It’s time

It’s time for the great debate, anons. For a board that claims to reject spooks you guys sure are spooked on one particular topic: that of the age of consent and pedophilia. Why is it wrong? What is consent? The first thing we need to despose of is the notion of “wrong”. What is wrongness? A fiction of the mind. What is “wrong” is completely subjective. Nothing is wrong, nothing is right. So pedophilia is not morally wrong in anyway because morals and right and wrong are fictions of the spooked mind.

The age of consent is a also another fiction, as is consent. Neither exist. Let us no forget that our method of determining age is equally arbitrary. One day a girl is “illegal” according to bourgeois law, the next day she is deemed legally competent to be fucked if she wishes. Many will perhaps say that children / teens are physically unable to consent for some inexplicable reason.
they cry out over and over, yet are unable to say why this matters, how it is relevant. And none of it is. Bourgeois morality dictates it, so 99% of dumb proles (likely you as well) blindly follow it. Everyone but us in the current age is WRONG according to your spooked brains. Men married multiple wives and married them at the age of 9, 10, 11, 12, etc and no one blinked an eye. Why were they wrong?

Attached: 682ACB1C-4C8C-40DF-99EE-CD3E1C114297.jpeg (1280x720, 61.11K)

Other urls found in this thread:

I do not reject this spook but I acknowledge it's existence.

Fuck off and die pedo scum

I’m sensing a lot of anger from you and no arguments


You're only going to get moralfagging OP, which is ironic since most of this board overlooks moderators actually molesting children but somehow a 20 year old simply being attracted to a 17 year old is a mortal sin

Attached: Littleboi.jpg (362x411, 33.37K)

fuck off already

It isn’t inherently “wrong” but it harms children and as someone who plans on raising children, normalization of pedophelia is NOT in my self interest.

The age of consent is the AVREG age when people become mature enough to have sex with adults. It isn’t perfect, but it’s good enough.

Average people way back didn’t do that. It was aristocrats and feudal landloards. Look at third world societies where older men marry younger girls. It’s only Porkies doing that shit.

Pedophelia was looked down upon by common people before capitalism. However it wasn’t until the liberal revolutions of the 1800’s where the rulling classes excepted this as part of larger concessions to workers.

Hey fam. So you saying that I could rape your mom and cut her throat in front of you and that wouldn't be wrong because "wrongness" it's just a fiction of the mind?
Aight, good to know.

Just because it is not objectively wrong doesn’t mean I wouldn’t react violently

Pic related

Attached: 30849D48-5F5E-4CA2-A9C6-0A9ECC910AA7.jpeg (1280x720, 91.74K)

But why? just because of a fiction of the mind?
You sound spooked now.

on the basis that according to bourgeois law, a child is your personal property who you see to indoctrinate and discipline as you see fit? I hate pedos, but admit you're just doing a "grooming" of another sort, or a cynical rousseauan kind.

no they weren't AOC in 1800s USA was 10 or 11. pic related is from washington post.

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-09-10 at 12.02.58 AM.png (589x366, 89.36K)

OPs post is not right.
BTFO by self applied logic

Attached: c6880d76b13625c2b0ac1177ac5916068a8a62932e75332286148720db72538a.png (400x537, 60.97K)

You're the spooked one, user.

The real question leftist boards should be asking is at what age children should be enfranchised in democratic processes.

tbqh, age of consent was something proposed by feminists during revolutions of the late 19th century. looking at you AnFems. that being said, unlike OP I would prefer marriage before sex, something that OP would reject. oh well.

OP is a fag


Peadophilla isn't morally wrong
It's just pathetic

age gap is all that matters in the end in 99% of the cases.

little girls find young boys like 2010 justin bieber attractive. If they date who gives a fuck, if they fuck we're never going to know anyway.

Pedophilia tho is enforcing yourself as an authority upon the other weaker younger individual, I highly highly doubt the sexual attraction is mutual but it can happen in a rare 1/1000000000 person. How can you confirm its mutual tho most pedophile "relations" if they ever happen are straight up abuse of the grown up on the minor or the grown up abuses the minor's un-developed thinking/reasoning ability to trick the minor in various ways, such as offering "recompense" for the minor's sexual work. Grown up Pedos are porkies is what I'm trying to say pretty much.

Child Labor is illegal for a reason. Kids are dumb as fuck & are easily Porked (in any kind of way) by the grown ups every time. Also you don't understand Stirner… If you want to be a pedo if thats you do it, but if somebody that wants to punish you for what you did to the kids they love as parents or protectors that is also justified by their ego. Basically the kid has friends, powerful friends he can & should use against you, you don't lol.


How were they right, we know that it fucks up a child’s psychology to have sex that young. And people back then we’re NOTORIOUS for being mentally ill. Just look at how they treated mentally ill people. You know people used to beat their children too back then? Is child abuse a spook too lol.

that was also because class abuse was more common in the past…

young greek children where usually the fuckboys of old greek politicans. Pedos are always the porkies make no mistake.

