ITT: We gather ideas on how to tell the world that there's a big difference between a pedo and a child-molester. It's time.
>How easy is it to get interviewed by a reputable magazine?
>Would they just twist shit around to make the pedo look bad?
>>711660291
>there's a big difference between a pedo and a child-molester.
>>711660972
Pedos love children
Molesters molest/rape children
Simple
Post ideas, faggots
>>711662128
Go ask around your local police department. I'm sure they have lots of ideas.
We need to create a new name for pedos that dont fuck kids, since there already is a new word for those who do (pederast), and post it on urban dictionary.
>>711663601
Urban dictionary, wikipedia and other info sites
Then use the word all over the internet as if its a thing
For the rest of time pedos will call themselves after a word that /b/ created!
Look at it this way: If a guy has an asian fetish would you expect him to be raping asian girls all the time? Why should it be different for a guy who's in to little girls?
>>711664624
Yes, but try to make people see a pedo like that
>>711665131
It's pretty impossible to get pedophilia accepted. i've been around a long time and have seen no people more hated than pedophiles. terrorists, murderers etc. have better social standing than pedos.
pedos will never be accepted in this lifetime. maybe in 100 years there might be some progress. but dont hold your breath
>>711665365
We have to start somewhere
It feels like pedos are not even trying
>>711665365
It use to be sort of okay in the 80-90s. There were magazines being published back then if pol wasn't lying to me
>>711665611
It's true
child nudity was totally fine in movies too
>>711665520
>It feels like pedos are not even trying
because letting the world know you're a pedo always works out well
>>711665835
Anonymously over the internet
anti-pedo: sex is incredibly harmful to minors. if a minor is exposed to sexuality it damages their brain permanently. they cannot handle any sexual stimulation whatsoever!
me: how old were you when you first had sex with yourself?
anti-pedo: 9 years old. why?
me: :|
>>711666051
All the time man
People are idiots
Most of pedos didn't choose to be a pedo, it's natural for them.
So hating them for what they naturaly are should be considered as something like racism !
>>711664624
Ummmm because Asian girls (I assume you mean those who are adults) can consent to sex, while all children cannot. You, you sick fuck, are fantasizing about committing a crime, and on top of that a crime so heinous that it can ruin someone's entire life, that is the difference you perverse degenerate. There's something seriously fucking wrong with you and you need treatment.
>>711666744
True
How would you tell the world?
>>711664877
pbear score
checked
>>711666906
Not sure if bait or the biggest sheep
>>711666944
Well pedos are diabolised by medias so it seems nearly impossible to make people understand that their vison of the world is wrong...
>>711666906
children can consent to sex. they cannot consent legally but they can still consent.
unless you think a child is raping themselves every time they masturbate
but beyond that - its really hard for asian girls to consent to having sex with the type of guy who would have an asian fetish. if you find an asian girl who would willingly have sex with a weeaboo then you've probably found a prostitute and the quality of that level of consent is debatable
>>711667157
Ive been thinking of using the band-wagon effect as >>711664353 described
If people think its already a thing, people will defend it
>>711667397
It'll be hard as fuck as parent still tell their child that pedis are monsters with medias as a proof base.
Furthermore the ratio pedo-hater/pro-pedo is very high so it wont work as well as for womens, black peoples or homosexual...
if your country doesn't let you have relations with the children, then perhaps you are living in the wrong country.
>>711666666
>>711667777
>>711660291
Follow in the footsteps of the LGBT community.
You will get there in due time.
>>711666906
Think about your favorite actress (or any girl at all). Now accept that she would never consent to having sex with you. If you ever had sex with her it would be rape. So how do you stop yourself from raping her? The same way pedos stop themselves from raping who they want to have sex with.
>>711667733
People dont watch as much tv and listen to the radio anymore
The internet is taking over so we have to convince the internet
>>711668019
You do not count the dumb mass of the population who act like sheep.
>>711668019
Here's how you have to do it.
Slowly plant the seeds of tolerance. As peoples views slowly soften, it opens the gateway towards acceptance.
You must first start by un-demonizing the pedo. Make people begin to view pedos as people, not offenders.
Then use the "They're just different" approach.
Skew it to appear that pedos are oppressed and discriminated against.
In the end, the same people who rose for gay rights will rise for pedo rights.
Congratulations, you've ruined society.
>>711668192
If it gets big enough the media will report on what happens on the internet
With luck that can convince those people, too
120 years ago and all human history prior to that, nobody considered fucking 7-10 year olds a big deal.
...maybe we'll invent time travel, but short of civilization literally ending i don't see it going backwards. if anything 120 years from now the of consent will be 21 and we'll be the sickos who could legally fuck 16 year olds.
>>711668407
>Congratulations, you've made earth a better place.
>>711668538
Although i see the world differently, I have no problem giving you the plans and means to achieve your goals. You might call me a neutral party.
>>711668513
>I've heard he had sex with a 20 year old
>Oh god, the poor thing! Did they arrest him yet?
So anyone actually want to debate the merits of fucking kids? Who can argue without just spewing ad hominen or posting rebuttals consisting entirely of restating for the 10th time the same appeal to emotion?
i used to only argue it was ok for post-pubescent sex, but then i debated myself into a corner and couldn't rationally defend going lower except because of the external consequences.
gotta go quick tho because every time it becomes obvious i'm winning the argument the mods 404 the thread. not even joking.
>>711669088
>not even joking
Happens to me too
Lets not kill this thread yet...
>>711669334
i actually wish someone would win that debate with me, the only thing i hate more than debating a position i don't actually hold is finding out there's no logical reason i shouldn't hold that position.
>>711669088
Im bored, so ill debate for a bit.
You can't fuck pre-pubescent kids because they've not developed to that point yet. Puberty itself is a restructuring of the mind and body. Sex before that would likely result in physical damage, with at least some chance of mental damage.
pedo = hiv
child molester = full blown aids
>>711669633
I'm not advocating for abusive sex that would result in physical damage. it's also wrong to hold a 30 year old girl down and pound her ass without lube until she's ripped up and gushing blood. unless that's her thing.
mental damage, i haven't seen any evidence that it's at all damaging absent force, manipulation, or coercion- which i'm not defending.
>>711669821
Solid points.
So the question arises, if puberty is when a person begins to sexually mature, how would the pre-pubescent brain process sexual advances or actions?
