[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / aus / cafechan / choroy / fur / leftpol / new / russian ]

/younglove/ - Child Love Discussion

Keep it clean and legal. Thanks.
Winner of the 19th Attention-Hungry Games
/scifi/ - We won because we paid Yawn fifty bucks.

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 1 per post.


CAPTCHA is enabled for thread creation only, not for regular replies. Sorry for the inconvenience, but I only have limited tools to handle spam, and I don't want to disable Tor all together. If this doesn't help at least a bit, I'll disable CAPTCHA.

File: 01652eb06809f50⋯.jpg (89.23 KB, 680x822, 340:411, a73bf4_6371122.jpg)

 No.38809

Or anything pedophilia related.

Can be from false facts or normalfags making shit up.

>all pedos have small penises, that why they like little girls

>going to therapy will "cure" you

when will these memes end?

 No.38811

I've always been bothered by these highly questionable studies Cantor did.

You know the ones that say: pedophiles are less intelligent, more likely to be left-handed, and shorter.


 No.38814

>>38811

>highly questionable

The methodology was fundamentally broken and the results were totally meaningless. You'd find the same results if you looked at any population of prisoners compared to non-prisoners.


 No.38815

Where to even begin.

>power imbalance means the relationship is inherently abusive

>all pedos were abused as children

>3 billion dollar cp industry

>all pedos are balding fucking white males

>formerly sexualized children claiming they enjoyed it are victims of Stockholm syndrome

>pedophilia was never tolerated by society

>children cannot comprehend oral

>all pro-contact pedos are deluded

>children lack abstract reasoning ability

>children have zero sexual desires

>pedos lust after children because they're unattractive losers who go after (the most difficult to attain targets) because they're easy

>child marriage is normal in some countries and you're an Islamophobe if you think otherwise

>sex among children is acceptable but once an adult enters into it everything magically changes

>children can consent to permanent gender changes but not to sex

>watching child pornography re-victimizes the child but this same rule does not apply to any other form of recorded abuse/violence

>murderers are morally superior to someone who had consensual sex with a child

Long story short, we're losers and everyone can shit on us.


 No.38816

File: d8d70992de00da3⋯.png (429.63 KB, 1080x1920, 9:16, Screenshot_20171001-164753.png)

>>38814

There's problems with his methodology, but that's not one of them. He compared pedophile sex offenders to teleiophile sex offenders. Also, while the IQ and height differences are ridiculously overstated (the actual difference he found was literally 1 point of IQ difference between sex offenders targeting children and sex offenders targeting adults, pic related, and 1-1.5cm height difference), the handedness difference and the correlation between pedophilia and childhood head injuries are actually meaningful results.


 No.38843

>>38816

Not only that, but those small bars also mean something. Those represent the uncertainty. If what you are measuring is actually following a normal distribution those small bars should get shorter for bigger sample sizes.

And the fact the the uncertainty for "sexual offenders against adults" and "nonoffenders" is around three points, should already tell you that those samples are too small.

And as it is stated in the text below, those two sample sizes are actually one order of magnitude smaller than that of "sexual offender against children".

So, saying that there is even just a one point difference from this data is already unscientific.

Not to mention, that the mean IQ of any random sample of people should be around 100, since that's how it is defined. So the fact that the IQ score for "nonoffenders" is about 103 points probably means there is some sort of selection bias in that group as well.


 No.38847

File: 91d767d466df7df⋯.png (382.13 KB, 1080x1920, 9:16, Screenshot_20171002-065634.png)

>>38843

And then there's this one, where the claim of 2 IQ points per year of AoA came from. Note that "sex offenders against children under the age of 18" score 9 points higher then "sex offenders against adults" from the previous graph, and equal to "nonoffenders." Apparently ephebophiles are the true patricians and IQ falls off as one's preferences deviate from the ideal age of 18. If we were to substitute adult data for the presumably flawed <18 data, we'd get an almost perfectly flat line.


 No.38850

>>38809

>Kids are not capable of getting horny

what the fuck have you been doing during your whole childhood?


 No.38873

>>38847

>>38816

I've been thinking about this some more and it seems to me that the most likely explanation is that the "under 18" data, and to a lesser extent the "under 16" data is contaminated by non-rapists, i.e. they just tested a bunch of people in prison for statutory rape, whereas the other studies actually look at some of the facts of the case (to determine age of the victim if nothing else) and are more likely to filter out subjects that aren't cut-and-dry examples of rapists. Therefore, it makes sense that the "under 18" data is roughly comparable to the general population (because a large number of them are just normal, non-rapey people who happened to run afoul of an unethical law) while the rest of the data is comparable to sex offenders against adults (because rapists are rapists regardless of the age of the victim).


 No.38894

>>38815

>because they're easy

consequences aside, it is a lot easier to talk to a kid than an adult, for me anyway.

>but not to sex

i see what you did there.

i'm a loser but, then if i was 'average' i'd still be a loser. what you're attracted to doesn't hold value. just like liking a certain movie doesnt make you an expert media critic.


 No.38911

I hate the idea that pedophiles are just children on the inside, thus pedos being together is a good solution.

I also hate everything >>38814 hates.


 No.38912

I meant to say >>38815


 No.38944

>>38815

>pedos go after children because it's easier

This is the one that blows my mind. Ah yes, I would really like to voluntarily pursue being THE MOST HATED GROUP OF PEOPLE ON THE PLANET. It sounds a lot easier than being normal! Similar to the argument that homosexuals choose to be gay, I suppose because they just weren't getting enough bigotry and hate crimes in their life.


 No.38952

>>38944

Except it is 2017 and many gays are choosing it. If anything they are revered like saints in the West. The only real persecuted minority left in the Western world are hebes and lower.


 No.38972

>child porn has nothing to do with pedos


 No.38974

(Thread posting isn't working at the moment so I'll just say this here)

Hysteria Toward New Netflix Show:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTC7wQMHHEA

It's a comedy showing kids going through puberty and exploring their sexuality. The comment section is full of antis calling it "a show for pedophiles" and "softcore child porn", and videos have been made saying the same thing.

What do you guys think about this?


 No.38975

>there are no moral absolutes except for pedophilia

>women cannot be pedophiles and those who are are only that way because a man made them into one

>pedophilia is wrong because it's illegal

>developed countries hate pedophiles, therefore there is a causative link between hating pedophiles and how well developed a country is


 No.38976

>>38974

Southpark and other shows have done worse. xD


 No.38979

>>38974

LOL those are the biggest, most whiny, POLITICALLY CORRECT FAGGOTS. It's funny how these groups cry so hard about SJWs, but really they are like two sides of the same coin.


 No.38981

>>38974

I already know this show from /co/.

>shitty art and somehow worse then Seth MacFarlane

>edgy humor

I don't know why normalfags suddenly thinks pedos are behind this show. Fuck off with that shit.


 No.39138

That pedos are usually ugly old men. I'm the exact opposite. I'm young and good looking and I still end up being a pedo. rip.


 No.39139

>>38911

Duude, I've heard that shit too.

http://www.sophiagubb.com/on-pedophilia/

I was hoping this girl would have a more open mind(since she has other unpopular ideas), but she just said pedos should get together for the exact reason you said.


 No.39140

>>39138

>I'm good looking

Leave. You don't belong here and we don't want you here.


 No.39142

>>39138

Please don't leave. Maybe you will annoy the troll enough and it will leave.


 No.39143

>>39142

Fuck off samefag


 No.39144

>>39140

>>39143

Hey, man, what the hell are you doing? Quit impersonating already. What the hell is your problem?


 No.39145

>>39144

I've found out how to tripcode.


 No.39148

>>39145

trips ruin the charm of being a namefag


 No.39150

>>39140

whats wrong? Scared a pedo Chad will take your waifu away?


 No.39152

>>39148

I did it to ensure that my username won't be hijacked by imposers, like with the above. I can't have weirdos cramping my style and abusing my name.


 No.39153

>>39152

Impostors.


 No.39158

Child porn is hard to find and you only have it because you went out of your way to get it

Everything good happened on Youtube because a pedophile "groomed" them

3000 pedophiles have been vanned by Our Lord and Savior since He became President

Takedownman says we've all fucked 300 kids lol


 No.39162

>>38816

That comparison is still completely useless for drawing conclusions about the wider pedophile population. He's implicitly assuming that all sex offenses introduce equal bias into the results. If he was being honest, the only thing he could say is:

>people who get convicted of "child sex offenses" have slightly lower IQs than people who get convicted of "adult sex offenses"

If he wants to compare pedophiles with teleiophiles, he needs to actually look at representative samples of the two groups. Looking at prison populations will always give bad data because those populations are pre-selected in a very chaotic, biased way.


