Debate user Taarna on the ethics of child porn thread - Obvious low quality troll bait, thread is actually arguing with BoxerShorts

[Rotogravure]

Just popping in from BP to tell @Taarna to go fuck themself with a barrel of a shotgun that's rusty and serrated.


Cheers.

Edit: Also fuck you for associating your fucking nonce bullshit with Heavy Metal.

 

[BoxerShorts47]

Lol kys pedo

16 year olds looks like kids, you fucking freak. You're coming up on 2 years of being a sick fuck, aren't you tired? Log off and do literally anything else*

*check yourself into a state institution with no internet access

That's BS. 16 yr old women look like adults.

How This 16-Year-Old Model Is Already Working With Katy Perry & Juicy Couture

Larsen Thompson is goals.

galoremag.com

A 14 year old boy is expected to be immature. You're twice that age you're expected to act like an adult and not groom a 14 year old girl.

If they're old enough to engage in sex with other 14 yr olds then they're old enough to engage in sex period. There is no logical argument for sex with people of a similar age = wholesome and pure while over 18 = evil pedophilia. Either a 14 yr old is or isn't old enough to engage in sex. You can't have it both ways.

This is such a disingenuous take.

Age of consent laws weren’t partially repealed with Romeo and Juliet laws.

That's exactly what occurred.

Laws are constantly being updated and changed to reflect the aims of citizens, and the main function of AOC laws is to prevent children from being coerced into sex by adults, who are much more developed mentally and physically.

You're making up bullshit to justify the status quo. I've seen this behavior in coping normies.
If what you say is true, why did it take until the 1880s to raise AoC to protect "children?" Why wasn't this an issue for over 1000 years?
If that was true, why was outrage over "minors" being tried to rape the reason the Romeo and Juliet loophole were implement?

A 33 year old woman having a relationship with a 16 year old boy is still illegal.

Historically AoC only applied to women. So this wouldn't have been illegal and I think most people would view the 16 yr old as a stud, which shows how feminism is an attack on 2 gender norms.

An 18 year old man having a relationship with a 16 year old is not. People over 18 are still allowed in many states to have relationships with people under 18, but only if the difference is within a few years. Why? Because they are closer in development. So no, it doesn’t become suddenly abusive and horrible if one is over 18, as long as they are close in age to their partner.

This is just backwards rationalization to enforce the status quo. This is typical psychological defense mechanism of normies. "They are closer in development." You made that up. A 40 yr old is different in development from as 20 yrs but that doesn't make that relationship illegal. either a person is or isn't old enough to consent to sex and you clearly believe a 14 yr old is capable.

 

[TruthSeekingDaimon]

Good stuff.
Lets first figure out the difference between homosexuality and pedophillia.

 

[SexPistol]

16 yr olds are fully grown adult women. I can't tell the difference between them and college women.
14 yr olds, it depends, some haven't fully matured (tanner 4) but they're more adult than child. They're looking to start romantic and sexual relationships and throw epic ragers with drugs and alcohol. Clearly they want to act like adults and be given adult responsibilities rather than be treated like 6 and 7 yr olds.


If you lose control of the culture, you'll be labeled a domestic terrorist aka cultural criminal. It'll be late.




The goal of feminists is female liberation. They want women to get educations, join the workforce, support themselves and have sex with other women. Every feminist action, including riaisng age of consent from 12 to 18, is an attack on families.

If you think California pedo laws will fly in the Bible Belt, you’re delusional. I’ll be given a medal for making the world a better place from degenerates, even in your “woke” culture that will eventually spread like a cancer in the more progressive states.

Just because you don’t understand morals and have very little self control around developing adolescents, doesn’t mean that the world is progressing into a place where children can be used as tender between fucked up parents again. If that’s the kind of world you want to be in, I suggest you go move to a third world country.

 

[JamusActimus]

If they're old enough to engage in sex with other 14 yr olds then they're old enough to engage in sex period. There is no logical argument for sex with people of a similar age = wholesome and pure while over 18 = evil pedophilia. Either a 14 yr old is or isn't old enough to engage in sex. You can't have it both ways.

You don't see a difference between a 14 year old and you?

 

[BoxerShorts47]

If you think California pedo laws will fly in the Bible Belt, you’re delusional. I’ll be given a medal for making the world a better place from degenerates, even in your “woke” culture that will eventually spread like a cancer in the more progressive states.

Just because you don’t understand morals and have very little self control around developing adolescents, doesn’t mean that the world is progressing into a place where children can be used as tender between fucked up parents again. If that’s the kind of world you want to be in, I suggest you go move to a third world country.

Morals are arbitrary.
12 was the original age of consent including in the bible belt before 1880s.
So if you went back a few generations, you'd be viewed as immoral for having your current beliefs.

You don't see a difference between a 14 year old and you?

Of course I do but I think they're old enough to decide if they want to sext someone or suck dick or get fucked and my views were the historical norm before feminism.

 

[Kermit Jizz]

>Boxer was so starved of attention they had to derail another pedo containment thread

Shut the fuck up you triple posting pedo.

 

[BoxerShorts47]

>Boxer was so starved of attention they had to derail another pedo containment thread

Shut the fuck up you triple posting pedo.

I can't edit posts.

 

[Kermit Jizz]

I can't edit posts.

Literally fucking retarded.

 

[Duke Nukem]

@BoxerShorts47 get in here someone is trying to steal your bit

I can't believe how many pretenders to the @BoxerShorts47 throne there are. Is this one a Filipino white supremacist as well? Wouldn't surprise me.

Aaand there it is. You guys always end up playing your hand way too obviously.

Dude's a total badass. I bet he read ED just like every other fail-troll we get here.

