/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6051959
>"I don't think he did any of us lasting harm."
Yeah, no.

I mean, dude's smart and all. But he is a bit fucked in the head.

>>6051959
>defending pedophilia!
>'suggesting that recent child abuse scandals have been overblown.'
pick one you fucking retarded misleading little prick!

and he's right by the way.
ever since the cops did a major fuckup over the saville thing, they've been trying to make up for it by fingering everyone (pun intended) over possible pedo claims from fucking years ago.

oh, and trying to lock up half the cast of corrie while they're at it

dicks

>>6051959
oh god, inb4 waves of religiousfags claiming that religion is the source of ethics.

>>6051966
having some creepy dude get a bit touchy with you is completely different from getting raped.

he aint fucked in the head. he's totally right that this whole fucking thing got overblown

Makes sense, you'd expect violent sexual assault to have greater propensity towards lasting harm than minor sexual assault.

Whether or not the mollesting master caused lasting harm depends on the state of the other victims.

None of this is really worth inciting outrage though...

>>6051971
>having some creepy dude get a bit touchy with you is completely different from getting raped.
Depends entirely on the person.

>he aint fucked in the head. he's totally right that this whole fucking thing got overblown
I wasn't saying he was fucked in the head because of this, but just him being him in general.

I like how nowadays anyone who doesn't agree that anyone who has ever had a thought about looking at a pic of a seductive girl under 17yo should be tortured because he is a pedophile is considered to be just as bad as the worst pedophile rapist.

Why are people so emotional about pedophilia nowadays anyway? its worse than religion, climate change and whether QM is correct.

>>6051969

>implying religiousfags have any ground to stand on

Yahweh impregnated a 12 year old.

>>6051984
>Depends entirely on the person.
how does it? rape is obviously worse.
someone getting a bit touchy might gross you out a bit, but it aint something to get distraught about

>>6051988
>whether QM is correct.

This was never a question. QM has always been correct.

>>6051988
why 17?
age of consent in my country is 16
in spain it's 13

some places it's 12

so what?

>>6051988
This

>Study finds consensual sex with adults have positive, if any, effects of children
>Congress urges scientists to ignore study and not to continue this line of research

>Dawkins sais rape and murder of children s worse than mild touching of children
>he is supporting pedophilia!

>multiple 10yo girls get arrested and must register as sex offenders because they took pics with their cellphones of their own bodies
>But we are protecting the children!

>12yo gets sent pic of his girlfriends boobs
>obviously he is a pedophile, arrest him and make him register as a sex offender!

Makes perfect sense!

>>6051997
because a lot of people and news agencies think pedophilia means <18

>>6052006
yeh, it's pretty lulzy.
i was reading some bullshit bbc article the other day about 'protecting kids online' from porn and shit like that

and it's like, are those guys so fucking retarded they think porn just magically appears on peoples computers??
children dont need protecting from porn, they FUCKING CHOSE TO GO AND SEARCH FOR IT

retards

>>6052010
that's just their ignorance of the meaning of the words

pedo: attraction to prepubescent children
hebo: post pubescent young teenage girls
ephebo: late teens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia

>>6052020
Im pretty sure he knows that

Richard Dawkins was molested as a child?
That explains so much.

>>6052015
>lulzy

what a /b/last from the past

>implying before the "civilizing" process people didn't use to walk around infront of their kids in the nude and shit
>Implying before the "civilizing" process people didn't use to talk about sexual acts with their kids.
Shit even today I still hear this kind of shit from common pleb people maybe its just a lower class thing.

>>6051959

DAWKINS CONFIRMED FOR SATANIC PEDOPHILE WHO RAPES CHILDREN DURING CREEPY ATHEIST RITUALS IN SECRET DARWIN TEMPLE

>>6051997
>age of consent 12
>consensual sex with a 12 year old
not a single fuck
>age of consent 17
>consensual sex with a 12 year old
MONSTER!1

>>6052049
>age of consent 12
>consensual sex with a 12 year old
not a single fuck
nope, those countries are all going to hell.