 No.39185

Sine I can't post a thread:

Guys… We're fucked:

I know people who are against an 18 year and a 15 year old together, along with 12 and 14, and 14 with 16.

These dumbasses think a 2-3 year age difference is abusive.

._.


 No.39187

>>39185

Ask them what if the 18 year old isn't abusive? If you're daring, that is, challenging the status quo is considered by many to be as bad as raping a baby.


 No.39189

>>38809

>What's the dumbest thing you've heard about pedos?

That were all impulsive left handed fat old neckbeards who have something wrong with our brains.


 No.39191

>>39187

The thing is, they are the kind of people who think the relationship is inherently abusive regardless of the younger person's consent and the older person's good qualities


 No.39200

>>39162

Unless you can think of some reason why pedophiles are likely to be significantly different than the average person in intelligence, I'm willing to consider these results reasonable. The problem isn't in the demographics he's sampling, it's in the fact that he's willfully misrepresenting his results.

He emphasizes that the data shows that the IQ difference between offenders against children and nonsexual offenders is significant, but the difference between sex offenders against adults and nonsexual offenders is fairly likely (~28%) to just be caused by chance. This is due to the fact that he only used 8 studies for offenders against adults, compared to >50 for each of the other groups. He neglects to acknowledge that while it's possible that the difference between offenders against adults and nonsexual offenders is due to chance, it's far more likely that the difference between the two sex offender demographics is simply the result of uncertainty.


 No.39202

The dumbest thing I've ever heard about pedos is that they should be allowed any freedom at all.


 No.39213

>>39202

GET OUT ANTI!!.


 No.39215

>>39202

You must be lost.

>>39213

You seem lost, too. Were you looking for >>>/r9k/?


 No.39219

>>39215

>Implying pedos dont use both boards


 No.39224

>>39219

>Implying /yl/ is your personal hugbox

I never said you can't use both. Just keep your frogposting faggotry where it belongs.


 No.39225

>>39224

> frogposting faggotry

I didn't post Pepe.


 No.39226

>>39224

>>Implying /yl/ is your personal hugbox

I was not implying that at all okay now you're just shitposting.


 No.39229

>>38850

Yes they are capable of getting horny, no they are not capable of realizing what they are agreeing to.

When they grow up and realize some creepy fucking adult was touching them and manipulating them to keep a disgusting sex-based secret, they live their whole life thinking men only want them for sex, that they're worth shit otherwise. That sex is the key to love and happiness. Putting out is what makes a friend.

Pedophilia is fucking wrong. It's mental manipulation and fucks you up for life.

"it's not a billion dollar industry" is about to be a debunked myth so goodluck with your disgusting pursuits, hope you rot in hell.


 No.39230

>>38850

>what the fuck have you been doing during your whole childhood?

Stfu shill get off my board.


 No.39235

File: 4d254b894fc490b⋯.jpg (58.73 KB, 405x529, 405:529, 1507088504948-0.jpg)

>>39229

>When they grow up and realize some creepy fucking adult

What if the adult was a handsome soldier and not some creep?

>"it's not a billion dollar industry" is about to be a debunked myth

Do you have a single fact to back that up?


 No.39236

File: 15db70b2abf9340⋯.jpg (72.34 KB, 564x785, 564:785, 1507092738190.jpg)

heh, meant to use this one


 No.39242

>>39229

If you think that's how relationships work you are the one with a problem.


 No.39255

>>All men are pedos but lie because of society.

If this was true then we would have rights by now. Or at least a offline movement


 No.39257

>>39255

If you define pedo by being attracted to under 18-year-olds it's pretty much true.


 No.39260

>>39257

Yeah, this is pretty much true. All hetero normies should find 15/16 year old girls as attractive as 18 year olds. This is a pretty good narrative to feed to the public.


 No.39263

>>39257

Pedophilia is the attraction to children who have not gone through puberty. I am using the correct definition.

>>39260

And both men and women are attracted to teenagers, most look like adults. Adults tend to be attracted to adult features. 16+ is legal in my area anyway.


 No.39332

Some variation of

>if a man is attracted to something he can't control himself and will use any means within his power to stick his dick in whoever or whatever he finds attractive

>since men are so much more powerful then a child that means if a man is attracted to a child he will automatically force any child he can be alone with to have sex

I swear this is the feminists fault that such a dumb idea is so widespread.


 No.39364

>>39332

Overall this is not true but the truth is all feminist need is certain men to behave this way and use them as examples of how all men will.


 No.40129

>liking slim women is a sign of pedophilia

>liking asian women when you aren't asian is a sign of pedophilia

>not finding fat women sexually attractive is a sign of pedophilia and low testosterone

>liking short women is a sign of pedophilia

>liking small breast is a sign of pedophilia

>not liking black women is both automatically racist and a sign of pedophilia

>not immediately trying to get in the pants of any adult female that express interest is a sign of pedophilia or homosexuality

>showing any enjoyment spending time with children one is not related to is a strong sign of pedophilia

>talking to a unaccompanied minor for literally any reason regardless of context is proof positive of pedophilia

Also nearly everything from law and order:svu

Which if I was to boil it down would be

>all pedos are monsters

>any pedo not in the system should probably die

>and having a sexual relationship with a 17 year old is fine but having one with a 16 and 11 month year old makes you a pedophilia and sexual predator

Oh and almost for forgot

>"pedophiles" are totally into people in their late teens who look like they are in their late twenties


 No.40132

>>40129

And let's not forget the law & order staple of

>the under age person was always coerced and could never ever have a positive experience

>unless they are a teen male with a adult female


 No.40147

Claim: CP is a billion dollar industry

Truth: You might as well claim that music piracy is somehow a billion dollar industry. It's been available for free online for at least the past 2 decades. The biggest commercial distributors are in LE and organized crime, mainly in Asia and Russia.

Claim: Anyone who likes mostly or fully developed teenagers is a pedo

Truth: This is just one of many countless excuses to attack men. If you like girls under 10 you're a pedo, but if you like girls who are 15 (or even a very mature 12) you're most likely straight, and in VERY good company.

Claim: Every time an image is viewed, copied, uploaded, etc the "victims" shown are re-victimized

Truth: Nothing more than an irrational justification for more laws, more monitoring of internet usage, and far harsher sentencing, often for guys who at their worst fap in front of the computer all night.


 No.40183

>>39229

I think that does not happen on its own.

What happens is that when the kid grow up they remember what that adult person did with them years ago and since the society we live in says it is wrong and it is the worst thing ever and so on.. they then feel bad and grow some complexes about it.

I strongly believe that when or if society will stop to crucify this and go back to the "old views" that an adult marrying or simply staying with a kid was ok…then a kid growing up after what now is called child abuse will be like other people, with no complexes..or with complexes like every person, but definitely not as you describe


 No.40184

>>40183

children grew up with huge sex complexes back in the past with the "old views" too. you're basically the moron that thinks ptsd didnt exist until psychologists first recognized it.


 No.40194

>>40184

What were these huge sex complexes? And how does ptsd have anything to do with the discussion at hand? Why are you assuming that everything a psychologist says is true?

>>40183

Yep. And until we get a real study (not psuedo science filled with confirmation bias) on how many people regret it based off stigmas, people will continue believing the stigma has nothing to do with the "evils" of hebe relationships or consensual cp/sex.


 No.40202

>>40184

PTSD wasn't "discovered" by psychologists. Ailments of the heart and of the soul caused by a tumultuous experience and the subsequent struggles were known of for many thousands of years and in many cultures.

It's not the only example of psychology, as a field, taking common knowledge, slapping a fancy name onto it and claiming ownership of it. The field is almost entirely just smoke and mirrors and the only purpose of its existence is to get money for nothing. Enlightenment thinkers may have had good intentions, and if so they would be abhorred if they were to see the discipline in its current state.

If anything we can see now that Kant was in fact right and psychology should never have come into existence.


 No.40203

The dumbest thing I ever herad about "guys who love little childrens" is that they're all driving a Van or a transporter

I'm driving a SUV


 No.40205

How they are even autistic over anime girls and feel that 2D lolis are just as bad as the real thing sometimes.

Worse if the loli is actually a legal loli but since she's flat chested you get accused of being one even if you aren't simply for not liking cow tits.


 No.40222

>>39229

>they live their whole life thinking men only want them for sex, that they're worth shit otherwise.

That's a girl thing, not a child thing. And it happens when they have sex with people their age too. Treating sex as this vile thing done by men to girls is the cause of the problem, not the solution to it.