As i doubt pre-pubescent children experience sexual attraction, what would be their drive to accept sexual advances?
if you want to argue that it's wrong, you can only rely on the mental damage inflicted by learned victimhood, an extrinsic factor not related to the rightness or wrongness of the act in question unless there's a solid foundation for such extrinsic consequences, which there's really not.
so you can say it's wrong because society will inevitably teach that they've been victimized, but that doesn't speak to the act itself being wrong, and suggests the problem lies instead with societal attitudes
to argue otherwise, unless you want to concede to all sex being wrong, or kids facing decades in prison for sexual acts with other kids, you have to craft an argument that sex becmes intrinsically wrong based solely upon the age of participants, and then stops being so; AND wouldn't apply to all other potentially risky or fatal activities for which a child may participate and consent is considered valid
>>711670187
do you not remember being a pre-pubescent kid? i was having dry orgasms with my friends and lying about it to my parents by 7, and no adult ever did anything inappropriate with me.
kids are naturally curious about these things in most cases. if they're not, that's ok. if they are, it can be reciprocated without being intrinsically wrong
>>711670347
Sadly I don't remember much of my childhood.
I can see you've put a lot of thought into this. I haven't. I've not looked into the issue much, and my lack of knowledge is proving to be quite a hindrance.
At this point, the only argument I have off the top of my head is that not allowing sex with pre-pubescent children is a preventative measure. Something to protect those who don't know what they're getting into. Something to prevent the coercion mentioned before, because children are easily influenced, their wills easily bent by the adults they've been taught to respect.
pedo = drunk driver
he might not have killed someone yet
but it's only a matter of time...
>>711671071
If pedophile = inevitably rapes a child
Then teleiophile = inevitably rapes an adult
>>711670993
Why should sex stand legally apart from fatal or permanently disabling activities that parents may push their children into lightly? What makes sex that is initiated by a childs expressed wish to do so, when not a consequence of force/manipulation/coercion, worse than say, accidentally shooting themselves while legally hunting? I'd content the consequences from that would be far more profound, even the consequences from serious sports injuries, would have far more of a negative impact on their life than properly handled sex within the range of negative outcomes when not forced/manipulated/coerced.
Why prior restraint for sex alone among all risky activities? Or should hunting, sports, swimming, etc also not recognize a child's consent?
Point regarding pleasing adults; have you ever known a child to have any problem indicating they do not wish to do something unless they've been previously severely punished for doing so?
The abundance of kids fighting with their parents in public is prima facia evidence against a childs inability to say no to an adult.
Yes the adult can force the issue after a 'no', but that would be wrong and not what we're discussing.
>>711671228
>Children cannot provide informed consent to go swimming
>>711671422
See, people can't counter the argument so just mock it.
What makes sex initiated by expressed interest with no force manipulation or coercion so much more dangerous than drowning that legal prior restraint must be exercised and anyone doing it imprisoned for decades?
Instead of responding to that, just go ahead and mock some more.
>>711671228
>>711671384
I can see from your standpoint. The other anon mocking the argument isn't me, i'm mulling things over at this point.
>>711671543
>teaching a 5yo how to take dick is literally the same as teaching a 5yo how to swim
>>711664877
The loli wears the pants, while the boy will grow to be a fuckboi
So basically I'd say that age of consent should properly turn where it did for all human history minus 120 years; whenever the child expresses free will curiousity in exploring the area.
I'm all for strongly punishing anyone that conducts such exploration in an abusive manner, but that shouldn't require legal prior restraint if society had fact-based attitudes about the outcomes.
>>711671757
You're right, it's not like that at all, the dick taking is far less likely to kill them.
How many kids drown each year?
How many die from non-abusive sex?
>>711667928
This guy is a retard guys. Fantasizing about a crime is not illegal or un-common. People play video games about murder and say they wish they could get away with killing so and so. And it's socialy acceptable.
>>711667360
>>711666906
>>711671543
Come on now I was just making fun of people that use that argument against child sex
How did you see that as a comment to mock you?
>>711671964
Mocking the argument, not me personally, although i'm sure that's coming too
People mock arguments they can't counter.
>>711672036
..you can either provide a direct counterargument, or illustrate the logical fallacy that makes in an invalid argument.
I was comparing and contrasting the relative potential for severe negative outcomes between two activities. It's a valid point. Why should a comparatively less risky activity be prohibited? Or is it not less risky? Then we fall back on the first arguments I layed out about intrinsic vs. extrinsic negative outcomes for non-abusive sex, which were never countered either.
tl;dr- you can laugh at my position but not actually say why it's wrong.
>>711671384
>>711671228
>>711671773
After some thought, I can't really defeat your argument at this time, not without the before mentioned appeals to emotion, or dragging in various vague references to morality, which can be twisted in any direction.
You've given me great insight into how people see things on the other side of the fence, and I will be researching this in the future. This has been by far one of the most civil arguments i've seen on this board, one that actually fits the definition of the word "Argument", instead of "Conflict".
I hope to see you again here someday in the future, so we can discuss this again. Where my research will lead me I do not yet know, but I look forward to figuring out the truth.
>>711660291
Nobody but you pedos care about this shit ffs.
>>711672036
This is getting confusing...
I, >>711671422
only wrote this >>711671964
>>711672246 is not me...
>>711672361
Duh, thats the problem
>>711672335
I hope you do come back with some good counters, because as i indicated earlier.. these aren't really my true feelings
emotionally and logically i feel its wrong for adults to do anything sexual with pre-pubescent kids and would never do so myself; but as someone who does serious debates (where half the time you're advocating for the side you're not really on), i've found it logically indefensible to enact prior restraint against a free-will wish to engage if conducted in a caring, responsible manner
>>711672483
first logically should have been morally*
>>711672036
>People mock arguments they can't counter.
because some arguments are too damn stupid, then only thing you can do is mock it.
>>711672554
No, if the argument is so damn stupid you can very easily indicate the logical fallacy that makes it so, or provide a counter-argument illustrating your point.
>>711664353
I vote for "sick fucks".
Can we PLEASE call them "sick fucks"?
How long before they start calling themselves "sick fucks"?
I think the can't give consent thing is stupid. You can trick them into letting you stick your dick in but if they start crying or saying no when you're in that means they took away consent. Why do people act like consent is a one and done deal, once you say yes it means you can do anything and they can't change their mind
>>711672659
Yes consent can be withdrawn at any time, and that applies to adults too. Disregarding withdrawn consent falls into the indefensible abusive sex category, not what most people would do.