>>6051988

Because THE CHILDREN. A lot of people are completely emotional when it involves the possibility of anything happening to their child. They're willing to trudge through awful jobs and awful lives for their children. They're willing to make up the most artful of lies and psychic defenses to protect their children.

But the "child" is also symbolic of some weird notion of "purity" that is descended from god knows when. The possibility of a different future better than the present and all that shit. Despite children in reality being the most clever and the most vicious of tyrants while being unfathomably stupid at the same time. But when people say "defend the children", really they mean "defend this platonic embodiment of 'purity' from the 'unpure' forces of the world."

Whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean. Humanity is driven by irrational and crazy psychic forces that utilize rational means.

TL;DR - Most of society is fucking crazy and any scientist wanting to be a public figure in terms of ideology should study rhetoric and politics. Because these fucking apes are not going to listen to the facts, you have to punch them in the godamn stomach and make them cry.

>>6052057
that's what I'm talking about

>>6052058
I had a similar thought. I also think that in a world where all arbitrary moral barriers are broken, people tend to cling to the few ones left. In a sense, "not molesting children" is the only idea they have of morality.

>>6052057
>those countries are all going to hell
including vatican?

I have a semi related question, why is it considered wrong if you date/sleep with/marry a girl/guy that is more than ~5 years younger/older than you? obviously this is not universal, my mother is 8 years younger than my dad, but in collage one of my friends was badly ostracized because he dated a girl that was 19 (he was 23), some of the girls called it gross and weird. since then ive seen a lot of people complain when someone dates a younger/older person. ive always thought this is why pedophilia is seen as so bad, since it combines children with this dating of much younger people.

>>6052079
No, they have anti-hell shields made from the virginity of young boys.

>>6051988
I think it's more that people just like to bully the freaks of society. Like 30 year old dudes who try to date highschool girls.

PIDF in full force today

>>6052081
B/c in these "enlightened" times it's taken as a sign that he wasn't good enough in some way to attract a woman closer to his own age and had to go after some naive youth.

>>6052006
>Study finds consensual sex with adults have positive, if any, effects of children
Do you have a link to that study? I'm interested.

I don't know about you guys but I would be fucking pissed if I found out some dude molested my kid at school.

>>6052101
I would be in jail for murder.

>>6051966
He just cited government funded research about the subject, it says it has no actual harm

>>6051997

>why 17?
>inb4 some Yuropoor claims that the age on consent in the US is 18

The age of consent varies by state. In 39 of the 50 states, the age of consent is 16. It's still considered EXTEMELY taboo, though.

Some celebs get away with it, though(Jerry Seinfeld for example). Selena Gomez got grilled by America's favorite lesbian talkshow host for dating Bieber(when she was 19 and he was 17) as California's AoC is 18.

>>6052105
>implying Dawkins has the knowledge to be able to understand the implications of social science studies.

>>6052006
>Study finds consensual sex with adults have positive, if any, effects of children

I would really like to see this study, I know this is ancedotal, but I know many many people (women in specific) who had "consensual" sex with a man at a young age (13 or younger) and have been fucked up sexually ever since.

They feel taken advantage of and gain a general disdain for men, especially older men.

I have never been molested or had consensual sex with an adult at a young age, so I can't speak from experience. But that is what I have seen.

>>6052106
The rule of thumb is half your age + 7 is the lowest you can go. The laws are written similarly. The legal age to be in porn is 18. The "legal age" people generally talk about is like highest limit on people but they have lower limits. Essentially you can think of the general "legal age" as the "legal age in order to have sex with 30 year olds". If you're 14 then it's legal for you to have sex with other 14 year olds and up to a certain range. I don't remember the brackets (who does) and don't want to waste time looking it up but there are brackets but they exist and they provide ranges. The idea is so that a guy who's 18 won't be having sex with 12 year olds.

>>6052115
You'd have to read the study to find out what the operational definition of "consensual" was. There could have been really shitty study design where the relations were only consensual if they were now thought of positively irrespective of how it was thought of at the time.

>>6051959

>Just as we don't look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism

Pretty ironic considering in the late 1800s/early 1900s, most American states had their age of consent set at 10 or 12 years old. Delaware's age of consent was actually 7 years of age.