 No.40226

>>40194

>And until we get a real study (not psuedo science filled with confirmation bias)

You mean a study filled with the confirmation biases that benefit you.

>>40202

I don't know why you're putting "discovered" in quotes when I didn't use it in my post.

>Ailments of the heart and of the soul caused by a tumultuous experience and the subsequent struggles were known of for many thousands of years and in many cultures.

They weren't known to all the braindead morons that talk about how soldiers used to be tough as nails bastards that never got ptsd because it wasn't talked about in broad society until relatively recently, just like the braindead moron above suggesting that because no one gave a shit about the trauma caused by childhood sexual abuse until relatively recently it must not have actually existed until now.>And until we get a real study (not psuedo science filled with confirmation bias)


 No.40230

>>40226

>You mean a study filled with the confirmation biases that benefit you.

No, I mean a study that is unbiased. I want the truth no matter how painful it is. Currently we do not have that. As others have pointed out, psychology is filled with smoke and mirrors and (((money))) today. The only real confirmation biases that exist today, are those that ignore any children who found these experiences positive. Those that force adults to look into the past to find any event that is currently frowned upon today, and turn it into a horrific nightmare that you should have never ending trauma over.

>because it wasn't talked about in broad society until relatively recently

Or maybe just like others are saying, our culture is based around finding victims today. Maybe PTSD has become a bigger problem because we never tell a guy to "man up". I am of the crazy mindset that while it was good to officially realize the existence of soldiers breaking down on the battlefield, we went too far in letting every small thing be diagnosed as PTSD. Just like unruly boys being diagnosed with ADHD and given pills without a second thought.


 No.40287

Well I've been called "dangerous" despite reaching out to others on Reddit and even going as far as posting my voice AND even mentioning of how I plan on working in law enforcement working in child exploitation. I'd even post my face but for the obvious reasons you can see why I can't. Really there's nothing more annoying when you're putting your effort in educating a retard and all you get is "eu're dangerous" or some pathetic talk shitty threat. Do what you will, I'm still going to stand behind what I believe in. It's ironic that the mainstream population will label us as "mentally ill" yet they exhibit the behavior and intelligence of a fucking retard. And they're so clueless about it, if anything that to me is mental illness, not being aware of your own faults.

Besides all that, the only REAL dumb thing I've heard that stands out is coming across a study that said pedos that have looked at CP, doesn't matter if its accidental or not, that means you've DEFINITELY molested a child. Fucking retarded.


 No.40288

>>40287

>Well I've been called "dangerous" despite

Well it certainly doesn't help your image that there's literally a thread on this board not just about fantasizing about kidnapping children but actually attempting to rationalize and justify kidnapping children.


 No.40289

>>40288

>look guise the opinions of another adult is somehow your fault

First time being here since all the CP bullshit, didn't know that. However that does not make me responsible for what others desire/say what have you. I am accountable for what I say, what I believe, ect so really your point is moot tho I see where you're coming from.

Didn't really think there'd be non-pedos here, makes me curious as to why and how you even got here….


 No.40295

>>40289

>look guise the opinions of another adult is somehow your fault

No one is saying that, I'm saying that people generally tend to be prejudiced against you based on your demographic, and you happen to fit into the demographic of people who constantly molest children.

Also I like that your post is whining about being stereotyped as a child abuser just because you're a pedo, and then in your last sentence you stereotype me as a non pedo just for pointing out a thread. What makes you think I'm not a pedo?


 No.40299

>>40295

>No one is saying that

Then what do you mean when you say someone elses words damage my image? I think you don't realize what you're even talking about. That essentially means I am accountable for someone elses words, if I wasn't, then some random moron who wants to kidnap children would have no bearing at all on me and my words. By that logic, you also have a damaged image so to speak because of that guy, do you think thats true?

>and you happen to fit into the demographic of people who constantly molest children.

So what are you saying? That I molest children now because I want to better educate society?

>then in your last sentence you stereotype me as a non pedo just for pointing out a thread. What makes you think I'm not a pedo?

The way you presented yourself, you genuinely sounded like a non-pedo.


 No.40301

>>40288

>attempting to rationalize and justify kidnapping children.

Nope. Try again. (FYI that post says fantasy) Most people in that thread are having a nuanced discussion on what to do if the police are not protecting kids from bad parents


 No.40313

>>40301

Nope. Try again. Most people in that thread are fantasizing about excuses to abduct children in order to have sex with them, under the guise of protecting them.


 No.40314

>>40299

>Then what do you mean when you say someone elses words damage my image?

I'm not talking about someone else's actions damaging YOU, I'm talking about your image. How others perceive you. Do you just not understand the concept of prejudice?

>By that logic, you also have a damaged image so to speak because of that guy, do you think thats true?

Yes absolutely. You are clearly the one that has no clue what he's talking about.

>So what are you saying? That I molest children now because I want to better educate society?

That you are a part of a demographic with a lot of child molesters, and thus people associate you with child molesters whether you molest children or not.

>The way you presented yourself, you genuinely sounded like a non-pedo.

You genuinely sound like an idiot and should let smarter pedos do their outreach for you.


 No.40324

>>40313

No it isn't. That is factually incorrect. Only 2-3 post in the whole thread even considered the idea. The rest on thst topic dismiss it even as fantasy.

You act like people can't read for themselves. Why would you lie when it is so easy to disprove?


 No.40330

>>40324

Because trolls be trolls I guess? Although the OP clearly stated this as fantasy, I am glad that some people took this in a more realistic direction talking about child custody and bad parents.


 No.40332

>>40324

>Why would you lie when it is so easy to disprove?

Disprove it then. The entire thread is about whisking children away from neglectful parents, who will then of course reward them with sex, which is the only reason they care in the first place (you don't see a single post about rescuing boys, it's only girls that they are attracted to). You're also desperately trying to ignore that forceful kidnapping isn't the only form of abduction.

It's literally one poster saying "I would try to help a kid if I could but I wouldn't do anything illegal" and then everyone else screeching at him "REEE WHY NOT THE COPS WILL ARREST YOU ANYWAY"

>>40330

>more realistic direction

the only poster being realistic in that thread is >>40308


 No.40340

>>40332

But that is my post…

Anyway

That is still not a accurate description of what literally anyone said in the thread.


 No.40342

>>40332

>who will then of course reward them with sex

Sex has not been mentioned anywhere except by trolls like you screaming "evil molesters just want to have sex!"

>You're also desperately trying to ignore that forceful kidnapping isn't the only form of abduction.

You are the one who will not let up about kidnapping. This thread has moved on past this to talk about legitimate concerns surrounding how much children/teenagers are suffering in America today.

Reminder for everyone in thread The OP said this was a fantasy, and his post should be treated as such.


 No.40355

>>40332

Expecting sexual favors in return for helping someone out of a difficult situation is unethical. Everyone knows this.


 No.40371

>>40355

No one in that thread said they expected sexual favors though.


 No.40394

>>40371

then why is this thread literally only about rescuing the kids you happen to be sexually attracted to?


 No.40403

>>40394

then why is this thread literally only about rescuing the women you happen to be sexually attracted to?

See what I did there? I changed one word and you see the hypocrisy of your question. If most men aren't going to rescue a women just for sex, then why can't hebes or pedos do the same?


 No.40407

>>40394

It is common fantasy to save a damsel in distress. It really isn't surprising that the fantasy damsel in a board like this is younger then normal.


 No.40408

>>40403

>I changed one word and you see the hypocrisy of your question.

What hypocrisy? I don't fantasize about rescuing females in order to get sex from them, that's your dream. I'm glad you at least indirectly admit your entire goal for these little rescue missions is just to get some child to fuck you though.

>>40407

That's funny I thought this thread "moved beyond sexual fantasies".


 No.40412

>>40408

It is not sexual fantasy, it is a heroic fantasy.

Do you not consume any media where this trope comes up or are you playing dumb?

I know the answer but still.


 No.40415

File: c94bad6c2fdb196⋯.png (255.91 KB, 476x477, 476:477, 1509936018001.png)

>>40412

>it's not a sexual fantasy, it's just a fantasy involving a girl that i have sex with


 No.40418

>>40415

No one said that they wanted to have sex with the hypothetical person they fantasized about saving you troll.


 No.40423

>>40418

>No one said that they wanted to have sex with the hypothetical person they fantasized

Then what's the point about specifically fantasizing about rescuing girls you're sexually attracted to and no one else? Is it not heroic to 'save' a male child?


 No.40442

>>40423

It is a really common trope.

I don't need to explain it to you. You are intentionally being facetious.


