/younglove/ - Pedophilia Discussion

This needs more attention, and I feel a sticky to aid discussion/give more people a chance to read. Do you think you could add one?

The two documents are very long, (so naturally on a chan most won't take the time to go through them) but they are very detailed and contain everything you need to move legalization forward.

One should post sparknotes. That may encourage people to read it.

>>26667

Not OP, but I'll try to summarize:

Section one is just a series of pro - kind essays and arguments. Section two suggests that the only way for you to win is pushing a cultural revolution- pedophobia is one part of a bigger issue, and that's sex negativity/outdated attitudes towards nudity. That's summed up via my favorite argument:

"If a child asks for a hug and someone else says yes, are they being raped? Children cannot consent, so it would appear so. You may claim that there's a difference between hugging and other forms of touch, but biologically all positive physical contact releases the same brain chemicals. The biggest difference is cultural.To the "uneducated" child, there is no difference. What good does teaching them that some parts of their body are bad do ?

Section three explains specific strategies, what language to use, programmes etc.

>>26722

From introduction

> Introduction

>Recent victories for gay rights have left many celebrating and some shocked. How did the movement advance so far in such a short period of time? The truth is, it wasn’t magic. People didn’t just "naturally" change their minds on the issue. It took years of effort by activists, peer pressure and effective social advertising techniques. All of these were laid out in a game plan co-written by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen entitled "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer It's Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90's.

http://www.amazon.com/After-Ball-America-Conquer-Hatred/dp/0452264987

At the time this book was written, gays had won a few victories yet weren’t gaining much ground.

>Well-reasoned arguments and friendly chats with neighbors weren’t cutting it. The social stigma against homosexuality was almost as strong as the one against pedosexuality today. Since then, LGBT activists and organizations have been following this playbook to the letter, rapidly gained increasing acceptance and recently won a Supreme Court victory ensuring their right to love. As stated, the purpose of this article is to adapt those same winning strategies.

>>26723

>The scope and purpose of this campaign

Access to the media so you can mount an effective advertising campaign.

>What is pedophobia, and where does it come from

The orgins of pedophobia and an explanation of how it operates, the damage it causes. The first essay is necessary to lay the moral and intellectual foundation for this position.

>Pedophobia as a tool for social control

>Stating the problem, staging the solution: The road ro sex positivity

>Psychological strategies for acceptance

>Social strategies (coming out, media portrayals)

>Economic strategies (dealing with workplace discrimination and the like)

>>267224

>Education strategies include creating resources.

>Legal and political strategies, include running an openly kind candidate.

>How to destroy the opposition

>Miscellaneous

It's an excellent read so far, I'm not done yet.

while this is all well and good, what do these articles actually say besides the tone of what our actions should be and that some of us are going to have to out ourselves?

what actual actions , not the kind of actions and things we should do but SPECIFIC things we can do. while preferablly not comming out

And yes, some of us has a plan.

(it's about helping increasing children's rights, so that if they want to, they can also in time be allowed to have sex with adults)

>>26759

Children don't have rights their parents do. Rather the government should allow later to make the decision for them.

This is expecting things to be too easy. I think that the author is seeing too much similarity to Gays.

I like the analogy with war, so I'll continue it. Gays had it much easier. They're war was on where everyone lined up, shot at each other, made peace and went home. Ours is a modern war where the defense has the advantage. We have to do a charge through the no mans land during heavy shrapnel and poison gas artillery bombardment while getting cut to pieces by barbed wire under machine gun fire to try to take an enemy trench, where we lose tens of thousands of troops to take a meter and call it a victorious battle.

Gays just had to show that homosexuality wouldn't cause a societal breakdown. Then it was just a matter of expounding the idea of personal freedom of choice that most cultures in the West hold sacred. A war of attrition against the religious elements to be sure, but not an exceptionally bloody one. The most vocal opponent was the religious right, which is already factionalized and has an exceptionally skill for finding terrible leaders that make them all look stupid. Most importantly, the moralist movement was already exhausted and had lost most of their authority. The same rhetoric was used against music, art, movies, literature, pornography, video games, communism, capitalism, and practically everything else. People had already figured out that rock and roll music wasn't Satanic chants straight from the pits of hell, and didn't take them too seriously. Also, religion has been losing steam since the Renaissance, and there was nothing that opponents of gay rights could do except retreat to safer areas. First it was sodomy laws, then discrimination laws, then etc, where the only arguments against them were GAWD HATES FAGS. The public opinion went from a mild "they're degenerates who should be kept from my neighborhood" to "it's fine as long as they don't try that shit on me" to "well okay, but I'm not sure that they should be allowed to get married". The situation changed rapidly. Gays were able to position themselves to be able to present homophobia as a white trash\neo-nazi thing. In effect, they were able to piggyback on the civil rights movement by casting all their opponents in the same crowd as the KKK, which had fallen into a contempt when anti-racism was on the rise.

We lack all those advantages. The opponents of child love do not form their arguments from a religious basis. They are not inarticulate. They have not been losing moral authority for hundreds of years – they have been gaining it. And when, say, a political who fought against gay rights gets caught sucking trap dick at a truck stop, he is called a hypocrite and loses power. When one who pushed for harsher punishments for pedos gets caught with a kid, the narrative is not that he was a hypocrite, but that he was a predator who was baiting a trap the entire time. That is perhaps the worst part. We are not even allowed to be individuals with complex hopes and dreams; we are only monsters who have to be exterminated. But just is bad is the fact that we cannot play the personal freedom card. In gay relationships, all parties are gay. In pedophilic ones, only one is. The child is not seen as a person. The author devotes a great deal of time to the idea of pushing the rights of childrens to bofily autonomy. The problem with that is twofold. That's already a decreasing right and we would have to extend ourselves further to fight another culture war (when we are losing this one badly). The second problem is compounded by the fact that we aren't seen as people. If that movement is in any way associated with pedophilia, then that well is poisoned and won't get anywhere either. We lack the cohesion and ability to censor the idiots in our ranks to work behind the scenes to pull something like that off. And even if we had conclusive proof beyond any doubt that sex with children was not intrinsically harmful, and that socially manufactured harm could be non existent, that would not be enough to change from the status quo. We would have to show that it's not only not harmful, but beneficial to gain the political capital to get anywhere. Very few people think of severe harm when considering marijuana, but it remains illegal because it has been that way for so long. The government and culture are inertial. Antipedophilia is a train speeding out of control. It would take an enormous amount of resources to stop it, and it would be hard to do without causing a wreck.

>The laws on the books don't exist to "protect kids", they exist because certain people think sex is icky and a corrupting influence.

This is especially false and this idea is hampering our ability to actually see where we are. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. The laws on the books are absolutely written with the idea of protecting children in mind. It is tempting to think of antis as assholes who hate us for the sake of hating us or because it is cool, but the situation is much more complex than that. They truly believe that whatever they do is justified as long as it protects children from us. It's a popular saying that it is worse to live under a tyrant who believes that he has a mandate from heaven than it is to live under who is merely cruel and petty, because the cruel one's bloodlust will eventually be sated or he would have a change of heart, while the moralist one will never stop and will always believe himself justified. I agree with that, but I think that it is clear that few people really understand it until it is targeted at them. The antis have huge amounts of moral authority. They are the opposite of us most prominently in that while we are seen to only act with nefarious motives no matter how noble the deed, they are always forgiven because of their motives no matter how disastrous the outcome. That is not to say that some aren't just mean spirited assholes who attack pedos for the sake of attacking. They are not a homogenous group any more that pedos are.

