/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11436151
Would need more sources to suggest it was ok in the past. Greeks referring to their enemies/rivals as boy fuckers doesn’t mean every culture was some Arab pedo ring until 2006.

>>11436151
Why not settle the argument by having a group of scientists go buy some children from third-world country and raise them as religious sex worshippers, and adopt some orphans from their own country but make them go to school and have their home life be sexualized, and when they both reach 18 show the kids that not everyone is like that and see which feel like they have better socialization skills because of it.

Or you could raise them in isolation in the woods and try to also debunk tribalism. The opportunities are endless because people don't actually care about kids beyond being able to get attention for it.

>>11436185
i agree, the only people i've seen make/endorse these arguments are pedos. they don't care about children, just themselves and the pleasure they earn.
they keep calling it jewish while the Talmud endorses pedophilic ideas 10x more.

>>11436156
>"The past" only encompasses the last 3000 years.

Some of the native hunter-gatherers of Papa-Neuguinea would literally have their premature sons suck them off and make them swallow their semen regularly as part of a ritual of growing up. The Maniq people in Thailand still have their children masturbate them casually.
All of those children grow/grew up fine to be normal productive members of their respective societies.

Based on hunter-gatherer studies it is safe to say that pedophilia was not an uncommon occurence for most of the history of humankind and that the taboo surrounding it was only established in specific circumstances and not because it necessarily "harms the child".

That being said, it is a terrible argument for pedophilia, because 1. in contemporary social contexts, it most certainly does harm the children involved, and 2. in those societies that did have pedophilic practices, those were heavily regulated by social norms (that could not apply today) and you could for sure not just go around diddling kids as you please (which is what pedophiles want).

>>11436207
yeah, and most of these cultures aren't modern and don't have heavy regulations on marriage.
basically, past =/= present

>>11436215
That's literally what I said.

>>11436151
Not science, fuck off.

>>11436151
>it was okay in the past
That premise is wrong, so any conclusion is meaningless.

You know most religions have a "don't copulate before marriage" rule, right? That's because people married 14yos back then. This rule protected children from pedos.

>>11436221
What about islam then? Is muslims marrying underage girls a myth?

>>11436190
Would you allow it if a group of kids came up and consistently expressed interest in being the ones to settle the argument, or does society inherently view children as blank state robots that could NEVER define themselves in the face of 'others'

>>11436207
That is basically saying that social norms are what defines what anti-bodies to generate for arbitrary reasons.

>>11436215
How much regulation should a relationship ever be based on? Beyond communal provisioning what is REALLY the problem?

>>11436221
Didn't protect kids from working in coal mines or basically having to take on adult responsibility without having eminent domain over their sexuality/body.

>No being homosexual/lesbian
>No trans

Shit that modern day society allows.

>>11436221
Your explanation really makes sense, I also wanna add that homosexuality was considered taboo in the past due to it not supporting family names.

>>11436215
shouldnt something right or wrong/truth be timeless? otherwise it is "construct"

>>11436232
>Would you allow it if a group of kids came up and consistently expressed interest in being the ones to settle the argument, or does society inherently view children as blank state robots that could NEVER define themselves in the face of 'others'
If children did that, I wouldn't allow it, just like how I wouldn't allow them to drink alcohol. You're using the loaded fallacy, make the guy who disagrees with your argument appear guilty. I'm not guilty though, children are smart, they should focus on better stuff rather than sex, if they focus on sex one time, you'd see them more interested in sex which is a bad thing. If children had an URGE to do such thing and wouldn't focus, sure. But do children have that? Why are you focusing more on hypothetical scenarios? To make me appear as a hypocrite? It doesn't work here though

>>11436241
Only for a given family name or grouping terminology. If a predicate was truly inarguable then we wouldn't be able to argue for or against it.

Only timeless thing is argumentation/observation.

>>11436241
Morality is a construct and being a construct doesn't make it less legitimate. Constructs are what sets humans apart from animals.

>>11436232
>if a group of kids came up and consistently expressed interest in being the ones to settle the argument
Kids don't do this. It's again pedophiles who claim to know what children want.

>>11436245
Was mote checking to see if the argument could ever be resolved from effort from the other side or if this entire problem and solution exists purely in the minds of adults.

If group A has to conform to group B becuase group A could never prove anything conclusively to group B then why bother with group A at all? Just curipus. I am extending this beyond OP's topic.

>>11436151
>Because we did it in the past it must be moral and good
>Wiping out entire tribes, melting down their idols and destroying their gods
>Taking the king's wives, raping and murdering them in front of the king, then putting the king's head on a spike
>Exterminating all the male children
>Turning all the female children into sex slaves
It was normal to do this in the past so we should do it now. Bring back the Assyrian empire.

