Thread 511031168

Can /pol/ give me ONE (1) good reason why pedophilia is "wrong" without resorting to logical fallacies?

>>511031168 (OP)
they can't consent

>>511031168 (OP)
Always the gays and pedophillia

2008: We president now.
2025: We terminally online now.

>>511031234
except they can
you may change that to they can't legally consent
but the law is fiction

>>511031305
> except they can consent
You need to be executed

>>511031305
no they can't

>>511031359
that just reality
animals can consent too
even plants can
even bacteria

>>511031359
Wanting power over others is degenerate. Do you have a lot of enemies?

reported for spamming

>>511031408
none of those can consent

>>511031408
I would think you're implying that "consent" is a female-centric feminist concept and that sex is something people do when they can, which varies across individuals.

>>511031414
> Do you have a lot of enemies?
Maybe.
But they are all too cowardly, like yourself, to do anything about it.

>>511031168 (OP)

Children can't consent to anything in a meaningful way and sex is something they should work out themselves as they grow up. By the way OP, that voice in your head that tells you to kill yourself is there for a reason. You should listen to that voice. Kill yourself tonight fag

>>511031507
>>511031530
bacteria does sex too
plants have sex
animals have sex

none of them have any fiction called law

>>511031550
>something they should work out themselves as they grow up
And how is them having a sexual relationship with an adult contrary to this ideal?

>>511031537
The truth is, they're fr away and you hide behind a screen, playing keyboard warrior.

>>511031591
We are not animals. Maybe you are but not us.

>>511031168 (OP)
>why pedophilia is "wrong"
If you understood what puberty does to a child mentally and physically, you wouldn't need to ask.
A child's entire existance is unfit for sex. They haven't even experienced the hormonal change that makes them understand the desire for sex yet.

>>511031168 (OP)
I'm not going into "right" or "wrong" as ethics is entirely an artificial construct, but sexual attraction to individuals not yet in reproductive age serves no evolutionary purpose. In fact it would be an evolutionary dead end if one exclusively copulated with prepubescents.

>>511031706
human are part of the animal kingdom
you are pray

>>511031746
>They haven't even experienced the hormonal change that makes them understand the desire for sex yet.
So why do all other great apes engage in sexual activities before puberty? For what reason would humans be the only exception?

De Waal, F. (1990). "Sociosexual behavior used for tension regulation in all age and sex combinations among Bonobos."
>"Observations concern a near relative of Man, the bonobo, where these “pigmy chimps” are allowed free access to any other bonobo for sexual contact at the San Diego Zoo. Nonfertile combinations (same-sex or juvenile–adult combinations) were as frequent as potentially fertile, adult male–female combinations. Further, one third of sociosexual contacts by an adult with an infant were initiated by the infant (De Waal, 1990)."

>"Ford and Beach (1951), in their seminal review of cross-cultural and cross-species data, observed that "[a]s long as the adult members of a society permit them to do so, immature males and females engage in practically every type of sexual behavior found in grown men and women" (p, 197) They also observed that juvenile sexual activity in monkeys and apes is "no less natural for the young primate than are the chasing, wrestling, and mock fighting that consume so much of his waking life" (p. 255). Psychologists have all but ignored these perspectives in favor of fitting their descriptions and explanations of juvenile sexuality to current Western values."

>In Sex Offenders Paul H. Gebhard et al. claimed that "sexual activity between adult and immature animals is common and appears to be biologically normal." Indeed, it "is precisely what we see in various animals, particularly monkeys."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nzz3au6PZhM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmVA_GMe5Gs

>>511031168 (OP)
>why is child rape wrong
If you have to ask you need to kill yourself

>>511031919
Why do you believe all sexual contacts between adults and children are rape?

>>511031815
You are part of the animal kingdom but not the rest of us

>>511031168 (OP)
Negative sexual experiences, particularly at a young and impressionable age carry a high risk of long-lasting (potentially permanent) negative development. Everyone but pedophiles prioritize the healthy development of a child over the sexual satisfaction of a pedophile, so we do a blanket ban on child-adult sexual acts because we cannot accurately assess if an act will or will not have negative lasting effects on the child.