And speaking of hegemony, we aren't nearly as unified as gays. I'm not talking about boyfuckers vs girllovers or "virtuous" or everyone else either. It didn't matter if you were into twinks or bears while gays fought for their rights, they still helped one another. I'll respond to this:

>Things are different than they were in 1980. We are the media. Using the internet, we have access to millions of minds in the making. In the beginning it will fall on you to create the positive portrayals and PSAs you seek, then release them on sites like Youtube. Nobody will do it for you. We need to cultivate an army of keyboard warriors who will go into battle on the comments sections of news articles and other spaces where kind issues are being discussed. Their mission is to discredit pedophobia and the war on child sexuality.

Most pedos seem to just plain not like one another that much. One of the things that most of us agree on is freedom of speech. But that's not a good thing. We have no way of kicking the idiots among us (like certain namefags on /younglove/) out of our tent when they want to talk about how little girls like to be beaten without tons of in fighting and further fracturing the community. To herd all these cats we would need to defer authority to kick out the ones sabotaging us to some sort of group. Imagine how far gays would have gotten if they allowed a bunch of weirdos in gimp suits to be their spokespeople.

Another thing that we don't have is any way to strategize in private. The gays had national organizations that would painstakingly debate every word and action, then pass those talking points down to the activist. The SJW coordinate in closed chat rooms then spread orders to their followers. We organize in the open, where everyone can see our grand strategy and combat it, and take small snippets of what we say and take it out of context. Furthermore, the strategies we do make are always too grand. Our aspirations vastly exceed our organizational capability, especially when you consider that every one of us is pretty content to just not participate if we don't feel like doing something. And while the posts mentioned in this thread try to limit scope, others are wildly ambitious to the point of stupidity. We can not legalize CP and lower the age of consent and normalize adult-child relationships and normalize allowing open pedos to associate with kids and … all at the same time. None of us are very committed to a common cause because none of us can agree on what that even is. The only thing we can agree on is vague statements like "we shouldn't risk being murdered by coming out" or "little girls are soft and cuddly and we should get to play with them". In addition to all the other disadvantages to us in this war, our soldiers get to vote on whether or not they want to actually fight. In this sense, we lack every tool that a real political movement has at it's disposal. Too much individuality and too little focus on the common goal. There is little devotion and even less loyalty. A lot of this is caused by the fact that the one making the plan puts very little on the line and isn't the one with a ruined life if the plan fails. They also rely too much on logic and rhetoric in a situation that is the very opposite of that. The second text actually hits the nail of that right on the head:

>We will not hide the fact that this is a feels-based advertising campaign. You cannot use logic to reason someone out of an emotional belief, only more emotion. Prejudice is not rational- it’s a “gut feeling”. Poignant pleas for understanding will fall on deaf ears. Some of the most hateful among us will never change and must instead be isolated from polite society. Arguments from emotion cannot be falsified in the same way rational arguments can, and although we have both emotional arguments are more effective.

This is a good point, but the author fails to remember that we are not considered people, only predators. He goes on detail the creation of propaganda on youtube. It's a solid plan, but I don't think he understands the position that we are in. Rights activist who could afford to work with noble tactics like MLK or Ghandi could only work because the societies they were working against wouldn't have stomached the violence to squash them. The Nazis would have had no problem utterly destroying either of them. If we tried to march it would end up in a blood bath, and any dialogue about it would be over guns or something, not about the violence against pedos. We are not sympathetic figures. This is why I'm rather annoyed by the ones who see Virtuous Pedophiles as harmful. Traitors and closet antis, maybe, but certainly not harmful to our cause. Every time that they get media coverage, they get some young men to cry their eyes out about how ashamed they are and how they never want to hurt children, and how VP is helping them do that. This is useful in two ways. First, it makes normies think "wow, that could be my son, I feel so bad for him", and second, it shows that not all organizations of pedophiles are prostitution rings or NAMbLA. They play to the underdog image and soften our image to the public. More power to them, even if they are useful idiots.

Until we have that sympathy and can do things without the ultimate goal of raping and killing children, then all the propaganda in the world won't work. The only thing more useful for reinventing our image is blood, and lots of it. If you want to speed thing up so we can start being seen as human, then lets do some Machiavelli. Gays had bad stuff done to them, just like us, but they had the sympathy automatically. We are going to have to make ours from scratch. We'll have to create the usual stuff the oppressed have suffered, but we'll have to do it to the most innocent targets to get the same effect. Remember, the NAACP shopped around for a quite a while before they found Rosa Parks to defend. They considered several others, but there were… flaws in their image that wouldn't have garnered sympathy, while Parks was a paragon with a squeaky clean image. Pedos lose sympathy when they hit 20 years of age or so, so this needs to be done to ones younger than that. Handsome pedos who get good grades and have a future, not slimy stereotypes who live in dungeons and go to the store and follow little girls around and sniff them. We can't have anyone who has ever done anything with a kid or ever used CP (or at least has the sense to keep that shit to himself). So we get these young men, and then we get them hurt and maimed and killed. A few dozen teenagers go to a therapist, which some how gets leaked or they end up in jail and shanked. A few dozen more who confess to their parents and get disowned and kicked out of the house and have to live on the streets. A few more who come out and boldly declare that they love kids and will never hurt them, then gets tied to the back of a truck and dragged for ten miles until they are dead by a group of vigilantes a few weeks later. Then we can take the survivors and put them in the PR films about how they were just trying to do the right thing by still got fucked. That's corrupt and highly immoral though, so I say that we just let VP run the fronts for now though.

Still, VP would take much longer to gain the same ground. The people who oppose us aren't associated with violence and brutality, no matter how brutal they are. A sacrifice of innocents is what it would take to get that. Once we have sympathy, we might be able to do what gays did. Even getting charities to accept money from pedo groups would be a great victory. Then we could borrow their credibility when donating.

TL;DR

1 - We aren't organized enough to do any of this.

2 - We are starting from very far behind.

3 - We're fighting a losing war and rotting from the inside, while gays started fighting while the general air was in their favor and they were getting stronger.

4 - We have to not only push for rights, but actually reverse the current trends, stop them, and then push for rights.

5 - We don't like each other to help each other.

6 - Our image is toxic, any PR we tried will be shot down without considering it.

7 - No one wants to be on the front lines.

8 - No one can agree on tactics or aims. We can't put aside our differences or keep individuals from losing anything we gain.

9 - We suck at this.

10 - Copying the tactics of gays is likely to help much less than the posts in OP think right now.

>>26784

It'll take years of work. People who think it'll happen overnight are indeed retards. Everything starts small though, i'm glad you read it. I'm not a pessimist.

A word on the religious element: You have a point, but the truth of your enemy does not matter. All that matters is how you PORTRAY the enemy. Make them look like bumbling hypocrites in your advertising.

You also need logical AND moral foundations for your arguments, which you can find in the first essay.

>>26785

Actually, you can- it's just that anonymous imageboards like this are horrible places to do it. You need a real forum or subreddit to organize. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

>>26787

I see what you're saying, and you make a good point. You have a great head on your sholders. But everyone here, shitposting on an anonymous anime imageboard- you can do better. You are the opposite of organized now, but you *can* become organized with time.