 No.40460

>>40394

There is no obligation to save someone from a difficult situation. If you do so and expect nothing in return then it is a good act, regardless of why you did it.

Maybe you did it to spite the mother because you have a long standing grudge. Maybe the idea of saving a qt loli is arousing to you. Maybe you want to brag to your friends what a great guy you are. Maybe you want to feel good about yourself. It doesn't matter what motivated you, what matters is what you actually do and what the result of that action is.


 No.40468

>>40442

it's a common sexual fantasy, hence the object of your fantasy being an attractive girl and not a cat or grandpa.


 No.40475

>>40468

…a cat is fine too.


 No.40482

>>40394

Why did your dad just happen to marry a woman who he was sexually attracted to? Was he perhaps marrying her for *gasp* sexual favors? How perverted.


 No.40490

>>40482

To have sex with her and have a family, retard. You're fucking proving my point you dumb fuck.


 No.40554

>>40468

>t's a common sexual fantasy,

Oh really?

The vast majority of time it is not sexual when such tropes appears in stories and media.

Do you have anything to back up your position that the ancient trope is mainly a sexual fantasy even when their are no sexual elements in the narrative?


 No.40576

>>40554

Because the vast majority of the time it appears in media or stories that are restricted in the content they can show, you tongue slapping mongoloid.


 No.40583

>>40559

So what if it's done for sexual reasons? The end result is a child was saved.


 No.40590

>>40583

because if youre doing it for sexual reasons instead of genuine concern for another person's well being, you're probably a huge creep and the actions you take will most likely completely undo any good that you may have done by "saving" them.


 No.40594

>>40590

Does it really matter why they chose to rescue the child? So what if someone has a fetish for rescuing children? That actually sounds like a much healthier fetish than many of the other ones out there. Provided you don't expect sexual favors in return, although that much should go without saying.


 No.40595

>>40583

Which brings up a valid point. If we believe that sexual activity is nowhere near as dangerous as taking drugs or getting drunk, then why should we feign moral outrage if a guy literally rescues a girl from death, and asks nicely if he could get a sexual favor for it. Sure, many of us might thing he is less than a stellar guy, but to treat him like the devil? If he isn't raping or hurting the girl why treat him like he has?


 No.40597

>>40490

My point is that our idea of love is derived from our sex drives. Loving someone because you want to have sex with them doesn't make the love less real.


 No.40598

>>40594

>Does it really matter why they chose to rescue the child?

<you're probably a huge creep and the actions you take will most likely completely undo any good that you may have done by "saving" them.

Imagine being a vulnerable abused child thinking everyone in the world either hates you or doesnt care about you, and then a guy shows up that seems to care about you, and then you find out the he was just helping you with the hopes that you'd put out. Imagine what that would do to your already low self-esteem.

>Provided you don't expect sexual favors in return

Then you wouldn't be doing it for sexual reasons.

>>40595

Because that's pathetic and disgusting and is indeed emotionally harmful. Doing a good deed doesn't give you a free pass to be a selfish autistic creep about it afterwards.

>>40597

Sex might eventually lead to love but its totally disingenuous to say that love is derived from sex.


 No.40602

>>40598

>Then you wouldn't be doing it for sexual reasons.

You asked why not save boys. To answer your question, some people only want to save girls because they find them cute and pretty. Why should this selectivity be punished? The average person would most likely try to save neither, yet we do not punish them.


 No.40603

>>40602

>Why should this selectivity be punished?

<Imagine being a vulnerable abused child thinking everyone in the world either hates you or doesnt care about you, and then a guy shows up that seems to care about you, and then you find out the he was just helping you with the hopes that you'd put out. Imagine what that would do to your already low self-esteem.

>The average person would most likely try to save neither, yet we do not punish them.

If you do know a child is being abused (in the legal sense) and do not report it you can often be legally punished depending on where you are.


 No.40604

>>40603

>then you find out the he was just helping you with the hopes that you'd put out.

That's not the scenario we're talking about, though.


 No.40608

>>40604

The scenario you yourself are explicitly talking about is saving a young girl specifically for sexual gratification.


 No.40610

>>40608

Sexual gratification from the act itself of saving a cute little girl, without hoping that she will "put out" in return.


 No.40615

>>40598

There's nothing wrong with hoping for something to happen. If the reason this child is helped is because someone wanted to indulge a hero fantasy then any hope they have of something more happening is additional to that, and not the core motivation.

That is unless that actually is the core motivation, in which case that's not very nice, but still arguably the lesser evil.


 No.40617

>>40615

There is something morally wrong for doing something purely because of that hope though and a true hero wouldn't have that hope in the first place, so having that hope would negate it being a hero fantasy.

Also a young girl that actually needed to be rescued from truly abusive parents should probably not be having sex with anyone and should be focusing on rebuilding her life and well being.


 No.40619

>>40604

Exactly. This troll keeps talking about sex or sexual favors and we aren't even talking about that anymore.

I will edit his stupidity to be more realistic:

<<Imagine being a vulnerable abused child/teen thinking everyone in the world either hates you or doesnt care about you, and then a guy shows up that seems to care about you, and then you find out that he thinks you are the most beautiful girl in the world. He tells you how much love he has for you and after many months being together you bring up the subject of sex. You talk it over and decide that because society hates it and it is illegal, you both will wait until she is 14 (Age of Consent in my country) Imagine what that would do to your already low self-esteem.


 No.40623

>>40619

"I'm literally only valuable for my body and nothing else. If I was ugly or a boy he'd let me rot."


 No.40626

>>40623

because other people love boys more than girls? Why is it up to me to try and care for every human I meet? And what exactly do you define as ugly? It is subjective. For me I find any girl who isn't fat attractive. I have often received weird looks from friends when I would say a lady (over the age of consent) is beautiful.

But in this hypothetical world, I wouldn't mind being with a fat girl because we could work together to lose weight. Obesity is a real problem, and helping 1 person overcome it would be fulfilling.

And who said the girl is only valuable for her body? If somebody says "I love you", does that always mean they are talking about your body only? Of course not. We love all sorts of things in people, and you know this. You are just creating a strawman to beat up on.


 No.40627

>>40626

You don't care for any human you meet. They're just objects for you to use.

>And who said the girl is only valuable for her body?

You, for only giving a shit because of and for no other reason than her body. Like I said and you confirmed, if she was a boy you'd let her rot. Her being a girl that you were attracted to was the only thing that saved her. Her only value is her body.

>"I love you", does that always mean they are talking about your body only?

You've been confusing attraction with love with every post you made so far, so in this instance yes saying "I love you" is talking about their body only.


 No.40632

>>40576

So what you're really saying is that you are able to pick up a hidden context that isn't actually explicit or even intended?

Right.

Maybe, just maybe, you are adding in things that are not actually there.

The only way your statement would be backed up by evidence is if you were omniscient, which you aren't.

You remind me of a feminist I knew that saw everything as penises and vaginas.

You, apparently see sexual motives everywhere. The problem is your perspective, as it doesn't accurately reflect reality.


 No.40634

>>40627

Now you're just being facetious


 No.40641

>>40627

>You, for only giving a shit because of and for no other reason than her body. Like I said and you confirmed, if she was a boy you'd let her rot.

I have no obligation to save other people's children. If I do a good deed, then it does not matter what the reasons were, it is still a good deed. Objectively it is the lesser evil for her to sustain a blow to her self esteem than allow her to remain in an abusive situation. As a side note, do you hold up to your own ideals of the perfect human being?


 No.40650

>>40288

>Well it certainly doesn't help your image that there's literally a thread on this board not just about fantasizing about kidnapping children but actually attempting to rationalize and justify kidnapping children.

That thread was clearly labeled as fantasy and OP labeled it as such. No where did they say it would be an IRL thing. There are many fantasies people they just don't do either because they wouldn't actually like it irl (like rape fantasies or public sex) or the fantasy is just that, in fantasy (for those who like shit like monster girls or giantess)


 No.40708

>>40650

Or a giant monster girl that rapes you publicly…


 No.40709

>They hang out a public restrooms waiting around for a unaccompanied little kid to molest or abduct

>there is a mail order catalog that they buy children from poor 3rd world countries

>they collect and trade children in secret clubs and these clubs are in every major community

>pedophiles regularly buy physical copies of child porn for around $1000 a pop

>and they are often the people that collect real snuff films

>and ( this is the most crazy one) they use these black market connections to buy and sell extraterrestrial technology, magical artifacts, and stuff related to the evil occult groups that secretly control the world

>and that many of the upper echelons of society are pedos because the Neotenic similarity between there alien overlords and children (proportionally big heads, small bodies, big eyes, smooth bodies, etc.)

