Homosexuality becomes socially accepted

>homosexuality becomes socially accepted
>bi and trans also become socially accepted
What's next, pedophiles become socially accepted?

Other urls found in this thread:

salon.com/2016/05/17/im_not_a_monster_a_pedophile_on_attraction_love_and_a_life_of_loneliness/
familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/child-molestation-and-homosexuality-2/
hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-health-topics/reproductive-health/states/ma.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

You should go to /pol/

is this slippery slope trying to appeal to spuks?

I would be ok with that tbqhwy

You should go back to /lgbt/

>muh slippery slope

Pedophilia is still almost universally condemned in the west, even after the tremendous strides of the LGBT movement.

>people still deny the slippery slope

>People calling pedophilia a bad thing
>On Veeky Forums
I want normies to leave.

People said the same thing about homos thirty years ago. This is a long game so be patient goy:

salon.com/2016/05/17/im_not_a_monster_a_pedophile_on_attraction_love_and_a_life_of_loneliness/

If people were logic, protected consensual incest should be since it's basically the same as homosexuality (consequenceless deviancy between consenting people)
But they arent

>babby's first fallacy
I love how newfriends use logic terms thinking they understand them

This isn't arguing for sexual relations with children, just trying to separate people who are sexually attracted to children from those who take it a step further and act on it

>liberals fight for gay marriage
>get super triggered when some super religious hick in Utah has three wives

explain that one you fucks

VIVA LA NAMBLA

Because the religious hick's "wives" are essentially slaves.

By sexualizing Stirner you've turned him into a spook.

If they enter a contract under their free will they aren't.

Most gay "men" abuse crystal meth and have over 200 partners and get aids, but I'm not judging if they wanna settle down and tie the knot :^)

I honestly have no problem worshiping and sexualizing stirner. It's fun as fuck to see spooks everywhere. Literally the comfiest philosophy for a finance major.

His ideology is the one that I don't mind putting above my self interest.

>google what Nambla is
>it exists unironically
Oh God why

It's just platonic love man, why judge don't you wanna be on the right side of history :^)

You have no idea what a spook is.

If liberals normalize pedophilia does this mean I will finally be able to go to a jb whore house without flying to SE Asia?

They're slowly legalizing it.

Once you say that kids can consent to sexual reassignemnt surgery and to euthanasia/assisted suicide, you basically have no ground to say that they can not consent to sex.

Like I said, it's the long game. First you gotta convince people that pedophilia isn't a sexual perversion but a misunderstood illness.

The goyim need to be trained to sympathize with the pedophile, they didn't choose to be attracted to children they were born that way! They can't help themselves the poor things!

Got bored of the N-th post about Clinton and Trump and miss the ol' shit/pol/sting, user?

nambla is retarded as fuck. If anything, they should vote to allow parents to consent for their children. Allowing children to consent for themselves is 100% rapist pedo territory.

>finance major
Why don't you study something real like Medicine or Engineering

Because I actually want to be in the 1%

>he's still in his early 20s "if I work really hard I'll be filthy rich by the time I'm 30!" phase
kek

Well I won't have to worry about a family/kid...

>he misunderstood "studying how the 1% works" with "actually becoming the 1%"

>kid can choose gender
>kid can't fuck someone for what is an hour of their life
I oppose pedophilia and also the transexual and faggot degeneracy that is killing west. But leftists are hypocritical as fuck. So a kid can choose to to change his fucking gender, but somehow is too stupid for an half hour fucking? Make up your minds.

Wew user is excited for the slippery slope.

By the way it sounded i though it was some region in Africa or something...
Great, now i'm no some watchlist.

Nah I draw the line at late teen. And teens are legal already in most places in the civilized world. I don't need to go pre-puberty girls. That shit is wrong.

I'm not him but it's not a slipper slope because it's not fallacious.

Once you establish the baby is capable of consenting to acts of a certain magnitude when it comes to themselves and their future, you can't just make unprincipled exceptions.

>oh shit I got called out and I don't have a real response
>b-babby!

Pathetic.

I have nothing against polygamy/polyamory if it's an equal agreement among all parties.

Regareless of what normies would like you to believe polyamory/cuckolding is the next in line for normalization.

Screencap this.

...

This is true. I can already see nuances of it in popular media. Soon it won't be long before women are drifting between numerous sex partners while being in relationship with all of them.

At least the jews are doing something good for a change.

see

>women get liberated
>return to harem society
>"le monogamy and marriage was invented and enforced for no reason at all!"

IT FITS

>unprincipled exceptions
>if we allow children to make any choices then why can't you fug them so unfair damn commie hippocrytes

I want the pedos to leave.

What a time to be alive.

It has nothing to do with whether something has "grounds" or not, it has everything to do with hyper-protective parents. You're looking at this from completely the wrong angle.

To further develop my point - Once progessives are done with normalizing polygamy we will live in a society where pre-pubescent children are very knowledgable about sex, and it would be dishonest to say that those children wouldn't be able to consent because they know what they are getting into.