>>26787

From what i've read, the article seems to point this out. You can't one-to-one copy the same strategies and expect to win, but the psychological tactics they used are similar in both cases and key to success.

Even more important is getting a group of parents and children to speak out in your favor.

You underestimate the amount of people who may have sympathy for you in certain cases. You already have your martyrs- victims of violence you can play up. Unfortunately, the only way for anything to change at this point is for you guys to come out.

One civil rights tactic/idea I had was for a group of outed people to say they were going to the movies or a public place at a certain time, in a group. They would not make a scene, protest or try to "convert" people, but they would wear wristbands/plain white t-shirts. If someone approaches you to beat you up, let them do it and record it.

Things we can do.

This proposal has nothing to do with gaining acceptance or accomplishing anything at all. What I present here is an attempt to build sympathy (in a non-hyperbolic and bloody way I did earlier) amongst the public and to address the community problems, while trying to keep the scope of this as narrow as possible to avoid alienating the main groups. Despite that, I think that we will still have to throw some groups under the bus, just as gay, and much of it plays off their love of the underdog. These are not rules that I'm proposing or anything, just guidelines that could be useful. As always, it is impossible to actually plan anything this volitile out. To keep with that war analogy that I like so much, any plan we make is going to be about as valuable as the Schlieffen plan that said Germany could beat France WWI in less than a thousand hours. Anyone who does anything will have to have common sense and be adaptable, while always thinking about the overarching goal of gaining sympathy amongs normies. Also, all of this is intended to be done online because of the logistical and legal issues of doing anything in real life. I could be wrong about some of these and will have left some out. I would appreciate any feed back or additional tips.

On gaining sympathy through argument (based on shilling tactics and SJW tactics):

Do not engage antis unless the situation is favorable. Let them foam at the mouth and make an ass of themselves. If it is a news article about a serial killer who targetted little kids, don't under any circumstances try to correct anyone who calls him a pedophile. That won't convince anyone and will make it look like you are defending the killer, further associating us with evil people. On the other hand, it can be good to respond if they are off-topic or their post seems stupid or conspiratorial, but never do so as a pedophile. Keep a cool head, use immpecable grammar, and make your point from places that have nothing to do with pedophilia. For instance, if they are calling for lynch mobs, argue that justice is sacred and that the truth is not subject to the whims of a mob. If they are saying that convicted pedophiles should be killed, then argue that justice is not sacred and is the product of human beings who are falliable, and we should not commit to irreversable actions. Keep in mind that the entire point of responding is not to actually argue with antis and change their minds, but to change the mind of the reader. Always stay calm and remember that the argument is irrelevant. If you cannot enter with a minimal amount of emotion, then don't enter at all. The argument may last for a few days, but the posts recording it will last forever, and that is the audience you are really making your point to. Don't get offended, don't taunt them or mock them. Be a paragon of niceness, but don't be obvious about it. Make stragetic concessions to make yourself look reasonable. Don't get involved in an argument with another reasonable opponent. That's the last thing that you want. You won't look as good in comparison, and even worse, they may actually win the public opinion contest! So stick to the easy targets, and only when you actually have a chance at gaining sympathy.

Trivialize the trivial. It matters very little if we are called child lovers or pedophiles or kinds or whatever (but obviously, child molesters or rapists are bad things to be called, so don't do that). It won't help our image to change it, so I recommend that we just accept pedophiles, since it's probably the least hateful thing we ever get called, and everyone already knows it. But my point here with this is when a someone calls someone who fucked a 17 year old a pedophile, that's good. Let them associate trivial bullshit like that with pedophiles. Find some other way to fight. I see this rather often when lolicon comes up. Don't say it's not really CP or it's art thus protected or anything of the sort. Instead, claim that it is a stupid issue and it is a waste of police time to outlaw it. That will make your opponent look like a unreasonable busybody who is panicking over nothing.

Discredit. Present alternatives to binaries presented. Slowly derail the argument. Make tactical retreats to trap them into saying something that you can better attack. Again, this is a battle, and even if you win all the battles you can still lose the war. Take your time to reply. If there is one person you are targetting, learn their schedule. Continue the argument, then claim that you have something else to do after an hour or so, but arrange it that every time you engage them, they can respond quickly. Once it goes on for a while, feign annoyance and try to paint them as obsessive. Remember to be subtle. It is better to not do this at all if you can't do it right.

Appeal to rights only as a last resort. Sure, freedom of speech is nice and all, but when you argue that pedos are protected by free speech, keep in mind that people hate pedophiles much more than they love freedom, so all you are really doing is turning them against free speech. Besides that, history has shown that laws are just lines on paper, and will be ignored when convient. Don't expect any of that to protect you. Besides that, if you have to appeal to the fact that it's not illegal to say it, then, even if you are absolutely right, you have already lost. Disengage immediately and think about where you went wrong. Remember, your goal is not to convince the one you're talking to, but to the lurkers reading it who don't have a dog in the fight. To them, playing the free speech card is a cowardly move. They love the ideas of freedom and equality rather than freedom and equality themselves.

Never, ever, under any circumstances, leak any other politics that the topic at hand into your writings. Okay, you think that the blacks and Jews and women are personally responsible for your lot in life. Whatever. Just don't put that in anything you write. Keep your focus narrow and stay on topic. Be as absolutely neutral on hot-button issues as possible, and take the most popular stance on other things. Allow the lurkers to project their own politics onto you, who is the reasonable one, so that they are more likely to agree with you. On the other hand, if your opponent is doing so and making an ass of themselves, do the opposite reasonably. For instance, if he or she is ranting about pedophiles and throws in a quip about how global warming is a conspiracy of the academic NSA-Nazi-Exxon-Mobile elite, then make a small statement about the pedophile part and attack the global warming part, with the goal of getting them to post even more inane conspiratorial drivel to undermine anything they say before you move back to the pedo part.

Group tactics (manufacturing consensus):

Have one actually start the argument. The person to do so should be unreasonable and take an extreme position and break all these tips and try to get the opponents to get emotionally involved and move to the other extreme. Then, the you move in to try to create a middle ground. This places the compromise of squarely where we want it to be and on the terms that you dictate. The first person should slowly move towards your middle ground.

Keep the unreasonable antis in the limelight. On places where you can upvote posts, coordinate to upvote the most rabid anti you can find and keep that thread the most active. When you've reached an exit point, everyone downvote the anti and upvote everyone who argued with them.

If no antis can be found, be one. It's better to have the opposition (appear to) be led by an idiot out for blood than someone calm and thoughtful who can actually articulate their goals. After a carefully staged argument, end it gracefully. The antis who were at risk for convincing anyone will have been ignored in the flamewar, and the pedo-sympathetic side appears to be the most reasonable and cool. Even they can't resist peer pressure forever.

What not to do because it will ruin any gains you have made:

Admit to being a pedophile if the situation is not favorable.

Admit to ever touching, loving, knowing, looking at, or thinking about a child. Sometimes it would be okay to do so, but only in the abstract, and as an allusion. Never make it the actual topic or thesis of your post, just something you mention as part of larger things. For example, saying "little girls are lovely" is somewhat okay, but "I saw a little girl the other day at the store and thought she was lovely" will make the normies think that you raped her on the spot or some stupid shit. You know how they are.

Admit to breaking any laws, related to children or not, but especially not child pornography.