You can't always tell who the crazy conspiracy theorists is until their trigger topic somehow comes up.


 No.40716

>>40709

>and that many of the upper echelons of society are pedos because the Neotenic similarity between there alien overlords and children (proportionally big heads, small bodies, big eyes, smooth bodies, etc.)

There is a little truth in that. Anybody who has lots of money or high status in politics can get whatever they want. Is it any surprise that they would go for young teens?


 No.40720

File: b2ff36184a01a8e⋯.jpg (34.99 KB, 480x480, 1:1, b2f.jpg)


 No.40722

>>40709

>They hang out a public restrooms waiting around for a unaccompanied little kid to molest or abduct

This actually does happen, but they're usually caught during the attempt. Unfortunately some child snatchers are successful and those kids are seldom seen ever again.


 No.40727

>>40720

I love this. It made me laugh so much thank you!


 No.40732

>>40722

I don't think he was denying this happens. It is people spreading the lie that most pedophiles lurk in a bathroom to snatch people.

The irony being that probably the majority of those kid's who disappeared had parents that were paranoid of every person that tried to have a relationship with the family as a friend. They never suspect an actual family member or a random kidnapping. It obviously must be that non-family person being open and honest with you. *rolls eyes*


 No.40777

>>40602

That is selfish. Boys and girls need love and care. If you truly were a good person you would help all children not those you want to use sexually.


 No.40799

>>40777

The thread has moved on from the derail.

Stop beating a dead horse.


 No.40803

>>40777

Yet again you miss his point just because you want to keep attacking that strawman. Nobody here would cast aside a boy if an opportunity to help presented itself. We are simply saying that just because a person saves a person they are attracted to does not mean they are evil.


 No.40805

>>40777

>those you want to use sexually.

Implying, in this hypothetical scenario, that I'm saving them in order to try to have sex with them and not because I want to save girls that I deem attractive. I'm under no obligation to save anyone to begin with, so the question of how arbitrary the criteria are is irrelevant. Else we would have to condemn a charity organization that only raises funds for cancer patients and not multiple sclerosis patients and so on and so forth.


 No.40813

File: 28a9ac50546d1bb⋯.jpg (63.04 KB, 645x655, 129:131, getallpolitical.mickeymous….jpg)

Firstly, it makes sense for people to feel compelled to be more altruistic to people they're attracted to than to people they're not attracted to. This would preferentially allocate resources to fitter members of their group (assuming they are attracted to fitness like almost all of us are) and so generate a higher social return on investment.

Secondly, all heroic fantasies are sexual fantasies if you get all Freudian on them, even if only in the way outlined above.


 No.40814

Let me just give a classical example of this.

Superman is the most attractive male in existence in the DC comics universe. The ultimate hero and the ultimate mate have something in common- power and social status.


 No.40816

>>40805

>not because I want to save girls that I deem attractive

thats not as evil, but its just as pathetic.

>I'm under no obligation to save anyone to begin with

depending on the circumstance you may be obligated to, both morally and legally.


 No.40821

>>40816

Are charities that only raise funds for cancer treatment pathetic for not fundraising for multiple sclerosis treatment?

>depending on the circumstance you may be obligated to, both morally and legally.

Legally a lot of that depends on circumstances and the country in question. It is more common to not be required to provide assistance, in some circumstances you can even be charged with assault for trying to provide help. In other cases the opposite is true and you can be charged for not reporting child abuse to authorities, as has been noted.

Morally if it costs you nothing or next to nothing then you should help.


 No.40822

>>40821

>Are charities that only raise funds for cancer treatment pathetic for not fundraising for multiple sclerosis treatment?

I don't know how warped your mind has to be where you think those are valid comparisons in any light.

No because those fundraisers aren't doing it because they think cancer is hotter than MS or vice versa, they're doing it because its more efficient to focus on one goal and because the fundraiser was probably founded by people who have experience dealing with one and thus better able to actually use the funds they raise on it.

If you have some absurd situation where you have the ability to help only one of either a kid you are attracted to or a kid you aren't, your decision shouldn't be made on whether youre attracted to one or the other but based on factors like which one would you be able to offer more effective help to, or which one is more likely to benefit from the help, or things like that.


 No.40824

>>40822

>I don't know how warped your mind has to be where you think those are valid comparisons in any light.

You could simply refute it without sperging out.

>No because those fundraisers aren't doing it because they think cancer is hotter than MS or vice versa, they're doing it because its more efficient

You're right, it's not a very good analogy. A better one would be if someone were to donate to one charity and not another for a completely arbitrary reason.

>based on factors like which one would you be able to offer more effective help to, or which one is more likely to benefit from the help, or things like that.

All those things being equal and there being only one choice then it would make no difference what that choice was? It's not an entirely absurd idea to consider, we all have limited resources and can only do so much good in the world. Do you have the same amount of scorn towards boy lovers who only help boys or ethnic minorities who only help people of their own ethnicity?


 No.40825

>>40805

You are saving girls you deem attractive because you want to use them and toss them aside when they get too old.


 No.40828

>>40825

How did this even become a topic, you are talking about something that was said by a different anon on a different fucking thread.


 No.40830

>>40824

>You could simply refute it without sperging out.

i did with everything I wrote after that. sorry you're a precious baby that can't handle being called out.

>if someone were to donate to one charity and not another for a completely arbitrary reason.

donating to a breast cancer charity over a MS charity because someone in your family is battling with breast cancer isnt a pathetic reason. choosing to help a girl you're attracted to over an unattractive girl is an utterly pathetic reason.

>All those things being equal and there being only one choice then it would make no difference what that choice was?

yes it is totally absolutely an absurd idea. even if it was the case of two girls living in the same situations facing the same problems, there'd almost certainly be a legitimate qualifier for one over the other instead of just "hurrr i liek dat one betur" an aside from that you could likely help both in that kind of scenario anyways.

>Do you have the same amount of scorn towards boy lovers who only help boys or ethnic minorities who only help people of their own ethnicity?

yes 100% for boylovers, minorities may or may not have valid reasons to help them over others. how did you expect this question to help your case? you know you have no justifications.


 No.40833

>>40824

Just give up man… This troll continues to attack a strawman even though all of us have pointed this out many times already. Antis would rather see a girl suffer and die a painful death than have someone save them from this suffering. It really is a sick world…


 No.40836

>>40830

>donating to a breast cancer charity over a MS charity because someone in your family is battling with breast cancer isnt a pathetic reason.

That's not an arbitrary reason.

>minorities may or may not have valid reasons to help them over others

This brings me to the point I 'm getting at, although it is plain for everyone to see anyways but whatever. You are essentially basing your moral judgment on a personal feeling of disgust. You discriminate against pedophiles and hate everything they do just because of who they are, and you would go out of your way to undo every positive action they took out of pure spite and bigotry. You would rather see a child's life ruined than for a pedophile to be able to say he did something good in the world.


 No.40844

>>40836

>That's not an arbitrary reason.

It's one of the more common reasons. the only thing approaching the level of pathetic as helping a girl purely out of sexual attraction would be donating to a charity just so you can boast about it or something.

>You are essentially basing your moral judgment on a personal feeling of disgust.

Other way around, I'm basing my feelings of disgust (for you) on my moral judgement (of you). You breach my morality in a particularly disgusting way, and I've already explained why thoroughly.

>You discriminate against pedophiles

No I don't, I would feel the exact same way about a teliophile helping an adult women for the same reason. Quit your pathetic sniveling persecution complex.

>you would go out of your way to undo every positive action they took out of pure spite and bigotry.

You're basing this all off me calling you disgusting for your disgusting rationalizations? You're a delusional whiny freak, and it has nothing to do with being a pedo.

>You would rather see a child's life ruined than for a pedophile

Exactly how many children have your sexual fantasies helped thus far? Zero? Seems nothing of value is lost. Cry forever.


 No.40867

>>40844

>I would feel the exact same way about a teliophile helping an adult women for the same reason.

That's an interesting perspective. I find it odd, to be honest, that choosing whom to help based on sexual attractiveness is so insufferable compared to other arbitrary reasons. Is the example of the person helping in order to brag about it afterwards equivalent or not as bad? Since we can agree that it is possible for non-pedophiles to do altruistic deeds for pathetic reasons, are all of them deserving of the same level of condemnation?

>persecution complex

>target of a witch hunt

Pick one.

>You're basing this all off […]

Brought to anger by unfounded accusations. Oh, the irony.


 No.40869

>>40867

>That's an interesting perspective. I find it odd, to be honest, that choosing whom to help based on sexual attractiveness is so insufferable compared to other arbitrary reasons

Like what? You've given no examples, and when I tried to give you one you just flat out said it doesn't count as arbitrary.

