From a purely philosophical standpoint, how is "pedophilia"... bad?

File: 501 KB, 600x860, pedo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun May 10 01:45:58 2020 No.15322993 [Reply] [Original]

From a purely philosophical standpoint, how is "pedophilia"... bad?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 01:53:33 2020 No.15323052 >From a purely philosophical standpoint What does this mean?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 01:55:14 2020 No.15323061 >>15323052 What does philosophy mean?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 01:59:52 2020 No.15323105 >>15322993 it hurts children Most people find that wrong. The minority that don't, I think, are the ones more pressed to provide a case

Anonymous Sun May 10 04:13:31 2020 No.15323685

>Why is murdering wrong

There are things humans have learned over a period of thousands of years not to do. Code of Hammurabi dated to about 1754 BC says you will be killed if you kill someone else. You can start your own community in some secluded area and make a test of allowing pedophilia and see how that goes.

Anonymous Sun May 10 04:18:30 2020 No.15323700

It's not. It's a play of power, like all other things. That doesn't mean that it can't be "dangerous." I'm sure Foucault wouldn't have wanted pedophilia to be normalized on a governmental level (yes, yes, the petition, I know), for it could become a technique of governing, controlling people (young and old), and molding them into particular kinds of subjects.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 04:19:16 2020 No.15323703 From a purely philosophical standpoint why is it bad to bury French frog faggots up to their waists and stone them dead?

Anonymous Sun May 10 04:21:50 2020 No.15323713

>>15323685
>You can start your own community in some secluded area and make a test of allowing pedophilia and see how that goes.
He literally can't though.

If you want to be a law-abiding pedo and still get laid your only option is to convert to Islam, move to one of those gulf shitholes where age of consent doesn't exist and marry a 9 year old. You can't have a first world pedo commune or you'll get arrested, unless you're a rich kike.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 04:22:05 2020 No.15323714 >>15322993 Show me ONE person who was a victim of pedophilia that isn't permanently fucked up in one way or another.

Anonymous Sun May 10 04:22:16 2020 No.15323719

>>15323105
>it hurts children
sometimes pedophiles can alter societal perceptions that makes it seem acceptable. see: islam.

underage wives in islamic societies by itself seem to live in bliss. of course in praxis they are regularly physically mistreated and yearn for the freedom they glimpse at in the west.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 04:24:07 2020 No.15323725 It's only bad when you're raping children, loli is perfectly healthy

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 04:28:56 2020 No.15323747 >>15323714 Honestly? Me. My housemaid raped me,

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 04:30:01 2020 No.15323751 >>15323713 just become an orthodox jew bro and be sure to cosy up to them. they literally have pedo networks and protect their pedos worldwide by hiding them in israel or america.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 04:32:26 2020 No.15323762 Lmao french people are so annoying and dumb. They do philosophy for clout. Doing philosophy to look cool and fuck college girls. Lol.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 04:46:55 2020 No.15323831 >>15323719 most people even then see it as wrong, but at most, necessary for other forms of gain. Even if you marry a child bride a lot of places see it as wrong to actually consummate that marriage.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 04:49:30 2020 No.15323845 >>15322993 Children aren't autonomous agents and so cannot consent

Anonymous Sun May 10 04:57:46 2020 No.15323881

>>15322993
Children can’t give informed consent and act responsibly. That is why we don’t let them drive cars or drink. Of course there are some children who are mentally precocious and therefore able to consent informedly, but these are in the minority and impossible to detect with some sort of standardised test, therefore it is better to just outlaw all pedophilia.
>>15323685
Pedophilia was practiced for thousands of years. It is likely that girls in the Bronze Age would be married off and impregnated when they reached the physical threshold for child-bearing.

Anonymous Sun May 10 04:58:46 2020 No.15323888

>>15322993
One problem with pedophilia, meaning an exclusive attraction to prepubescent children, is that it's unsustainable and not conducive to promoting the social order.
Take, for instance, two men, both of whom have married a girl who is nine years old, but only one of whom is a pedophile.
The normal man will be able to maintain his relationship with his wife, though that relationship will change over time, because, in the absence of a serious accident, she will never permanently develop into something that will be completely incapable of satiating his physical needs and will, again assuming that she is physically healthy, be perfectly capable of bearing and raising children. There will be problems caused in part by the natural progression of male and female desire, but these problems will be surmountable, by willpower if by nothing else.
The pedophile will not be able to do such a thing, because his attraction is exclusively for prepubescents. His wife will eventually permanently develop into a being for which he can feel neither love nor attraction. His desires will be left completely unsated, and he will feel compelled to predate on either his own children or those of others. Regardless of what decision he makes at that point, he will end up on an endless treadmill, because no prepubescent will be able to satisfy him for more than a limited period of time.
The former situation is a positive good and carries little chance for serious harm to the social order. Even if the normal man finds strict monogamy impossible, prostitution exists as a limited and regulated outlet that consumes a small and finite number of women. The damage can be kept limited. The damage dealt by the latter situation, however, is limited only by the size of the pedophile population. Such men are little interested in householding, except as a convenient cover for their activities, and can and will gobble up, ruin, and destroy as many children as they are allowed to. And, as we all know, children who have been so despoiled have serious problems functioning normally later in life. They often become sexual deviants. The greater the population of sexual deviants, the greater the burden on society as a whole and the smaller the pool of healthy mates available for selection by men and women... and so on and so forth.
Essentially, pedophiles undermine the sexual order, and are downright parasitic in that they prey on children while having little interest in producing any of their own. Their desires are not only unnatural, but cannot be channeled in any positive direction. The best we can hope to do without killing them is confine them to viewing cartoon drawings on Norwegian underwater basketweaving forums like this.
On the other hand, there is no positive argument for accepting pedophiles other than "BUT IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU," "LOVE IS LOVE," "IF THEY WANNA FUCK KIDS, WHO'S TO SAY THEY CAN'T?" and other forms of liberal sophistry. These are not worth replying to.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 05:01:25 2020 No.15323901 >>15323881 >the minority Pedos are also in the minority, so it would be interesting to figure out how to allow these people to meet

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 05:10:11 2020 No.15323938 File: 186 KB, 1280x561, 1573760028283.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15323685 humans have learnt that rulemakers are assholes

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 05:11:14 2020 No.15323943 >>15323881 >>Children can’t give informed consent and act responsibly. so? sex has nothing to with consent

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 05:26:29 2020 No.15324018 >>15323747 You browse 4chan though I rest my case

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 05:48:57 2020 No.15324125 >>15323888 I agree but I don't think the majority of pedophiles are exclusively attracted to children, but I guess it depends on what you consider full on pedophilia.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 05:51:21 2020 No.15324140 >>15323700 Nice little dismissal of a complete contradiction to your point there in the parenthesis. You idiots fail to realise that power comes from academia now and this evil cunt is the most cited person in the humanities.

Anonymous Sun May 10 05:59:54 2020 No.15324158 [DELETED]

>>15322993
> egalitarian morality
we are given right of choice and underage people can't choice whether something is good or not for them, because they haven't already developed the concepts of good and bad (for them).
> aristocratic morality
a man who takes advantage from harmless people is not a man, because he isn't proving his ability to conquer, and underage people are nor conquerable because they are harmless. also when you do to someone else something he/she isn't aware about, you are deceiving him/her, which is another prove for your weakness and worthlessness.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 06:02:40 2020 No.15324171 >thread on social justice in publishing gets deleted >thread on pedos stays up Interesting choice, jannies.

Anonymous Sun May 10 06:04:14 2020 No.15324178

>>15322993
> egalitarian morality
we are given right to choice and underage people can't choose whether something is good or not for them, because they haven't already developed the concepts of good and bad, utility and damage.
> aristocratic morality
a man who takes advantage from harmless people is not a man, because he isn't proving his ability to conquer, and underage people are nor conquerable because they are harmless. also when you do to someone else something he/she isn't aware about, you are deceiving him/her, which is another proof for your weakness and worthlessness

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 06:05:54 2020 No.15324185 File: 46 KB, 492x492, 1537300084713.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] From a purely philosophical standpoind, how is murdering Foucault bad?

Anonymous Sun May 10 06:08:27 2020 No.15324194

>>15324140
You don't think he was aware of that? That's why they killed him and made him a martyr - to neutralize him. The best place to hide something is out in the open. But Foucault - a right-wing libertarian - saw the dangers of present-day academic institutions. That's just his own danger too. They distort him. Sure, you can disagree with on the child sexuality thing (I'm not crazy about it either), although his argument about it is still kind of interesting, it's not just 'give power to us academics so we can fuck kids'. Although a chapter in 70s sexual liberation was quite intent on fucking kids (something they would now like to forget - at least, for now..., as you'll say).

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 06:09:23 2020 No.15324200 >>15324194 How the fuck is Foucault right wing in any sense?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 06:12:50 2020 No.15324207 I have a question, was /lit/ ever so liberal to the point that a large percentile would actively defend pedophilia? If so, what did that percentile's number average to approximately?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 06:17:05 2020 No.15324219 >>15324200 bc he wanted to fuck kids

Anonymous Sun May 10 06:25:55 2020 No.15324254

>>15323943
>sex has nothing to do with consent
So you're saying both parties don't need to want the sex for the sex to happen... I mean... you're not wrong... but how is that relevant to whether that's "good" for both parties? That does seem to be OP's question.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 06:27:06 2020 No.15324258 >>15324207 A large number would actively defend pedophilia today and this will be demonstrated in this thread.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 06:29:25 2020 No.15324270 >>15324207 You don't belong here, go back to plebbit

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 06:32:45 2020 No.15324283 >>15324270 I've been on lit since the beginning but I would almost never open debate or philosophy threads nigger

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 06:33:24 2020 No.15324285 >>15323714 I used to fantasize being touched by older women when I was a kid

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 06:41:09 2020 No.15324322 >>15324200 Not him, but Foucault was moving towards neoliberalism by the end of his career. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/12/foucault-interview/

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 07:13:52 2020 No.15324439 >>15324178 lmao stfu slave moralist, pedophilia was the main drive in aristocratic societies, ancient greece was built on pederasty and you could marry a child almost everywhere untill early 1900

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 07:15:29 2020 No.15324447 >>15323888 Ah good points. So it's all distasteful fetishization and pedos should in the end seek out willing age-players to realize the strangeness of their fetishes in reality

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 07:16:25 2020 No.15324450 >>15324322 looks more to me that neoliberalism is ultra leftism and not right wing

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 07:17:27 2020 No.15324454 >>15324439 t. bitcoin enthusiast

Anonymous Sun May 10 07:36:40 2020 No.15324542

All of you consentfags ignore the obvious fact that children are constantly forced to do things against their will, not always for the benefit of the child. Their consent is not even asked, much less required to be "valid".

Also arguments based on psychological trauma do not take into account that such trauma may be caused precisely by other people's reaction to what happened to them. In societies where sexual relationships between adults and non-adults are normal, psychological consequences may be minimal or non-existent.

If you want to argue against pedophilia please refrain from using such easily countered arguments.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 07:39:37 2020 No.15324553 >>15324454 what

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 07:40:55 2020 No.15324564 >>15324542 This, it is a matter of harm and not consent and people are not ready to talk about unharmful adult-child sex

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 07:44:31 2020 No.15324574 >>15323105 >Most people find that wrong. That's not a philosophical argument.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 08:55:03 2020 No.15324904 >>15324574 >it hurts children >how is that bad???? dumbass

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 08:59:54 2020 No.15324926 >>15324904 woman typed this

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 09:01:44 2020 No.15324936 >>15324283 Tell me about the beginning times and I'll tell you if you're a fucking poseur.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 09:02:46 2020 No.15324941 >>15324574 >That's not a philosophical argument. Says who?

