[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/jp/ - Otaku Culture

View post   
  [?]In ghost mode, only threads with non-archived posts will be shown
File: 35 KB, 350x378, 1245474296351.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2805056 No.2805056 [Reply] [Original]

The best vengance would be a shoop of moot with reimu hair.

>> No.2805068

OMG LOL EPIC WIN DO IT FAGGOT

>> No.2805095

YEAH SURELY THAT WOULD TEACH HIM A LESSON ABOUT WHO IS THE BOSS LOL xD SO RANDOM

>> No.2805098

Just shoop moot's face onto Reimu.

>> No.2805106

>>2805056
DO IT FAGGOT

>> No.2805108

>>2805068
>>2805095
Then what would you fuckers suggest?

>> No.2805128

>>2805108
I suggest stop making threads and feeding moot's ego.
Jesus christ, if he didn't fucking get a huge explosion of reactions everytime he did this shit, he'd stop.

/jp/ is more retarded than I initially thought - or the entire userbase is temporarily /a/.

>> No.2805133
File: 26 KB, 397x400, what will it be.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2805133

>>2805108
DDoS H4XX YOU'RE MOM!

>> No.2805152

>>2805128
You'd just let him walk all over you?

>> No.2805162

>>2805152
Didn't your mother tell you that ignoring them makes them stop? Guess what, she was right.

>> No.2805180

>>2805162
Ignoring them nets you another punch. The only way to win is to fight back. You haven't learned much in high school... maybe because you're still in it.

>> No.2805189

>>2805152
"Walk all over me"? Are you trollan bro?

You are aware moot is the owner of 4chan right? This is a form of amusement for him; he's bored late on a saturday night, so he fucks with us.
I don't think this is any real statement from moot calling us out on KS or whatever. I think this is him laughing his ass off at our retarded replies to his troll.

If we didn't want him to walk all over us, we wouldn't make 30000 threads for this shit.

>> No.2805218

I love how moot complains that 4chan sucks and then does stupid shit like this. I hope he's just jaded by now and he's not this fucking stupid.

>> No.2805230

>>2805189
If you had some balls you'd have up and left by now.

>> No.2805246

ITT butthurted fags

>> No.2805271
File: 145 KB, 350x378, :ks.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2805271

>>2805056

>> No.2805272

>>2805218

moot would probably like nothing more than for this board to die a slow, painful death, what makes you think he ever liked /jp/?

>> No.2805284

>>2805272
Well, he did call us pedophiles.

>> No.2805302

>>2805284
And moot and his fucking whore of a mother can both get burned alive for all I care.

>> No.2805324

im pretty sure moot is a pedo and when he said "less pedos than /a/" it was a bad thing.

>> No.2805328

>>2805302
Why are you so angry? He just stated the truth.

>> No.2805333

>>2805272
Well, that was the reason he created this board. Its a trashcan of sorts for shit that causes problems in other boards. If he cared about /jp/ he wouldn't have given it focus from the get go. Instead he just lets us rot in our stool and whatever comes down (or up) from other boards.

>> No.2805343

You are pedos though, unless the religion threads are just to appreciate their clothes.

>> No.2805371

>>2805328
I guess I'm the odd man out here then.

Even so, if he hates this board so much and says it is full of pedophiles then why let it drag on?

oh mootykins u so tsundere

>> No.2805388

>>2805371
Same reason he keeps /b/ around. He wants /a/ to stay clean of shit.

Not that it helped out too much. On the other hand, maybe /a/ would be much worse than it currently is if /jp/ and /b/ were gone.

>> No.2805400

>>2805343
since when was being pedo a bad thing?

>> No.2805411

>>2805302
>>2805284
>>2805272
>>2805230
>>2805218
>>2805180
>>2805152
>>2805108
>>2805056
This is too fucking pathetic. You're actually fucking mad about moot trolling your ronery asses? hahahaha. Christ, get your mother to make you some tea, that should calm your teenage anxiety a bit.

>> No.2805413

Oh wow.
>/a/:539 8.9833 Posts per minute
>/jp/:656 10.9333 Posts per minute
/jp/ is currently faster than /a/.

>> No.2805423

>>2805271
OH WOW
can you make it keeping his eyes and mouth?

>> No.2805426

>>2805400
Ever since murder and rape were considered bad things.

>> No.2805435

>He wants /a/ to stay clean of shit.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA. Come on, that place is worse after the split. It's nothing but kids who never read a manga other than shit like naruto and bleach. It's narutofan.com now. It sucks, I used to like /a/.

>> No.2805436

>>2805388

Sup /a/ Crunchybro.

Actually this isn't true, because most of the seasoned /jp/ friends would leave 4chan for good if /jp/ were to disappear. This was something we decided in previous threads.

So yeah, moot is just tsundere for us.

>> No.2805441

>>2805426
Keep your stupid shit in /a/, please.

>> No.2805448

>>2805441
Keep your pedo fantasies in your gutter of a mind, please.

>> No.2805479

>>2805435
I didn't say it worked. I said that was his intention, and it was.

>> No.2805480

>>2805441
>>2805448
You two shut the fuck up, please.

>> No.2805481

Pedo = Bad
Lolicon = Acceptable

Never mind that Pedo = Lolicon in terms of original meaning.

>> No.2805496
File: 269 KB, 664x994, dichromatic_butterfly_14.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2805496

¥100000 Site Administrator

>> No.2805499

moot is the George Bush of Administrators. Every change he makes to better this site results in making the overall experience even more shitty.

