Anon, why is it immoral to be attracted to teens?

{ citation needed ]

>>714837533
Nothing in this world is intrinsically moral or immoral, the concept is a creation of humankind.

>>714837533
15+ is totally fine to be attracted to, we just have laws against it because they're stupid fucking teenagers

>>714837533
It isn't. You shouldn't beef them though. They're people, just too young to make a sound decision.

>>714837533
because you're a pedo.

>>714837533
Depends on how young.
If they don't have the mental capacity or maturity to operate an automobile, they certainly shouldn't be able to consent to sex.

>>714839663
good gravy

>>714838992
and 16 isn't too young to make a sound decision? (half of US)?
15? (many other countries)
14? (some countries)
13? (a few countries)
12? (some mexican states)

the line for what is immoral, what is a mental disorder, and what ought to be enforced by gunpoint and years in prison, is puberty.

>>714839789
>sex
OP didn't ask about sex.

>>714839663
Age?

>>714839199
>>>
> Anonymous 12/11/16(Sun)01:29:
moarrr

File: sallydriving.gif (2MB, 635x359px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 635x359px

>>714839789

>>714839789

well the thing is, there actually is no law, in the US at least, setting a minimum driving age. There's minimums for public roads, 15-16, but on private property? no limit.

>>714839974
They're not legally allowed to give consent for anything else, that's why all forms require the signature of a parent/guardian for minors. It's not too much of a stretch to put legal limits on the age they can give sexual consent

File: lurkmoar.gif (486KB, 500x280px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 500x280px

>>714839789
>pleb

>>714839456
who is this?

>>714840013
Well, it's still the same reasoning.
We see youth and innocence as vulnerability, and most people feel obligated to defend all children, even the ones that aren't their own.
And when it comes to teenagers, they're on that cusp between adulthood and childhood, so most people default to the behavior you exhibit towards the latter.
That's why attraction, which is the precursor to sexual aggression, especially in men, to teens is considered taboo.

>>714840163
amazing reference.
I'd have fucked her from season 3 onwards.

>>714840296

Quite the opposite, they're allowed to give consent for EVERYTHING else, EXCEPT legal contracts.
what else can't they consent to doing?
and many of the activities they can consent to are WAY more dangerous than sex.

>>714840163
>Implying that wasn't shot in front of a green screen

>>714840308
>Implying that that car wasn't controlled via a remote

>>714840296

so can they have sex with parent/guardian approval?

...they can shoot guns and kill animals with approval, why not have sex?

>>714839974
No.

File: bahkfahkhawk.gif (2MB, 400x228px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x228px

>>714839789
totally agree

>>714840337
>That's why attraction, which is the precursor to sexual aggression, especially in men, to teens is considered taboo.
shouldn't you be on tumblr?

>>714840504
That's an amazing ass!

>>714840393
Pretty much anything, since the debate is whether or not they can make a sound decision, and you can't consent if you can't make a sound decision. Any crime committed by a minor needs special circumstances for them to be tried as an adult, because society has decided that they can't make sound decisions at their age. When two minors have sex, it's between two people who can't make a sound decision. When a minor and an adult have sex, it's someone who can make a sound decision and someone who can't, so the adult is guilty

>>714839550
I've always thought that calling someone who is attracted to teenagers a pedo was a way of lessening the meaning of pedo. I see a pedo as someone who preys on children and there's a huge dichotomy between 6yos and 15yos, one that covers everything from informed consent to their bodies being more prepared for it. I know that through most periods of time that teenagers married even leading into the 20th century. If you think about the shorter lifespans people, especially settlers, lived then I supposed it makes more sense to marry at younger ages. Now we often live into our 80s and 90s and there's less of a rush so people's minds have shifted.
I don't know, society always has a hair up its ass about something and that's the natural order of things.

>>714840499
They can. If no one presses charges then it's fine. If their parents don't approve then it's statutory rape charges and off to the prison showers

>>714840504
you wanna post more?

>>714840928

And they magically gain the ability to make a sound decision at 18? That's simply not the case. Some NEVER gain that ability

>>714841078

Except if anyone even finds out, all that has to happen is ANYONE not approving, not just family, every single human who knows the relationship exists. All they have to do is tell the police, and it's over.
I'd be fine with allowing consent of both parties and parents to be a requirement. But that's not the law.

>>714841342

..except in mexico, when dealing with really young people, like 12-13, then parental consent matters in a legal context.

>>714841173
Since we can't interview every single person and determine their individual maturity level, an age had to be agreed upon. 18 happened to be that age.

>>714837533
dno. 26 year old with 18 year old gf

>>714837533
It should be legal 16 and up.

File: 3X9QbXbNZ-g.jpg (459KB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

459KB, 3000x2000px

>arguing laws
>on /b/
you people are so fucking stupid sometimes...

>>714841684

Not for sex it's not that age.
Even in the US alone, some places it's 16, some 17, some 18.
Then we start talking about the rest of the world, where it goes down to 12 or puberty.
Who's right?
Are the US states set at 16 babarbic?
Just Mexico at 12, but not Brazil at 14?

We have a good line tho: puberty.

>>714840689
Perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully.
But people cannot help but impute a predatory nature onto anyone that "hunts" so to speak among the youth.

>>714837533
Morality is a construct of behavior designed by culture to live by a set of agreed rules to live civilized among others.
It is not immoral to think anything, but often considered immoral to act on those ideas as it concerns direct interaction with others.

>>714841841
Its fun and funny so fuck why not your stringent adherence to the rules is why you dont get no pussies dawg

>>714841949
>Who's right?
>Are the US states set at 16 babarbic?
>Just Mexico at 12, but not Brazil at 14?
take a fucking long, hard look at mexico...
and long, hard look at brazil...
you honestly think fucking 12 year olds is really benefiting either country? you really think they have a better quality of life?

>>714841949
It's the age that a person is accepted to have the ability to make a sound decision and be responsible for their actions. The reason it's lower in places in the US is pragmatic. There will be people in relationships where one is 16, one is 17, and it shouldn't turn illegal once the elder turns 18.

>>714842051
>your stringent adherence to the rules
what the fuck does "rules" have to do with anything, "dawg"

>>714842379
He thinks if he could screw underage girls he'd have a better chance at getting laid

>>714842300

There's plenty of countries in almighty civilized europe where the AoC is also 14.

>>714842328
close-in-age exemptions are entirely different. The ages I mentioned are the age where no restictions like that are in play, where the partner could be 90. That's right, most US states allow legal sexual relations between a 90 year old and a 16 year old.

>>714842526
>There's plenty of countries in almighty civilized europe where the AoC is also 14
way to avoid the question. gg.

>>714842379
Everything my nigs listen close and ill put you on game hommie

>>714842667

Age Countries (links are to sections on this page)
14 Albania, Andorra, Austria, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Montenegro, Portugal, San Marino, Serbia

I think the quality of life in lots of those countries is just fine.

Mexico has its own problems, that some states go 2 years lower than that isn't a contributing factor.

File: eyecatcherblogonly237.jpg (192KB, 1067x1600px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1067x1600px

teens are like a wet coat of paint on your car. it looks just so beautiful, but if you take it out for a drive without waiting you'll fuck it all up.

File: 1459433725440.jpg (215KB, 2048x1356px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 2048x1356px

>>714842804
>Albania
>Bosnia
>Estonia
>Hungary
>Serbia

>the quality of life in lots of those countries is just fine.

>>714843095

The 'lots' being mainly Austria, Germany, Italy, Liechenstein, and Portgual.

Don't even try to claim the quality of life in those countries is shitty compared to anywhere else on earth.

File: laughing jesus.jpg (183KB, 374x578px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 374x578px

This is exactly why religion is so fucked up. People have followed it so long, and forgotten the basics. To think something does not make it immoral. To take upon a physical act onto another person that is the act of immorality.

To lust after someone's wife you're allowed to think whatever you want, but should you make an attempt to fuck her, and she agrees, then you've both done an immoral act.

This is how fucked religion has become, people following the traditions teaching people to fear God leads to generations of people carrying on the traditions, and not understanding the basis of its meaning.
You're not sinning by thinking, but considered sinning when you physically doing onto others that "immoral" act.

>>714843333
yeah, i['m sure life there is just so fucking perfect, simply due to the fact that they get to bang 14yos

which, btw, is completely irrelevant, since OP never mentioned "sex"

>>714843575

You're the one that started with the idea quality of life and age of consent have any relationship whatsoever, by claiming that because mexico and brazil have shit quality of life their age of consent laws are questionable.

>>714843575
>implying OP actually wanted to discuss it and not simply try to get a pizza thread going

>>714843575
Until OP started arguing about whether minors could consent or not

>>714843820
>implying we know who OP is
>implying arguing consent even matters
>implying everyone just doesn't pretend to be experts at everything in life anyways

>>714843665
>You're the one that started with the idea quality of life and age of consent have any relationship whatsoever,

prove to me that they dont...


>by claiming that because mexico and brazil have shit quality of life their age of consent laws are questionable.

i suggested that mexico is so fucked up, that they don't really give a shit about its people or its children. thus no protection for preteens.

but if you honestly think 12 year olds are perfectly grown up enough to take dick, they i'm fine with that.

i'm not going to sit here and try to prove you wrong.

because i know, at the end of the day, there is literally no point to it.

there's no point to anything on this site.

only to kill time...

So much quotation of deleted posts. Great, I missed it. Oh well, I missed it as usual (well not really, I usually don't). But I was busy fapping elsewhere. Likely no loss.

>>714844351
>prove to me that they dont...

because of all the countries that are set at 14 and 15 and have excellent quality of life, and all the countries where it's 18 but have shitty quality of life.

12 is just barely old enough and whether it's ethically and morally acceptable is a valid question, however it shouldn't be a legal one. The line where it's enforced by men with guns and years in a cage should be puberty.

>>714844598
low res pictures anyways.
and showing absolutely nothing worthwhile.

How many of these people who think the age of consent should start at puberty have actually been around girls age 12-15? They're naive, immature, and vapid little pricks

>>714844659
>because of all the countries that are set at 14 and 15 and have excellent quality of life, and all the countries where it's 18 but have shitty quality of life.
post hoc ergo propter hoc

>>714844780
>They're naive, immature, and vapid little pricks
so are a lot of girls in the 20s

>>714844659
>The line where it's enforced by men with guns and years in a cage should be puberty

Based on what? Your sexual attractions?

>>714844835

What? I'm not saying there is a a correlation: there simply *is* no correlation between age of consent and quality of life.

>>714844659
>The line where it's enforced by men with guns and years in a cage should be puberty.

if a chubby 9 year old starts puberty earlier than her peers, you think she's perfectly suitable for deep dicking?

>>714845116

The consensus of the APA on what constitutes a mental disorder, which arises from the fact that's where the line is defined by nature; sexual attraction naturally begins at the age reproduction is possible

>>714845227

only by other 9yos

>>714845227

Precocious puberty is a medical issue no more relevant to the discussion than bringing up the condition that leaves you with the body and mind of a toddler in your 20s.

>>714837533
Legal age here is 15.
Just putting that out there.

>>714845387
>makes puberty the discussion
>"early puberty is not relevant to the discussion"

only accept what supports your argument, right? are you sure you belong on tumblr ;)

>>714845279
So once these girls hit puberty they can feel sexual attraction. That says nothing about their comprehension of the feeling or the actions they might take on that feeling. If anything it makes them more vulnerable than those who are prepubescent

>>714845440
why does your country have a legal age of attraction

>>714845578

irrelevant. old enough to bleed is old enough to breed.

>>714845387
Yes it is, because if someone has a condition that leaves them with the mind of a toddler in their 20s, then they can't consent and any sex would be statutory rape

>>714845387
By law if someone at age 20 had the body, and mind of a toddler with would be legal for that person to decide what they'd want, unless legal guardians had assumed legal authority to govern that person as unfit to decide for themselves.

>>714845578

If you're going to define it that way tho, you're left with that problem not having a clear line either: 13, 14, 15... 18... that problem never goes away.
So, what criteria besides age?

This happened a few days ago.
Btw nobody gives a fuck. Every other 8th grader on up fucking some dude that's 18 or older here.

Met one of my young teen cousins for the first time. She developed a crush on me, and she visited me and my mom this last weekend. Only thing is my mom had to go on a business trip so we were all alone. She kept flirting.. i ended up letting her sleep in bed with me because it was windy and she was scared. We cuddled altho i was still distant. Next day i took her hiking...she flirted more and said her hands are cold and to hold them. Things kept on progressing more and more. We got home and i sat down and she took her shoes and socks off..knowing that i have a foot fetish and put them in my lap. And i rubbed them. I still kept my distance but at night we were in bed and i was singing to her, we had a moment and we kissed. Things just kept progressing....the next day we went for a short day hike to watch the sunset over the city. And i couldn't resist her at all with her being all sweaty. We made out, touched each other and on our way hiking up i came up behind her kissed and held her and rubbed her, pulled down her shorts, bent her over and licked and sucked her holes for a few seconds.
After that i took her shoes off and sniffed and sucked her toes. I can't resist sweaty girls and i love feet.
Everything with her has been the best time I've ever had with a girl. She is so clean and tastes so good too.
We haven't gone further, but she's still here now with me, but my mom just came back tonight and my cousins leaving the day after tomorrow. Probably won't see each other until next summer or spring. I'm not sure. Oh she also told me she loves me. No idea what to do now besides just go with it. I mean i didn't want any of this to happen, but we get along great, have big things in common, have tons of fun etc. So whatever. Lol weird because i never even had sexual interest in her at all until i guess the feet thing lol.

>>714845651
Age of consent. Obviously.
Fuck, /b/, I'm heading back to >>/pol/

>>714845870
>you're left with that problem not having a clear line
they made a clear line.
you're just all "THAT LINE SUCKS I WANT TO FUCK KIDS"

>>714845788

No, it wouldn't be legal. Mind of a toddler by definition is incapable of fending for itself on the point of basic survival, nevermind higher decision making
It is NOT legal to have sex with someone with the mental age of 2, no matter how old they really are

>>714845946
cool story bro

>>714845870
Because an age has to be picked. That's why the age of consent differs from place to place, they decided on different ages to draw the line. You can't measure maturity level, so you can't enforce anything based on that

>>714845946
.. and where the fuck did this come from? Who invited you to share this Indian-tier story? Fucking degenerate...

>>714845952
>Age of consent.
what does the legal consenting age of sex have to do with whether or not you can find someone attractive?

>>714846012

what, the line of 18 that half the US and most of the world agrees isn't right and has set elsewhere? that's the only other line i've seen suggested.

>>714846082
so then there's no problem that some places have picked 12 or puberty? ok

>>714846022
See, this is where things get a little complicated, seeing as the average person is incapable of making properly well-considered decisions until the age of 24, by which time the ability of cognitive reasoning becomes fully developed.

So, by this logic legal age of consent should be raised to 24, not remain 18 (or 16, or 15, or whatever)

>>714846187
the line exists in the locale you're in.
if you don't like the line they set, fucking move.
going onto /b/ and complaining about how it isn't a good line doesn't change a single thing, does it?

>>714846175
It decides if you're committing a thought crime or not

>>714846022
No legal guardians would have to have pre-arranged such legal authority. Age 17 and 18 are the legal ages of consent unless that person's legal guardians have specified otherwise. Presumably that would have happened earlier on long before.

>>714846267
>So, by this logic legal age of consent should be raised to 24,
and move the drinking age up to 24 also, since college kids are dumb as bricks and can't be trusted.

>>714846267

which is why the natural line of puberty is more appropriate

>>714846330
we're here because we're bored. debating which locale is correct in their determination is a perfectly valid topic for discussion.

>>714846350

double plus ungood

>>714846441

You'd never convince any judge anywhere you thought someone with the capacity of a toddler was competent enough to consent to anything.

>>714846558

>"But your honor, she said "goo goo" instead of sticking her tongue out!!!"

>>714846462
ah. just killing time until someone posts the child porn, right?
gotcha

>>714846558
There's no "toddler" law specifically. There's people with down syndrome whose guardians have to presume such legal authority on behave of the person unable to.

>>714846187
You are trying to vastly oversimplify a very complicated issue. It's not like they picked ages out of thin air. I don't know why the fuck Mexico picked 12, but the US has tried to balance scientific knowledge of cognitive reasoning with the realities of public school ending at 18 and adult life beginning at that point

>>714846677

c___d____y is working fine

If it bleeds... It's ready. That is just biology.

>>714846505
nigga what

File: image.jpg (6KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 225x225px

>>714846891

File: (You).png (29KB, 359x538px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 359x538px

>>714838561
Being attracted to teens is definitely not immoral though.

>>714846446
Indeed.
Same for owning and/ or operating firearms and motordriven vehicles.
Also horse riding..

But that would be fucking insane, so we don't do that. We accept a minor risk-taking in allowing non-developed teenagers make decisions (such as whether they should drink, or maybe have sex, or drive a 1200lbs weapon of mass destruction at 60 miles per hour)

And because of this, I say "why not lower the age of legal consent to 15", because that really would make sense.

>u just wanna bang kids
I can't even hook up with 35-year-old single moms. My lack of game will NOT get me anywhere near to scoring a teenager whose language I don't even speak any more.

>>714846677
I've not been involved in this thread and I don't feel like the debating this shit right now, but all these threads are not about bumping for CP as you always claim. Most of these faggots could go find CP elsewhere if it was all about that, hell many probably have a collection to use if they needed to.

>>714846758

Downs syndrome people in their teens are way above toddlers in mental capacity.
We're talking about people that can't even express their thoughts

>>714846801
Yet over half the US disagrees by 2 whole years with the other half.
And plenty of countries with better education systems than ours have picked 2 years lower than the lowest US states. Mexico even lower.
That's the point, there's only one line that makes sense: the line defined by nature.

..the APA and psychologists in general also didn't pull the definition of pedophilia out of thin air, and didn't block a redefinition to include 12-13 year olds for a perfectly valid reason too: because the natural line makes sense.

>>714847046
>because that really would make sense.
lawmakers don't make laws because they make sense.
the sooner you realize this, the better off you'd be.

>>714846987
Of course not. Agreed.

>>714847055
>all these threads are not about bumping for CP as you always claim
no, of course not.
making threads about kids having sex NEVER leads to pictures or videos posted of kids having sex.
that's just complete nonsense.

File: 1480670403528.jpg (563KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

563KB, 2000x1333px

You are sick if you like looking at this sort of thing.

>>714847046

You're forgetting the avenue of drugs. Plenty of 14-16 year olds are already IV drug addicts who will fuck anyone with dope (or who's at the place they hang out to score so parties with them) as long as they're not truly hideous like 400lbs or deformed or something

and holy fuck, my captcha was a street sign challenge with a "say no to drugs" sign. hahahaahah

>>714847147
In that case it would probably be a hospital or care facility that would assume legal guardianship which would obviously not authorize sexual acts under such a condition.

>>714847147
>muh biology

>>714847384
That's pretty funny.

And why the fuck are you 'teaching' me how to score teenagers? Besides, I live in Denmark - we can fuck 15-year-olds here, legally. And get them drunk (in beer) at that age, too.
And at 16 they can purchase hard liquor. I don't really.. need advice, thank you.
Also I have no game, as previously mentioned. Even with booze or weed I wouldn't get lucky. (not fat, deformed, acid-burnt or anything like that. Just really.. uncharismatic)

>>714847400

their parents are still the legal guardian, the point is that in order for consent to be valid, the other person has to be competent. there is zero chance you successfully asserting than a mental age of 2 is competent and provided legal consent.

>>714847147
Puberty and fertility do not correlate with reasoning ability. The consent laws are based on reasoning ability balanced with the realities of life. Hence, consent laws are not based on puberty and fertility.

There is nothing wrong with the attraction to post-pubescent teens, but there is something wrong with screwing them before their minds are adequately developed. If you truly believe that fertility is a more important indicator than someone's mind, congratulations, you are incapable of conceiving of others are sapient beings.

>>714847291
>making threads about kids having sex NEVER leads to pictures or videos posted of kids having sex.
It's very rare. Even threads that are openly requesting the stuff often result in nothing illegal being posted.

>>714847535

Booze or weed no.

Addictive drugs + teens that can't afford their habit? Fuck yes you'd get laid unless you're so autistic you'd say "no" when they say "want to have sex?"

>>714847689
lol
I eh... I don't really feel like prowling for teenagers to get hooked up on drugs just for the sake of having my dick sucked.
But thanks for the advice..

>>714847634

But to base it on reasoning ability, there's still a line you'd have to draw. And you can't say all the choices that exist in the civilized world, 12 (or 14 if you exclude mexico and a couple others), 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 are all simultaneously correct.

>>714847656
>often result in nothing illegal being posted.
right... because they're bumping it... waiting...
then someone pretends to be outraged...
others pretend to respond...
they pretend to 'debate'

>>714847813
Why are you acting like this is an issue?

>>714847813
see >>714846819

anyone who wants it can go get it elsewhere, we're having a conversation here.

>>714847813
meanwhile you too are bumping the thread and waiting
you're a clever one

>>714847881
>acting

>>714843556
I see what u meant but at the end of the day the comparison is:

>thinking of doing
>actually fucking doing it

By doing the first you don't get nowhere

>>714846819
Missing letters?

>>714848008
>what is sage

>>714837533
Because jealous older men who can't get teens and older women who can't compete with teens say so.

>>714840454
>implying implications were implied

>>714848142

pretty sure i'd get banned for posting the full name, and then i'd have to spend time resetting my IP

>>714847813
The outright "lurk for cheese pizza" threads often have no "debate", it's not disguised at all and often fails.

Do people bump legit discussion threads in hopes of CP as you say, probably. I've likely encountered trolls doing such while I continue with legitimate conversation; hell, maybe it's happening now. But, that is not why many participate in such threads.

>>714848125
This isn't even funny any more, just weird.
This is /b/... margarita is the best.

>>714848127
You might be amazed at how many don't know the difference, such as OP and many in this thread.

>>714848245
You need to teach your bot what a troll.
The term didn't appear because "trolls are evil creatures". It's because they're trolling, like the fishing boat, throwing out a huge net and waiting for something to get caught in it.
Fuck you. This board is dead, HEIL HITLER

>>714837533
It's not. It's just you.
I'm in my 30s and in the last 5 years I've only dated girls 15 to 16.
A few were even long term that lasted a year or two.

>>714848404
cool story bro

>>714848245

Exactly. I'm on the extreme end of hoping for legitimate debate, because it's almost impossible to have elsewhere due to the subject.
I like debating. Sometimes I even pick an even more extreme position for age of consent, not because I feel its right or am attracted to prepubescents, just because the debate is fucking fun and it's hilarious to expose the fact that people can't actually logically justify what we both feel to be morally correct.

it's rare anyone really wants to debate at a really high level tho (claims backed up by peer reviewed studies, debating the validity/methodology of famous studies like Rind et al.)

>>714848245
>legitimate conversation
>/b/

File: nig family values.jpg (23KB, 369x400px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 369x400px

>>714842300
>you honestly think fucking 12 year olds is really benefiting either country?

fucking 12 year olds is the reason third world nigger republics are fucked up

>>714848494
>legitimate debate
>/b/

File: image.jpg (36KB, 718x526px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 718x526px

>>714848494
>DEBATE ME

>>714848541

once a year or so it happens
this thread is reasonably good tho. most of the time it devolves it name calling and just insisting someone is wrong over and over "because".

File: golden cock.jpg (67KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 413x395px

>>714843960

>>714845227
>deep dicking?
not with your 4" stub

File: adolph.jpg (144KB, 768x988px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 768x988px

>>714845952

File: 1412785283149.jpg (80KB, 559x556px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 559x556px

>>714848636
>this thread is reasonably good tho

>>714848618
that's right, i like everyone else am here for the lulz, and few things are more lulz inspiring than watching someone flip out when they can't win a debate about why the age of consent shouldn't be 5-6.

>>714848757
by /b/ standards. not very high to begin with.

>>714848709
>not with your 4" stub
plenty for a 9yo
>tara seemed entertained enough

>>714848807
>watching someone flip out
>on a text board

>>714848875

so why are you in this thread?

>>714848943
>so why are you in this thread?
>>714848807
>, i like everyone else am here for the lulz

>>714848244
Couple more letters? Clue?

>>714849009

right. and i'm sure the things you get your lulz from are so vastly superior to mine right?

File: modssss.jpg (93KB, 500x702px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 500x702px

>>714847813

>>714849085

fuck dude have you not heard of tor?

>>714849101
>superior
no.
i'm inferior.
we're all inferior to your master debating skills.
we are simply pawns.
we should all bow down to the great cornholio.

I'm gonna address the elephant in the room :

Most people could agree (in their minds anyways) that a 10 to 12yo girl looks sexually attractive, especially given how we found socially acceptable to "dress them".

The other fishy thing is: the people who like to discuss this aren't men teenagers, they are fully grown adults with only one thing in mind : their own sexual pleasure.

>>714849193

and don't you forget it.

>>714849165
Too much hassle and obvious trap.
>implying TOR hasn't been compromised.
>implying it wasn't set up as a containment platform to scoop up pedos...

>>714843080
Good metaphor anon, very true

They're hot so you look at them and feel the sexual urge, it's natural. But if you actually talked to them or tried to hang out with them you'd be annoyed at how dumb and empty they are as people compared to adults, and if you tried to have sex it would be awkward and inexperienced, and most likely not that pleasant for either party.

>>714846819
If you can't guess this in two seconds an hero.

>>714849262
sorry, i know you were expecting a struggle.
you like it better when you can prove someone wrong.

>>714849265

yeah a bunch of pedos that left javascript on while visiting compromised sites got caught.

it's a trap for people with shit opsec, i'll give you that.

>>714849354
>you'd be annoyed at how dumb and empty they are as people compared to adults
dicks don't care about personality.

>>714849403

yup it makes me sooo hard

File: EllenStratton-album6.jpg (42KB, 312x420px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 312x420px

>>714849237
>men teenagers
>The other fishy thing
>fishy

>>714837533
because its not and anyone that says otherwise is a brainwashed self righteous cuck

>>714849237
>with only one thing in mind : their own sexual pleasure.
That is quite an assumption to make about people you don't remotely know.

>>714849237
>fully grown adults with only one thing in mind : their own sexual pleasure.
how is that any different from horny male teens?

>>714849354

well to be fair i've been railing against cp possession and post-puberty age of consent ever since i was 12 myself and found out having sex with or looking at pictures of people my age was illegal.

>>714849570
Yep. TBH it was more true for me at 11 than it is now as an adult.

>>714849658
because 12yos should have unfiltered access to every kind porn there is

>>714849570
Because that would be a somewhat fair situation, a fucking 30 year old is likely to have a clear advantage

>>714849836

that's their parents decisions, not the governments.

>>714849867

Huge disadvantage in reality. Teens are smart enough to know they need only say the word and the 18+ partner will be arrested and have their life destroyed.

>>714849885
because parents are always the true beacons of guidance

>>714849570
Out of context, the situation is:

>Fully grown adult seeking for a child to

>a) create a meaningful and healthy relationship

>b) tight hole. Jpeg

>>714850039

There's wide latitude for reasonable people to disagree how much freedom their children should have at what age on the internet, it shouldn't be enforced at gunpoint and life ruining.
Prosecuting teenagers as child pornography offenders for pictures of themselves and other teenagers is a fucking disgrace.

>>714849974
Fucking wrong, tell a 12 year old to STFU and she/he will get and iPhone... Wait for him/her to tell u their color choice

BTW, extreme situation, even some fucking cheap shoes might do the trick

>>714850260
>Prosecuting teenagers as child pornography offenders for pictures of themselves and other teenagers is a fucking disgrace.
because nudes of minors being shared without permission is perfect acceptable for high school life

>>714850451
You can't be fucking serious, bait, isn't it?

>>714850425

More likely the 12 year old says "get me an iPhone or I'm telling"

>>714850451
it's not an issue for the police. it's a discipline issue that should be resolved by school officials (if done on campus) and parents.
you're fucking insane if you think a teen sexting her boyfriend should be treated like bart huskey

>>714850603
>school officials
>punishing for something done off campus
pretty strong stance for someone very 'muh freedoms'

>>714850779

did your brain just blank out and skip over "(if done on campus)"?

File: Screenshot_20161211-025450.png (2MB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1440x2560px

To all people defending the sacred teens... Just see the fucking ads running in this site

>>714846819
At least show how many letters that is, there is no indication how long that word is, so the combinations could be infinite..

>>714850862
i saw "if" and simply assumed that there would be literally no way to prove if it was done on campus or not, and the school officials would simply be complete dickholes and try to punish for it anyways.

>>714850921

um, the number of letters is there. each underscore is a letter.

>>714851000

well let me clarify then. it's an issue for school officials only if they're caught sending pictures on campus during school hours or the very specific subject of who sent what pic is substantially disrupting the classroom (e.g. fight breaks out because kid x had a photo of kid y's girl).
otherwise it's strictly a matter for parents. absolutely not the police unless it's really over the top severe like a gang rape video.

File: 1453320645350.jpg (103KB, 500x433px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 500x433px

>>714837533
>>714838877
>>714839199
>>714840055
>>714840366
>>714840499
>>714842300
>>714843333
>>714845788
>>714846022
>>714846677
>>714847055
>>714847188
>>714847400
>>714847811
>>714848244
>>714851000

>>714851285
>parents
>implying they wouldn't simply call the cops

>>714851395

well if they do it should be treated the same way as if they called the cops because their kid snuck an extra cookie for dessert: "call us again for this and we'll arrest YOU for misuse of emergency services"

>>714851610
>distributing child porn is the same as an extra cookie

>>714851610
>misuse of emergency service
and FYI the police has more than one number.

>>714851052
Well, that narrows it down to a few hundred combinations.
Or thousands?
I don't do math.

What is this riddler bullshit?

>>714851707

>even calling teenagers with pictures of themselves and their boyfriends/girlfriends child porn

>>714851891
pretty sure it's illegal to keep calling their non-emergency number too for the same thing if they told you it wasn't their problem and to knock it off.

>>714851984

you're not baiting me into posting the link, kys.

>>714851998
>even calling teenagers with pictures of themselves and their boyfriends/girlfriends child porn
the law calls it that.
i'm using the terminology the law uses.
if you have a problem with that, too bad.
i'm not altering my language just to fit your pedophilistic paradise.

>>714851998
It certainly is child porn once it's being distributed over the Internet.

>>714851998
>if they told you it wasn't their problem
except it is their problem.

>>714852213

the whole point is that the law is fucking disgraceful. and the prosecutors actually using it should be disbarred.

a 17 year old was charged, as an adult, for exploitation of a minor, himself, for possessing naked pictures of himself. in what universe is that not batshit crazy? everyone who pursued that case should be disbarred/fired, and the judge should be thrown off the bench for accepting a plea.

>>714852201
Posting a letter or two is not linking...

>>714852234

that's precisely the problem. it's insane to treat consensual teenage selfies the same as a toddler gang rape

>>714852358
>the whole point is that the law is fucking disgraceful
i understand that perfectly.
but /b/ isn't the place to debate it, no matter how much fun you have trying to debate things and trying to prove how your viewpoint is the only correct one.

take it up with your city council. and your state legislature.

>>714852519

sorry, you're right, i'll just go jack off to traps instead.

and fwiw, while i haven't written letters to lawmakers, i absolutely do debate the issue IRL and online under my real identity.

>>714852472

it's insane to think a 13yo bating with her hairbrush and recording it on a phone 4 inches from her puss isn't child porn.

>>714852675

Not even 1/10th as insane as throwing her in jail and making her a registered sex offender for life for doing it.

>>714852655
>i absolutely do debate the issue IRL and online under my real identity.
oh, i know you do.
you make it clear in every thread.
you live only for the debate.
like you have to prove yourself somehow by spouting off your credentials.
>fuck you, i know what i'm talking about. and you don't. and that's why you're wrong. i win.

>>714852358
It also exposes the hypocrisy of modern times -

These days then biggest producers of CP are kids themselves...

When I was a teenager, I remember leaving my curtains open and walking past naked hoping to be seen...

>>714837533
Because a jew said so. This whole world is ran by old jews who think its fin to fuck only old ladys.

>>714852837

it's pretty fun actually, so why not?

much more fun then spending every thread mocking the debate because you can't win it. you should try it.

>>714853024

"attraction" does not equal "fucking"

>>714846819
Codly?
Cadly?
Cadfy?
Cydfly?
Cadey?
Cidfy?
Cidly?

>>714846819
Ciddy?

>>714853134
>much more fun then spending every thread mocking the debate because you can't win it.
because i know there is no "winning" it.
every single argument anyone makes towards you, you simply chalk it up as a fallacy and completely disregard is as a proper counter argument.

and arguing in general does absolutely nothing.
you can sit here and bicker for hours upon hours
for every single day for the rest of your life
about what the "appropriate" age for AoC should be
but at the end of every single day, it won't change a single fucking thing.
no laws are going to be changed.
no minds are going to be changed.
just the everlasting pissing contest over who's "right"
you might be so colossally bored that you're fine with that pissing contest, but i just know there's really no point to it.

>>714853299

oh you're that guy.

we've been over this a few times now. when you keep saying "this is wrong because i say so" over and over, there's no other response than pointing out the invalidity of that statement over and over.

but you're right, arguing over whether it's ok to argue about something on /b/ is much better, you totally win

>>714853470
>arguing over whether it's ok to argue about something on /b/
i'm not saying you shouldn't argue.
i'm saying i think it's pointless.
surely someone with your superior intellect knows that there's a difference between the two statements.

>>714853470
>when you keep saying "this is wrong because i say so" over and over
and that's someone else.

File: malvorlage-zebra.jpg (109KB, 500x650px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 500x650px

>>714838561
Omg i love you.
Thats exactly my opinion but nobodys share it with me

Morality is subjective and mostly a tool to preserve the trade value of virgin daughters. If you think sex with a 14 year old is immoral, you see her as subhuman and the equivalent of livestock.

>>714853610

but you, someone who also spends a lot of time in threads on this subject, seem to be suggesting that there's something to do here that's not equally irrelevant

if you weren't also spending hours on end on this site you'd have a point, but since you're obviously ok with that, what activity should i be doing that's more worthwhile but as fun? posting in trap threads?

>>714853669

whoever it is you're the one criticizing it. if someone keeps posting the same logical fallacy over and over, it's going to get called out over and over.
it's not a subjective thing either. logical fallacies are very clearly identifiable; someone kept repeating the same one over and over, it doesn't become a valid argument if it's repeated over and over.

File: image.jpg (110KB, 914x600px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 914x600px

>>714853781
>if you weren't also spending hours on end on this site you'd have a point
i'm stuck at work with literally nothing else to do.
it does not invalidate the point that the arguing in this thread does nothing in the long run.

>what activity should i be doing that's more worthwhile but as fun?
i'm not one to say how others spend their time.
but i get that you have "fun" doing this
and in the end, it's all about "fun"

>>714853942
>if someone keeps posting the same logical fallacy over and over, it's going to get called out over and over.

>doesn't recognize bait

>>714854112

Nothing we do on this site on any subject does anything in the long run.
I have bad insomnia and it's the middle of the night, so i have absolutely nothing else to do either. but i love to debate very controversial subjects from very unpopular positions, so why not?
can only fap so many times.

>>714854312
oh, i get it perfectly.
you're bored, and you like to bait people.
>so why not?
exactly.

and if you're on a board like /b/, that's mostly pedos and degenerates, why not pretend to have moral authority.
>gotta have that fun

just don't get all huffy when someone points it out...

>>714853684
Look up nihilism, blew my mind, but so true.
You'll have a blast with it.

FYI, in the UK, the base of all English Common Law, it was deemed healthy to fuck Preteens by many doctors and was reputed to cure sexual diseases.
It was legal to fuck LGs for millenia, right up to early 1900's, when the age was 12/13.
It was raised to 16 because of pressure from society about child prostitution being too common.

In other words, it was deemed ok for kids to fuck, but not as a profession, and the trafficking, pimping, etc associated with that...

Even then, it was not rigorously enforced until the late 70's, early 80's even.
Up until then, you got maybe a small fine or a warning if you kept harassing kids.

But it was deemed for most of history that a little experimentation or curiosity will happen, sometimes kids are horny, sometimes adults too, and who checks ID?

Somewhere along the line, that message got confused, and any sexual behaviour between a child and adult meant the adult was obviously a child molested and pedophile obsessed with raping children.

The original point of the legal bills was to prevent organized exploitation and profiteering, not to stop a drunken Uncle Johnny from fumbling with his niece's ass while she sleeps.

Him confessing or her finding that out helps nobody. He ends up on a sex register, she ends up feeling dirty and needs therapy.

The biggest crime is people telling kids how they should feel about their sexuality.

>>714854528

it's not so much moral authority as logic and research tho. as i'm sure you've heard me mention, im morally against some of the more extreme positions i argue. but have plenty of arguments and peer reviewed studies backing that position.
the fun derives from actually winning the debate, and getting people upset when they can't win. not from saying something obviously wrong.

>>714853771
Girls are livestock though so now I am confused

File: 1479755567709.png (92KB, 200x298px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 200x298px

>>714854836
>peer reviewed studies

>>714837533
Because teens are treated too much like kids in many ways, especially sexually. It's not immoral to be attracted, it's immoral to act upon it. If kids were taught about sex (intellectually) before hormones start clouding the mind, teens can handle sex better.

>>714855085

yes that's right. we can start with Rind et al, the criticisms, rebuttals to that criticism, and followups like Ulrich et al. and go from there if you want.

>>714855294
no thanks, dude.
i'll just let you sit there and try to look smart all you want.

>>714854684
This this this

>>714855464

and you can sit there thinking you said something that would in any way indicate i'm not.

File: neighborhood-watch.gif (5KB, 941x728px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 941x728px

>>714840995
Shut the fuck up. If you undermine this operation, you're going to turn up going for $5 a slice in a Chuckie Cheese.

>>714855555

dem quints

>>714855583
>thinks parroting phrases is indicative of intelligence.

>>714855234

But if it was wrong to act upon it, it would be wrong regardless of the age of the other person.
Should teen-on-teen sex be illegal?

>>714855753

>thinks i was parroting someone else because obviously nobody exists who is capable of original thought

>>714855555
yawn, checked. I guess.

>>714855555
fuck you for stealing my quints you fucking asshole

>>714855771
>Should teen-on-teen sex be illegal?
only if they don't record it, and don't conceive

>>714855859
you tell him bud

>>714855859
>trig

>>714855294
>Rind et al, the criticisms, rebuttals to that criticism, and followups like Ulrich et al.

Tell this in simple terms to a layman?

>>714855836
>implying you weren't

>>714855888
and fuck you for stealing my trips
fuck this site

>>714855897

>now he has to samefag

>>714855988
fuck you for stealing my dubs :(

>>714855897

they're peer reviewed studies published in reputable journals that provide strong evidence against childhood sexual activity having long term damage as a consequence of the act itself.

>>714855949
too bad you're not smart enough to actually continue the conversation at the level that would conclusively establish that

>>714856025
>>714855988
oh shit i got dubs wtf i love this site now

>>714856070
>too bad you're not smart enough
i never claimed i was.
that's the funny bit.
i'm not the one here with something with prove.
i never was. ;)

>>714855988
c'mon buddy, trips are a renewable ressource. Chin up!

NO it's not immoral to be attracted, but it's illegal.

>>714856175
>illegal
>attracted

>now this is bait.,jpg

>>714856005
I'm not him, I assure you

>>714856070
Hmm, alright. Do you perhaps have a list of readings for the interested?

>>714856136

nothing to prove here either...
it either makes me laugh when someone is too stupid to argue, or smart enough to argue then can't win
either way i get lulz.

>>714856070
say the phrase "peer reviewed" 500 more times why dont you you annoying faggot

>>714856157
thanks anon
i guess youre right
i needed that :)

>>714839789
>sex is more complicated than driving a car

ok lad

>>714856257

peer reviewed...

>>714856309
GOD DAMNIT

File: image.jpg (11KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 225x225px

>>714856217
>someone refuses to debate with me
>better insult

ITT: Christians vs Atheists. / Pol vs Lefty Pol.

>>714856217
>nothing to prove here either
>>714854836
>the fun derives from actually winning the debate

>>714856214

Sure. Mentioned Rind and Ulrich (both the methodological criticisms and rebuttals to the former i mentioned are well worth reading), also check out Kilpatrick 92, Levitt and Pinnell 95, and Levine 02 to get a solid footing on the subject.
>>714856257
ALL THOSE ARE "PEER REVIEWED" MUAHAHAHAAH

>>714856293
I was one off from quints once and before I could pull the trigger a kind anon showed me i had so much to live for. Just paying it forward.

>>714850882
I have dreamed about fucking that girl in the middle for months

>>714856509

i dreamed about fucking the taco bell dog for months.
i should probably stop eating before napping.

File: 1480465350853.jpg (50KB, 500x686px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 500x686px

what the f'UCK ??
> >>714837533 "Anon, why is it immoral to be attracted to teens?"
It's NOT. ... even if you're not a Teen.

Just don't ''grab them by the pussy'' unless you're Politically CORRECT like TRUMP
--or-- you drug their Jello, like PiLL Cosby.

Otherwise; don't ask - don't tell.
DUH !

Like my mother (who molested me) said: "'Crunch all you want, I'll make more.'' (i have twelve siblings, and what is this?)

File: faggots.png (36KB, 706x376px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 706x376px

age of consent should be 25 - 28. really. easy as that.

same for voting, drinking, and driving.

>>714856403

yes because that's obviously the same as proving something, on an anonymous message board where the thread will be gone in an couple hours.
although at least 1 guy here is apparently a big enough fan to remember me from past threads so...

>>714856631

and access to the internet

>>714856687
>big enough fan

just because i remember the atheist thread guy, doesn't mean i'm a fan, so...

>>714856727

remembering someone who spams the same exact sentence and picture as an OP is entirely different than remember someone from a few key arguments and statements in dozens of all-text posts.

File: image.png (30KB, 245x250px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 245x250px

>>714856880
>is entirely different

>>714852675
But once she shares that video of herself masturbating she is a pedophile and a sex offender. America is so dumb

>>714856631
i'd bet that, if we coddle kids until 25, brain development will just get slower
only way to develop your character is to make mistakes

>>714856631
>>714856691

I'll miss you, boys.

>>714856494
Thanks. I don't suppose I'll get in trouble for reading papers touching on sensitive subjects, would I?

>>714857199
>only way to develop your character is to make mistakes

i agree. but it would be wonderful to give people what they want in big doses. if only to see their reactions.

File: AND GOD BLESS HER.jpg (88KB, 600x399px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 600x399px

>>714857146
>>714852675

>>714857146
pretty sure they don't do that to girls. it's usually just the male who receives/downloads it who is punished

File: 1480465350853.jpg (102KB, 700x509px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 700x509px

>>714838561 yes, a country of EMPLOYED (non-adult) children until age 25. [Thumbs Up]

>>714853684 >>714856631 [Thumbs up]

>only way to develop your character is to make mistakes
>only way to learn not to drink at college parties is to get gang raped while passed out
>only way to learn not to leave your handgun on your dresser is to have your 5yo shoot himself with it

>>714857269

No. It's a perfectly valid area for academic research.
But if you question the orthodoxy most people will just assume you're a pedo, especially if they're not highly scientific minded themselves

File: fedora.jpg (13KB, 170x215px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 170x215px

>>714857538
>>714857538
>>714857538

>>714857466

that's not strictly true anymore. girls are getting hit with charges for having nudes of themselves these days too. see: Brianna Denson

File: WIN_20161112_104414.jpg (259KB, 851x638px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 851x638px

>>714857605

close...

>>714857694

i am on your side, but you try too hard.

>you pedantic fuck.

>>714857694
you look like a gay toe however the fuck that's supposed to work

>>714857790

just because I prefer the finer things in life, it doesn't mean I take it in the pooper. That behavior is reserved for hooligans and ruffians.

>>714857687
she wasn't even convicted though. a boy in the same position as her would have actually been prosecuted. it even says the case is ongoing for the guy she sent the nudes to who was also underage so his life is probably fucked now

>>714857948

yes yes that's right, i'm a TOP. i give it in the pooper.

>>714838289
^This.

File: 1480465350853.jpg (10KB, 110x110px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 110x110px

the SEXIST Lesbians are RIGHT -- every (male white) nigger should be ..aSexual.. until they die.

And after all those (fat vegitarian alcoholic pot-head) Lesbians die..
the (male white) Leaders of the Universe can return to our complacent society of
Rape, Pillage, Viking, Gangster-guns, Zika-virus, bird-flu, Chipotle, etc...

>>714858170

she took a plea deal. a single minor probation violation away from being a sex offender for the next year.

so did her boyfriend.

>RIP in piece thread

>>714837533
It isn't really. Any real, honest man would admit to that, but we just maintain the facade of it because of the rest of the women; but we all know

>>714858285

and you want a conviction for something equally absurd? leah debuc is now a convicted felon and registered sex offender for life for playing around mimicing sex on tv with her brothers when she was *10*

File: 1478064679619.jpg (74KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 750x750px

>>714858333

nice digits

File: DSC00097.jpg (91KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 800x600px

>>714858364
>honest
>man

pick only one

Why do you care about what is moral? I you are fine with it, then Its fine.

>>714858830
if*