No.20671[Last 50 Posts]
Do you think theres any way to stop news sites from referring to child molesters as simply "paedophiles"
I mean in this example BBC refers to a group of baby rapists as simply "paedophiles", and this is the fucking BBC which is state funded.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32413502
>Members of a paedophile network whose crimes were described as the most "vile and depraved" police had seen have been convicted of arranging abuse.
>The UK-wide gang raped and abused babies and young children, streaming the attacks online to fellow members.
It pisses me off that Im associated with these kinds of people because the fucking BBC is too retarded to pick up a dictionary and read what paedophile means.
No.20672
> Does it bring views/attention?
Yes.
> Does it appeal to the majority of public opinion?
Yes.
> Is it funded by said views given by the majority of the public?
Yes.
Then there is no way that they'll be politically correct about it. If it'll negatively affect their income, it's highly unlikely that they'll change their practice, even if they know what they're doing is not right.
No.20684
If enough people ask them (or perhaps one person enough times) then they will change their ways.
They are not doing it because they hate us, but just because they really think "paedophile" is a synonym for "child molester".
So if you want to change it, lodge a complaint with the BBC every time you see them do it.
No.20688
>>20671
BBC is full of paedophiles though.
No.20689
ok….how can you rape a baby? dick impalation?
No.20691
>>20689
I don't know nor I want to know. All I care about it is that it should be stopped.
No.20692
>>20688
Don't forget Hollywood.
No.20696
>>20689
It like having a fleshlight with little arms and legs!
No.20697
>>20689
>>20691
You know how pacifiers work? Think that, only with a penis.
No.20700
>>20697 not sure about the gravity of that….its like suck a finger …but if touch your dick suddenly you are the scum of the earth? the baby won't know or remember what happen….need details for crucify correctly this guys
No.20701
No.20705
>>20671
>It pisses me off that Im associated with these kinds of people because the fucking BBC is too retarded to pick up a dictionary and read what paedophile means.
They obviously get sexual satisfaction from children, so I don't see the problem.
No.20706
>>20700
I imagine most people probably aren't comfortable with the thought of being someone's sex doll as a baby even if they don't have an actual recollection of it.
>>20705
The problem is it implies that pedophile automatically means child rapist.
This board is technically a pedo network. Does that mean being part of it makes you a baby rapist?
No.20707
>>20705
>a pedophile is always a child rapist
>a heterosexual is always a woman rapist
This is how fucking retarded you sound.
No.20708
>>20705
>people who rape babies
>a guy who is attracted to young girls but keeps it to himself and one anonymous imageboard
They're not the same thing.
No.20709
>>20706
We're just a discussion board, a paedophile network would involve a bunch of paedophiles collaborating to do illegal stuff. Most discussion here is persuading people not to do illegal stuff.
No.20713
>>20709
>pedophile
Someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children.
>network
Usually a number of entities connected together in some way, in this case presumably by means of communication.
I'm pretty sure that by any reasonable definition this is a pedophile network. There's nothing wrong with that of course, just as there's nothing wrong with a homosexual network or an ethnic minority network.
Of course, since the BBC can't distinguish between violent rape and sexual attraction, I don't expect them to be using any reasonable definition for that either.
No.20716
>>20713
>ethnic minorities existing
>not a problem
No.20717
>>20707
>The problem is it implies that pedophile automatically means child rapist.
No, it doesn't.
>>20707
>an investor destabilized the economy. His crimes are terrible
>OMG all investors are criminals!
That's how retarded you sound
No.20719
>>20717
>No, it doesn't.
Yes it does.
And what the fuck are you even going on about with this investor bullshit? Who the fuck is saying that here? Who the fuck is saying it anywhere?
Maybe on pol, but no one thinks all bankers are automatically thieving jews the way 99.999% of non pedos think pedos are automatically dangerous predators.
Seriously, you're retarded.
No.20721
>>20719
It's an analogy. They are both pedophiles and child molesters. That doesn't mean that all pedophiles are child molesters.
>Material which could lead to the arrest of other paedophiles has been sent on to police forces on five continents.
Does that sentence really make you think all pedophiles are criminals?
No.20723
>>20721
it's a worthless analogy
>Does that sentence really make you think all pedophiles are criminals?
when non pedos who already believe that (nearly everyone) read that sentence, it definitely confirms their biases.
No.20724
>>20723
What does it matter what people think? Don't go full SJW on us.