Keep up the shitty work moot!
~♥

>> No.2805514

>>2805436
>most of the seasoned /jp/ friends would leave 4chan for good if /jp/ were to disappear
This cannot be said enough.

Most of the people who belong on /jp/ do not post anywhere but /jp/, and people need to realize this. It follows that if you are a poster from another board, you should stop shitting up this one, because we don't do shit to you. The post speed is already getting high because of dumb troll threads (mostly from /a/, I think). Getting rid of /jp/ would do very little for /a/, not that /a/ can really get any worse.

>> No.2805524

>>2805499
Why would he give a shit about butthurt weeaboos? Are you contributing anything to this site? Short answer: No.

>> No.2805526

>>2805481
They are pretty much the same thing. Lolicon are sexual drawings of little children. No matter how you look at it, you're getting sexually excited by looking at little children. If that doesn't make you pedo, then what does?

>> No.2805538

>>2805526
I don't know, maybe if you've been on 4chan more than 2 weeks you'd have seen this argument 50000 times by now.

>> No.2805548

>>2805514
I don't see why anyone should care. Besides, sysop already made a site for guys like you.

>> No.2805549

>>2805524
No board is contributing anything to this site, welcome to 4chan newfriend.

>> No.2805554

>>2805538
I've seen it enough times, and this is the only question that I keep asking each time and never receiving a straight answer for. The reason, I can only assume, is because the answer lies in the question.

>> No.2805562

>>2805514
>Most of the people who belong on /jp/ do not post anywhere but /jp/, and people need to realize this.

But what about our bros from /tg/? Though yeah, I get the gist of what you're saying.

>> No.2805572

>>2805548
Nobody cares. They want to delude themselves into thinking we'd all weep for the loss of /jp/ posters if the board gets axed. Well, guess everyone needs to have their fantasies.

>> No.2805573

>>2805549
You missed the point faggot. All other boards are more or less indifferent to moots trolling, but /jp/ acts like some butthurt little fag and demand respect etc.

tl;dr you're laughable

>> No.2805583

>>2805526
I'm not a lolicon, but I do feel more offended by the images of an actual little girl being horribly raped that were posted on /a/ last night than lines on paper.

I'm a /d/eviant. Some people fap to weird things, and some people stroke the e-penis of the monster who hurts the best of us for sick entertainment.

Call me a sicko, but I'd like to say there's a difference.

>> No.2805595

>>2805538
Doesn't change the fact that it's true.

>> No.2805598

>>2805562
/a/, /d/, /jp/, /tg/ and rarely /r9k/ fag here.

>> No.2805602

>>2805573
every board bitches at moot.

tl;dr you're fat

>> No.2805611

>>2805526
Lolicon - sexual, consenting girls that can give consent.

Pedo - wants non sexual girls who cannot give consent.
Rape lolicon is the same thing as pedo.

>> No.2805634

>>2805583
Lolicon is simply a term that some have adopted and adapted to mean having an interest in 2D drawn pictures of young girls of a sexual nature, rather than an interest in pictures of real girls.

Whether or not this has any actual merit or substance, the fact does remain that, barring pictures directly modelled off of actual children (like that one doujin I saw claims made about once), entirely 'artificial' drawings do no harm to actual children, while real pictures involve, by their very existence, real children being harmed.

If all this is actually so, while I'd still find them to be somewhat a somewhat dubious sort, I'd rank lolicons below pedophiles on the scale of human waste (with the top being the worst).

>> No.2805636

>>2805583
I didn't say anything about whether or not it was as bad or not as actual pedo photos. I was simply saying that people like lolicon because they are sexual drawings of little children. I mean, how the fuck else would you define it? That's what it is. And getting excited by looking at sexual pictures of little children makes a person a pedophile.

I'm not saying you should be locked up for it or anything, but stop denying that you're a pedophile, because you are.

>> No.2805648

>>2805611
Jesus Christ, stop parsing the word. The word's supposed differentiation between 3D and 2D was strenuous enough.

>> No.2805654

>>2805611
Drawings can't give consent, and neither can they be abused.

>> No.2805667

>>2805636
This.

>> No.2805672

>>2805611
>Rape lolicon is the same thing as pedo.

That shit has always creeped me out with no exceptions, but let's not forget that a pedophile is also a criminal, whereas a lolicon is just a fetishist. Fetishists may view any given piece differently than it might appear to another person, whereas a criminal is ignoring the implications of undeniable reality.

>> No.2805693

Thought crimes ftw!

>> No.2805694
File: 86 KB, 451x339, 1221601090271.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2805694

>a pedophile is also a criminal

>> No.2805702

>>2805636
You have to remember that there's a dimensional gap. Liking one does not mean you like the other. A 3D fan will not suddenly take to 2D just because the subject is similar and vice versa. Just think of it as a 'Magritte' loli.
>This is not a little girl.

>> No.2805712

>>2805694
If they acquire child pornography or actually attempt contact with children in a sexual manner?

Yes.

>> No.2805716

>>2805672
>a pedophile is a criminal
no, a rapist is a criminal, and a child pornography trader is a criminal. However, there is nothing illegal about simply being attracted to younger girls. The only problem is when you act on it, which makes you a rapist (even if it's consensual).