>>711672632
>swimming is more dangerous than kid sex, so legalize kid sex
>riding in a car is more dangerous than kid sex, so legalize kid sex
>flying in a plane is more dangerous than kid sex, so legalize kid sex
>walking down the street is more dangerous than kid sex, so legalize kid sex
>eating is more dangerous than kid sex, so legalize kid sex
it's a stupid ass argument.
i don't need a counter-argument.
>>711672659
True, adult women change their consent all the time right after sex
>>711672771
You're just diving deeper down the "I can't invalidate this argument so I'll just make an appeal to emotion fallacy and call it crazy" hole.
I feel like I unleashed some kind of shitstorm with my joke...
Sorry, anon that just wanted to debate
>>711665365
>pedos will never be accepted in this lifetime. maybe in 100 years there might be some progress. but dont hold your breath
>don't hold your breath
Pray, tell me, why should they not hold their breath?
I have heard that holding one's breath for 100 years is a great cure for pedophilia!
>>711672483
I understand the arguing for the side you're not really on. I've done it before too.
I'll probably have some decent counters within the next week or two, if not then we'll be in the same boat, advocating something that goes against what we feel.
Next time I'm around in one of these threads ill drop an out of place capital D in a few worDs.
See you around, have fun with these people.
>>711672860
>I can't invalidate this argument
i did.
by calling it stupid.
>>711672793
Well I don't count that one, as well as statutory rape being real rape
>>711660291
>implying anything decided on /b/ ever changes anything
>>711672913
Nah it's ok. Can't have such a debate on /b/ without people just raising the appeal to emotion fallacy against it.
>>711672966
No, you responded to a valid argument with a logical fallacy (appeal to emotion).
>>711673019
>a valid argument
calling a valid argument doesn't make it actually valid
>inb4 calling an argument stupid doesn't actually make it stupid
>>711660291
This thread makes me happy. Having a fetish need not mean acting on it.
My vote is attack simulated child porn law. Drawings, adult role play, cgi etc.
Also compare to other abuse imagery like rape and murder.
That'll get the discussion going.
Compare to homosexuality. Not a choice, and not automatically rapists.
>>711661349
Psychopaths like killing people
Murderers kill people
Simple
>>711673070
You're right, and I detailed in some length why I believed it was valid, and you couldn't counter that either.
If this was formal debate you'd be kicked off the team.
You're stupid.
There, now I don't have to even begin to think about anything you say.
>>711673166
I win again. Yay.
If only I actually wanted to win...
>>711673166
sorry, did not include the post I was replying to
>>711672966
there
>>711673122
>If this was formal debate you'd be kicked off the team.
so you actually get into arguments on /b/ just to get into arguments?
then toss around phrases like "logical fallacy" to make it seem like you know what you're talking about?
gotcha
>You're right, and I detailed in some length why I believed it was valid
no, you didn't.
>>711673103
I think you missed the part of the thread where I eviscerated legal prior restraint against actually having sex with kids. That should make ou sad.
>>711666051
Lol I started watching porn when I was 8 years old I think, sex was all I ever thought about for months afterwards and today I'm just some guy who sits in front of the computer all day too scared to even talk to girls.
>>711673166
>>711673218
i didn't call the person stupid.
i called the argument stupid.
anyone that's being this argumentative would see that there's a difference.
but i'm sure you'll pretend not to see it just to keep the argument going.
because that's what we do on /b/, right?
keep useless arguments that don't solve anything going...
>>711673105
You do realize Psychopaths make the best doctors?
Being coldblooded and disillusioned is not a bad thing. Your analogy failed. kys
Simple. A pedophile is someone with the desire to become a child molester, a child molester gave in to his desires to fuck a child
>>711673246
When i can't sleep and am really bored, why not take a controversial position and debate for it? I like debating, it's fun.
>then toss around phrases like "logical fallacy" to make it seem like you know what you're talking about?
You obviously don't know how to actually properly argue. If an argument is truly a stupid argument, you need to show why, not just declare it.
>no, you didn't.
>>711672246
>>711660291
Pedos love children. And above all else they wouldn't want to hurt them.
A chomo is a Pedo with no lack of self control and will hurt/assault/rape the child. I feel they do not truly love children.
>>711660291
One is guilty of the crime the other wants to commit, that is the difference. The world will never accept you.
>>711660291
There is no place on this earth for kiddy fiddlers. You are defective broken people, the best you can ever hope to aspire to is living as hermits, denying yourself the only sort of sexual pleasure you could possibly enjoy and not being able to tell anyone your secret. But we all know you're not capable of that, spout this "we love kids" rhetoric all you want, we all know that you will crack and rape a defenseless child sooner or later like the animal you are. The only real option is to put a gun against your head and end it all.
>>711673353
>pedophile is someone with the desire to become a child molester
No a pedo wants to have consensual sex with a kid they may even be in love with
>>711673359
>If an argument is truly a stupid argument, you need to show why, not just declare it.
i don't "need" to do anything.
this is not a formal debate.
it's a web board filled with traps and porn.
>You obviously don't know how to actually properly argue.
you're right. i never took any formal training on how to troll. i'm just a hobbyist. i concede that you know how to troll better than i do. you win ;)
>I like trolling, it's fun.
>>711673449
>consensual sex with a kid
>consensual sex
>kid
>>711673471
If you want to win the debate you do.
I win.
..I know you really believe it's a stupid argument, and I'm serious in requesting you proving me wrong on the merits. Like I said, I'm arguing AGAINST my own emotional and moral beliefs here.
>>711673491
Want to pick up on the debate, or do you just want to make an argument from authority and appeal to emotion and call it a day like idiot #1
>>711673449 I never mentioned unconsual sex, even if consensual its still child molestation
>>711673408
See >>711673449
>>711673443
>we all know that you will crack
How the hell would you know that?
How stupid can you be?
>>711673491
You obviously did not read the thread... >>711667360
>>711673532
>If you want to win the debate you do.
i dont want to win the debate.
there is no winning the debate.
there is no debate.
it's a thread on a web board.
>hahaha you can't prove me wrong! I WIN!
congrats! you out trolled another troll! +1 internets
>I'm serious in requesting you proving me wrong
i already did. and it was called illogical fallacy.
but you admit it's a stupid ass argument.
and someone how i have to prove why we're both right?
>>711673593
>Want to pick up on the debate
there is no debate.
it's a thread on a web board.