Anonymous Sun May 10 09:03:58 2020 No.15324949

>>15324542
>such trauma may be caused precisely by other people's reaction to what happened to them
The amount of stories I've heard about supposedly abused children that had no idea they were being abused is staggering. So many 'victims' had to be told time and time again by dozens of people "No, I know you think that was okay, and you enjoyed it, and you're not maladjusted in any way, but you were abused and should feel terrible about it." only to then develop trauma symptoms afterwards.

Even if pedophilia is totally wrong, people are going out of their way to intentionally hurt 'victims' further to prevent their narrative from being upset.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 09:05:00 2020 No.15324956 >>15324949 >The amount of stories I've heard about supposedly abused children that had no idea they were being abused is staggering. Why are you hearing so many of these stories?

Anonymous Sun May 10 09:08:41 2020 No.15324973

>>15324956
I listen to this mental health podcast where people get interviewed and talk about their problems and personal history. So many people tell stories that are like "I used to sit on my dad's lap when I was a kid and I thought it was fine until my therapist told me that was rape and now I have PTSD."

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 09:09:03 2020 No.15324975 >>15324926 Why are you here moralizing about kiddy fondling if you're already ok with hurting them?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 09:09:53 2020 No.15324981 >>15324949 This is a reason why I stopped self diagnosing myself, I used to be a hypochondriac and I was certain that I had mercury poisoning from my amalgam fillings to the point where I would act like a retard

Anonymous Sun May 10 09:13:43 2020 No.15324994

>>15324973
>I listen to this mental health podcast
What's this one? Name plox?
>So many people tell stories that are like "I used to sit on my dad's lap when I was a kid and I thought it was fine until my therapist told me that was rape and now I have PTSD."
That's not the same as people who are raped as children, that sort of thing can happen with bad therapy. Some people are abused and become convinced it was fine because of defense mechanisms and brainwashing really.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 09:13:56 2020 No.15324995 am I really moralizing?

Anonymous Sun May 10 09:14:59 2020 No.15325005

>>15324447
>So it's all distasteful fetishization and pedos should in the end seek out willing age-players to realize the strangeness of their fetishes in reality
If they could be satisfied with that, that would be ideal.
>>15324450
This is a possibility, but the left-wingers who adore him generally hate neo-liberalism.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 09:16:10 2020 No.15325013 >>15322993 Why is anything wrong?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 09:18:57 2020 No.15325030 >>15323747 Pedophelia doesn’t count if it’s between an older women and a young male. That’s just considered scoring.

Anonymous Sun May 10 09:40:38 2020 No.15325148

>>15324994
>What's this one? Name plox?
Mental Illness Happy Hour
>That's not the same as people who are raped as children
I understand that, I'm not talking about actual rape. I'm talking about stuff that, if you chose to partake in as an adult, nobody could reasonably convince you that you were raped because of how ridiculous it would be. Forcing your dick in someone who tells you not to is wrong independent of any other factors. Theoretically sexual contact without the use of force isn't necessarily wrong just because of someone's age.
>Some people are abused and become convinced it was fine because of defense mechanisms and brainwashing really.
That's true as well, human minds are complicated as fuck and difficult to work with. I'm not saying that we should broad strokes permit or prohibit certain activities with minors, I'm just saying it's not nearly as simple as "I touched a dick when I was 7, now my brain's fucked".

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 09:47:25 2020 No.15325192 >>15325148 >Forcing your dick in someone who tells you not to is wrong independent of any other factors. Pathetic.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 10:21:00 2020 No.15325369 The pedophile's disavowal can take form of a claim to the reciprocity of the sexual relationship, or to be more precise: the claim that the intercourse is a 'relationship.'

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 10:24:05 2020 No.15325390 >>15324219 It's conservative to protect ones daughters from sex. Even in modern times, I don't see any relation between right-winged and

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 10:25:59 2020 No.15325408 OP here I’m seeing all the replies and it’s all like >it hurts the kids Let me ask you. What in the process of sex with an adult hurts the kid?

Anonymous Sun May 10 10:29:39 2020 No.15325432

>>15325148
>Theoretically sexual contact without the use of force isn't necessarily wrong just because of someone's age.
There's an inherent power imbalance at most ages, and it's also like that bit in Nabokov's Lolita where Humbert very unconvincingly tries to convince us that Lo is a horny little whore for him and knows just what to do. I would say that most places have a good cut off for consent, which is like 15-18, and that there's still a grey area there and a little older for exploitative sex to occur more easily than at other times. I'm also not keen on further sexualisation of teens, they're already oversexualised enough. The amount of exposure you'd ever get to one to persue a sexual relationship is going to be next to non-existent.

Anonymous Sun May 10 10:42:27 2020 No.15325528

>>15325432
Why is a power imbalance wrong? There are relationships with power imbalances all around us, such as the relationships between a teacher and a student or a boss and an employee.
Does the relationship need to be sexual for the power imbalance to be a problem? Why? If so, is a relationship between a handsome successful man and an ugly unemployed woman wrong?

Anonymous Sun May 10 10:48:17 2020 No.15325565

>>15325528
>Does the relationship need to be sexual for the power imbalance to be a problem? Why? If so, is a relationship between a handsome successful man and an ugly unemployed woman wrong?
In what we're talking about, yes. Sex and that kind of romantic bonding holds a special place in the functioning of the human psyche and of our society and how we function within it, without normative cultural rules around sexual relations it can cause serious problems to the fabric of society itself. It definitely can be, yes, you should be in a relationship you can leave and that those kinds of relationships exist is another failing of society.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 11:01:18 2020 No.15325629 >>15325565 >WAAAAAAAAAAH POWER RELATIONS ARE BAAAAAAD NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA IM GOING INSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANEEEEEEEEEEE

Anonymous Sun May 10 11:05:48 2020 No.15325654

>>15325629
That's not what was said, it's that sex has a special place in how we function as social animals and that power imbalances in that realm are bad for how society and we function. Power relations outside of that exist, I didn't really comment on them there in a meaningful way.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 11:11:55 2020 No.15325696 >>15325654 How exactly is it bad for society? You say like it is self evident and natural, e.g. ancient greece was built on power relations in sexuality, their elite was literally raised and educated by pedophiles

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 11:13:08 2020 No.15325705 >>15325696 >e.g. ancient greece was built on power relations in sexuality, their elite was literally raised and educated by pedophiles Read Plato's letters.

Anonymous Sun May 10 11:14:31 2020 No.15325721

>>15325565
It appears that in your view all human relationships are wrong, because there are always power-imbalances, however small.

Imagine two 19 year olds of similar genetic quality marry one another. At the start the female has more power, because she is a young woman. Years pass and her appearance worsens while the male's resources and status increase, making the power dynamic even out. Eventually, the man attains greater value and thus more power in the relationship.
At what point in this example was their relationship wrong?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 11:15:49 2020 No.15325735 >>15325705 >Plato is whole of greece culture He literally praises fucking young boys in Phaedrus and condemns it in Laws, whats your point?

Anonymous Sun May 10 11:29:57 2020 No.15325824

>>15325735
The letters are not the dialogues my man. Look up "Plato Epistles"

My point:
>e.g. ancient greece was built on power relations in sexuality, their elite was literally raised and educated by pedophiles
Not in Plato's time, certainly, there was so much revolution and political turbulence that the elites changed constantly. Plato even derides other states for their involvement of sexuality in political life saying that they cannot pin down a stable constitution because of it as well as other material excesses.

I don't say it's natural, certainly other human societies have mixed these things, but they haven't been our societies. People wanting to fuck children may be part of humanity, but it's incompatible with human society as we have it today.

>>15325721
>because there are always power-imbalances, however small.
Some are not meaningful, or are arguably non-existent. Really if you have choices to not have a sexual relationship with no negative consequences then there isn't one in that realm.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 11:33:36 2020 No.15325849 >>15322993 Define pedophilia. I swear people are always saying phedophilia when what they really mean is ephebophilia. Pedophilia is gross, but ephebophilia is natural. It signals that a woman's body is ready to be bred

Anonymous Sun May 10 11:39:13 2020 No.15325880

>>15325824
>Not in Plato's time
how can you explain the praise of adult-child sex in Phaedrus and Symposium? My point stands still, just because Plato changed his own opinion on this topic it doesnt mean greece as a whole was also opposed to it. I just wanted to say that there is a stark difference between ancient greece and our times on the topic of adult-child sex and it is in no way natural, but cultural.
>People wanting to fuck children may be part of humanity, but it's incompatible with human society as we have it today.
That's just pure ideology, if you want to be a bootlicker its okay, you do you

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 11:40:31 2020 No.15325886 >>15325880 Read some history. It was common to marry 10,11,12 year old girls.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 11:41:54 2020 No.15325896 >>15325886 when I say "our times" I meant post early 1900's, ofc it was common to marry children before

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 11:46:08 2020 No.15325922 >>15325849 Nobody except for American normies think ephebophilia is pedophilia

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 11:46:50 2020 No.15325923 >>15323881 >Children can’t give informed consent and act responsibly Then why can they give confirmed consent for hormone therapy or gender realignment surgery?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 11:51:17 2020 No.15325950 >>15323105 It doesn't have to hurt them. I've seen plenty of girls who lost virginities at young age. If anything, it made them more confident.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 11:51:28 2020 No.15325956 >>15325922 You'd be surprised.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 12:02:02 2020 No.15326035 >>15325721 I don't think the imbalance is the issue. It's more so the abuse of power and exploitation of hierarchical position.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 12:11:12 2020 No.15326107 File: 70 KB, 654x654, 1589020450963.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15322993 Children have no legal or economic status and are dependant on adults. Pedophilia is, at best, exploitative.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 12:18:32 2020 No.15326180 >>15325880 >how can you explain the praise of adult-child sex in Phaedrus and Symposium? Bad translation

Anonymous Sun May 10 12:26:32 2020 No.15326256

Adults messing around with kids is no good, but I'm not gonna pretend that kids don't have sexual inclinations. When I was in kindergarten, I regularly snuck into a girls bed during nap time and under the blankets we kissed each other all over, not smooches but literally how adults do it. We were 5 or 6 years old. Someone tried to explain to me that all kids play doctor, but I don't think that's the same as literally being on top of each other and making out lol. Nobody believes me but I swear on my life

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 12:27:05 2020 No.15326260 >>15325408 big peepee in tinny hole

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 12:27:43 2020 No.15326267 >>15322993 Because they cannot provide informed consent you fucking idiot. It's the same as sexually exploiting a retard/vegetable.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 12:48:42 2020 No.15326487 >>15323888 Checked. Great post tho.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 13:02:25 2020 No.15326604 >these /lit/ fags arguing for pedophilia its good to know that we still have some people who are capable of thinking for themselves

Anonymous Sun May 10 13:07:07 2020 No.15326634

>>15322993
You are eating an unripe fruit. You might have taste for it, but you will never let it develop to its ripeness, and thus you pervert its original purpose, that of growing the seed that it is bearing.
Unrpie fruit will not bring you nutrition either, but burden your system with processing material that is not been given time to be beneficial to you. You are not nourishing yourself, you are not letting the seed grow and you are cutting short that which is yet to develop its full potential.
If philosophy is the love of knowledge, and knowledge is to know good from evil and follow the good, then the above is the very definition of evil, as you destroy future potential for sake of immediate pleasure that will be fleeting, will not be beneficial and will leave you with a void for more.