>> No.2805725

>>2805716
>(even if it's consentual)
Which, of course, it never can be, because children can't consent.

>> No.2805727

>>2805693
Moot point. You're forgetting that once it becomes a tangible form it is no longer mere "thought". Thus, drawings can be banned without there being any criminalization of thought, only speech. I'm not for it, but don't call bans on these drawings thought crimes, because they're not.

>> No.2805728

>>2805636
I don't fap to lolicon.

As a /d/eviant, I do however sometimes fap from a perspective that would be unknown to the casual observer. When one person faps to a monster girl, they might be a zoophile, and another might fap to the contrast of beautiful human on scary.

Likewise, I know gurofags and, while I don't pretend to understand the perspective needed for a normal person to fap to a cooked woman, they aren't freaks, as far as I can tell, or even obnoxious.

All I'm saying is that an image that falls under the category of 'loli' may or may not be viewed and used to visualize an actual child, but perhaps some other element, such as a personification of innocence and purity.

>> No.2805737

>>2805716
Your point ignores the situation of someone who views child porn. I don't, nor do I want to, but in that case you obviously aren't a rapist, so what's the harm? Don't give me that bullshit about supporting it. Viewing a random cp picture on 4chan is not going to tell some guy to make more.

>> No.2805742

>>2805716
I agree. My terminology was off.

>> No.2805753

>>2805702
True, but pedophilia means a sexual attraction to little kids. Lolicon is meant to portray little kids in a sexual manner. As such, liking it makes a person a pedophile, at least on some level.

>> No.2805760

>>2805753
who fucking cares?

>> No.2805768

>>2805737
But distributing it is encouraging the author. Viewing in and of itself is not inherently evil, or we'd need to lock up the police for checking through the images, but allowing a virus to spread can have terrible consequences.

cp is cancer with real world victims.

>> No.2805780

>>2805725
Sure they can give consent, you can't be that dumb, anon. It's just that they can't LEGALLY give consent. But that's like saying "people are incapable of doing drugs" because it's not legal. It's still consensual sex in every way except in a courtroom.

>> No.2805781

>>2805737
That IS the harm.

By viewing it, seeking it out, etc, one is perpetuating the creation of it, and by extension, the abuse and harm of children.

Now, of course, in an environment like 4chan, some asshole posting CP in an otherwise innocuous thread and someone that had no intention of seeking it out or wanting it stumbling up it, does not make the latter a pedophile or a criminal. However, the person posting it IS s criminal at the very least, even if they're posting it just to troll and have no interest in it whatsoever, personally.

>> No.2805798

>>2805728
Insightful post, thanks.

>> No.2805801

>>2805781
>one is perpetuating the creation of it, and by extension, the abuse and harm of children.
But this does not follow for 2D.

>> No.2805808

>>2805780
No, I DO mean that they can't give consent. THEY CANNOT GIVE CONSENT. Their brains literally are not developed enough to understand consequences, responsibility, and therefore to give informed consent.

They cannot consent. Pretending that they can, but it's just THE LAW getting in the way is one of the biggest pedophile fallacies that said pedophiles spread to try and justify their crimes.

>> No.2805812

>>2805753
The problem is with the implications.

A pedophile has come to represent a rapist that goes after the least deserving victims and salivates at the thought of corrupting purity.

Stereotype or not, I would prefer people draw a line between 'that' and half the anonymous and tripfags on /jp/ and /a/.

>> No.2805826

>>2805780
That attitude is dangerous. A child is an incomplete human, and therefore is incapable of making that sort of decision. Post puberty I might agree.

>> No.2805830

>>2805801
I don't believe I stated that it did.

I have no particular problems with drawn images. I don't find them appealing, personally, either. But I don't think that people should be prosecuted for either producing or consuming them, alone.

>> No.2805831

>Their brains literally are not developed enough to understand consequences, responsibility, and therefore to give informed consent

This is utter, ridiculous bullshit. To a point, you're right, but you're trying to make black and white something that is very much a gradient.

>> No.2805832

>>2805768
I don't know if it really encourages him to make more, but it can if there is some sharing environment where pedos share their home-made CP with each other. Obviously, this would incite them to make more, since they'll get more in return for it.

>> No.2805847

>>2805831
He didn't state an age, so you are both right. I don't think you'll argue that a child of 3 years old cannot make a proper decision over whether he should have sex or not. However, 15 years old is different.

But if we just need to wait until the brains are "fully developed" we might as well crank it all up to 25 years, because that's what I read is the time needed for the human brain to fully "develop".

>> No.2805854

>>2805753
>at least on some level.
This type of thing won't really get you anywhere. Unless the person is attracted to the real thing, it doesn't count. Honestly, if you wanted, you can easily make every person a pedophile 'on some sort of level'. Interested in that barely legal stuff? Pedophile on some sort of level. Prefer women with the Brazilian wax? Pedophile on some sort of level. Like innocence? Call the cops because you're obviously a pedophile on some level. You really need to learn to differentiate between the real and the imaginary. Pedophilia = sexual attraction towards children, not sexual attraction towards the idea of children.

>> No.2805859

>>2805831
No, it is NOT bullshit. This is hard scientific fact. The brains of human beings literally, on a biological level, do not develop the ability to understand consequences and therefore the ability to give informed consent, until well past puberty, often not until past 20 years of age. Before that time, human beings remain, on the most significant level, children, unable to truly comprehend consequences.

