/lit/ - Literature

>>15364238
yes, God said so

>>15364238
What circumstances would excuse something with knowledge/experience preying upon someone inherently weaker for sexual pleasure?

>>15364238
the weak should fear the strong

>>15364238
Pedophilia - i guess
Pederasty - no.

>>15364238
it's no different morally than any other type of sexual union. AKA homosexual pedophilia, fornication, rape etc is all evil.

Pedophilia isn’t morally wrong in and of itself, but the moral ramifications that would arise from legalising pedophilic sex and relationships (thus allowing manipulation and rape in the cases where the child is not mature enough to give informed consent, which are the majority of child-adult relationships) far outweigh the benefits it entails (ie. allowing true love to flourish between those precocious children who can consent informedly and the pedophiles who love them).

no there's nothing wrong with pedophilia you should be able to jack off to anything you like. the problem is when you act on it yourself or you use real CP because then you're violating another person's personal space thus harming them

>>15364238
I can't see why people cannot claim they are 5 just like tranners claim they are women. Gender and Age don't really exist outside of their physical definition.

>>15364238
Another day, another look into hell

>>15364238
>glownigga datamining thread
No thanks

Yeah it’s inadequate mentoring/leadership

Form a maxim: I will engage in sex and romantic love with children

Is the maxim universalisable? Yes. We can imagine a world where this is the case.

Is the universalised world desirable? No.

Does it involve using people as a means to an end? No.

We have an imperfect duty (that means it applies most but not all of the time) not to follow the maxim.

You can’t have “morally wrong” thoughts. That being said, it is morally correct for pedophiles to either commit suicide or have their reproductive organs removed completely

>>15364276
Consent is a retarded meme and doesn't justify anything in itself. "informed consent" is total nonsense and goes against the very principle of consent being that individuals have the autonomy to enter into any agreement they please that may not being in their best interest.

>Harming another being, potentially for the rest of their life, for purely selfish reasons.
>Like, it's not even reproductive - they can't do that part yet.
Gee, I dunno.

>>15364299
>Does it involve using people as a means to an end? No.
You are using the children as means for sex tho

>>15364299
>Is the universalised world desirable? No.
The daughterwife revolution is perennial and nature and nothing will stop the coming revolution once kali yuga ends.

>>15364299
Based and Kantpilled post, but having sex with children definitely involves using other people as a means to an end.

>>15364327
>>15364336
No? There is nothing about pedophilia relationships in principle that makes it exclusively some pump and dump narcissistic fetish garbage. This comes from conflating it with homosexual pedophilia, because this is the nature of sodomite relationships in general.

I don't think kids are able to consent, so little chance there's no manipulation, abuse and rape.

>>15364356
>There is nothing about pedophilia relationships in principle
But that's exactly it, you are implicitly rejecting the idea that children are unable to consent to sex acts. No one is conflating it with homosexual pedophilia because pedophilia is pedophilia. All of these rhetorical distancings aren't much more than sophistry.

>>15364367
consent is a thought terminating cliche. It got BTFO eternally for you normalfags when that German consented to being eaten and proved the concept is not internally consistent with the rest of the legal and moral concepts in modernity.

>>15364380
I'm rejecting the concept of consent in it's entirety. It's a meme that does not morally justify anything in itself. It's also total nonsense because children can obviously consent, which is why this garbage concept needs to backpeddle on what its core principles are to avoid undesirable contracts from being formed.

>>15364327
Not if you’re doing it with their consent. Of course rape is bad.

>>15364238
It is valueless for us since we are not pedophiles.

>>15364238
Yes, but fucking a pedo in prison isn't.

>>15364242
According to your idea of god, which is pretty much has the same value as an ants ideas on special relativity.
>>15364257
This implies it needs to be excused.
>>15364261
I agree, and they do. And those who don't suffer the repercussions, as is only fair.
>>15364273
I do not get your undervaluing of sexual union. Without sexual union, you would not exist.
>>15364276
this I would agree with, insofar as the goal for civilization is galactical domination.

>>15364398
>It's also total nonsense because children can obviously consent
Why is it obvious? A child who hasn't gone through puberty is not going to understand what sexual desire is, or what it actually is you're asking them to do. One does not consent to something if they don't understand what it is they are consenting to.

Also, the problem with invoking kantian ethics is that there's no concern for any psychological harm the child may incur as a result, meaning you could realistically fuck up a lot of kids and according to your ethics it wouldn't matter one bit.

>>15364468
>meaning you could realistically fuck up a lot of kids and according to your ethics it wouldn't matter one bit.
based

>>15364238
even if you subscribe to the view there is no objective good or evil you can still demonstrate the problems with pedophilia, retarded question

>>15364382
What? A person giving consent on something against his interests doesn't mean everyone will do the same. I don't see your point.

>>15364496
You could demonstrate that being a pedophile would be against your interests due to jail time and such, yes.

>>15364242
When?