No.20725
>>20724
>What does it matter what people think?
Gee I don't know, maybe because what all of society thinks of you hugely effects your ability to live your life?
Can you go be a retard somewhere else now?
No.20726
>>20721
they're referred to as paedophiles, its like if they reported on a rape and referred to the rapists as heterosexuals.
No.20727
>>20725
Do you have some sort of giant neon sign above your head stating pedophile here? Unless you do, it isn't what society thinks of you, but what society thinks of pedophiles. You simply need not identify as a pedophile and it won't affect you socially.
No.20728
>>20726
It's more like they reported on a rape and referred to the rapists as chubby chasers. Or whatever fetish you want to insert.
No.20730
Complaint submitted.
It is a simple process and does not require javascript or an email address.
> "Paedophile" means someone-preferentially-attracted-to-children. Most paedophiles are not child-rapists. Most child-rapists are not paedophiles.
> It is not accurate to describe the gang as being a "paedophile network" because there is no evidence to suggest that they are in-fact paedophiles.
> Misusing these words leads to unfair discrimination against actual, non-offending, paedophiles.
No.20732
>>20671
Well, they are paedophiles, or just people who happened to choose a child to have sex with.
It's the same as referring to the terrorists as muslims.
The only way it's going to even start to change is if you paedophiles who don't like being associated with them come out of your closet and demand that change.
If no muslims spoke out against it then why would they care about changing?
But now the conundrum is what's more important. To be able to publicly identify as a paedophile or remain in the closet?
Sure you could say that you don't intend to do anything with a child so… yeah. But people will still view you negatively for that trait. Possibly get some harassment here or there. Sure you might no longer be equated with child molester but it won't make you not despised.
Even Homosexuals have a hard time still.
Though it takes that sacrifice of coming out of the closet to lead that change towards more acceptance/or at least tolerance.
However, there are some specifically spiteful people out there that realise they lost the homosexual battle by being to lenient in their tolerance to the point where the homophobe card exists.
They've learned from that and would make it their mission to ensure that it remains absolute zero-tolerance.
So what we have here are people fighting to make sure the term paedophile stands as a synonym for "the worst thing to be ever" while there is no one willing to fight back.
No.20734
>>20730
Complaint ignored
Some faceless complaint is not going to change anything. Why? because someone has to read that complaint.
That person then needs to agree with the complaint.
And then that person has to put themselves on the line and open themselves up to the scrutiny of being a paedo-sympathiser. Paedo-sympathiser is right up there with rape-apologist. Why would they risk all of that for a faceless paedophile?
No.20755
>>20734
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
No.20766
>>20732
>Even Homosexuals have a hard time still.
No not really. A white homosexual living in a first world country and white community is fine, homophobia and other irrational hatreds are a shitskin thing.
No.20768
>>20734
They actually replied to me.
but yeah it looks like they arent going to change it.
No.20769
Seriously fuck the BBC, they're state funded leftist propaganda. The TV license tax is fucking extortion.
No.20770
>>20755
I think you have it backwards.
First you are winning, then they fight you, then they laugh at you, then they ignore you.
No.20772
>>20768
Their response is disingenuous for at least two reasons.
1. The term "child molester" is more accurate. It has all of the same connotations in common speech that "pedophile" does, except it is not ambiguous, So they lose nothing in terms of accuracy by using "child molester" instead of "pedophile."
2. Media organizations (including the BBC) routinely choose terms for reporting based on their social and political agenda instead of common usage. At a time when it was perfectly acceptable and unambiguous among most of the population to refer to blacks as niggers and homosexuals as queers or poofters, the BBC avoided those terms in favor of Negro, then (later), Black for niggers, and homosexual for queers.
The BBC will ignore the suggestion because they hate pedos, most other people hate pedos, they don't want to be seen as supporting pedophilia, and they're fucking lazy tea-swilling poofters.
No.20773
>>20772
The BBC are racketeers, im voting UKIP solely so they lose funding.
No.20774
>>20768
What a great argument.
>It's okay for us to be inaccurate because everyone else does it too.
Or better yet:
>Why try to fix what's broken when we can just ignore the problem?
No.20775
>>20774
>1. The term "child molester" is more accurate.
Not it's not, because the other people involved may not be child molesters and probably aren't. A better term would be accomplices.
No.20776
>>20775
accomplices to child molesters or accomplices to the crime of being a pedophile?
hint: being a pedophile is not a crime
No.20778
>>20776
Accomplices to the convicted criminals.
