/jp/ - Otaku Culture

>>10750908
Yeah, I'm with this guy.

Oh, you know.

>>10750909
Yeah...

>>10750908
Do you like their smiles?

>>10750921
I believe I've already made myself clear.

>>10750930
I don't understand, please explain in detail.

Lolicon implies pedophilia.
Stop this shit right now.

>>10750934
I'm out of here.

Their small lips on my dick and how they struggle to suck it all down.

>>10750939
There's no problem.

I just want to hug a loli. Is that so bad?

>>10750940
Someone earlier posted a link to xbbs asia. Is it a honey pot?

Please help me 'm dying.

>>10750939
It's too late, I'm already a pedophile. If only I was warned a decade ago, I might have escaped such a horrible fate.

>>10750946
ALSO

is it illegal to keep images of underage girls from magazines?

Please respond-

>Several researchers have reported correlations between pedophilia and certain psychological characteristics, such as low self-esteem and poor social skills. Cohen et al. (2002), studying child sex offenders, states that pedophiles have impaired interpersonal functioning and elevated passive-aggressiveness, as well as impaired self-concept. Regarding disinhibitory traits, pedophiles demonstrate elevated psychopathy and propensity for cognitive distortions. According to the authors, pathologic personality traits in pedophiles lend support to a hypothesis that such pathology is related to both motivation for and failure to inhibit pedophilic behavior.

>>10750963
>Cohen
>Cohen (Hebrew: כֹּהֵן, kōhēn, "priest") is a Jewish surname[1] of biblical origins (see: Kohen). It is a very common Jewish surname, comparable to 'Smith' in an English-language context.

Never trust a kike.

>>10750939
There's nothing wrong with being a pedophile.

>>10750959
I think a person's life is better when they're still able to see beauty in everyday life. Much better than feeling nothing at all, or even feeling disgusted.

>>10750967
It's not illegal. It's just suspicious and could warrant further investigation if anyone finds your scrapbook filled with images of little girls.

>>10750971
Never trust a pedophile.

>>10750967
If it's not pornographic, it's not child pornography. As said before, stores in the US even sell photobooks containing photos of nude children. The thing is that they're not pornographic/overly sexual images.

>>10750978
What has a pedophile ever done to you?

>>10750980
Mengele never did anything to me, yet I know his actions were wrong.

>>10750990
>his actions were wrong

Proof?

>>10750904
There's nothing I like about them because I had a loli sister and currently have a loli niece. That also explains why I'm completely immune to incest.
Not sure if I'm fortunate or not.

>>10750972
It would be better to see beauty in a pure way rather than a tainted way.

>>10750990
So you know his actions were wrong based entirely on hearsay. He could have been framed for all you know.

>>10751000
>human experimentation
>not wrong

>>10751006
Proof?

>>10750996
Don't most people who think lolis are beautiful see them in a pure way?

>>10751016
I can only go by my own feelings. Which is to say that I look at them because they turn me on sexually.

>>10751015
Human rights violations.

>>10751015
He was tried and convicted.

>>10751019
What if tomorrow the UN declared breathing a human rights violation?

>>10751002
You're lucky, the only lolis I know in my family tends to always try something borderline-lewd with me. Thanks 2D for helping me to stop them.

>>10750987

> If it's not pornographic, it's not child pornography

Define "pornographic". Are yougn preteen girls posing around in skimpy outfits "pornographic"? Please keep in mind these are very lewd poses we're talking about.

>>10751019
And you think these 'rights' came out of thin air? Whatever 'rights' they have are those whom are superior to them have given them.

>>10751029
>What if tomorrow the UN declared breathing a human rights violation?
>What if
Assumptions are boundless.

>>10751040
You can't even defend your own beliefs?

>>10751002
How is it even possible that you don't like them? I think being around them would make you like them more. That's how it is with me, at least.

>>10751035
Miller test

>>10751048
Using a slippery slope argument isn't much of a defense either.

>>10751035
Pornographic? Anything (overly) sexual. This usually has to be done on a case by case basis and depends on the pose. Generally, standing nude, pictured from the front or back, is not pornographic. Sitting nude, without the legs being overly spread, is usually not pornographic. Laying in bed is usually not pornographic, ect. Like I said, anything sexual can be pornographic, but it really needs to be done case by case.

>>10750904
Your mom.

>>10751063
That's not a slippery slope argument. You said the it's wrong because the UN said so. So would breathing also be wrong, in your mind, if they passed a law saying so?

>>10751035
I figure if it has a ISBN number, it's safe. They wouldn't let people publish something illegal.

>>10751069
That would never happen, but if it did, than yes, breathing would be unethical. The UN doesn't just decide things on whim.

>>10751069
WHAT IF ALIENS LANDED ON THE PLANET TOMORROW AND KILLED ALL WOMEN ABOVE THE AGE OF 12 HUH??? WOULD YOU STILL NOT HAVE SEX WITH A LOLI???

-you

>>10751081
>>10751080
Can you prove that violating a UN resolution is objectively wrong?

>>10751086
So you can't prove it?

>>10751086
I would argue that the UN makes it's decisions based on objective logic and therefore violating them would be objectively bad.

>>10751103
Morals have nothing to do with logic. You cannot prove that being a pedophile is objectively wrong.