Admit to not feeling like garbage. Normies love for us to feel bad. Don't ruin that for them. Right now, we either get pity or contempt. Pity is better.

Claim that children can consent. This is irrelevant to the goal of changing public opinion for now. That can be in a future phase where we have the stage set to do that.

Building Community

Right now there is very little in the way of unity. Homosexuals are not united simply because they share a sexuality, but because they share a way of life. There is an entire underground subculture of gay life (not just sex clubs either, but regular things) that pedophiles do not have and probably can't have in real life. In fact, we should probably avoid any physical meeting with each other for as much as possible for now, lest we be seen as doing something criminal. Instead, it could be useful to build community online, not in the way that gays did, but more in club sort of way. I think, though I am open to argument of why I am wrong, that we should focus on building things in the community that have only tangental connections to se or sexuality. For example, a group project for pedos to join could strengthen our social ties to one another by giving us a place to work together without rubbing each other like sand paper on endless consent issues, even if the project is related to pedophilia or something. Some ideas: a compilation album that inspire thoughts of little girls; a visual novel romance about a pedo realizing who he is when he falls in love for the first time; organizing trolling parties to rek antis; writing a comprehensive guide to security online and offline. Sadly, those are rather big things and require a significant time investment, thus risk abandonment like the pedo magazines, so it would be better to start with small things that we could get many people included in, where we can get the results very quickly and everyone has to very little work. That would encourage people to participate in other projects, and with time, build confidence in doing coordinated movements for rights. I'm not good at thinking of those smaller things though, so please suggest some.

Get out from under my tent

Telling people to fuck off. Some people have got to go. Be under no delusion that we will manage to get rights for everyone. We will not be able to do anything for absolutely everyone. It's obvious that the rapist and abusers have got to go. We should draw as much distinction from them as possible, perhaps by playing up the power aspect as traditional. We should be as vocal in condemning them as possible to make our position more moral and friendly. There is no way to save ourselves unless we sacrifice them, and they are such an easy target to sacrifice and pretty much deserve it anyway. Less obvious is boyfuckers. I do not like them, but deliberately discriminating against them seems hypocritical and rude and dishonorable. I think that it would be better to simply not mention them at all if their public opinion cannot be salvaged than it would be to directly attack them. It may also be preferable to invite them in. Of course, they seem to do much more stupid shit than girl lovers do, so that might also be bad.

>>26775

Fucker has the right idea. Push the concept called "a family's right to choose". This is something most everyone can support. Giving parents the freedom to choose when their child is ready for sexual activity, not the state. This comes with the responsibility of making sure kids stay safe. Both stds and physical damage is already illegal under assault/negligence laws.

"A family's right to choose" is the just cause- how people can support sex reform without outing themselves as being explicitly pro-kind. All we need to do is get people to feel guilty for judging.

Parental involvement is the only way anything will change, or even just (positively) talking about this in online comments sections. Be real, curt and frank. Not everyone believes sex is inherently evil or gross, and that's how you need to present your enemies- stuck up prudes (secular, religious or otherwise) who are simply behind the times. Accuse them of believing children are too stupid to understand their bodies. The "don't touch that special place" meme accomplishes this.

It does not matter if your portrayal of opponents is incorrect or exaggerated as long as it puts them on the defensive.

> memetic warfare

You're a chan, you're great at making memes to discredit the opposition and turn their arguments into jokes. (Ethics in games journalism?) This would probably be stage one of any campaign. Begin with a picture of a robber pointing a gun at another adult and caption it with "two consenting adults"

>>26787

Calling out the autists is a good way to make it known that you hate people who legitimately abuse children and find "common ground" with pedophobes.

One thing you seriously should start doing right away is ditching most of your old terminology. Start using "kind" and treat p*do and/or p**ophile like a slur. Language matters and shapes every debate. This is discussed further in the paper:

https://archive.is/7c6pR#selection-1881.3-1889.2

Again, everyone in the thread should probably save in case it's deleted.

>>26796

>>26797

Smart debate tactics, and I agree with them. For now, the self-hating image is a good one.

>>26801

Can I also suggest mainstreaming the notion of "pedophobia"? A youtube personality does not need to show their face, only have a charismatic voice like sargon of akkad. They could make videos laughing at hilarious over the top online comments and kinda take the piss out of shitty arguments.

>>26800

I know parents religious and non religious who let older men date and even allow sex. I don't why activists try to give kids "rights". Here is why:

Kids are under their parents rules until 18. Parents have to sign off when kids do things that involve liability and risks (think school field trips, joining sports). Why cut parents out of sex?

IMHO this should be the biggest goal. Claim it as:

Wanting smaller government, government shouldn't make laws the override the parents.

Appeal to religious folks. Even if you hate religion trust me when I've heard "my daughter should have a right to marry young". I've met religious folks who connect daughters with older men. No sex is involved but the idea that adults should date kids should be allowed. I know a guy who is 20 and his girlfriend 15. The Parents let him take the daughter to prom and everyone at their church knows they are dating and nobody has called him a negative name. We also need to encourage girls like her to speak out showing "I met my husband at 14/15 and I'm happy with my life"

Find feminists who agree, they are out there. I've seen feminists say they had relationships with older men as teens and they weren't a victim nor coerced.

Basically don't discriminate against anyone who could help. Even if you hate the group they could be used for our advantage.

We also need to stop discouraging meet ups claiming "FBI" Or being scared of what could happen. We actually could use this to become a protected group under hate crimes . Attacking non-offending pedophiles who tried to met up? National news push for protection. Once we get federal protection we can start to come out .

>>26804

Also, we can do mass email campaigns to punish employers who fire non offending people for coming out as they are discriminating based on sexual orientation.

>>26805

Yes!!! However hate crimes for sexual orientation aren't federal (last time I checked) we should work on that.

>>26805

most employers would be glad to let the public know they fire pedos

>>26805

Bad idea. Remember when the Whole Foods CEO said something about ACA, which pissed off liberals who tried to boycott, but then the Tea Party came back with a buycott and more than made up for all the lost business? That's pretty much what would happen if we try to put pressure on anyone right now. Our opposition will give them much, much more business than we could possibly hope to take away. Not to mention that we will be drawing more press to someone who probably doesn't want any.

We are in no position to help anyone right now. It's too much, too abstract, way too soon.

>>26833

>We are in no position to help anyone right now. It's too much, too abstract, way too soon.

When will the "right" time be?

If blacks sat around and said "Let's wait for the right time." If LGBTQ's sat around and said the same thing, would laws have ever been changed? I seriously doubt it.

I don't disagree, but I don't think there will ever come a time when pedosexuals can stand up and fight for their right to not be discriminated against just for their attraction.

I just don't see us ever being able to get people to understand that just because we are sexually attracted to children doesn't mean we necessarily want to have sex with them.

There's two groups of people that I don't see ever being accepted based on their sexual preference. Pedos and zoophiles. It will never become politically correct to support either group.

>>26845

Blacks and LGBQT felt the same way. Historically to even support Black rights as a White male would have gotten you killed. Blacks went from no humanity to having a mulatto in the white house.

However MAP aren't willing to die

Willing to go to prison

Willing to risk it all.

Get others to support us

MLK was considered a terrorist at his time He was peaceful but went to jail.

We don't have the drive, unity and faith to get rights.