No.20845
>CP
>streaming
>babies
>2015
See, thats the actual problem.
No.20847
I'm just surprised there's enough people attracted to babies for 7 of them to find each other and get together.
Why didnt they just fuck dolls? Whats sexual about babies at all?
No.20848
>>20847
They went after young children, too.
No.20849
"Pedophile" as a term is just burned. You can't hope to give it a positive or even neutral meaning.
>Do you think theres any way to stop news sites from referring to child molesters as simply "paedophiles"
Audience/Sales figures rises when it is about child molesters. And pedophile is the shorter term that is associated with it.
You won't change that anymore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCywGhHQMEw
No.20850
>>20847
Babies are soft and so fresh, their tiny little fresh pink slits are just as sexy as older girls. They have tiny little legs that are flexible and the baby fat rolls are just glorious!
Hey, you asked….
No.20856
>>20850
Can you comment on something a non overly sexual "I'm touching my dick right now" type of way just once?
I have never seen your kind out of imgscr-tier places, and yet here you are.
>So fresh
What the fuck does that even mean?
No.20860
>>20856
>doesnt know about baby fresh
Lol what a moron trying to talk about nothing you know about
If we lived in the same area I would go over your place with and have you experience pure, silky soft baby/toddler flesh
There is nothing in this world close to the feeling of that smooth skin across your body riding and rubbing across your……*giggle*
Well, you know
The taste is wildly different too. The smell of a baby out of the bath is intoxicating and arousing sometimes your senses cant take it and you go into overload. Sometimes I have to give them 2 or even 3 baths because how dirty they get when in my care ;p
The perks of being a charming Uncle
No.20888
>>20856
>fresh
You know, new, clean, like fresh out of the oven?
No.20889
>>20860
I'm glad I'm not the only one who understands! Wish I knew people like you irl.
My favorite family activities are diaper changes and bath time! Shit is cash.
No.20890
>>20856
>yet here you are
Here I am, a pedo, on a pedo forum called "young love".
Do you know where the fuck you are?
No.20894
>>20860
God you're disgusting.
No.20896
>>20894
Leave my buddy alone.
He speaks nothing but truth!
No.20900
>>20860
>sometimes brings babies closer to his D when they are sitting on his lap
>Hey guys, I get all the baby pussy, I swear ;)
I know that you want us to call you disgusting, evil and a psycho-/sociopath, it is what gets your ego of, but you are neither of those; you are simply an autist trying to impose us. You want to have the feel of beeing something special and try to achieve this trough your sexuality because you lack skill and intelligence. By trying to impose thee who are already hated and despised by everybody; pedophiles, you get the feeling of beeing something special, somebody who is below everybody on his own little throne, somebody who is feared and hated, somebody who stands out of the masses.
This bullshit about "smooth skin" is enough to realise that you are just talking about stuff you have no clue of.
You should consider going to >>>/hebe/ , joining your fellow imposers.
No.20923
>>20900
I don't like him either, but let's accept the fact that being a pedo and being a disgusting cretin or a monster are not mutually exclusive.
No.20927
No.20944
>>20923
>what is a false equivalence
No.20945
>>20944
why don't you tell us?
No.21044
Well atleast they're not the dailyfail.
No.21318
>>20688
Not anymore, Savile is dead.
No.21353
No.21357
>>21353
>This is a moral issue, not a semantic one.
No, it literally is a semantic issue.
No.21358
>>21357
A semantic issue is one that only pertains to linguistics.
The issue here is that the media conflates child molestation as a general trait of all pedophiles, by always referring to child molesters as pedophiles. This also has the side effect of accusing all child molesters of also being pedophiles, further adding to the stigma.
It's a moral issue just like referring to all thugs as black people. Not all thugs are black and not all blacks are thugs.
No.21364
>>21358
It's more like someone being called a thug and you complaining that the word means a member of a gang of murderers and robbers in India who strangled their victims. You are just complaining that people are using a word differently from its root.
No.21367
>>21364
>You are just complaining that people are using a word differently from its root.
…which causes a huge social issue as a result
and no its not more like that absolutely retarded analogy at all, what the fuck is wrong with you?
No.21368
>>21364
Its not semantics, there's a huge difference between the words paedophile and child molesters.
Not all child molesters are paedophiles and yes words change but that isnt an excuse for painting a group of people with one brush. The BBC has before done their best to tiptoe around the ethnicity of the rape gangs being the leftist racketeers they are.
