I don't know which is worse, that or the time in Madagascar when a mob burned alive 2 innocent French tourists and a boy's uncle. Because he was wrongly accused of pedophilia, his daughter will grow up without a father.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449420/Last-words-tourist-killed-Madagascar-mob-recorded.htmlI imagine there have been hundreds of false allegations of child sex and vigilante attacks, and since whole communities scorn pedophiles, some murders might go unreported. Today the scarlet letter society brands on outcasts is no longer the letter A for adultery, but the letter P.
490abe No.5338
>>5337>I just realized that scorning a pedophile is how many parents deflect the shame of realizing they were poor parents.I don't think that applies to every case, but yes, I can see how that could happen.
>If the parent told his kid to break away from an adult and the child still met him anyway, you'd feel doubly betrayed by the rebellion. When your child says "No," and you feel like a failure of a parent it's easier to imagine the other adult is the evil thing that corrupted your little angel's thoughts. It's easier to blame the pedophile than it is to admit you cannot live a busy life and still utterly control your child's life. I could understand this, but Just as some adults are attracted to children, many children are attracted to adults.
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449420/Last-words-tourist-killed-Madagascar-mob-recorded.htmlWow, what the fuck.
>Today the scarlet letter society brands on outcasts is no longer the letter A for adultery, but the letter P.It is literally discrimination.
759861 No.5339
>>5315>ou must not understand it, because he didn't attack your character, he attacked your logic, which is your argument to begin with. you guys really are bad at this logic stuff
saying someone is irrational and they can't understand doesn't work unless you point out the irrationality in their argument or position, Kinda like I did before calling all of you irraional and stupid.
>>5330great rage, but the point stands. Ethics is not based on reason, it is based on values (derrived from feelings)
you don't let me shitpost and spam your board because you value discussion
let me illustrate this differently. You could perma-ban me today forever. You could have perma-banned me weeks ago when I called you all hypocrites. There is no logical reason why I should not be perma-banned.
To justify not perma-banning me, you have to justify it based on free speech and discussion.
But is there a logical reason why free speech and discussion on image boards is a good thing? like you said, my speech pisses you off, has convinced no one, and I assume people here think my arguments are bad. In such a situation there is no logical reason to let me keep going.
But no one has yet demanded that, why, because free speech, because you
value free speech. As in you think it is precious, you care about it. And this value isn't derived from any logical chain of arguments, this is based on feelings.
Does that make free speech invalid or worthless or stupid? No just like the fact that it is value derived does not make the innocence of our children invalid or worthless or stupid.
read Neitzche sometime, have you read beyond good and evil. He rejects ethics, because he says that without God there is no logical grounding for ethics. It is not about whether it is right or wrong, but whether we can accept the consequences. And I think Neitzche is right here, I haven't seen any counter arguments
There is no such thing as logic derived values or logic derived ethics. Our choice is between admitting that it is logical to protect peoples' values are feelings or abandoning ethics altogether and living like swine. And if you choose the latter, I'm sure you won't mind me shitposting. because ethics has to be equal fo everyone (ie. if you want to live in society you have to respect other people's values and feelings to a certain extent)
759861 No.5340
>>5337>>5332Do any of you have a reason other than muh feelings why its wrong to beat people unconscious and set them on fire?
Why is murder wrong, other than muh feelings?
I mean Hijan doesn't care anymore right, he is dead.
7db274 No.5341
>>5340Fuck off christfag, everyone here is tired of re-explaining themselves why they don't instantly turn into savages. Go shill on /islam/ or something.
7db274 No.5342
>>5337>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449420/Last-words-tourist-killed-Madagascar-mob-recorded.htmlAbsolutely saddening, I don't want to imagine how he felt when he just died barbarically for absolutely nothing. Even to the worst murderer or criminal, I cannot take joy in watching him burn or being tortured, I'd rather see a quick death. Those people are savages, even if he was or wasn't a pedophile, they have no empathy.
759861 No.5343
>>5341>e everyone here is tired of re-explaining themselves why they don't instantly turn into savages yeah but what you haven't explained is why it's irraitonal or illogical to turn into savages, and you can't do that, because if you could, you could write a treatise on why Neitzche is wrong and make millions instead of posting it around on imageboards
7db274 No.5344
>>5343Fuck off christfag. Check my dubs, you do not deserve a well thought reply anymore.
490abe No.5345
>>5339>you guys really are bad at this logic stuff You're wrong.
>saying someone is irrational and they can't understand doesn't work unless you point out the irrationality in their argument or positionWhich you didn't do.
> Kinda like I did before calling all of you irraional and stupid.You didn't, because you were incorrect.
>Ethics is not based on reasonEthics is based on morals which could arguably coincide with values, but I do not think that they do. I think that they are distinct.
> it is based on values (derrived from feelings)This is wrong. I bet you're going to say that morality comes from god.
>you don't let me shitpost and spam your board because you value discussion Shitposting is fine. I welcome shitposting. Spam is pointless, and everyone agrees on this point.
>But is there a logical reason why free speech and discussion on image boards is a good thing?>Is there a logical reason why good things are good?Wow, this is some Aquinas level of insight.
>let me illustrate this differently. You could perma-ban me today forever.Why would we? Do you want us to?
>You could have perma-banned me weeks ago when I called you all hypocrites.>You could have perma-banned me for calling you names.This isn't /christian/
>There is no logical reason why I should not be perma-banned. You haven't done anything illegal. What are you on about, mate?
> like you said, my speech pisses you off, has convinced no one, and I assume people here think my arguments are bad.Are you depressed so you are engaging in self-destructive behavior?
> In such a situation there is no logical reason to let me keep going.We don't ban people just because we don't like them. Like I said, this isn't /christian/
>But no one has yet demanded that, why, because free speech, because you value free speech.True.
>And this value isn't derived from any logical chain of arguments, this is based on feelings.This is false. I can't speak for anyone else, but I value free speech because logically, it is the neutral point. Which says to me that you do not think it is a neutral point. So you naturally have speech that you want banned.
>Does that make free speech invalid or worthless or stupid?Based on your premises, yes. But just because you say that morality is based on emotion, doesn't make it true.
>No just like the fact that it is value derived does not make the innocence of our children invalid or worthless or stupid.Based on your premises, yes, it does. It's a good thing that your premises are incorrect.
>I have, but I'm not a nihilist if that's what you think.
>have you read beyond good and evil.Yes, I have.
> He rejects ethicsI doubt that, but okay, let's say he does.
>because he says that without God there is no logical grounding for ethics.I fucking knew it.
> It is not about whether it is right or wrongRight and wrong don't objectively exist.
>but whether we can accept the consequences.It depends on how you define consequence.
>And I think Neitzche is right hereStrange opinion for a christfag.
>I haven't seen any counter argumentsYou have, you are just to dull to realize them.
>There is no such thing as logic derived values or logic derived ethics.There is, and just because you say there aren't doesn't make it so.
>Our choice is between admitting that it is logical to protect peoples' values are feelings or abandoning ethics altogether and living like swine. You're telling me you think that it's okay to murder someone just because you feel like it?
>And if you choose the latter, I'm sure you won't mind me shitposting.I already stated multiple times, that I don't mind shitposting, I actually find it quite entertaining.
>because ethics has to be equal fo everyoneIt is, that's how you know that it's logically derived.
>>5340>Do any of you have a reason other than muh feelings why its wrong to beat people unconscious and set them on fire?This is where ethics comes into play. Everyone has a different reason. But for me, murder is wrong because their life doesn't belong to me. This is why I am perfectly okay with suicide.
>>5343>yeah but what you haven't explained is why it's irraitonal or illogical to turn into savagesAnd yet, you speak of that as it's bad.
We have already explained why. I just did. If someone wants to be a savage, they can do that on their own time, as for me. I prefer to better my life.
>you could write a treatise on why Neitzche is wrong and make millions instead of posting it around on imageboards
>Rebutting philosophy>Making millionsPick one.
>>5344Then just ignore him. If you do not think he deserves a reply, tell him why his argument is bullshit instead of calling him names.
7db274 No.5346
>>5345>Then just ignore him. If you do not think he deserves a reply, tell him why his argument is bullshit instead of calling him names.Don't worry, I told him why his arguments are bullshit before, and so have others. The problem is that he refuses to admit he is wrong and he tries to twist our words instead, and then move on to say that we aren't allowing him to spam the board because of "emotions". He then goes to say that he is persecuted and this board is not about free speech just because he made another thread which already existed, and he wasn't even fucking banned for it. Not only that, but pretty much all his arguments are fallacious and if you think that you can reason with him then I wish you good luck.
You are honestly wasting time because he doesn't want to reach a conclusion, he keeps repeating his already destroyed arguments forever. What he should do right now is check repeating numbers, there is a point where even if you move on from the debate, you haven't lost it. The person who spoke the last words is not the one who is right, it's up to you to decide if you want to convince him how most of his posts are inane, I don't have any more sanity for him.
759861 No.5347
>>5345only replying to the worthwhile points
>Ethics is not based on reason
>Ethics is based on morals which could arguably coincide with values, but I do not think that they do. I think that they are distinct.you are a victim of language confusion, based on dictionary ordinary definitions, ethics is considered the study of what is right and wrong and morals is considered what is right and wrong so when you say ethics is based on morals, the statement is a tautology and meaningless unless you want to apply a unique definition to things
> I can't speak for anyone else, but I value free speech because logically, it is the neutral point. Which says to me that you do not think it is a neutral point. So you naturally have speech that you want banned. But for something to be logical, it has to rest on proof, you have to logically prove why its better than another system. To have free speech on a board, (using this as an example only I dont actually care if you ban me or prevent me from spamming or whatever) . . . anyways, to have free speech on a board, and to justify it logically, you have to logically prove that its better than other systems which do not advocate free speech. And if you cant logically prove it, then you are not deciding based on logic, you are deciding based on something else.
Let me illustrate
You seem to be saying that free speech is the thing that would be the neutral thing (I dont know if you mean most fair for everyone, but that doesnt matter, for now, lets assume this position is based on logic)
The problem is contradicts other values (for example Bentham would have said greatest happiness is the ultimate value, in this case free speech is not valuable, and we should let people vote to decide what kind of speech is acceptable and what is not, and the restrictions on speech that make the most people happy are what we should have (kinda like EU and Canada democratically approved speech restrictions on things like hate speech)
Kant would say that a marriage of the universal and subjective is what decides ethics, so in this case all speech that we would not want everyone to say all the time would be banned based on the categorical imperative (kinda like a totalitarian government with people deciding based on what they believe is good)
So who is right here, you with your neutrality principle, Kant with his categorical imperative or Bentham with his greatest happiness principle. Now when you choose between these, can you really claim you are making a logical choice
I dont believe you are, and I think Neitzche would say you are not either.
Its been a while since I read him, but Ill try and formulate a similified version of his argument, what reality does ethics or morality have. Does it have a physical reality that you can sceintifically examine. Is ethics like a chair that we can look at. If not, how can we call it objective, how can we call that which has no reality as an object objective, thus it must be subjective. Since logic is objective (ie see pic related symbolic logic - its the same for everyone, there are no opinions on it it is mathematical ) and ethics subjective, ethics and morality cannot be logically derived - it must be based on things other than logic - and as far as I know, there is logic, and feelings and values, I dont know of any third resource people use to make decisions
8b3b2d No.5348
>>5346Instructions on how to better ignore Statuebait: Click on the arrow to the left of his Ieft of his post and click "add filter -> ignore post by ID." I have done it on the basis he has written long off-topic posts that have contributed nothing to this thread, and has a history of doing so. This will also be my recourse whenever I see him in the future until his parents spank him for humanity and he grows up. Until then I'll adhere to the saying, "do not feed the energy creature, " and pretend he never wrote anything.
759861 No.5349
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
Wanted to add . . . If anyone is actually following and is interested in the debate on whether it is possible to have ethics based on logic/ethics without god . . .
Notre dame university hosted a debate on this same subject between atheist Sam Harris and Christian William Lane Craig
It is very long but if anyone is really interested and has spare time, it is one of the more interesting Christian v. Atheist debates.
7db274 No.5350
>>5348I can't bring myself to censor anyone, no matter how much I dislike them or their posts, I will just not reply to them.
8b3b2d No.5352
>>5350I'm doing it for productivity. If he made shorter posts or stuck with the topic I might even accept him, but he posts pages of off-topic nonsense to derail a thread which makes it harder to scroll down to read the things that actually matter. Many repeat the feel-good platitude that everyone has the right to an opinions, but the idea that everyone has an equal opinion is silly. There are better thought opinions, done with more research and by smarter people, and imo he needs to lurk more. At least until his destructive viewpoint changes with maturity. Pic not really related.
490abe No.5357
>>5347>Ethics is not based on reasonWho said this?
>Ethics is based on morals which could arguably coincide with values, but I do not think that they do. I think that they are distinct.Morality is not based on emotion.
>you are a victim of language confusion, based on dictionary ordinary definitions, ethics is considered the study of what is right and wrong and morals is considered what is right and wrong so when you say ethics is based on moralsMorality is a definition of right or wrong.
Ethics is applied morality.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethics?s=t
> the statement is a tautologyBut it's not wrong.
>But for something to be logical, it has to rest on proof, you have to logically prove why its better than another system.Because it's the only system.
>to have free speech on a board, and to justify it logically, you have to logically prove that its better than other systems which do not advocate free speech1. No we don't. Because if a system works, whether or not another system works better is a bonus.
2. It's a fucking imageboard, it's not immoral if it does or doesn't contain free speech. Our metric is that people normally prefer boards that do contain free speech. Apparently, you don't. So go to a board that doesn't have free speech, like /christian/. Oh wait, you're here, which means that you agree with me.
>Bentham would have said greatest happiness is the ultimate value, in this case free speech is not valuableFree speech usually gives happiness. It's like you didn't even read the picture that you posted.
>and we should let people vote to decide what kind of speech is acceptable and what is notWe do, and people want free speech.
>Kant would say that a marriage of the universal and subjective is what decides ethics, so in this case all speech that we would not want everyone to say all the time would be banned based on the categorical imperative (kinda like a totalitarian government with people deciding based on what they believe is good) Oh boy, here we go again!
>So who is right here, you with your neutrality principle, Kant with his categorical imperative or Bentham with his greatest happiness principle. Now when you choose between these, can you really claim you are making a logical choice There is more than one right answer.
Mine, just happens to be one of them.
>similifiedThe fuck is this?
>what reality does ethics or morality have.A subjective reality. As I said, good and evil do not exist.
>Is ethics like a chair that we can look at.Yes. It is a substantive entity.
Morality however; is not.
>its the same for everyoneLogic is the same for everyone, not the products of that logic. There can be more than one right answer.
> I dont know of any third resource people use to make decisionsYou're looking at the answer and you think it's wrong.