>>11436249
Fucking hell why would anyone claim to know what someone else wants unless there is sympathetic behavior?

>Locks up blacks for their own protection

It's because adults have way more power over kids. The power differential means that it's way way too easy for an adult to coerce a kid into doing stuff that they wouldn't.

>nooooo you can't just hang be for being a pedo noooool it's not fair I just want to fuck kids
pedo

>>11436255
This, the kid doesn't understand enough about the world to make an informed decision. If we let kids vote they would all vote the way their teacher told them to the day before voting. They are too malleable for it be an equal exchange. In adult coupling, there is equal exchange, both partners have evaluated each other and mutually decided to couple. Children are not mutual in anything, they can be manipulated into anything.

>>11436241

dude just about every single mental illness has a cultural component. What is abnormal in ours is not necessarily abnormal in all others.

>>11436259
That's why we banned child labour, it's an immoral act. Kids should focus on better stuff rather than disgusting acts, that won't benefit them.

I'm really happy knowing there aren't pedos infesting this board, pedos come in once in a while whether it's /pol/ or /b/ or /sci/, they're so fucking annoying.

>>11430152

>A 17 year old and an adult decides to rob a bank
They clearly knew what they were getting themselves into, they should be punished to the full extent of the law!
>A 17 year old decided they want some dick
They clearly had no idea what they were doing! They must have been coerced! Everyone knows that a 17 year old is innocent and pure, and they never ever think about sex.

Imagine being such a retarded mouthbreather that you unironically think there's anything wrong with fucking someone under 18.

>>11436151
the pedo is right

>>11436316
Fairly sure the age of consent is ultimately just the age of society being able to abandon comprehensive responsibility for a given demographic.

What I don't get is that when society patently doesn't care about kids beyond the emotional masturbation adults can do for some given projection of their culture, why does it even bother prosecuting?

Society doesn't even address basic shit like housing/warmth/food. If it can't address basic concerns like that, which should matter because there are plenty of people in abusive homes just because parents provide food and warmth but 0 emotional nourishment, then isn't society basically about what money/influence chooses to punish?

Is it too much to ask society to care about an individual instead of relying on outlying cases to pick up after other fuckups?

>>11436328
'the pedo is right', you're a dumbfuck, retard.

>>11436316

>17
>child

im not a pedo bro
look it says shes 10000 years old in the lore

>>11436345
Believe it or not, third world countries such as a lot of US states and India actually have that as the age of consent.
There as actually been a case where a guy got arrested because of a 17 year old prostitute with a fake ID in the US.

Yes.

Seriously.

Not a joke.

Well the US is a joke but not this situation.

>>11436352

ok but the developmental stage difference between a child and an adolescent is pretty damn big, to equate them is just rarted ped coombrain shit

>>11436355
>developmental stage difference between a child and an adolescent is pretty damn big
Literally does not even matter.
If you look at the studies that claim that it matters you will find that they tweak the categories for a desired result.
Specifically, no matter how bad the threats or coercion, as long as the child says yes they will land in the absolute mildest category in those studies.
And even with that caviat, the mildest category shows a very large percentage of kids that suffered no trauma at all from the encounter.

>>11436363
Source?

>>11436363
Literally just pick any.
I used to defend this shit ironically for (you)s, all of the studies I have seen posted as proof that it's bad have had either this specific thing, or something else.
It's the reason I defend it unironically now. Nothing that's harmless should be illegal.

>>11436379
I've seen studies that show adult-child sex harms the child signficantly in the long run, care to explain?

>>11436387
Did you read the entire study or did you just look at the conclusion?
The ones I'm talking about had the exact same thing, though with the categories the only thing they really proved was that abuse caused PTSD in most children surveyed.

>>11436151
List other things that were OK in the past but aren’t now, like for example breaking boyfuckers on the wheel

>>11436388
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse

>>11436393
>inb4 wow just wikipedia no sources? wtf
those small brackets are sources.

It really doesn't make any sense logically
If we accept that sex is a normal harmless process that all living creatures do how can we conclude that it's bad for kids?

>>11436233
Not part of the argument.

>>11436226
Depends on what underage means. The rules were enforcing postmarital sex to only happen after puberty. That might mean down to 12 years old unfortunately. Remember 12 year olds were developed further back then compared to now.

>>11436238
Right. Interesting.

>>11436393
>>11436396
Well, just glossing through a couple of those sources under the effects tab I see that a lot of them only really focused on abuse.
That is to say, there's no consideration for non abusive relations at all, and there's no distinction between abuse types.