Abolish all sexuality. End consent forever.

Ephebo autist here. I guess I should throw in my two cents, but tbh I've stopped posting nearly as much on any mongolian finger painting imageboards because I have other shit to do and I've gotten tired of explaining to dipshit redditors who show up here now and then that no, fucking a 17-year-old is not pedophilia, so I might not post as much in this thread as you'd think. This assumes that the mods don't lock it before any serious discussion can take place. The OP's contention that American age of consent laws are absurdly overrestrictive is correct, and this is an exceedingly obvious fact to anyone with an Autism Level greater than that of a baked potato, but his insistence on moral relativism is wrong. A sound system of morality must base itself on scientific principles. That said, much of the so-called science from American universities alleging mental trauma and lack of knowledge on the part of a teenager if they participate in sex with an adult is completely politicized, irreplicable bullshit on a level that would make what Nazi Germany's professors had to say about race and genetics look like the writings of Isaac fucking Newton by comparison.

The worst part of their crap is how hypocritical they are. It makes absolutely no goddamn sense to say that teens know enough to fuck each other but suddenly don't if their chosen partner is more than x number of years older. If you're of the mentality that you just have to pick a number and stick with it, pick another one. Also, the whole debate about people tending to get married and have sex younger in the days before feminism frequently forgets to include economic factors in marriage. People married when the state of their finances was suitable, so the upper class porkies often got married to young girls simply because they could, indicating clear preference for young girls on their part. People who support the jealous feminist zeitgeist point to poorer people getting married later because they couldn't afford to do so earlier and use it as "evidence" that people in the past thought as they did, but young marriage wasn't uncommon even among regular folks. Nowadays it's looked down on to marry a girl that young in Americucked nations even if it's technically legal in some places, so the ones that do so anyway tend to be people who don't give a shit about the girl. Saying anyone wanting to marry a young girl has to be a pump-and-dump type because of that is like blaming marijuana for the violence of the drug cartels which wouldn't exist if weed was legal.

This is something that people don't talk about enough. The sex discussion has to be extended to all other aspects of adulthood in order to place it in the proper context. You should ask the question of when someone is old enough to vote, drink, drive, own (non-porky) property, and fight in a war as well.

Why am I not surprised

You shouldn’t be surprised, we’re not bound by autistic forms of morality nor retarded rules which don’t exist.

Children aren’t personal property. But it is the responsibility of there parents to look after them and teach them how to be an adult.


Attached: 1468547531073.jpg (643x820, 71.86K)


Authoritarian detecte


Attached: 161.jpg (846x1024, 359.51K)

Hitler is not the only authoritarian in existence and your post shows how little argument you actually have concerning children and their ability to decide for themselves. Your same arguments are the same used to justify slavery and other forms of oppression. The current parent/child relationship under the law is oppression plain and simple and form of slavery by adults against “their” children

video games

Dude, I don't care what you think. At all. You're a sadsack and not going to convince anybody of your sadsack arguments.

This user understands. Campaign finance reform.

Not an argument

Attached: 1437110864060.png (550x550, 65.47K)

Your loss

Attached: 7b033fd34ec8eb689a8910b2c2383693aad1118c.png (1017x709 68.78 KB, 75.92K)

I'm not here to argue because I know you're so emotionally-invested in fucking little girls that I'm not going to change your mind, and I'm not interested in reading your longwinded preaching at me about how St. Michael of Neverland died for our sins and how because people had child brides at the time they had ritual sacrifice and slave labor, it's natural and therefore okay. I'm here to tell you to fuck off. Fuck off.

You have no argument and you emotionally lash out in response. Pathetic

Age of consent in most of Europe or well even around the world is around 14-15
I honestly don't understand what you nerds are talking about here

you remind me of a sketch from Spitting Image

nice proofs

Age of consent is 16-18 in the US depending on state. Retarded judges like to use the laws to fuck up people's lives. Idiot parents catch their teenage kids fucking and send the boy to prison and put him on the sex offender registry if the girl is underage (whether or not the boy is). It's a legitimate issue.

However, because there's a discussion about this to be had you get pedos who want to lower the age of consent even lower, and they end up muddying the waters. People try to draw distinctions between teenagers fucking each other and adults fucking toddlers, which are actual distinctions obviously, but then pedos use this to draw distinctions between adults fucking teenagers and pre-teens and adults fucking 8 year olds. Because of that, any attempt to draw distinctions between sexual behavior involving people under ~25 gets conflated with pedophilia and makes the conversation impossible to have because a significant minority of Americans suspect (and not entirely without reason) that the person arguing about the age of consent or distinguishing sexual behavior is actually a crypto-pedo trying to get a slippery slope started.

It is not an insult, it was an observation. You cannot even rationally attempt to consider the possibility of OP being correct so, in order to protect your fragile beliefs you lash out and repudiate completely even engaging with the idea, which deep down within you you already know that your ideas are completely false and that me and OP are 100% correct.