>>26846

I think you are confusing MLK for Malcom X.

>>26847

No I actually took Black Studies classes in college. You know MLK went to jail right? You have to remember that Blacks were not supposed to have rights in the minds of those who lived during that time. To even peacefully fight for rights was seen as wrong, illegal and sometimes resulted in death. You know he was being watched by the government? That is how they know her cheated on his wife. He was actually considered a terrorist. History has changed his image. The point is he went from being hated to being loved. Seen as a terrorist to seen as a peaceful man. Your the perfect example. You had no idea how he actually was perceived while alive. Similar attitudes towards pedophiles could happen.

I don't get why MAP focus on gays. Black and their movement actually would provide better insight. However most people like yourself aren't even aware of the facts. Malcolm X didn't do as much as MLK. MLK has more influence thus he was much more of a threat. He also had diversity of people helping with the movement. Malcolm X didn't.

>>26853

Blacks are more sympathetic because you can't do anything about being black. To avoid being homosexual or a child molester you can simply not having sex with men or children respectively.

>>26854

>>26853

>>26847

>>26846

Welll, this is going to be fun.

first - desegregation was done mainly to improve the US' appearances in foreign policy. In the sense that "the Soviet Union partially didnt sign early geneva conventions because they mandated racial segregation which the USSR opposed".

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1228836

It wasn't exactly something the black people wanted. The blacks wanted equal resources and power, as opposed to 'integration' which fucked over things for blacks (integration and afirmative action didn't help poor blacks in the ghetto just middle class and whatnot blacks who were still better off)

There's other stuff ut basically - tl;dr desegregation was mainly something done due to the social climate of the world/competition with the U.S.S.R. on which system is the best, and the US being blatantly hypocritical wasn't good for many people/U.S. geopolitical goals in the 'third world' when those diplomats, depending on where in the US they were at - couldn't legally eat at a restaurant.

>>26784

>>26785

>>26786

>>26787

>>26796

>>26797

>>26799

All of this is very insightful. If you skimmed past it while reading the thread, go back and read it.

The only thing I will add is that we shouldn't forget our roots.

>Be under no delusion that we will manage to get rights for everyone.

We will eventually manage this, although it might take a few thousand years and humanity might be a completely different species by then. As we make our progress towards this goal, we should try to cause as little suffering to those less fortunate than ourselves.

>>26854

Using gays weakens your argument because they have gained more rights over the years. To even use gay slurs is seen as bad.

Next People actually believe gay is no longer a choice. Which us similar to MAP.

>>26867

Blacks went from being slaves to having a mulatto president. Your pov sounds more conspiracy based and not enough to support the improvements of blacks in the US.

Why were Blacks freed?

Where did hate crimes laws come from?

Segregation being removed?Segregation was more than separating it was also about Blacks receiving low quality of life. It was life threatening to be at the wrong place even if you couldn't help it.

Why was this reason said?

Why were their a lot of civil right leaders

Why did Whites and blacks have to did to get changes?

Innocent Blacks no longer being jailed?

There is too much to list but you really can't think Blacks not fighting for their rights didn't play a role. It was the most significant factor!!!

Besides most the world hates Blacks why would they care?

>>26884

>Blacks went from being slaves to having a mulatto president. Your pov sounds more conspiracy based and not enough to support the improvements of blacks in the US.

Conspiracy Based? Literally Malcolm X states in his autobiography as to what any integration would be, just throwing crumbs to black people to appease bot the black people and international partners int he era of decolonization and national liberation of the sort which brought Palestine and Algeria and Vietnam and Rhodesia to the forefront

>Why were Blacks freed?

To fuck over the rebel confederate states, really. More black people who flee to the Union lines, get guns, fight against the CSA. More local support and intelligence on actions of CS officers who prolly thought subcounciously blacks were stupid and ignorant so they blabbered around blacks.

>Where did hate crimes laws come from?

Throwing a bone to blacks due to backlash against mass lynching

>Segregation being removed?Segregation was more than separating it was also about Blacks receiving low quality of life. It was life threatening to be at the wrong place even if you couldn't help it.

There's a difference between getting rid of those laws and attitudes which could get you killed, and wanting to integrate with whites. Perhaps a better analogy would be 'desegregation' was more supported, but many blacks frankly didn't want integration with whites. They wanted their own society and the calls for a separate state were stronger than now.

>Negro leaders in private conversation admit this. But not publicly. They are in a spot, trying to explain to the masses of Negroes what they have got out of integration. The leaders have benefited, but the people they are trying to lead haven't got any benefit.

> I know about the desegregation of the theaters and restaurants and all that in Washington. But the only Negroes who have been helped by that are the Negro bourgeoisie. They are the only Negroes who can afford to go to the theaters and the white restaurants. New York, which is supposed to be liberal, has more integration problems the Mississippi.

>If the Government does not let us go back to Africa, then we should have a black nation here.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/05/16/now-its-a-negro-drive-for-segregation

This is what Muhammed Ali also said on integration. There wasn't exactly a referendum, perhaps on INTEGRATION with white people - as opposed to desegregation, the removal of the oppressive Jim Crow era. Granted, Muhammed Ali uses shitty logic but you get the point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqiWFLsgVi4

>Why was this reason said?

They wanted their own culture and their own nation, some of them did. They did not want to be made white.

>Why were their a lot of civil right leaders

The political climate of the cold war resulted in that. Due to WWII and bullshit blacks got from the war, and the rising social climate of decolonization resulted in the civil rights movement.

>Why did Whites and blacks have to did to get changes?

Because the Southern Way of Life blah blah blah

>>26884

>Innocent Blacks no longer being jailed?

Holy shit, look up The New Jim Crow it's worse now with false integration, with the polcie forcing state power in black communities which gets shit like Rodney King and the stuff in Ferguson and Baltimore.

>There is too much to list but you really can't think Blacks not fighting for their rights didn't play a role. It was the most significant factor!!!

It was a major one, but it was also part of a general trend which Frantz Fanon wrote about in The Wretched of the Earth and what the Labour government in the UK wrote about the "winds of change". World War II defeated explicit fascism, and the European empires exhausted themselves in the war - making it easier for indigenous to assert their rights, seeing that Europeans are vulnerable (as shown by Japan kicking out white imperialists in East Asia for a while). This, as well as the rising sense of national counciousness resulted in decolonization, which the civil rights movment was a part of. The Soviet Union also sent arms, volunteers and other people to assist and helped to train people from those countries in building new countries.

>Besides most the world hates Blacks why would they care?

Most of the world did not hate blacks, and people cared as the third world, most of them black and brown countries will not be happy at working with and aligning with a country which would legally prevent you from eating with the same restaurant as the majority country.

The Japanese in WWII used white racism and imperialism to motivate asians to fight for Japan, as Japan was asian like them instead of white colonialist - 'Asia for Asians'. The US realized that was a problem when fighting the Japanese…even before the other allied powers did (minus the USSR).

Similarly, if diplomat and cultural exchange programs from say independent Congo wee to go to a university program in….say. Tuskegee Alabama and be fucked over by segregation and oppression, while another group from Congo went to Patrice Lubamba University in Moscow….the Congolese would have a higher opinion of the USSR than the US.

Or, if you're from a coiuntry like Laos which went to the US and dealt with discrimination in California when going to Uni there, versus going to a uni in Ukrainian SSR where you were treated well, you get the point. on and on and on, bad experiences and the Soviets pointing this out as how better the Soviets were will influence those countries.