>>511031746
Ok, but saying that kids don't get wet, hard, and experience pleasure or orgasm would be wrong. Sex to kids is purely sensory. They do it because it feels good.
They don't think about love, lust, ego, betrayal, validation, power plays, and all that twisted spaghetti adults wrap around sex.

>>511032024
>Negative sexual experiences, particularly at a young and impressionable age carry a high risk of long-lasting (potentially permanent) negative development
Not true.

>"Many lay persons and professionals believe that child sexual abuse (CSA) causes intense harm, regardless of gender, pervasively in the general population. The authors examined this belief by reviewing 59 studies based on college samples. Meta-analyses revealed that students with CSA were, on average, slightly less well adjusted than controls. However, this poorer adjustment could not be attributed to CSA because family environment (FE) was consistently confounded with CSA, FE explained considerably more adjustment variance than CSA, and CSA-adjustment relations generally became nonsignificant when studies controlled for FE. Self-reported reactions to and effects from CSA indicated that negative effects were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and that men reacted much less negatively than women. The college data were completely consistent with data from national samples. [...]
Rind, Bruce; Tromovitch, Philip; Bauserman, Robert (1998). "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples"

This study has been successfully replicated twice and the conclusions are accepted in the field of psychology.

Even a boy as young as four doesn't understand it's sex when he is balls deep in a woman. It just feels good to move his hip, and he wants to keep going.

>>511032143
Quotes from various psychologists on the supposed harmfulness of adult-child sex:

James Cantor, PhD:
>The research is much more consistent with the conclusion that harm is caused instead by coercion, manipulation, secrecy, and by courting kids who already have problems, not the sexual interactions per se.
Michael Bailey, PhD:
>Indeed, the best scientific evidence suggests that the most typical experiences considered childhood sexual abuse may not be as harmful as most people think. Specifically, sexual activity that children engage in voluntarily (albeit illegally) with adults is nearly uncorrelated with undesirable outcomes
Jordan Peterson, PhD:
>Did you know that about 20 years ago the American Psychological Association published a paper showing that most people who were sexually abused as children recovered with very little psychological damage? This is an unsayable truth.
Richard Green, PhD:
>Ultimately, scientists, if no one else, must be objective in their approach to this emotional issue. Judgmental terminology regarding intergenerational sexuality is more dramatic than that in the earlier psychiatric literature on homosexuality. There, patients were labeled perverts and psychopaths. Here, the experience is always abuse, the children are invariably victims, the adults are perpetrators, and those who later report childhood sexual experiences are, without apology to victims of the Nazi Holocaust, survivors.
Bruce Rind, PhD:
>Self-reported reactions to and effects from CSA indicated that negative effects were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and that men reacted much less negatively than women. The college data were completely consistent with data from national samples. Basic beliefs about CSA in the general population were not supported.

because people have always had a general and consistent intuition that sexual acts with people who are not "of age" are deeply wrong. And before you point to periods in which people under 18 got married or pregnant, in those periods, they thought people came "of age" much younger than we do now, so it wasn't that the people in those periods were marrying or impregnating children whom they believed to be children, its more so that they believed children become adults or "of age" much younger. So imagine in ancient times, a girl's "coming of age" was considered to be around 14. It's not like men back then viewed 14-year-olds as underage children and were attracted to them. They just genuinely believed 14 was the coming of age (perhaps for life expectancy reasons).

Why should we trust our intuitions? because we should believe our intuitions unless presented with evidence that they are false, since to start from the assumption that they are false, would itself require an intuition that they are false.

>>511032220
Wow.

>>511031947
like i said if you need to ask you need to kill yourself

>>511032220
The age of consent under English law was set between 10 and 12. The age of consent in most US states was generally between 10 and 12. The age of consent under French law was originally set at 11. All of which were set before the age of puberty. Sex between adults and children was perfectly legal in most European countries before the late 19th century. Furthermore, there are many examples of cultures in which sexual acts between adults and children, even children as young as toddlers, are socially condoned, which you can read about here: https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/17743362

>>511032359
Not an argument.