>>6052115

It could also be due to a bad break-up.

>in moment of weakness, have sex with young girl
>think "OMG WHAT HAVE I DONE?!"
>try to gentlely let her know the relationship can never work
>as he was her first, she's devistated and now can never trust men again

I can see that happening.

>>6052124
>moment of weakness convince a young girl to have sex with you.
>not some sort of scumbag.

>>6052129

The girl in this pic is below the age of consent.

>>6049228

Most scumbags and nice guys alike would be powerless to stop themselves.

>>6052124
Regardless, she still remains hurt in the long term, which is precisely why we don't have sex with children, because they can't handle it in a mature and appropriate manner.

>>6052136
The majority of people doing something wrong does not make it right.

As a disclaimer: I think 16 is a fine age for consent.

>>6052136
>35 year old beta
>desperate for sex
>has 15 year old girl who has a crush on him
>decides to hit it
>realizes he's a dipshit and took advantage of her
>she hates him

Why argue that he's not a dipshit and took advantage of her when the premise is that ti's the reason he turned her down? Why even defend middle aged betas that desperate for sex that they'd go after little girls? There's people who get bullied for no reason and arguably don't deserve it and then there's scum who make retarded decisions and clearly deserve it.

Don't be a bitch.

>>6052142
>they can't handle it in a mature and appropriate manner.
*some* cant handle it, but then some adults cant either.

>>6052155
Being spaghetti does not justify being allowed to have sex with kids.

As expected from a morally bankrupt atheistic fuckwit. Normal people, through the wisdom of religion, know, that evil is evil no matter when or how it is perpetrated and should always be condemned. Only these pathetic excuses for a human being living by their false, disgusting ideology of moral relativism are blind to this simple truth.

>>6052160
>>6052152

Your right. The beta virgin should have just found someone his own age with decades of sexual experience to fuck.

That would turn out lovely.

>>6052155
I would say most.

And yes some adults are still "children" and some children are very mature, but we have to base our legislation off of the majority.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVRdhg6biN0

>>6052172
It is certainly better than having sex with children.

>>6052172
They should have instead gotten with another beta virgin who for decades they thought they were too good for. Either way, ending up with someone who has decades of experience is much better than going after children.

We're not going to sympathize with you here, fag. You're looking for /r9k/.

>/sci/ hates science because PROTECT MUH CHILDREN

God doesn't flip a magical maturity switch when you hit age 18.

>>6052187
>science shows us that middle aged people should sleep with 12 year olds across the board at the benefit of everyone involved.
>science tells us that school teachers molesting children does no harm to children.
etc..

Also citing "god" in /sci/.

>>6052173
>we have to base our legislation off of the majority.
This, thus we must ban people from buying glassware like in Texes, because its used to make meth and we must harass black people who walk in white neighborhoods because they are obviously just stealing shit.

>>6052191
These aren't the majority.

>what is babby statistics.

>"I don't think he did any of us lasting harm."

You might want to rethink that one; their prospects already weren't looking good when they were just "classmates of the kid who grew up to be Richard Dawkins"

>>6052200
>These aren't the majority.
riiight

>>6052203

Hey, that guy was at The March on Washington.

>>6052209
A racist pedophile. You should also say you hate women and go for a hat trick.

No, I don't empathize with your inability to get laid especially if you become so desperate so as to go after kids.

>>6052174
Needs moar curves. Would cuddle though.

>>6052221

...does cuddling with kids make one a pedo? Is it worthy of scorn?

>>6052232
Nah.

But don't get an erection, because if you do the thought police will come and cut your dick off.

>>6052232
If you stay away from the crotch, what's the big deal? It's hugging ffs.

I was molested too, multiple times by old men, old women, young men and young women. It was the same action and you shouldn't be condemned for your entire life because of an arbitrary age limit or gender.

Did jack shit to me.

Jesus christ, I knew /sci/ was bad but fuck.

>>6052247
>ancedote

>>6052232
>I don't like hanging out with uncle anon. All he wants to do is hug me and have me sit on his lap. He doesn't even play with cars.