>or do you just want to make an argument from authority and appeal to emotion and call it a day like idiot #1
i'm browsing 4chan.
i'm obviously an idiot.
>>711673797
You can debate anywhere you can communicate.
Arguments vs. counter-arguments. Logical fallacies aren't valid arguments.
If my argument was so wrong, you'd be easily able to say why, then you win.
i didn't say it was a stupid ass argument, i said i hoped it could be proven wrong on its merits. That means a direct counterargument showing why its wrong, or identification of the fallacy that makes it invalid for counterargument.
>>711672418
No need to get confused.
Let me clear it all up for those who haven't been here as long.
ITT samefagging pedos pretend to have 'arguments' and 'discussions' with 'others' (who are really themselves), so that they can steer the discussion in ways that make their sick thinking not look quite as sick as it actually is.
Samefagging is a common technique on /b/, and we have all done it. Some are better at it than others.
Face the facts, pedo bears:
The term "informed consent" contains the word "informed" for a reason. No pre-pubescent child can ever be "informed" about sex, because their bodies and minds have not begun to "inform" them. You sick pedos wanting to "inform" them cannot actually do anything of the sort. You can only fuck with their heads and fuck with their bodies.
You can't fuck with our heads either, because we are more "informed" than you, and I personally do not consent to entertain your idiotic arguments, so BTFO to your safe space, wherever that is, because if you keep coming around here you will find out what it is like to get "informed" in the very same way you would like to "inform" young children.
>>711673950
You also lose; nothing but embarrassing logical fallacies and a complete lack of addressing the opposing view in that post.
im bored. anyone with two brain cells to rub together have any argument actually invalidating one i made?
>>711673950
Tld fucking r
Im guessing you said blablahblah over and over again
>>711674056
...the specific thing your appeal to authority fallacy is failing to address is the argument i made regarding consent for activities argued to be comparatively more associated with negative outcomes than non-abusive sex.
>>711673010
>implying that /b/ has not already changed the world quite dramatically.
>>711660291
all i want is don't be treated as a criminal for a disorder
>>711674125
...of course the notion that children can't consent to sports, hunting, or swimming is crazy: why is sex so much more harmful than that it isn't?
>>711673922
>If my argument was so wrong, you'd be easily able to say why, then you win.
i didnt want to win.
i just wanted to call it a stupid ass argument.
>what makes kid sex worse than sports where kids actually get hurt, or die
because the fact that it's illegal?
>why is it illegal?
because emotions?
>but emotions are wrong. only logical facts win debates
logical facts don't run the world.
emotions run the world.
>but emotions are wrong.
that's how it is.
>>711674138
you're right, we've changed it for the worse
my bad
>>711673105
Well yeah, exactly. Are you using a poor example to bait me? It worked, obviously
>>711674237
>because the fact that it's illegal?
appeal to authority
>because emotions?
conceding to my points
>logical facts don't run the world.
emotions run the world.
appeal to authority: "because thats the way it is"
>that's how it is.
you really suck at this. im getting bored.
>>711674067
This is why you should shut the fuck up and let the adults have a conversation.
>>711667019
The biggest sheep
>>711674291
>you really suck at this.
i already admitted i was.
you're not paying attention.
but you got an insult in, so good on ya. ;)
>im getting bored.
you were bored the moment you joined the thread.
>>711674291
As an outsider to this debate, I had to scroll pretty far to see who's on what side
Your argument has devolved into "You're wrong!" "No you are" I'm sorry to say
>>711669821
This
>>711674416
Yeah after the guy i was debating at first it went downhill pretty quick. im just trolling this other guy now.
Really these rabid anti-pedos should be embarassed that they can't effectively argue why I'm wrong, since I've even conceded that emotionally and morally I disagree with what I'm saying.
>>711674510
I for one have never seen a good argument against pedophilia
Most of their points are very easily countered with "but that's molestation, not pedophilia"
>>711674056
You're embarrassing yourself.
You have made no logical arguments ITT. You certainly did not address my argument regarding "informed consent", and you just tried to steer attention away from your logical fallacies and your inability to address a valid point by talking about numbers of brain cells and how they rub up on each other.
Address my argument regarding "informed consent" or GTFO!
>>711674510
..also if you're serious, me pointing out his fallacy is not an appeal to authority since "that's a stupid argument" can in no way be considered a valid rebuttal free from invalidating issues
>>711669821
> i haven't seen any evidence that it's at all damaging absent force, manipulation, or coercion
>manipulation, or coercion
well there you go
>>711674584
>"i can't prove you're wrong. here's some long words and some insults. have a good day, sir!"
>>711674623
>Quotes it
>Doesn't actually read it
Nice
>>711674510
>im just trolling this other guy now.
the story of /b/
>>711674584
Sigh. Anyone who's not just going to restate "You're wrong because i said so?".
I did address informed consent. I gave examples of other activities that informed consent is considered valid for participation. If you think sex is more risky, argue that. If the argument has faulty logic, it's simple to point out. The 3rd option is return to the beginning assessing the merits of the harms intinsic vs extrinsic negative outcomes.
>>711666744
You wont get far with that one
>>711674623
By all means cite some
I agree with the underage sex. BUT atleast 15.. cmon guys 7-10 years old .. wtf ?!
![a646c45633cfab95a2aaf727480883aba7de652148fb3601db61853a62d3b3da[1].jpg](https://cdn.randomarchive.com/b/image/1472/260/1472260836596.jpg "a646c45633cfab95a2aaf727480883aba7de652148fb3601db61853a62d3b3da[1]")
>>711672771
yeah... we should just ban water, cars, planes, streets, and food...
>>711674792
Indeed. Morally and emotionally it does feel crazy. But why can't anyone logically show why? It's quite the conundrum.
>>711674803
No, the point was a less risky activity shouldn't be prohibited by prior restraint either. Come on now.
>>711674792
>cmon guys 7-10 years old .. wtf ?!
But they're unlikely to get pregnant, so it's safer than that 15 yo.
>>711674718
>If you think sex is more risky, argue that.
The risk of anything negative happening while doing something like swimming is very low. the risk for negative outcomes from early sex (whether its with an adult or another child) appears to be incredibly high.
things like depression, drug abuse, suicide, other risky behavior, and even negative financial consequences are all higher for early sexual activity.
>>711666744
YEAH those racist anti-pedo niggers
>>711674855
>cmon guys. debate me! stop being plebs!