>>10751086
That depends on the object, of course.
A ban on breathing is horrible for humans; amazing for plantlife.

I wish you fags would shut up and post some loli.

>>10751113
>>10751095
Still waiting for the proof.

>>10751112
>Morals have nothing to do with logic

>>10751112
Object: The progression of human society.
A progressive society needs strong leaders, which are grown from strong children. An underdeveloped person would give birth to a sickly child, if they even survive childbirth. Pedophilia actively acts against this aim, and is therefore objectively wrong.

>>10751112
Laws, on the other hand do. Pedophilia isn't a crime, after all, child molestation is.

>>10751121
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

epic reaction image btw :)

>>10751124
You don't even understand what the word objective means, clearly.

>A progressive society needs strong leaders

Proof?

> which are grown from strong children

Many intelligent people are not physically strong.

>An underdeveloped person would give birth to a sickly child

Wrong. Teenages are much more fertile than women over 35.

> Pedophilia actively acts against this aim, and is therefore objectively wrong.

Prove that this aim is objective and not an arbitrary goal.

>>10751112
Moral: baby fuck = awwright
BY THAT LOGIC being pedo=a.ok

>>10751124
If you are going to go that route, it's better to prevent people who have done drugs from having kids. They have more obvious birth defects, yet it's legal for someone who has done crack to have children.

>>10751131
Hey look, I can quote Wikipedia too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_naturalism

>>10751127
One day something could be illegal, and the next day it could be legalized. The action didn't change.

>>10751142
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

You lose.

>>10751131
>Proof?
Look around you.
Look for a dictionary while you're at it, so you can find out what 'strong' means.
Won't even bother with your other 'points' if you think teenagers are underdeveloped. Besides the brain, which is a trait you seem to be quite experienced with.

>>10751140
No, but society changed enough that the action is no longer considered harmful, or, at the very least, it's considered more harmful to remain illegal (like prohibition and booze). So it's still objective. They don't just make and unmake laws on whims.

>>10751144
No u
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

>>10751144
what the fug

nobody's saying having sex with children is unnatural, look at our past

nobody's ``appealing to nature'' to say having sex with children is wrong

literally was never even brought up

>>10751148
>but society changed enough that the action is no longer considered harmful
>it's still objective

You have no idea what you're talking about.

>>10751147
>Look around you.

This is the equivalent of saying "well it's just common sense."

Looks like you lose. Feel free to come back sometime if you're lookin for another intellectual bruising, anti-pedo scum.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/subjective
Pertaining to subjects as opposed to objects (A subject is one who perceives or is aware; an object is the thing perceived or the thing that the subject is aware of.)

>>10751156
Subjectivity - a subject's personal perspective, feelings, beliefs, desires or discovery, as opposed to those made from an independent, objective, point of view

>>10751155
>This is the equivalent of saying "well it's just common sense."
It is common sense to anyone not trying really hard to be controversial.

We need strong leaders. That's it. That's all. Stop being this retarded/pretending to be this retarded.

>>10751155
>You have no idea what you're talking about.

What a terrible argument. The only thing good about your post is the amusing image you posted. Maybe you should stick to that and stay out of politics, especially consider you think lawmakers are being subjective and make laws based on what they want and not what their constituents (which represent society) want.

>>10751161
>edgy

Still no argument?

>>10751162
Laws are subjective. I'm not going to educate you in moral philosophy.

>Subjectivity - a subject's personal perspective, feelings, beliefs, desires or discovery, as opposed to those made from an independent, objective, point of view

A mob of people deciding they want something doesn't make it objectively right, it means it would be subjectively right, within the context of that society which has created their own idea of social norms. Don't use words you don't understand.

>>10751168
normals ruin every good loli thread with their brainwashed morality

>thread
Huh? I thought the main purpose of this thread was to post cute lolis.

>>10751166
>A mob of people deciding they want something doesn't make it objectively right

Good thing mob rule isn't used in any major country.

If the lawmakers aren't even making decisions based on what they personally want, how is it subjective? They are elected to represent other people, after all.

>opposed to those made from an independent, objective, point of view

>>10751166
I have no idea what you people are talking but that's a cute pic, thanks for sharing

>>10751169
No, the edgy anarchist ruined this thread. It could have been a good loli thread, but no.

feelio when you don't give a shit about these arguments because you know you win them all by default by not being a child molester

Keep saying nothing's wrong about it. Why not go have sex with a child while you're ait?

Why do loli threads always turn to pedophilia discussion?

Dammit, I knew this thread was coming and was gonna make a good thread to offset it, but I was too lazy.

>>10751173
>If the lawmakers aren't even making decisions based on what they personally want, how is it subjective? They are elected to represent other people, after all.

My, you are dense. People vote based on their own subjective opinions and points of view, and the most popular subjective point of view are picked up by candidates and sometimes put into law. This in no way makes laws objective.

>>10751182
Pedophile =/= child molester.

>>10751178
Acknowledging that laws are morally arbitrary and have no claim to objectivity does not make me an anarchist, it just makes me more intelligent than you.

>>10751184
Someone stated earlier that lots of normals are browsing /jp/ nowadays. This thread is just one of the many proofs.

>>10751184
Why does a thread about pedophilia turn into a discussion about pedophilia?

Not that I'm any more pleased with the situation, but come the fuck on.