>>6052247
>I had a bunch of shitty teachers and professors, teachers and professors should be allowed to be shitty.

>I still got my PhD.

You are and retard.

>>6052247
>I was molested too, multiple times by old men, old women, young men and young women.

1. The most attractive person on the planet
2. Lives in a very fucked up part of the world
3. Making stuff up.

Pick one.

>>6052263
well you can cross number 1 off for a start, seeing as im still alive
=p

>>6051959
Tl;dr: He tells people to man the fuck up and not bitch about every little thing

We are almost at the point where kissing your child before sleep or washing him is considered pedophilia
In fact there are quite a few cases where parents were charged/deprived of custody/went to prison. One i remember is a woman who got in trouble for having photos of her breastfeeding her baby

>>6052267
>One i remember is a woman who got in trouble for having photos of her breastfeeding her baby

Provide linkage, por favor.

If true, this is fucked up as hell. My mom would get the death penalty by these standards.

Atheism is officially dead. Time to go back to religion.

>>6052247
>ITT: stuff that didn't happen

>>6052276
This

It's simply not cool anymore

>>6052276
0/10

>>6052285
You're right, buttbanging alter boys is where it's at.

>>6052272
the original article is no longer available, but you can find discussions linking to it by searching for
woman-charged-with-possession-of-child-pornography-for-taking-photos-of-herself-breastfeeding

for example this one: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/02/21/699857/-Old-News-Story-Breast-Feeding-Mother-Arrested-for-Photos

looking it up found a few more similar cases, one of the funnies being: "Australia banning A-cups from porn because they look like children"

>>6052152
So what if she is 18?

>>6052247

If the goverment propaganda about Nazis convinced some of the country's most brilliant minds to develop the deadlist weapon ever, why does it surprise you than the PROTECT THE CHILDREN argument worked on /sci/?

>>6052296
Oh 'straya, you so wacky.

>>6052309
that aint propaganda.
there were nazi's, and they needed a good ass-whuppin'

>>6052313
Oh, stoya, you so sexy

Young girls and boys constantly show their naked bodies online to strangers. Mild pedophilia. No lasting harm done.

>>6052338
>constantly
ahahah! erm, i think you mean 'frequently'

doing it 'constantly'..well, that wouldnt leave much time for eating, sleeping schoolwork and so on, would it? =p

>>6052316
Pic related is a child, because the tits are too small. Checkmate reality.

>>6052346
You clearly aren't at school anymore.

>>6052353
>implying some fully grown women cant have small tits.
bigger aint always better. some men prefer them a bit small. and that doesnt make them pedos.

>>6052356
course not, i wasnt talking about me.

>>6052362
>>implying some fully grown women cant have small tits.
I was implying the exact opposite.

>>6052362
>that doesnt make them pedos.
it does to some people

>>6052366
then those people are FUCKING RETARDED
it's pretty simple:

wants to fuck kids? pedo.

doesnt want to fuck kids? not a pedo.

>>6051985
A common practice of human men at the time.

>>6052376
lel. modern men are more moral than god.
nice

>>6052114
Yeah, he's usually extremely uneducated on the things he talks about.

So what is the connection between QM and being touched?

>>6052383
usually there isnt one. it's only when YOUR dick is being touched that we're talking about the quantum level.

Is there a thing were tenured professors and accomplished academics in the biological and medical sciences like to end their career with a slew of controversial public comments?

This sort of reminds me of James Watson.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_watson#Controversies

>>6052114
>implying social science is scientific

Wouldn't except anything else from cis scum like Dawkins.

>>6052387
#rekt

>>6052404
>cis scum like Dawkins.
im pretty sure dawkins never faught in the clone wars, and if he did, he'd probably fight for the republic.

>implying Dawkins only talks about religion and isn't a leading evolutionary biologist
>quoting an sensationalist article that takes what Dawkins is saying out of context
>religion on /sci/
MAXIMUM TROLLING

>>6052421

>sensationalist article

B..but HuffPo is liberal just like Dawkins!