Anonymous Sun May 10 14:06:41 2020 No.15327098

>>15323719
Yeah, but just because it happens doesn’t mean people like it. It’s usually wealthy people preying off the impoverished and downtrodden. It’s basically like, “If I marry my very younger daughter off, she’ll be fed well, and her dowry will feed myself and all her siblings.” It’s not done because people are super cool about it.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 14:23:50 2020 No.15327199 >>15326267 >Because they cannot provide informed consent you fucking idiot Whats so sophisticated about sex?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 14:31:39 2020 No.15327244 File: 8 KB, 232x217, 1536155664893.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] This torrent of anti-cunny posts is indisputable proof that 4chan is reddit 2.0

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 14:32:26 2020 No.15327249 >>15327244 Fucking kill yourself unironically. You legitimately deserve to die.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 14:34:52 2020 No.15327260 File: 132 KB, 656x751, 1580142152604.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15327249 >NOOOOOOOOO NOT THE CUNNYS! NOT THE LOLIS! NOT THE WHIRLY TURLY GIRLARINOS! cunnys are kino and theres nothing your seething r*dditor ass can ever do about it.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 14:35:43 2020 No.15327264 >>15327260 Tbf i laughed

Anonymous Sun May 10 14:44:06 2020 No.15327319

>>15323881
>Pedophilia was practiced for thousands of years. It is likely that girls in the Bronze Age would be married off and impregnated when they reached the physical threshold for child-bearing.
Most girls start having their period around the age 12+ and the age of consent in most european countries is already set around 14 so the "broze age pedophilia" wasnt really pedophilia.

Anonymous Sun May 10 14:46:11 2020 No.15327332
File: 59 KB, 760x792, soy point.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15323105
ripping their ass apart probably, mental harm isn't easy tho so licking a dick may not be no more harmful than spanking depending on context... mental harm is a slippery slop to overregulating everything

>>15323685
the link between the two is it's someone elses right to determine, obviously the moral agent might under different context claim an 8 year old with an ak-47 isn't in fact "harmless" and war time rape is justified

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 14:46:30 2020 No.15327333 >>15327199 >Whats so sophisticated about sex? i dont know, ask rape victims.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 14:48:08 2020 No.15327338 >>15327319 Someone post the image showing average age of puberty in Sweden over the past century. It was unironically like 16 100 years ago. To me that solves the question, they're just hitting it too early now, for whatever reason.

Anonymous Sun May 10 14:49:33 2020 No.15327347

>>15325880
>how can you explain the praise of adult-child sex in Phaedrus and Symposium?
One of the political factions were the paiderastes pretty much, that's a little bit of an oversimplification but they represent a particular way of life. Typically as well the age difference between eromenos and erastes wasn't that much, erastes could be in their early twenties and the typical age for eromenos was 15-17, some eromenos were at least as old as 30 so it's a little more like a May-December romance and something that isn't that unusual today. It isn't child love as you want it, child as it is understood today is a Victorian concept, it's only relatively recently that we've had language to talk about children and teenagers and so on in English.
>That's just pure ideology, if you want to be a bootlicker its okay, you do you
Uh huh/

>>15325886
Most marriages were much much older people at the time.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 14:50:35 2020 No.15327353 >>15327338 Stress and over eating. Hopefully it'll return to normal once the boomers die off.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 14:52:37 2020 No.15327362 >>15327333 We're talking about consensual sex here. Why is a child's consent worth less than an adult's consent?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 14:55:12 2020 No.15327378 there is nothing wrong with being a pedophile stay mad

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 14:56:05 2020 No.15327379 >>15327378 Have fun in prison with that attitude.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 14:59:38 2020 No.15327401 >>15327338 Early puberty in our times is mostly due to better nutrition.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 15:04:46 2020 No.15327437 >>15327362 >Why is a child's consent worth less than an adult's consent? If anything children not being able to consent is the opposite, the consent is worth more because it is harder to gain in the general sense.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 15:17:05 2020 No.15327577 Ah, the evil pedo faggots finally reared their ugly heads. Well, at least now I'm sure you degenerates are still here and lurking.

Anonymous Sun May 10 15:19:14 2020 No.15327607

>>15327362
Because kids that havent hit puberty dont have a sexual drive to enjoy that kind of stuff. They arent aware of what they are getting into and 99% of the time they are getting into it a situation that someone wants to take advantage of it for that reason.
The arguements arent all about the consequeces they can have on the kid but rather that the people who engage with it know the kid doesnt have a clue of what they agreeing with, so its considered exploitation and taking advantage of the situation.

If you want to get into the whole gist of it you would need to read the law codes on that, since most of them give the whole psychological and sociological arguments on why kids dont have developed yet their full abilities to understand their sexuality and autonomy over their bodies and why they arent allowed to give consent till they reach a certain age.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 15:25:03 2020 No.15327655 File: 11 KB, 301x167, a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15322993 Only hebephilia is acceptable, paedophiles should be shot. Biology is what matters here, praise Jesus.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 15:26:22 2020 No.15327672 >>15327607 Keep believing that. Small children are pure bundles of polymorphous perversity.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 15:26:28 2020 No.15327673 >>15327607 >Because kids that havent hit puberty dont have a sexual drive to enjoy that kind of stuff This is scientifically wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 15:28:50 2020 No.15327688 >>15327672 >>15327673 Your fellow inmates will show you polymorphous perversity if you continue down this path.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 15:30:41 2020 No.15327707 >>15322993 From a purely philosophical point of view, how is your mom being ravaged by a pack of niggers "bad"?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 15:31:26 2020 No.15327713 >>15327707 It produced me, an antinatalist.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 15:31:35 2020 No.15327715 >>15327672 >>15327673 It doesnt really matter if it has a positive or negative affect on them, learn to read the rest of the post.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 15:32:03 2020 No.15327720 >>15327673 Masturbation isn't sex, you moronic incel.

Anonymous Sun May 10 15:49:44 2020 No.15327890

>>15322993
Having a desire to fuck kids isn't bad, as well as a desire to fuck a snake with tits and two dicks in maid uniform, and so on.

Child molesting is another thing. Most of molesters has never had any specific preference for children, and simply used the most easily accessible body for sex.

Moral panic is another thing. Sex sells, and imposing your standards under the guise of protecting children is a long standing tradition.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 15:54:17 2020 No.15327926 File: 23 KB, 739x415, images (21).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] the best thing about being a pedo is that i can piss people off just by existing kek

Anonymous Sun May 10 15:54:55 2020 No.15327931

>>15327607
> They arent aware of what they are getting into and 99% of the time they are getting into it a situation that someone wants to take advantage of it for that reason.
Walk into a shopping mall or a movie theater, and you're in the same situation. Can't see much of a protest against those RAPE CENTERS from the concerned public.

Anonymous Sun May 10 16:01:27 2020 No.15327985

>>15327607
> read the law codes
That's the shittiest source of ethical reasoning. Put some lines there, and, whoosh, law-abiding citizens are happily cooperating in tracking Jews skipping free train trips to the countryside. Also, you can retroactively provide explanations for everything, this never was a problem in any country.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 16:08:55 2020 No.15328032 >>15323888 Great and well written post. also checked.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 16:09:07 2020 No.15328033 >>15327926 you will be fed to the dogs, believe me

Anonymous Sun May 10 16:11:19 2020 No.15328046

>>15327931
>and you're in the same situation
No you are not.
>Can't see much of a protest against those RAPE CENTERS from the concerned public.
Using moral relativism isnt going to help. You can argue all you want that people simply made the laws because of their preferences, but using that as an attack point to slip yours in isnt going to give you a significant point.
Again, i advise you to go read the sociology and psychology behind those laws. Even the most radical feminists that complain about the age of consent only want to lower it to 12 or 14, not abolish it. The exploitation argument also explains why in most countries where the age of consent is 12-14 the kids are allowed to engage with only people of age lower than 16 or 18 and not fully grown adults.

The moment you start applying these postmodern points into politics and real life you are going to end up justifiying a lot of stuff you would regret later. And im not saying this form some jordan memerson right wing moralist point of view.

>>15327985
Nice same fagging there. But no, right now you have plenty of laws that are properly justified with sociological and psychological studies to justify their premisses and the actions for it.
It wouldnt hurt you taking your time to read the ones of your country.

Anonymous Sun May 10 16:19:07 2020 No.15328108

>>15322993
>From a purely philosophical standpoint, how is "pedophilia"... bad?
Probably isnt, but it doesnt stop people from collectively disliking adults who engage in sexual relations with kids and killing them for that matter.
Pedos will get the lynch either way

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 16:20:05 2020 No.15328123 >>15323888 Based and checked

Anonymous Sun May 10 16:29:28 2020 No.15328200

>>15328046
> sociological and psychological studies
Studies have shown that you if you push the tied suspect into a river, and the suspect doesn't drown, the suspect is guilty.

No sane person would reason based on what is fashionable in $CURRENT_YEAR. It would be fooling yourself instantly.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 16:30:16 2020 No.15328208 >>15322993 literally fucking demonic. no i wont explain what i mean. fuck you for remotely pondering this topic

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 16:31:48 2020 No.15328216 >>15327720 Masturbation is a simulation of sex.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 16:32:04 2020 No.15328220 what the FUCK does this have to do with literature? fucking retard OP

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 16:37:39 2020 No.15328251 >>15323888 nice

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 16:38:08 2020 No.15328254 >>15327688 I dont agree with sentiment of your post, but it cracked me up lmao

Anonymous Sun May 10 16:38:22 2020 No.15328257

>>15328200
Yes studies that properly explain why kids in a certain age cant fully get a conception of what they are giving consent to, what defines consent without sliping into basing a view of maximal freedom on an inadequate conception of consent which is what you tend to do.
And finally equating these concrete defenitions with morality and ethics.

You can still make relativist arguments for all you can, but as i told you before, those arent going to be helping you either.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 16:41:17 2020 No.15328274 >>15326634 You are viewing it wrong. Rather than eating it you are raising it properly and not letting it flow with wind into whatever dangers it wishes to go to.

Anonymous Sun May 10 16:44:50 2020 No.15328305

>>15328257
>cant fully get a conception of what they are giving consent to
but sex can be a way of initiating the child into sexuality, no? lets say hypothetically he/she is like 10 y/o, not totally dumb and somewhat sexually "curious", if the 1) lover doesnt inted on harming the child and 2) if the lover uses this situation as an initiation how could then it be THEORETICALLY bad?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 16:45:28 2020 No.15328311 >>15328216 Which is better, the simulation, or the simulacrum (sodomy) of sex?