>>26896

>eating with the same restaurant as the majority country.

*majority population in that country, i.e.. the USA

But really, I dunno if the JSTOR article was accessible to you. I think this version ocvers most of it. This thing was said by black nationalist writers, such as WEB DuBois and communists like Mao ZeDong and V.I. Lenin mentioned such

http://www.elegantbrain.com/edu4/classes/readings/depository/race/delg_stef_11.pdf

>>26896

Yeah sure you really think Blacks did nothing to get their rights. They just got lucky that many times? You even admitted "Blacks throw a bone for lynching". What about affirmative action? I'm guessing you don't think much of Blacks nor recognized what they did. You sound like one of those people who think Black never do anything good or useful. You are robbing them of any honor and praise and basically saying "this was given to you".Blacks didn't have to fight You are basically saying they wasted time, energy, efiorts and their lives for nothing. This doesn't surprise me because it supports by our argument of "pedophiles can't sway the public opinion and laws".

You are quite foolish to think Black aren't hated in other parts of the world. I heard Blacks who have been to other parts. I know Blacks who have travelled. They were mistaken for prostitutes. Black on other countries have face racism and even feared for their lives. Plenty of brown People hate Blacks. These people also get told they "aren't American because Americans aren't white. There is plenty of craps Blacks get from other countries. Then again you ignore anything related to Black people (they don't do anything so why listen) so I'm not surprised you think other places love Blacks.

>>26784

>>26785

>>26786

>>26787

>>26796

>>26797

>>26799

I don't want to be rude or shit on your entire post, as it was really well written and had many great points, but it reeks of "the end justifies the means." Not that that's not true, but that the end using those strategies will be a mixed bag. Sure, we gain the public's support and we start getting the rights that we desire, but at the same time we'll end up being viewed the same way LGBTQ people are now, and that's the last thing I and many other pedos want. I'm all for gay rights, but I fucking hate faggots. And of course what I mean by that is I hate the oversensitive "victim" types who use their sexuality as an excuse to do whatever the fuck they want. You seem to be suggesting that our best option is to become that, and while I see the potential in that, I'm not desperate enough to resort to SJW and shill tactics. We gain the majority's support and get a place in society, but the people with a shred of intelligence, the people I care about, will hate us even more after seeing how we operate. It may sound stupid to care about their opinions over legality, but I think that getting the support of smart people is the much better option. Hatred for pedophiles isn't based of facts, it's based on misconceptions. Educate logical people and they're on our side immediately. I've already done that to countless people over the internet and even in real life. It will take a lot longer, but the end results will be much better because the logical side of the argument will spread and everybody can accept logic if it's forced on them for long enough. Not everybody will give into emotional bullshit though. (Easily the most common argument I hear for gays is that they're born that way, which is based more on logic than emotion, though it uses both at the same time). I've spent years doing whatever I could to destroy the SJW mindset. There's no way I would give in to that shit just because it benefits me. I could also bring up the whole thing about letting terrible things happen to great people, but you already mentioned how unethical it is. I'll just say that that's probably the worst possible way to go about this, especially if people caught wind that we were letting it happen.

I think our best option for now is to just continue spreading our message on the internet. Maybe get some more popular ranters to speak for us, while we type our arguments or use copypasta wherever it garners attention. Then things can move on naturally from there. It's highly ineffective compared to our other possible methods, but there will be much less shit for us to clean up when it's all said and done. I'm no genius, and I hate to discredit your points with how great the rest of your post is, but I just have to say that most of the options you presented will lead us down a road I'd never want to go down. I'd rather be seen as a monster than some pussy who plays the victim card to gain sympathy.

>>26958

well gaining sympathies and abusing them arent the same thing, gays went beyond just legal goals when it came to their acceptance and i dont think using their methods means we have to do the same. also when it comes to people being martyrs even if we were aware that they would suffer in the end we werent the ones doing the things to them. at a risk of turning this back into black civil history. black people put themselves in harms way all the time knowing that alot of them would be fucked up but we dont, or at least most of humanity dont look at those methods as cruel because the people that fucked them up had no right to do so. why should we think any differently about endagering some of our own ?

>>26958

I don't think using underhand tactics in order to gain basic human rights is comparable to using underhand tactics in order to get more rights than everyone else.

What you're saying is the equivalent of telling a slave not to deceive his master as part of an escape attempt because it might make him look bad. In case you haven't noticed, our image couldn't really get any worse.

>>26976

Literal slavery is not comparable to not having the right to fuck children.

>>26642

So much work put into that Beginner's Guide (second link) and the guy destroys it all by saying that penetration should be still prohibited and only touching and exploring should be allowed; I stopped reading there. Unless you have some monstrosity cock or you are trying to enter obviously a real tight vagina/anus/mouth for your scale, there is no harm putting your penis into a person you love as described in the guide.

>>27003

>Unless you have some monstrosity cock or you are trying to enter obviously a real tight vagina/anus/mouth for your scale, there is no harm putting your penis into a person you love.

+1

Age isn't the main factor when it comes to penetration. I've known girls who at the age of 10 were 5'4"-5'5" and while they hadn't reached puberty yet, they were still the same height and weight of adult women. I've also known adult women who were like 4'10" or so and had the body size of a 10yo and were difficult to penetrate.

>>26978

This.

>>26978

I don't know why almost everyone on this board seems absolutely obsessed with fucking kids and nothing else. Let me make this very clear: I don't want to fuck any kids.

What about the right to confidentiality when seeking mental health care?

What about the right to not be lynched on the street if anyone finds out your sexual fantasies?

What about the right to live your life without constant fear?

What about the right to look at fucking fictional drawings without being arrested (America and Japan excluded)?

>>27003

>>27006

You are the reason I don't expect us to receive any rights this century. You act like walking examples of every terrible stereotype normies associate with pedophiles.

>>27594

>What about the right to confidentiality when seeking mental health care?

Already have that. Confidentiality laws apply to us also. The only time they are required to report anything to authorities is if you are a threat to yourself or society. They can't just call up the police or anyone else and say "this person is a pedophile".

>What about the right to not be lynched on the street if anyone finds out your sexual fantasies?

Already protected. It's called murder if it happens. Now getting a jury to convict is another story, but you do have the right to not be lynched for it.

>What about the right to live your life without constant fear?

What are you fearful of? I'm not afraid of people finding out. Several have and nothing has happened.

>What about the right to look at fucking fictional drawings without being arrested (America and Japan excluded)?

I agree with this one. I don't think anyone should face prosecution for drawings/lolicon/CGI/written depictions of minors engaged in sex with adults.

>>27006

Not against your beliefs but you are not speaking incorrectly about the female body. Height and weight aren't the deciding factor in regard to penetration. In fact penetration should hint that the outside doesn't matter. It is about the inside. One should consider the entry of the vaginal opening to the cervix. A 40 year old 6ft woman of 200 pounds could have a shallow cervix thus a big penis would be uncomfortable. While a 15 year old, 5ft and 110 pounds might have more space between her vaginal opening and her cervix. Additionally a vagina will mold to the penis. It will morph to fit the mold of a penis, if she is being penetrated by the same penis. Do not go by the size of the female to determine the size of the dick she can take.

>27594

Do you want to go to therapy? Unless you're some sort of derogatory stereotype of the creepy touchy pedo, I couldn't see why you would want it.