These kind of things make me anti-american
Because a lot of your retards live in your own worlds without knowing a single fucking thing about what happens outside.

y me no able fuk lil kids

Attached: CebPFyx.jpg (1242x1290, 63.89K)

Argument not found

Nobody is actually talking about little kids
But nice projection

you're either too stupid to live or just being obtuse to troll. either way, you should kys just to be safe

time to die

this is a perfect example of spouting bullshit and not understanding context. consent laws weren't put into place until the 1920s because the prevailing norm at the time was that it is the parent/community's job to regulate their child's sexuality and not the govenrment's. If you tried fucking a 12 year old back in the 1800s most likely you'd end up getting murdered by her father.
I covered this exact topic when i was in college. Lack of consent laws in America were a byproduct of Puritanism and America's laissez-faire attitude towards regulation, and they were put into place as a backlash against American cultural puritanism. It had nothing to do with accepting pedos.

How doesn't it bore you to be an internet tough guy?

I like anchovies on pizza and if you don't you're a bigot and a closetcase and hate freedom and are spooked. You're a faggot now agree that anchovies on pizza are good and throw away your political capital on an idea almost nobody but me likes or I'll call you a faggot again.

Attached: ed0a3cea93948d2ae67ed31bc855b59345b3805a89a97aaa2637b34fabb914cb.jpg (458x459, 42.55K)

I never said it was common but it existed. In anglo familial traditions females tended to marry later (though the extreme fertility of early americans went against this trend), 10 or 11 was just the lowest acceptable limit.

also the first few paragraphs (i admittedly didn't read on) of your pdf only confirm my hypothesis that age of consent is just a means of subordinating children (esp. females) from one set of authoritarian relations (namely, white male breadwinner that was the symbol of american manhood and home protector in the era in question) away from another male. It's the primacy of the atomized family unit and paterfamilias above all else. Perhaps the age of consent calls the family unit into question? Isn't it no coincidence that middle class evangelical reformers were at the heart of this movement? And I'm not saying reduce AOC to 10 or 11 just that, like other people mentioned here, laws are arbitrary or do have some kind of archaic ideological underpinning that you're leaving unquestioned.

Complete lack of morality or complete moral relativism is pure autism, my dude.
It is true that the AoC is a meme but it isn't because "morals ain't real YOLO", you should stop being a brainlet.
Anyway, discussing this topic is a fucking waste of time since nobody will change their preconceived notions about anything regarding it.

That wasn't in question. But it also doesn't excuse pedophilia.
that was exactly the point of the PDF, which is that that the law didn't reflect cultural norms at the time which were against the idea of children having sex, period.

Attached: TheFuckDidIJustRead.png (446x1000, 718.52K)

Except children don’t provide labor or value to parents. It’s the other way around. Children don;t have fully developed brains. They aren’t adults and shouldn’t be treated as such.

Sometimes Authoritarianism is justified

Attached: 03cc3185182a78bfaccf8629a0e0a0b3.jpg (462x600, 38.79K)

Twenty-five year-olds do not have "fully-developed brains." That statement is meaningless.

Pedophilia is fucked and so is your mentaliy. There's no arguing about that.

Go back to the darknet.

nice try

I have no idea who you have spoken to that would have a problem with that. I would guess most people here are more for the half your age + 7 rule and for 20 that does work out to be 17.

First I've heard of it, seems sensible enough overall. Not against Romeo n Juliet laws.

The brains of twenty five year olds are developed enough to fully partake in society. The same can’t be said about children.


This isn't a pedo distinction, retard. End yourself.

Fuck the half + 7 bullshit. Get the fuck out of my bedroom.

So I guess nobody should ever pursue socialism because it's not popular in murrika. Faggot.

Feminists were at the heart of the movement because they were pissed that guys were rejecting them in favor of much more attractive teenage girls.

I'd also like to hear one of you bloviators explain to us why it's not okay to tell a gay man in 1990 to just stop obsessing over idpol. Also also, what's your response to the fact that intelligence testing shows no discernible difference between teens and adults, thus rendering all your "muh brain development" claims dead in the water?

yup, just like with everybody sick of Zig Forums sperging about Austism Level and jooooooooos :^)
I'll take things you've never said to anyone but your mum before, Alex

everybody else but you is mad and has no argument just insults though lol
Right you are, so there's no more room for something even less popular that won't fix the socioeconomic system, which would make socialism popular. And everybody here is socialist.

Ah, a britbong. No wonder you're such a faggot. Bongistan is full of you tards just as bad as burgercuckland. Too bad you can't smart off about how refugees are raping your people or you'll get arrested for hate speech. Stay cucked.

Maybe this fact isn't apparent to you, much like any other fact, but the large silent majority of American men are in favor of lowering the age of consent. The only reason this isn't more apparent is because the state censors us more heavily than any other group, including socialists. Our "unpopularity" is a result of aggressive state censorship, while socialism's unpopularity has its roots in socialists acting like massive retards, and you're just about a perfect example of that.


Congratulations, user! You have solved the spooky mystery!