>>15364460
Aiming for galactical domination when ppl can't even dominate themselves lol

>>15364468
>Why is it obvious?
>ask child to fuck
>child says yes/no
There the child consented. If you don't think children should be allowed to agree or disagree to engage in sexual activity this is an argument AGAINST consent as a moral principle not for it you retarded brainlet. This is why when this situation arises consent has to backpeddle on its very principles and creating some contradiction of itself with a concept like "informed consent"

If your issue is with the "phycological damage to a child" (normalfag nonsense i'm not even going to bother with) you shouldn't be concerned about whether a child can agree to sex or not but concerned about people sexually abusing children.

You are such a goddamn newfag you think i'm the person who posted the Kant shit. Learn to figure out who samefags are, stop using the default extension if you are too dumb to figure this out by context and prose alone.

>>15364457
And the moral basis for this?

>>15364582
Golden/Silver rule. If they like fucking people who can't give consent, it is a moral imperative to fuck them without allowing them to give consent.

>>15364525
never. absolutely nothing about an "age of consent" comes up anywhere in the Bible. "Age of Consent" is bourgeois capitalist slave morality.

>>15364578
>f you don't think children should be allowed to agree or disagree to engage in sexual activity
>should be
Not what I said. I said they don't have the faculties to understand what it is exactly they're consenting to. I didn't make a normative statement about what should or shouldn't be allowed.

>(normalfag nonsense i'm not even going to bother with)
For god's sake, get the fuck off this board. Your ethical principles have been entirely warped by the hivemind logic of this place. You even talk about ethical issues using buzzwords sourced from here.

>you shouldn't be concerned about whether a child can agree to sex or not but concerned about people sexually abusing children
That's EXACTLY what I'm concerned about. The problem of consent in underage sex is there to demonstrate why all adult/children relations are abusive, even if the child consents.

>>15364578
>you think i'm the person who posted the Kant shit
Yes, because you gave no indication that you were a different person, disagreed with nothing he said, and in fact made replies like this >>15364398 which look like clarifications to the original kantian post. Don't want me to lose track of you? Hold an original opinion and prose style so I can distinguish you, because right now you're blending in to the furnishings with the rest of the pedophiles attempting convoluted mental gymnastics to justify their degeneracy.

>>15364686
>The problem of consent in underage sex
This is a problem with consent in general. Consent is not concerned with the outcome of what is being consented too, just that people are given the freedom to make such a choice.

> they don't have the faculties to understand what it is exactly they're consenting to
Which has NOTHING to do what what the concept of consent exists for as i'm explained to you over and over again. Such a thing is a reason why consent is a garbage concept that relies on unprincipled exemptions to survive.

>>15364686
>yes, because you gave no indication that you were a different person
Obvious brainlet. If you lack such basic pattern recognition you probably shouldn't be engaging in autonomous internet debates. Esxpcially when you have absolutely nothing to say but generic normalfag shit everyone has already heard before and either accepted or rejected. Seriously take a look at what you are saying and how you came to these conclusions and think "is this really a take hot enough to have not occured to others before? Am I going to say anything that might convince anyone because they hadn't considered these points before?"

>>15364686
>even if the child consents.
>keeps going on about how it's bad because children can't consent.

In other words, you seem mostly concerned with child molestation (which is a separate thing from pedophilia in itself.) Look up the rates of molestation, especially for girls. It it was really that psychologically damaging we would be in an epidemic where a near majority of woman could not function at all and would need to be in serious therapy.

Maybe child molestation is wrong regardless of the materialistic results, but morality not rooted in banal utilitarianism is probably too scary for your hylic spirit to comprehend.

>>15364820
>defending pedophilia with Gnostic truths
Is this based?

>>15364820
>It it was really that psychologically damaging
So you're trying to push this through with the argument "ok it's bad, but it isn't THAT bad".

>>15364891
It's as "gnostic" as that free love chick you have a crush on is "buddhist".

>>15364892
I'm saying it's worse, and not for the reasons you think make child molestation bad. Ironically the material result of child molestation is turning kids gay, which for modernity would be something that should be celebrated. Child molestation=/=pedophilia.

Short Answer: No. Long answer: No. No.

>>15364916
You're building a strawman.

>>15364930
>strawman.
buzzword shit. Fallacy fallacy. I'm not even arguing against you, i'm making fun of you, hell i'm not even reading your posts, I skim them so briefly because I already know what you are going to say, which is why you get replies in multiple posts instead of a single post addressing your generic normalnigger takes all at once.

>>15364961
>I'm not even arguing against you
>I skim them so briefly because I already know what you are going to say
Yes, this is what I'm saying, you're arguing against yourself because then you can control the back and forth. If you never have to engage with someone else, you never lose because you can nerf the side you don't like. That is a strawman.