Don't tell me you anons didn't already know how bengus in vagoo worked by the time you were 12. The next generation will know about it earlier.

Becoming transexual isn't "any" decision. It's a life-altering decision. These kids are put on hormone blockers. They're put in unnatural roles. All because mommy really wanted a baby girl but instead got a girl who accidently got a penis too. And if they haven't killed themselves by 20, then you got a special one.

The people who enable kids to do this are just as bad, if not worse, than the pedophiles they hate. They are, just like pedophiles, only in it for themselves with no regards for the health of the child.

You didn't understand my point, I'm arguing from the other perspective. I said that there are certain decision, like ones I described earlier (srs, assisted suicide) that basically declare children capable of making really complex choices on subjects that are hard to understand for adults. If you say they can consent to such things, you don't have a basis to say that they can't consent to sex. Which is why we should make or keep those things illegal.

The intention behind the law is irrelevant, I'm not saying there's a conscious agency behind it.
What matters is that things are being approved of that make the case against kids being able to consent to sex impossible to maintain if you also approve of those other things. Since that's a terrible position to find ourselves in, we should keep those things illegal, as I'm saying to the other poster.

>All because mommy really wanted a baby girl but instead got a girl who accidently got a penis too.

Don't forget that it's also a great way to signal to all your Facebook friends that you're on the right side of history. You might even get to be on TV because of it!

Nothing wrong with pedophilia, as long as the urges aren't acted upon.
I also think the possession of child pornography should be legalised, since I don't think viewing an immoral act should be illegal.

Whatever you say, Satan

not an argument

>The intention behind the law is irrelevant

It is ABSOLUTELY relevant. What do you think drives "tough on crime" politics? What do you think drives the further and further ostracization of sex offenders?

Your entire argument is based on "oh well this is happening, therefore this other thing will happen later because logical consistency" without a shred of evidence that the other thing will happen or even has a reasonable chance of happening.

>the case against kids being able to consent to sex

The case is "Keep that creepy monster away from my poor innocent children. In fact, keep everyone who commits anything even resembling sexual misconduct (including fucking a 17 year old when you're 18) on a list that I can look up at any time so my children are extra-safe."

Until you can prove via hard data that that culture of fear and protectiveness is disappearing, nothing else matters.

The creation of child pornography necessarily involves crime and therefore possession of it should be illegal.

>Officer you can't arrest me for this kilo of blow in my car, I don't sell drugs I'm just holding it for a friend :^)

People can look at videos of beheadings and other forms of murder, people can view videos of theft and so on.
What makes this a special crime?

>sexualization of children isn't becoming normalized

weew

>Your entire argument is based on "oh well this is happening, therefore this other thing will happen later because logical consistency" without a shred of evidence that the other thing will happen or even has a reasonable chance of happening.
>Until you can prove via hard data that that culture of fear and protectiveness is disappearing, nothing else matters.

No, I'm not making that type of argument. I didn't say that it's going to happen for certain or that it's probably going to happen, I said or better implied that the legality of those things makes the other point to argue easier.

But let's set legality aside for a moment, let's just talk about normative ethics: if you consider the child capable of consenting in the other two situations (or others similar to them), what makes pedophilia wrong at that point? The child apparently can consent - and therefore understand - death and severe changes to their body.

Snuff films are illegal to possess.

Where the fuck do you live where a 17 year old fucking an 18 year old is considered a crime? Of the western countries, only a few states in America penalizes that.

Mind is objective, so it would put somebody in a state of a despair.

I don't have a problem with the state protecting people from having shit taste and dying alone.

You're presenting a false equivalency. In the case of declaring themselves to be transgender the child draws on personally experienced feelings of gender dysphoria. Kids are dumb, but not so dumb as to be incapable of giving voice to their own thoughts.

In consenting to sex, the child would have zero pertinent experience to aid the decision making process, and would be responding to the request of someone else rather than making one of their own and thus lacks the ability to meaningfully consent.

You mean all of them? It's called statutory rape, and it's perfectly fine because people under the age of 22 can't support a child and will probably break up and wind up paying child support.

I know subhuman Europians view something like that as acceptable to be common but we're trying to be a first world country here.

nah children cant think for theirselves

incest will be accepted in a few decades tho

Adding to "the other poin"t being the legalization of pedophiliac (is that the right word?) relationships, in case it's not clear.

a reset, this shit only spurs up during the decadence of cultures

Ariana Grande hasn't been a child for ten years already

But plenty of videos of murder are not illegal to possess, or at least you most definitely won't be charged for it.
Plenty of people watch the ISIS beheading videos for example. And like I said, there are other crimes you can view legally too.

Is it sexualisation that makes this differ?

You are talking about legalization of possesion, not viewing.

Two different things user. Words.

judging by the room, how old do you think the character she is portraying in that webm is?

can people stop picking on dan?
he's a bit weird, sure, but he's just kooky like that, it's why he's so good at making these shows
he is NOT a child molester and DEFINITELY NOT a foot fetishist...

Only Cali and a few other states have statutory rape laws on the books that set the age of consent at 18. In my home state of Massachusetts, for example, it's 16.