>>10751166

holy fuck I love Suika so much

>>10751211
would you get roaring drunk with her?

>>10751187
When people agree on something as a whole, its stops being subjective. They aren't agreeing because of personal feelings, they are agreeing because that's the consensus. Can you name a single thing that's objective? You apparently think everything is subjective.

>>10751219
>When people agree on something as a whole, its stops being subjective.

Wrong. Just because a mob of people all agree that a certain action hurts their feelings, doesn't make it objectively wrong. It's still based on their own subjective experiences and opinions.

>You apparently think everything is subjective.

All morals are subjective, yes. Each society develops their own idea of social norms, and these social norms are reflected in legislation.

On 01/04/2012, MCMICHAEL wrote "I JUST GOT THE GREATEST IDEA! what if i adot a little girl? I'm sure she wouldn't mind becoming my sex slave if i take her away from the orephenage. WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THIS BEFORE? IT'S FOIL PROOF! Once she becomes sef awear that i'm cumming inside of her nightly i'll ask her if she'd rather go back to the orphenage or come back to bed. yes it's perfect! Theres no way she'd would turn me down. Now i just gotts locate the michigan adoption agency tomorrow and my plain will be put into moation. Soon i'll have my very own loli and she'll have no where to run. BWAHA HAHAHAHA BWHA HAHAHAHAAA." mCMICHAEL claimed that this post was a joke and that he couldn't possibly actually adopt a little girl anyways.

>>10751216

I dislike alcohol, but I'd make an effort if it's just for her.

>>10751233

Did he post this online, why didn't he use a spell check.

>>10751252
Because hes an idiot.

>>10751252
Because spelling errors allow him to hide behind irony if the situation demands it.

>>10751230
What nonsense. You aren't even posting loli anymore to make up for your misguided beliefs in moral relativism. You're posting high school girls.

>>10751257
Forgot the pic

>>10751262
I should know better than to expect an actual argument from you normals by now. This is child's play.

>What do you like most about loli?

Everything? Also, being the little girl. Kyaa <3

>>10751251
well that's too bad I guess, alcohol would be the ideal way to get to know Suika

>>10751263

How the fuck do people even get a hold of shit like this? Does Thad's lawyer browse 4chan or some shit?

>>10751264
It's pointless to argue at this point, it's obvious you are aren't going to abandon your ideal. Just post lolis. No breasts either.

>>10751267
What is your favorite part of being the little girl?

>>10751268
What are you on about? Legal proceedings are all public record.

>>10751269
My ideal is not believing things until they are proven. Naturally, this leads to the realization that pedophilia isn't wrong.

>>10751270
Hair bows and frills. Elegant clothing. Being small.

Small is justice.

>>10751281

Can I pick you up and hold you in my arms?

>>10751263
Someone should tell his "colleagues" in prison about his CP tendencies.

>>10751301
It's pretty funny how killers and rapists still find a way to feel morally superior.

>>10751268
Court documents are public record in america
>>10751301
Hes already been released on 10k bond, if he uses computers or gains access onto the net he breaks his parol

>>10751279
> not believing things until they are proven
But can you prove the opposite that pedophilia isn't wrong?

>>10751308
food chain of criminals, kiddie fuckers are at the bottom of it
my guess is that more than being morally, they also feel this crime is cowardly since the victim is small and uncapable of defense

>>10751293
Sorry, but there is only one master!

>What nonsense. You aren't even posting loli anymore to make up for your misguided beliefs in moral relativism. You're posting high school girls.

You cannot objectively say that an image created out of whole cloth can cause harm, be illegal, or be something worthy of regulation. If it were used in the commission of some sort of offense, then maybe. But not simply for existing.

It can be a picture of Jesus being gang banged, a little girl without any clothes, or any other what have you. The subject material is imaginary. No one is harmed. Therefore, it cannot be wrong.

>>10751311

That is assuming pedophilia is either right or wrong. I think it is a possibility that it is ethically neutral.

>>10751311
That's not how logic works. If someone has sex with a child, there is no reason to stop him unless you feel it's wrong, which you would then have to prove.

It's called burden of proof, though I doubt you know what that means, if your completely horrid usage of the words "objective" and "subjective" are a fair representation of your vocabulary.

>>10751310

How do you think his family feels about him after reading all that?

I'd assume he feels nothing since he was posting this shit on his damn FB page.

>>10751324

Did Thad have any friends?

Who would put up with loli rants on Facebook?

>>10751331
>Who would put up with loli rants on Facebook?

Most members of the African race have a low IQ.

>>10751323
If children are incapable of making decisions for themselves before a certain age of maturity, then it is possible to say it's simply not for the adult to make the choice for the children if it's for the adult's benefit. It's not a matter of "wrong," but of authority and misuse of authority. It's also 3DPD, which means get the fuck out of here.

2D is perfectly acceptable, so long as it's created out of whole cloth. After all, nobody is involved in the creation or existence of it other than the creator and viewer. Therefore, nobody is harmed, and it's not an issue.

>>10751341
You reek of /a/.

>>10751341
>If children are incapable of making decisions for themselves before a certain age of maturity, then it is possible to say it's simply not for the adult to make the choice for the children if it's for the adult's benefit. It's not a matter of "wrong," but of authority and misuse of authority

Those are some nice opinions and feelings. But then again I don't care. If something other people do makes you upset, make sure to stock up on tissues.