>>711674718
You did not address what I personally said about "informed consent".
Sex is nothing like swimming.
Sexual knowledge cannot possibly be considered "informed" until after puberty. It is that fucking simple. Why can't you see that? If you bring up stupid shit like swimming and flying in an airplane again you're just going to make your argument look stupider than it already is.
>>711674882
Ok so it's back to the begging. My counters for that are >>711670347 >>711671228
We're talking about non-abusive sex without force, manipulation, or coercion.
I'd conceded if given a citation indicating the liklihood of the outcomes you mentioned under those circumstances.
The problem is that those negative outcomes arise either from the kind of abusive sex I'm NOT defending, or from extrinsic factors like learned victimhood.
>>711674792
Preteens enjoy sexual stimulation just as much as 15 year olds
Why not teach to enjoy these feelings as soon as possible?
>>711674977
Appeal to authority invalidates you're argument. You're saying sex stands alone as the only act where consent cannot be informed, but there's no underlying basis to make that claim.
>>711674855
logic is abstract. it differs from races, religions and era's. 100 years aGo and still now in some parts of the world this is happening. (consensual sex with a <15yo)
and reGarding the orginal post another era would have to pass, now is the time of the lGbt or whatever it is
>>711675048
your*.. sorry, almost 7am here
>>711674718
I'm just going to play devil's advocate here and state something I saw posted a while back... really the only thing I can think of that might be a valid argument.
It can lead to pregnancy which can have serious health risks at a younger age.
>>711675054
yup, that's why you can't make an argument for common knowledge and historical precedent like you could for murder, stealing, etc
>>711675054
>now is the time of the lGbt or whatever it is
Why not lgbtp?
>>711675145
Let's make this happen
>>711660291
How the fuck was this image allowed to actually happen
What the shit
>>711675109
Sex before puberty by biological fact cannot lead to pregnancy.
Also, pregnancy is an issue both before and after the age of consent, so you'd have to point out why a 13 and 18 year old would be different in that regard
>>711674977
usinG that line of logic is the same as swimminG, sure in theory a child knows how to swim but you dont know untill you throw it into the water. children now are more exposed to sex then ever before. wethere or not they would choose is there chioce.
>>711674855
Because if we make it legal, image all the kids playing outside that can't protect themselves... and a few creeps starts hanging around there all the time knowing its not illegal to try to fuck maybe YOUR child someday... Not that it does not happen now, but it is very rare and it is punishable by the law.
In conclusion a think it is not forbidden to have sex with a child because it can't feel sexual pleasure or etc. but because it can't protect it self if someone try something.Here comes the law.The invisible hand of the law. To protect the ones that can not protect themselves.
>>711675200
..not using proper contraception with someone not able and willing to care for the child does not fall under the category of behavior i'm defending.
same with sex while aware of a positive STD status; neither are behavior im defending
>>711675161
this would never happen, people are struGgling as it is with this Gay movement. imagine throwing pedos into this there would no doubt be riots, secondly there movement would be abolished
what needs to happen first is studies into the sexual knowledge of children. not maturity. knowledGe.
>>711675048
Is "appeal to authority" your catchphrase of the day? You've used it so much that even you don't know what the fuck it is supposed to mean anymore!
Now, as for sex being a different kind of activity? Yes it is. Hormones that kick in only at puberty have extremely important effects on every aspect of sexuality.
Can you say the same about flying in airplanes or swimming?
>protip: you cannot, so don't even try.
It is time for you to give up your argument. Maybe when you reach puberty you will understand. Until then, just a friendly suggestion, STFU.
>>711674257
>>711674257
u must be some type of libtard
nobody wants ur type here LibCrybabyTard
>>711660291
pedos are those who are not yet legally certified as child molesting/abusing/raping
learning to swim is a useful skill. learning to swim saves lives.
learning how to take dick does not save lives.
>unless you live in southeast asia
>>711675109
impssible if the Girl cant bleed she cant breed
>>711670187
They do, wanted to fuck chicks since i am 7
>>711675335
>h-he insulted m-my home! i b-better insult!
>>711675349
Kids swim for fun
They can fuck for fun
>>711675270
I wouldn't want some creep going after my 15 year old any more than any other age.
There's behavior that's wrong, and behavior that ought to be prohibited by force of law. Talking to children in public doesn't fall under the latter; using force manipulation or coercion to overcome their resistance to escalation, is wrong and not being defended.
You can't talk some kid on the street into coming with you whether it's for sex or not.
>>711675094
You're seriously correcting your nonexistent mistake regarding your use of the word 'you're'?
Go to bed. You need sleep. You cannot argue. You cannot make any coherent arguments, and you can't fucking spell!
>>711675347
>not readinG that
it is abuse of children in the eyes of the law, pedos have no riGhts. they are the most hated people in society (beinG one and having my ass dragged throuGh the system i am aware of repercussions)
>>711675332
Not my fault you keep making the same logical error.
Just saying "it can't be!" is an appeal to authority. So knock it off if you don't want to be called on it.
Sex is very different, but what makes it more dangerous? That's where the argument for legal prohibition turns.
>>711675183
It's cuz if you don't respond to this your mother and your 2-D waifus will die in their sleep tomorrow morning at noon.
>>711660972
Pedos are sexually attracted to children but don't necessarily act on it.
Child molesters actually molest children.
You really don't see the difference?
>>711675514
The mistake exists, it's the first "you're" that was improper and being corrected, the second was fine.
and for the over 9000th time, if my arguments are so bad they'd be easy to counter, instead people just keep declaring "thats stupid" or "thats wrong"
>>711673105
Prosecutor's love sending criminals with severe homicidal crimes to the death penalty.
Executioner's execute people.
We're talking about homicide analogies right? That was kinda random, but let's discuss love and sexual connections between adults and the underage.
>>711675441
Alright. You are talking like there is some kind of conspiracy.
Tell me why do you think that was banned by the law in the first place ?
Don't you think that we have to draw the line somewhere ? Image what would happen ..sex with babies ? Fuck the moral the law is not all about moral.. but as I said protecting the ones that can not protect themselves.
>>711675515
Holy damn stop with the Gs
Just sign your posts with "-G-Man" or something
>>711675205
Children are not exposed to the hormones that only come on at puberty.
Without those hormones there is no amount of 'exposure' that can 'inform' them as to what sexuality actually is.
