it's okay to be gay, nick
embrace your homosexuality
4chan Search
6 results for "a5daf94627a9f21f4a3c628cddecac8a"
>>17900711
>You don't need a laboratory experiment to prove kids are stupid and can't consent any more than you need a study to prove water is wet
A satisfactory reason for why children should be considered incapable of consenting to sex would be a moral argument, which would be supported by empirical evidence (as such evidence is available and is relevant). If you aren't interested in doing so, and just want to defend your own ooga booga preconceptions, then do not join in on the discussion.
>Even if there is a 99.9% chance the little boy consents, it is not worth it for the 0.1% chance he does not, because you cumming is of zero value to society or to him and you could satisfy yourself easily by cumming inside a fleshlight
I disagree with your assertion that there is no value in pederastic relations, I believe there is immense value in such relations. But to entertain this line of reasoning, would you extend this principle to other activities that children engage in which have no social value? For example, there is arguably no value in children watching television, eating candies, or jumping up and down, and all of these behaviours have potential negative consequences. Should we therefore disallow all of these activities?
>It is clearly not a northern European trait either
The Greeks and Romans wrote that the Celts (continental, but still relevant) practiced pederasty. Marriage records indicate to us that adolescent-adult marriage was common in Northern and Western Europe until quite recently. The age of consent in most European countries was set between 10 and 12 before the late 19th century. Child prostitution is documented and was quite common in England, France, and Germany (that I am aware of). Pedophilia and hebephilia actually are endogenous to northern European peoples. I don't care though, because I am not a nordicist.
>>17900731
>>17900738
You have resorted to low quality trolling and name-calling, and as such, I am not responding further.
>You don't need a laboratory experiment to prove kids are stupid and can't consent any more than you need a study to prove water is wet
A satisfactory reason for why children should be considered incapable of consenting to sex would be a moral argument, which would be supported by empirical evidence (as such evidence is available and is relevant). If you aren't interested in doing so, and just want to defend your own ooga booga preconceptions, then do not join in on the discussion.
>Even if there is a 99.9% chance the little boy consents, it is not worth it for the 0.1% chance he does not, because you cumming is of zero value to society or to him and you could satisfy yourself easily by cumming inside a fleshlight
I disagree with your assertion that there is no value in pederastic relations, I believe there is immense value in such relations. But to entertain this line of reasoning, would you extend this principle to other activities that children engage in which have no social value? For example, there is arguably no value in children watching television, eating candies, or jumping up and down, and all of these behaviours have potential negative consequences. Should we therefore disallow all of these activities?
>It is clearly not a northern European trait either
The Greeks and Romans wrote that the Celts (continental, but still relevant) practiced pederasty. Marriage records indicate to us that adolescent-adult marriage was common in Northern and Western Europe until quite recently. The age of consent in most European countries was set between 10 and 12 before the late 19th century. Child prostitution is documented and was quite common in England, France, and Germany (that I am aware of). Pedophilia and hebephilia actually are endogenous to northern European peoples. I don't care though, because I am not a nordicist.
>>17900731
>>17900738
You have resorted to low quality trolling and name-calling, and as such, I am not responding further.
phobes are jealous that we don't have to deal with women
>>40419816
It's been a while since I've seen their art posted. What's their name? It's cute.
I remember seeing a similar art style on those Telegram stickers of the New Zealand shooter.
It's been a while since I've seen their art posted. What's their name? It's cute.
I remember seeing a similar art style on those Telegram stickers of the New Zealand shooter.
I'm not a Nazi but I think the art is funny
The original artist was probably anonymous
The original artist was probably anonymous