>>10751341
Whether something is abuse ore fair use is decided by the social norm.
Where the lines go isn't completely arbitrary, but there still isn't enough data to support either claim as an objectively better position.

Would you discuss the philosophical implications of Rene Descartes with her, /jp/?

>>10751331
I'd rather put up with his loli rants than with normalfags constant posting about christianism, jesusfagging, and moral lessons.

>>10751358
"Society" doesn't determine shit. Just a few people, really. And laws are not written in accordance with "society." Or they weren't, at least. They were written to make logical sense, and be self-consistent. Banning personal tastes without any victim, provable harm (to another), or such is illogical. But, hey, enjoy your President Drone King and his legion of self-righteous ne'er do wells.

They'll SAVE us all, whether we live to enjoy it or not.

>>10751356
What you wrote makes no sense, but I like Suika, well enough.

>>10751349
You reek of ignorance. The intolerable smell of summer.

>>10751389
If people having sex with kids hurts your feelings, cry about it. Maybe join a group about it on facebook.

It's so sad to watch washed up tripfags desperately try to stay relevant.

>>10751389
Can you prove that harming others is objectively wrong?

I don't really like loli, but I love shota. I'll never really understand people who like loli but not shota, since shota is just plain superior. I mean, really, girls are boring and hateable.

>>10751403
>It's so sad to watch washed up tripfags desperately try to stay relevant.
Wow...

This is how new you are.

>>10751219
>You apparently think everything is subjective.
Everything IS subjective. Logic is the closest thing we will get to the objective, but it's still often confounded by human bias. Morals are the last thing that are objective--they are determined by majority and anything but absolute.

>>10751389
>And laws are not written in accordance with "society." Or they weren't, at least.
No, they are. Morals and laws are only a reflection of the populace.

>>10751389
I agree that laws usually are written with logical sense in mind, but that alone doesn't prove anything.
Laws that aren't in accord with society will eventually change, as society will too.
I don't know why you think that there's some amazing elite that rules over everyones mind and make them do that whatever they wish.

Alas, you're just some tripfag, and I'll have to hide you anyway.

>>10751404
Certainly. All I need is you, me, and a loaded Colt 1911 with pearl handle grips in my hand.

>>10751403
It doesn't hurt my feelings. It's just 3D. Which means, kill yourself.

>It's so sad to watch washed up tripfags desperately try to stay relevant.

Why are you so jealous of my credentials?

>>10751423
You're behind the times, man. Obsolete. Deprecated. Outdated. This is shitposter country now. All remnants of the ancient elitist superstructure must be swept away.

>Morals are the last thing that are objective--they are determined by majority and anything but absolute.

Why are you so interminably dumb?

>Laws that aren't in accord with society will eventually change, as society will too.

Just, equal, and self-consistent laws are only ever overturned by those they constrict, which hails the coming collapse of the society that lets such laws be demolished for the enrichment of those who have no respect for just laws.

I ask you, too: why are you so interminably dumb?

>>10751423
>Certainly. All I need is you, me, and a loaded Colt 1911 with pearl handle grips in my hand.

So you can't?

>It doesn't hurt my feelings. It's just 3D. Which means, kill yourself.

epic :)

>>10751416
>>10751431
Forgot your trip.

>>10751433
>Just, equal, and self-consistent laws

And what is just, equal, and consistent is completely dependent on social norms. You can keep on trying, but it's clear you're pretty unintelligent. I'll give you one more chance.

Why do people care so much about what others masturbate to

Why can't we all just get along?

>>10751434
>So you can't?

I can. Like all empirical testing, I require the setting, participant, and testing method. And a Colt 1911 with pearl handle grips.

>>10751439
Nobody is allowed to masturbate to my waifu. Hands off, bub.

>>10751442
>Forgot your trip.
Got me.

>And what is just, equal, and consistent is completely dependent on social norms.
What is considered just is dependent on social norms, but that statement doesn't mean that justice cannot be objective (although in practice there may be no difference). Equality and consistency are subject to interpretation but nominally objective.

>>10751442
>Forgot your trip.
You think White Ren is one ``washed-up tripfag.'' Seriously, please stop posting. Your new is showing and you're making a fool out of yourself.

>>10751441
Thanks for admitting you've lost the argument.

Pedophiles with a sound understand of philosophy: 1

normals who just logged off facebook to cry about how pedos are evil: 0

>>10751442
>And what is just, equal, and consistent is completely dependent on social norms.

Logic, consistency, and the elements of crimes do not depend on social norms, but on defined terms and methods.

If you are an American, you are, by definition, an outstanding example of the American education system. I'm sure that the world deserves you.

>Why are you so jealous of my credentials?

Please don't say this even ironically, White Ren. That's the path of the darkside. The ZUN!bars and Suigins of the world start here. You're better than this.

>>10751453
Defending tripfags is the lowest low you can achieve, pal.

>>10751403
>>10751442
>>10751463
I am surrounded by newfriends.

Anyone who likes loli needs to be shot ASAP.

>>10751453
You even quoted the part where I reminded you, yet you forgot it again. This is starting to get embarrassing.

