User Controls
Are pedos monsters or just sick?
-
2017-05-30 at 7 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Le Tu Quoque Phallusy
But not really. Unless every western citizen is using said consumables, and knowingly so. Knowledge really is the biggest factor in determining morality here; most people are not even aware of these situations, which is why the lack of awareness on these issues is the proximal problem. If then they continue to support said products, then they're definitely a horrible fucking person for knowingly supporting the exploitation of children. Of course! For example, I have been boycotting a bunch of different brands and specific products for over a decade now. But I don't know how that equates to knowingly fucking children or watching CP where a child is being exploited.
ignorance is no defence when it comes to the law. and we are talking child abuse here, nothing less.
we must protect the children. well, except for when George bush and his cronies wants to drop bombs on them, then its ok.
. -
2017-05-30 at 7:03 PM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist ignorance is no defence when it comes to the law. and we are talking child abuse here, nothing less.
we must protect the children. well, except for when George bush and his cronies wants to drop bombs on them, then its ok.
.
Or when the Clintons want to traffic a bunch of kids from Haiti, or when Jeffrey Epstein has an island full of lolis to bang. That's ok too. -
2017-05-30 at 7:03 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind From what I can tell the pro-pedo argument that Sophie proposes is that getting consent from the child makes it ok. The argument most people use to counter that children are not actually mature enough to give that consent.
I want to hear more opinions from more members on this. If a child gives consent is it still immoral?
a child doesn't know what it wants from one minute to the next. one moment they want this, then that, then its this again. their brain isn't developed enough to make an informed decision on much more than which flavour ice cream they want. how the fuck could they possibly make a decision on a subject they know fuck all about?
.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-05-30 at 7:04 PM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist a child doesn't know what it wants from one minute to the next. one moment they want this, then that, then its this again. their brain isn't developed enough to make an informed decision on much more than which flavour ice cream they want. how the fuck could they possibly make a decision on a subject they know fuck all about?
.
I don't know about you but when i was 12 i knew what sex was and certainly was willing to bang. -
2017-05-30 at 7:04 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Le Tu Quoque Phallusy
But not really. Unless every western citizen is using said consumables, and knowingly so. Knowledge really is the biggest factor in determining morality here; most people are not even aware of these situations, which is why the lack of awareness on these issues is the proximal problem. If then they continue to support said products, then they're definitely a horrible fucking person for knowingly supporting the exploitation of children. Of course! For example, I have been boycotting a bunch of different brands and specific products for over a decade now. But I don't know how that equates to knowingly fucking children or watching CP where a child is being exploited.
LOL. -
2017-05-30 at 7:26 PM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist ignorance is no defence when it comes to the law.
I'm going to refrain from calling you retarded because I don't expect everyone to have studied or even thought about the philosophy of law, and if you'd like I can explain to you why we have the principle of ignorantia juris non excusat.
But the reason we can justify creating that legal principle is because we also created consequential legal instruments to deal with the overwhelmingly glaring problem of imputing perfect knowledge of all laws upon all individuals... such as promulgation. The reason we promulgate new laws and publish them in newspapers and gazettes is because it is supposed to be adequate notice for all citizens, and it puts faith into the idea that laws will not be passed that are stupid or retarded, and create a reasonable expectation of informedness. This is obviously fucking retarded, but we necessarily keep the principle of ignorantia juris non excusat to avoid the even more giganticissue of any criminal going "well I didn't know", and are still trying to find the best ways to deal with it. That's a very active and open debate in the field of the philosophy off law.
Nestle on the other hand doesn't publish "a vietnamese kid made this for $1/week", nor is there any reasonable expectation for anyone to be reading all exposés published in The Guardian.and we are talking child abuse here, nothing less.
we must protect the children. well, except for when George bush and his cronies wants to drop bombs on them, then its ok.
Sure but you're essentially deferring your retardation onto an issue that is very, very much nbot a resolved and squared on -
2017-05-30 at 7:28 PM UTC
-
2017-05-30 at 7:30 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon I'm going to refrain from calling you retarded because I don't expect everyone to have studied or even thought about the philosophy of law, and if you'd like I can explain to you why we have the principle of ignorantia juris non excusat.
But the reason we can justify creating that legal principle is because we also created consequential legal instruments to deal with the overwhelmingly glaring problem of imputing perfect knowledge of all laws upon all individuals… such as promulgation. The reason we promulgate new laws and publish them in newspapers and gazettes is because it is supposed to be adequate notice for all citizens, and it puts faith into the idea that laws will not be passed that are stupid or retarded, and create a reasonable expectation of informedness. This is obviously fucking retarded, but we necessarily keep the principle of ignorantia juris non excusat to avoid the even more giganticissue of any criminal going "well I didn't know", and are still trying to find the best ways to deal with it. That's a very active and open debate in the field of the philosophy off law.
Nestle on the other hand doesn't publish "a vietnamese kid made this for $1/week", nor is there any reasonable expectation for anyone to be reading all exposés published in The Guardian.
Sure but you're essentially deferring your retardation onto an issue that is very, very much nbot a resolved and squared on
yeah ok, I think you may have taken that a little tooooooo seriously pal. I was just pointing out a blatent contradiction in society.
. -
2017-05-30 at 7:30 PM UTC
-
2017-05-30 at 7:31 PM UTC
-
2017-05-30 at 7:32 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-05-30 at 7:32 PM UTC
-
2017-05-30 at 7:34 PM UTC
-
2017-05-30 at 7:35 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie Yes but desire =/= action.
but how is society supposed to be sure that won't change at some point in the future? that fapping over cp won't get boring for you, or one day you find yourself in a situation with a child and get caught up in the moment or something. coz even you can't say that wouldn't happen in future.
. -
2017-05-30 at 7:38 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-05-30 at 7:41 PM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist but how is society supposed to be sure that won't change at some point in the future? that fapping over cp won't get boring for you, or one day you find yourself in a situation with a child and get caught up in the moment or something. coz even you can't say that wouldn't happen in future.
Same way society trusts the rest of humanity not to go out on murderous rampages or do a rape or school shooting. -
2017-05-30 at 7:46 PM UTC
-
2017-05-30 at 7:47 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie Same way society trusts the rest of humanity not to go out on murderous rampages or do a rape or school shooting.
why is it tho, that you feel the compulsion to post about your desires on the internet on a public forum? I know you're an opsec guru an all that, but being said guru, you would know very well that no opsec is 100%. so why take that risk? I think its more about the risk than you are allowing yourself to believe. many sexual behaviours are risk based, yet most people that indulge don't think of it like that either.
. -
2017-05-30 at 7:47 PM UTC
-
2017-05-30 at 7:48 PM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist why is it tho, that you feel the compulsion to post about your desires on the internet on a public forum? I know you're an opsec guru an all that, but being said guru, you would know very well that no opsec is 100%. so why take that risk? I think its more about the risk than you are allowing yourself to believe. many sexual behaviours are risk based, yet most people that indulge don't think of it like that either.
.
Best opsec would be just to stfu about it tbh. But IDK, it's nice to be able to be honest about it.