490abe No.5358
>>5352Are you sure that pic isn't related? ( ° ʖ °)
759861 No.5362
>>5357Either I am missing your point or you are confused
>Ethics is not based on reason>Who said this?I am saying that, that's the point I've been arguing since the beginning, OP said pedophilia is okay because there is no logical reason to oppose it and I said, but ethics/morality is not based on reason, it's based on subjective values
so let's go sort through to the main point
>Logic is the same for everyone, not the products of that logic. There can be more than one right answer.so we can defend more than one thing based on logic, for example, you can use logic to argue that candy is good, and I can use logic to argue that candy is bad. That there can me muliple answers
however, for ethics to be based on logic, it means more than saying that I can defend it based on logic, it means saying I came to this conclusion because of logic, I believe this because used logic to arrive at this conclusion.
For such things, there can be only one answer, because if you used logic to arrive at a conclusion, and logic is objective, I (or anyone else) should be able to use the same logic to arrive at the same conlusion. If it is not possible for everyone else to do that, then your conclusion is not based on logic, it is based on something else.
Do you understand what I am saying?
let's look at an example from an early philosopher derriving truth from logic
1. You can cut apples
2. to cut an apple there has to be a space which the knife can penetrate ( a void) otherwise things would be infinitely hard and I would not be able to cut them
3 It is impossible that I should be able to cut through an apple an infinite amount of times because that would mean an apple is made of infinite nothing,
THEREFORE
there must be a point which you cannot cut, and apples and all things are made of voids _ tiny things that are indivisible, , , I will call these things atoms
This was the logical conclusion of the pilospher democritus who invented atoms around 2400 years ago.
Notice the thing about Democritus, his conclusions are based entirely on logic, not feelings or values. He is not defending his positions logically, instead he is arriving at his conclusions through logic. As a result, his conclusions are logical, you and anyone else can see the logic and agree that his conclusions are true. Of course today we have electron microscopes and can do experiments to prove the truth of atoms, but if we didn't have that and we were in the iron age, we can know atoms exist just by following Democtius logic.
Notice this isn't a matter of opinion, because Democritus proved his point logically, anyone can follow Democritus logic which I posted in numbere format and know what he is saying is true. Anyone who disagreed or said it's a matter of opinion after seeing the logic is just being an ass.
This is how logic derrived truths work, because logic is objective logic derrive truths must also be objective. We can all agree on how logical reasoning works and what is and isn't logical, so if something is based on reason, we should be able to follow the logical chain of arguements and see that it is true and agree, and it should be like science or math, where only an ass could disagree.
So yes you can defend your ethical positions using logic, but you can't say they are derrived from logic or based on logic unless you can assert their objectivity (everyone who is not irrational would agree)
490abe No.5363
>>5362Your logic is all fucked up. I already answered every one of these points. If you have something on topic to talk about, I'm game. Otherwise, I'm done with you.
There is no logical reason to be against pedophilia.
759861 No.5366
>>5363>Your logic is all fucked up. I'm not the one who thinks logic is subjective
>There is no logical reason to be against pedophilia.just like there is no logical reason to be against beating pedophiles unconscious and burning them alive
490abe No.5367
>>5366>I'm not the one who thinks logic is subjectiveNeither did I. So who did?
>just like there is no logical reason to be against beating pedophiles unconscious and burning them aliveThere is a logical reason for that, because someone is being harmed. Just being a pedophile harms nobody.
759861 No.5368
>>5367>There is a logical reason for that, because someone is being harmed. prevention of harm is not a fucken logical reason, that's a value derrived, logic cannot tell you that harm is bad
in fact every single logic derrived system of ethics (whether kant or mills or etc) that you learn in actual philosophy class has circumstances in which people are harmed.
There is nothing logical about always preventing harm
526c0f No.5370
>>5368I just wanna point out that you're arguing with someone who would think that Batman shouldn't kill the Joker because that would be causing harm.
8b3b2d No.5371
>>5370You're severely misrepresenting the argument. He either was against torturing the Joker with fire + killing him, or was the one opposed to murder on the basis that rehabilitation is better.
Furthermore the Joker is a caricurture of unredeemable cartoon evil that rarely exists, and certainly not in every pedophile. As long as a person is redeemable every reasonable effort at rehabilitation should be made, with removing them from society as the very last resort. As was explained 20 some posts ago, pedophiles cannot even try to professional rehabilitation without being handed to the police and shunned.
490abe No.5373
>>5368>logic cannot tell you that harm is bad It can and it does.
And I have already explained how.
>>5370That's not true.
Joker harmed a lot of people. And has already tried to be rehabilitated. You're misrepresenting my position.
>>5371>He either was against torturing the Joker with fire + killing himTorture and murder are two different things, but I agree with everything else you said.
759861 No.5374
>>5371>>5371See doctor patient confidentality (also applies to therapists)
https://www.dont-offend.org/story/88/3888.htmlPedo arguments are not only deprived of all logic, they are also outright lies
On one point they deny the existance of moral standards like don't have sex with kids while also arguing and pleading moral standarsd like don't discriminate against us, be compassionate towards us, etc.
Logical dissonance and also bad people
490abe No.5375
>>5374>See doctor patient confidentality (also applies to therapists)Doctpr-patient confidentiality can be broken when the patient is a threat to their self and others. And pedophiles are viewed as a threat by default. You apparently haven't researched this topic enough. Just read the damn DSM-V.
>Pedo arguments are not only deprived of all logic, they are also outright liesLying about a lie.
You've already proven that you don't know what logic is, statuefag.
>On one point they deny the existance of moral standardsThis has never happened.
> like don't have sex with kidsOh, so we're not talking about pedophiles are we? Gotcha.
>pleading moral standarsd like don't discriminate against us, be compassionate towards us, etc. Why is this a bad thing?
>Logical dissonance and also bad peopleI see none but on your side.
759861 No.5376
>>5375>statute fag, statute fag, don't listen to him o r notice my fallacious and idiotic arguments .the website says pedos are not considered a threat by default, thereapists do not automatically refer for desire nor does the law punish for mere desire. What pedos are is liars.
here have another arguement
1, if pedos didn't rape kids, they would have nothing to worry about, becuase mere desire is not criminalized nor can anyone discriminate against them based on desire because no one can see your desires
2. the only type of discrimination a pedo could suffer is discrimination for their actions, as people cannot discirmiate against them for thoughts and feelings that they don't know about
.: there is no such thing as anti-pedo discrimination
there can only be discrimination against people who act on it
490abe No.5377
>>5376The prime definition between therapists and psychiatrists is that psychiatrists can actually help people.
>What pedos are is liars.You can say it all you want, doesn't make it true.
>statute fag, statute fag, don't listen to him o r notice my fallacious and idiotic arguments .How are my arguments fallacious? You're so noticeable because you regularly make ridiculous smear attacks.
>if pedos didn't rape kids, they would have nothing to worry aboutWell, they don't and yet, as that story with a man who was burned alive tells us, they do have something to worry about. And that person wasn't even a pedo.
Try again.
>becuase mere desire is not criminalizedYet, it is still punished. Being a pedophile does not make someone want to molest kids.
>nor can anyone discriminate against them based on desire because no one can see your desiresBut they are discriminated based on some perceived desire.
> the only type of discrimination a pedo could suffer is discrimination for their actionsI have already proven that this is not true.
>as people cannot discirmiate against them for thoughts and feelings that they don't know aboutThey think they know.
You don't know much about this subject.
>there is no such thing as anti-pedo discriminationThis is an outright lie.
>there can only be discrimination against people who act on itAnd yet, there is discrimination against those who do not act on it.
759861 No.5378
>>5377>>5377
>They think they know. >You don't know much about this subject.and you're the expert who thinks therapists automatically violate doctor patient confidentiality and turn people in
>But they are discriminated based on some perceived desire.no one can persive desires or know you are a pedo unless you did or said something pedo am I right
I had a friend in highschool who was gay, and no one picked on him, why - because he was still in the closet, and didn't have a boyfriend or anything
get it - if you are a non-practicing pedo, no one would know you are a pedo, or have perceptions or have any grounds to discriminate
490abe No.5379
>>5378>and you're the expert who thinks therapists automatically violate doctor patient confidentiality and turn people inI didn't say that therapists do any such thing. You said doctor-patient confidentiality and therapists aren't doctors so they aren't bound to doctor-patient confidentiality.
I just assumed that you were talking about Psychiatrists because they 'are' doctors.
>2015>Seeing a therapistISHYGDDT
>no one can persive desires or know you are a pedo unless you did or said something pedo am I right
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449420/Last-words-tourist-killed-Madagascar-mob-recorded.html
>www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478285/Innocent-man-burned-death-vigilante-neighbours-mistook-paedophile.htmlThese people disagree with you. Oh wait, they can't because they're fucking dead for a crime they didn't commit.
>I had a friend in highschool who was gayNice anecdote, faggot.
>and no one picked on him, why - because he was still in the closetEven if this were true, I have an anecdote, too.
I had a friend in high school who was straight and he was derided for being gay based on his long hair, his high-pitched voice, and his manner of gesture.
>get it - if you are a non-practicing pedo, no one would know you are a pedoDo you still think that atheists defend Muslims or did you accept that mountain of evidence yet?
>or have perceptions or have any grounds to discriminateAnd yet, they still do it. Why? Because it doesn't matter if a person practices their perversions or not. What matters is how society treats these people. You're changing the topic again.
759861 No.5381
>>5379it's like you expect us to not even read the article
>happened in Madagascar >happened because mob mistook him for a pedophile who had recently murdered a boy a few days before so no one was killed for mistaken identity of being a pedo, they were killed for mistaken identity of being a pedo who kills children after cutting off their penis
>I had a friend in high school who was straight and he was derided for being gay based on his long hair, his high-pitched voice, and his manner of gesture. so no discriination against gays discrimiantion against dandies
either way discrimination is for actions not thoughts, which was the point
Do you still think that atheists defend Muslims or did you accept that mountain of evidence yet?
>\do you still change the subject and yell christfag when losing a debate
>What matters is how society treats these people.How do they know they are pedos, how you stupid faggot
How do they know
is there something like a gaydar for pedos
490abe No.5382
>>5381>happened in MadagascarWhat does it matter?
>happened because mob mistook him for a pedophile who had recently murdered a boy a few days before And yet, the cops state that they don't think that the boy was murdered, they think that he drowned.
>so no one was killed for mistaken identity of being a pedo, they were killed for mistaken identity of being a pedo who kills children after cutting off their penisYou didn't read the other article…
>so no discriination against gays discrimiantion against dandiesDiscrimination against perceived gays.
>either way discrimination is for actions not thoughts, which was the point Those actions do not accurately represent those thoughts.
>\do you still change the subject and yell christfag when losing a debateI didn't change the subject, I am still on-topic, I just added to it.
>How do they know they are pedos, how you stupid faggotYou must be 12 because I've explained this multiple times before.
They don't know that they're pedos, they think they know.
You must have mental problems.
759861 No.5383
>>5382>>5382>And yet, the cops state that they don't think that the boy was murdered, they think that he drowned. penis cut off , madagascan police aint that reliable
>They don't know that they're pedos, they think they know.THEN WHAT THE FUCK DO PEDOS HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT. THEY ARE NOT ATTACKING YOU, THEY ARE ATTACKING RANDOM PEOPLE ON VAGUE ALLEGATIONS. ARE YOU STUPID
490abe No.5384
>>5383Fish have been known to eat the genitals of drown victims, especially around Africa.
One of those random people just might be a pedo. You have to literally be stupid if you don't get this.
759861 No.5385
>>5384
>One of those random people just might be a pedo. You have to literally be stupid if you don't get thisall you have proven is that I am just as likely to get attacked as pedos are, because lynch mobs dont really do good investigations
you havent shown that the world is a dangerous place for pedos unless they act on their desires
490abe No.5387
>>5385I have proven that, and in doing so, I have also proven that pedo-hysteria is dangerous for non-pedophiles as well.
You or I are just as likely to be persecuted a a pedophile. That makes it even worse, and the fact that you cannot see this is next-level lunacy.
759861 No.5388
>>5387
>You or I are just as likely to be persecuted a a pedophile. That makes it even worse, and the fact that you cannot see this is next-level lunacy.right . . . so . . . ITT lynch mobs are bad
now about that pedo discrimination thing again?
490abe No.5389
>>5388Those lynch mobs are hurting innocent people based on them being pedos.
That is anti-pedo discrimination.
You are legitimately stupid.
759861 No.5390
>>5389is it pedos being attacked or random innocent people
discrimination is something done to you, not something done to random people
a nonpracticing pedo is at no more of risk of falling to a lynch mob than any other person, thus are not suffering discrimination - their lives are no different than mine
the only ones who need to be worreid are the practicing peods, and fuck them
490abe No.5391
>>5390>is it pedos being attacked or random innocent peopleIn these posted circumstances, it's non-pedos, but there are circumstances in which it happens to pedos as well.
>discrimination is something done to you, not something done to random people If a straight person is attacked because the attacker thought they were gay, it's still an anti-gay crime.
>a nonpracticing pedo is at no more of risk of falling to a lynch mob than any other personThat's true. But those other people are also attacked because people thought they were pedophiles.
>the only ones who need to be worreid are the practicing peodsYou mean child-molesters?
Are you a practicing straight person?
The terms you're using make no sense.
>and fuck themGetting kinda emotional there are you? Why?
395529 No.5392
>>5391You don't have to make it your job to babysit Alex's kid.
759861 No.5404
>>5391we went over this
pedos who do no rape are at no greater risk than the average population
so there is no fucken issue for pedos who do not rape
you cannot cry about discrimination for pedos who do not rape by pointing to risks for pedos who do
59d58d No.5405
So what's the tl;dr of this thead?
As for my view on things, pedos and such are ok as long as they don't hurt anyone, unless the other person want's to be hurt.
490abe No.5407
>>5404>pedos who do no rape are at no greater risk than the average populationAnd yet, there are people who want to murder pedophiles that don't rape people.
>so there is no fucken issue for pedos who do not rape You must not have read the thread.
>you cannot cry about discrimination for pedos who do not rape by pointing to risks for pedos who doI also pointed to risks for pedos in general.
>>5405tl;dr: Moralfaggotry is the only way one could possibly oppose pedophilia. As there is no logical reason for one to oppose pedophilia.
759861 claims that all morals come from God and that atheists don't believe in morals because morals are not logical and that this is somehow good.
759861 No.5408
File: 1427300361941.jpg (35.37 KB, 1522x118, 761:59, ScreenHunter_155 Mar. 25 1….jpg)
ITT preds pretending they are not for child rape while arguing for child rape and saying only christians could oppose them
see
>>5106every single poster ITT who called out pedos got shit flung out at them, had shit flung at them, had their arguements and points misrepresented and twisted
pedos have ignored points about the harm sexual molestation causes children
such as
>>5164and
>>5171>>5184>>5176>>5176pedos have proven themselves incapable of logic, and incapable of having serious discussion about the issue.
They will say anything to justify their desires
8b3b2d No.5409
>>5405Some significant posts for those new to the thread:
>>5014Op asks if being molested is actually worse than death, and this question runs throughout the thread.
>>50643 fantastic thought experiments are created to show cases where child sex might not be harmful. The thought experiments run throughout the thread.
>>5056The argument that pedophiles can be medically treated like gays first appears.