>>511031168 (OP)
>miggers now have to spam this to cope with pedo zognald

>>511032143
>nonclinical college samples
This is completely irrelevant to the broader population.

>>511032568
50% of US adults have attended college and the results were consistent with national samples, college samples are representative. Clinical samples can not be generalized to the broader population.

>one good reason this thing is wrong
what is a reason you'll accept first of all and when you say wrong what criteria are you using to know when an action becomes wrong or not?

>>511032395
>Not an argument.
He is still correct.
This is a slide thread. Stop falling for memeflag bait.
You should know better.

>>511032395
Let's say we grant that there was social acceptance of pedophilic relations with children in the past. Does it logically follow that pedophilia is morally acceptable? No, it doesn't. Just like it does not logically follow that slavery is morally acceptable merely because it was socially acceptable in the past.

OP are you going to answer me >>511031774 on purely rational and biological grounds or are you just engagement baiting the retard crowd?

>>511031168 (OP)
this has to be a fed post.
anyway, pedophilia is bad because no children can understand or support sex.
When a child get exposed to sexuality early, it always create a a major trauma / shock. It's documented, proven, established fact accept by all psychiatrists.
When a child sees or gets involved in a sexual act it's traumatic. That's just how it is.
That's why i hope someone will find you and torture you to death one day you disgusting sub human.
Sex act with a child = a lifetime of suffering for the victim.
>in b4 sources

>>511032827
>Sex act with a child = a lifetime of suffering for the victim.
false.

>>511032827
>this has to be a fed post
nope. nothing to do with the feds. in their defense and to be fair they are not that stupid and onbious

>>511031862
You don't live in an ape society that regulates social tensions with sexual acts - you couldn't be further from it, or can you shit out a kid at any time and just let your tribe of fellow primates take care it?
So, yea, we add a layer of responsibility to sex with the way we expect people to handle parenting, for one.
Secondly, and this should be obvious, our fundamental tendency to hide our genitals already marks a gigantic difference to bonobos. We don't make our dicks accessible for social interactions, and from that alone should flow that we're not too keen on people interacting with our kid's genitals either.

how do you think they made families that had 10 or 20 kids? you don't see that happen now. used to be normal. what changed? its all population control. the ignorant herds of low intelligence people can be steered to follow any narrative. it just takes time. yuri bezminov spelled out the timeframe of social change.
these kids being raised with faggot flags in their classroom are going to make it legal when they are grown.

rare faggot W

>her face when you told her you would wait 'til her 18th birthday to take her

>>511032903
it's true.

>>511032903
i think pedophile are so universally reviled that you're probably fair game to hunt and kill.
even in jail you're seen as worse than killers, drug dealers, thieves.

>>511032793
>Does it logically follow that pedophilia is morally acceptable
No, and I never claimed this.

>>511032811
There probably are evolutionary reasons for sexual attraction to children, but regardless, this is irrelevant to the moral status of adult-child sex.

>>511032827
>no children can understand or support sex
Children are fully capable of sexual desire, arousal, and orgasm.

>When a child get exposed to sexuality early, it always create a a major trauma / shock
This statement is refuted by empirical evidence >>511032143

>>511033013
Did I ever claim that adult-child sex was morally permissible because apes did it? I posted that in response to the claim that children lack the capacity to partake in sexual activities. Why would human children be the exception among great apes?

killing pedos isn't enough. they have to be tortured. I'm sure it could be automated with AI so that actual humans don't have to waste a single second on them.

>>511032109
You’re a demon

>>511032109
>They do it because it feels good.
Surely, they learn via this intimate trial and error too that way. Doesn't mean, however, someone else has any right or sound reason to feel invited to join in. Any pedo logic trying to argue that way is at least claiming that aa a kid playing with him/herself somehow gives licence to any adult to stop acting their age and join the toddler. No such invitation will ever exist - the kid wouldn't even know what such an invitation entails, so ofc, any adult constructing it out of thin air is making shit up to justify his perversion.