Anonymous Sun May 10 16:46:13 2020 No.15328319

Simple. Anyone who hurts my child or the children of my relatives is going to die.
Liberal, conservative, commie, libertarian, hegelian, christfag, retarded utitalitarian, good or jewish, doesn't matter.
Any other claim is merely prevaricating around the fact that the vast majority of humanity, me included, is perfectly willing to step out of our regular societal concerns to secretly execute any one of you fuckers who hurts our next generation or stands by those who do.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 16:47:08 2020 No.15328328 >>15328319 >, good or jewish, lel

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 16:47:31 2020 No.15328331 >>15328319 dont worry, no one is touching your ugly rat

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 16:48:09 2020 No.15328336 >ITT: People pretending they know what they are talking about I want GirlsAPriori back online. Everything else is shit.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 16:49:33 2020 No.15328347 It's dysgenic and spoils the marriage value of young women. You can't give your daughter away after some perv has assaulted her. Children also cannot reproduce so reproductively you're at a dead end

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 16:50:26 2020 No.15328358 >>15322993 >From a purely philosophical standpoint Define the meaning of "philosophical standpoint" in this sentence and the purity thereof.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 16:52:18 2020 No.15328376 >>15328347 >give your daughter away >some perv cringe, imagine not keeping your daughter for yourself

Anonymous Sun May 10 17:00:54 2020 No.15328455
File: 44 KB, 800x450, brainlet.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15323881
This is a dumb argument. Why do we base consent off age instead of IQ? There are genius children that are more intelligent and aware than adults and there are adults with the IQ of children and thus act as such.

Not an argument.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 17:02:49 2020 No.15328470 >>15323845 >he believes adults are autonomous agents

Anonymous Sun May 10 17:03:59 2020 No.15328472

>>15325432
So I'm not allowed to do something with someone who consents to having it done because theoretically one of us could have compelled the other into partaking? If I'm carrying a gun on me and ask you politely under no threat to help me lift a box, you could refuse, but the logic you're presenting implies that because I have the option of using more force than you to compel you to do what I say (even if I don't actually do it) then I should be punished.

>I'm also not keen on further sexualisation of teens, they're already oversexualised enough
Humans literally evolved to do all of their best reproducing in their teenage years. Saying teens get oversexualized is like saying people should stop laughing so much at comedies because muh degeneracy.

Anonymous Sun May 10 17:09:47 2020 No.15328506

>>15328257
You see, you are fighting against something that is plain wrong, but, instead of saying that it is just plain wrong, you are referring to the most transitory explanations that use the currently fashionable and promoted construct of “consent”. (It is supposed that “grown ups” can “give consent”, while anyone can see that we're not living in the world of grown ups who act like that. That spherical cow is what you present to me as objective truth.) I suspect that you haven't actually thought about what's right and what's wrong, and are simply following a collective stream of stereotypes.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 17:14:51 2020 No.15328538 >>15328506 dont be hard on him, some people can only think in concepts that are spoonfed to them

Anonymous Sun May 10 17:15:11 2020 No.15328540

>>15328472
If humans evolved to do that, why don't they all do that unconditionally?

I'm sick and tired of “evolutionary” explanations that make no sense from people who have zero understanding of evolutionary theory and its limits. Thanks to compulsory education, everyone can produce social darwinist bullshit about any topic.

Anonymous Sun May 10 17:20:05 2020 No.15328580

>>15328274
>you are raising it properly
And thus lies the corruption that pedos bring - this willful obfuscation and explaining away of the fundamental wrong they commit under pretense of "raising" - human sexuality is not brought up or raised, it blooms from within as consequence of natural biological growth. Anything else is tantamount to perversion of a natural process for one's enjoyment, thus equal to destruction of child's sexuality that is yet uncreated.

Anonymous Sun May 10 17:20:38 2020 No.15328589

>>15328305
I honestly dont know anon, im not really the one you should be making those questions of what is good or bad for sex initiation. I honestly doubt there are that many kids who are 10 year olds and already have enough knowledge and sex drive to know they want to engage into something like that.
But i already explained you on what those laws are about what really they are trying to protect.

>>15328506
Going with something simple as whats "right or wrong" is the same as simply following collective streams. These constructs of "consent" arent simply made out of trends, and treating them as such isnt going to get you anywhere.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 17:22:41 2020 No.15328610 >>15328580 Nah, it's raised and carefully cultivated.

Anonymous Sun May 10 17:22:45 2020 No.15328611

>>15328472
>literally evolved to do all of their best reproducing in their teenage years
Yeah, which is why the menarche happened way later than nowadays and most women married and gave birth in their 20s if we look by church metrics from 15th century onward. Fuck off with your pseudo-science.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 17:23:25 2020 No.15328618 >>15324574 Right, it's not a philosophical question either.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 17:23:46 2020 No.15328624 >>15328610 Kill yourself pedo.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 17:25:39 2020 No.15328646 >>15328610 Is that how you justify it?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 17:26:03 2020 No.15328650 Why are there so many pedophiles on /lit/ now?

Anonymous Sun May 10 17:27:52 2020 No.15328664

>>15328611
>>15328540
>human body undergoes extreme physical restructuring to facilitate reproduction
>hormone levels skyrocket to the highest they're ever going to be
>literally the greatest potential for health and vitality for the rest of their lives
>FUCKING "EVOLUTIONARY" PSEUDO-SCIENCE JUST ASK THE CHURCH STUPID
good lord

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 17:28:43 2020 No.15328673 >>15328664 What does that have to do with fucking kids?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 17:29:56 2020 No.15328686 >>15328624 Nah. >>15328646 I'm speaking from personal experience about myself.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 17:30:01 2020 No.15328687 >>15328664 >stop sexualizing teens >Teens are meant to be sexual >no they're not >Yes they are, they're literally built for it in all these ways >what does that have to do with fucking kids are you even paying attention

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 17:30:27 2020 No.15328693 >>15328686 You molested a child until adulthood?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 17:31:29 2020 No.15328701 >>15328687 Im not even on his side, but look at those last two greentexted points for a second m8...

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 17:31:29 2020 No.15328702 >>15328687 Idk what the fuck you two are arguing about, but ehebophelia isn’t pedophelia

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 17:34:25 2020 No.15328731 >>15328693 Me and another girl "molested" each other since from kindergarten up to high school.

Anonymous Sun May 10 17:34:37 2020 No.15328736

>>15328664
>>literally the greatest potential for health and vitality for the rest of their lives
Statistically, childbirth is safest and with least amount of complications in females in their early 20s, once the skeletal and muscle systems are fully developed and after all hormonal changes subside enough to give a safe environment for a stable pregnancy. You would know if you read the literature instead of spouting this midwit common sense bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 18:31:17 2020 No.15329220 >>15328702 Some of what people are arguing about is conflating these things though, like at most you might call the Greek pederasts "ephebephiles", at their worst they were still of the "if there's grass on the pitch" mind.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 18:59:50 2020 No.15329428 >>15322993 Children are unable to give actual consent.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 20:19:47 2020 No.15329884 >>15328336 me too, it was the best. now all i have is Rin and that AiW bullshit.

Anonymous Sun May 10 20:30:02 2020 No.15329944

>>15323888
I recognise your effort but you're truly retarded. The responses you're getting are a proof of it.
>the social order.
A "the social order" where pedophiles would be accepted as "normal" would be a totally different "the social order". Don't you think, my dear retard, that such "the social order" would develop mechanisms to guarantee a "the social order".
The second half is just downright retarded. I can't even.
>while having little interest in producing any of their own
Justify this
> Such men are little interested in householding, except as a convenient cover for their activities, and can and will gobble up, ruin, and destroy as many children as they are allowed to.
And this.
And mostly everything you wrote.
You're not giving arguments, you give your assumtions, that for some, as we can see from the responses you're getting, look like arguments.

Anonymous Sun May 10 20:34:36 2020 No.15329970

Because generally speaking, a minor does not understand sex or is still learning about it.
In any case they can easily be tricked by older people into fucking them.
I know that the age of consent is arbitrary, but is necesary because people tends to have more knowledge about sexual matters as they grow.

Anonymous Sun May 10 20:36:21 2020 No.15329987

>>15329970
>a minor does not understand sex or is still learning about it.
A minor understands sex better than you do now.
>In any case they can easily be tricked by older people into fucking them.
Isn't that what seduction is at all ages?
>I know that the age of consent is arbitrary, but is necesary because people tends to have more knowledge about sexual matters as they grow.
Again. You're a virgin.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 20:42:05 2020 No.15330022 >>15322993 This thread certainly contains a lot of philosophy. The question, by the way, should be rephrased to "from a purely ethical standpoint" which is a branch of philosophy and not "philosophy".

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 20:44:10 2020 No.15330042 >>15327926 >just by existing Let's fix that then.

Anonymous Sun May 10 20:53:35 2020 No.15330097

>>15329987
>A minor understands sex better than you do now.
Nice ad hominem, retard
>Isn't that what seduction is at all ages?
No, when you seduce someone both are aware of it. A minor likely would not comprehed what's happening.
>Again. You're a virgin.
Again. Nice ad hominem
Seek help and stop trying to justify your mental illness, pedofag

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 20:56:20 2020 No.15330108 >>15322993 The real cold truth is that there isn’t. I find pedophilia disgusting, but this is an affective response. All morality is purely affective reactions elevated through fuzzy reasoning and sentimentality.

Anonymous Sun May 10 21:03:29 2020 No.15330142
File: 400 KB, 453x446, Kant.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15322993
>From a purely philosophical standpoint
From a Kantian perspective, how does sex with a child treat the child as an end rather than a means to your own sexual gratification? On the surface of it, it would seem to blatantly violate the Categorical Imperative.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 21:06:25 2020 No.15330150 >>15324185 None

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 21:17:34 2020 No.15330216 >>15323888 based, pedos get the rope

Anonymous Sun May 10 21:35:01 2020 No.15330316

>>15330108
I've realized this as well. Most opposition to such things is simply based in a visceral reaction. That said, I do think there is an argument to be made that pedophiles are taking advantage of children, and that children cannot understand the implications of making sexual decisions.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 21:50:59 2020 No.15330427 >>15330108 >Emotivism lol

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 22:23:07 2020 No.15330629 >>15323700 More about this petition?

Anonymous Sun May 10 23:03:45 2020 No.15330893

Children are mentally incapable of exercising the kind of interpersonal directedness that constitutes love. To be fair, many adults fail to do this as well, but they are at least capable in theory.

Because children lack this capacity, engaging in sexual relations with a child is only ever to sate desire. Desire as a controlled means to the end of love is good, desire for the sake of pleasure is not.

It takes their innocence away from them, and denies them the joys of childhood.

As an adult with a personal relation with a child, you have social, familial, and other obligations to the child. A sexual relationship is a violation of those obligations.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 23:16:57 2020 No.15330977 >>15323888 Amazing post, although I would agree with the other anon as there can be pedophiles not attracted to children exclusively but the ones who do should be killed

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 23:48:27 2020 No.15331188 i don't think 14 year old girls can be considered children, i remember many of them in my class actively looked for older guys to fuck.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 23:50:37 2020 No.15331204 >>15323888 You are an insane military type conservative who would tear people's guts out to make what's left better suited for social order.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 23:54:59 2020 No.15331237 If teenagers are unable to consent, then it also does not make sense that teenagers be charged with felonies like first degree murder because it can be argued that Mens Reas cannot take place in a minor child's head.

Anonymous Sun May 10 23:57:19 2020 No.15331251

Everyone ITT is a stupid nigger.
>>15323052 figured out OP was asking a black gorilla monkey metaphysical nonsense question and he proved it by posting >>15323061

French intellectual support of the two convicts rests on two premises:
1) if children can be held accountable for crime, they can consent to sex
2) the pubescent girls consented, following the first premise
If we want to accept the moral maxim of holding children responsible, we must allow sexual relations for consistencies' sake. If we value children's innocence we must reevaluate our stance on juvenile detention.

Sexualisation of the youth is disproprortionately imbalanced since coitus with a 16 year old is different from such with a 6 year old.
Outside of this ethical/moral question there is no other dimension to it.

I could conjure up some magic speak about the essence of kiddies but whst it comes down to is democratic consistency and justice.