>>711675548
people do not realise this. most connot and reuse to tell us apart. in there eyes it is all the same, abusinG children no matter how you decide to go about it
>>711667360
fake and gay.
you cannot consent to a thing you can't even figure out.
also, underage people cannot legally "consent" to a wide number of things (for example financial ones) - and with good reasons.
Then why they would be incredibly promoted to "being able to consent" to sexual stuff? how come the pedo lobby almost won?
>>711668407
you just described the (in)famous "Overton Window".
>>711675657
>Alright. You are talking like there is some kind of conspiracy.
All human history minus 120 years took my position; then suddenly it changed. You think it's because unlike all other crimes that have been considered wrong since time immemorial, and we just missed sex with age difference until then?
>Tell me why do you think that was banned by the law in the first place ?
You seriously want to go down the road of trying to say there's a good, logical reason for all laws? I will, but think about it first.
>Don't you think that we have to draw the line somewhere ? Image what would happen ..sex with babies ? Fuck the moral the law is not all about moral.. but as I said protecting the ones that can not protect themselves.
Absolutely. I'm saying the line is when the child, without being forced, manipulated, or coerced, expresses an affirmative desire to explore the activities. That rules out babies and toddlers.
>>711675657
>sex with babies
Pedos are not attracted to babies and toddlers, those are nepiophiles
Afaik nepios dont fuck them either, just get bjs and handjobs
>>711675661
no -G
>>711675692
children cannot swim unless tauGht. i'm not going to just throw a child in the water and not tell it how to swim. knowleGe is my argument. do you read a contract before siGning one, or just sign it.
>>711675704
Well that's stupid
>>711675805
Then why isn't their parity in sex to begin with?
A 16 year old can't consent to legal contracts either, but they can to sex.
And what about kid-on-kid?
>>711675587
Already countered your argument many times. Fuck off to bed already!
See this:
>>711675692
It's that fucking simple, retard.
>>711675928
9001: saying my argument is wrong doesn't make it so and isn't a valid argument
You have failed to differentiate why sex is more risky, identify why risk would not be relavent, make any argument whatsoever that shouldn't apply to same-age... ffs are you trolling or an idiot
>>711675704
This G-man is really irritating!
Why can't you just be a namefag or a tripfag like everyone else on here who doesn't want to revel in our anonymousness?
A case can be made for a natural origin of hebephilia and ephebophilia. Pedophilia can't be rationalized in the same way, having reproductive motivations toward an non-reproductive subject is problematic at the least, would you agree? That's enough to hint at a mental disorder.
Your time would be better spent making the world understand the difference between a hebephile, ephebophile and pedophile. Right now all chronophilias get lumped under pedophilia.
>>711676068
not knowinG what any of those things are other than a pedo.
>having reproductive motivations toward an non-reproductive subject is problematic at the least, would you agree?
not planning to go off topic but the same can be said for th lGbt
>>711676068
>Right now all chronophilias get lumped under pedophilia.
No, anything once they hit puberty simply isn't considered a mental disorder unless it meets paraphilia-nos criteria.
they tried to include hebephilia with pedophilia, psychologists flipped their shit.
>>711675830
>That rules out babies and toddlers
I dunno. My baby was looking at me kind of weird a few minutes ago, opening her mouth, making sucking noises and cooing when I touched her. I think she wants the d. I'll go give her a good ramrodding, then come back to report.
>>711675830
Okay "child, without being forced, manipulated, or coerced, expresses an affirmative desire to explore the activities. " Let THEM do whatever they want.OKAY.
But if we remove that laws don't you think that all the kids that obv. don't want to do that will be exposed to stuff that will scary them, frighten them etc.
What Im talking about ->
Some pedos may have the right approach to understand if the child wants to do something, but some of them AND I will say MOST OF THEM will lack that communication skill and will shoot the questions STRAIGHT FORWARD which depending on the kid but it can scare him for life !
That ofc happens AND after 18, but at least at that age you are supposed to have that minimum amount of life experience to deal with your stuff.
>>711676173
..see: DSM-V committee pedohebephilic disorder dispute
>>711675858
My argument is that actual meaningful knowledge of sex cannot possibly happen until after puberty, because hormones.
Your argument is lame.
Accept it. You lost. Go swimming, in bleach.
>>711676250
This would be an issue. in arGument, in time any of these ideas would become the norm, just as lgbt is at the moment to most children around the world
>>711676250
I'd respond to that simply by drawing a parrallel with non-sexual child abuse. Children are always at risk of being abused in myriad ways, but we don't prior restraint against activities that would lead down those roads.
There's an argument to be made there, perhaps allowing affirmative defense? But it would require parity with other potential abuses, and fails at the point of same-age. Should there be prior restraint (illegal, lock em up) if the other participant is also under the age of consent? Kids are terrible to eachother. Worse than adults. Should kids be imprisoned for kid-on-kid sex? By a legal prior restraint that presupposes the abuse that's less likely in adulthood?
>>711676390
>>711676390
>My argument is that actual meaningful knowledge of sex cannot possibly happen until after puberty, because hormones.
do you have to be realtor to siGn for a lease or to buy a house. the processes and risks are explained before anything happens.
What i really dont understand is why does everyone hate pedos just for what they are? Its really the same thing as the lgbt community. Rape is wrong and should be for everyone. But just having the urge to get sexually with a child doesnt make a molester.. or what would it mean for someone having a rape fetish?
But i also think sex wouldnt be the same for a prepubescent kid and an adult. But with proper education it could be pleasurable for both... Most kids learn their own body through "kind of sex" what aso can mean lil girls rubbing their crotch on dads leg. This is medically based one of the first "sexual experiances" the kids get.
In the end its just societys that is fucked, putting someone into jail never solved anything. Low education and religious moralism fuck us over all the time and at last capitalist logic has fucked our whole sexual life over through many things like porn, media and so on.
Its easy judging someone else but try to not judge someone for a whole day and a week after that one worked;)
>>711676173
>No, anything once they hit puberty simply isn't considered a mental disorder unless it meets paraphilia-nos criteria.
My point exactly.
I meant how they're viewed in the public eye. Esp. what is actually hebephilia, is usually seen as pedophilia by common folk.
>>711676467
in my country a 3 year aGe gap between children playing doctor is enough to rep havoc, the choice is up to the parents of the children on what to do next.
>>711676667
yes, it's a national disgrace here with a stupid sex offender registry. we've put kids on it for life at 9 for playing doctor or less. i don't think anyone feels it's right and why i use it as an argument against the laws.