>>10751457
>that statement doesn't mean that justice cannot be objective

Provide a situation in which a moral system developed by the subjective opinions of individuals is objective. Go. I'll give you a couple minutes.

>>10751461
>>10751457
Uh-oh! Don't even bother trying to delete, we all saw it.

>>10751414

Not everyone has the same standard of morality and not everyone is an active subject in the creation of moral standards (as opposed to a passive one in their acceptance).

>>10751474
Please go back to whichever board you came from.

>>10751461
>>10751457

>>10751454
You are oblivious as to what is even going on. How do you continue to live, without so much as a brain stem?

>>10751457
>What is considered just is dependent on social norms

What is "just" is what is the proscribed application of consistent and logical rules, which are applied in order to resolve a problem for the better, instead of for the worse.

Better and worse are, unfortunately, subjective terms, but one hopes that a law which is self-consistent and is only applied to resolve actual discord would result in a solution better than the current discord.

>>10751475
LOL THE ORIGINAL WHITE REN IS AN OLDFAG SO HE'S INFALLIBLE XDDDD

-- Typical 2007fag, thinks 4chan = SA because he read Shii's website about the ``good old days''

>>10751472

There's no such thing as "objective" morality: morality determined by society is not objective either, it's intersubjective.

The fact that morality changes over time is proof that there's objectively true set of morals.

ITT: White Ren writes like Tokiko [Philosophy] [THESAURUS]

>>10751480
If you remove your trip I can leave, see it as an agreement.
>>10751475
Please just stop.
At least we can agree that we don't agree, okay?

>>10751486
* there's no

>>10751472
>Provide a situation in which a moral system developed by the subjective opinions of individuals is objective. Go. I'll give you a couple minutes.
All I claimed is that the notion of an objective morality is a consistent one. I have not claimed that any society has developed (or discovered) this system.

>Uh-oh! Don't even bother trying to delete, we all saw it.
You really are dumb.

>>10751485
Or, you know, I'm mocking these people who actually think this is White Ren posting.

>>10751463
True enough. I apologize. It was a joke more than anything. And I would take suigining over ZUN!spam, any day. At least suigining was just dumb.

>>10751485
I'm not infallible. Just smarter than you! And prettier. And I smell better.

>>10751495
I promise not to use this trip in your presence any longer. Please leave.

>>10751496
This is White Ren.

If you can't tell who the real White Ren is at this point, you're the idiot who needs to lurk more. Preferably in the past.

>>10751491
>>10751484
>better(good) and worse(bad) are subjective terms
>I have not claimed that any society has developed (or discovered) this system.

Thanks for admitting that your moral outrage towards pedophiles is based on subjective interpretations of right and wrong, with no objective basis. I knew you'd backpedal eventually when asked to actually defend your views.

>>10751484
Did you just call justice logical?
I think you just did.
Do you enjoy undermining western philosophy?

>>10751504
Please identify the statement that you believe reflects White Ren's "moral outrage."

ｓｈａｍｅｆｕｌ　ｔｈｒｅａｄ
ｄｅｌ

>>10751513
>It's not even just one person posting as White Ren right now.
I stopped, per my promise.

>Not only that, but White Ren switched to another trip (some Anonymous of X trip, I already forgot at this point) when it got leaked. It's not White Ren and you're covering for idiots/are an idiot yourself.
He continued to use that trip for a long time afterwards.

>>10751454
Update.

Pedophiles with a sound understand of philosophy: 2

normals who just logged off facebook to cry about how pedos are evil: 0

>>10751502
It's not even just one person posting as White Ren right now.

Not only that, but White Ren switched to another trip (some Anonymous of X trip, I already forgot at this point) when it got leaked. It's not White Ren and you're covering for idiots/are an idiot yourself.

>>10751513
This is pathetic, Rend. I know you got embarrassed in this thread and now you're trying to plant seeds of doubt, but honestly, this is a new low. Just leave if you want to save face.

>>10751501
I'm afraid I can't trust the words of an anonymous speaker...
After all, he lacks the credentials.

>>10751433
How can you possibly believe that morals are objective and absolute? They are constructed from and dependent upon the will of subjective beings. Everything simply is. Morality is derived from our interpretation of the facts at hand. If they were objective, there would be no need for courts and law to settle matters; application of law would be decided based on a priori justifications if it were clearly objective and absolute--no trial is necessary.

>>10751502
>Preferably in the past.

Can we all go back to the past? I miss the past.

>>10751504
>Thanks for admitting that your moral outrage towards pedophiles

What moral outrage? I told you to get off of /jp/ because of 3DPD. I'm completely consistent and logical. You're discussing 3DPD. 3DPD is not allowed on /jp/.

Therefore, get off of /jp/.

That laws can be objective, and that you don't know what objectivity is, are only tangentially related.

hey guys, check out this cp

>>10751528
No, you fell back on 3DPD because your views, which betrayed your complete lack of even a high school education in philosophy, were torn apart.

If you want to educate yourself, so that you can compete with minds such as myself, I suggest starting with Hume.

>>10751526
I place my royal seal of approval upon it.

>Not only that, but White Ren switched to another trip (some Anonymous of X trip, I already forgot at this point) when it got leaked. It's not White Ren and you're covering for idiots/are an idiot yourself.

You're somewhat off track here, son. Order goes:

Anonymous of I don't know who that is
White Ren
Keeper
White Ren

There's no need for anything other than original /jp/ flavor.