Now, societies are still far behind catching up with this biological fact, and perhaps never will in our lifetimes, at least. Thus, they can still sign up for the military, become legally sexually active, vote, and partake in many other 'freedoms' before that biological capability manifests for them. Is this a terrible thing? I don't know. That's a big question to ask. But does this mean it isn't true? No.

Children are BIOLOGICALLY INCAPABLE OF GIVING CONSENT. Saying anything otherwise is wrong. Pedophiles claiming otherwise are outright lying and trying to rationalize their harming of children.

>> No.2805861

>>2805832
To be fair, cp is traded initially person to person, but do you really think that Swirlface would've been quite as active if he hadn't gained notoriety as his 'work' came more and more into the public eye?

>> No.2805862

>>2805812
Yes, pedophile has an enormous stigma associated with it, which is probably why people use lolicon as an euphemism.

>> No.2805864

>>2805808
>No, I DO mean that they can't give consent. THEY CANNOT GIVE CONSENT. Their brains literally are not developed enough to understand consequences, responsibility, and therefore to give informed consent.
I seriously facepalmed when I read this, in person. I'm fairly certain you don't even believe this yourself, but just seeing this written out was enough to make me lose a little bit of faith in humankind's intelligence. You think that when you turn 18 you just suddenly understand everything about life? I don't know how retarded you must have been as a teenager, but by the time I was about 14 I fully understood the consequences of having sex, and now at 22 my mindset on the matter has changed very little if at all. That said, if you truly believe what you just said, you really have no idea what the word consensual even means. Whether or not one understands the consequences of an action has no bearing on whether or not it was consensual. As soon as both parties give permission, it is consensual, regardless.

>> No.2805879

>>2805864
Fourteen isn't actually a child. That's a teenager.

We're more discussing the 5-10 range.

The US had it's age of consent a bit high, admittedly.

>> No.2805887

>>2805847
Like I said in my post after this, yes, the age wherein children develop their full decision-making and consent-giving capabilities is rather older than most 'ages' for doing things as enshrined in the laws of pretty much every country in the world.

Changing all those laws? A big thing to consider. Should we? I'm not sure. But the very idea of it, if one understands that one is taking advantage of a person (generally a child, but sometimes a mentally disabled person that never develops those capabilities) when one subjects them to, more than any other activity, sexual conduct, perhaps we should. I don't know. I'm not a specialist in this particular field of study.

>> No.2805906

>>2805879
No, it doesn't. They still can't give consent in their teenage years, either.

If anything, the US age of consent is too low.

>> No.2805907

>>2805854
Well, I would argue that everyone has some pedophilic tendencies in them, some just more than others. After all, it's human nature to prefer a mate that is young and virile (not sure if I got the right word there).

>> No.2805917

>>2805879
But at 5-10 years old, you can still give consent. You may not understand the implications and consequences of what you are consenting to, and this is why it is not legal, but you can still give consent. I posted the original "(even if it's consensual)", and I never implied it should be legal, and I never implied that giving consent at that age is in any way correct. But the fact remains that if a little girl says "okay" it's still consensual despite being illegal and wrong.

>> No.2805924

>>2805859
>Pedophiles claiming otherwise are outright lying and trying to rationalize their harming of children.

You aren't even trying to have a logical debate anymore, and I'd suggest that you step aside.

>> No.2805926

>>2805864
No, you didn't. You may think you did, but you didn't.

Fuck, at 22, you're probably still not fully mature.

And I'm afraid that it is you that truly doesn't understand what consent, informed consent, truly is. You honestly think that simply 'giving permission' means one really understands and is therefore capable of giving informed consent?

You are still a child. A stupid child.

Or a pedophile.

>> No.2805930

>>2805862
Perhaps. But it could be argued that the stigma is relatively deserved, as being attracted to children makes you dangerous to them. And no, being attracted to woman doesn't make you any more likely to rape them.

Children can't give consent, therefore all desires for a child are a desire for rape.

Lolicons have a little elbow room because a 2d 'kid' can consent, given that an author is responsible for the rules and 'realities' of a universe they create, and beyond that, there is still room for interpretation on part of the reader.

Let's face facts. A child that can consent is not a child. Therefore a lolicon (assuming the 'consent' exists within the context of the story and reader) is not actually attracted to children.

That sounds ridiculous, I know, but keep in mind that this is the internet and in cases where no consequences exist, perception is 9/10 of reality.

>> No.2805933

>>2805906
No, this is total bullshit. Around puberty, they become interested in sex and denying it from them then is simply a limitation of their rights.

You'll also have to explain to me in more detail what all the supposed "consequences" of having sex are. If protection was used, what horrible consequences would there be, assuming both parties consented?

>> No.2805942

>>2805924
Agreed, this looks like someone who is moralfagging up the place. Use logical arguments in this debate, people. Calling anyone who questions the current age of consent a pedophile only makes you look foolish.

>> No.2805944

>>2805933
They don't stretch like that in real life.

>> No.2805952

>>2805924
There is no 'logical debate' to be had on this subject. Children cannot consent. Teenagers are still children. The ability to consent is rooted in the physical development of the brain. This development is not completed until well past teenage years (including 19 in the 'teen' years here). Claiming otherwise is incorrect.

Many pedophiles make a big noise about how children can consent, and it's just the law getting in the way. This is both wrong and harmful, in order to achieve their own goals. Such behavior is typically known as 'lying'.