Are you one of those "virtuous" self degrading pedophiles?

Everything about people going after you and living in constant fear is only that way for people who want a relationship with a child (ignoring the bullshit about not being able to look at lolicon) and honestly if you're not going to have sex ever why even bring up being a pedophile to anyone? You're basicly an asexual.

>>27608

You don't have to be a derogatory stereotype to benefit from therapy.

>constant fear is only that way for people who want a relationship with a child

That's the majority of this board, anon.

If you're anti-contact why are you even on this board? What do you get out of it?

>>27595

You're a walking imbecile. Penetration has nothing to do with "stereotypes". You can't fight for your "rights" and at the same time be okay with limitations enforced on fundamental basic sexual activities.

If anything, *you* are exactly the type of moron who fights for one thing, but doesn't actually understand why and is not capable to see the big picture or the end goal. Reminds of me of idiots who were fighting for homosexual rights, but they support ended with anything beyond "kisses on cheeks".

>>27773

>You can't fight for your "rights" and at the same time be okay with limitations enforced on fundamental basic sexual activities.

Of course you can, why not?

>IT'S EITHER THIS WAY OR THAT WAY

>IF YOU DON'T APPROVE OF LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE THING I WANT THEN FUCK YOU REEEEEEEEEE NORMIES GET OUT

>>27774

You cannot. Ultimately, the goal is somewhere else, and much higher.

And stop being mad.

>>27775

>You cannot.

Yea, actually I can. What goal, penetration? What's the goal after that, fucking children whether they want it or not because loli pussy is somehow your inalienable right? Why don't you answer my question?

>You're a walking imbecile.

>If anything, *you* are exactly the type of moron

>tells anyone else to stop being mad

you are the one that sounds extremely angry that even other pedos think what you want is disgusting.

>>27774

>You can't fight for your "rights" and at the same time be okay with limitations enforced on fundamental basic sexual activities.

>Of course you can, why not?

Because, pedophilia is defined by having sex with youngsters. Its the whole point and its the only thing that sperates us from non pedophiles and really the only right that needs to be fought for. Anysort and all of the discrimination from other people revolves around that. By fighting for anything else you don't contribute to anything but idea that they were right to distrust and mistreat pedophiles. The only thing that changes is that now instead of being called assholes we're called mentally ill

>>27776

>What goal, penetration? What's the goal after that, fucking children whether they want it or not because loli pussy is somehow your inalienable right?

yes, and the goal after that would be instead be whether society wants it or not.

What we want is not graunteed "loli pussy " but the ablity to persue it in a civil and conenstual manner and, if were lucky, have non molestative sexual interactions with a minor. All without government retribution.

>that even other pedos think what you want is disgusting.

What do you think he wanted ?

>>27781

>Because, pedophilia is defined by having sex with youngsters.

No it isn't you absolute fucking retard. Pedophilia is the attraction to children. Plenty of non-pedophiles have sex with children, in fact the majority of child molesters are not pedophiles.

Jesus Christ you are fucking stupid.

Oh, and they are right, I'd trust Lenny to be round rabbits more than I trust someone as pathetically brain-dead as you to be around children.

>What we want is not graunteed "loli pussy " but the ablity to persue it in a civil and conenstual manner

WOW YOU CAN'T FIGHT FOR YOUR "RIGHTS" AND AT THE SAME TIME BE OKAY WITH PREVENTING ME FROM RAPING CHILDREN

>What do you think "he" (pathetic faggot trying to samefag) wanted ?

>What goal, penetration?

>yes

27782

>Plenty of non-pedophiles have sex with children, in fact the majority of child molesters are not pedophiles.

>WOW YOU CAN'T FIGHT FOR YOUR "RIGHTS" AND AT THE SAME TIME BE OKAY WITH PREVENTING ME FROM RAPING CHILDREN

…

You aware that sex with children and raping children are two different things, right?

>>27782

>>27783

You are aware*

>>27783

Penetrating a prepubescent child and raping a prepubescent child is the exact same thing.

>You can't put limits on sex!

>but it has to be consensual!

That's a limit you fucking spastic.

>rape isn't fundamental sexual act!

Neither is penetrating a 5 year old, you worthless subhuman.

Of course you are SO FUCKING STUPID that you actually typed out and submitted the sentence,

>Because, pedophilia is defined by having sex with youngsters.

that this is of course all lost upon you.

>>27785

>Penetrating a prepubescent child and raping a prepubescent child is the exact same thing.

>You can't put limits on sex!

>but it has to be consensual!

>that's a limit you fucking spastic.

>rape isn't fundamental sexual act!

>Neither is penetrating a 5 year old, you worthless subhuman.

Sex doesn't have to be coiltal, penetration could be oral and still be penetration. In the end it all depends on if they're ready,if they want to,and if it's not hurting them.

I never said that there shouldn't be limits,

just that not being able to have any sort of sexual relations shouldn't be one of them.

>Of course you are SO FUCKING STUPID that you actually typed out and submitted the sentence,

>Because, pedophilia is defined by having sex with youngsters.

>that this is of course all lost upon you.

When I said that I meant it in the way people would say something like "being a solder is about protecting your country". now obviously you could be one and not do that at all but thats still the point of it and like wise.. being a pedophile might only mean you're attracted to 9 year olds or whatever but cowering out because of myths on it being harmful or because an opressive society isn't currently comfertable with it, makes you a lesser one.

>>27776

No, you cannot. And there is no goal after that, you moron. The only goal is to have the same rights as any other human being with any other sexuality.

I do not sound angry, nor extremely. I only react as you react. If an imbecile shows up into a discussion, I sure tell him he is one. Also, there is absolutely nothing disgusting about penetration. Please go trolling somewhere else.

>>27785

Holy shit, you're literally retarded. Penetrating a prepubescent child and raping a prepubescent child are the same things? What kind of fucked up life are you living? For love of god, please stop trolling and end yourself when you're at it. Also, learn something about consent before you do it. Perhaps it will help you. Nobody here is talking about raping, nor about penetration used as a forced tool for sexual interaction. Good lord, the school began and the retards are back roaming the skies of 8chan.

>>27782

Nobody here is talking about giving rights to molesters, you absolute idiot. This whole thread is about giving rights to people who want to express their love with children. Sex and penetration included, because it is only natural escalation of love. And all with informed consent from both sides. Your obsession with raping everything just because there was a penetration involved is quite concerning. Are you mentally challenged?

>>27786

Entire post of literally nothing but backtracking and explicit lies. How fucking pathetic can you possible get?

>I never said there shouldn't be limits!!!!!!

>You can't fight for your "rights" and at the same time be okay with limitations enforced on fundamental basic sexual activities.

retard

>now obviously you could be one and not do that at all but thats still the point of it and like wise

>Because, pedophilia is defined by having sex with youngsters.

>DEFINED BY HAVING SEX

dipshit

>>27790

Yes it's the exact same thing. Keep crying you pathetic faggoty subhuman tears forever making completely empty statements about "informed consent" that will never apply outside the fantasies you invent in your mind.

>>27791

Molestation is exactly what you are screaming for the "rights" to you disgusting worthless animal.