>>511033127
>irrelevant to the moral status of adult-child sex
Ok so it's for the retard crowd, check.

If you could look up anyone's family tree, you would likely find a mother who was 12 or 13 years old.

>>511032164
You need to be butchered like the animal you are.

>>511033090
>I get my morality from convicted criminals
>>511033166
>*chimp noises*

idk, you lost your shit. like a sore loser punching a table when in an argument

>>511033244
You should stop coming to 4chan. It's not for folks who can't handle taboo topics.

>>511032664
No, citing that study is retarded because it selects for people who have already reached and remain in higher education, i.e it's skewed towards individuals with higher functioning and less severe histories. You're just going over the same shit you posted in your terrible thread on /his/.

>>511033127
>There probably are evolutionary reasons for sexual attraction to children
On the contrary. It's the same logic with psychos. They don't have empaty.

It's a mental illness. It's not productive or good in any aspect.

>>511033356
>you disagree with me so you just can’t handle it

>>511033301
Don't clutter the thread with edgy nonsense. Contribute to the disccusion. Surely, you're intelligent enough for that.

>>511033127
>No, and I never claimed this.
Because I knew you faggots would resort to "BuT wE fUckeD ChilDren In dA paSt", I just granted you that point to see if you could actually articulate why you think pedophilia is morally permissible, and you seem not capable of saying why.

>>511033127
>the claim that children lack the capacity to partake in sexual activities
That's changing the resolution. The "capability" and the mental and physical maturity are two different things entirely.
You have the "capability" to be shot, does it follow that you consent to dying?
Apes integrating their young in their social order has other purposes than sexual gratification as well. The element of reciprocity is probably way more important than any sexual aspect of it, as well as teaching the young that being touched on your vulnerable parts by another ape other than your mother is fine under certain circumstances. Mapping some sexual awareness on the young apes onto it is disgusting wishful thinking.

>>511033464
>edgy nonsense
it's right on the spot and a nice contribution.

its in kids nature to be sexual
stop suppressing kids sexuality

>>511033352
you're the only criminal here, pedo shit

>>511033546
Only if you thrive on emotional garbage.

>>511031168 (OP)
depends what your definition of pedophilia is.
If you say anything above 12 then consider your thread saged

>>511033385
>who have already reached and remain in higher education
50% of the US population have attended college. It is not a small or select proportion of the population.

>it's skewed towards individuals with higher functioning and less severe histories
You're presupposing that sexual activities between adults and children are likely to cause a severe negative reaction which would preclude them from appearing in college samples, without reason.

>>511033520
>why you think pedophilia is morally permissible
Because there are no valid reasons to prohibit it, and because sexual relationships are generally positive.

>>511033535
>The "capability" and the mental and physical maturity are two different things entirely
You claimed that children are incapable of sexual desire >>511031746

I have proved and destroyed everything already. That's the second time i see this thread.

The thread itself does not have legit reason to exist as it is claiming

>>511033587
>he thinks you can thrive in life by following all the rules
I have a clean record btw, nobody knows I harmed that person.

Jews rape kids for fun
But you can't have a young lover even with all the respect in the world.

>>511033464
No discussion necessary. Sex with children is wrong.

>>511033602
Not exactly. Killing evil is a logical and fair act.

>>511033722
Jews rape kids because they consider them to be their property. They believe they can do anything they want to any kids they manage to gain control over, especially non jewish.

>>511033735
To play, win and humiliate you need to check mate.
It can be asked. I believe that creating a thread with the intention to objectively discuss why it's wrong is ok.
Problem is that me and other several anons already gave solid and precise answers.

>>511033127
find my post and respond idiot

>>511033689
>50% of the US population have attended college. It is not a small or select proportion of the population.
What does that tell us? That the other half hasn't.
>You're presupposing that sexual activities between adults and children are likely to cause a severe negative reaction which would preclude them from appearing in college samples, without reason.
That is common sense and backed up by many studies, all of whom you will disregard just like you did in the /his/ thread.

>>511033736
> Hurr durr. Kill evil.
So, you like basic bitch catchphrases. Okay.