But what of the mooslims?

Digitally it doesn't matter though. What harm is there in owning a file of child pornography?

I don't think girls give their room a makeover once they hit 18

It's a gradual process and sometimes left the way they had it since they were kids


Wait, what are we discussing again?


I have a crush on AG so I lost track

>But plenty of videos of murder are not illegal to possess

Because they weren't made with the express purpose of selling access to them for profit you moron.

I wonder who could be behind this post?

Well age of consent should be 22. I'm sick of seeing human garbage spawn from peasants in your state. Nobody should be paying child support without a college degree.

I know tons of guys who only live for the weekends where they get drunk and see their kids. It's all they are allowed to enjoy in their life.

>kids are smart enough to say that they are the wrong gender, despite not even experiencing puberty and sexual maturity
>the people around them who push them on are of utterly no ulterior motive
You're wrong. Your claims are wrong. A kid can most definitely not decide his gender to be "wrong" when he hasn't even experienced sexual maturity yet and the full extent of what it actually means being a man or woman.

You are part of the sick cult that scar kids for life. You are no better than the pedos you wish the death for. Both of you see them as commodities to exact your agenda/lusts on.

Eventually the leftist shits who support the scarring of children will have to come to terms with their hypocricy. And they must pay the price for it.

If it's about how it's obtained, then why not allow people to own child pornography if they got it for free? Or a friend gave it to them? No money went to the producer that way.

Well I'll give you that I think now owning of files that is detrimental to the safety of the nation should be illegal just on grounds that it's easy to frame somebody by putting cp on his hard drive.

Just correcting your words because I'm a vocabulary autist.

Why does everyone conflate homosexuality with pedophilia. Is this board retarded

First of all, the great majority of kids who feel dysphoric at a certain point in time will never have them again in the future. So apparently they're not so smart about it, in fact they're wrong most of the times.

And let's set aside how I don't even think that "I feel like a man/woman" is even a coherent thought (if you want we can explore this further later).

They don't have experience to what it means undergoing transformative surgery or receiving hormones. Absolutely zero. Even if their thoughts were coherent and even if they kept those thoughts in the future, they would still have no practical understanding of what srs actually means.

They have even less experience of what death is.

Moreover, children aren't exactly well known for their ability of thinking very far into the future, considering how their neocortex has still quite a lot to develop.

How about you teach your idiot American teenagers to use a condom instead? If you can't teach them to use birth control tools, then your laws of consent won't mean shit as they are just as likely to ignore them.

>I'm sick of seeing human garbage spawn from peasants in your state.

Mass alone produces more brainwpower than the entirety of the midwest or whatever flyover bullshit state you're from, you're thinking of Indian and most of the south as the human garbage producer

Because the proliferation of the material re-victimises the child.

Again, you're looking at this from completely the wrong angle. It's not about what you think is logically consistent, it's about what society will or will not accept given the current conditions. No level of sophistry can change that.

>I said or better implied that the legality of those things makes the other point to argue easier.

You could say that about a lot of things. I don't buy that "I think X can lead to Y, and Y is bad, therefore we should never do X". X should be evaluated on its own merits.

It's called statutory rape.

>Is this board retarded
/pol/ literally is

hence why you see these threads, newfags venture out of /pol/ and make these 15 year old high school sophomore type threads

an addendum to this Also, children don't even know what puberty actually means, which is the first time they become really aware of their sexuality, so considering that you have even less of a case for saying their experienced feelings matter.

>oh well this is happening, therefore this other thing will happen later because logical consistency
What atrocious reasoning.
It's obvious it won't happen because...ummm...reasons

1 in 4 homos are willing to ADMIT to having sex with an underage partner. i wonder how much higher the actual figure is?

familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/child-molestation-and-homosexuality-2/

The age-old degeneracy meme.

so should material depicting other crimes be forbidden?

Society under current conditions says very little about society further in the future.

But it doesn't matter, I've already said, let's set legality aside, and discuss this from a normative ethics perspective. If you don't want to do that, fine, but don't expect me to reply to you.

>1 in 4 homos are willing to ADMIT to having sex with an underage partner. i wonder how much higher the actual figure is?

>familyresearchist

I'm not trusting something that sounds like it came from creationists and christians.

You have yet to prove that it WILL happen. That's your whole problem. You've never approached anything beyond the slippery slope. You've never proven that western society's opinion of pedophiles has improved. You've shown no proposed policies. You've shown no mainstream political movements. You have nothing to go on.

>Society under current conditions says very little about society further in the future.

And you have yet to prove anything about the society of the future. Because everything about your argument is speculative.

>let's set what destroys my argument aside so we can argue on my terms

Let's not. It was nice speaking with you.

>Massachusetts
>not based

New England will always be the best region.

hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-health-topics/reproductive-health/states/ma.html

>let's set what destroys my argument aside so we can argue on my terms

No, I my argument is mostly about ethics and secondarily about legality.
As for the effectiveness of precedents like this, see the legality of alcohol in the marijuana debate.