I wish I could put my hands inside Dawkins' shorts.

OMG MY GOD
Thankyou for showing this to me OP.
You have truly shaken my faith in athiesm.
I will immediately convert to Islam.

>>6052459
To caress the shaft or finger the fudge factory?

>>6052477
Feeling up his Little Richard would be sufficient. He'd be okay with it, right?

>>6052380
Wait, when did he get a degree in any of the social sciences?

>>6052494
>He'd be okay with it, right?
I don't know, but go on fantasizing.
>unzips
Might as well make the most of this thread.

>>6052497
Never, but that's not necessary to understand the implications of social science studies.

>>6052503
I wonder if he and Dennet ever glanced at each other's dicks while standing next to each other at a urinal.

>>6052507
Actually it is. Research methods in social sciences are wildly different from the hard sciences. Learning how to analyze and interpret studies in one does not in any way, shape, or form qualify you to analyze and interpret the other.

>>6052528
I hope they did more than glance.

>>6052539
>Actually it is.
No, it isn't. It's like with any subject. You don't need to have studied it to be able to parrot what those, who did study it, have said about it. Dawkins isn't presenting any original research here.

>>6052379
by modern men's standards

>>6052556
Way to move the goal posts.

Earlier you were talking about understanding implications. That and parroting what others have said are two different things.

>>6052557
well apparently gods standards are 'kill all first borns' 'plague the land with locusts and shit' and 'flood the world and start over if i feel like it'

so yeah, if he existed, he'd be a cunt.
im glad hes fictional

>>6052565
>That and parroting what others have said are two different things.
No, they are the same fucking thing if what's being parroted *are* the fucking implications, you goddamn retard.

I hate him but I agree iwth him here.

>>6052299
If I was friends with a dude dating an 18 year old highschooler or even college freshman I'd be all wtfbro. I'm 26 mind you. 18 year olds can't even into bars in the US.

>>6052390
If "committing suicide" counts as "ending your career" then you can count that professor who killed himself because he was fucking underage girls and then one of them decided to extort him for thousands of dollars along with her father. I think the dude went broke and committed suicide and published some long letter that boiled down to "Here is a letter talking about how much of a scumbag I am but since I'm killing myself then you're going to have to live with the guilt".

... What a fucking genius.

Makes sense for a psychopath (atheist) to make such comments. To atheists, children and all other people except themselves, are just things. Things you can do whatever you want to. Look at what Ricky Gervais (psychopath / atheist) did to Karl Pilkington (Christian): He would squeeze Karl's manc bald round head daily to brain-damage causing levels. One time when Ricky's girlfriend what lying asleep in bed, he decided to play a 'game' and decided to urinate on her. I suspect this man, Dawkins, is no better.

I think laws and community perception are pretty harsh revolving around viewing nn jailbait and loli which should pretty much be legal.

As far as Dawkin's hands down the pants thing goes... no. I think it's over the line. I will grant him that rape and murder of a child is much worse but I still think that kind of sexual touching isn't really appropriate. Same goes for hardcore CP.

>>6053441

So only hardcore cp is off limits?

>>6051959
He actually said one or two intelligent things, which would have been useful, except then he started bullshitting because he was speaking outside his field.

>>6053444
Yeah. Softcore high school age stuff isn't too bad. Especially if you are college age as it isn't that far outside your age range.

If there's one complaint I had about turning 18 it was that any 17 year old girl was suddenly off limits and that it would be a crime to even look at one. That law could use some relaxing regarding that.

>>6053453
it *felt* like it'd be a crime to even look at one

>>6053453
>If there's one complaint I had about turning 18 it was that any 17 year old girl was suddenly off limits and that it would be a crime to even look at one. That law could use some relaxing regarding that.

This isn't how those laws work, retard. There's brackets, 17 year olds are allowed to sex people like 5 or 6 years older than them. I forget the actual range. It's actually meant to keep middle age guys from going after highschool girls because seriously what kind of fucking loser in his late 20s goes after highschool girls.