> Is the example of the person helping in order to brag about it afterwards equivalent or not as bad?

In a vacuum I'd say it's just as bad. There are a lot of variables that could make it better or worse. A guy that just wants to brag is pathetic. A guy that brags about it to gain some sort of advantage is more pathetic. A guy that helps a girl because the act alone gives him sexual gratification is pathetic. A guy that helps a girl in order to have the chance at fucking her is more pathetic and also somewhat evil. A guy that helps a girl in order to try to actively seduce her or use saving her leverage to convince her is the most pathetic and absolutely evil.

>are all of them deserving of the same level of condemnation?

Given the above explanation I'd imagine you know my answer to that would be no.

>my personal opinions about individual situations

>witch hunt

Pick one.

>Brought to anger by unfounded accusations. Oh, the irony.

Even if you admit their unfounded purely to spite me, I'll still accept it. Not sure why you think I'm angry. Because I'm taking a harsh stance? So do you also believe that people are actually rolling on the floor when they post rofl? Online insults don't exactly take a lot of emotional investment to make.


 No.40874

>>40869

You'll be hard pressed to find a normie that doesn't think there's a witch hunt against pedophiles. What they say is it's justified and necessary.

>A guy that helps a girl because the act alone gives him sexual gratification is pathetic.

Fair enough, I suppose. What say you to the argument that as a result of their perversion a child is saved whereas without that perversion no child would have been saved?

>Even if you admit their unfounded purely to spite me

The point being that you can't just make up accusations whenever you feel like because anyone can do that.


 No.40876

>>40874

Not saying there isn't a witch hunt, I'm saying that the witch hunt has given you a persecution complex which makes you see persecution where there isn't. You can see it all over this board; anytime a poster implies we shouldn't have totally unrestricted access to child sex with no oversight they get called an anti. You call me an anti because I think a very very specific scenario is disgusting.

>What say you to the argument that as a result of their perversion a child is saved whereas without that perversion no child would have been saved?

I'd say it's an unlikely scenario. Also I think it's fair that you could be glad about the ultimate consequences of something while still harshly condemning the road that was taken to get there. For example if I was a jew I could be glad the state of Israel finally exists, but extremely saddened that it took a holocaust to happen.

>The point being that you can't just make up accusations whenever you feel like because anyone can do that.

Sure you can. I didn't say "wow how dare you accuse me of being an anti" I made a comment that you didn't have a lot to base it off of. You call me an anti, I call you a whiny freak, and then we duke it out in the arena of online arguments.


 No.40879

>>40869

>In a vacuum I'd say it's just as bad. There are a lot of variables that could make it better or worse. A guy that just wants to brag is pathetic. A guy that brags about it to gain some sort of advantage is more pathetic. A guy that helps a girl because the act alone gives him sexual gratification is pathetic. A guy that helps a girl in order to have the chance at fucking her is more pathetic and also somewhat evil. A guy that helps a girl in order to try to actively seduce her or use saving her leverage to convince her is the most pathetic and absolutely evil.

Lol, you don't even try to hide your hate. And you try to insinuate that we are only imagining the persecution?

So just to remind everyone here, this anon thinks that if a pedo or hebe saves a girl from death, then that automatically makes him evil. Even if he doesn't have sex. Even if he never asks her for sexual favors.

>>40876

>You call me an anti because I think a very very specific scenario is disgusting.

You can't know for sure which anon called you an anti, but from what I see the more accurate term is "angry pedo and hebe hater". You come to this board slinging out insults and claiming all of us are only interested in sex. Did you honestly expect a different reaction?


 No.40882

Just to remind everyone here, do not respond to the down syndrome double space poster.


 No.40883

>>40882

There are many people that like to use double space. Nice try with the insult though :)


 No.40900

>>40883

Yeah it is sad how people on the board feel the need to go around and insult. It makes us all look bad.


 No.40926

>>40879

>claiming all of us are only interested in sex.

I claimed a disgust towards a very very specific scenario. Make up some more pathetic lies if you want.

>You come to this board slinging out insults

You got me there. To my defense, sniveling faggot retards like you definitely deserve to be insulted until you commit suicide.

>>40900

>It makes us all look bad.

It makes us look like there's at least one poster here with a shred of morality, unlike the multiple threads here explicitly about "should i just break the law and rape children" and "children should be our sex slaves" and "where can i find cp plz".


 No.40929

>>40926

>makes you see persecution where there isn't.

The purpose of that was to demonstrate how easy it is. You can say I'm a child rapist based on nothing, I can just as easily say you're a bloodthirsty psycho, also based on nothing.

>multiple threads here explicitly about "should i just break the law and rape children" and "children should be our sex slaves" and "where can i find cp plz".

In all of which the OP is told to fuck off multiple times.


 No.40930

>>40926

>It makes us look like there's at least one poster here with a shred of morality

>you definitely deserve to be insulted until you commit suicide

It certainly isn't you though.


 No.40935

>>40930

Yep. And half of these threads he has as proof specifically state "Fantasy" or "Let's have a discussion". There are very few posts that are actually bad, and they end up getting deleted 1 or 2 days later anyway.


 No.40936

>>40929

>You can say I'm a child rapist based on nothing

I could, but I didn't. Hence me saying you see persecution where it isn't. And my claims against the others posters in this thread are not based on nothing. Go ahead and say posters like >>40879 isn't a retard that shits up every thread he pops up in.

>>40930

Removing shitstains like >>40879 from this planet is a moral action.

>>40935

Exactly how many discussions does this board need to have about whether or not sex slavery is okay, or whether it's okay to use helping someone as leverage to have sex with them? You say it's just one or two people shitting up the board with these kinds of threads, but tbh one or two people is probably 20% of this boards regular posters.


 No.40939

>>40936

>I could, but I didn't. Hence me saying you see persecution where it isn't.

>YOU JUST WANT TO FUCK THAT GIRL YOU SAVED THAT'S THE ONLY REASON YOU'RE HELPING HER REEEEEEEEEEEEE

Yeah I totally wrote all those posts myself to false flag.

>Exactly how many discussions does this board need to have about whether or not sex slavery is okay, or whether it's okay to use helping someone as leverage to have sex with them?

Censorship is unjustifiable. If someone wants to argue that sex slavery is acceptable then he is free to attempt to do so and fail every single time. As a pro-contact pedo I know full well what it is like to be on the receiving end of censorship as a means to "win" a debate so I defend rational discourse as the proper means to distinguish between right and wrong. Meanwhile, there is still an open challenge to anti-pedos in the research thread to prove that sex with children is inherently harmful which is yet to be answered.

>one or two people is probably 20% of this boards regular posters.

It's a small board although the 20% figure might be representative of the cancer among pedophiles that needs to be addressed. Protip: the witch hunt is not helping


 No.40941

>>40939

I don't know who you're quoting but that greentext isn't calling anyone a child rapist either, just a creep. Soooooo, keep proving my point? I like the capslock reee though, really nails home your exaggerated persecution complex.

>Censorship is unjustifiable.

Brainletts leave.

>rational discourse

horf


 No.40944

>>40941

>Brainletts leave.

>horf

I think his head must have exploded from all the rage :)


 No.40945

I am curious (although samefags will probably strike again), do any of you think this post was completely out of line? I don't understand how this anon is a "shitstain" and deserves to die?

>>40879


 No.40946

File: 1b2ff407c4a362c⋯.jpg (109.6 KB, 1200x900, 4:3, 1200px-OHP-sch[1].JPG)

>>40944

>capslock greentext reeing

>all the rage

>>40945

>talks about samefags while samefagging

it looks like they struck again alright

if shitstains could understand why they were shistains, they wouldnt be shistains.


 No.40952

>>40945

>I don't know who you're quoting but that greentext isn't calling anyone a child rapist either, just a creep. Soooooo, keep proving my point? I like the capslock reee though, really nails home your exaggerated persecution complex.

I am not a creep, tyvm. And you continuously avoid my point about how I match up my condemnation of anti-pedos with the same level of vitriol and lack of evidence as they do unto us, thereby demonstrating their arguments as completely unfounded and rooted in.. something else entirely… bigotry? psychosis? brainwashing from the media? Something is clearly out of touch with reality here and it isn't those who act in a way that is ethical and can back up their arguments with scientific references. I have responded to you without relying on insults, yet you are unable to counter anything. So be it then, let me say what I think of you: you are a fraud, a fool, a nutcase and completely incapable of rational discourse so instead you attempt to shut it down entirely. Truly pathetic and even disgusting.