>lets deny his arguments using stupid truisms and vie for the legalisation of my perversions
If all wisemen told us children could be molested and for good reason you'd still have to get through my winchester to get the sweet underaged puss.
This is clout.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 23:58:24 2020 No.15331258 >>15331237 Based post. The purpose of philosophy is lawmaking, not debate. The teleological nature of cunny is irrelevant.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 10 23:58:25 2020 No.15331259 acting on pedophilia causes immense trauma to others, hurting others is wrong

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 00:00:31 2020 No.15331272 >>15322993 Inequal power relation. If they're equal, sure, but it's pretty unlikely they'll be on even terms on a psychological or physical level. Of course, this would go beyond just underage/adult relationships.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 00:00:40 2020 No.15331275 File: 8 KB, 228x221, erp.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15331251 >you'd still have to get through my winchester

Anonymous Mon May 11 00:03:11 2020 No.15331298

>>15331275
The law of the land will always prevail over philosophy.
Over yonder in the ivory tower the mages have decided in favour of giving everyone a prolapse, and as such the rabble armed with clubs and hatchets crashes through the gates.

Sometimes a good pogrom is a necessity for moral regulation.

Anonymous Mon May 11 00:11:06 2020 No.15331331

>"THE PROBLEMS IN ASSESSING MENS REA FOR ADULTS OFTEN ARE COMPOUNDED IN CASES INVOLVING JUVENILES. RATHER THAN DEVELOPING PROCEDURES TO ASSESS MENS REA IN CHILDREN, LEGISLATURES (VIA STATUTORY LAW) AND JUDGES (VIA CASE LAW) HAVE ATTEMPTED TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEMS BY DEVELOPING LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR JUVENILES. THE PREVAILING RULE IS THAT ALL CHILDREN UNDER AGE 7 ARE INCAPABLE OF COMMITTING A CRIME BECAUSE THEY CANNOT FORMULATE THE APPROPRIATE MENS REA (UNDERSTANDING OF THE REASONABLE AND PROBABLE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS). FOR PERSONS BETWEEN THE AGES OF 7 AND 14, THE PRESUMPTION OF NO MENS REA IS REBUTTABLE. PERSONS 14 YEARS AND OLDER ARE TREATED AS ADULTS WITH REGARD TO MENS REA. A REVIEW OF HISTORY, STATUTES, AND CASE LAW PERTAINING TO JUVENILE MENS REA SUGGESTS THAT THE KEY ELEMENT UNDERLYING A COURT'S INQUIRY INTO MENS REA IS THE CHILD'S INTENT TO COMMIT THE ACT. THE STUDY OF INTENTIONALITY AND ITS DEVELOPMENT IN CHILDREN IS NOT NEW TO PSYCHOLOGY. A REVIEW OF PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH INTO THE AGES AT WHICH CHILDREN DISTINGUISH BETWEEN ACCIDENTAL AND INTENTIONAL ACTS AND BEGIN TO SHOW GREATER CONCERN FOR INTENT THAN FOR CONSEQUENCES PROVIDES NO SUPPORT FOR THE IRREBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION OF NO MENS REA IN CHILDREN UNDER 7 YEARS OF AGE. RESEARCH FINDINGS INDICATE THAT THE LOWER AGE LIMIT FOR IRREBUTABLE PRESUMPTION OF NO MENS REA SHOULD BE ABOLISHED OR LOWERED TO AGE 4. THE PREVAILING RULE'S TWO OTHER AGE DIVISIONS DO CONFORM TO THE RESULTS OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT STUDIES IN CHILDREN. A TEST FOR ASSESSING MENS REA IN CHILDREN CLEARLY IS NEEDED. THE STORY PAIR TECHNIQUE--PRESENTING A CHILD WITH SHORT STORIES IN WHICH THE CHARACTER ACTS EITHER INTENTIONALLY OR ACCIDENTALLY AND ASKING THE CHILD TO DETERMINE WHICH CHARACTER IS NAUGHTIER--COULD BE USED TO DEVELOP SUCH A TEST. A LIST OF REFERENCES IS INCLUDED. (LKM)"

So 14 and up are able to have criminal intent and are treated as adults in the US but are unable to consent? Surely this is a logical inconsistency or is the justice system implying that criminal intent is more basic that autonomous consent and therefore the ability of children to develop criminal intent happens earlier in life than the ability to give autonomous consent?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 00:17:09 2020 No.15331369 >>15325629 You just lost, mate.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 00:20:50 2020 No.15331388 >>15325721 Did your education finish with material from the 60s?

Anonymous Mon May 11 00:21:48 2020 No.15331396

>>15331331
I think it comes down to two offenses.
1. Criminal law concerning the community whose law is transgressed rather than the plaintiffs inspiration to continue the trial.
1.1 If we consider sex with a child within a community that forbids it, consensual sex acts as a precedent for further indecent acts which could lead to the degeneration of the wronged community.
1.2 In event of a crime, a wrong has to be set straigjt damned it be if the defendant were a child. The community is wronged and demands blood.
2. The hedonistic calculus weighs more heavily in event of crime than in event of pedophillic sex. The long term detriment from the irresponsible decision of a child to copulate with an adult is enough to raise the age of consent whereas the result of a crime serves as reason for the opposite, where more people are hurt and as such the balance has to be levelled out.

That said, consistency is important and 14 isn't that impressionable an age.

>>	Giovani Garcia Rezende Mon May 11 00:36:07 2020 No.15331476 File: 817 KB, 1006x770, 1581021792145.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >oh yes im a pedo how could you tell

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 00:37:09 2020 No.15331480 >>15331298 I can already imagine your fat Amerilard paws typing out this cringe

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 00:39:02 2020 No.15331489 File: 2.12 MB, 3000x4000, IMG_20200511_063838.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15331480

Anonymous Mon May 11 01:03:20 2020 No.15331630

>>15322993
It isn't inherently bad, but a romantic relationship with a minor in practice has a high chance of being exploitative due to the gap in intelligence/power, so it needs to be a rule against it. It pretty much came to rise with the popularity of liberal ethics, since in traditional societies child marriage is perfectly fine because the only thing they cared about is procreation, not the well being of minors.

Anonymous Mon May 11 01:14:25 2020 No.15331687

>>15328589
> arent simply made out of trends
They are. You simply don't notice these trends.

A system of beliefs of a modern “secular” person is no less amusing than that of a so-called stupid middle age peasant. According to it, history is somehow guided in the “progressive” direction, and, therefore, modern times can only be perfect compared to everything that has been, and everything that is new (or called progressive) is good. Human's life is also a travel on the road to “success”. Everything has rational explanation, simple or complex. Everything that doesn't fit is an error, dead end, malfunction, and should be promptly excluded from mental processes (violence, suffering, death, all those “depressive” things). Real life errors should put in order, and some independent entity called state somehow guarantees that order by itself (now that's just a divine power of kings). Hardships are temporary, the way of life isn't questioned, and entertainment is a drug instead of a mirror.

Still, people rape kids. People rape grown ups. People have sex to get resources. People have sex to get resources, and everyone calls it “a relationship”. People cheat. People have sex and reenact porn scenes, for fuck's sake, and so on, and so on. But, supposedly, everything “consensual” is OK (spice it with some libertarian bullshit about “their own fault” if you like). A webcam girl under 18 is an exploited child and a crime against humanity, and if she's over 18, and is streaming to the very same people, she's a web entrepreneur who is bold about her sexuality. Sorry, I won't trust anyone who can think like that.

Another problem of morals founded on rational (utilitarian, one might say) explanations and law enforcement is that they get deactivated if no one finds out (see “Crime and Punishment”, “Three Billboards…”). What would you do to someone else on a visit to far away island? What if you are very rich, and can effectively hush everyone? Let's say we have human clones in the future, how would we treat them? “Making the world a better place” and “doing the right thing” only in certain cases is hypocrisy. Sure, you can't lay a finger on a noble's daughter, but serfs, prostitutes, black meat, yellow meat — there's no problem for a gentleman to use them. By defending status quo because it is status quo you are defending arbitrary justice.

Anonymous Mon May 11 01:31:08 2020 No.15331765

>>15328472
>If I'm carrying a gun on me and ask you politely under no threat to help me lift a box, you could refuse, but the logic you're presenting implies that because I have the option of using more force than you to compel you to do what I say (even if I don't actually do it) then I should be punished.
First of all are you really asking that if you go around waving a gun in people's faces and asking them to do menial tasks, is that wrong? Try it and see. It's not an equivalency, but it's how retarded your sense of right and wrong is you could do with a dose of reality.

Children have little autonomy. There are reasons for this, but it ultimately comes down to less life experience and development. There's a power imbalance between them and their care-givers inherent to the care-giver role that is disrupted if an adult wishes to use them for sexual purposes, and is often taken advantage of by pedos in myriad ways. In cases of children lacking a care-giver in a meaningful sense, you're taking advantage of someone supremely vulnerable like what Jimmy Saville did with those orphans.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 01:36:27 2020 No.15331791 >>15328472 >Could you please move these boxes for me? No pressure but I do have a gun >Is that a normal way to behave

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 01:40:56 2020 No.15331815 >>15323888 checked

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 02:10:04 2020 No.15331925 >>15323714 Can confirm. Abused at daycare. Such daycare closed due to several more cases.

Anonymous Mon May 11 02:32:48 2020 No.15332009

>>15324542
This. Plus, children can absolutely consent. They withhold or give consent for all kinds of things, constantly. You have to contrive a definition that explicitly boxes them out to claim otherwise. (Like the “under-developed brain” shit, which is another retarded concept since the brain never stops “developing” and certainly doesn’t plateau at some level of arbitrary Maturity where you can handle Serious Adult Things.)
A dog can’t consent. Any able-minded verbal human can.

>>15324564
People aren’t even ready to talk about non-harmful pedophilic *attraction*. The overwhelming response to any calls for therapy or “condition management” for inactive pedophiles is “nah, just kill them all”.

I don’t have any personal stake in this and it’s not a huge deal since pedophiles seem rare, it’s just an annoying reminder of how thoughtless and drone-like most people are.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 02:36:44 2020 No.15332030 >>15325192 Stfu faggot

Anonymous Mon May 11 02:39:30 2020 No.15332049

>>15332009
>“under-developed brain” shit, which is another retarded concept
>Any able-minded
So there's some arbitrary line where a mind is able eh? You know there's some limit, you know it's a little grey in a lot of areas, you just want people to agree on the line being drawn on the far less moral side because you're a cunt.

Anonymous Mon May 11 02:47:23 2020 No.15332091

>>15325565
The psychological function of sex doesn’t necessarily follow from the biological. It’s easily influenced by culture, and varies between individuals.

I could just as easily say as an Aztec or something that human sacrifice has a crucial role in the psyche, and the fabric of society would tear apart without it. And the part about the significance of its role would be true, but because of culture, not because of anything inherent to the human brain.