>>5108Moralfag makes his 3 sets of lengthy posts in the thread up to date. His arguments are based on what he "feels" are wrong. His running argument hinged on the ideas kids cannot consent to sex, and pedophiles are by nature dangerous because they are potential rapists, and that they are potential criminals, and criminals deserve full punishment rather than rehabilitation.
>>5090The running argument that age of consent laws differ across different countries and 18 is just a magic number first appears.
>>5168 When a Moralfag argues those laws must be old, the argument is shot down on it's face with a map of Europe that shows most countries are under 18.
>>5198The running argument favored by Moralfags that a child's brain is not developed enough to choose to have sex is rebuked by pointing out it is not necessary to have a fully developed brain to enjoy sex.
>>5174Another post provides a study to prove sex in childhood does not lead to developmental harm as an adult, except in the case of abuse, which is by definition abuse.
>>5124Our dislike of pedophiles is partly due to cultural conditioning.
>>5286The post positing much of our dislike of pedophiles is cultural is elaborated on in response to moralfag's third set of posts.
>then statuefag appears to try and shit up the thread by going off-topic.>>5307A link explains why pedophiles cannot consult psychiatrists due to laws that void the principle of doctor-patient confidentiality.
>>5337>>5342Links to two cases of wrongly accused pedophiles burned to death
>then statuefag activates "full-power-shit-up-the-thread-for-giggles" spam modeTl;dr version:
There is a cultural bias against pedophiles that isn't justified because it hasn't been proven that either pedophiles do harm, or those that have sex with children. However the public associates them with child rapists (molesters) which has tainted their images enough that mobs are willing to disregard the principle of rule of law and go on witch hunts. Laws exist to harshly burn pedophiles, because otherwise average people would literally form mobs and burn pedophiles with fire, which a actually still happens.
490abe No.5410
>>5408>ITT preds pretending they are not for child rape while arguing for child rape and saying only christians could oppose them What the fuck are preds?
Nobody argued for child rape.
Nobody said only christians could oppose them. Personally, I said moralfags. Good to know that you think all moralfags are christians. That tells us a lot about you, but that's not true. There are quite a few atheist moralfags.
>pedos have ignored points about the harm sexual molestation causes childrenThere aren't any pedos in here to my knowledge, so no they didn't. I know I've ignored them, even though I agree with them, because this thread isn't about molestation, it's about pedophilia.
>every single poster ITT who called out pedos got shit flung out at them, had shit flung at them, had their arguements and points misrepresented and twisted There aren't any pedos in this thread to my knowledge so this entire statement is wrong.
>>5164What pedophilia was there in this video?
This is the child of rage documentary.
>pedos have proven themselves incapable of logic, and incapable of having serious discussion about the issue. I don't see how you have come to this conclusion. I have not seen a single pedophile in this thread.
>They will say anything to justify their desiresYou seem a little personally motivated by this.
I'd be suspicious of anything you'd have to say.
Your mental state doesn't seem stable.
——
>>5409>Op asks if being molested is actually worse than death, and this question runs throughout the thread.Just about.
>3 fantastic thought experiments are created to show cases where child sex might not be harmful. The thought experiments run throughout the thread.Those experiments do have their flaws, but they were very insightful.
>The argument that pedophiles can be medically treated like gays first appears.Taken for granted.
>Moralfag makes his 3 sets of lengthy posts in the thread up to date. His arguments are based on what he "feels" are wrong. His running argument hinged on the ideas kids cannot consent to sex, and pedophiles are by nature dangerous because they are potential rapists, and that they are potential criminals, and criminals deserve full punishment rather than rehabilitation.This guy was fun. At least he could keep up an argument. An argument with statuefag literally goes nowhere. This was the guy, who started a thread asking atheists why they attack christianity but suck Islam's dick, almost every sinlge poster calls him out on his bullshit and provides evidence to the contrary while he ignores it and claims that he was not shown any evidence. Which is exactly the same thing he does in this thread. Even now, he still believes that there are pedos in this thread.
>The running argument that age of consent laws differ across different countries and 18 is just a magic number first appears.Which is a logical point. Statuefag, take notes.
>The running argument favored by Moralfags that a child's brain is not developed enough to choose to have sex is rebuked by pointing out it is not necessary to have a fully developed brain to enjoy sex.A common response to a commonly rebutted argument.
>Our dislike of pedophiles is partly due to cultural conditioning.There is a lot of evidence for this claim, but I feel that more research needs to be done in this topic.
>A link explains why pedophiles cannot consult psychiatrists due to laws that void the principle of doctor-patient confidentiality.Statuefag apparently thinks that therapists and Psychiatrists are the same thing. And these laws are based on a misunderstood definition of the term "pedophile."
>There is a cultural bias against pedophiles that isn't justified because it hasn't been proven that either pedophiles do harm, or those that have sex with children.And statistics show that the majority of people who rape and molest children aren't even attracted to children.
Truly a sad state of affairs.
759861 No.5411
>>5410>You seem a little personally motivated by this.>I'd be suspicious of anything you'd have to say. fucken projection coming from the faggots posting lolicon and making emotional appeals and croc tears for pedos
759861 No.5412
>>5410>>The running argument that age of consent laws differ across different countries and 18 is just a magic number first appears.>>Which is a logical point. Statuefag, take notes.18 just magic number so itès okay to fuck 12 years old we so logical
you are a deranged idiot
if it was just me accusing you of tiwsting my words and making irrational arguments and playing games, you could shout staute fag and win the debate like all children incapable of logic do, but more than one poster has, more than one poster has objected to you only to be called christfag, or moral fag and shouted down while you make your emotional pleas about lynch mobs and stupid though experiments
more than one scietnific study has been ignored
you have nothing but your perversions
59db34 No.5413
Holy shit this thread got long. I'm just gonna add to a point I had made earlier in reply to this post:
>>5175Another problem that I found with this is, according to the Wikipedia article on the subject (in b4 "Wikipedia is invalid" check the links.), that most of these countries have other laws that complicate the issue. You've made your argument by generalizing the laws in these countries.
For instance, Spain, the country you seem to love so much:
>if deceit is used in gaining the consent of a minor under 16 years an individual can be charged under Article 182(1)[108] upon ""parental complaint.""http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#SpainWhen reading the bill its self, you can get arrested for sexual relations with a child (under the age of 16) if the parents feel you were deceitful.
There's some countries that have the age of consent increase depending on your relationship (With person), your age, or your job. And overall, age of consent is around 14-16, which at least around the ending stages of puberty, (Sexual maturity) yet there are still laws in a lot of these countries that protect teenagers around those ages from being taken advantage of.
I don't even know how this is an argument for pedophilia. Just because a country has a low age of consent doesn't mean they're all about child-adult sexual relations.
490abe No.5414
>>5411>fucken projectionNice try.
>coming from the faggots posting loliconLolicon does not equal pedophile. You really need to get out more often. And it was coming from me. And I haven't posted any lolicon.
I posted this
>>5398
>and making emotional appeals The only emotional appeals here are from you and another moralfag.
>and croc tears for pedosIf they're crocodile tears, then we don't actually care.
Statuefag misusing a word. Nothing new here.
Also, I've tried to refrain from such a pedantic point, but goddamn, learn some punctuation and spelling. Making errors every once in a while is acceptable, but you have the internet, you really shouldn't be misspelling anything.
>>5412>18 just magic number so itès okay to fuck 12 years old we so logical Nobody said this. What you are doing is called a strawman.
He said that having 18 as the age of consent doesn't make any sense, he did not say the 12 did make sense. Stop putting words in peoples' mouths.
>you are a deranged idiotComing from the guy who said gems such as:
>prevention of harm is not a fucken logical reason
>there is no logical reason to be against beating pedophiles unconscious and burning them alive
>Do any of you have a reason other than muh feelings why its wrong to beat people unconscious and set them on fire?
>Why is murder wrong, other than muh feelings?
>Every single argument you use to stop my shitposting and ending discussion I can use to end pedophiles and their acts
>Thats because you havent defined pedophilia
>http://www.jimhopper.com/pdfs/dube_(2005)_childhood_sexual_abuse_by_gender_of_victim.pdfA study on child abuse in a thread about pedophilia. Yeah, we really can't see your angle.
>if it was just me accusing you of tiwsting my words and making irrational arguments and playing gamesNobody else accused me of that.
>you could shout staute fag and win the debateWhy would I? That doesn't do anything. We already know who you are. How could we not, you take such pride in it.
>more than one poster has objected to you only to be called christfagNot by me, and he likely was a christfag, though that says nothing about his arguments, which were wrong anyway.
more than one scietnific study has been ignored
There was only one study posted that wasn't one of the ones I posted, and that one was about CSA, which has nothing to do with pedophilia. We didn't ignore the study, in fact we already said the study was correct, but it doesn't apply.
It's like posting a study about how cigarettes cause cancer in a thread about preventing Obesity through diet. It is irrelevant no matter how accurate the study is.
>you have nothing but your perversionsI'm not a pedophile, so I don't know why you call me one.
>>5413
>deceitWhat exactly is this? Telling someone you'll marry them? Telling them that you're 'just' going for a ride? I don't see how this could be applicable in this scenario.
> if the parents feel you were deceitful.Oh, so that's why the term is so vague, so you don't actually have to 'be' deceitful, the parents just have to 'think' you were deceitful.
>being taken advantage of.Define this, please.
>I don't even know how this is an argument for pedophilia.It's not, and he never used it as such, but I agree with you, I don't see how this is an argument for pedophilia. He was using this example because someone was using the AoC as an argument against pedophilia, which doesn't make sense.
>Just because a country has a low age of consent doesn't mean they're all about child-adult sexual relations.Who stated this?
8b3b2d No.5415
>>5413I didn't try to claim these countries encourage child-sex relationships, which would be so different everyone would know about it. If I had made the claim I would have also tried to find examples of (tribal) cultures that lacked these laws. My post didn't extend past observing AoC is always culturally defined.
You brought up a point that there are still parenting controls: you have said in parts of Europe these laws sometimes permit a parent to allow their kid to have sex with someone. It is a lot like the laws that allow a child to marry earlier than 18 if they have the paren's permission because the parent knows they are in love, or trusts the other adult. Spain's laws did not say a 13 year old is ready to make all decisions for themselves or to vote, and merely says there are times when a 13 year old might be permitted to have sex.
So yes, you can have sex in spain with a 13 year old and as long as the parent doesn't complain and there is no abuse, it is legally okay. So make sure you earn the parent's trust before attempting that, which would be easier if you were a young and respectable man.
490abe No.5416
>>5415> It is a lot like the laws that allow a child to marry earlier than 18 if they have the paren's permission because the parent knows they are in love, or trusts the other adult.So why does the parent decide whether the child is in love or not?
8b3b2d No.5417
>>5415Let me add, do not confuse the age of majority with the age of consent. Although, as you can see countries like Iran still have a very low Age of majority too. Btw I think the decision to make all those European countries have an age of Majority of 18 was a recent one since they joined the EU and felt the need to have some convenient unifying standards.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority 759861 No.5418
>>5415you are posting my quotes out of context in continuing with your utter disregard for reason or sense, you want to prove yourself right even if you dont have a point
Answer these fucken questions
1. do you concede that it is wrong to have sexual contact with children
2. do you concede that that is wrong to have CP
3. if the answer to 1 or 2 is no are you still advocating for non-discrimination or are you advocating for CP and child molestation
Remember, because I know you are a snake, 1 and 2 are simple yes or no questions
490abe No.5420
>>5418>do you concede that it is wrong to have sexual contact with childrenWrong for whom? It depends on the circumstances, but in general, no. I do not. Children play doctor all the time, children have been known to seduce adults as well. There was a teacher who was caught with CP of one of his students on his cell phone, he didn't take it, the girl that was in the picture sent it to him, and from that moment, he was a criminal.
>do you concede that that is wrong to have CPNo. It is wrong to make CP, but then again, over 80% (which is a very generous recall of the actual statistic which I think was over 90%, but I'm playing it safe) of CP is made by children, so those children are criminals. And kids have gone to jail for sexting pictures of themselves.
>if the answer to 1 or 2 is no are you still advocating for non-discriminationI am. Pedophiles should not be discriminated against. There is no logical reason to be against pedophilia.
>are you advocating for CPI do not, but I have to wonder, Advocating for CP to be what?
>child molestationNobody in this thread has advocated for child molestation, so I don't know where you get this from.
>Remember, because I know you are a snakeYou don't actually know, you think you know.
>1 and 2 are simple yes or no questionsNo.
>do you concede that it is wrongBy what metric?
Wrong for whom?
>to have sexual contact with childrenParents have sexual contact each time they bathe or clothe their children, and doctors do as well, even moreso. You're going to have to be a little more specific in what you mean by "sexual contact"
Same to the second question.
You really need to get your logic in check.
759861 No.5423
>>>>5420
1. do you concede that it is wrong to have sexual contact with children
2. do you concede that that is wrong to have CP
yes or no faggot
not no but or circumstances
for once in your life give a straight answer yes or no instead of snaking around
no one in this thread has advocated any kind of punishment for merely having desires or attractions. So if you would kindly concede that CP and sexual contact are wrong, we can all go home
490abe No.5424
http://8ch.net/christian/res/52647.htmlSomeone used my exact words to make this thread on /christian/, but they fucked up my standard OP image dimensions.
I think you did this, Statuefag.
759861 No.5425
File: 1427307394882.jpg (16.93 KB, 715x111, 715:111, ScreenHunter_157 Mar. 25 1….jpg)
>>5424yes or no, enough ad homenims and crying
answer a straight yes or no question with a straight yes or no, and no circumstances or no but or snaking around
1. do you concede that it is wrong to have sexual contact with children
2. do you concede that that is wrong to have CP
490abe No.5426
>>5423I can't give a binary answer to non-binary questions.
I already answered them while clarifying the vague positions. The only reason I can think that you're not satisfied with that is that you're trying to bait.
>for once in your life give a straight answer yes or no instead of snaking aroundI did give a straight answer. Straighter than yes or no in fact, because I stated my position exactly. You don't want to accept this because then you wouldn't be able to manipulate my words.
>no one in this thread has advocated any kind of punishment for merely having desires or attractions.You equate molesters with pedophiles and you have advocated against molesters. So try again.
>So if you would kindly concede that CP and sexual contact are wrongI already stated my position.
490abe No.5427
>>5425Hmm, my mistake, the IDs are different, but your mistake too, as I can't post on /christian/
Pics related.
8b3b2d No.5428
>>5424Actually that was me. I wanted to test out my hypothesis that the arguments there are going to be utter shit, without providing a link to let them know it's all been argued on atheism. If they have such knowledge it would bias the results. I also don't intend to post there and have my thread deleted when I'm inevitably banned, and would advise the Atheists here to just quietly observe for a while what the Christians spout.
I used a different image to make it easier to tell which thread you're on.