>>711676626
Thats pretty much exactly what every pedo thinks
>>711676390
Thats not true, in the end you only get knowledge or real sex through experiance, just reading can teach just little Compared to the real thing
You can read about car driving alot but that wont make you drive a car safely
>>711660291
Start committing suicide in mass until they take you seriously.
>>711676455
It will be accepted by the adults MAYBE, but how can it be accepted by 8 year old ? I dont teach my kids that pedophiles are bad, but Im pretty shure if someone on the street offers them sex they will shit their pants, cry, and have a deep emotional wound after that.
>>711676626
>But just having the urge to get sexually with a child doesnt make a molester
see>>711675548
there are differences not all pedos wish to act on there desires
>>711676787
i can make kids shit their pants, cry, and have a deep emotional wound all day if i want. it's not illegal to scare kids in tons of different ways.
you're a fucking ass if you do it, but morally wrong and prohibited by law shouldn't always be the same
>>711676782
^This
>>711676528
>do you have to be realtor to siGn for a lease or to buy a house?
No, but you have to be of age.
End of story.
>>711669088
They're easily manipulated and easily damaged. I don't recommend it on those grounds. If anything, let them explore with each other fairly openly, but we're adults. We can fuck more physically mature people who we can hold an intellectual discussion about whether fucking them is a good idea.
>>711676727
its against many laws. im on that registry, have asked many questions about it. in the end it came to your fucked for the rest of your life if i lose my job i got no hope of Getting a new one
>>711676787
yes maybe. but with proper education, it would become the normal thing and how would it be much different from picking up a girl in reseraunt at that point in time?
>>711666744
I don't care what it's considered ur a fucking scumbag nothing natural about wanting to fuck children. I'd smash ur head in right now if I could
>>711676982
There's a whole thread of arguments about this.
>>711667746
Why does it look like the girl is actually wearing a veil with a printout picture of Michael Jackson's face pasted to it?
You shld all kill yourselves sick fucks
>>711677034
baaah~
>>711676958
this is some law that would Go into effect tommorrow it would take 100s of years by then it would be an accepted fact that these thing could happen.
see>>711677019
>>711677034
Look out everyone, we've got a internet tough guy over here
captcha: children at play sign
ahahahahaha
>>711667019
>not sure if bait or biggest faggott
>>711666051
If masturbating = sex, I shall never reach wizardhood.
Fuck you anon.
For the love of lucifer, all you pedo scumbags need to stop playing the victim, here's your homework, put a power drill between your eyes, push it against your skull as hard as you can, and turn it on.
The world will be better off without scum like you, even niggers think pedos are scum.
I ...
>>711677335
>niggers think pedos are scum.
oh no, does my dog think im scum too? im so worried about what subhuman animals think of me
>>711677335
everybody thinks this but that not even remtley what this thred is about
>>711676755
You just made my point!
There is no amount of reading from books or coaching that will actually do the job of properly training one to drive. Only experience will do that. But, to use your same analogy, kids don't have access to cars yet. You want to teach them to drive and coach them, but you shouldn't be treating their big-wheels as cars, or sending them out on the road. There are cars out there. And trucks! They only have a big-wheel and won't be getting access to a car for quite some time.
>>711676782
This is the best idea ITT.
>>711664877
That butt grab at the end
>>711675515
don't read the text, only have a look at the pic, you G(ay).
>>711675910
because puritanism involuted into his contrary.
>>711667746
it's a "First Communion" -- except in the eyes of a wannabe pedo.
>>711677137
pedos are just pushing to take advantage of the already confusing borders between "age of consent for this", "adult age", "age of consent for that".
A civilized society should just enforce a "legal age for everything":
- until 18 you're a crybaby and you aren't allowed to do anything. Shut up and sit down, you're eating and studying and living for free.
- then at 18 you're an adult who doesn't have anymore right to leech off parents: you get the right to fuck any other consenting adult, but you lose the right to leech off parents. GTFO and get a job.
>>711677710
This is why I fuck my children.
I want them to WANT to GTFO @ 18!
>>711678015
Kek
>>711677518
I dont even advocate for adults to fuck kids.. at least i didnt ment this. I am at most for a total free and accepted sexuality with a sexed starting at you young age. Naturally appropiate to the age.. i.e. explaining yoouung kids how their body works, how to say when they dont want to be touched and somehow if they like touching theirself explaining that thats totally okay
I can't believe this did not turn into a nigger-dick or Spiderman thread!
Anyone up for posting Chickun?
>>711678140
>I dont even advocate for adults to fuck kids..
I did, and eviscerated every argument against it. Fun thread.
>>711678140
Are you getting drunk, anon ?
>>711678239
>eviscerated every argument against it.
Nice story.
Where did this happen, anon?
>>711678147
Nah. Been b& too many times for posting Chickun.
Spidey and nigger dicks are safer.
MODs like nigger dick!
I prefer Eris.
Come on, you slackers. Prove me wrong.
Protip: You literally cannot.
Just pack up your phones and computers, and send them to someone with an actual brain.
>>711663265
They're both gonna land you in jail or at least on a list for admitting either, but there's still a big difference
>>711678510
HAIL ERIS!
â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–²
â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–² â–²
â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–² â–² â–²
â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–² â–² â–² â–²
â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–² â–² â–² â–² â–²
â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–² â–² â–² â–² â–² â–²
â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–² â–² â–² â–² â–² â–² â–²
░░░░░░▲░░░░░░░░░░░░░▲
░░░░░▲ ▲░░░░░░░░░░░▲ ▲
░░░░▲ ▲ ▲░░░░░░░░░▲ ▲ ▲
░░░▲ ▲ ▲ ▲░░░░░░░▲ ▲ ▲ ▲
░░▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲░░░░░▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲
░▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲░░░▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲
▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲░▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲
â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–“â–“â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–“â–“
░░░░░▓▓▓░████████░▓▓▓
░░░░░▓▓░█▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓█░▓▓
░░░░░▓▓░░░██░░██░░░▓▓
â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–“â–“â–‘â–‘â–‘â–“â–“â–‘â–‘â–“â–“â–‘â–‘â–‘â–“â–“
â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–“â–“â–“â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–“â–“â–“
░░░░░▓▓▓██░░▓▓░░██▓▓▓
░░░░░░▓▓███░▓▓░███▓▓
░░░░░░▓████████████▓
░░░░░░░████████████
░░░░░░░████████████
░░░░░░░████▓▓▓▓████
░░░░░░░▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓
░░░░░░░████▓▓▓▓████
░░░░░░░████████████
â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–“â–“â–“â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–“â–“â–“
â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–“â–“â–“â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–“â–“â–“
>>711678239
Just finished reading. Good job, anon. You made all the right points and these fuckers never came close to arguing your points. It amazes me how some people refuse to look at things logically.