>>11436404
>If we accept that sex is a normal harmless process that all living creatures do how can we conclude that it's bad for kids?
Is rape bad? Yes, I know I'm comparing it weirdly, but rape is sex, rape itself is considered the worst, even though, it should be just sex with a woman, and finish. That's not the case, same thing with child sex, children suffer badly as they're not prepared for it.

>>11436417

See I feel like this is the whole problem
Both rape and pedophilia are two issues which people cannot resist becoming very emotional about
But why is this the case? Because it makes a lot of sense for a population to want to protect its females and children who are both weaker and simultaneously necessary to ensure future survival for the group
But the reality is I just think humans are no longer in a position where these need to be such huge concerns and I get that people get really emotional about them but you gotta realize that's just your primitive monkey brain instincts at work which is, in quite an ironic twist of fate, usually the same thing that drives people to commit these acts in the first place
I just think that punishing people so harshly for doing stuff like this is actually unhealthy for society and keeps up a cycle of falling back on those primal instincts which can only hinder us from evolving as a species

>>11436151
if you look at ancient greek writings you can see it harms people, it was incredibly socially acceptable but still people like plato wrote about it's harms if it's more of a structured debate it'd fall under appeal to tradition and wouldn't be considered a valid point

>>11436413
because any sexual relationship between a minor and an adult is considered abuse

>>11436524
And because they do that all of the papers are useless when it comes to determining if it actually harms the child when it's consensual.
Imagine if we bundled rape in with normal sexual intercourse, that study would never be considered legitimate.

>>11436531
it cannot be consensual also you're analogy is dog shit
>imagine if we bundled in a crime with something that isn't a crime

>>11436255
this same argument applies to grown women, though

>>11436536
>>imagine if we bundled in a crime with something that isn't a crime
Indeed, that's the perfect equivalent of what these studies are doing.

>It cannot be consensual because I say so

>>11436539
No it isn't
having sex with a child is a crime regardless of what the specifics are also don't pretend you're unaware the law is what says children are incapable of consent

>>11436542
Of course the law doesn't say that everywhere, and studies can't prove that it actually harms them anyways because all they prove is that abuse does when they lump things together like this.

>>11436550
then why did it stop being ok to have sex with children if it didn't harm them? why did people in ancient greece discuss the harm?

>>11436563
Why did they discuss the harm? Here I thought Pederastry was common place back then, in the epitome of civilization before the collapse.
Did you just pull that out of your ass?
Either way it doesn't matter, things that aren't harmful should not be illegal.
There are no studies that definitively prove that consensual sex clearly harms anyone.
I don't care if you whine about muh can't consent, many nations clearly think otherwise, Germany with the AoC at 14 for instance, the only basis for muh consent is your feelings.

>>11436582
>Why did they discuss the harm? Here I thought Pederastry was common place back then, in the epitome of civilization before the collapse.
>Did you just pull that out of your ass?
plato discusses it in symposiums discussing how it creates boys who can never become men, the entire philosophy of cynicism was against it as well, so was stoicism which gives an example from the roman empire
> the only basis for muh consent is your feelings.
no the only reason I mentioned they can't consent is because most of the studies are done in the us which makes that fact relevant

>>11436582
oh also being a nonce was common place and socially acceptable but yet people still began to consider it harmful even when it was both legal and socially acceptable

>>11436596
>Plato, mister logical fallacy himself, said so.
Kek this guy.
Top meme if I do say so myself.

>>11436151
It ruins kids natural development. Kids are supposed to figure this shit out for themselves.
And yes, I am speaking from personal experience, I ended up as a middle aged modern day hermit more or less unable to have any form of close personal relationship to any people.

Society rejects it for a very good reason, it does permanent harm.

>>11436151
lol "muh past" arguments are absolutely retarded, before gay civil rights people would tell me that i had to advocate for paedophilia because it is supposedly more common and unlike faggotry it used to be "accepted" in the past lol how about no

prepubescent teens aren't even children to start with and it is still very legal to sex them in a lot of countries (not that i think anyone should do it. want to ruin your life? get pregnant at that age) also i very much love the fact that i don't live in a theocracy, so i don't give a fuck about what was considered best practice for a religious protohuman hundreds of years ago. i don't want to live under anything that resembles islamic/indigenous rule

>>11436624
If plato is the master of logical fallacy, then you're the part master of the fallacy fallacy.

>>11436773
Well I hear that Plato also said that ur mum gey.

>>11436784
>Well I hear that Plato also said that ur mum gey.

>>11436797

>>11436797
Well of course the man who ignores facts and cites Plato would be a wojak poster.