>>10751531
WHAT THE FUCK!?

I miss the days when arguments consisted of autistic retards throwing walls of text at each other while tossing in potshots, instead of just a big competition to see who can out-shitpost the other.

It's really quite refreshing.

I wouldn't be surprised if White Ren takes off his trip for awhile after this thread.

>>10751539
who the fuck teaches philosophy in high school

I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.

I picked up my cousin from school today because nobody was at her house to pick her up. She was smiling the whole ride home and it made me feel good. She wore a red and white sundress and looked really cute.

>>10751539
>It's also 3DPD, which means get the fuck out of here.

I assume is my first reply to you, as following anonymous replies is so tedious.

We're all little girls here, and you don't seem like a little girl.

>>10751545
Little children are stupid and can be easily coerced into sex, and then they are ruined for marriage and will be washed-up sluts for the rest of their lives.

>>10751545
Everyone knows that if a young girl and a man lived in a forest away from society, and had a consensual sexual relationship, she wouldn't be harmed.

>>10751545
GNU/pedo

>>10751552
I could live together with a young girl far from society and have her regularly fucked by dogs while I jack off to it, and she wouldn't be harmed, but while we're in society most people will object to it.

>>10751548
I'm glad you're admitting that you were wrong. Just to be clear.

Pedophiles: 3

Outraged normals from facebook: 0

>It's really quite refreshing.

Yeah, it is, a little bit.

>I wouldn't be surprised if White Ren takes off his trip for awhile after this thread.

I wouldn't take that bet, if I were you.

>>10751545
Pedophilia does not harm children per se. It's simply the attraction to them.

Sex with kids might or might not hurt them. Still, I don't see anything wrong with consensual sexual exploration. Kids do it with each other all the time. I understand that some can manipulate the kids, but it's not like that doesn't already run rampant amongst adults.

The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.

Some rules might be called for when these acts directly affect other people's interests. For incest, contraception could be mandatory to avoid risk of inbreeding. For prostitution, a license should be required to ensure prostitutes get regular medical check-ups, and they should have training and support in insisting on use of condoms. This will be an advance in public health, compared with the situation today.

For necrophilia, it might be necessary to ask the next of kin for permission if the decedent's will did not authorize it. Necrophilia would be my second choice for what should be done with my corpse, the first being scientific or medical use. Once my dead body is no longer of any use to me, it may as well be of some use to someone. Besides, I often enjoy rhinophytonecrophilia (nasal sex with dead plants).

>>10751556
Thus proving my point that the trauma is in fact derived from the breaching of social norms, not the actual act. Everyone with an IQ over 75, which excludes White Ren, has realized this.

>>10751559
Just because adults are good at conning and abusing other adults doesn't mean we should let them do it to children.

If a child is mature enough to sexually experiment with you, she's probably also mature enough to keep it on the hush-hush. If she's not, she's not, and you get whatever's coming to you.

>>10751548
>as following anonymous replies is so tedious.
Maybe you should go somewhere else, where you aren't supposed to be anonymous?
Where you even more easily can stack up an army of people sucking you up, seeing you as a god?
wouldn't that be nice?
It's a win-win situation.

Think about it.

>>10751549
>Little children are stupid and can be easily coerced into sex
So far I'm the one being always forced to somehow pushed away little girls, they're more proactive than you think and they don't need any direction for that.

The only girl in my life who tried to ride me out of the blue was a 8y old, felt really awkward.

What's with all the teenage nihilists in this thread?

>>10751560
Just because she's not traumatized doesn't mean it's not wrong. I could keep her as a fuck-slave and it wouldn't traumatize her. She would just live and die believing that her purpose in life was to receive my cum, and otherwise be a healthy and sane woman.

>>10751556
>live together with a young girl far from society and have her regularly fucked by dogs

This is more or less a fetish of mine. I wonder how many girls experiment with dogs before doing anything with people.

>>10751549
Well, that's largely a question of physical and emotional harm being two categories. Physical harm is easier, while emotional is more difficult. Not that it matters. We're too busy, in society, wondering whether having drones spy on Americans and shoot them with hellfire missiles is a good or bad thing.

>>10751557
Facebook? Who?

Are you really so new that you have no idea where you are?

I asked how you could be so interminably dumb, and you just answered. Good job!

There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children .

Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That's not willing participation, it's imposed participation, a different issue.

>>10751571
You're just digging your hole deeper. I honestly thought you would have left in embarrassment after the thrashing you took in this thread.

>>10751563
>Just because adults are good at conning and abusing other adults doesn't mean we should let them do it to children.
I agree, but it's a poor reason to vilify pedophilia. What people do with their bodies is nobody's business but their own. When did it become acceptable to treat children like property rather than human beings?

Tripfags losing arguments sorta arouses me. I think it's because they are reminded of their place.

>>10751562
>For necrophilia, it might be necessary to ask the next of kin for permission if the decedent's will did not authorize it. Necrophilia would be my second choice for what should be done with my corpse, the first being scientific or medical use.

The only argument I can see against necrophilia is one of possessive ownership of the corpse. The person is dead, therefore there is no harm done to anyone, except potentially the person having sex with the corpse... but that's a matter of the person consenting to his own harm.