759861 No.5429
>>54261. do you concede that it is wrong to have sexual contact with children
2. do you concede that that is wrong to have CP
it's a yes or no quesiton, binary
yes or no, answer faggot
there is no equations or implications here, simple yes or now just tell us what your potions are faggot
759861 No.5430
>>5427>>5427Answer the fucken quesion or shut the fuck up
It is a very simple, yes or no question, just tell us what you are advocating, be clear about your position
1. do you concede that it is wrong to have sexual contact with children
2. do you concede that that is wrong to have CP
yes or no
it's a simple yes or no question, I can answer yes to those questions no problem,
answer the question
490abe No.5431
>>5428Ah, I apologize for my misconception. I didn't have all of the information available.
>>5429It's not binary. You'll get different answers depending on how things like sexual contact are defined.
I already answered. I also clarified your questions and answered both already.
>>5430>just tell us what you are advocatingI'm not advocating anything. That's why I started this thread. i was asking a question. I didn't know you could advocate a position by asking a question.
>be clear about your positionI am. I already answered it.
It's not my fault if you're too stupid to understand that vague questions have to be clarified before they can be answered concisely.
Why does it make you so angry that I won't let you bait me into manipulating my position auch as you have already done.
759861 No.5432
>>5431>>5431
>It's not binaryyes it is, it's a question with two possible answers, yes or no and the fact that you can't even answer that just shows what a worthless snake you are
1. do you concede that it is wrong to have sexual contact with children
2. do you concede that that is wrong to have CP
>I'm not advocating anything.then shut the fuck up and stop debating
490abe No.5433
>>5432>yes it is, it's a question with two possible answersIf you define any sexual contact as at least touching then my position would be "no" because then every parent would be a child molester by that logic.
If you define sexual contact as at least penetrative sex, then my answer would be "yes."
Why is it so difficult for you to define your positions? This is literally the first step of debate. "Define your terms."
Then of course, you couldn't use my binary answer to a non-binary question to take my answer out of context.
>then shut the fuck up and stop debatingWhy? Just because I have an opinion doesn't mean that I am advocating something. That's what this board is for, otherwise, I would have just posted a strawpoll. I didn't do that because we get idiots like you who pollute the results.
You've already got an answer to your questions. This is the same thing that happened in your, "atheists defend Islam" thread. You were presented with evidence, even in the very threads you used as evidence of your position and you pretended they didn't exist.
8b3b2d No.5434
Hm, looks like my thread stalled so I'll copy the second post too to kick it in the same general direction of this thread.
759861 No.5435
>>5433I used the word sexual contact because it has a standard legal definition
see pic
1. do you concede that it is wrong to have sexual contact with children
2. do you concede that that is wrong to have CP
yes or no faggot, look at how difficult it is for this anon to anwer a simple yes or no question
how can we trust him,
how can we engage in conversation with him when he cant even answer a simple yes or no question
490abe No.5436
>>5434Almost every single person in your thread responded on the basis that pedophilia=child molestation
I can already tell it's not going to end well.
>>5435The my answer to that question would be a simplistic "Yes." Since that definition clearly refers to sexual abuse. And it also implies that in a lot of child abuse cases, the child is the abuser.
>do you concede that that is wrong to have CPYou didn't define CP.
And don't even use the DOST test, we already know that that's bullshit.
>yes or no faggot I already answered. You must not have seen the post. Here.
>>5420
>look at how difficult it is for this anon to anwer a simple yes or no questionLook at how difficult it is for Statuefag to ask a question that isn't vague.
>how can we trust himYou don't have to trust me, that';s called ad hominem.
It's just my arguments you need to worry about, instead of my character.
>how can we engage in conversation with him when he cant even answer a simple yes or no questionYou just answered you own question, because I already have. I clarified a vague question to be a binary question and I answered them.
8b3b2d No.5437
>>5436Hah you know how I just copied the 2nd post from this thread to the Christian one? Well it is already deleted. Yeah we definitely aren't going to see any good debate there.
490abe No.5438
>>5437I expected as much. Though, why would they delete just that post and not the entire thread?
759861 No.5439
File: 1427310469329.jpg (58.56 KB, 1058x167, 1058:167, ScreenHunter_159 Mar. 25 1….jpg)
>>5436>1. do you concede that it is wrong to have sexual contact with children
>The my answer to that question would be a simplistic "Yes." finally
CP definition
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2256(anything you can think of already defined)
8b3b2d No.5440
>>5438Because the thread up until my post has not had any so far has not encouraged "sin," or had any devil's advocates. It's a good thing they didn't ban by ip though which would have deleted the thread.
490abe No.5441
>>5439By that definition, my answer would be, "No." As I stated, more than 80% of CP is produced by the children themselves. How does that make it wrong.
And B and C of those definitions don't even involve actual children, so they are incorrect definitions.
>>5440Sounds about right.
759861 No.5442
>>5441
>By that definition, my answer would be, "No." As I stated, more than 80% of CP is produced by the children themselves.so let me add provision d
(d) such visual depiction was not created by the minor themselves on their own accord without the involvement or direction of an adult
now
8b3b2d No.5443
>>5441Oh how sily of me to think I wasn't banned for it.
490abe No.5444
>>5442By your definition, my answer you be "Yes." Was this your goal?
759861 No.5446
>>5444to end the debate on terms I like
we agree on CP, we agree on sexual contact with children
and me and everyone else who posted in this thread agrees that people should not be prosecuted for having mere desire
done
debate over
490abe No.5447
>>5446We don't agree. I used your flawed definitions.
>and me and everyone else who posted in this thread agrees that people should not be prosecuted for having mere desireThat's not true, but okay. If you want to stop, you could've just said that.
921639 No.5456
I told you people to not reply to statuefag anymore, he even uses the word "fucken" because he can't have the balls to say fucking and self censors himself like he is on gaia forums. Whenever you hear moralfaggotory on this board, you know it's gonna be from him, he might even pretend he is an atheist.
921639 No.5457
>>5443Debates are easy to win when you censor what you don't like, what a nice move from /christian/
a17246 No.5461
>>5152Finally, reading through this thread and it took this long for someone to point out the only points that really matter at this time. As the entire argument for distinguishing pedophilia from homosexuality argument rests on assuming point 1 is true. Sure it's not inherently non-harmful either but the discovery of those additional confounding variables should be what both paedophiles and those non-paedophiles who actually care for the well-being of children moreso than revenge against paedophiles should be uniting to achieve. And trying to hush any research that speaks to the possibility of it not being inherently harmful is doing an a disservice to the children who we are trying to prevent from being harmed.
Knowing more about when and why it becomes harmful helps everybody. Why? First it reduces the stigma towards paedophilia that causes them to act in such a harmful way in the first place. It allows paedophiles to be educated on what precautions they must take when interacting with a child to reduce the probability of harm. And with paedophiles having more considerate sex practices that reduces the amount of children actually being harmed. For an added bonus it may even lead to insight of ways to cope for actual abuse victims.
>I posit that sex is not sacredNow you see, this is a rather big pandora's box to touch here but it will be an important talking point on the future of paedophilia. It might even be one of those confounding variables I mentioned above that affect whether sex with a child will result in harm. My stance on this is whether it is sacred or not I don't think should be something globally or constitutionally forced upon the population to accept or let go of. I see it almost similar to nudist communities. They shouldn't be forced to wear clothes because it may go against obscenity laws and neither should the other side be forced to go naked if they don't wish to. And for those children born to a nudist family if they prefer to wear clothes and/or leave the nudist community they shouldn't be forced to be nude and stay.
To translate things back into perspective for paedophilia the closest equivalent are probably paedophile rings though later I will highlight why this is not an accurate enough comparison. I understand those against paedophilia don't want paedophiles roaming around approaching their children because they may hold the position that sex is sacred and raise their child according to those beliefs. Which is why I strongly believe any paedophilic activity should have the approval of at least 4 key people:
1) The child first and foremost (because arranged marriages without the child's desire to go along with it is a good example)
2) Then the child's parents (if they hold sex and virginity in high regard for themselves and their children they should definitely have a say in the matter. Now whether they can overthrow the child's decision to go along with the sexual activity when they are against it is an interesting topic of discussion because the converse, the child saying no to sexual activities with the parents overriding with the go ahead, is an example similar to arranged marriages above and pretty much equates to them giving
permission to rape, not that the paedophile actually has to follow through with it.)
3) Then finally the paedophile.
I maintain that paedophiles who would rather the parents remain left out of the loop are just contributing to the mentality that they want to do something exploitative the parents would not approve of and thus have to sneak behind their backs to do it.
For those parents who don't view sex as sacred and are also open to the idea of their child performing some sexual act with an adult. Some usually end up being the ones found in what are called paedophile rings. Where quite often the problem lies that they don't put the child's approval first and foremost resulting often in rape. The problem, currently, with trying to equate paedophile rings to something like a nudist colony is the illegal aspect of it causing it to actually resemble something more similar to the illegal drug trade or adult sex-slave trafficking or is quite literally child sex-slave trafficking or child prostitution. The
illegality of the thing and undercover operations cause trust issues to arise and introduces the irrational behaviour that causes them to think primarily of their own self-preservation and gratification and less consideration for the child leading to children to be more likely to be harmed within them, the
added secrecy required in the matter may cause children to become more withdrawn. And for those that might threaten to expose the ring or children that want out, they are the ones who might end up with
death threats that are followed through.
8b3b2d No.5462
>>5457And now the /christian/ thread has been deleted too. I'm guessing Alex decided the moderator deleting my post wasn't going far enough so he had to get rid of the whole discussiom.
What I find odd is the archive doesn't have the handful of responses I saw to my second post, including the guy who was really mad about that post that he said he felt compelled to write a wall of text.
http://8archive.moe/christian/thread/52647/#52647 490abe No.5463
>>5456An atheist who says that morals come from god?
I think we all know by now, that he's not, but yeah, I'm done with him.
490abe No.5464
526c0f No.5502
>>5182You can't ever overcome being dead to lead a fulfilling life.
Not that being molested doesn't leave horrible psychological and sometimes physical scars.
42cd04 No.5506
The real question is why pedofags feel the need to invade unrelated boards
You're worse than bronies. We're not going to accept your mental illness. No go find a therapist, faggot
490abe No.5507
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>5502>Not that being molested doesn't leave horrible psychological and sometimes physical scars.Not in every circumstance.
59db34 No.5511
Okay, skimming through this thread (and participating from time to time), I've noticed that there really isn't a lot of clarity as to what everyone is talking about.
>ageI've asked this before, but no one has addressed it - What is the age range we're talking here? I'm assuming when everyone here says child, they mean "12-16" which is the debatable area in which sexual relations between a child and adult could occur. I hope everyone here believes anything before 9 or 10 would be completely off limits. Sexual maturity has barely started for most kids at that age, and that's not even accounting everything else.
I would think 11/12-17 is the age people are arguing here. At least, I naively assume so. 10-12 is when humans begin puberty, and if we're basing age of consent around our sexual development, it makes sense for age of consent to be 16-18 as this is at the end of both sexual development, but cognitive development. (at least for the most part. We still develop for much of our 20's, but most of our important cognitive abilities start to form in this time. )
http://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=cognitive-development-90-P01594http://extension.udel.edu/factsheet/teen-cognitive-development/12 marks the age when more complex cognitive development starts to occur, but that doesn't mean a 12 year old can make decisions based on the potential consequences of the actions. Basically, a 12 year old girl doesn't factor in the consequences of intercourse (STD's, pregnancy) and acts either on base emotions and desires, or by simply believing it won't happen to her. *The consequences, that is
Moving down a few years, and these abilities develop better, and she can better understand and judge a sexual encounter. Although still, teens are prone to act on emotion and hormones then rational thought.
Here's my next question, for those of you willing to answer:
>Does child-adult sexual relations interfere with this development?From what I've seen, on this thread and else where, I can't really say I'm convinced that it doesn't. We have more studies saying (that I can find) that it does -
There's one study posted here talking about some people enjoying childhood sexual encounters or something of the like - but it doesn't really specify the encounters. These encounters could very well be with similar aged partners, in which case it would be both parties experimenting and growing together. There was another study MENTIONED and I think some others, but that's it. I haven't seen much of anything that proves kids as young (or younger then) 11 can handle sexual encounters, at least not as well as teens and adults.
I will concede that the studies I've seen for the negative effects were based on child abuse cases. Honestly, I think the only way for this to really be studied is if we break a bunch of western taboos on sex, and I don't know if or how that will happen.
But from what I've read and what I know about cognitive and sexual development:
> 11-13 off limits> 14-15 gray area, but best to keep away> 16-18 at the end of sexual development, and is completely fine.And FYI - I am just using age of consent as a means of explaining the best age approach a potential mate, not necessarily talking about the legal definition.
I mean, it just seems logical for me to assume that biology and sexual development determine these things. If a kid isn't done developing, then an adult shouldn't hinder or jeopardize that development. That's the way I'm trying to approach it, anyway.
Again, I've got nothing against people who have these attractions - I believe, like anyone else, they should have a place to vent this feelings. I don't think people should be vilified for having a feeling - unless they act upon it (in a way that hurts another person.)
I just don't see how they can without hurting a child in some way.
59db34 No.5512
>>5414
>It's not, and he never used it as suchHonestly I had lost touch of the conversation a long time ago. He had originally made a post saying "But france…" in which I replied to saying that Laws don't "mean much" (Or don't really say anything) when it comes to modern perceptions of pedophilia.
I'm sure I can't just go to Spain and proposition a 12 year old for sex. And the fact that Europe has lower consent laws doesn't bother me, or bring anything to the conversation.
When I pointed this out he responded with:
>>5175
> your foreign country laws mean nothing. This is AMERICA! Those laws must be old and I'm sure everyone in Europe wants to copy America, but I'm not going to bother clicking on your link to confirm it.Which is either a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of my words. He basically made this assumption that I believed in some sort of strange Americentrism. I really don't, and I hate much of the laws here.
for instance, we have no close to age laws here, which means an 18 year old kid can get arrested for sleeping with his 17 year old girlfriend, and be put on the sex offenders list - permanently.
But ultimately, I pointed out that bringing up an ancient culture is fallacious.
See here:
>>5064
>I'd like to point out the Spartans and Athenians had relationships between older men and younger boys, which was considered a beneficial thing since the older man could tutor the younger boy, and sex merely brought them closer. Seems like we are rediscovering how wise the ancients were in many things, (art, democracy, philosophy), and someday this may be one of those things,Which it was. He's making the assumption that since the Greeks did it, that they knew something we didn't. Although, that's not the only problems with this post.
He's assuming the Ancient greeks had some sort of wisdom in that sex with their students brought them closer, but there's nothing to back that up.
>>5415Your post made an appeal to tradition, and I pointed it out. You then preceded to make a mockery of my argument. You then made an argument that simplified the age of consent laws in Europe.
But really, that doesn't matter. Because laws don't tend to change very quickly in relation to culture or societal attitudes. Even though half (probably over half at this point) of America wants weed legal, that ain't happening. But that's a whole other issue.
Drinking while writing this probably also isn't the best idea.
Pics unrelated
490abe No.5516
>>5506>The real question is why pedofags feel the need to invade unrelated boardsWhere are the pedos? Nobody in this thread is a pedo to my knowledge, and there is no way that you could possibly be privy to this information.
>You're worse than bronies.Care to explain why?
>We're not going to accept your mental illness.You haven't even read the DSM, have you? Pedophilia is not a mental illness. Hasn't been for quite some time, now.