>>6053461
> late 20s = middle age

I didn't know about these brackets. They seem much more reasonable.
I just heard about a 12 and 13 year old that had sex and both are now sex offenders because they were UNDER the bracket for the Romeo and Juliet exemption.

>>6053461
>There's brackets

In your imagination maybe but not in reality.

The TSA molest children on a daily basis and no one seems to give a shit.

>>6053461
I'm pretty sure it is in the US. I mean for fuck's sake the are cases where two underage parties (eg. 15 and 16) have been sexting each other and they were both arrested and charged with distribution of cp.

Here's an example:
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-17/local/38616662_1_sexting-cases-videos

>A Franklin County, Va., mother whose 15-year-old son was charged with 12 counts of child pornography for sexting called the experience a nightmare. She said the teen, who has Asperger’s syndrome, was naive when he sent out a topless photo of a classmate.

Pretty sure if two underage kids can't even sext then a legal adult even if only 18 or 19 can't have sex with a 16 or 17 year old.

This belongs in >>>/pol/

>>6053474
Sending someone nudes falls under pornography. You must be 18 years or old to be in pornography. They are being charged with creating or distributing child pornography. It is not the same as having sex with each other.

>>6053471
What the fuck are you even talking about?

>>6053465
Yes, it varies from state to state but there's descriptions in the wiki page under each state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#Alabama

Here is a piece from the Alaska section.

>Younger minor under 13 + Elder minor above 16 :
>> pornography = 2nd Degree (younger under 16 vs. elder above 16 )
>> Sexual contact = 2nd Degree (for elder minor oneself or if (s)he helps another person)
>> Sexual penetration = 1st Degree (for elder minor oneself or if (s)he helps another person)

People of different ages typically fall into a set of brackets. Depending on what bracket they fall into they are assigned a certain +/- range that they're allowed to sex. The older they are the larger the range. It isn't meant to make sex between underage b&s illegal or sex between people in close ages illegal. It's meant to keep losers and fuckups away from kids.

Nobody checked the link

>>6053486
I was wondering about this too but figured I'd just go with it and educate some people on age of consent laws not being as black and white as people make them out to be.

>Richard Dawkins is actually talking about something other than religion!
You realize he has written many books and done many things outside of religion right? He only criticizes religion as one of his many hobbies.

>>6051959
Completely agree with him. But either way it will cause massive butthurt.

>>6053486
>>6053488

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/richard-dawkins-pedophilia_n_3895514.html

This should work.

>trusting news websites

lets read what he actually said and base our discussion in that:

>One day – I must have been about eleven – there was a master in the gallery with me. He pulled me onto his knee and put his hand inside my shorts. He did no more than have a little feel, but it was extremely disagreeable (the cremasteric reflex is not painful, but in a skin-crawling, creepy way it is almost worse than painful) as well as embarrassing. As soon as I could wriggle off his lap, I ran to tell my friends, many of whom had had the same experience with him. I don’t think he did any of us any lasting damage, but some years later he killed himself.

>>6053421
>To atheists, children and all other people except themselves, are just things.
>[citation needed]

Does no-one here know Richard Dawkins was abused as a child?

>>6052028
this, this so much

>>6053888
>A doctor being that mad and immature

>>>r/atheism

>>6054088
it's not really immature. wouldnt you be pissed off if you were highly skilled, worked damn hard for hours, and then some cunt congratulates their imaginary friend for YOUR successes?
i'd be pretty pissed off too

I think we are all paedophiles at heart. It's just societally wrong to stick out wangers in their lacunas. I mean, if you were a teacher and this 15 y/o girl starts stroking your donger as a teacher, I'm sure you would accept the consensual intercourse. Young girls are healthy partners anyway, they will produce healthy offspring. Richard Dawking is right. Basic science, yo.

>>6054119
>paedophile
>post picture only an ephebophile would like

>>6054119
>I think we are all paedophiles at heart
lol, speak for yourself.

> if you were a teacher and this 15 y/o girl starts stroking your donger as a teacher, I'm sure you would accept the consensual intercourse.
most wouldnt. it's not worth losing your job and going to prison over a single fuck.

hah, and i am going to have to start calling them 'lacunas' now.