No.21375
>>21368
>Its not semantics, there's a huge difference between the words paedophile and child molesters.
But, you know, people who are pedophiles who don't have sex aren't known as pedophiles. The only time a pedophile would be outed as one is if he commits a crime.
No.21381
>>21375
Hey anon, could you do us a favor and try rubbing two brain cells together?
>people who are pedophiles who don't have sex aren't known as pedophiles.
Gee it's almost like that's the exact issue being raised here or something, what a coincidence that you just happened to bring it up huh?
Public opinion: All pedophiles are child molesters. All child molesters are pedophiles.
This presents a problem to pedos who believe it or not manage to not molest any children because…
>The only time a pedophile would be outed as one is if he commits a crime.
See the funny thing about that is that's fucking wrong!
But don't just listen to me, whoooole bunch of other posters here would love to let you know just exactly how fucking wrong that is!
So now that you know just how fucking wrong you are, I hope you can begin to understand what a big issue this is!
No.21388
>>21381
>See the funny thing about that is that's fucking wrong!
Strong words from someone on an anonymous imageboard. You wouldn't admit to being a pedophile if it was being attached to your real name, nobody would.
No.21389
>>21388
Why don't you go ahead and ask every single namefag on this board if that's correct or not?
I'm not sure how you can convince yourself of something so obviously on it's face completely dead wrong.
No.21397
>>21389
I said real name, not pseudonym.
No.21408
>>21397
Holy fucking shit how stupid are you?
All the namefags have told people in real life who know their real names you astounding retard.
God damn dude, get it together.
No.21410
>>21408
Telling someone you would trust not to expose you isn't really the same thing as publicly coming out as a pedophile. In that case, it's still a secret. They wouldn't post their personal information here or post that they like little girls on their facebook pages. Like I said, being outed as a pedophile.
No.21415
>>21410
>Like I said, being outed as a pedophile.
Plenty of namefags here will tell you about that, too.
But nice grasping at straws that are totally besides the point though, because this effects the pedos that just want to tell their loved ones too.
I don't know how you think you have any legs to stand on or what point you're trying to make.
The narrative thats pushed by the media has a real negative impact on our ability to live our lives honestly. Not all of use are lone wolf outcasts that just want to live hidden from all of society including our friends and families.
No.21416
>>21415
>Plenty of namefags here will tell you about that, too.
I'm going to call your bluff on that.
>The narrative thats pushed by the media has a real negative impact on our ability to live our lives honestly.
Honesty is not always the best policy. Having a desire to have sex with someone you can never legally have sex with is something you should just keep to yourself.
>Not all of use are lone wolf outcasts that just want to live hidden from all of society including our friends and families.
You can still have friends and family, just don't tell them you want to sleep with kids. Maybe if you really trust that person, but most people don't want to be saddled with having to keep a secret like that.
I mean is it really that hard to respond to someone saying, "hey, that's a hot chick" with "yeah" instead of "nah, I prefer grade school children?"
No.21417
>>21416
You mean call their bluff?
If your argument here is "yea well theyre just lying" then I guess the conversation ends here because there's clearly nothing we can post here to change your opinion. Your "well just don't talk about it" policy is also bullshit because once again, a lot of people here would like to talk about it with someone in real life for a change.
This is an incredibly simple concept and I very seriously believe you have some sort of significant mental impairment to not comprehend that other people are not you and do not share your opinion.
I mean fuck, why are you even posting here if you're comfortable keeping it to yourself for the rest of your life?
Just stop posting.
Just stop.
No.21418
>>21417
>You mean call their bluff?
No, I mean you should go bring up the thread using the search function or something and show it to me so I can see what you mean. This is a slow board, it's probably still up.
>Your "well just don't talk about it" policy is also bullshit because once again, a lot of people here would like to talk about it with someone in real life for a change.
You shouldn't. This is the way honest people end up in jail. All it takes is one trumped up child porn charge and your entire life is ruined. It's fine if people suspect you are a pedophile, but to actual come out and admit it? Terrible, terrible idea.
No.21419
>I mean fuck, why are you even posting here if you're comfortable keeping it to yourself for the rest of your life?
I'm fine with talking about pedophilia under fake names, just not in real life.
No.21421
>>21418
Ask Deft.