>>15364578
>>>/jp/

>>15364916
You really, really need to go back to /pol/

>>15364525
literally just ask God and He will tell you

>>15365162
Get used to being "strawmanned" because you are too dumb to be taken seriously. I'm not nerfing anything, your takes really are that basic and generic and have given you sound advice to consider whether they are points and conclusions that actually require contemplation or if they are so obvious and commonplace that there is no sense regurgitating them because whoever you are speaking to has heard it all before.

You are literally an NPC. Which is why you keep parroting thought terminating cliches that are trendy here like "strawman" "consent" and "mental gymnastics" At least strawmanning requires an understanding of what the other person is saying to dumb it down, Mental gymnastics is literally "uh this is too confusing I know the answer is simple due to the propaganda I consume and don't know what the word rationalizing means"

You are clearly retarded and not qualified to engage in a discussion about pedophillia. Which is why I immediately shifted the conversation to educate you on what consent is and why you don't actually support it. What you need more than anything is humility because you are a textbook example of a midwit and it's doubtful if you will ever graduate to pseud status.

>>15365221
DIssociation propaganda attempts are even more pathetic than /pol/ boogyman pathologies.

>>15365254
>You are literally an NPC.
Only when you write the script of what you wanted me to say. That's a strawman. Try not being so spineless and try talking to people, I'm only some anonymous literal who, talking to you another anonymous literal who. It's the least intimidating place there is to try truly engaging in conversation with someon.

>>15365276
>Only when you write the script of what you wanted me to say
delusional.

>try talking to people
Become a real human bean and then we will talk. I have infact been talking to you, just not in a way you find palatable, because you want to be taken seriously and spoken to on equal terms, unable to accept the reality that you aren't tall enough to ride that ride.

>>15365301
>delusional
Glad you're getting some self awareness.
>I have infact been talking to you
By your own admission you have not.

>>15365304
>Glad you're getting some self awareness
>no u
>By your own admission you have not.
Strawman.

>>15365317
You gave up and had a tantrum very quickly.

>>15365254

Pedophilia just refers to attraction towards children. Attraction alone has no moral character. What's bad is to act upon that attraction in a way that hurts someone.

>>15365339
>Attraction alone has no moral character.
Nonsense.

>>15364238
>This thread again
You got owned last time. Why do you insist on coming back for more? Are you the same masochistic retard who posts the anti-natalism threads?

>>15364755
>Consent is not concerned with the outcome of what is being consented too
Not what I'm saying. I'm talking about the conditions under which consent was given. We don't expect kids to sign contracts, and this isn't any different.

>a garbage concept that relies on unprincipled exemptions to survive.
The exemption is justified in exceptional cases. children are an exceptional case because they are vulnerable to exploitation or abuse. We have a duty of care to err on the side of caution.

>>15364820
>you seem mostly concerned with child molestation (which is a separate thing from pedophilia in itself.)
I'm concerned by both. Drawing lines between doesn't make either any better.

Philosophically speaking, is masturbation morally wrong?

>>15365482
Depends.

>>15365482
Not if you say "no homo" and shoot the load into your mouth

>>15365482
Only if you're consumed by it and do nothing else but coom

>>15365500
lord forgive me

>>15364272
What's the difference anon? Educate a retard, please.

>>15365482
Yes, it ruins the magical potential of sex.

>>15365445
> sign contracts
you have a brainlet conception of what a contract is. Ironically formal contractual law is used to mitigate consents retardation.
>The exemption is justified in exceptional cases
look up what an unprincipled exemption is. There is nothing exceptional besides what is propagated as anathema. Everyone is "vulnerable to exploitation and abuse" (however that is defined) given the proper environment and grooming techniques.

> Drawing lines between doesn't make either any better.
Think about what you are saying, how could a concept not having undesirable traits of another not make it less bad than it would be if they were considered the same thing? It's like claiming murder, execution, hunting and manslaughter are no because in your simplistic conception both just fall under the umbrella of "killing" You don't actually believe this, you are just ideologically required to bigotry so hating everything equally is less dangerous than understanding all them all and ordering them from most bad to least bad, lest cognitive dissonance put the idea in your head that one of these isn't bad at all.

>>15364238
If a child doesn't or can't consent, yes. If it's informed and consents, no. Same logic applies to any possible sexual relations regardless of age.

>>15364238
If you told people 20 years ago that childfucking would be normal and accepted in 2020 they wouldn't believe you. incredible. so this is "social progress" huh? funny, reminds me of weimar.
>>15364286
some dude already did that and got his age legally changed.

There is no magical age when someone gains the ability to always perfectly give "informed consent". When you turn 18 and angel doesn't come down from heaven and give you the ability to see everything that will result from your actions. Adults are retarded humans just like children, and are of course open to manipulation all the same (see: the majority of religion, war, and the majority of social brainwashing throughout time).

>>15365482

from a thomistic perspective yes

however I don't think this is necessarily an adequate explanation for the Church

the real question with masturbation is 'culpability' for it being wrong, this is how the Church approaches all sins btw

Yes but morals are a social construct