>>6054119
This is why people like you need Jesus.

>>6054119
>15 y/o girl
>paedophile

What the fuck is wrong with the girls where you people come from if they still haven't reached puberty at 15?

>>6054195
they mean hebophile. they're just using the wrong word.

Paedophilia itself cannot be condemned if you support homosexuality on the basis of it being 'natural'. It also seems like you're conflating 'child molestation' with 'paedophilia'.

>>6052368

>something something about arbitrary ages where you become an adult

Let's be logical here. If it has a period then nature says it's an adult. This has nothing to do with ethics or law. You are free to define adulthood as something else but biologically that's how it is.

>>6052115
since Jerry Seinfeild came up, fucking George Costanza aka Jason Alexander had sex for the first time with he was 13 to some 30 year old chick. Read it in a playboy article years ago. He seems fine.

>>6054209
One of those can't give consent. Abd it's not the gay.

>>6054264
Re-read my comment; "on the basis of it being 'natural'". Possible morally reprehensible consequences that arise due to an individual acting upon their sexual impulses aside, many of the arguments in favour of homosexual acceptance concern the fact that it exists in nature, and -- to a large extent -- cannot be controlled by the individual. The general consensus amongst progressives is that we shouldn't chastise people based off of sexual attributes which are largely beyond their control.

>>6054325
Consent still matters. If pedophilia was not bad for the child progressives would argue for it.

>>6054264
actually, they cant LEGALLY give consent. thats the difference.
if the AOC happens to be 18 in the particular place where you live, then a 17 and a half year old might consent, and tell you that she wants you to fuck her hard, but she just cant LEGALLY consent.

>>6054153
>people
not really

>>6054334
Paedophilia isn't directly bad for children. Child molestation is.

>>6054345
I have no words.

>>6054358
I'm not surprised.

>>6054358
What he says is true. If a pedo never fucks a kid, what's the issue? Thought crime?

What does a Jewish pedophile say?

"Hey kid, wanna buy some candy?"

>>6054364
Shit I thought pedophilia as in consenual sex.

>>6054366

>>6054364
>>6054345
>using logic and common sense
you will never win against these people like this.

>>6053421

Karl Pilkington is a serial rapist.

>>6054376

Do you think thought crime should be punishable?

>>6054101
It is very immature. Are you doing it for the glory of being praised by another human being or doing it for the awesomeness itself?

>>6054195
The problem is that we're not teenagers. It's fucked up for a grown ass man to be going after highschool girls. gb2/b/ you underage b&.

>>6054964
I forgot to add. Many states carry especially higher penalties or require higher age differences for teachers. It's also common for states to carry higher penalties and age ranges for co-habitants with authority, people in positions of authority, and parents


School employee section from Alabama Law (first state in alphabetical order):

13A-6-81 : A person commits the crime of a school employee engaging in a sex act or deviant sexual intercourse with a student under the age of 19 years if:
(a) He or she is a school employee and engages in a sex act or deviant sexual intercourse with a student, regardless of whether the student is male or female. Consent is not a defense to a charge under this section.

(b) As used in this section, sex act means sexual intercourse with any penetration, however slight; emission is not required.

(c) As used in this section, deviant sexual intercourse means any act of sexual gratification between persons not married to each other involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another.

(d) The crime of a school employee engaging in a sex act or deviant sexual intercourse with a student is a Class B felony.

13A-6-82 : A person commits the crime of a school employee having sexual contact with a student under the age of 19 years if:
(a) He or she is a school employee and engaging in sexual contact with a student, regardless of whether the student is male or female. Consent is not a defense to a charge under this section.

(b) As used in this section, sexual contact means any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a student, done for the purpose of gratifying the sexual desire of either party. The term includes soliciting or harassing a student to perform a sex act.

(c) The crime of a school employee having sexual contact with a student is a Class A misdemeanor.

>>6054404
no, except when it conflicts with my opinion.

>>6054964
>It's fucked up for a grown ass man to be going after highschool girls.
why? because its your opinion?