 No.40953

>>40946

Except I am not the anon you accuse of being a shitstain. I am simply making 2 separate posts.


 No.40954

>>40952

So I take it you think that post was completely out of line? I couldn't tell in the middle of your anti rant :)


 No.40956

>>40952

You're an ultra creep. But don't take it from me, take it from the kids that instinctively run away screaming from the sight of you.

>counter anything.

What is there to counter? I'm not an anti, so I don't know why you keep screaming for me to argue against research I agree with. I think the fool here is the guy repeatedly trying to argue at shadows on the wall (you).

>>40953

all double posters must die


 No.40959

>>40954

meant for >>40941

although the person referred to used "evil" in place of "pathetic" so it could rightly be stated he was being disingenuous.

>>40956

>kids that instinctively run away screaming from the sight of you.

Yeah, no.

>research I agree with.

Unexpected, to say the least. Most are unwilling to admit Bruce Rind's research is valid so I suppose I may have misjudged you. Your morals are idealistic to an extent few on this planet can live up to, though, but so be it.


 No.40961

>>40956

And what will you say if they come running to me instead? What will you say if they trust me more than people like you? I can't wait to see your frothing rage in the next post :)


 No.40963

>>40959

>Your morals are idealistic to an extent few on this planet can live up to, though, but so be it.

Most people on the planet don't try to "help" children for the sole purpose of having sex with them.

>Yeah, no.

Yeah huh.

>>40961

What if the sun blew up tomorrow? Can't wait to read your next pathetic fantasy that will never happen ;)


 No.40978

>>40963

>Most people on the planet don't try to "help" children for the sole purpose of having sex with them.

Strawman again? Seriously? I thought we were past that.


 No.40983

File: 4796ac6b01575ee⋯.jpg (10.4 KB, 275x183, 275:183, mygenetics.jpg)

>>40963

> What if the sun blew up tomorrow?

Then every cringy autist who shitposts here arguing about "muh genetics" to explain his social aversion to normal adult relationships and family life would be cooked. Would probably be worth it.

There would also be no more constant bickering about shit no one cares about, and no more lack of anything remotely human and less depressing than "this is my beloved emily" sexdoll threads.

There is still no love here.


 No.40995

>>40978

You claimed that "morals are idealistic to an extent few on this planet can live up to".

My morals are "don't prey on children pretending to help them."

So no, no strawman, just responding to what you literally said verbatim.


 No.41001

>>40995

Strawman again. Nobody is "preying" in this thread. Just stop please.


 No.41006

I got one that is surprisingly relevant to the off topic argument.

>No matter what a MAP does or says it is always motivated by the desire to use and abuse children


 No.41008

>>41006

I totally forgot what the thread was about. This made me laugh ha.


 No.41011

>>41001

>literally the exact words you/someone you're defending posted

>strawman

how about you stop using terms you have no understanding of

>>41006

>No matter what the criticism is a MAP will always twist it into persecution of all forms of pedophilia or adult-child sexuality


 No.41025

>>41011

Give me one post where someone expressly said that they want to save a girl, ONLY so they can have sex or get sexual favors?

You can't. End of story.

Instead, you are continuing to prove why this post is true. >>41006


 No.41028

>>41025

There are multiple posts defending "helping" children purely out of sexual motivations in this thread alone.

Now you post a single one of my replies that even approaches >>41006

You can't. End of story.

Instead you are continuing to prove why this post is true. >>41011


 No.41038

>>41028

You didn't actually point out any post.

Stop with the trolling and put up or shut up.


 No.41100

>>41038

He is not trolling. Plenty of people here have said they would not deal with boys.


 No.41119

>>41028

In your mind is doing something as part of a save the damsel in distress fetish the same as doing it in order to try to pressure the child into sex?


 No.41121

>>41100

Correction* A few people have said that even IF they only helped a girl, it is still a net positive result. Can you show me the posts where people said if a boy was suffering they would turn a blind eye to it?


 No.41124

>>41119

Not to mention, saving the damsel in distress is not always a fetish. Some people genuinely want to help others. Just because you find someone attractive, doesn't mean you will coerce them into sex. Geez, that sounds like the same moral code adults use for adult-adult relationships. Who would have thought hebes and pedos could be so thoughtful too?


 No.41138

>>41119

I know it's a big thread, but I already answered that question thoroughly in multiple posts. No, it's not, and I wouldn't call it evil or harmful, but I would call it personally pathetic on principle.

>>41121

I can point you to posts implying it.

>>40602

>>40641

>>40805

None of them are outright saying it, but when it comes to saving boys they all have the same thing to say; "hey it's not my responsibility! I help who I want!"

>>41124

>Not to mention, saving the damsel in distress is not always a fetish. Some people genuinely want to help others. Just because you find someone attractive, doesn't mean you will coerce them into sex.

Of course. But I'm talking about helping someone for no other reason than that you find them attractive.


 No.41158

>>41119

It is not a fetish, I don't think you even know what fetish means.

Damsal saving is a story trope/cliche not a fetish.

It is not inherently sexual despite you trying your best to frame it as such.

You still didn't point out any one particular post. If there are so many then point to one.


 No.41169

>>41138

Implying does not equal an actual statement. So stop saying there are people who would avoid helping a boy just because they aren't attracted to him.

>None of them are outright saying it

So you are God and can read people's minds? Look out guys, this guy means business.

>Of course. But I'm talking about helping someone for no other reason than that you find them attractive.

Nobody here has said that they would save a girl ONLY because they find them attractive. You continue to use this strawman, and everyone here has told you to lay off it.


 No.41173

>>41169

>Implying does not equal an actual statement.

Holy shit is that a real argument?

>So stop saying there are people who would avoid helping a boy just because they aren't attracted to him.

But that is exactly what they're saying. When it comes to girls, it's fair game to them; when it's boys, it suddenly becomes 'not their obligation'.

Like, you can try propping up this charade as long as you want, but come on now, what you just posted is the most insipid non-argument deflection ever.

>Nobody here has said

this guy did outright.

>>40602

>some people only want to save girls because they find them cute and pretty.

So you can continue to desperately lie and deflect, and I will keep expanding your asshole further every time. Jesus christ pathetic defender to pop up yet.


 No.41175

>>41173

>this guy did outright.

I seem to be the only one with this viewpoint so I will continue to deliberate it.

>When it comes to girls, it's fair game to them; when it's boys, it suddenly becomes 'not their obligation'.

Girls aren't actually my obligation either. That's my whole point. I have no duty to save people, excluding certain specific situations. As such, if I choose to help someone I am under no obligation to provide reasons.

Your stance implies that someone who saves no one, neither boy nor girl, is morally superior because there is no preferential treatment given.


 No.41176

>>41175

>I seem to be the only one with this viewpoint so I will continue to deliberate it.

I'm glad you finally admit it after I had to prove it to you twice now.

>Girls aren't actually my obligation either.

So why is it when someone mentions a girl you say "of course I'd do whatever I can to help!" but when it comes to boys "not my obligation" is all anyone here can muster?

>Your stance implies that someone who saves no one, neither boy nor girl, is morally superior because there is no preferential treatment given.

No I didn't and in fact that's something I already responded to in another post, but what what I have inferred from others is what they HAVE actually implied.


 No.41178

>>41176

>I'm glad you finally admit it after I had to prove it to you twice now.

You're talking to more than one person.

>No I didn't and in fact that's something I already responded to in another post

I take it you mean

>glad about the ultimate consequences of something while still harshly condemning the road that was taken to get there

Meaning the person who saves only girls is morally superior to the person who saves no one?


 No.41179

>>41173

No he did not. Did he say "the only reason I would save a girl is because she is cute to me"? The only thing you can say is that this is one of possibly many reasons he does this. And he seems to be refuting your heartless viewpoint that it is better for no girl to be saved, simply because you don't like pedos or hebes.


 No.41195

>all pedos are only interested in children because they desire dominance and children are easy to dominate

>Men attracted to child just can't handle a "real woman"

>14-16 year olds are little children that can't comprehend sex and would never be interested in hooking up with someone older

>14 -16 year old boys couldn't possibly know if they are into men yet so anything between someone that age and someone older must have happened due to coercion

>Women can't really be pedos and certainly can't be sexual child abusers or predators

>Unless they are trying to turn good girls gay for the feminist agenda to destroy the family


 No.41201

One I actually got in a real world argument over

>Pedos are mostly bisexual because boys and girls are basically exactly the same once stripped of gendered clothing

>Pedophilia is a conspiracy related to the patriarchy

>The fact that non-offending pedophiles can't get good treated is also a conspiracy related to the patriarchy

> And that female offenders are also due to the patriarchy

All this because some feminist butted in on a anime discuss about loli characters that didn't even involve her. We didn't even know the bitch.