>>711676390
This guy's a fucking idiot. I didn't have sex until I was 21, but I've understood it for more than half my life. It's called sex-ed, and it happens in almost every school in the civilized world.
>>711677137
>>711677034
niggerdegrassetyson.meme
>>711678622
ALL HAIL DISCORDIA!
>>711678387
>>711678424
It's true, sorry. Cry harder.
>>711677518
Also driving a car and sucking dick dont really need the same requirements and with cardriving much more can go wrong if ya do it wrong. In the end i didnt prove nothing of your point. The reason kids shouldnt have sex(atleast the common opinion) isnt the same one than for driving cars..
>>711678263
Nope and also i am not the same one from before
>>711678780
I'd start arguing with this guy too but I can't even figure out what side he's on
>>711678666
Fuck off with your samefagging Satan!
You did not make any valid points, G-man!
You did not know anything meaningful about sex until after puberty, and neither can anyone else.
>>711667746
Halloween was just two weeks ago, moron
>>711665520
Kek
>>711678829
Thats the point anon;)
This pedophobia (Or more accurately hebephobia) trend is a fairly new one in human history. If you turned the clock back 100 years, 13 and 14 year olds were getting married and full-time jobs like functioning adults.
I think it stems from this sheltering culture where we believe that we should arbitrarily shelter our children from the real world to preserve this mythical thing called "innocence". Even though kids obviously conspire among one another and begin corruption their innocence well before adulthood, parents still attempt to try and preserve their childhood. A sexual act upon an adolescent is the ultimate insult to this innocence and is universally condemned....Despite the fact the "child" has already sexually explored themselves and probably others.
>>711678876
Read a fucking book and go to school, it's almost morning. Come back when you've gotten some pussy and realize that it's nothing special. If you can jerk off, or even if you can't, nothing about sex is complex enough for your argument to have any meaning.
>>711678828
Did I say you were?
I was merely remarking that your post:
>>711678140
looks like a drunk made it.
>>711678943
>If you turned the clock back 100 years, 13 and 14 year olds were getting married and full-time jobs like functioning adults.
this.
BRING BACK CHILD LABOR!
>>711678876
oh here we go again. that post was someone else, and your argument was thoroughly invalidated in >>711675989
>>711675587
>>711675048
>>711675001
>>711675534
et al. please
>>711679007
If they can do the labor, then why prevent them from doing it?
>>711678829
And you're not any good at arguing anyway, so GTFO and go to bed!
>>711673335
Ahh the cringe
>>711679074
Considering no one has provided a proper counter to almost any of them, I'd disagree.
>>711661349
Psychopaths are among the top % of achievers. Being a psychopath does not mean you are a murderer. Only psychopaths who have had a bad upbringing are likely to kill someone. The same goes for pedos. They are unlikely to offend. Most will never touch a child. The odd few who do are more likely to be rapists who rape women too. Unfortunately the mindset of the populace is now set by media frenzy. Even if you had sex with a 16yo you are a pedo these days which is totally incorrect usage of the word.
>pedo thread
>250+ posts
>3 pics of girls
gotta love the new /b/
>>711678015
you're totally fucked in the head.
at 18 they MUST GTFO, no matter what.
there's an old Italian movie about a son who at 18 gets the full bill starting from diapers up to yesterday's meals.
>>711679226
A few days back there was a CP thread that lasted an hour (hard cp, not child models)
Oh how the normies cried
>>711678943
You're an idiot.
Even back then, all the way to the dawn of history, sex with prepubescent children was ALWAYS frowned upon, and in most societies it was frowned on in a pretty severe way, so fuck off back to your history books, idiot. I hope our society decides to frown on such behavior by cutting your dick off.
>>711679307
Well that's just incorrect. All historical age of consent/marriage laws were set at 6-12.
>>711679301
saddened that i missed the lulz
>>711679390
...i haven't really bothered with citations since no one has even gotten past basic logic so far, but might as well
https://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/case-studies/230
>>711660291
There's a fine line between a pedophile and a child molester. Circumstances and environment are about the only difference. Given the opportunity a pedophile will molest a child because it's a mental illness fed by a fetish that was developed over time. Psychology will has studied this extensively and although they can acknowledge pedophilia as a sexual preference it's something that happens because of a mental illness first and nothing will ever change this fact.
>>711679595
I work in a kindergarten, I have plenty of opportunities, yet I have never touched a kid in a sexual way
You just dont know what you are saying
>>711678943
>13 and 14 year olds were getting married and full-time jobs like functioning adults.
the arbitrary "18" thing means adulthood. They reached adulthood at 16 and 15, sometimese even at 14 and 13.
But it ain't a pedo-argument. It's only a pro-adulthood one.
>>711679742
Thanks for the admittance. Hopefully someone will be knocking on your door soon to have 'talk' with you because you need help and shouldn't be around children.
>anon? will you teach me how to have an organism?
>>711679742
>I have never touched a kid in a sexual way
you touch them in non-sexual ways?
>>711679121
One word to counter:
HORMONES.
>I may have mentioned it b4. You have not countered my argument, nor do you have any of your own besides hopelessly resorting to swimming and airplanes.
Here's the deal. I do not have sex with prepubescent children, or even think about it, because I do not have some mental illness that keeps me from seeing the TRUTH: Children cannot give "informed consent". You may not know the difference between sex and intimacy, anon! Sad, really. Children can be intimate af, and they can have natural normal impulses, but they CANNOT, and I repeat, since you are so fucking dense, Children CANNOT know enough about sex to provide "informed" consent until after puberty. If you cannot see that what I say is not only true but is logical and makes perfect sense then it is YOU who needs a reality check. I never said that children cannot know about and have interest in sexual activity. I said that they have not reached a level of development where their knowledge could be considered in any way "informed", therefore they cannot provide informed consent.
You can't argue with adults, which is why you prefer to prey on the minds of young children.
You lost this fucking argument.
Accept it.
>>711679962
>will you teach me how to have an organism?
"Why yes ofc sweetie"
buy her pic related