Pedophilia is to mental illness what sadness is to clinical depression. Which is to say, that only a small number of people who are sad have clinical depression.
You would do well to educate yourself on subjects before you speak about them.
>No go find a therapist, faggot
>therapists>UsefulPick one.
>I've asked this before, but no one has addressed it - What is the age range we're talking here?Well, as we're referring to pedophilia.
The age Psychiatrists normally use is 12 or younger. Past that, and you're an ephebophile.
>I'm assuming when everyone here says child, they mean "12-16" which is the debatable area in which sexual relations between a child and adult could occur.Well, that wouldn't be pedophilia then.
>cognitive development.What role does this have in anything? This is an argument against alcohol as it fucks with the chemical processes of neurotransmitters thus delaying the development at a significant rate. Pedophilia or even Adult-child sex doesn't do this.
>but that doesn't mean a 12 year old can make decisions based on the potential consequences of the actions.And yet they still do. Blacks have lower IQs on average than whites and Asians are we going to restrict their freedoms?
>Moving down a few years, and these abilities develop better, and she can better understand and judge a sexual encounter.Magically, because I suppose you can't teach people about these things. As a child's brain is formulating, they possess the ability to process information more uniformly than an adult's brain. This is why children pick up on language learning much more quickly and also why there is such a focus on early childhood education. And yet, sexuality is the only thing they 'can't' understand? I don't see how this makes any sense, and as the studies that I have referenced before have shown, the opposite is true. If you restrict a child's access to sexual experimentation, the results are just as devastating if not more so than rape or molestation.
>Basically, a 12 year old girl doesn't factor in the consequences of intercourse (STD's, pregnancy)Because somehow, even though they are educated about these things, they remain completely ignorant of them.
>and acts either on base emotions and desiresJust as any adult does, as well as using their understanding of the situation in conjunction with it.
>or by simply believing it won't happen to her.Why is this exclusive to children? And this isn't even true. Rationalization on this level is extremely rare in children.
>Moving down a few years, and these abilities develop betterYou develop these 'abilities' without using them or learning about them? Sounds legit…
and she can better understand and judge a sexual encounter.
>sheWhy is it always girls? Boys are involved at about the same rate if not more.
>From what I've seen, on this thread and else where, I can't really say I'm convinced that it doesn't. We have more studies saying (that I can find) that it does The studies I referenced state that it doesn't. And these studies were less politically motivated and funded than others that people tend to post.
>There's one study posted here talking about some people enjoying childhood sexual encounters or something of the like - but it doesn't really specify the encounters.I believe that's the Kilpatrick study, and yes it does. It even specifies specific sexual acts. Such as the sexual behaviors of children in Inuit cultures or Japanese or Han culture.
>These encounters could very well be with similar aged partnersThe study states that the children are prepubescent and the "adults" are above the age of 18 or the parents of the children not accounting for age.
>in which case it would be both parties experimenting and growing together.That happens, too. So why is it just adults that fuck with kids' brains? Wouldn't all sexual encounters do this?
490abe No.5517
>>5516Sorry, half of that post was meant for
>>5511>There was another study MENTIONED and I think some othersFound it. This is the Kilpatrick study.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3812590?sid=21106247940253&uid=4&uid=3739256&uid=2&uid=70&uid=2129Here you go.
> I haven't seen much of anything that proves kids as young (or younger then) 11 can handle sexual encountersIf by sexual encounters, you mean penetration, then yes, I agree with you.
>I think the only way for this to really be studied is if we break a bunch of western taboos on sex, and I don't know if or how that will happen. It is illegal to publish your study on it in America unless your findings were negative effects. The government won't allow it since the Kinsey studies. Some people have snuck around these restrictions, but I wouldn't recommend it. Things have to be changed.
> 11-13 off limits> 14-15 gray area, but best to keep away> 16-18 at the end of sexual development, and is completely fine.I generally agree.
> If a kid isn't done developing, then an adult shouldn't hinder or jeopardize that development.How exactly does it hinder that development? There is basically no effect on physical development and the effects on mental development are controversial, but leaning towards beneficial.
>That's the way I'm trying to approach it, anyway.And I'm not saying that you're wrong, it's your observations. I might be wrong, but of course, we both believe that we're right.
>Again, I've got nothing against people who have these attractionsA real human bean.
> I believe, like anyone else, they should have a place to vent this feelings. I don't think people should be vilified for having a feeling - unless they act upon it (in a way that hurts another person.)I agree.
490abe No.5518
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>5512>I'm sure I can't just go to Spain and proposition a 12 year old for sex. And the fact that Europe has lower consent laws doesn't bother me, or bring anything to the conversation.Naturally.
>we have no close to age laws here, which means an 18 year old kid can get arrested for sleeping with his 17 year old girlfriend, and be put on the sex offenders list - permanently.Look up Romeo and Juliet laws, Americans have it some states.
>But ultimately, I pointed out that bringing up an ancient culture is fallacious.Not in and of itself, using it as the rationalization of point is. He was using it a a comparison, to illustrate that different countries have different perceptions on what is right or wrong and he is using that to explain why AoC laws are ultimately an arbitrary metric.
>Which it was. He's making the assumption that since the Greeks did it, that they knew something we didn't.Perhaps they do and we are not aware. regardless, that's not a fallacy unless he stated that they were right, based on the fact that it was an ancient society. He was just stating that they had a reason (however fallacious it was) for doing what they did.
>Your post made an appeal to tradition, and I pointed it out. You then preceded to make a mockery of my argument. You then made an argument that simplified the age of consent laws in Europe.He said.
>I didn't try to claim these countries encourage child-sex relationships, which would be so different everyone would know about it. If I had made the claim I would have also tried to find examples of (tribal) cultures that lacked these laws. My post didn't extend past observing AoC is always culturally defined.
>Because laws don't tend to change very quickly in relation to culture or societal attitudes.But those attitudes still remain. People don't give up, just because there is a law against it. They fight unjust laws.
>Even though half (probably over half at this point) of America wants weed legal, that ain't happening.It's already happening.
Vid unrelated.
8b3b2d No.5521
>>5461This was an insightful post. If anyone skipped it, it basically deals with what might happen if the majority comes to accept that sex is not sacred, and certain parents permitted their kids to have sex. If we become that libertarian, pedophile colonies could become acceptable like your nudist colonies, or the Amish, or certain gay districts that follow their own cultural norms.
Well, they could become acceptable if not for the lingering history of those child sex-slave trafficking rings you've brought up. This creates the old problem of "which comes first, the chicken or the egg." Namely, normal people will be unwilling to permit such a community/colony from forming unless there is evidence that such a community could be safe for kids; and yet, current laws prevent the ultimate test from being carried out. Until such a community forms, the public discourse will be tainted by sensational stories of abuses from the pedophile sex slave rings, which are especially vicious because there is no legal alternative.
>>5511Honestly I don't think it matters to precisely define the limits of the word. Because if we cannot show that sex hurts anyone within the widest age bracket (0-17), we don't need to specify whether we are talking about "prepubescents," or "prepubescents + adolescents."
>Moving down a few years, and these abilities develop betterThis is the same argument people tried to use to uphold curfews that prevented kids from joining political rallies before the age of 18. The US Supreme Court's rebuttal was that if a child is kept away from experiencing politics, he will not suddenly become capable of making informed decisions on voting just because he turned 18. Likewise, a virgin won't make much better decisions at 21 than they did at 16 if they don't have valuable firsthand experiences. There are good reasons a people's first time is always awkward, but it gets better from there on.
>>5512I feel all of this was adequately responded to earlier in the thread. But I'll repeat a few parts:
You can't seriously believe that an entire continent seriously wants to raise their AoC to that of America, but hasn't done it in the past century because of "tradition." I'll point out they did have the will power to overcome any bureaucracy and have gradually adjusted their Age of Majority to 18 across Europe in the past decades, (and indeed the world), to meet the American standard which various countries decided was a reasonable number. For instance, in Canada it used to be 21 I think.
490abe No.5538
>>5521>The US Supreme Court's rebuttal was that if a child is kept away from experiencing politics, he will not suddenly become capable of making informed decisions on voting just because he turned 18.This is a good point. Do you have a source or a reference? I would love to see that for myself.
>You can't seriously believe that an entire continent seriously wants to raise their AoC to that of America, but hasn't done it in the past century because of "tradition." I'll point out they did have the will power to overcome any bureaucracy and have gradually adjusted their Age of Majority to 18 across Europe in the past decades, (and indeed the world), to meet the American standard which various countries decided was a reasonable number. That's because the AoC was raised by feminist groups.
>Likewise, a virgin won't make much better decisions at 21 than they did at 16 if they don't have valuable firsthand experiences.I don't think "firsthand" experiences are necessary. If you've ever had a daughter and taught her about what her period is, she will be prepared for it. She will know what it is, why it's happening, and how to manage it. You've just taught your daughter how to deal with a situation. Teaching your children about sex has a clear effect on how they deal with sexual topics. It's just like teaching them to not steal. Or how to do long division. Any child is capable of it, but it becomes difficult for them to grasp the later you do it. Just like learning a language. If you don't start interacting verbally with your child at around the age of 2-4, their verbal skills will be impaired. That's not to say that they will never learn to speak, just that it would be harder for them to do so.
59db34 No.5539
>>5517
>The Kilpatrick study
>The findings of these 10 studies do not support the three different hypotheses that childhood sexual experiences inevitably lead to either long-term harmful effects, neutral effects, or beneficial effects.I don't have the full study to see everything, but according to the abstract, this study was basically inconclusive.
This was basically what the other study said - I'm not sure what this is trying to say. Like I said before, a lot of the "proof in favor of" child/adult sexual relation is barely any.
>>5538A child's ability to absorb information =/= a child's ability to make informed and reasoned actions.
Think back to when you were a kid, anon. (I don't know how old you are, but I assume you're an adult.)
Do you really see things in the same perspective as you did when you were a child?
>>5517>How exactly does it hinder that development? There is basically no effect on physical development and the effects on mental development are controversial, but leaning towards beneficial.Your studies aren't really convincing.
But if you looked at what I had linked, you'd know that kids do not think like adults. They really don't. I keep hearing that they can absorb information, but that doesn't magically lead to the ability to understand and reason - that just means they know a lot of things.
Even if you were to "convince" a child of adult/child sexual intimacy, you would have no clue as to how the child would take it - Children often don't share how they feel. They often are easily coerced, especially by adults. This is why any sexual contact by an adult to a child is considered sexual abuse, and in that sense you could have very well endangered that kid's development.
And when I say they don't *think* about the consequences, they tend to rationalize - See: Personal fable. Adults can do this, but kids and teens are especially susceptible to this sort of thinking.
>Likewise, a virgin won't make much better decisions at 21 than they did at 16 if they don't have valuable firsthand experiences.A 21 year old, with the same information, might have better foresight into any given situation. I'm not saying that's always the case, and there's certainly cases where this isn't true, but on average, a 16 year old is going to be more reckless then a 21 year old.
.
c0ed8d No.5540
gay /younglove/fag here.
If we want to know what pedophilia is, we have to analyse it. At first we have to understand that no human has ever been born with a sexuality, for sexuality is only a construct by society and a consequence of mankinds ability to use his consciousness beyond the limitations of his flesh. Our thoughts are only limited by desctructive systems build by these who want to rule other people i.e religion, media and politics. Using fear and the pressure of the group they put our will and our thoughts into the cage of ignorance, feeding us with lies and false confidence. The only sexual drive we are all born with is the drive to have sexual intercourse with the opposite gender, as it is the only way to reproduce. Everything else, ranging from romances and the idea of love, the idea that 2 people should be bound to each other till the fixation on various sections like asses, tits, feet or the attraction on the same gender are all based on the thoughts societys had. Sexuality is only a idea, nothing "natural". Everybody who does anything but putting his penis into a vagina for more than a few seconds is "unnatural". Of course, one might say that our sexuality is actually based on our experiences we have made over the years of our live. And this is true, however we have to realize that every experience we make is influenced by the society surrounding us, since they are always watching and judging us, and since most people dont want to be left out by other people they will try to make their behavior appealing to these surrounding them, thus making their experience and everything coming from it depended on society. Even sociopaths are bound to the love of somebody, like their mother or father, or their siblings or a close, old friend; and these they are bound to do not have to be sociopaths themselves and thus even sociopaths are indirectly formed by society. Less than normalfags, but still formed by it. Even psychopaths are formed by society, since they usually are "normal" and thus get influenced before becoming psychopaths, a state where they are no longer influenced.
Now that we now that pedos, just like anybody else, are not born that way, we have to know what makes them what they are. Pedophilia is the desire to have sexual intercourse with a person that has not yet reached puperty. This state is and has for a long time been widely accepted by various societies and cultures as bad or/and evil. Even the greeks and japanese are not proven to have supported it, since the age the minor in a pederastic relationship needed to make it accepted was 12. Although seen as young, boys are about to enter puperty and girls already have, taking the pedophilic part of it. There has never been a society that actively supported sex with children for fun. Though some african tribes and even greeks would sodomize them for a ritual or because it is a "duty". Pedophilia has only been seen as sick because society has always wanted to protect its children, and experience taught our ancestors that children are not ready for sex . Those wo most likely had to learn it the hard way were the tribes of the australopithecus. Since then, every generation has teached the other to not only protect its children from the outside dangers, but also from these inside. This went over into the civilizations, witch held children as innocent and untouchable (except when these hypocrites were slaughtering and raping them in war). For the "normal" human, it now seems to be a undesribable evil sin which should never be accepted, it is seen as something so horrendous that it should not even be thought of, thus coming that everything pedo related will have (the stupid uneducated masses) people trying to ban it. Puppets, lines on paper and words, never shall they destroy their idea that children are innocent, untouchable angels. I want to add that I dont try to say children want sex with adults, I am just criticizing peoples behavior related to this topic. Maybe, if stupid soccermoms would shut their mouths about a topic which they not only dont understand, but also can only judge with the view manipulated by emotions, we would not be so backwards in this. Not only could pedos live a normal life, we could also finally admire the beauty of youth again. But like always, progress is held back by the ignorance of the loudest. Coming to pedophilia we are truly at a level below the age of enlightement, with people hypocritaly demanding what they judge, like torture or killing (mostly because they are passive agressive hypocrites who are enslaved by society so much the know no other way to relieve their supressed desires to kill and hurt than letting their gouverment do it for them.
c0ed8d No.5541
(its not a flood fags)
But back to what I actually wanted to say. Pedophilia is the desire to have sexual intercourse with somebody who has not yet reached puperty i.e. children. But how comes this unusual desire? Well we live in times were our children are threaten very well, getting love, enough to eat and freedom from responsibility. This is opposed by the exploitation of adults in jobs, by societys demands or the duty to take responsibility for their actions. Now there are are some people who cant cope with this situation and thus try to retreat into their childhood again, where they generally made better experiments. This retreat can be accomplished by either becoming a child (cosplaying), beeing around children or wanting to reflect them onto your person by taking the deepest relationship we know, a sexual one or taking from them what you desire to have. 3 of these 4 options are sexual, only 2 are pedophilic, so how comes some people turn into pedophiles and others not. It is a sadly very often proved fact that sex between children and adults only leads to destruction, grief and hate. Nothing good has ever come from such a relationship. Children and adults can never have a sexual realtionship that doesnt hurt children, no matter how much peods deny it. The difference of power and the one sided experience and understanding just advantages the adult and lets the child helpless to his will. Yet, there are still so many people who willingly ignore this and start to exploit these who cant help themselfs, for their own satisfaction, sometimes not even trying to justify it with the pathetic argument of love. This has made me conclude that the lack of empathy and extreme selfishness are linked to pedophilia, at least those acting on it. What I am predicting is that if we would test 1000 conducted pedophiles and 1000 heteros/homos or even other criminals, we would find an increased population of psycho- and sociopaths in the pedo group.