It took 3 other women to tell her to fuck off for her to catch the hint that no one was going to convert to her bullshit world view.


 No.41218

>>41195

>14 -16 year old boys couldn't possibly know if they are into men yet so anything between someone that age and someone older must have happened due to coercion

Maybe this would be more accurate 100 years ago before being gay was trendy. With what it is today, I think it is easier than ever for older homosexuals to use this trend to their advantage. No, I am not saying most do this, but I do think this gay stuff is in a gray area right now with regards to teens.


 No.41220

>>41218

I don’t know what other people are like, but as soon as I hit puberty around age 12 I had an intense attraction to vaginas. I don’t see how it’d be possible to be mistaken about being gay.


 No.41221

>>41195

an"

>14-16 year olds are little children that can't comprehend sex and would never be interested in hooking up with someone older

Hah. Living proof here.


 No.41226

>>41195

>Men attracted to child just can't handle a "real woman"

Yes because that's what both male and female pedos are actually avoiding, the horrifying possibility of your saggy donkey pussy / acne / shitty attitude / hairy fucking body coming anywhere near us


 No.41228

>>41220

Have you seen an SJW? What is common sense to you, is beyond the reach of these people. The same goes for young people. While you would think a teen wouldn't lie about what he finds attractive, the power of social justice is strong these days.


 No.41247

Reminder that all pedos deserve to be burned at the stake


 No.41249

>>41247

Fun fact

When it was a cultural acceptable practice to burn people at the stake adult child relationships were tolerated. Maybe frowned upon and justification for gossip at worst, but tolerated.


 No.41270

>>41249

Fun fact

Nobody cares

I meant burning at the stake as kind of reference to how i feel about you people, having you drown to death is a more preferable option


 No.41272

>>41270

Fun fact, you are on the wrong side of history :)


 No.41277

>>41270

Fun fact

I probably bent you over and busted a fat nut in you mere moments after you came out the womb and it accounts for your massive salt levels. You're just a nasty little cum-filled chimp. Fuck ata here.


 No.41278

>>41249

No it wasn't. It was common to castrate men caught attempting to seduce young girls.


 No.41282

>>41277

As anyone can see, it is you who is salty :)


 No.41283

>>41278

citation needed


 No.41345

>>41277

Oof got me

Ego shattered

You people are hilarious, you know that? You think pedophilia is perfectly fine and should be legal. Thats actually one of the dumbest things i’ve ever heard. 95% of the world disagrees with you, your idiotic ideas will never enter the normal internet or really have any actual impact on the world. So keep sitting here and telling yourself that your despicable acts are perfectly fine, while in reality, everyone pretty much agrees that pedos are the lowest of the low GARBAGE. They even get ganged up on by other prisoners in jail. Even murderers know that you people are sick.


 No.41642

>>38816

oh shit, I had an AVM rupture when I was 10 and it damn near killed me

where can I find more on this study?


 No.41650

>>41345

>95% of the world disagrees with you

Kinda the other way 'round.


 No.41656

>>41650

Also funny how he responds to some shit poster/troll. Per usual, antis pick the lowest hanging fruit to attack so that they can feel morally superior. Oh how ironic that is.


 No.41663

>>41650

>95% of he world agrees with pedos

uhhhhhhhh


 No.41667

Here's a good one:

>pedos only care about children as sex objects

I read this thing once, where they did some study to test people's compassion. They abandoned a small boy, small girl, dog, and cat in like New York or something to see who would offer any help or even notice them. Lots of people helped the animals, a bunch helped the girl, but NOBODY even gave the boy a second look, except for one man. Of course, the punchline to this story is that the man was a registered sex offender, and of course it's easy for most people to make the leap of logic "oh, he was clearly going to sneak off with the boy somewhere to rape him!!"

But there is no evidence of this. Nothing happened and he was arrested before they got anywhere. I suppose it never crossed anyone's mind that maybe the poor fuck was a true child-LOVER, and was genuinely trying to help the kid, where nobody else would? Of course not.

Here's a fun thing to try to wrap your head around. Most pedophiles are against routine infant circumcision.


 No.41675

>>41667

I agree with pretty much a 100% of what you wrote, but I would like to know how you know about the last bit. There's very little concrete evidence about pedophiles outside of offending in the scientific literature, and contact is sketchy.


 No.41686

>>41667

I would say it's too anecdotal to draw any conclusions beyond that it's obviously dangerous to leave children unattended in public.

>But there is no evidence of this.

Except the overwhelming circumstantial evidence of the man being a registered sex offender. But of course you're a denizen of /younglove/ thus every pedo must be a good boy that dindu nuffin.


 No.41690

"Pedo = child predator"

Actually most child rapists/molesters are most strongly attracted to mature adults.

"ALL pedos have hundreds if no thousands of victims"

Only if you count girls they've never met but have seen pics/vids of. I'd be willing to bet that most pedos are either virgins or haven't gotten any since college.

"Any man attracted to a girl even a day under the age of 18 is a child predator"

I have never met an honest straight man who would've turned down Britney Spears, Selena Gomez, Emma Watson, or Miley Cyrus when they were 15 or 16 (with the possible exception of exclusives who like girls under 9)

"Children are NOT sexual in any way"

A billion webcam vids and counting suggest otherwise, as do millions of young men and women with happy stories of forbidden love that they'll likely take to their graves.


 No.41697

>a child seeing adult private parts, especially genitals of the opposite gender, will damage/traumatize them in some way

>Children can't orgasm

And

>Somehow watching legal adult porn will lead down a slippery slope that will end with ether becoming a pedophile or zoophilic as well as a rapists

The children can't orgasm one made me bust out laughing when someone said it to me. When they asked me why I responded

<Dude, you missed out on a lot of fun as a kid

And then I explained that me and most of the kids I knew from the neighborhood had found or learned some way of getting off by elementary school.

Maybe where I grew up was weird, it is not like it was even a sex thing in the adult sense. It was just a weird thing your body did that felt good and was fun to figure out how to make it happen.

The porn one was from someone who was both really religious and really into feminism, despite the the two being in conflict with each other on some pretty fundamental levels.


 No.41742

Some pretty dumbass shit going on Youtube right now saying they make money off us

If that's the case, they should get into the business of handing people 4 gigabytes a day, never receiving any money from them, never any ads, have thousands of paid moderators removing their comments, while scaring away the people that make them the most money…they'd make a killing!


 No.41746

>>41742

It's hilarious tbh.

Pedos are everywhere doing everything. No one is not a pedo. This is the best promotion we've had in ages.


 No.41748

>>41742

>>41746

We can make or break YouTube, think about that.


 No.41751

It's not even us though. The Trump trash are pissed that their videos are being demonitized, thinking that "free speech" means they're entitled to get paid for the videos, so they're running a botnet to make search terms appear and bitching to the advertisers, which of course will make them get even less ad revenue and have to deal with more rules, and won't even significantly affect what I do because the girls mostly have under 5k views, like the vast majority of other Youtubers that don't have clickbait titles and thumbnails.


 No.41752

>>41675

>I would like to know how you know about the last bit

I plead the Fifth. You'll just have to trust me.

>>41686

>the man being a registered sex offender

One does not need to molest a child to get on the list. That's a tangentially related myth all its own.


 No.41754

The irony is that they could police all of the content by having a total of:

300 hours of Youtube uploaded every minute = 432,000 hours/day

125 hours per 15 minutes War Room covers = 3,456 500-video War Room sessions

24 sessions assuming a 6 hour work day every day = 144

Essentially they could screen all of the content for visibly offensive stuff with just 144 Indians working full time for a dollar a day.


 No.41763

>>41751

Most aren't mad about being demonetized as most have alternative revenue streams.

What is pissing them off is YouTube banishing their videos to the shadow realm despite not breaking any rules; the selective enforcement of rules, being put on a black list that targets their videos no matter what the content of the video is, hypocrisy, etc.

Basically they are upset that they are being cracked down on for the crime of having the wrong opinion according to the sjw's at Google.


 No.41765

>>41754

They keep trying to get their bot to do it, but it is broken and they know it is broken.

It ether gets too ban happy or lets way too much slip through. Actually it does both.

If I was s content creator I really wouldn't use youtube as a primary platform. I get that it has the largest audience and it makes things like monetizing videos easy, but the site sucks and using them as a primary would put you at their mercy to not fuck you while they have you bent over the barrel.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / aus / cafechan / choroy / fur / leftpol / new / russian ]