>>6054983
>Oh sorry guys we can't go to the bar because my girlfriend is too young.
>Oh sorry guys we gotta head out because I have to get my girlfriend home by her bed time.
>Oh sorry guys my girlfriend needs to be driven everywhere because she's too young to drive.
etc..
Of course, that's implying anyone who's middle aged and dating a 15 year old would even still have friends at this point.

If you found out your kid was dating a guy almost your age would you be cool with it?

Why isn't considered sex an arbitrary action like anything else by you people?

There is no objective problem at all with even full blown stereotyped old man with a kid sex. Why would there be? Painful rape would of course be wrong, but I can't imagine why full consent and genuine desire would be considered so. The only argument that (doesn't hold water), yet people believe so is the intelligence difference. Which is profoundly generalizing by nature and implies there is an arbitrary point of reasoning which makes mating acceptable. By this logic animals can't mate either because their not intelligent enough to and neither can adults who aren't as intelligent as the majority. The reasoning against Pedophillia and Ebophilla are absurd. However, I always need to remember where I am posting, /sci/. A clusterfuck of psuedo-intellectualism and pretension.

TL;DR: No, It doesn't matter, period. Excluding rape and extreme pressure however, you can also pressure an adult into sex.

>>6055003
>Oh sorry guys we can't go to the bar because my girlfriend isnt allowed in there anymore due to headbutting the bartender
>Oh sorry guys we gotta head out because I have to get my girlfriend home by her bed time because is a firefighter and must get up very early tomorrow.
>Oh sorry guys my girlfriend needs to be driven everywhere because she's a paraplegic

Your argument eliminates not just highschoolers, but a lot of pother people as potential dating partners.

>If you found out your kid was dating a guy almost your age would you be cool with it?
most fathers will be pissed at any person dating his teenage daughter

>>6055046
It's all of those things together. Really why would you date a paraplegic firefighter who gets into bar-fights WITH the bartender of all people?

Those are each major warning signs that you should bail.

>most fathers will be pissed at any person dating his teenage daughter
no shit

>>6055064
>Really why would you date a paraplegic firefighter who gets into bar-fights WITH the bartender of all people?
jokes about my mother is getting old

>>6051959
>Richard Dawkins Pedophilia Remarks Provoke Outrage

That there still remain men
with intellectual stamina and courage
in this world of lowlife
is a proof that God exists.

I'm in love with Richard Dawkins,

>>6054979
So I could get a student to give me a handjob and that would be okay?

Dawkins is 72? What kind of moisturizer does he use to keep his face so firm? He looks like he's 50-60.

>>6055564
no.

Read part B of both and part C of the second.

>>6055599
There's no penetration, the student's genitals aren't involved, and no sex act as defined in the first section is performed.

>>6055497
pleb in love with pleb intellectual

>>6052146
So having sex with a girl one month shy of 16 would somehow magically make me into a monster?

>>6055593
he has spent most of his life indoors
he does not drink, he does not smoke

>>6055648
Laws have to be clearly defined, setting the age limit at 16 is easy to prove and enforce. A new law that state a person have to not look like a prepubescent child is rather hard to enforce since you'll have to get experts to determine if a victim is one or not and then things get hairy when you talk about psychological factors. It's a stupid law anyways but the children have to be protected.

>>6055648
>So having sex with a girl one month shy of 16 would somehow magically make me into a monster?

it should be anyone under 16 (or perhaps 14, Canada's old age of consent from a few years ago) is illegal to fuck BUT if she is only within 3 months under 16 you get off with a warning. 6 months and you get a reduced sentence.

yeah. something along those lines I think would make sense

Don't want to make a new thread just for this so I'll ask here.

Is it just me or did the text in all threads on /sci/ become in bold?

>>6055729
no, moot forgot to close a <strong> tag
I've saged, by the way

>>6055744

"forgot"

ok...

>>6051959
Didn't TJ Kirk say something like this two?

Also, doesn't it seem like a lot of victims of similar circumstances say the same thing?

>>6055648
No no, I think you're misunderstanding. You see, it's clear that you are already a monster. You having sex with a girl one month shy of 16 is just how we can finally put you in jail.