>>11436814
retard, you use ad hominem as an argument so I used one against you, now go fuck yourself pedophile

>>11436841
>He thinks citing Plato is an argument
I know it's you OP, maybe the reason you can't win an argument against the pedos is because cunny is pure and should be universally available to men of all ages for a good society to truly flourish!

>>11436538
are you retarded? or did you magically find yourself in the 21st century gramps? In what first world nation today does a man hold absolute power over his wife as an adult does with a child. Henpecked men have been a consistent and sizeable phenomena cross culturally and over time

>>11436151
>'it was okay in the past, why isn't it okay now?'
Its a fallacious argument, alot of things were ok in the past: rape, filicide, revenge murder, honor killing (present even today), genocide. It doesn't make the action any less immoral. We also have a good legislative argument against it, underages are not permitted to provide consent because they lack the mental capacity to do so (neural development finishes around age of 21-25). We dont let underages drink or vote, why on earth would we let them make one of most significant decision in their life in going into a relationship, especially with an adult who should know better.

>>11437192
>rape
So okay that not only did you got killed for it, but your animals also got castrated.

>>11436151

it could physically hurt the child. Being penetrated for instance could hurt. Of course, forcing a child to perform sexual acts could psychologically harm

on top of my head, I can't think of any specific reason why consensual, non-painful, non-stop sexual relations between an adult and a child would hurt the child physically or mentally. But I'm sure that it possibly could have some unwanted effect. Maybe the child later in life realizes that it was not consensual because small children cannot really consent, and thus becoming traumatic

>>11437266

>"non-stop" should be "non-STD'd"

>>11437199
yes im pretty sure the rapists at the plethora of previous wars and the bronze age during tribal warfare were harshly punished

>>11437192

sex doesn't have to result in a relationship though. It could just be casual, fun sex. Now, what is the harm in that? Kids consent to play all the time, with other kids and with adults. So what makes sexual play so bad compared to regular play. Unless your some religious nut, then who cares. Sex can be just a bit of fun

we need to get to the heart of the issue here

>>11437345
sex can affects the long term neurochemistry of an individual. Hell, sex releases oxytocin, the "love" hormone, which makes you crave the partner you had sex with. The term "casual sex" in on in itself is an oxymoron considering the psychological effects and the same psychology's effect on your future choices, not to mention the possible biological effects of pregnancy and STIs. The rise of casual sex is definitely one of the reasons for the decrease in marriage, letting adults and kids go at it casually will have unpleasant social effects at best.

>>11437407
I'm sure your grandparents thought the same, assuming they stayed married.

>>11437660
well, my apologies for not adhering to your progressive paedophilic values. This is a science board, i have already made my case with scientific facts, go make yours.

Ok how about this conundrum:
CP is unethical because if it is shared by an adult then the child is being exploited, and if it is being shared by the child it is because they are not aware of the consequences and emotional toll it may have on them later- this is a given.
But given an incidence where someone takes a photo of themselves whilst underage, waits 5 years or so and then uploads it when they're 18, is it now morally justifiable?

Most of the damage from kids I've interacted with that are sexually active with adults feel the most damage is from feeling/being discarded or abandoned.

Youth connects hard/deep/fast because they still learn through mirroring and freak out if they feel insufficiently attached for any reason. Most adults can't keep up with it which leads to the youth feeling abandoned and unwanted.

Basically it is a communication concern. Any behavior or act that someone feels they have to hide or isolate requires a unique part of the brain to make exceptions to the general/trivial and even the special case. Insufficiently nurtured this just becomes pain later on.

>>11436151
Here's a proper rebuttal:
It doesn't matter if the "child is harmed," or it was "ok in the past," or not. That's not the point. That's what this entire thread gets wrong. The point is that almost every normal person has a natural desire to torture pedophiles to death. Perhaps it's a visceral reaction to the thought of somebody considering a child's body sexually attractive, akin to the thought of somebody fucking an animal. Regardless, fucking a child outs you as a pedo. Whether what you did is "ok" or not is irrelevant, because now most of us want to murder you. That's the collective reality and you don't get to just "debate our opinions" to make it go away. Sorry your dick don't work, pedofag.

>>11437822
I would say it would be more so but still wrong as it can promote the sexualization of people who may not be equipped to handle a situation. Even if not there specific individual. This applies to look as well

>>11437822
I think in that case some kid is trolling/doing it for the memes. God I wish I had a pic of 13 year old me taking a shit middle fingers in the air jacking off tongue out, just to shock people with.

>>11438069
So you'd do it just for the attention? How starved is the modern public for such a commodity?

>>11436855
Yes, it's better than citing anyone else.