But only an increased population, since there are still those who have deluded themselves and those who were driven into it. And these who were driven into it, are these society has to take responsibility for; it are these, who only wanted to be around children, without sexual desires. The already mentioned fucktards of people, middle class scum, white trash and generally fucktard idiots and soccerbitchmoms have made it impossible for males to be around children. They have linked the love to children with the attraction to them and banned males from ever having access to them, only because they let themselves be brainwashed by this 80s pedoscare bullshit. Since males are not able to be around children to release their urges to find back to their childhood (note: I am not saying all child likers want to be children again), they will be highly frustrated and the desire will eventually find its way into the libido, since it is the only possibility the subconsciousness can find to release itself from the pain of it. From an not only harmless, but constructive love for children has grown a most dangerous desire, which needs all willpower to suppress in bed or in the bus or generally when you are not able to think of something else. Lets face it, the libido sadly controls us more than we want it to. But why would somebody who liked children molest or even rape one. Well, not beeing allowed sexaul intercourse with children is a law given by the society that has given up and betrayed the subject, and thus its subconsciousness will try to find it self a way for revenge. For it, child sex abuse is the best thing to do, for it relases the libido and the hate or at least disagreement of society. This is also why there are so little female conducted pedos; they dont have to do it, and even when they do it, nobody will care and the bitch will get away with it because muh women cant be pedos. (Fuck our times are so primitive its unbelievable)
There is also another group, these who made sexual experiences as child and could not continiue with their sex live as they grew older, thus making their libido be stuck with their first sexual partner, beeing a child. Children should not be forbidden (but sadly are) to experience themselves with the consent of others of their same age, but they are more likely to grow to be pedos than those molested by adults.
Thats all I wanted to say, HOPE ITS NOT TL;DR GUYS HUAHUA
490abe No.5542
>>5539>but according to the abstract, this study was basically inconclusive.No, the study did have a finding. And they found that childhood sexual experiences did not have much of an effect if any on a child's development. You really do have to read the study.
>Like I said before, a lot of the "proof in favor of" child/adult sexual relation is barely any. Do you need to have proof in favor of gay sex to not demonize it?
>A child's ability to absorb information =/= a child's ability to make informed and reasoned actions. That's blatantly false.
>Think back to when you were a kid, anon. (I don't know how old you are, but I assume you're an adult.)Do you really see things in the same perspective as you did when you were a child?
Do you really expect me to say no?
>Your studies aren't really convincing.According to you, you haven't even read the studies.
>But if you looked at what I had linked, you'd know that kids do not think like adults.That's true, but they do think in a similar way. They understand concepts and logic at a very early age. Object permanence is the perfect example of this. Your sources didn't take into account all of the decisions that children do make. Such as the application of mental processes in relation to actualized situations.
It is quite common to teach children math concepts before the ages of 6-12. In fact, it's beneficial. This is called neuroplasticity. You do know what milestones are, don't you?
> They really don't. I keep hearing that they can absorb information, but that doesn't magically lead to the ability to understand and reason - that just means they know a lot of things.And yet, they can apply concepts that they haven't been taught directly, to information that they have. This is how language works.
>Children often don't share how they feel.Wow, fucking dropped. You have apparently never been around children much in your life, and your knowledge of them comes from the things you read online.
>They often are easily coerced, especially by adults.You do know that adults are as well. What are cults? You do realize where we are, yes?
And yet, between a child and a child, it is not, and in about 30% of cases, the child was the one to initiate contact.
>And when I say they don't *think* about the consequences, they tend to rationalize
> They really don't. I keep hearing that they can absorb information, but that doesn't magically lead to the ability to understand and reason - that just means they know a lot of things.One of these things is not like the other.
> Personal fable. Adults can do this, but kids and teens are especially susceptible to this sort of thinking.Only when they are taught to do so.
>A 21 year old, with the same information, might have better foresight into any given situation.Politics would tend to disagree with you.
>a 16 year old is going to be more reckless then a 21 year old.I seriously doubt this. This doesn't happen with physical activity, but it does with mental activity? And mental activity shapes physical activity, so that doesn't really seem to make much sense.
8b3b2d No.5543
>>5538It came from a brief in a book, and unfortunately I no longer remember the source and only the argument. I just remember liking that his self-apparent words, as he explained that if a kid eschews from learning about politics until he is say 21, then it will take 3 more years for him to catch up to the 18 year old kid who first started learning about them at 15, by which point he will be 24. Learning is gradual and it's never too early to start the process.
> I don't think first-hand experiences are necessary Yes education works, and first-hand experience is perhaps the most reinforcing method of learning.
Incidentally, when I was a kid visiting a friend's house I remember an adult asking the mother of my friend if she'd told her daughter the facts of life yet. I was shocked when she answered nervously, "No, but the schools take care of that." Her daughter was in High School and was about 15, and I can't imagine how messed she would be if she were home schooled, or if her mom had also checked the box on those sex-ed forms that says, "Please exclude my son/daughter from sexual education." She'd have had to learn from her friends or the internet because her parents were so squimish about protecting her innocence. I can't imagine what her mom told her to explain menstration or why she had to wear a bra before the school took care of her parental duties. Kids are curious about these things and it seems wrong to keep them in the dark for so long. I remember asking my father "how do you make a baby" in elementary school, and to his credit he sounded pleased I'd asked and breifly explained intercourse in two sentences, even though that wasn't enough for me to know more than sticking a penis into a vagina makes a baby, which was actually all I cared to know.
490abe No.5544
>>5540Ah, the plot thickens. This is where it gets really interesting.
>If we want to know what pedophilia is, we have to analyse it.And we have.
>At first we have to understand that no human has ever been born with a sexualityYou clearly have no understanding of Biology.
> for sexuality is only a construct by societyI bet you're going to say that genitalia is a social construct.
>Our thoughts are only limited by desctructive systems build by these who want to rule other people i.e religion, media and politics.Religion and media I could see, but politics?
Politics is a valid system that has been corrupted by those with ill intentions.
Also, I notice philosophy isn't there.
>Using fear and the pressure of the group they put our will and our thoughts into the cage of ignorance, feeding us with lies and false confidence.Just how often do you think this shit happens?
> The only sexual drive we are all born with is the drive to have sexual intercourse with the opposite gender, as it is the only way to reproduce.And yet, a massive number of people have foot fetishes, are gay, or pedophiles, or bdsm. Condoms exist, so it isn't purely about reproduction, so why do you think that some wouldn't be born differently?
>Everything else, ranging from romances and the idea of love, the idea that 2 people should be bound to each other till the fixation on various sections like asses, tits, feet or the attraction on the same gender are all based on the thoughts societys had.And some people are zoophiles or necrophiles. Your logic doesn't quite hold up.
>Sexuality is only a idea, nothing "natural".I bet gender is a social construct, too, isn't it?
>Everybody who does anything but putting his penis into a vagina for more than a few seconds is "unnatural".Homosexuality is quite common in nature, so is necrophilia, and cannibalism. Nature seems to be quite unnatural by your definition.
It's called and argument from nature, and it's a fallacy.
>And this is true, however we have to realize that every experience we make is influenced by the society surrounding us, since they are always watching and judging us, and since most people dont want to be left out by other people they will try to make their behavior appealing to these surrounding themYes, this is true. Society can influence our behavior, but not our personalities and desires. If your logic was accurate, there would be no gay people, pedophiles, necrophiles, or people with "abnormal" fetishes. And this is because no two societies are the same. And this is because societies can change. And they changed based on some perceived abnormality. This is how politics came to be.
>Even sociopaths are bound to the love of somebody, like their mother or father, or their siblings or a close, old friendYou don't even know what a sociopath is, do you?
>and these they are bound to do not have to be sociopaths themselves and thus even sociopaths are indirectly formed by society.But they are still sociopaths, they just don't act like it around others.
>Now that we now that pedos, just like anybody else, are not born that wayYou're trolling, right? You clearly have no knowledge of biology at all.
>we have to know what makes them what they are.Genetics and evolution.
>Pedophilia is the desire to have sexual intercourse with a person that has not yet reached puperty.You even fucked up the definition of pedophilia. Yeah, I'm done with you.
c0ed8d No.5545
>>5544Wow, you kept repeating yourself and even accused me of logical fallacys while accusing me of "you have no knowlege of biology". But I saw that you misunderstood some things, but I am not going to bother helping you out.
>Yeah, I'm done with you.Please
490abe No.5547
>>5545You're not going to bother helping me out, because you can't. You have no knowledge of biology, or you would know that sexual preference is genetic just as the taste of media, food, or topics of interest.
>Wow, you kept repeating yourselfBecause you make fallacious points that require this same correction.
c0ed8d No.5548
>>5547>Yeah, I'm done with you>replies a second time:')
Did I hit a nerve?
490abe No.5549
>>5548No. When I meant I was done with you, I meant your argument. You made a new argument, which was still bullshit, but not pants-on-head retarded. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
c0ed8d No.5550
>>5549>Yeah, I'm done with you>I didnt even make a new argument>replies a third time:')
Did I hit a nerve?
PS. Pls sage our off topic talk
490abe No.5551
>>5550You did.
You were attacking my argument which makes it a new argument.
17dace No.5553
>>5506You need to get the fuck out of our space, normalcunt. Stop going out of your way to remove paedo/hebe/etc. friendly anonymous spaces online and they won't come into the remaining spaces.
You faggots destroyed one of the largest places for people to anonymously discuss their issues on tor, and you wonder why when you keep doing this shit we are left with more and more normalfag filled places to post in. Your neurosis will be the end of us all. Just be thankful you weren't born in a time where being honest about your sexuality meant social suicide, you fucking privileged self-entitled cunt.
a17246 No.5556
>>5540>>5541>Children and adults can never have a sexual realtionship that doesnt hurt children>neverBeing so definitive falls prey to anecdotal counterevidence.
Which, when given that anecdotal counterevidence, then requires pointing out how the anecdote is irrelevant or how there was still harm. If it is impossible to do that then being so definitive falls down to proof by contradiction.
a17246 No.5557
>>5553>one of the largest places for people to anonymously discuss their issues on torWhat place was that?
490abe No.5576
>>5556And that anecdotal evidence is actually scientific studies that have already been posted.
8b3b2d No.5608
I'm detecting self-loathing from some of the new posters who might be closeted pedophiles when I hear this talk of morales, and I bet studies would show suicides and depression are significantly higher within these groups, and that the level of shame mirrors that of the gay community sixty years ago. The love and hate relationships of age/gender sexualities also mirrors how the lesbians, bisexuals, gays, feminists, and trans all seem to hate each other on the chans. If you've ever visited a /lgbt/ board it's as though they're still at war with each other
It reminds me of a certain phenomenon where two ethnic groups come to hate each other for the same reasons, much like two entrepreneurs that call each other selfish and rude. Confronted with your own reflection both people can exaggerate the flaws or vices of the other to deflect scrutinizing themselves as they form a caricature in their head that the other party is much more selfish, even though it's a case of the tea kettle calling the kettle black.
490abe No.5613
>>5608I think it's the pot calling the kettle black, but yes, that could be a very valid hypothesis. How could we possibly test that?
a17246 No.5622
>>5608There's also the additional case of those paedophiles who don't intend to act on their desires who hate those paedophiles that do act on their desires for giving all paedophiles a bad name.
And to differentiate even further, there are those paedophiles who want to act on their desires but hate those that do act on their desires in a rape-like fashion which gives all paedophiles a bad name.
Boiling everything down to people wanting to move the cutoff line of acceptance to just below themselves.
490abe No.5636
>>5622The difference is that one of them must be right. While everyone else is wrong. And it's not too difficult to find out which is which.
05e93a No.5775
Well being one myself I generally have a high regard for my "people" so to say.
333901 No.5777
>>5775Clicked post by accident. Usually when I hear anything about pedophilia its in a negative connotation which is very disappointing. Most pedos will never harm a child, that being said with each sexual preferences there are the extremes but those people are the exception. Each pedo has different levels in which they will act upon. At the very mildest are the ones who just like to watch from afar or just visualize all the way up to acting out with reckless regard for the childs well being. So its a very broad range. I also hold us pedos to a higher standard than the normal fags of the world because we have such a far way to go in the fight for acceptance. Every some POS decides to harm a little girl it pisses me off and sets us back another decade. To wrap this shit up though we've been vilified for awhile but that hasn't always been that way, there was once a society where we were just another person and it could be that way again we're good people all in all.
ce714e No.5779
>>5014it is important to acknowledge that it is an arbitrary distinction and sometimes absurd, but also that we still need and want to protect children and youngsters for which having sex is likely an abuse.
on a side note rape is always wrong, no matter the age.
SAGEd because this has nothing to do with atheism
490abe No.5787
>>5779>it is important to acknowledge that it is an arbitrary distinction and sometimes absurdYou mean between a child molester and a pedophile? If so, you couldn't be more wrong.
>on a side note rape is always wrong, no matter the age.I agree.
>SAGEd because this has nothing to do with atheismWell, considering this is the most popular thread on this board so far, I'd say most people here would disagree with you.
Anyway, I asked because I wanted the opinion of other atheists as if you saw the thread on christian, their opinions don't really matter because you'll never see it as that thread was deleted because the mods got butthurt that people were discussing a heated topic.
Regardless it doesn't matter. Atheists usually have a different opinion on just about any subject, otherwise this board would just be about why we don't believe in god. Which is fine, but if it was nothing but that it would eventually become stale.
>>5777You make some very good points.
0e6720 No.5799
I also want to say another interesting thing, people when they hear someone might have sexual activities with a child they describe him as a terrible monster, they dehumanize people who have anything to do with children. You see this all over the news in titles where they describe the aggressor. But everyone doesn't jump ship so quick to call the person who just crashed the plane and killed 150 innocent people with dreams a terrible monster, he is just a murdered. But not a terrible monster who isn't human, he is a murdered.
d05626 No.5810
Daily reminder that pedophilia is a fetish, not a disease. Anyone who says otherwise is dumb.
490abe No.5822
>>5810This is incorrect. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation, whereas pedophilic disorder is a mental disorder.
http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Paraphilic%20Disorders%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf 8b3b2d No.5827
It's better to assume the recent posts are less likely to be by Atheists since starting from 3 days ago I posted a clone of this thread on a couple pertinent 8-chan boards such as /loli/ and I included a hyperlink. I don't visit those boards, but hoped those who have more at stake would share their feelings in a discussion, since there were such differences between how the /christian/ and /atheism/ boards responded. On this board the debate felt fresher than homosexuality which Atheists don't seem to care as much about since that debate is old hat.