AND YOUR POINT IS LITERALLY THE EXACT ISSUE THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE HOLY SHIT HOW ARE YOU THIS FUCKING STUPID JESUS FUCKING CHRIST WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU DO YOU SERIOUSLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW "ALL PEDOS ARE CHILD MOLESTERS" IS THE EXACT LINE OF LOGIC THAT DEMANDS POLICE IMMEDIATELY INVESTIGATE YOU FOR ANYTHING THEY CAN FIND SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE THAT ALL PEDOPHILES ARE CRIMINALS THAT SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED I MEAN FUCKING HELL YOU ARE KILLING ME HERE DUDE
No.21422
>>21421
Calm down. That's the way society is and you can't change it. And since society's views reflect the language, using pedophile as a synonym is reasonable if not academically correct.
No.21424
>>21422
No, actually it is not reasonable nor correct in any sense that matters including "academically" or you know, literally.
Just
Stop
You
Are
Not
Right
No.21425
>>21424
http://8ch.net/pact/
If you really think you can change society, why not go join an entire board of like-minded individuals? I'm not going to try to change society and I don't think many other people here want to fight either.
No.21426
And its not even about the word itself you pitiful fucking buffoon, its about the belief behind it, and yes we can change it.
The evidence is all around us that it IS starting to change, it's just being hindered by lazy/cowardly/selfish/sociopathic people like you.
No.21427
>>21426
You sound like a social justice warrior, seriously, stop.
No.21428
>>21425
There's a difference between not wanting to fight and literally fighting against us by demanding we believe that something that is self-evidently not true no matter what you you have to say, is true.
No.21429
>>21427
And you sound like the most disgustingly worthless poster on this board. What the fuck are you even here for? Just kill yourself.
No.21430
>>21428
In addition to not wanting to fight, I also want there to be no fight. It just shines a spotlight onto the pedophile community and I would rather remain hidden. The less people think about us, the better.
No.21431
>>21430
Then slight your throat now. You are the problem.
No.21432
>>21429
>disgustingly worthless poster on this board
Still better than a social justice warrior. Providing nothing to the community is better than actively hurting it.
No.21433
>>21432
That's what you are doing you unworthy of life subhuman.
No.21434
>>21433
I'm not the one trying to get us to throw ourselves on their spears. Go be a liberal agitator elsewhere.
No.21449
>>21434
Yes you actually are. You're literally telling the entire pedo community to shut up and let antis have their way. That's 100% what you are doing.
Instead of go be a utterly worthless subhuman faggot somewhere else, how about you kill yourself and not be an utterly worthless subhuman faggot anywhere?
No.21450
>>21449
>Yes you actually are. You're literally telling the entire pedo community to shut up and let antis have their way
If the antis had their way, we would all be in jail.
So, instead of doing your plan and giving them an excuse to do just that, why don't we play it smart?
Alternately, go join the LGBT community, you would fit right in with their gay pride parades.
No.21453
>>21450
>not challenging a falsehood that puts you in serious jeopardy is playing it smart
If your inevitable suicide wasn't a forgone conclusion at this point I would be pretty miffed at how irredeemably stupid a person can be.
No.21454
>>21453
You're the one advocating suicide here. I don't want to fight city hall or the powers that be.
No.21456
>>21454
I'm advocating YOUR suicide. Or murder, if someone else is willing to do the job.
You've already admitted you provide nothing to community. Your words, not mine.
Your death would be a net gain to any that have had the displeasure of your interaction.
No.21457
>>21456
I think you are taking this imageboard too seriously, man. I don't provide anything to the community, but does any one poster? Apart from maybe a volunteer? Maybe you should go offline for a month or two if it's making you want to seriously kill people. Try to keep your mind off your attraction to children. I don't want to have to read in the newspaper some crazy pedophile shot up a school because he wanted them to treat the word pedophille differently than the current usage is.
No.21512
>>20671
> this is the fucking BBC which is state funded.
One morning, upon awakening from agitated dreams, Great Britain found itself, in its bed, transformed into a giant cockroach.
No.21515
>>21457
Post the whole manga faggot
No.21516
No.21517
>>21516
What would we just do without lolis and shotas
God bless Japan
No.21705
>>21515
sauce on that image?
No.21712
No.21720
>>21712
That dude just, like, vanished. I wonder what happened to him.
Great artist except for his sick pube obsession.
No.21751
No.21764
Wow, a paedophile(and potential baby rapist)
expects politically correct langauge use
No.21785
>>21764
are you a heterosexual male? You're a potential rapist too.