Logic dictates that inability to give consent = one cannot consent. Claiming that a biological capability, which the ability to give consent is, is somehow circumventable via 'experience' or 'maturity' or 'worldliness' or whatever else, is wrong. People once thought that the heart is what provided one with the ability to think. Science often shatters previously held beliefs. Science tells us that the ability to give informed consent is a result of physical growth of the brain, by an overwhelming margin.

Maybe you should actually look into some accredited studies on this subject, rather than simply claiming I'm lying.

>> No.2805957

>>2805933
You are a pedophile. I have nothing else to say to you.

>> No.2805967

>>2805942
It isn't 'moralfagging' to understand the way human beings function, and that circumventing this, such as having sex with children that cannot consent, harms them. And that this, in turn, harms society.

Or maybe it is, and you're simply a child yourself.

>> No.2805971

>>2805926
Sup, just hit your 18th birthday, bro?

Keep acting like you're some sort of professional on the subject, I'm sure SOMEBODY here believes your bullshit. Maybe one day your dream can be realized and we can raise the age of consent to about 70 because apparently nobody understands the implications of sex when they're actually the age that bodies were designed to HAVE sex at.

While we're at it http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consent
1: to give assent or approval : agree <consent to being tested>
Notice it doesn't say anything about understanding consequences, nor about the legality of it. The problem is you keep adding this word "informed" in front of the word, in order to make your definition look more applicable. Unfortunately sometimes when you add words to a sentence, it changes the entire meaning.

You are just a troll. A good troll, admittedly.

Or a dumbass.

>> No.2805980

>>2805952
Nice, now please, can you give me some research that has shown how many people became "damaged" after having had consensual sex at the ages that you deem the brain to not be "fully developed" yet? By your moralfaggish stance, you seem to even believe people who had sex when they were in their 20s could not oversee the "consequences" and now apparantly have to live a miserable life because of it. Guess a BIG part of the population is traumatized in your eyes. Anyway, have some research to back up those claims? It's not a fact simply because you say it is.

>> No.2805984

>>2805917
No, it is not consensual. Consent is not something that relies upon magical words that make everything okay or not okay. Consent is rooted in the ability to understand the consequences of what one is consenting too, all the upsides, and the downsides, and what effects the act will have upon their future, and upon themselves.

Children cannot consent, because they are not capable of this. Thus, any sexual act with a child is rape. Whether they 'consented' or not.

>> No.2805986

>>2805957
Hmm, troll or genuine moralfag? Doesn't really matter, such statements mean you've lost the argument either way.

>> No.2805987

>>2805952
What the fuck is this consent bullshit? If it's based in logic, then I don't feel any smarter than I was when I was 15 or 16. Maybe I can do calculus now, but what difference does knowing how to do a differential equations make in something as abstract as love? Oh, I need to find the resonant frequency for the damped harmonic oscillation of my balls as I fuck a chick in the ass.

>> No.2805988

This is what happens when /a/fags come to this board.

>> No.2805989

>>2805952
I'm not a pedo and given the power, I would have every person who has ever harmed a child in such a way tortured and burned everlasting in the fires of hell, and in the event that there is no hell, one should be created for them.

However, even I concede that a teenager is something which has their body and mind ready for that activity. I support the 18 + policy because it's safer for those who are late bloomers and it gives them time to learn more, but many places in the world have younger couples with little to no problems.

>> No.2805991

>>2805944
Not the sole form of sex, to be sure.
>>2805952
You have gone off the deep end, mate.

>> No.2805998

>>2805967
Once again, explain how having consensual sex harms a human being. Use research to back up your claims if you can.

>> No.2805999

>>2805987
>the resonant frequency for the damped harmonic oscillation of my balls as I fuck
But dude, once you master that technique, you'll wonder how you ever lived without it.

>> No.2806001

>>2805987
Great post. Thanks.

>> No.2806003

>>2805971
Yes. One entry from a dictionary certainly encapsulates the depth and breadth of one's very ABILITY to give consent, and the biological factors involved in that capability.

Child.

>> No.2806008 [DELETED] 

>>2805952

The problem is that your argument is obviously based on cultural and social standards. Just in that you fail, because that's not what this is about.

People once thinking the heart had the ability to think is nowhere near the same thing as a natural biological function such as puberty, which as been proven by your science. The physical attraction to someone has nothing to do with mental maturity. Humans are nothing but animals, ultimately. Just a little more intelligent.

>> No.2806017

>>2806003
wat

You have the ability to consent to something as soon as you're able to speak. Doesn't mean you should, but you can. Also please try to address the rest of the post, if you think you're up to it.

>> No.2806021

14 + would be a good legal global minimum, and most countries would set it a bit later, regardless.

>> No.2806026

>>2806017
Isn't the real term 'informed consent'?

>> No.2806028

Sigh. Why am I even bothering with this? Moot was right, this board does have too many self-righteous pedophiles, which is a shame, because it occasionally produces entertaining material.

I honestly have no desire to waste any more of my time in this thread. Don't have sex with any children. Including teenagers. It's rape. Goodnight.

>> No.2806029

>>2806017
I think you're asking a little too much of the guy here.

>> No.2806030

>>2806003

Being able to consent is not the same thing as understanding the consequences of consenting.

Are you fucking retarded?