>>5613> How could we possibly test that?I take it you mean how do we test the suicide rate for pedophiles? It would be hard when they're a secretive community by nature. I have seen a study that claims the suicide rate for male sex offenders is a whopping 183 times the general population.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3629679/ If true, it still says nothing about the suicide rate in pedophiles who haven't been caught, but if we go by analogy, the suicide rate is high in the gay and trans communities. Obviously, these sex-offenders killed themselves when they were caught because they knew full well their lives were about to suck.
There was a notable suicide case where a popular American TV show devoted to unmasking pedophiles found a lawyer pedophile who'd downloaded CP and chatted with girls. They reported him to the police who then sent a SWAT team to break into his house and when they found him he already had a gun pointed to the temple of his head. He just said, "I'm not going to hurt anybody," and then he killed himself. If the public knew more about tragic cases like this and not just the child victims, there might be hope for changing some harmful stereotypes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Conradt 490abe No.5830
>>5827>On this board the debate felt fresher than homosexuality which Atheists don't seem to care as much about since that debate is old hat.True.
>I take it you mean how do we test the suicide rate for pedophiles? It would be hard when they're a secretive community by nature. I have seen a study that claims the suicide rate for male sex offenders is a whopping 183 times the general population.I find difficult to believe.
>If true, it still says nothing about the suicide rate in pedophiles who haven't been caughtAnd this is why.
> They reported him to the police who then sent a SWAT team to break into his house and when they found him he already had a gun pointed to the temple of his head. He just said, "I'm not going to hurt anybody," and then he killed himself. Absolutely disgusting.
>If the public knew more about tragic cases like this and not just the child victims, there might be hope for changing some harmful stereotypes. It's just like many groups, one person in a group commits a crime and then normalfags blame the entire group.
6183bd No.5868
>>5827>If the public knew more about tragic cases like thislol a pedophile killing himself is not in the slightest bit tragic. Look up the word tragic before you use it again.
6183bd No.5893
>>5870http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/tragic
>Tragic>1. Causing or characterized by extreme distress or sorrowPlease explain to me who is suffering from extreme distress or sorrow from a pedophile killing himself.
490abe No.5895
>>5893I do. I suffer from sorrow anytime 'anyone' kills themselves. The death of anyone is sad. You could learn some understanding.
6183bd No.5926
>>5895So if someone like Adam Lanza mass murders children and then kills himself, you find his suicide to be sad?
490abe No.5933
>>5926Yes. Even past the horrible acts he commited, he's still a person.
25807f No.5972
>>5933Agreed 100%. Though in some cases the acts committed by people are horribly vile and extreme measures need to be taken to stop them it does not lessen the sad state of affairs that is a person who has become so corrupted.
It says a lot about a person when I see them basking in the pain of other people, why lose your humanity in the face of inhumanity?
6c000a No.5986
>>5893Psychopath detected.
6183bd No.5989
>>5933No he's not. Once he has committed such heinous acts, he is longer human and considered a monster.
>>5986So people who don't care about pedophiles dying are psychopaths? You are really grasping at straws here trying to label the average person as psychopathic. This is worse than SJW shit.
6c000a No.5994
>>5989>So people who don't care about pedophiles dying are psychopaths?Yes. A person dies in front of you, instead of being shocked, you laugh. You are a christfag.
>You are really grasping at straws here trying to label the average person as psychopathic.You are psychopathic. You fit the definition.
>This is worse than SJW shit.No, it's not. Because we don't pretend to be victims, we actually are victims.
6b246e No.6027
>>5989paedophile != rapist
so honestly I have no clue why you're being such a fucking sociopath that you wish death on everyone with a common fetish that committed no crime.
179c81 No.6029
Wow, this thread stayed active for quite a bit longer than expected. I left a few people hanging a while back, so I think I should give them the responses they are owed.
>>5231
>We're having a logical argument, emotions and morals do not enter into this.This is not even a rebuttal. You are both conflating emotions with morality in this statement and also proposing to dispense with any concern for morality. In that case, there is no need for you to be concerned with any mistreatment that pedophiles receive. Either morality matters or it does not. Deflections like this are pointless diversions from the subject.
>I agree with you, but your argument is still shit.Not that you'll explain why. Most of your responses to me are contradictions without refutations. What is the point of refusing to substantiate any of your stances? Did you want this to devolve into "nuh-uh"s and "yuh-huh"s? Fuck that noise.
>Why would you need to? Hmm.Because individuals were conflating their arguments with each other to accuse me of exaggerating their stances while ignoring the other pedos who actually were upholding those stances.
>You can control what you desire? Can you turn yourself gay?One of the most frustrating things about arguing this kind of point is how frequently my argument gets completely ignored. I already made it clear that not all choices are on-the-spot choices in
>>5225 so for you to simply contradict me on this point again without a refutation is to just frustrate the discussion needlessly.
>He was making a comparison, not a misrepresentation.Right, so when I make a comparison it's a ridiculous straw man, and when my opponent makes a comparison that's all it is. At least we're staying consistent.
179c81 No.6030
File: 1427990456459.jpg (91.36 KB, 708x1000, 177:250, 85b8142459582719f2d6d3b2ad….jpg)
>>5233
>You don't have clear perfect thoughts, and judging by your rules, if you'd ever even imagine violent thoughts done by you, you should be arrested. Even if you do not commit them.Well, the only way you could have reached this conclusion is if you completely ignored my arguments. I've even had to point out the conflation you are making between moral judgments and calls to legal action, and you are still banging on about it. It has never been my position that people should have legal action taken against them for entertaining evil thoughts. In fact, I have even made clear the differentiation between simply having an evil thought and deliberately entertaining one, yet you have still gone on to conflate the two. What kind of argument strategy involves deliberately ignoring your opponent's states positions?
>Don't back down on your comparison, you are trying to portray penetration as the worst possible thing ever by adding all those other violent thoughts.Doubling down will not change the fact that I was challenged on whether there could be fates worse than death, I gave my opponent an opportunity to rescind that statement, and when he didn't, I provided an obvious example of a fate which could be worse than death. Whether child rape is worse than death is a separate question. That example was made to illustrate the ridiculous notion that there can be no fates worse than death. And none of this has anything to do with emotion. Just because you are having an emotional response to the example doesn't mean it was crafted with the intent of triggering your emotions.
>I stay by what I said, you think about beating up your best friend, as long as in real life you don't actually do it and you continue to be a decent human being.And again you are mixing up the having of inadvertent thoughts and the deliberate entertaining of evil thoughts. There is a difference, and as long as you refuse to acknowledge it, this point cannot be advanced.
>Being gay is not the same as growing as a pianist or an athlete. Your sexuality can be influenced by the way you were born, otherwise we wouldn't automatically know how to have sex.Are you suggesting that there are no natural or instinctive causes for a person to have a predilection for athleticism or musical skill? You don't think some people are born with a better metabolism or a better ear for pitch or rhythm? Is that where you are going to stand? You are treating sexuality like an absolute - like it has to be either completely instinctive or not at all. I say that we are influenced by instincts but have the powerful capability for cognitive thought and learned behavior, and can take that a long way farther than our instincts can carry us. There should be nothing controversial about this.
>Oh but yes you do, you claimed that being gay is a choice. You said that if you did different things when you were little, you could turn out with a completely different sexuality when you were grown up, and that is just bullshit. If this was true then letting boys play with barbie dolls when young should turn them all gay by adult hood.This is nothing more than an oversimplification and a return to absolutes as arguments.
>You are on a moral high ground right now, all this thread you said how people who have dirty thoughts are evil.No, not have. Entertain. There is a difference. I have repeated myself multiple times on this point. Try to keep up.
>This at least implies that you are the perfect one who is able to make all the judgementMaking judgments is something every person should be capable of doing. Ridiculing me for making judgments by saying it indicated that I think I am superior to everyone else is like ridiculing me for doing a fucking jumping jack by saying I am egotistically declaring that I'm the best jumper in the world.
179c81 No.6031
File: 1427990573025.jpg (307.73 KB, 1014x1420, 507:710, 1958b2023127cbf50633d3f4ad….jpg)
>>5244
>You do realize that you were responding to multiple people, yes?Way to sidestep the point. You started by saying that I was presuming about YOUR motives, while knowing that it wasn't you I was responding to. You completely contradicted yourself by taking personal offense to a statement which you explicitly stated you knew was not even directed at you. It was silly of you to do this, and it's even sillier of you to pretend you don't understand what just happened.
>I never said you were insensitive, in fact I think you are too sensitive.Yet you go on to denounce me for failing to meet your standards of what it means to be a sympathetic human. Make up your mind about what position you are going to take and stick with it.
>I thought that taxpayers shouldn't pay for someone else's dysfunction?If it were up to me, the prison population would be employed as a cheap labor force. That said, I wouldn't be locking people up for committing victimless crimes, so the prison system wouldn't be overflowing with victimless criminals in the first place. I see nothing economically unsound about this.
>implying every pedo is a child molester.>Until you can understand simple logic, there is nothing more I can say to make you understand such a complex topic.You are the one conflating thought with action. You should have realized this the moment you decided to imply my argument instead of taking it directly from my words.
>That's because it's horrible,You know what? I'll take this as a fair compromise. It is enough to satisfy my that you will at least admit that child rape is horrible. A shame that getting this much out of you has to be like pulling teeth, but at least we're moving in the right direction.
>If you are treated like a victim, you start to act like a victim. Multiple studies state this.My skepticism about claims regarding studies has been made clear by this point. If you are going to make a truth claim based on a study, I am going to need to see the study in question as well as how the information was collected, how the study was conducted, and how the results were analyzed. Just saying there was a study is not good enough.
>And yet Japan has a lower crime rate than almost if not every country in the world taking population density into account.I'm sorry, are you making a connection between Japan's crime rate and the tendency of anime protagonists to not punish villains? That strikes me as one hell of a stretch.
>The Yakuza gave rescue aid during the Earthquake/Tsunami disaster.I would expect an Atheist to be familiar with Christopher Hitchens' rebuttal to this. If every vile organization could be excused for the occasional charitable act they committed for their own community, we could excuse Hamas and Hezbollah, couldn't we?
>I agree, but what you state is not punishment, it is retribution. I think you are projecting here. I think the punishment should be proportional to the crime. If that looks like revenge to you, then what punishment doesn't? Should we send every criminal off to cushy getaways surrounded by well-paid professionals to "rehabilitate" them? Hell, if my motivers were based in vengeance, that would at least come closer to hitting the mark than rehabilitation would. And what of the victims? Do they not deserve justice? Should they have to endure the additional humiliation of watching their tormentors go on to receive the benefits of government aid programs as a response to their criminal actions? What cruelty.
>You'd be surprised how often those requirements are fulfilled. Statutory rape isn't rape, you know.Children are not competent to consent to sex with adults. Teenagers are competent to consent with each other, but still vulnerable to exploitation from adults. In the case of teenagers, there can be exceptions (particularly in the form of premeditated temptation and blackmail), but as for prepubescent children, there can be no excuse. They cannot consent to sex just like they cannot sign their name on a lease.
179c81 No.6032
File: 1427990644454.jpg (398.24 KB, 930x1314, 155:219, 10266edf32ba9e0084e258c6bb….jpg)
>>5244
>I doubt that. You must not study Psychiatry very much.
>Antisocial (or dissocial) personality disorder is characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for, or violation of, the rights of others. There may be an impoverished moral sense or conscience and a history of crime, legal problems, and impulsive and aggressive behavior.How does not being able to tell or not being concerned with the difference between lovemaking and rape not fall under this definition? Did you not even read what you were citing?
>See picture.Harboring a desire to have sex with someone who cannot consent is harboring a desire to rape. It's no different than wanting to fuck a sleeping girl (at least, one who has not given you the green light ahead of time). Wanting to do something which would constitute rape is rapey. There's just no way around that.
>Many "victims" of statutory rape would disagree with you. And yet, somehow, they magically become able at age 18. 13 if you are in Spain.A lot of statutory rape cases occur between teenagers and adults, and that is a situation which should be more carefully analyzed than that of sexual exploitation of a prepubescent child by an adult. It's not the same thing, and for the law to see it that was is a flaw in the legal system.
>If you enjoy rape, you are going to rape someone.>if you enjoy violence, you are going to murder someone.
>See picture.You are free to discard arguments which I did not make. One can only wonder why you would waste time and effort doing so.
>Why is rape one of the most popular sexual fantasies amongst women?This is a deflection from the point. In the example, you are the one having the rape fantasies and telling your girlfriend's father about them. From the father's point of view, your desire to enact scenarios whereby you sexually assault someone make you a risk to his daughter. Of course he would be suspicious of you. You are pretending not to understand very simple things here.
>You've never heard people defend cannibalism. Are you about to?
>So if you have a child, you're never going to let them have a relationship, because you're afraid someone is going to try to give them pleasure and make sure they're happy? Again, not being able to tell the difference between love and rape.
>Why should they trust one, especially one who openly states that he finds nothing immoral about the way he thinks or damaging about the way he would like to treat children?
>If you are attracted to women, you want to rape them?Again, not being able ot tell the difference between love and rape.
179c81 No.6033
>>5247
>Keeping it for that long is illegal in the first place.We are getting into is-ought territory here. I do not have a problem with teenagers engaging sexually with each other. I also do not think all of the current laws in my country are ideal for approaching sexual crime. The case of someone deliberately taking sexual pictures or videos of themselves while underage and then distributing that content once they become an adult is a very weird sort of scenario, but it is a plausible one and it is a sort of loophole for getting around being charged with a crime while profiting from the distribution of sexual images or videos of a minor, even if that minor was oneself.
Although loophole exploitation like this irritates me, I am willing to pull back on my stance that someone who does this should be punished by law. After all, my stance on the distribution and viewing of CP is that it should be punished on the basis of witholding evidence of a crime from the police, not on the possession or distribution itself being the crime. In the case of a teenager taking their own jailbait photos or videos, no crime is taking place, however cynical and exploitative it is for them to do this knowing that they will be able to make money selling those things to creeps once they reach adulthood. It's fucked up, but it is victimless.
>That's the definition.Is-ought. You are having an argument with me, not with the current legal system.
>Why?Because it is exploitative on part of the adult.
>>5086That said, I am aware that a particularly savvy teenager can use this to exploit a vulnerable adult.
>>5108I think the cases should be judged with a fair deal of scrutiny, but I would still hold an adult to a higher standard of accountability than a teenager.
179c81 No.6034
>>5250
>That wasn't one of the responses.Give me one good reason why in this hypothetical scenario it wouldn't be possible for me to answer in the way I chose. Who is posing this question to me, and under what circumstances? What exactly is preventing me from answering "neither"? Thought experiments like this require plausibility to have relevance.
You haven't answered the critical question: how am I in a situation whereby I am at risk of being raped but not also at risk of being murdered? You can't just handwave this away. Your hypotheticals have to be at least plausible if they are going to contribute to the discussion.