Anonymous Mon May 11 02:51:25 2020 No.15332114

>>15332091
>The psychological function of sex doesn’t necessarily follow from the biological. It’s easily influenced by culture, and varies between individuals.
This is the point. We live in a post-industrial society, for society to function as it does there are certain rules about conduct within that society. In human history we may have been more flexible with violence and coercion, but we do away with these to live in a civilised society. Society today is the pinnacle of human achievement and appealing to the rules of other cultures and societies doesn't make sense, they have not achieved what we have.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 02:59:34 2020 No.15332162 >>15332114 You have managed to make me slightly irritated with that.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 03:01:28 2020 No.15332170 >>15332162 >it's so annoying when people point out that pedophilia existing in human history doesn't mean I should be able to fuck children today

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 03:11:04 2020 No.15332214 getting your ass stretched is not a spook

Anonymous Mon May 11 05:13:04 2020 No.15332742

>don't understand sex
What the fuck is there to understand? It's not rocket science. If incects and monkeys can do it, why can't minors? Are they dumber than incects and monkeys? Pure ideology, as they say.
>muh social connotations of sex
Have no basis in empirical material reality. 100% invented spooks.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 05:14:58 2020 No.15332752 >>15332742 >empirical material reality >not spooks You're haunted dude

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 05:17:00 2020 No.15332759 >>15332752 That's a little more advanced stuff.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 05:19:54 2020 No.15332769 >>15325654 >sex has a special place in how we function as social animals Not inherently, only because it was artificially placed there. Plus, there can be many different places in can occupy.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 05:22:40 2020 No.15332779 >>15332769 >Not inherently, Yes inherently.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 05:24:42 2020 No.15332784 >>15332779 No. Your turn.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 05:24:47 2020 No.15332785 >>15332742 Minors are physiologically incapable of having sex, you dumb fuck. Or do you also think that chewing gum is a kind of food? Anything that doesn't lead to procreation is not sex, by definition of 'sex'.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 05:27:10 2020 No.15332794 >>15332785 >Minors are physiologically incapable of having sex, you dumb fuck. Guess all those minors who've been having sex for all human existance had not been informed.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 05:32:31 2020 No.15332818 >>15325721 kys, mra faggot.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 05:33:06 2020 No.15332821 >>15332784 Yes times infinity TO THE POWER OF infinity plus 1

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 05:38:57 2020 No.15332845 >>15331687 Good post

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 05:45:36 2020 No.15332886 >>15332794 You must be a very dim bulb. Let me repeat: Anything that doesn't lead to procreation is not sex, by definition of 'sex'.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 05:47:00 2020 No.15332890 >>15332886 Hunny, read Foucailt

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 05:55:30 2020 No.15332926 >>15332821 No times infinity TO THE POWER OF infinity plus 2

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 06:08:36 2020 No.15332985 >>15332170 No, your post was the epitome of IT'S CURRENT YEAR!, and the part about living in a perfect civilized society was exceptionally dumb.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 06:10:42 2020 No.15332991 >>15332886 8 year olds can get pregnant anon.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 06:15:21 2020 No.15333012 >>15332991 If they can get pregnant they are not children.

Anonymous Mon May 11 06:17:09 2020 No.15333020

>>15332890
Why, so the incessant verbiage and circular definitions get you confused about the basic meanings of basic words?

Sex, in the animal kingdom, is the act of intercourse between males and females for the purpose of procreation.

There is no other possible definition, unless you think humans aren't part of the animal kingdom.

Anonymous Mon May 11 06:17:37 2020 No.15333022

>>15331188
Because modern industrial food is laced with hormones and xenoestrogens which speed up female puberty beyond the natural pace. I doubt that a 14 year old has all the muscles and bones ready to go through pregnancy properly, the most common complications encountered during childbirth is that the girl can't dilate enough or there is a developmental problem with the foetus itself.
Then there's the postpartum depression, most common in woemn that are either not ready for kids or not mature enough to take care of the child properly. All of which is very common in teen pregnancies. Compound it with the fact that a teen girl is neither ready to make her way in the world, nor the guy fucking her is usually ready to support her, and you end up with a teen single mom that has to be supported by the state.
.
Pedos argue for the "biological", yet the evidence against it is overwhelming.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 06:20:39 2020 No.15333037 >>15332991 The overwhelming majority cannot. >>15333022 This. Also, see this post, which has been conspicuously ignored by the defenders of pedophila ITT >>15328736

Anonymous Mon May 11 06:29:09 2020 No.15333078

>>15332991
Fake news. Also, this guy >>15333012
is right.

Since you're an incel, let me clue you in on how human physiology works: getting pregnant is hard, there's only a window of 2-3 days a month when it's possible, and the man and woman must be healthy. There's a reason why IVF is a huge, huge thing.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 06:30:15 2020 No.15333086 >>15322993 power dynamics

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 06:31:17 2020 No.15333091 >>15322993 All morality is relative and pedophilia is wrong because I said so and I will support the imprisonment of pedophiles.

Anonymous Mon May 11 06:32:32 2020 No.15333097

>>15333037
It's ignored because it's based on "I think"s and" I doubt"s. The part about support is also retarded as for a majority of human history men weren't treated like manchildren until they reached the age of 18 and actually had to find ways to support themselves and their families.

>>15333078
I don't care about your retarded personal beliefs but calling everything you cannot comprehend "fake news" is arguing in bad faith. If you don't have anything to contribute to the discussion then leave.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 06:35:52 2020 No.15333114 >>15333097 >It's ignored because it's based on "I think"s and" I doubt"s. It's straight facts, no thinks or doubts idiot.

Anonymous Mon May 11 06:35:53 2020 No.15333115

>>15331687
Have you atleast read the studies and the debates on consent?
Its obvious that laws setting these ages are sometimes only made to protect the general average and what not, but giving me this whole nietzchean type explaination and dismissal because you assume they are based on "rational and utilitarian" explanations and some linear view in history is outright playing dumb.

Anonymous Mon May 11 06:35:55 2020 No.15333117

>>15333097
Lolwhat, the entire post talks about medical science on the best time for women to have children. There are no "I thinks" and "I doubts" in there.
Also, that other guys is right. Women generally don't get periods at eight.
>>15333091
Uhhh, BASED?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 06:37:20 2020 No.15333124 >>15332985 >your post was the epitome of IT'S CURRENT YEAR! Oh hey boomer. That meme doesn't mean what you think it means.

Anonymous Mon May 11 06:37:42 2020 No.15333126

>>15333115
No it's not. He's literally right. The notion of consent in sexual matters was not even implemented in law until the 20th century. It's a novum without any basis in objective reality. Whether or not we'd like to keep it is a separate question.

Anonymous Mon May 11 06:39:46 2020 No.15333133

>>15333097
>majority of human history men weren't treated like manchildren
No, they were treated like servants of the patriarch of the family, with everyone working on the same farm/village and supporting one another, that's why it worked.
Don't forget that most marriages were arranged and planned by both families if they saw that the kids got on well enough and most families were structured into the wider village/clan, where both youngsters were looked after.
That still does not negate the medical argument, or the record on childbirth and the average marriage age.
This whole "they got married very young!" nonsense is just exaggeration of historical incidents that were usually noted due to their rarity and not norm, disregarding that these happened to alleviate problems like famine, war, or plague, where adults died off and left very young on their own.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 06:39:58 2020 No.15333137 >>15333114 Those aren't facts because I can name at least 5 people that I know that were pregnant at 14 and had no problems giving birth. >>15333117 You can't expect me to take you seriously with that second part, can you?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 06:41:49 2020 No.15333149 >>15333137 WHOA, some people had no problems having birth at 14, THEREFORE SCIENCE IS WRONG? BAZINGA!

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 06:42:42 2020 No.15333153 >>15323061 Philosophy- a means to cope with oneself and society.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 06:43:24 2020 No.15333154 >>15333137 >Muh anecdotes

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 06:45:35 2020 No.15333162 >>15333137 >I can name at least 5 people that I know that were pregnant at 14 and had no problems giving birth. This is a white board, niggers please keep walking.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 06:45:46 2020 No.15333163 >>15333126 >The notion of consent in sexual matters was not even implemented in law until the 20th century. The earliest recorded sexual consent law is from 1275. It was a concept long before then too.

Anonymous Mon May 11 06:46:06 2020 No.15333165

>>15333137
>Those aren't facts because I can name at least 5 people that I know that were pregnant at 14 and had no problems giving birth.
>Countering statistics with anecdotal evidence
You're not helping your case, mate.

Try something like this: the peak of healthy births may be in the early 20s, but concluding from that fact that women should not have sex until that age is equivalent to saying they should not have sex after the peak, either.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 06:48:24 2020 No.15333176 >>15333154 You responded in the same way. >>15333149 Filtered for being cancer. >>15333162 Whiter than you Hernandez Svensson. >>15333165 This is what I meant to say, but I'm too busy shit shitposting and can't articulate my thoughts well.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 06:49:23 2020 No.15333180 >>15333176 This post is peak reddit.

Anonymous Mon May 11 06:52:36 2020 No.15333196

>>15333165
>women should not have sex until that age is equivalent to saying they should not have sex after the peak, either.

Even then that argument is flawed, because women can give relatively healthy birth up until age of 35, with minimal differences in health of the baby on average, and even beyond until menopause if they had several children prior. Top it off with the fact that they are more likely to be able to look after them, be in a stable relationship and be mentally ready, it becomes apparent that for everyone involved, from the mother herself through the family and ending up on the society, having birth in early 20s onward is the only beneficial way of going about things.

Pedos will grasp at straws, but they are literally in the wrong and are unrestrained deviants ruining the society.

Anonymous Mon May 11 06:52:59 2020 No.15333201

>>15333163
Don't tell lies. Sexual consent was then based on the consent of the patriarch, and by extension, the family, not the individual. Before that and even until now in some places, sexual consent was contained within the marriage contract, and relations outside of that contract were illegitimate.
>>15333176
Your anecdotes definitely trump medical science. We should definitely allow fifty year old men to prey on eight year olds.

Anonymous Mon May 11 06:56:54 2020 No.15333213

>>15333201
>Don't tell lies. Sexual consent was then based on the consent of the patriarch, and by extension, the family, not the individual. Before that and even until now in some places, sexual consent was contained within the marriage contract, and relations outside of that contract were illegitimate.
Broadly true in the earlier times of consent laws that are from the 1st millennium and older. But after the first millennium we start to get codified laws that do not recognise consent if someone is under a certain age. In the case of the 1275 law in England it amounts to something like if they're 12 or under it doesn't matter if consent is given or not, it's rape.

Anonymous Mon May 11 07:01:01 2020 No.15333231

>>15333213
Just so we're clear, I'm not defending pedos. I made this post >>15323888 yesterday. I'm just not in favor of pretending that present-day moral views are eternal or more correct than those held in the past.
>But after the first millennium we start to get codified laws that do not recognise consent if someone is under a certain age. In the case of the 1275 law in England it amounts to something like if they're 12 or under it doesn't matter if consent is given or not, it's rape.
By consent, do you mean the consent of the father? What was the reasoning given for promulgating such laws? Was it to prevent the sale of children?

Anonymous Mon May 11 07:01:13 2020 No.15333232

>>15333196
>because women can give relatively healthy birth up until age of 35
As can any sexually mature female before 20.

>Top it off with the fact that they are more likely to be able to look after them, be in a stable relationship and be mentally ready
Different issue. This is not what I was discussing and it can be countered by other arguments for social benefits.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 07:07:01 2020 No.15333254 >>15333232 >before 20 > low birth weight, premature labor, anemia, and pre-eclampsia, all risk factors for teen preganacies >safe Get the fuck out

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 07:11:21 2020 No.15333282 >>15333254 >19 yo = disaster >20 yo = peak of healthy pregnancy Why do I find this hard to believe?