>> No.2806033

I don't really know what's going on at the moment but I skimmed across this thread and read a lot of stupid 4chan slang like "newfriend" and "/d/eviant" and now I am going to leave ok

>> No.2806035

>>2806028
There's like 5 people including myself arguing about this. TOO MANY, WE'RE INFESTING THE BOARD OH GOD.

>> No.2806040

>>2806028
Being an asshole helps get your valid point across doesn't it? Hearing people even contest the damages sex can have on a young child disgusts me greatly, but you come to this board and refuse to at least attempt to moderate your perspective.

That is what a 'moralfag' is.

>> No.2806045

>>2806028

>consensual sex with teenagers

>rape

Oh lawd

>> No.2806047

>>2806033
Yes, 4chan slang on 4chan, how ironic.

>> No.2806049

>>2806028
I was mostly offended by your implication that anyone who has had sex before their brains had "fully developed" (this being around age 25 or so) would be damaged by the experience. This is patently ridiculous, simply by observing real-world scenarios, like oh, half the population that has sex before their 20s? Even all those people who had sex when they were 13 or 14, you'd have a hard time showing me the majority of those were "scarred for life" by the experience. Of course, talking about consensual sex in all cases.

>> No.2806050

Are you guys seriously arguing over consent?

Dipshits. Pedos are pedos, it's not rocket science.

>> No.2806059

>>2806035
THE PEDOPHILES ARE TAKING OVER /jp/!

>> No.2806060

>>2805180
average american

>> No.2806061

>>2806028
>It's rape
Aww, leaving right when we can segue into the morality and specifics of rape....

>> No.2806068

>>2806050
There is like one person arguing that a child can give informed consent. The rest are arguing over the age it can be provided at.

>> No.2806072

>>2806050
Awesome logic. Criminals are criminals. Ah, how joyous it must be to live as ignorant a life as you do.

>> No.2806073

>>2806047
/jp/ is usually pretty devoid of that annoying "____fag!" stuff, I don't enjoy that retarded 4chan slang any more than I enjoy real life slang

just expressing my distastefag, guess I'll just go fapfag

>> No.2806076

What's the point of prohibiting people from having sex with teenagers. You're all deluding yourselves if you think that teenagers aren't having sex with each other as we speak.

Sex is a perfectly natural thing, and to restrict young people from would be no different than stopping them from doing other natural things.

"Oh, little johnny, you can't take a poop in that toilet, you don't know what will happen to the fecal matter, it could hurt the environment!" Give me a break. The kid just wants to take a shit.

>> No.2806081

>>2806073
Wow, you can't even use the term correctly... no wonder you don't like it, you're too inept to even use them. Please refrain from posting on 4chan any further, newfag.

>> No.2806089

>>2806073
... your abuse of the slang is even more offensive, good sir.

>> No.2806090

>>2806076
That's why I keep asking for research that shows consensual sex at an early age has real, damaging consequences for the participants. All it seems to be right now is some voodoo that "having sex too early is baaaaaad for you!!"

>> No.2806093

>>2806081
oh dear

>> No.2806100

>>2806073

>just expressing my distastefag, guess I'll just go fapfag

Oh wow

Get out

>> No.2806105

>>2806081
No, he's pretty much correct, /jp/ does not generally use that kind of slang. Rarely if ever do people use the word "newfag" on /jp/ and they're usually not taken seriously at all. "-friend" on the other hand is quite common...

>> No.2806110

>>2806076
Sex at a young age (teen years) doesn't hurt. You don't see the average person walking around crying his/her face out because of their lost virginity. In fact, I see that many of us on /jp/ actually feel deprived because the majority haven't had any sexual encounters. Those with sexual encounters are outcasted and labeled as "sluts."

>> No.2806120

>>2806076
The point would be providing individuals longer to learn about the consequences. Sex isn't something we're forced to do (usually), so it's not all in all that bad to wait for.

Not that I'm saying we should give the same punishment and label for someone who slept with a sixteen year old as we would if they had slept with a a seven year old...

>> No.2806121

>>2806081
>>2806100
Take it easy, Anons. Concentrate your energy on the loli.

>> No.2806125

>>2806105
Newfriend is just as bad as newfag.

>> No.2806133

>>2806105
The 'friend' suffix is a parody of the 'fag' suffix and is often used sarcastically.

>> No.2806134

>>2806081
/a/

>> No.2806137

>>2806120
>about the consequences
Again: WHAT CONSEQUENCES?

>> No.2806139

>>2806105

Maybe not "newfag", but the -fag suffix is still used quite often here.

But that's beside the point. The point was that he was criticized it, and then showed a lack of understanding of what it is and how to use it.

>> No.2806146

>>2806125
I think you misunderstood. I didn't mean that "newfriend" is quite common or accepted, because honestly nobody says that either. However, as opposed to "-fag" for other words, many posters use "-friend" which is sort of an ironic parody of "-fag" and is generally not opposed here.

>> No.2806151

>>2806139
More like he criticized it and blew it up to show how absurd it was, but we can talk about intent all day and we'll still get nowhere.

>> No.2806157

>>2806121
No, that person annoyed me more than the moralfag did. I hate elitist pricks who think they're better than others because they don't use some popular expression. Protip (yes, I'm using this ironically): if you're going to be elitist, prove that you deserve it by providing well-reasoned arguments and insightful responses, using capitalization and punctuation and in general making high-quality posts. If you don't, you're just a prick who thinks too highly of himself.