>Which is so rare, it might as well not even happen.Well, that was pretty callous of you. Don't even entertain the atrocity of someone who is kidnapped, raped, and then murdered so they won't talk? What the hell? And further:
>95 percent of children are "kiddnapped" by a family member, and the other 4 or so percent are by someone the family is close friends with, less than one percent is by complete strangers,I said nothing about stranger kidnapping. I said that children who are kidnapped for rape are usually killed by their captors, and the fear that the children will rat out the perpetrators is the prime motivator for this. For the majority of kidnappings to be initiated by someone the child personally knows only substantiates this point, not contradict it.
>and consider that the majority of people who molest or rape children are not pedophiles,You are trying to tell me that someone who rapes a child is not sexually attracted to children. You are literally saying that people who are sexually attracted to children are being scapegoated by child rapists who are actually not sexually attracted to children. Are you even listening to yourself?
8b3b2d No.6036
>>6024
>You are trying to tell me that someone who rapes a child is not sexually attracted to children. You are literally saying that people who are sexually attracted to children are being scapegoated by child rapists who are actually not sexually attracted to children. Are you even listening to yourself?My understanding is those that rape kids tend to be opportunists who would rape anyone because they get off on sexual bullying. There are people who rape men because they say women get over it, but if you put a dick in a straight man's ass it haunts him forever. Any sexual preferences are secondary to the power dynamics. Rape can just be a form of bullying for adults.
>>6033From posts like this I can see you still think reading CP encourages rape, in the same way reading erotica encourages men to rape women. I believe the material creates a stress outlet that satisfies some would-be rapists from feeling the need to seek the real thing. How do you deal with the argument that in countries where CP was legally available, the rates of violent rape fell? (I also wonder if pornography lessened our curiosity/desire for sex, and is part of the reason for the falling fertility rates in the 1st world?). Surely you don't believe looking at jailbait selfies is disgusting and creates victims of rape?
>>5244Taken as a whole this post still assumes sex with a child is inherently rape, where a child is seen as someone younger than a teenager.
>>(the age of consent is 13 in Spain)>A lot of statutory rape cases occur between teenagers and adults, and that is a situation which should be more carefully analyzed than that of sexual exploitation of a prepubescent child by an adult. It's not the same thing, and for the law to see it that was is a flaw in the legal system.It's called statutory rape because it's not actually rape. The girl could be saying I want it…….no wait, let's be progressive in our assumptions. The boy could be saying he wants it and the woman gives it and she's thrown in jail because he is 13 in America, but this would be okay in Spain.
You are still coming at this from the perspective that your culture is superior, period. That is called ethnocentrism. It helps to be able to try and see another perspective.
By the way did you notice how we tend to assume the girl is younger than her partner? There is truth in that generalization. Women tend to prefer older men, and the reverse holds. Since it's normal for women to marry older men 3+ years older, it should not be seen as unnatural for an 18 year old to desire a girl a few years younger than him, or for the reverse to hold.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_disparity_in_sexual_relationshipsPic is related. Pretty much everyone in the 2nd most famous magical girl shoujo of the 90's after Sailor Moon manga had a gay crush, or likes someone much older than them. (The progressiveness might come from it being written by 3 former lolicon artists who are female and who I assume are lesbians.) It's not surprising that women have crushes on their older brother's friend, or the reverse. Seriously, I've seen it happen in real life.
>Children are not competent to consent to sex with adults. Teenagers are competent to consent with each other, but still vulnerable to exploitation from adults. In the case of teenagers, there can be exceptions (particularly in the form of premeditated temptation and blackmail), but as for prepubescent children….How about in countries where the parents and the child can both give consent to sex? Say at the age of 13 in Spain? We can approach the argument like parents signing to let their kid have marriage at an early age.
6c000a No.6037
>>6034>You are trying to tell me that someone who rapes a child is not sexually attracted to children.Not in all circumstances, but yes. Most child molesters in prison are not even pedophiles.
The evidence is here.
8b3b2d No.6039
>>5244
>>If you are treated like a victim, you start to act like a victim. Multiple studies state this.
>My skepticism about claims regarding studies has been made clear by this point. If you are going to make a truth claim based on a study, I am going to need to see the study in question as well as how the information was collected, how the study was conducted, and how the results were analyzed. Just saying there was a study is not good enough.I'm not him, but I've also read a study on this so I assure you one exists. In fact, there's a wikipedia article with a passage about molestation that cited it somewhere, but I can't remember which article that was or I would share it. However, there is this wikileaks article which appears to have been written in response to the Ukranian modeling and it draws from the conclusions of such a study, wherever that study may be.
http://mirror.wikileaks.info/wiki/An_insight_into_child_porn/That's the full link to the top of the article, but the sub section with a counter-argument that you want to read is below. As it says, if you treat someone like they were victimized they eventually start acting that way themself, especially in public. I don't know if there's a citation to the actual study on the original German version (you are reading a translation), but I'd still highly recommend reading this article for a good set of counter arguments to the "pedophila and CP are always bad" hatebox rhetoric we commonly hear on the news and can internalize so deeply. Reading it is a good exercise in critical thinking, which is why I'm providing the link.
http://mirror.wikileaks.info/wiki/An_insight_into_child_porn/#Where_and_how_abuse_happens 8b3b2d No.6040
>>5225Since you're holding to this argument, I'll respond. I think this argument was skipped because we dealt with it elsewhere, and could not agree. We can't when the structure of the arguments you use absolutely are still used by Christians that encourage gays to control their minds and turn straight, (since it's all a test from God that we must rise above the animal desires He blessed us with); likewise, many of mine arguments would require no tweaking to argue against that. Perhaps then if you shared my stance on enabling homosexuality, you would be more amenable toward considering the existence or even tolerance of other sexualities.
I now believe children can have sexuality, it is not neccesarilly harmful, and that some might actually want sex with someone older. Am I mistaken? Then when you read about Draconian laws, and the circumvention of law for the purpose of the murder of alleged pedophiles by vigilantes, and you might agree that those we denigrate are the biggest victims. Am I wrong? I doubt I am when the handful of minors that have been molested, were raped by criminals who weren't even particularly attracted to children according to what we've uncovered. Even so, they are the ones who all laws condemning all forms of pedophilia are based around. In many cases, when we shelter children, we are not protecting them from predators, but simply holding them back from their own desires. Am I wrong?
Perhaps you don't follow me, so let's step back and see if we can find some common ground on homosexuality, where arguments from analogy might be more paletable. I believe some gays are absolutely born with a disposition towards liking men from an early age (genetic) just like how some become open to it through environmental factors (i.e. hot gay roomate seduces him.) Do you diagree? Progressive people don't go around telling gays they need to make infinite little choices to control their thoughts and reform their native dispositions so they won't commit to the dreadful sin of sodomy, because progressives believe 1) it is not harmful 2) Studies on conditioning with electroshock therapy have shown conditioning gays to feel pain when they see men, or to jerk off to straight porn were not effective since the attraction is deeply wired. Do you disagree?
We already have evidence on this thread that the majority of pedophiles subscribe to having self-control, and they do hold themselves back conciously from actions that could make a child uncomfortable. Furthermore, we still need convincing that it's not in a child's best interests to learn or induldge in sexuality at an early age. It's like finding a kid who likes science and wants a telescope, and you tell them nooooo, astronomy doesn't pay. I want you to be a nurse instead. Ditto that for a kid who likes making video games, or reading philosophy. The kid will always have natural interests where he might excel on his strengths and motivation, but we tend to repress their curiosity and natural disposition because we think we know what is best. We make for unhappy kids all the time, because we think they are perfectly moldable. Do you disagree with any of my points?
One final point: the fulfilment of sex by a child who developed sexuality early could make for a healthier adult. Just like how learning about science earlier could help in adulthood, and there are positive emotional bonds formed during loving sex. If you believe my thinking is not grounded, I am open to seeing things differently if presented with evidence.
6c000a No.6042
>>6039Wow, that article is very interesting.
6c000a No.6101
>>6040> I now believe children can have sexualityYou say that you "now" believe. I am curious. What changed your perspective?
977230 No.6106
I got through about 75% of the thread before my head started hurting from all these conflicting opinions. I just wanted to weigh in and say that my views on "nontraditional" sexuality pretty much align with Stallmans. As in if there is no victim, there is no crime. I realize the matter isn't black and white and that every person/case requires separate judgement, however I'm sick of the witch hunt that politicians (or really anyone with an ulterior motive) push to support their agenda. The way I see it, the whole law against cp should be severely reformed since it ends up hurting the very people it was suppose to protect.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/03/teens-hit-with-child-porn-charges-after-tweeting-their-group-sex-video/http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5995084&page=1https://reason.com/blog/2015/03/10/two-teens-have-sex-neither-could-legallyThese children now all have sex offender status for life, not because they did something unnatural and wrong, but because they simply did what their hormonal instinct told them.
As far as adult pedophiles (and by extension hebe/ephebo) I don't think they deserve a fraction of the hate they get. Not all pedos are child molesters, just like not all men are rapists.
I also believe consent should start when you are biologically ready. The fact that your own body belongs to the government until you turn 18 is ridiculous. When I was 13 I would constantly fantasize about older woman as well as many of my teachers, but even if it was natural, pursuit would still be illegal despite (hypothetical) consent from both parties.
2ebb38 No.6126
>>6106>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/03/teens-hit-with-child-porn-charges-after-tweeting-their-group-sex-video/perfect case of lives being ruined, they could had just use a court order to remove the videos from the internet, but nope, they had to ruin the future of those kids when they grow up and are adults too, even if what they did was not abuse at all and it was not forced
6c000a No.6157
>>6126That's because these laws are not put into place to protect children. These politicians don't give a fuck about them. The politicians only care about pedos. They can't stand to see such a group happy and sated and thus will create law that imprison the people that they are "supposed" to protect just to spite them.
6c000a No.6259
c7f377 No.6310
And now we have reached the bump limit and this fun thread has gone into auto sage. How ironic that the first thread on Atheism to hit the bump limit, doesn't even have anything to do with Atheism.
Since the thread is over there's little sense in writing something no one will read. But for anyone interested there is a surviving clone of this thread is at:
>>>/loli/16960The arguments there have been short, not insightful, and honestly not worth reading. There is little supporting evidence at all, even though there are 128 posts. Most posters also believe pedophile = molester, despite the nature of the board. There wasn't even a single post that compelled me enough to respond.
Testing the way different boards responded has been enlightening. My conjecture is the /atheism/ board has older posters on average than the /loli/ board, which helps account for the gap in the depth of the arguments. If those folks keep their loli fetish for long enough, they might be ready to make our arguments in a few years.
d928ad No.6314
>>6310Conjecture is ill served; one tends to fall into the trap of fundamental attribution error. Consider the context. Foremost it is a board dedicated to pornography, not discussion. It is also an especially touchy subject.
The general public tends to follow the "pedophile = molester" definition, so it comes as no surprise to me that replies in both threads have hinged on that definition. Some do not see a distinction between lolicon and the real thing, which is dangerous given the public opinion. Third parties often spam lolicon sites with CP with the intent to get them shut down. Discussing the real thing- however passingly- can serve to jeopardize their community.
There has also been a history of ill-informed backlashes against the subject matter in various countries and online communities (even when hosted where the content is legal). Consider for example HentaiFoundry, which notoriously ousted all of the lolicon content.
278e9c No.6705
b5b37a No.7385
6c000a No.7393
bb0e9a No.7655
File: 1431404801081.jpg (261.19 KB, 1024x798, 512:399, Satan-and-Antichrist1-1024….jpg)
>>5182
>>5207
Not a moral fag,
I vastly prefer molestation to death.
>>5213
Not a loaded question you dip shit. No assumption involved in the question. No burden of proof that sex =/= torture – in fact since that's way out of common experience, the burden of proof would be on you numb-nuts
**
Yes, I prefer molestation, In fact I was molested. And more than survived it, I enjoyed the fuck out of it.
Y'all religious moral fags still believe a sky daddy is tallying up the "sins" in the world. And to get on your fantasy express to magic heaven boredom after death, you need to feel you haven't sinned soooo bad.
Y'all white knight SJW pussies think you can speak for me and others that were molested. I tell you fuck off. Speak for yourself only. I can speak for myself and you're full of shit.
Pic unrelated
b04f66 No.7873
>>5827
Shit, I don't think possessing CP should be illegal since it's a victimless crime, and I don't feel bad at all about the slimebag prosecutor killing himself. He probably sent a fuckton of young black guys to jail for having marijuana. He probably would have thrown the book at someone else caught doing what he did. He wasn't just "chatting." He was propositioning them for sex. I'm pretty sympathetic to /younglove/ but his death is no more of a tragedy to me than the death of Michael Brown or another worthless nigger.
77ebe4 No.8138
>>5101
>>5072
That point of possessing child pornography really opened up my mind.
Why arrest the people who possess it? Have they hurt anybody for having those files with themselves and NOT distributing it anywhere?
Weird.
013680 No.9137
c1cf49 No.13342
>>5090
Guess Im moving to Mexico lol
053163 No.14439
i do not think it is bad.
A pedophile is merely one who has a sexual attraction to a child.
A pedophile is attracted to a child or children because of something inside of them.
Though people will argue about it it is not bad or good, it is simply what is.
If you are found to be a pedophile in Canada or the United States you could face jail time if you possess child porn of any kind, if you do not face jail or when you get out you face a curfew, limited freedom, probable monitoring of online activity, tracking bracelet, registered as a sex offender. If you spend time in jail it will be the worst of jail time you could have. Your material if any is destroyed if they find it all. You would have scheduled and random visits from law enforcement when you got out.
You cannot risk going to a therapist, priest, pastor, family, or friends to talk. You might as well be turning yourself in to the police.
They destroy the material you have because they want to destroy the fetish entirely but even if they managed to destroy all material everywhere they cannot stop people from having the urges. You may very well hate yourself if you grow up in places like Canada and the United States for a very long time, because you hear about how your society thinks it's evil, sick, twisted, etc growing up and you cannot risk seeking anyone to talk to. If you are lucky you will be able to accept yourself and figure out how to control and satisfy the urges safely.
A weird thing in the midst of this is that human-beings have a God of lust named Eros who appears in the form of a naked boy. We have Cupid who makes people fall in love, he is a baby in a diaper with a bow and love arrows. We have pictures of nude children with wings we call fairies and more.
We have protected literature from famous authors.
Many who live with this control it. They fantasize, write and/or read stories, look at images, create images.
Stuff that is fake, drawn art, digitally created video is called lolicon when it features girls and shotacon when it features boys. There are videos, visual novels/hentai games, images, comics, stories. Many control their urges with this. It harms nobody as no real children are used and it satisfies the urges. But even this has to be hidden from those you know in the physical world. You cannot risk trusting them, ever.
If the people so determined to destroy all lolicon/shotacon material succeed what do they think will happen?
Do they think these fetishes will just die out?
Because the urges would still be there, you would still have people who are attracted to children.
It would put children in even more danger to not have these people sate their desires in a perfectly harmless way.