Do people forget that the real father Laura Ingalls Wilder didn't want her getting married 'til she was 18? That wasn't some freakish practice back then, just common sense. These degerates fantasize about a period of American history that never happened where daughters were exclusively married off the second they hit puberty.

So basically like how boomers reminisce over their idealized vision of the 1950s except with pedophiles.

Just popping in from BP to tell @Taarna to go fuck themself with a barrel of a shotgun that's rusty and serrated.


Cheers.

Edit: Also fuck you for associating your fucking nonce bullshit with Heavy Metal.

You'd think with all the cartoon nudity in Heavy Metal he'd have something better to wank to but no.

 

[JamusActimus]

Good job Boxy

 

[TruthSeekingDaimon]

YOU LITTLE SHITS
Explain the difference between faggotry and pedophilia.
Guess what you cant because they are the same thing.

 

[Just A Butt]

I don't know if this thread was cursed & real or a simply bait to make this motherfucking fuck summoned talks like always.
I mean Boxer

it can be two things

 

[eDove]

Boxer's whole focus is on sex and not the marriage, which has way more historical importance — goes to show he's a pervert.
@BoxerShorts47, do you really spend every waking moment of your day crestfallen that stupid roastie feminists prevented you from fucking twelve-year-olds? I think dads have a big part in that too. If you raised a child, as a father, you'd be apprehensive to give them to another man too when you full-well know their maturity level.

My point is, you're blaming all of the wrong things. The reality is that you're not willing to grow up and be a man. Grown women can't stand you because you radiate beta energy.

It doesn't matter if you think children and adults shouldn't be penalized for having sexual encounters with each other, it's morally wrong and it'll further destabilize our society.

 

[SexPistol]

Morals are arbitrary.
12 was the original age of consent including in the bible belt before 1880s.
So if you went back a few generations, you'd be viewed as immoral for having your current beliefs.


Of course I do but I think they're old enough to decide if they want to sext someone or suck dick or get fucked and my views were the historical norm before feminism.

You can say that about a lot of things when it comes to the 1800s, but the best part of history is that it’s in the past and we learn from it.

Morals, just like everything else evolves with time and knowledge. If we were never taught, one way or the other about the age of consent, how many adults would be attracted to children/minors in our society today? Do you think you’d be in the majority?

 

[lowenergy]

Morals are arbitrary.
12 was the original age of consent including in the bible belt before 1880s.
So if you went back a few generations, you'd be viewed as immoral for having your current beliefs.


Of course I do but I think they're old enough to decide if they want to sext someone or suck dick or get fucked and my views were the historical norm before feminism.

You seem to forget (or not care) that historically, the “age of consent” wasn’t really about what age someone could consent. It was more about what age someone could legally get married/have sex with their spouse. Ideally they would consent, but they didn’t necessarily have to. Back then spouses were chosen by family, not the person themselves.

As we have progressed as a society, we have realized that allowing a 12 year old to get married to a 20+ year old, no matter how the 12 year old feels, is gross.

Development and how ready someone is for sex isn’t based on arbitrary bullshit like “tanner development” (anyone who uses that term red flags themselves as a dangerous individual IMO) or how old someone looks/acts. It’s a complex issue and should be treated as such.

 

[Michael Wade]

Here's a much better question. Is there a socially respectable kind of person to kill? and if so is it moral in gods eyes?

Because really the only thing holding us back from stringing every dam one of them up is modern kindness and morals. I heard of someone who did the deed (killing a pedo) and they felt guilt. I understood, but I could not condemn them.


I understand the desire for a better way, a more moral way. But... has a pedo honestly ever been rabilitated? EVER? I can only see someone who's never acted upon such a thing having hope for salvation.

 

[BoxerShorts47]

You can say that about a lot of things when it comes to the 1800s, but the best part of history is that it’s in the past and we learn from it.

This is generally liberal propaganda.
When it comes to sex and race, the changes since 1865 have been a net negative and must be reversed.

Morals, just like everything else evolves with time and knowledge. If we were never taught, one way or the other about the age of consent, how many adults would be attracted to children/minors in our society today? Do you think you’d be in the majority?

Yes, majority.
Minors is not the same as children and this is clearly an issue with 18 AoC normalization.
Teen is the 4th most popular porn category.

Here's a much better question. Is there a socially respectable kind of person to kill? and if so is it moral in gods eyes?

Because really the only thing holding us back from stringing every dam one of them up is modern kindness and morals. I heard of someone who did the deed (killing a pedo) and they felt guilt. I understood, but I could not condemn them. Would not.

Humans determine morality, not god.
The fact that person felt guilt for their action means they didn't believe they were moral.

 

[SexPistol]

Here's a much better question. Is there a socially respectable kind of person to kill? and if so is it moral in gods eyes?

Because really the only thing holding us back from stringing every dam one of them up is modern kindness and morals. I heard of someone who did the deed (killing a pedo) and they felt guilt. I understood, but I could not condemn them.


I understand the desire for a better way, a more moral way. But... has a pedo honestly ever been rabilitated? EVER? I can only see someone who's never acted upon such a thing having hope for salvation.

I don’t think there is any instance I wouldn’t feel guilt if I killed someone, no matter how dangerous of a situation I was in. That’s because I have morals.

I think using them for slavery in prison where they will never see a child again is a more fitting punishment than killing them. As far as a non offender goes, well…I don’t think there are too many who won’t offend eventually. They will always act under the right circumstances.

Yes, majority.
Minors is not the same as children and this is clearly an issue with 18 AoC normalization.
Teen is the 4th most popular porn category..

I wouldn’t say porn hub statistics are the correct representation of a population with ethics.

 

[BoxerShorts47]

I wouldn’t say porn hub statistics are the correct representation of a population with ethics.

what is ethics?