>> No.2806166

>>2806125
Any form of "newbie" is pretty dickish, the whole "you're new get out" attitude is annoying but I know I know you want to feel powerful in an anonymous community! Though I understand the intended sarcasm with newfriend I have no doubt that half the people that use it are not being sarcastic

>> No.2806167

>>2806157
Clearly what you should do is get mad over the internet. Goddamn. Take it easy, son.

>> No.2806179

>>2806137
...

Pregnancy, the spread of STDs, emotional baggage from failed relationships, the possibility of date rape, and much, much, much more.

Not all of them can be avoided with a condom.

>> No.2806182

>>2806167
How in the world did you get the idea I was mad? I said I was annoyed, nothing more.

>> No.2806191

>>2806179
Everything you mentioned is prevented by using protection and "daterape" is a totally ludicrous consequence to even consider. Two people who love each other... how the fuck does "daterape" even play into this?

>emotional baggage from failed relationships
They get this anyway even if they don't have sex. Next argument, please.

So far, no consequences that can't be prevented with a condom.

>> No.2806195

>>2806179
>Pregnancy
practice safe sex

>the spread of STDs
has nothing to do with age

>emotional baggage from failed relationships
valid, but hey that's life, deal with it

>the possibility of date rape
we're talking about consensual sex here, and this again has nothing to do with age

You must have known someone would respond exactly like this...

>> No.2806203

What an odd thread. There's like 4 completely unrelated topics.

>> No.2806209

>>2806157
It's relatively obvious that you yourself are being an elitist, and it's also obvious that you are 'new' here. That lack of experience is currently causing you to irritate other members of this board and this campaign against 'chan culture' is ridiculous.

You claim that /jp/ is somehow different, but all that does is reveal that you have forgotten that most of us are exiles from /a/ and that /jp/ is relatively new as a board, meaning that the mannerisms remain similar.

Please learn to adapt to our customs, or make your exit promptly.

>> No.2806221

>>2806209
What the hell everything in this post was completely wrong including your interpretation and comprehension of the post your quoted.

What the fuck, man.

>> No.2806222

>>2806195
>>2806191
What part of it dealt with age? It's a matter of education.

Also, STDs aren't all preventable with a condom.

>> No.2806226

>>2806221
It's too late to actually read things before responding to them.

>> No.2806236

>>2806137
Well, there's the psychological consequences of people telling you that the absolute worst, most shameful thing happened to you for the rest of your life...

>> No.2806251
File: 129 KB, 500x500, nakadashi.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2806251

>>2806157
I don't think I'm elitist just because I think a ridiculously unclever and childish term being overused is annoying. Anyone who is using a term like NEWFAG is almost definitely doing it to be an asshole, so I don't see why you would defend it. And I guess we have different views of the world but I consider the people who demand proper grammar and punctuation to be the most elitist type of people lol

And honestly, you have some interpretation issues if you think I was adding -fag to fap etc. with serious intent. I get that sarcasm is hard convey over the internet but that doesn't quite cover it...

>> No.2806257

>>2806251
p.s. I forgot to mention I drew that for you welcome to 4chan /jp/ undetermined-agefriend

>> No.2806260

>>2806251
>>2806257
Draw another. I love bold outlines so much.

>> No.2806267

How do fags fit into our discussion about pedophiles?

If you're talking about the Gay-rights movement (and in conjunction, the nigger rights movement) having similarities to the current predicament pedophiles are facing, then I understand, but this fag/friend business doesn't seem to fit in.

>> No.2806299

>>2806251
The terms aren't an attempt to be clever or funny, they're just terms that popped up over time that keep being used. Slang, as you said.

As you have no power to alter the core culture of 4chan, all you have and ever will accomplish with your constant complaining is friction.

>> No.2806306

>>2806267
Gay people are capable of having sex without it being rape.

>> No.2806312

>>2806306
But it's still gay. Which is gay.

>> No.2806319

The term 'newfag' is used less often on /jp/ for the same reason it is used less often on /tg/. This board is less directly accessible, which makes new users harder to spot.

>> No.2806324

>>2806299
No, seriously, he's not wrong for wanting this childish -fag shit off of /jp/. Not all boards are the same. Most of us on /jp/ do not visit other boards and really don't give a flying fuck about their slang. All your talk about culture and shit is just silly, why do you feel the need to conform to the "culture" of a bunch of retards on the internet. There's nothing "elitist" about not tolerating stupid bullshit, it's just being sensible.

>> No.2806329
File: 154 KB, 500x700, pantsu troopa.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2806329

>>2806319
That is not the kind of reasoning I would like to put into it but I accept the possibility

>> No.2806331 [DELETED] 

>>2806299
Which, for the record, you are free to do, so long as you remain anonymous. It's best to not be a jerk, but we aren't a collection of the internet's most polite individuals, so yeah...

>> No.2806339

What did moot do?

>> No.2806348

>>2806324

>Most of us on /jp/ do not visit other boards

Speak for yourself.

>> No.2806350

>>2806339
On-topic discussion is prohibited.

>> No.2806357

>>2806348
I'm sorry, maybe I should have corrected it to
>Most of us who actually belong on /jp/

>> No.2806367

>>2806324
I visit four or so boards regularly and I can't agree that /jp/ is different. I've watched this board grow ever since moot split us from /a/, and even if the users feel isolated, the actual differences are minor, with the exception of /b/ an /v/, but those are horrible pits of crap which no one sane visits, so they don't count.