No.21786
>>21785
Homosexuals can't be rapists?
No.21787
>>21786
Yes they can and the person you are quoting will agree. You merely missed the point.
No.21788
>>21787
Just seems like a pointless distinguishment, unlike the whole baby rapist thing.
No.21843
>>21785
Having sex with a consenting adult is not rape.
Having sex with a baby(even if said baby says,"goo,gaga") is rape.( I use "baby", because OP used this word)
Therefore,In the eyes of the majority, a paedophile is a potential baby rapist
No.21845
>>21843
Having sex with a non consenting adult is also rape.
A normal heterosexual man is exactly as much of a potential rapist as a pedo. As is everyone else physically capable of the act of rape.
No.21853
>>21843
Stop typing like a retard.
You are as much of a potential rapists as me, Im attracted to adults and children and I havent ever raped a child because I know its wrong.
No.21854
>>21843
>Having sex with a consenting adult is not rape.
Unless that adult is a retard.
No.22278
>>20671
>Having sex with a baby(even if said baby says,"goo,gaga") is rape.
Anti-pedo horseshit.
No.22286
>>22278
It is, they can't consent
>Inb4 babyfags start comparing sex with feeding them
No.22287
>>22286
You can tell whether the baby is being hurt or enjoying things.
No.22340
A baby literally cannot consent.
No.22343
>>22340
Says you
Ever rub a baby? Kiss a baby? Massage a baby after a nice warm bath?
They coo and make happy noises indicating what you are doing is fine and they enjoy these feelings
If a baby starts crying or making "woo"ing noises then you are fucked
I don't even think you've held a naked baby so what gives you the authority & know-how on what and what-not a baby likes and can consent to?
No.22345
>>22343
A baby can hardly even be said to be conscious, they cannot consent. You can jack off a guy in his sleep and he'll probably look like he enjoys it, because he's asleep and doesn't know what's actually happening, and that's exactly why he can't consent.
Likewise a baby has no clue about the social and cultural context of the act and it might effect it later in life, so no, a baby cannot consent. It's entirely up for the care provider to decide on their own what is good or not for the baby.
No.22346
>>22345
I wholeheartedly agree
And if the care provider deems me worthy to rub their baby how I want to rub their baby - then why is everyone arguing?
I believe parents should have free reign over their child until they come an adult. I've known parents who were happy with me taking their kid out for the weekend and adored how I handled and cared for their child. It wasn't till other SJWs pried in on our private lives that they felt the need to "save" these children even though they were in very capable hands and we always enjoyed our time together
I pity the so called "grown ups" and "adults" when I see their baby crying at the mall or on the streets. Wish they would give her to me and within a minute or 2 and a slight tug down of the diaper/panties I'd have that baby relaxed and ready for some din-din
No.22348
>>22346
if you wholeheartedly agree to that now that ive blown you out on your claim that babies can consent will you also agree to what a pathetic subhuman you are that you'll do or say anything to attempt to justify your disgusting bullshit?
nobody fucking ever deemed you worthy to finger their baby, and no one is arguing, you're the only one that wants to argue that what you want is acceptable
i bet even other babyfags like tfw think you're an embarrassment to this board
No.22352
>>22278
babies cant consent, use all the mental gymanstics you want
THEY
CANT
CON
SENT
You're suffering from a mental illness.
No.22356
>>22278
One could argue that babies aren't yet conscious and therefore consent not a question – in the sense that a table doesn't have to consent to things being put on it either –, but that's just the argumentation Singer and his fellows used in favour of abortion. The problem is, applying that argument more systematically, human beings lose any (human) right the moment they lose their consciousness, e.g. also when falling asleep. Thus, "raping a person who's asleep" would be an inherent contradiction. "Murder" wouldn't apply if you kill someone who's asleep either. I don't know whether you could want that, but I myself refuse that attitude. Humans stay humans even if they pass out. The current inability to dissent doesn't wipe out the general ability to dissent. And therefore, I'd if not the idea of babies being able to consent refuse the idea of adults being able to infer a baby's consent from any of its reactions. Hence, you have to assume dissent.
No.22357
There are two kinds of people in this world - people who understand an act is still wrong even if nobody else finds out, and people who don't. Babyfuckers are by and large the people who don't.
You can't argue with those people.
No.22358
>>22278
8/10 You nearly got me
No.22374
Hey hey hey, everyone calm down and love babies.