Anonymous Mon May 11 07:15:59 2020 No.15333310

>>15333254
Besides, teenage mothers are much more likely to be from poor, uneducated families, and not have a stable mate.
If we are trying to get to the truth of what are the healthiest ages for pregnancy, confounding factors need to be accounted for.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 07:19:57 2020 No.15333331 >>15333310 What exactly do low birth weight, premature labor, anema, and pre-eclampsia have to do with being uneducated?

Anonymous Mon May 11 07:21:10 2020 No.15333337

>>15333231
>By consent, do you mean the consent of the father? What was the reasoning given for promulgating such laws? Was it to prevent the sale of children?
We're talking about a law made nearly 1000 years ago and a legal concept that has changed over that period since. The importance of the patriarch's consent has changed over that time, and not in a linear way. I can demonstrate that by pointing to the 1754 marriage act and Gretna Green. The 1754 act made it law that to become married, couple under 21 had to get the consent of their parents. When couples were no longer able to marry of purely their own volition they jumped over the Scottish border to get married instead. If you go back a century to Pepys' diary, the man was a rapist, sex pest, pedo... with the older women he records about them going to lengths to do him harm, and with the women above his station he dares to do nothing, and with the daughter of one of his housekeepers he and others treat her like a piece of meat, no patriarch whatsoever involved there. Not to say Pepys' isn't patriarchal in some ways but the dimensions are different, there isn't a solid idea of consent via patriarch all the way through 1000 years in a single country.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 07:22:12 2020 No.15333343 >>15333282 Because you're set up a retarded model because you want to be convinced to fuck children.

Anonymous Mon May 11 07:22:57 2020 No.15333348

>>15333282
Because back in the day normal puberty started in women from age 15-17 with menarche and it takes about 2 to 3 ears for full blooming. Modern diets fucked it up and are giving female bodies to girls that are mentally not there, straining all the other bodily systems.
Your argument about "ready to give birth" means 20, if we look at historic data and not the last 20 years.

Anonymous Mon May 11 07:23:21 2020 No.15333349

>>15333337
>When couples were no longer able to marry of purely their own volition they jumped over the Scottish border to get married instead
Do you have any numbers on this? Usually when people point to such phenomena, they neglect to list the numbers because such cases are few and far between.
> If you go back a century to Pepys' diary, the man was a rapist, sex pest, pedo... with the older women he records about them going to lengths to do him harm, and with the women above his station he dares to do nothing, and with the daughter of one of his housekeepers he and others treat her like a piece of meat, no patriarch whatsoever involved there. Not to say Pepys' isn't patriarchal in some ways but the dimensions are different, there isn't a solid idea of consent via patriarch all the way through 1000 years in a single country.
Why should I draw the radical conclusions you propose from a single man's diary?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 07:23:42 2020 No.15333352 >>15333331 Probably less likely to be aware of helpful and dangerous behaviours during pregnancy. >>15333343 I'm not arguing either way, I'm not a moralfag. I'm just attacking what I perceive to be faulty arguments.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 07:24:42 2020 No.15333356 >>15333349 Do you honestly not know about Gretna Green? >Why should I draw the radical conclusions you propose from a single man's diary? Point to better sources, again do you not know about Pepys' diary?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 07:25:43 2020 No.15333361 >>15333352 >I'm not arguing either way, I'm not a moralfag. I'm just attacking what I perceive to be faulty arguments. Something being merely bad at one point does not mean it's all milk and honey and roses immediately after.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 07:30:38 2020 No.15333386 File: 389 KB, 1024x1024, 1588747545381.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15332049 >So there's some arbitrary line where a mind is able eh? The ability to consent begins with the ability to speak.

Anonymous Mon May 11 07:32:12 2020 No.15333393

>>15333356
>Do you honestly not know about Gretna Green?
I had to look it up because I'm not British. More importantly, only statistics can properly solve our dispute. If Gretna Green was indeed such a destination, but the numbers were severely limited, e.g. fifty marriages per year out of a population of five or ten million, then you haven't proven much of anything at all.
>Point to better sources, again do you not know about Pepys' diary?
I'm not saying it's a bad source. I'm simply saying that it's only one source.
I'm curious. Did you refer to Pepys' diary because it's a source that you yourself are using in your work?

Anonymous Mon May 11 07:32:18 2020 No.15333396

>>15333361
Yes. Let's assume that the healthy peak is 21. If it's a peak, that implies that before and after the birth is not as healthy. If you are willing to accept pregnancies at 35+ (14 years after the peak) as healthy, why are you not willing to do the same for pregnancies at 17? You may claim that some women are not fully matured by that age, and thus have a much greater risk. I agree, but those are a small minority of 17 year olds, and I explicitly stated "sexually mature female before 20", thus excluding all those in that minority.

Anonymous Mon May 11 07:35:21 2020 No.15333410

>>15333396
Not is only that splitting hairs, it's purposefully imprecise, as maturity can be defined in different ways and one marker for you is that she can have sex and give birth, all other risk factors be damned, even if she is 14 or lower. Not only is that a slippery slope, its dishonest because you hide your meaning behind a very imprecise term, while pretending otherwise.
Begone pedo, we have had enough of your nonsense.

Anonymous Mon May 11 07:41:53 2020 No.15333439

>>15323881
>Children can’t give informed consent
If they can speak, they objectively can.
>act responsibly
What does that mean?
>That is why we don’t let them drive cars or drink.
Are you serious? We don't let them drive because their legs can't reach the pedals and they're too short to see out the window, and we don't let them drink because alcohol can literally kill them.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 07:44:13 2020 No.15333450 >>15322993 is that guy a pedophile?

Anonymous Mon May 11 07:45:23 2020 No.15333460

>>15333393
It seems like you're poorly educated around this area and want to be spoonfed, so I'll leave you with this https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/statistics-and-data/statistics/statistics-by-theme/vital-events/marriages-and-civil-partnerships/marriages-at-gretna-1975-2000/report-on-marriages-at-gretna-part-1
>I'm curious. Did you refer to Pepys' diary because it's a source that you yourself are using in your work?
No. It's, again, an insanely famous source on day to day life at the time.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 07:46:31 2020 No.15333464 File: 55 KB, 341x512, unnamed (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15333439 >We don't let them drive because their legs can't reach the pedals

Anonymous Mon May 11 07:47:26 2020 No.15333468

>>15333410
So you agree that teenage pregnancies are not necessarily risky?

Also:
>ts dishonest because you hide your meaning behind a very imprecise term, while pretending otherwise
My intent is irrelevant to the discussion.
>Begone pedo
Personal attack.
>we have had enough of your nonsense
Resorting to social pressure to silence opposition.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 07:47:32 2020 No.15333469 >>15333396 >Let's assume that the healthy peak is 21. No.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 07:47:50 2020 No.15333471 >>15333464 Can he actually drive, though?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 07:48:43 2020 No.15333477 >>15333468 >So you agree that teenage pregnancies are not necessarily risky? All pregnancies are necessarily risky. Why strive to have them young when you don't have to and it increases risk and decreases health?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 07:49:45 2020 No.15333480 File: 269 KB, 750x1024, Peter+Dinklage+Takes+The+Wheel+hN8BAkaDdnox.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15333471 Dinklage thread?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 07:50:46 2020 No.15333482 File: 66 KB, 634x423, dinklagedrivesagain.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15333480 >>15333471 Dinklage thread.

Anonymous Mon May 11 07:52:00 2020 No.15333487

>>15333477
The main, obvious reason is that you have more breeding years, thus potentially more babies. That is genetically advantageous.
Other reasons dealing with female psychology are more related to marriage and not necessarily to pregnancy, though they are naturally related.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 07:53:09 2020 No.15333491 >>15333487 >The main, obvious reason is that you have more breeding years, thus potentially more babies. That is genetically advantageous. Is it? Is that who is going to populate the gene pool do you honestly think?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 07:54:58 2020 No.15333497 >>15323888 BASED AND CHECKED

Anonymous Mon May 11 07:57:09 2020 No.15333512

>>15333468
>Rethorical defences
Not relevant to the argument. Risks are significant enough to warrant and psychology of the girl (who is in no way mature before age of 20, let alone 18) is by now out of sync with bodily development due to endocrinal disruptors in our diet and environment. She is not ready for the responsibilities of child-rearing nor is she ready for long-term commitments to either a child or a man, compounded by social problems caused by mass media and internet.
>"muh grooming"
Disgusting and predatory

There is no reason for a girl before age of 20 to get pregnant, and no amount of pleading will change it. Health risks, social risks, personal risks and mental risks point to waiting until such time as viable for her to do it safely, which by all acounts is from age 20 onwards.
Anything else is hedonism and egoism by the guy who "wants them young".

Anonymous Mon May 11 08:01:05 2020 No.15333537

>>15333491
I don't know. Having plenty of kids was helpful in the past, maybe not so much these days. That's more of a political discussion and not my point anyway.

My point is that teenage pregnancies when the girl is phisically mature, especially when confounding factors are accounted for, are not more dangerous than most adult pregnancies.

>>15333512
Not my point, see above. I'm not saying sexual relationships with minors are ok. You are taking my argument and drawing your own (uncomfortable) conclusions, and then pinning them on me.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 08:04:05 2020 No.15333558 >>15333512 >There is no reason for a girl before age of 20 to get pregnant There's no reason for a girl of any age to get pregnant.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 08:04:26 2020 No.15333562 >>15333537 >Having plenty of kids was helpful in the past, maybe not so much these days. Definitely not so much these days.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 08:05:29 2020 No.15333567 >>15333558 True

Anonymous Mon May 11 08:08:00 2020 No.15333583

>>15333460
>https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/statistics-and-data/statistics/statistics-by-theme/vital-events/marriages-and-civil-partnerships/marriages-at-gretna-1975-2000/report-on-marriages-at-gretna-part-1
This tells us nothing of the prehistory of the issue, only that it has recently become a very popular marriage spot.
>No. It's, again, an insanely famous source on day to day life at the time.
It is only one source. What do the other sources tell us?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 08:16:04 2020 No.15333615 >>15333583 >only that it has recently become a very popular marriage spot. Read it again...

Anonymous Mon May 11 08:35:55 2020 No.15333689

>>15333537
>My point is that teenage pregnancies when the girl is phisically mature

>I'm not saying sexual relationships with minors are ok

Then make up your mind - either we are talking about physically and mentally ready women, who by most accounts are not teens, or we are talking about sex with minors, you can't have it both ways.

Anonymous Mon May 11 09:04:04 2020 No.15333827

>>15333689
I am not talking about mental maturity. Regarding physical maturity, women reach it at the end of puberty, which happens before 18 in most cases. If we consider 18 the age of maturity, it becomes clear that there are plenty of sexually mature minors.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 09:18:28 2020 No.15333908 >>15333827 >it becomes clear that there are plenty of sexually mature minors. So you are a pedo then, thanks for clarifying.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 09:20:23 2020 No.15333918 >>15333908 >argumentum ad hominem

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 09:22:13 2020 No.15333926 >>15333918 I only drew conclusions from your statement, prove me wrong if that's not the case.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 09:23:05 2020 No.15333933 >>15333926 >argumentum ad hominem

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 09:24:55 2020 No.15333942 >>15333933 So you have nothing to say, congrats.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 09:27:13 2020 No.15333959 File: 243 KB, 1200x630, adhominem.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15333942 >So you have nothing to say, congrats.

Anonymous Mon May 11 09:28:03 2020 No.15333963

>>15333908
>>15333926
We're not even the same person.

Anti-pedo cultist never disappoint. Pedo advocates may be delusional, but at least they know how to discuss something rationally. You cultists just sperg out with insults and anger as soon as you meet any oppposition.