Even /tg/, arguably the most isolated 'active' boards maintains a culture not that much different from /jp/'s, or even /d/'s. You're free to believe that we're 'special', though.

Causing friction for the sake of causing friction is pointless.

>> No.2806373

I don't understand why /jp/ is so angry. When /a/ became CODE GEASS everyone just dohoho'd and moved on.

>> No.2806375

>>2806348
He's right though. We've had threads in the past about "what other boards do you visit" and most people say they just browse /jp/.

>> No.2806381

>>2806367
>Even /tg/, arguably the most isolated of the 'active' boards maintains a culture not that much different

Right then, not a good time to make typos.

>> No.2806383

>>2806373
Nobody on /jp/ is angry. It's /a/ trolling you. Go on and do what you normally do.Maybe take a shit or something.

>> No.2806384

>>2806367Causing friction for the sake of causing friction is pointless.

that is kind of what this whole thread is about though so why not

>>2806373
me neither, took me like 20 minutes to even notice it

>> No.2806388

>>2806373
Wasn't that /co/?

>> No.2806393

>>2806373
Because that didn't result in an invasion from another board. I'm sure if /b/ had flooded /a/ people would have been complaining.

>> No.2806401

>>2806393
But /co/ had it done to them and they were flooded by /a/.

>> No.2806405

>>2806373
You worry too much. The post rate is already dropping closer to normal rates so everything will be back to normal in no time.

>> No.2806402 [DELETED] 

>>2806357

I have at least 3 or 4 other boards open in tab at a time. Mainly /co/, /m/, /g/, and /a/. /jp/ can be good at times, but it's just ridiculously slow and we don't get enough content.

>> No.2806416

>>2806357

I have at least 3 or 4 other boards open in tab at a time. Mainly /co/, /m/, /g/, and /a/. /jp/ can be good, but it's just ridiculously slow at times and we don't get enough new content.

>> No.2806417

>>2806329
Dammit, I hate disagreeing with reasonable people.

>> No.2806720

>>2806251
A bit late to respond to this, but anyway... looks like I was right, you are simply a prick who undeservedly thinks highly of himself.

>> No.2806725

First thing I see this morning is a shitty metathread.

Reported.

>> No.2806732

>>2806375
Most sensible people probably didn't respond to that thread because those threads are cancer.

>> No.2806742

>>2806732
No.

>> No.2806743

>>2806742
Yes.

>> No.2806748 [DELETED] 

>>2806732
People who use the term cancer don't get to determine who has sense.

>> No.2806750 [DELETED] 

>>2806725
>Reported.

Why do people need to announce this all the fucking time?

>> No.2806755 [DELETED] 

>>2806750
So the OP can cower in fear of his thread being deleted.

>> No.2806760 [DELETED] 

>>2806755
I made this thread 4 hours ago and left, I can't believe it's still alive.

>> No.2806761 [DELETED] 

>>2806750
I used to routinely announce "Reported" whenever a thread came up that I didn't like, regardless of whether I had reported it or not.
It worked, for a while.

>> No.2806777 [DELETED] 

You're now property of /v/

WHAT NOW BITCHES?

>> No.2806787 [DELETED] 

>>2806777
When /v/ says they owned someone, it means that they beat them at a video game.

>> No.2806789 [DELETED] 
File: 133 KB, 800x671, 305.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2806789

Well as long as this board stays /KS/ I'll keep the posts about it here. As soon as it changes though I'm motherfucking going back to /a/ and /v/.

>> No.2806797 [DELETED] 

>>2806787
In this case the videogame is IRL. The MMORPG.

>> No.2806799 [DELETED] 

>>2806797
/v/ is still playing that shitty game? I gave up after the tutorial area.

>> No.2806800 [DELETED] 

>>2806761
"It worked"? It couldn't have done much at all, if you didn't actually report the thread. I find people who post "Reported." just as stupid as people who post "Sage."

>>2806748
Don't be so butthurt, newfag.

>> No.2806839 [DELETED] 

>>2806761
Usually when I report a thread I don't announce it. Usually when I post "reported" I don't actually report the thread.

>> No.2807149 [DELETED] 

I am no pedophile, and to be honest I am the type of moralfag that waits years and years and even getting married before having sex with someone.

But to be honest, I find the thought of not having sex with people because they aren't fully devoloped mentally and that one is a child until one is fully devoloped quite stupid.

If we look back in history, for an example, the medieval age. Back then most people didn't even live past the age of 30. That would mean that people from back then lived as "children" for over 90% ov their lives and that if people would have waited to have sex until they were all fully developed the human race would have gone extint.

Did that make everyone from back then a pedophile?
Back then they even found 13-16 years old to be the best age for having sex.


I would say that one should just think of how "mature" they are and make sure that both people understands what they are doing (even though people argue that it is impossible for them to understand) and then the age differance shouldn't be that great either, people should stick with people who are more or less their own age.

Is it wrong for under age people to have sex with under age people?

>> No.2807169 [DELETED] 

>>2807149
It's completely natural to be attracted to 13-16 year olds.
Who said it wasn't?

>> No.2807180 [DELETED] 

I got banned from /a/ for saying /a/ is full of 12 year olds
I know deep inside, moot is still that 15 year old everyone knows

>>
Reply to thread [?]Don't expect anything heroic. Your post will not be uploaded to the original board.
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Action