User Controls
Little girls are tight.
-
2019-03-10 at 12:20 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie I don't think my "paraphilia" is a pathology. Therefore i would be a hypocrite if i were to say anyone's proclivities are more or less valid than mine. Here's another can of worms, what makes a pathology a pathology? That's something important to think about in this context.
Also, the pro pedo crowd is just edgy about their sexuality because it triggers normies. And can you blame them? I don't think so, pedos are nearly universally hated. Regardless whether they have ever touched a child inappropriately or not.
Luckily i am non-exclusive so i can like girls up to my age, but God damn, i can't imagine how shitty life would be if i could only like little girls.
Again, I am not the arbiter of what acts result in trauma and what acts don't. For thousands of years, normal families started with teenagers, and even at time pre-teens, getting married and starting to have kids. No one batted an eye.
Is this proof positive that age of consent laws are unnatural? My argument isn't a FIRM yes OR a FIRM no. It's a tricky subject.
Of course you have a vested interest in the outcome of that question, if it even is an empirical question. I get that.
Trauma is incredibly difficult to scientifically quantify.
For all we know, no teenage or preteen bride ever experienced even an iota of trauma throughout history because nobody was there to intervene with their puritan/feminist ethics.
But cognitive bias is always going to play a role. Anyone who isn't a 100% electromechanical robot is going to be influenced, to some degree, by cognitive bias.
But the thing here is that I am trying to appeal to the EXACT SAME moral principle when I'm getting into arguments against the unempathetic/sadistic pedophobes, as when I'm arguing with the genuine pedophile folks who see absolutely nothing wrong with their orientation.
It just comes down to walking a mile in the other person's shoes (yeah, I know, cliche English 12 novel, but To Kill a Mockingbird was pretty educational and full of applicable wisdom).
To the same extent that I don't want to see someone who is attracted to children, even if they go so far as to act on it, be brutalized and utterly dehumanized stripped of all dignity, I also empathize with the children who MAY OR MAY NOT have been traumatized by the whole ordeal.
In my humble opinion, at least, I feel like your every day citizen has somewhat of a duty to err on the side of caution.
We may not have absolutely, incontrovertible proof that adult-child sex leaves debilitating emotional scars, but we also can't say with certainty that it's entirely harmless, can we?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2019-03-10 at 12:21 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL Lotta pedos and pedo apologists up in dis here tred.
And this... this right here...
I explicitly mentioned that I see value in having laws of consent.
Yet I also believe in showing some compassion for people with paraphilias (such as pedophilia).
So, like, do I just end up getting hated by both sides or something?
Maybe it's a fight just not even worth fighting.
Fuck, I dunno. -
2019-03-10 at 12:21 PM UTC
-
2019-03-10 at 12:22 PM UTC
-
2019-03-10 at 12:23 PM UTC
-
2019-03-10 at 12:24 PM UTC
-
2019-03-10 at 12:25 PM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks And this… this right here…
I explicitly mentioned that I see value in having laws of consent.
Yet I also believe in showing some compassion for people with paraphilias (such as pedophilia).
So, like, do I just end up getting hated by both sides or something?
Maybe it's a fight just not even worth fighting.
Fuck, I dunno.
It's alright. You can be a pedo whisperer, like lala. -
2019-03-10 at 12:26 PM UTC
-
2019-03-10 at 12:26 PM UTC
-
2019-03-10 at 12:29 PM UTC
-
2019-03-10 at 12:30 PM UTCAlso, yes, we have a duty to err on the side of caution. I agree with that sentiment Gad.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2019-03-10 at 12:31 PM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks How so?
I'm not even just trying to be contrarian here.
I just want a specific example that I can refer to and possibly refute.
All the blacks and the lawyer are enlightened, intelligent, kind, and pure as driven snow.
All the whites (beside the lawyer) are comically evil, stupid, cruel and venal.
Lots of other shit, but this stands out. -
2019-03-10 at 12:36 PM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING V: A Cat-Girl/Boy Under Every Bed All the blacks and the lawyer are enlightened, intelligent, kind, and pure as driven snow.
All the whites (beside the lawyer) are comically evil, stupid, cruel and venal.
Lots of other shit, but this stands out.
That doesn't necessarily imply some kind of white-guilt radical liberal agenda, though.
The thing with literature is that it's open to interpretation, and subsequent generations will interpret the same story as influenced by different contexts.
At the time the book was written, you HAVE TO admit that blacks were at a huge disadvantage compared to whites.
Say what you want about affirmative action and black lives matter and all that stuff today, but when that book came out, whites were absolutely privileged compared to their black counterparts. When that white bitch (can't remember her name) yelled rape, they all believed her and rounded up the negro. Atticus Finch was an iconoclast in that town because he came to the defense of a true underdog.
It's a piece of fiction, people will have varying opinions. But I personally think that it was a very important piece of American history. -
2019-03-10 at 12:37 PM UTC
-
2019-03-10 at 12:39 PM UTC
-
2019-03-10 at 12:40 PM UTC
-
2019-03-10 at 12:41 PM UTC
-
2019-03-10 at 12:43 PM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks That doesn't necessarily imply some kind of white-guilt radical liberal agenda, though.
The thing with literature is that it's open to interpretation, and subsequent generations will interpret the same story as influenced by different contexts.
At the time the book was written, you HAVE TO admit that blacks were at a huge disadvantage compared to whites.
Say what you want about affirmative action and black lives matter and all that stuff today, but when that book came out, whites were absolutely privileged compared to their black counterparts. When that white bitch (can't remember her name) yelled rape, they all believed her and rounded up the negro. Atticus Finch was an iconoclast in that town because he came to the defense of a true underdog.
It's a piece of fiction, people will have varying opinions. But I personally think that it was a very important piece of American history.
So this work of fiction is real in your mind?
Including the motiveless false accusation.
It's literally a made up blood libel, and you're too dumb to realise that. -
2019-03-10 at 12:43 PM UTC
-
2019-03-10 at 12:52 PM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING V: A Cat-Girl/Boy Under Every Bed So this work of fiction is real in your mind?
Including the motiveless false accusation.
It's literally a made up blood libel, and you're too dumb to realise that.
Man, I haven't read the book in over 20 years...
Plus it's 10 minutes to 6 (AM) out here...
Plus I been drinking, snorting K, and smoking crack all night...
Maybe you're right and I totally misinterpreted it in my earlier curricucucking in public high school.
Call it wishful thinking, but I like to think that Atticus was a decent, compassionate man who defended an accused criminal because nobody else would, and only he could see the humanity in his client.
Call it wrong, I don't even know at this point.