Anonymous Mon May 11 09:35:19 2020 No.15333998

>>15333963
>discuss something rationally
Ok, so refute the medical argument, social one, and psychological one. Also, justify the utility in giving a child to a teen when the child-rearing responsibilities rest with the woman for majority of post-birth time, as opposed to letting her learn and develop as a useful member of a society.
There is nothing rational about pedos or their desire, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny, it proves no benefits to the girl or the society and I am yet to see an advantage that a teen mother will have over an adult one if both face pregnancy.
It's been 300 replies and not a single valid point from the pedo crowd that would address any of the bove, apart from the vague "sexual maturity", that misses the mental component and rests on an what-if of individual cases, which cannot be a basis for a legal and moral position.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 09:37:45 2020 No.15334011 File: 445 KB, 1197x1447, 1522692527326.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15333998 >Ok, so refute the medical argument, social one, and psychological one.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 09:38:48 2020 No.15334015 File: 320 KB, 1197x997, 1529217623598.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15333998 >>15334011

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 09:40:43 2020 No.15334032 >>15333998 >justify the utility in giving a child to a teen Justify utilitarianism. >it proves no benefits to the girl Happiness.

Anonymous Mon May 11 09:43:19 2020 No.15334048

>>15334011
>>15334015
Wow, a canned response. How original. Read your own stuff buddy, you missed the mark on a few. Also, no refutation on the medical element.

>>15334032
>Happiness
so are you in favour of utilitarianism or not? Because teen moms cause more social misery than not.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 09:43:41 2020 No.15334049 Everybody I've ever known who has been molested becomes either a heroin addict, a schizophrenic, or both. Also pedophiles literally can't stay monogamous because their "partners" age out of the predator's preferences so they get dumped.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 09:46:14 2020 No.15334057 >>15334049 Not all pedophiles are exclusively attracted to kids.

Anonymous Mon May 11 09:46:42 2020 No.15334062

>>15333998
I don't give a fuck about convincing you that pedophilia is not wrong. I was arguing that mature teen pregnancies are not necessarily any more dangerous than most adult pregnancies, and in response you sperg out at me will all sorts of unfounded assumptions and insults.

You fit the stereotype of the anti-pedo cultist. Someone who, when provided with solid counter arguments and facts, will respond with hostility and irrationality instead of discussing them with a cool head.

Anonymous Mon May 11 09:47:23 2020 No.15334065

>>15334048
>you missed the mark on a few
Proof?
>no refutation on the medical element
Sorry bud, we're at a point with technology where that's no longer a concern.
>so are you in favour of utilitarianism or not?
I don't have an opinion on it, but clearly you do. So why don't you justify that?
>Because teen moms cause more social misery than not.
Proof?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 09:47:31 2020 No.15334067 >>15324185 None, he betrayed the legacy of people much better than him like Althusser

Anonymous Mon May 11 09:53:55 2020 No.15334095

>>15334057
It applies directly to those who are though, and regardless if someone is a pedophile they're likely to cheat with someone who at least looks more young and nubile, sometimes they'll even starve or give their monogamous partners anorexia to keep them looking nubile. It's bad no matter how you slice it.

Anonymous Mon May 11 09:57:26 2020 No.15334120

>>15334062
>anti-pedo cultist
Ad homiem much, buddy?

>mature teen pregnancies are not necessarily any more dangerous than most adult pregnancies
Except they are, as supported by literature on the subject and statistics on teen pregnancies in the US, UK , Canada, Australia and most Western Europe. Pregnancy complications are the leading cause of death for girls aged 15-19 both in the developed nations and in the third world.
Again, there is no good benefit to a girl that young having children, and by extension, indulging sexual desires of a man who will inevitably grow bored of her once she grows up.

>>15334065
>technology where that's no longer a concern.
Yeah, except puberty onset is out of whack with mental development and the strain of that is reasoned to be a leading cause for rise in female cancer rates later in life over the past 50 years. this also hasn't reduced teen pregancy risks and still remains a thing of concern for most teen pregnancies.
There's no technology that makes teen mothers any more desirable than not.
>Proof?
Single mothers, increased social expense, incomplete school education, teen pregnancies are more likely to be from poor and disadvantaged backgrounds, aforementioned medical issues, creation of further poverty and social issues.
Pedos don't display any nurturing behaviour towards their objects of desire either and the predatory attitude only compounds the problem. for those girls later on as the man "moves on" to find himself someone younger.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 09:58:32 2020 No.15334129 >>15334067 >althusser >better than anyone Kekkin'

Anonymous Mon May 11 09:59:20 2020 No.15334132

>>15334120
>Yeah, except puberty onset is out of whack with mental development and the strain of that is reasoned to be a leading cause for rise in female cancer rates later in life over the past 50 years.
Are you suggesting that we ban puberty?
>teen pregnancies are more likely to be from poor and disadvantaged backgrounds
Ah, looks like you've found the root of the problem.
>Pedos don't display any nurturing behaviour towards their objects of desire either
Proof?

Anonymous Mon May 11 10:00:20 2020 No.15334138

>>15333126
>The notion of consent in sexual matters was not even implemented in law until the 20th century. It's a novum without any basis in objective reality.
You already had notions of consent dating as back when most humanity was still mostly hunters and gatherers. And it changed back and forth and was recoded many times. So he is wrong in assuming that today's notion of consent is based on some super universal rule of progression.
And you still havent read any of the studies about it that links it to "objective reality", so debating this further is utterly useless.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 10:00:50 2020 No.15334144 >>15334095 Are you retarded? Anorexics have nothing in common with kids. In fact kinds are kind of chubby due to baby fat.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 10:01:07 2020 No.15334145 >>15334132 >Are you suggesting that we ban puberty If we ban xeno estrogens and hormonal pollutants in drinking water, that would be nice, yes. >Proof? Single teen moms? Ever heard of those?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 10:02:35 2020 No.15334157 >>15334144 Lack of nutrition delays and slows down puberty. That's why they might do it.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 10:04:00 2020 No.15334162 >>15334145 >Single teen moms? Ever heard of those? Yes, but most had sex with a guy their age.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 10:04:01 2020 No.15334163 >>15334157 That's not how pedophilia works you fool.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 10:05:30 2020 No.15334172 >>15334162 And that makes it better how? Again, how common are teen wives with steady husbands?

Anonymous Mon May 11 10:07:47 2020 No.15334184

>>15334163
Could it be that they prefer a female with a malnourished but immature body to one with a well nourished mature one? That would fit a pedophile's tastes I think.

The lack of thread IDs in this board is not conducive to an agile open discussion. Why are there no IDs?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 10:08:54 2020 No.15334191 >>15334184 Use a trip if it bothers you.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 10:09:54 2020 No.15334198 >>15334172 Our discussion is about pedophilia, not teen sex. But anyways, if we were to change the stigma surrounding teen sex, there's a good chance that they would actually get married.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 10:09:57 2020 No.15334199 >>15334144 Jeffery Epstein had Maria Farmer on starvation diet to keep her more fuckable in his eyes, and he was a major pedo

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 10:10:58 2020 No.15334206 >>15334184 >The lack of thread IDs in this board is not conducive to an agile open discussion. Why are there no IDs? Because 4chan, IDs are only used on shitposting boards because of problems with shitposting. Please fuck off if you are of that ilk

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 10:13:15 2020 No.15334224 >>15334206 >IDs are only used on shitposting boards because of problems with shitposting Actually, they were added as joke by moot.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 10:14:18 2020 No.15334232 >>15334224 >as joke FUCK as a joke*

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 10:14:52 2020 No.15334237 >>15334198 Teen marriages would fare even worse than regular marriages, an institution that's rapidly falling apart anyway

Anonymous Mon May 11 10:15:14 2020 No.15334241

>>15334198
I didn't imply that the husband is of the same age as the girl, but the suggestion was to prove nurturing behavior from the man that tries to avoid a "pedo" label despite clearly being one.
The stigma is there and for a good reason, to blatantly disregard all the risks and dangers is to commit oneself to premeditated egoism. If you feel the need to have a teen bride, there is a high chance you will grow bored of her once she grows up, adding to the problem, since you perpetuate it.

Anonymous Mon May 11 10:20:26 2020 No.15334272

>>15334237
Fair enough.
>>15334241
>If you feel the need to have a teen bride, there is a high chance you will grow bored of her once she grows up, adding to the problem, since you perpetuate it.
Okay, well why is marriage a necessity anyways? The anon I just replied to made a good point, most marriages fail anyways. Especially nowadays.

Anonymous Mon May 11 10:23:05 2020 No.15334289

>>15334272
Replace word "marriage" with "relationship", the argument still stands. Pedos are not attracted to the person, they are attracted to youth, which they see as something to be had and enjoyed before moving on to a new one. There is no justification for this.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 10:23:58 2020 No.15334293 >>15334289 >Replace word "marriage" with "relationship", the argument still stands. And what's the problem with that?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 10:24:31 2020 No.15334297 >>15334206 I've had issues with people mistaking my posts for someone else's. When you're having a long discussion with multiple participants the IDs are very useful. >Please fuck off if you are of that ilk no u

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 10:25:36 2020 No.15334305 >>15334289 most "regular people" aren't attracted to the person either, just big tits or some shit

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 10:29:06 2020 No.15334329 >>15334305 This. Most men are primarily attracted to young women. Suggesting that because they gradually lose interest in the woman the marriage is invalid would be absurd. All marriages would be invalid in that case.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 10:31:33 2020 No.15334345 >>15334329 Honestly that's true, we either need to change the slutty nature of men or come up with a sustainable alternative to marriage

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 10:32:33 2020 No.15334355 >>15334345 >we need to change the slutty nature of men Good luck.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 10:34:04 2020 No.15334367 >>15334355 With genetic engineering, everything's possible, we just need the will and the stomach to do it

Anonymous Mon May 11 10:37:28 2020 No.15334385

>>15334289
Can a relationship only be good if it lasts "until death do us part"? You are also ignoring that most pedophiles are non-exclusive, so this might not even be an issue. Thirdly, isn't it more likely that the minor would leave the adult anyway, before getting "too old", due to crushing on someone his/her age?
Finally, an attraction to you and an attraction to an individual are not mutually exclusive. I very much doubt that most pedos are attracted to all kids. I'll also ask this question: if you had a girlfriend who suddenly went from 25 to 65 overnight, would you still be in love with her and feel sexually attracted?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 10:37:33 2020 No.15334387 >>15334367 >With genetic engineering, everything's possible, we just need the will and the stomach to do it Very true. But that's a different conversation.

Anonymous Mon May 11 10:39:53 2020 No.15334399

>>15334367
Given advanced genetic engineering, it seems like it would be more efficient for a society just to clone the humans it needs. They'd either be asexual, or made sterile so they can fuck as much as they like a la Brave New World.

>>15334385
In the last part, it should be "attraction to youth" and not "attraction to you".

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 10:45:25 2020 No.15334425 >>15323888 Based

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 12:41:02 2020 No.15335215 >>15332886 oh my

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 12:45:21 2020 No.15335257 Why this discussion devolved into "muh child birth" and "is it good for society????" you know condoms exist right?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 13:03:22 2020 No.15335373 >>15334297 >I've had issues with people mistaking my posts for someone else's. It's part of the fun and the nature of discussion on anonymous boards, if you don't like it try somewhere like reddit.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 11 13:06:04 2020 No.15335395 >>15335373 >It's part of the fun Cope

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature