/dead/ - dead

can you be more specific? To what degree do you want to pursue 'pedophilia'? Holding hands? blowjob? pregnancy? BDSM?

Makes parents upset, they'll probs shoot you. It's in your interest to not be a pedo.

When they inevitably become adults they might find you and beat the shit out of or kill you

Because it's unnatural and contributes nothing to the continuation of the human race.What happens to "pedophiles" in the wild?>Attracted to children>Have sex with child>Unable to procreate>Genetic dead endIf the person/animal continues to have sex with prepubescent children then literally nothing happens. Their bloodlines ends with them. Problem solved.Adding stuff like>it's wrong>b-but the child's well being>b-but it makes them happyare moral arguments that only apply in social constructs that can shapeshift depending on the time and place. But at the end of the day having sex with a child that is unable to bear children contributes nothing. You can be a moral relativist all you want but at the end of the day if you aren't having children then you are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. That is literally your only job as a human and what drives us as a species. Sex is the road to reproduction. Reproduction is how we continue our species.We can all act like things like homosexuality, pedos, and other sexual activities other than hetero-normative ones are a-ok in a modern moralist sense but if it came down to the nitty gritty of keeping our species alive (let's say there were only 50 people left on the planet) these activities and attractions would do more harm than good.Thankfully we have billions on this planet so a few percentage of them not breeding can be excused, tolerated and even accepted socially.

Children are conditioned to be obedient to adults and higher-authority figures. Due to their inherent lack of experience and therefore lack of knowledge on the subject, they are easily manipulated into engaging in sex.Another important point is that children are not recognized as real human beings but rather as property of their respective parents (or legal guardians). This can sometimes be inconsistent but this is the general attitude.The moral argument is very important because morality is inherently a societal construct. If society didn't exist and it was just you and a 12 year old girl there are no extra reasons against intercourse when compared to a 20-year old with a medical-condition you need to be mindful of.But because society exists, just don't fuck kiddies. It's that simple.

&gt&gt273> Due to their inherent lack of experience and therefore lack of knowledge on the subject, they are easily manipulated into engaging in sex.The same thing can be said of many adults, but this is not a crime. The assumption must therefore be made that sex is something inherently harmful somehow. Now, I don't like the idea of pedos because it's icky, and I know that's not the most rational reason to give, but it's the same reason I don't get into other weird shit. Maybe we just need to realize that hating pedos might actually be human nature for one reason or another.

&gt&gt274>The same thing can be said of many adults, but this is not a crime.This is purely a result of legalism, not morality. At some point the government needs to stop caring about people's sex lives. Instead of viewing age of consent as the magical age when people are suddenly responsible enough to have sex on their own, it should rather be seen as the age the government decides to stop protecting you from sex, regardless of how naive or manipulable you may still be.

it traumatizes them, which makes them kind of useless. A nutcase comrade is as good as a dead comrade

&gt&gt275&gt&gt275> Instead of viewing age of consent as the magical age when people are suddenly responsible enough to have sex on their own, it should rather be seen as the age the government decides to stop protecting you from sex, regardless of how naive or manipulable you may still be.So, I guess this should be the same age at which the government would punish you for crime instead of your parents, no? That's still pretty young, too young for my tastes. As for "protecting you from sex", I think this still hinges on the belief that sex is inherently harmful.

&gt&gt277>So, I guess this should be the same age at which the government would punish you for crime instead of your parents, no? That's still pretty young, too young for my tastes.I have no idea what point you're trying to make. The government (or at least the US government) has already tried 11 year-olds as adult.>As for "protecting you from sex", I think this still hinges on the belief that sex is inherently harmful.Yes welcome to Christian morality.

&gt&gt272this 100% XDDD

&gt&gt267>are there any non-moralist arguments about a moral debate

&gt&gt308ur bad at every game

&gt&gt267Moralist arguments are sufficient.>inb4 muh stirner

&gt&gt272Why is it morally correct to keep the species alive?

&gt&gt317I don't think it is a matter of "moral correctness", but more of "evolutionary" correctness, whatever that may be. Before going to >"why do we still need to evolve in this modern society?", modern society was designed to hinder evolution and allowed a cesspooling of inferior genetic conditions and information. Idk if I was coherent enough but that's all I have to say

&gt&gt267Because it's been proven to leave it's victims, with mental issues, in which, often stay with them for the rest of their lives.>Why is it wrong to leave kids with mental issuesIs going to be your next reply I presume, if so, please just go back to /pol/

&gt&gt323he said non-moralist

&gt&gt322If modern society already hinders evolution, then shouldn't it be fine? Even if we returned to a primitive lifestyle and evolution is at it's max there still isn't much reason to care whether humans evolve millions of years after your death.

&gt&gt324Because I love children and seeing them suffer makes me sad, stirner wasnt a sociopath you retarded meme philosopherCommit suicide.

its threads like these that make me feel a lot better for only wanting to fuck my cousin lel.

Why is it so hard to have any serious discussion with people on topics like these? This thread is really old so looking back at it now, I expected better from /dead/ of all places.

I personally have no interest in children, so I couldn't care less about the issue. But just looking at the sheer amount of NPC tier spewing of
>kys pedo
>its bad because X says so
>pedos get the bullet
>go back to [site]
and its variations, makes me feel like you will have much better luck debating religious fundamentalists. People like to treat the age of consent like a god itself. Exactly one day after you turn [age], it is perfectly fine to have sex with people.

This would make sense if teenagers didn't have sex before the legal age anyways, it is pretty common for them to do so. So the only explanation that comes to mind is that the laws prevent older people from pursuing younger children. But even otherwise, we see older people (lets be real, most people refer to pedos as older males here, in general context) that marry people much younger them, although above legal age. What makes this any more acceptable?

If we look at this from an evolutionary standpoint, the prime reproductive age for people is after puberty, and it wasn't too uncommon for people to have kids at a very young age. Obviously, age of consent laws and other spooks will now refer to them as 'teen parents' in a derogatory sense. So I don't understand, what exactly does society want? I have a feeling that moralists have no answers themselves and just don't bother to tackle this issue without using spooks to fool themselves.

Even on this internet, people get triggered by shit like loli posting or the whole 'cuties' fiasco recently, then again, I don't particularly care for either of them, but the thing that keeps bothering me is how vehemently opposing people are to having an open discussion regarding these subjects without resorting to spooked shit, it's unbelievable.

>>1560
>If we look at this from an evolutionary standpoint
stopped reading

>>1561
imagine saging a top thread

bump

>>1560
> So I don't understand, what exactly does society want?
Adults are considered to be in an authority position over children therefore sexual relations between them are seen as exploitative. Teens having sex between themselves is legal in most countries. Teen parents are considered irresponsible because they cannot provide for their children as they either are in school or should be.

>>1561
care to elaborate?
>>1563
how would you define an adult?

>>1567
Where I live, people over the age of 18 are considered adults.

>>1568
And what makes 18 the magic number? Do they immediately gain superior reasoning skills once they turn 18?

>>1572
I assume it's a combination of tradition (the Catholic Church says 18) and statistics (the vast majority have acquired their superior reasoning skills by that time). You have to understand that your average Joe does not care about your super special circumstances, they think in generalities.

>>226
no, there aren't
values and empathy are good tho

>>226
The fact that pedos are harming children would obviously mean that ppl who desire their children to stay unharmed would take actions against pedophiles, thusly making it the pedos interest to not engage in sexual abuse of children cause that would mean they'd get their heads kicked in.
there, egoist anti-pedo argument