If the family has no problem with it, then I see no legal reason, since there is no victim.

>She would just live and die believing that her purpose in life was to receive my cum, and otherwise be a healthy and sane woman.

That's an odd definition of "no harm."

>>10751572
The vast majority of relationships that children have are imposed on them. Their relationship with their teachers is imposed on them. Even their parents, to some degree.

They do have the capability to make decisions but there are a lot of decisions we don't let them make because we do not believe them to be mentally mature enough to make them.

>>10751571
>We're too busy, in society, wondering whether having drones spy on Americans and shoot them with hellfire missiles is a good or bad thing.

And also what consensual individuals do in their spare time. If a young girl wants to have sex, it's her choice, not yours.

>>10751580
>responding to le rms kopipe

failfag is fail

>>10751580
> but that's a matter of the person consenting to his own harm.

The fact that you are too mentally deficient to apply this same train of though to pedophilia is amusing.

>>10751574
They are human beings. They simply happen to be foolish and stupid human beings, who we do not grant the full rights and responsibilities that we grant to adults (not that there aren't foolish and stupid adults, but you have to be pragmatic here.)

>>10751585
So there should be an IQ test before you are allowed to make your own decisions as an individual? Awfully Orwellian, but I wouldn't expect anything else from anti-child love normies.

>>10751584
The fact that somebody does not apply the same standards to children as to adults is not indicative of mental deficiency.

>>10751587
Mentally retarded people already have their agency restricted. Sorry, but 1984 is already here.

>>10751588
The concept of a "child" was invented around 200 years ago. Before that they were just smaller humans.

Another example of the shifting of social norms and how arbitrary your notions of morality are. Also, you keep forgetting your trip.

>>10751574
>What people do with their bodies is nobody's business but their own

In most countries it is against the law to do certain things with your body like using certain substances or receiving certain treatments.

>>10751591
And in Saudi Arabia if you rape a woman you have to marry her. What does this have to do with the conversation?

>>10751574
To say that one's body is only owned by onerself is another moral statement, which asumes a lot of things.
I don't think we should enter this, though.
People are treated as proptery, whether you want it or not, but, obviously, we don't mostly do that.

>>10751589
>The concept of a "child" was invented around 200 years ago. Before that they were just smaller humans.
Yes, and I'm sure a baby was just a really small human.

>Also, you keep forgetting your trip.
I promised someone I would stop using it if they would go away. I aim to keep my word.

All statists should die.

>>10751599
are you the austrian economist from the other thread

>>10751583
Made a valid point worth responding to. Most people would balk at such situations, but it makes no logical sense to have laws prohibiting non-crimes.

>>10751584
>>10751582
Because children can't consent to anything, by definition of law. They don't have specific rights and responsibilities for a reason, otherwise we would arrest 4-year-olds for punching other 4-year-olds.

>>10751575
You can't lose an argument you were never having in the first place! My base argument was that objective laws are possible, which hasn't been successfully challenged, and that 3DPD get off of /jp/.

So, get off of /jp/.

My opinion on this type of thing is a weird one.

I believe there shouldn't be sex outside of marriage because it leads to stress and the spread of diseases, so going off that it's fine to play with a little girl if you're married to them and do not damage them. The main problem is that children change as they grow and it could break a relationship.

>>10751585
People are foolish and stupid in general. We learn from our mistakes. If anything, sexual exploration could set a foundation for sexual health later on.

I understand that very young children lack the cognitive capacity to make adequate decisions. Still, as they grow older, and definitely by the time they're pubescent, the focus should be on education rather than rigid, imposed "laws". Let them make their own decisions, and advise them against poor ones, but I get the feeling that's much too bothersome for most parents.

>>10751607
>by definition of law

Falling back on this again? What the law is has nothing to do with whether an action is objectively moral or not. I really expected more from you, but it appears you're not very intelligent.

The worst part about this thread is that I can't tell the difference between the people pretending to not know about White Ren#chilly and the people who legitimately believe that he's a trip user. A few people are in the second camp at least.

>>10751607
>which hasn't been successfully challenged
By that, you mean that you ignore the critisism?

>>10751622
White Ren attempting damage control again.

>>10751614
It only takes one poor decision to ruin your life. Granted, "having sex with a man" is unlikely to be one of those decisions but teenagers have a tendency to think a lot of dumb things are a good idea (binge drinking, drinking and driving, meth, etc.) If an adult female wants to whore herself out to half the neighborhood, fine. We can crown her Queen Slut. If a eleven year old wants to do that somebody should stop her.

What if sex was banned outside of reproduction, then people could cuddle with lolis without opression.

Everything would be OK, right?

>>10751630
> If a eleven year old wants to do that somebody should stop her.

Proof? "Because it hurts my feelings and I don't like it" isn't proof, by the way.

>>10751642
Choosing to touch a penis is going to have negative repercussion for the rest of her life?

>>10751634
It is likely to have negative repercussions for the rest of her life. Again, we are talking about a girl who lives inside a society, not on a deserted island.

>>10751648
No, but once everybody in the neighborhood knows her to be an eleven-year old slut who's fucked half the school, it is, up until she packs up and moves somewhere where nobody knows her.

>>10751651
And 100 years ago if an older women had sex outside of marriage the same thing would happen to her. This is because pedophilia and by extension child sexual activity is such a taboo.

>>10751596
>To say that one's body is only owned by onerself is another moral statement, which asumes a lot of things.
I'm aware of that. I'm stating that in the context of American idealism (which goes back to Locke). The right to liberty and one's own life is "self-evident." Depriving someone autonomy over their own body directly contradicts that. Of course, inconsistency and contradictions are par for the course when it comes to America.

>>10751630
>If a eleven year old wants to do that somebody should stop her.
If we think sleeping around is bad, then we should try to stop the adult woman as well. However, I think it's wrong to tell someone what they are allowed to do. Who am I to dictate that?

How about you just stop masturbating to pictures of little girls, real or drawn?

"Artistic expression" doesn't exist to protect perverts. Quite the opposite, in fact.

>>10751658
And university girls who fuck half the campus also have bad reputations, but since they're older we let them do it.

In any case she can still do it as much as she likes as long as nobody finds out.

>>10751667
So, you want legislation to protect people from themselves.

>>10751676
Congratulations on grasping what we've been talking about for a hundred posts now?

>>10751680
Congratulations of being a statist who thinks we need wise government officials to run the lives of individuals?

>>10751651
There are obvious reasons to make sure people don't do stupid mistakes, let's just take teenage drinking as an example.
It's proven to cause damage, by stunting normal brain growth, etc.
There will be consequenses for drinking when too young, some of those being medical, and others social.
When approaching the same idea, but with pedophilia you'll see that there lacks vital information to say whether the people involved will be damaged, but there will be obvious social damages, on both parts, both leading to physical and or mental damage.

>>10751690
Thanks. I'll frame your post and put it on my wall.

>>10751694
I'll frame my dick with your asshole.

>>10751701
I don't have an asshole anymore. I got tired of it.

>>10751706
I'll just use your mouthpussy then, you little fagboy.

>>10751709
B-b-but sodomy is illegal!

>>10750904
>What do you like most about loli?

The danger is pretty cool. It's like I'm part of a secret criminal organization because of what I like to wank to. Boy, I sure am glad that those innocent drawings are protected by the law.

>>10751663
What people do to themselves will always affect others.

>What the law is has nothing to do with whether an action is objectively moral or not.

Yes, and? I've never been arguing for or against morality. In fact, law has nothing to do with morality, at its core, but contract. You do not wish to be harmed. Therefore, for equal protection, you will not harm others. There's nothing moral about that, but the terms have consistent and easily determinable definitions.

Children cannot agree to contracts or make decisions for themselves as a matter of mental capacity, therefore others must do it for them. Someone who attempts to abuse them is violating the law concerning harm, and also interfering in custody of the child. It's just that easy.

Now, if there were a consistent citizenship age/maturity test, it would be nice~

>>10751660
There is no harm in masturbating or having drawings. No victim or assailant. Therefore, get out of life.

Also, I have this disturbing thought that all of you are salivating way too much over this whole thread. That's the only creepy part about it. Not the loli loving, but the idea that any of you newfriends can operate on the same level as a real /jp/ regular, like some of the regulars that have piped in to call you all retards.

They are adorable, and their smiles are brighter than two thousand suns.

Hey guys, official thread referee here. I am calling this one for the pedophiles. Their masterful understanding of moral subjectivity and the intricacies of laws really made an impression on me.

In future lolicon debate threads, just quote this post from the archive to settle things.

>>10751728
>Also, I have this disturbing thought that all of you are salivating way too much over this whole thread. That's the only creepy part about it. Not the loli loving, but the idea that any of you newfriends can operate on the same level as a real /jp/ regular, like some of the regulars that have piped in to call you all retards.

So much damage control.

>>10751728
When I referred to all the retards in this thread I made sure not to leave you out. Never be it said that I don't share the love.

Still deciding whether or not to count myself, but probably yes.

>>10751728
Isn't there kind of a problem since smarter people mature slower?

>>10751727
Not necessarily. At least, not to the extent of relevance. For example, a guy jacking off in his room alone is not affecting anyone in a significant manner, even if he's beating it to 3D loli. If he gets caught that's a different story, but then we need to question why it's even an issue. It's not like he's actually abusing kids.

Or how about a single working male smoking a joint on Saturdays? How does that affect anyone in a significant manner?

>>10751728
But you're ignoring so many things.
We do use eachother, even children.
If everyone had their 'immunity', so to say, that you couldn't touch them, there would be no social interaction whatsoever.

We try to protect certain things more than others, for obvious reasons. Children being a very special case, because they are our genetic heritage.
We have greater shields for them, but if we don't let people inside their shields, as I said, there would no possibility for interaction.

This is the flaw in your logic that you don't account for.
You asume some form of a natural number given to certain individuals, that will grant them more immunity, or whatever.
I'm totally ok with having this thinking, that there is something there that can't be denied, but the theory is self-fulfilling; it's absolutist.
And per definition you can't be wrong in an absolutist system.
I'm arguing that you can't say that it works, sceptically, because a system can not prove itself.

>>10751736
I'm a pedophile who is arguing against moral subjectivity. Do I win or lose?

>>10751762
CP doesn't just magically appear on your computer. You get it from somewhere and chose not to report that place to the police. So that makes you a conspirator.

I just like the cute character designs

Same response as when viewing a cat, and I don't want to fuck a cat