>>27789

>>27790

>>27791

>disgusting freak comes out to samefag

>forgets to actually explain his "logic" how penetration is ok or how prepubescent children can possibly give "informed consent" in even one of his shitposts

>i-it's love, I swear!!!!! that's why I only care about penetration and will never be happy unless i can fuck 6 year olds!!!!!

pathetic. i already have 100% of my rights needed to express my love to any age of child i want. you're just a despicable monster who should spend an eternity in indescribable pain.

>>27881

Dude , 27786 ( I'm 27786) and 27789 are different people.

what do you think concent is?

what do you think of all the children that masturbate by themselves?

what do you think about all the children that are sexting each other ?

what do you think about adolencents getting each other pregant ?

what do you think happens to a child after sex ? and do you think what happens inherent to the act and will happen to every child who engages in it ?

>>27811

>>27811

You're still here huh? Was hoping since the other autistic shitposter left, you would too. Too much to ask for I guess. Please consider fucking off though. The rest of us would love it.

>>27811

You're an idiot. The entire post is about giving rights to people who are attracted to children.

And still nope, you cannot fight to give rights for those people and at the same time say you want to limit them. Are you retarded? Oh, wait, you actually are.

'Faggoty subhuman tears'. Yeah, you're clearly the most autistic piece of meat I've seen in this thread so far and on 8chan since the summer ended. You have no arguments, only insults. Also, you clearly didn't do any research on the informed consent and that children are perfectly capable of giving it. Ever talked to 10 years old girl? You would be amazed what at this age children know and are capable of.

Nobody is talking about molesting. You again fail to see difference between sex with consent and rape. You're delusional imbecile.

You do not have any '100% rights to express your love to any child you want'. You will end up in a prison if you do that now. Such love is limited only to -that- type of love (compassion, caring, family), which is the type of love nobody is talking about in this thread.

In general, kill yourself already you autistic moron. You're wasting time of everybody here and most of us are done with you anyway.

>>27819

What a shitty samefag detector, do you just scream that at all the posters you don't like? Or is this the best you can do against a retarded anti?

>>27599

>The only time they are required to report anything to authorities is if you are a threat to yourself or society. They can't just call up the police or anyone else and say "this person is a pedophile".

To 99% of people those two things are synonymous. You could never win a law suit against a doctor who reported you to the authorities for disclosing your attraction.

>Already protected. It's called murder if it happens. Now getting a jury to convict is another story, but you do have the right to not be lynched for it.

At least you admit that what the law says and what protections it actually offers are different. Anyway I don't care what happens to the person after they lynched me. Honestly I'd prefer it if they didn't suffer. What I care about is the fact that people might lynch me in the first place.

>What are you fearful of? I'm not afraid of people finding out. Several have and nothing has happened.

Are you saying there's nobody who you wouldn't want to find out about your attraction? Your anecdote conflicts with every bit of evidence I have from the real world where people are absolutely hysterical about pedophiles and would gladly do everything in their power to make our lives miserable. Do you think that most employers wouldn't find some excuse to fire you if they found out you were attracted to kids?

>>27833

>you fail to see the difference between my pathetically delusional fantasy and reality, you're delusional

>which is the type of love nobody is talking about in this thread.

yea no shit you arent talking about actual love. you're talking about your desire to rape children.

its beautiful knowing even your own mother wants you to fry in hell forever. beautiful seeing the truth makes you so pathetically angry. beautiful knowing disgusting animals like you kill themselves every day of the year. beautiful knowing its just a matter of time till you do.

>>27837

He's not a samefag, you fucking retard. Please take your… "detector" …back to 4chan and never return, retard.

>>27978

I'm not talking about desire to rape children, you colossal retard with no ability to comprehend what is he reading.

Penetration with consent is a part of any *actual* love.

Not sure why are you suddenly talking about my mother, hell or frying. Please leave your RL issues outside of this thread.

Also there is nothing disgusting about penetration or about love. I understand you're still a virgin living with parents, but do some research first.

And we don't kill ourselves every day, and we're definitely not animals.

Our rights are actually getting better and better every day, through various ways.

Remember that little decision of the Supreme Court from few weeks back? You can't ban love.

And it's coming for every sexuality.

How does it feel to be completely wrong, mad and powerless all at once?

Don't forget to squeak again like a little retarded maniac about "animals", "rape", "suicide", and you even call it all "beautiful"

…before you kill yourself from all being so mad.

♥

>>28207

>Penetration with consent is a part of any *actual* love.

ahahaahah you're such a disgustingly delirious subhuman. even other pedos want to peel the skin off your hideous fucking face.

talking about powerless virgins while making impotent shitposts while being afraid to leave your mothers basement is the cherry on the cake. i dont have to make embarrassingly pathetic little fantasies, i can read about you worthless fucks slitting your throats in the news every single day.

yea, your shitposts really don't just make me enjoy knowing the utter pain that you live in every day. yes, that is beautiful, and it always will be.

http://www.hngn.com/articles/131728/20150921/marvin-sharp-dies-jail-sexual-abuse-accusations-surfaced-alleged-pedophiles.htm

>>27971

>To 99% of people those two things are synonymous.

99% of people are not therapists.

>You could never win a law suit against a doctor who reported you to the authorities for disclosing your attraction.

This is a flat out lie.

Unless you're a deluded monster worthy of death like >>27833

You really don't have a lot to worry about seeing a sex therapist. Whether or not you gain anything from it is up to you. If you're at peace with your sexuality there's not a lot of reason to go.

>>28213

>Ahahaahah you're such a disgustingly delirious subhuman

You sound mad while having zero arguments.

>Even other pedos want to peel the skin off your hideous fucking face

Nope.

>Talking about powerless virgins while making impotent shitposts

They're not powerless if they understand the concept of sex and concept of consent. Children are perfectly capable of those at age 5+.

>While being afraid to leave your mothers basement is the cherry on the cake

Irrelevant insult coming from your RL issues.

>I dont have to make embarrassingly pathetic little fantasies

Every human being creates 'pathetic little fantasies' when comes to sexuality, unless you're not healthy in your sexual life.

>I can read about you worthless fucks slitting your throats in the news every single day

Nope.

>Your shitposts really don't just make me enjoy knowing the utter pain that you live in every day

There is no pain, we're gaining more rights every day.

>That is beautiful, and it always will be

Irrelevant and nonsensical remark.

>>28215

>Unless you're a deluded monster worthy of death like

You sound mad while having zero arguments.

>You really don't have a lot to worry about seeing a sex therapist

Correct.

>Whether or not you gain anything from it is up to you

Correct.

>If you're at peace with your sexuality there's not a lot of reason to go

I am.

I can't even tell who's the retard no more. Everyone in this thread can just fuck off

>>28207

He was implying I was that self-hater above. I told him his samefag detector was shit. You're a different case, an illiterate tard who can't read.

>>28269

There were some upset people hating on younglove, writing in younglove and surprised by their humiliation in younglove.

>>28275

I don't care anymore about your issues. If you have nothing to say towards topic of this thread, go.

>>28301

>If you have nothing to say towards topic of this thread, go

Like the retarded shit you're doing?

Fuck off

>>28304

>Like the retarded shit you're doing?

I am doing nothing "retarded". Please take your anger and foul language somewhere else, little man.

>Fuck off

Nope.

>>28305

>>If you have nothing to say towards topic of this thread, go

These were your own words. Now fuck off.

>>28311

>These were your own words

These are only the words againts those who started this offtopic.

>Now fuck off

Nope.