Shhhh…
No.22375
>>22374
lovely suckable toes
Bet she'd enjoy them in my mouth
No.22396
In order to properly discuss whether children, babies, animals, whatver can consent, there needs to be a very clear understanding of what, exactly is meant by the word consent.
For example, people often hug each other, or kiss each other, without verbally agreeing to it. Does that make those hugs and kisses unconsensual, or is there more to consenting than verbally saying yes? If you agree that you need some level of 'understanding' of sex to consent to sex, then what level is that? Is there something special about sex that means you have to have some type of enlightenment compared to other things you can do without 'consenting'? These are really mostly the same questions that need to be asked in a discussion about whether preteens can consent or not, but they still need to be answered here. Being adamant about babies not being able to consent seems to propagate the same kind of "sex is sacred and dangerous, may only be wielded by enlightened beings lest you suffer loss of your entire soul" attitude that society has about sex in general.
My personal opinion is that sex has been made into a gigantic clusterfuck that nobody really understands, and thus everybody is hurt to some degree. The less you understand it, the more damaging it can be. To people under the age of consent, there is an added bonus of forced secrecy and very grave possible consequences that we cannot realistically expect children or babies to be able to deal with. Sex alone - anyone can decide whether they want that or not, baby, prepubescent or adult. But all the bullshit humanity has decided comes included, free of charge, in the box? Consent isn't even relevant: Nobody should be expected to be able to understand, appreciate and deal with that burden.
No.22402
>>22396
>Nobody should be expected to be able to understand, appreciate and deal with that burden.
But its ok to place that burden on a baby while putting a tremendous risk on its future?
Yes, sex IS different from most other activities. Its one of the most intimate ways of self expression and is a huge aspect of relationships. Humans by and large place a huge emphasis on self-determination and being used is one of the worst experiences in the world for most people.
Yes, consent absolutely is more than just prying a 'yes' out of a child's mouth.
No, a baby cannot decide whether it wants sex or not anymore than it can decide whether to take a shit or not. It just does because it has to, and it responds to sensory input literally the only way it is programmed to. A baby is literally not able to say no to 'pleasurable' input and thus it objectively has no capability to consent whatsoever.
What if you had the experience growing up of being the sexual plaything of a man that as you became more aware you decided that you absolutely did not like? How would you feel up until that moment that man you did not like had been doing intensely intimate things to you? Perhaps things that you now think are disgusting, like peeing on you or something? Because that actually happens to many infants.
You NEED clear non coerced permission to have sex, and that is something babies are flat out not capable of providing.
No.22409
>>22402
>But its ok to place that burden on a baby while putting a tremendous risk on its future?
No, that was exactly my point. I mean, what?
No.22411
You could marry young girls in the USA in the past. In deleaware
7 yr and 9yr olds till the mid and late 1800s or so.
Can the debate transcripts be found so one could show how (if) respectable
men (such as legislators) justified man+adorable young girl?
No.22412
>>22411
Probably, if you are willing travel a university library that had the archives and sort through thousand of books and microfilm told, are find a legal library and pay a paralegal $50/hour and $1/page to do it for you.
No.22413
>>22411
Nobody did. There isn't any marriage law until someone decides to try to marry a preteen and then suddenly the entire state unanimously agrees to create legislation.
No.22414
>>22413
Then why are there records of lords who were in america pre-revolution marrying 9 yr olds?
No.22415
>>22414
Nobles can get away with anything.
No.22416
Could we have a violent revolution and kill anyone opposed to men marrying young girls, citing Deuteronomy 22 28-29 (hebrew) +
Deuteronomy 13:7-12 / Deuteronomy 17:2-5 / Deuteronomy 13:13-19 / etc etc
Could we butcher them with axes and put them through ovens?
No.22417
http://lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/0430.html
1) (plural)
1a) rulers, judges
1b) divine ones
1c) angels
1d) gods
2) (plural intensive - singular meaning)
2a) god, goddess
2b) godlike one
2c) works or special possessions of God
2d) the (true) God
2e) God
No.22418
AV - God 2346, god 244, judge 5, GOD 1, goddess 2, great 2, mighty 2,
angels 1, exceeding 1, God-ward + H4136 1, godly 1; 2606
So if they entice us to follow another god/ruler/judge/etc then we need to kill them.
Since Deuteronomy is fine with men + young girls (22, 28-29) and we are enticed to not follow that but another ruler/judge/etc…
shouldn't we kill?