>>6069 nepi first

Paedophilia will be widely accepted when most pedos look like this. There is no other way.

>>6069 They won't support their scapegoat. lgbt has to die out before we can even think about pedo acceptance

It will support child molestation, not genuine child love. Leftists are going to want children to be molested by blacks, trannies, jews and other non-Whites with no consequences. They want to destroy the idea of anyone ever having a qt little girl wife. Leftist hate marriage and family. I want a genuine little girl wife. This is anti-feminism / anti-leftism in the extreme. These people hate child marriage and sperg out about it whenever Muslims or Indians practice it.

>>6144 This is what I'm afraid of. >Jewish teacher looms over sweet innocent blonde child <Oy vey sweetie, you'll like Jamal, the mentally retarded negro janitor. His penis is 10 inches long. >B-but, I don't really...I have a boyfriend already, he's 27 and I love him. <Enough sweetie, that's abuse. Here, let me show you how to suck Jamals penis.

Pedophiles and modern leftists are not in alignment. Neither are pedophiles and modern conservatives though. The issue is again at the root of society and sex negative culture. The conservatives are just puritans who hate sex and other fun things (moral panic retards), and the modern leftists view sex as a meaningless act of material pleasure (and still hate sex but only when men do it). Assuming that there is a "pedosexual" movement that succeeds and we see the "best case scenario", we will still be an outgroup and the root problem will still exist. Ultimately I think children will still be harmed (as they are now from the denial of their autonomy), because they will just be assailed by pickup culture etc etc. Further it's unlikely children will get any other rights and it's questionable if the left will even consider their side of consent. The current society and ruling governments need to either be completely rebuilt from the ground up, or outright replaced, before ANY issue of sexuality can be genuinely addressed. There are plenty of other reasons that it needs to happen (and is inevitable), but the aforementioned is what fits the scope of discussion here.

>>6140 So why isn't it already accepted?

>>6157 Because all pedophiles are more handsome than that, and anons point is that in order to gain more sympathy they need to be less than ultra-gigachads.

>>6159 Lmfao good luck with THAT.

>>6162 Yeah honestly I don't think a pedo could realistically avoid being a peerless gigachad. I just don't see how that could really work.

>>6157 lol. >>6154 You really made me consider new things here, and I agree with what you said. But there is one issue. I have always had this one doubt in my head of what it would mean to culturally normalize sex with children. What would "dating" a prepubescent child realistically look like? In what aspects would it differ from dating an adult? And could that even happen? I believe that to an extent it could, but then you as the adult would have to get permission from the parents to have sex with their child, and that would be the most important part because when it comes to little children it is the parents who dictate who gets to be close to them. You said they would be assailed by pickup culture, but could that really happen to prepubescent children? I think that small children are so dependent and attached to their parents compared to adults that being in a sexual relationship with them, with the consent of the parents, would be less pickup-ish than having a relationship with another adult in the modern day. The task of getting the consent from the parents adds another layer of difficulty to the game; and if you want to compare, this extra factor of the parents is not as vital when you want to date a grown adult (at least not that much most of the times). I believe that this new extra barrier would act as a protection for them against douchebags. All of this makes me feel more optimistic about this subject. Although I still agree that society sure is in a bad position considering this new sex-negative culture, and that this problem is very, very likely to affect us heavily in the future as well. P.s. I want to make it clear that in my view prepubescent children are able to build genuine bonds with adults and feel sexual pleasure. Even though their sexual/romantic instincts are still underdeveloped compared to adults or teenagers, it still exists since an early age.

>>6200 Well, I think "dating" children can work but it would be awkward to fit it in. I don't go on many dates, I'm not much of a socialite and as you can imagine there really isn't much I get out of it. As I understand it, a date usually goes along the general lines of "two people who are romantically interested in each other go to a location and do something both find enjoyable". This is totally possible to do with a child, and adults do it all the time with children in different contexts (but sometimes don't find these locations engaging, or only find enjoyment from socializing with other parents). Essentially you would have to find something both you and the child can enjoy. Amusement parks are likely a good answer, but this also just part of compatibility between partners. If you hate crowds and loud noises but the child loves the noisy kids restaurant and arcade, maybe you aren't a good match. But if the child is low-key and likes building train models with you and watching movies on the couch, that sounds like a good match. Of course, this can only work if we stop with the helicopter parenting that seems so prevalent today (that's when a parent micromanages every single aspect of their child's life, and is overly concerned with safety to the point where the child can't have a moment alone to play for fear of minor bumps and bruises). A few decades ago, though, it was normal to let your kid run off and play as long as they were home by curfew. In a sex-positive society that accepts pedophilia, all I imagine that would come of an adult-child relationship would be a mention of a partner at the dinner table and "normal" progression from there. Maybe I've meandered a bit on the point, but I hope what I am trying to say is clear enough. My issue with pickup culture isn't so much that it will affect every child, but rather that it will affect how children see relationships. Pickup culture and the related attitudes have served to erode the stability of society, of families and interpersonal romantic relationships, and has caused a lot of important things to lose their meaning. I am concerned that children may see sex as bad, because it lacks the connection they would be looking for, or as trivial which leads to dangerous and irresponsible behavior. I suppose my overall point is that society is not designed currently to handle issues of sex appropriately AT ALL. We can't even agree on when to teach sex ed, on the use of contraceptives, etc etc. And more recently we can't even agree on what counts as assault. Our society is far less mature than it needs to be to address these issues, and I don't think it's fixable because of how tightly this immaturity and instability is woven into the fabric of the thing.

People need to realize that the only way pedos will ever get their own little girl wives will be when feminism is destroyed, and when current sex degeneracy is shut down. I hear a lot of talk about 'sex negativity', but the thing is that depraved types of sex are rampant in our society today. There is too much sex positivity and letting femoids run wild. When women are put back under the control of men and treated more like cute pets than autonomous individuals, only then will pedos get their little girl wives. Notice that every society that has these is also extremely conservative - Muslims, Hindus, etc. Sex with little girls in the bond of marriage is the purest form of love, and would indeed fix our entire culture.

>>6206 Sex negativity is not literally being negative about sex. Sex positivity is not literally being positive about sex. A sex negative culture/society/whatever is one in which the view on sex is restrictive and unhealthy. Feminism may claim it is "sex positive" and the modern left may claim it is about "sexual liberation" but as you have pointed out, what they actually support is degeneracy. To be more specific, they support a restrictive view where the restrictions are more emphasized on men and less on women (in contrast to the restrictive view of modern conservatives in which the reverse is true). Further, the modern left and feminism also devalue sex by removing all aspects aside from the literal physical act. This is not sex positivity, this is sex negativity because it is both restrictive (see positions on consent etc.) and unhealthy (aforementioned discarding of all but the physical act). Real sex positive cultures have existed in the past. The roman empire pre-christianity was very sex positive. The ancient greeks, while the specifics differed between city states, also had a sex positive culture including the practice of pederasty. In general terms, a sex positive culture/society/whatever would view sex as the natural, intimate, and sacred thing that it is. This doesn't mean encouraging the pursuit of carnal pleasure and quick lays, but rather the exploration of ones body and the deepening of bonds between partners. Does "slutty" behavior occur in these socieites? Yes, but it's not viewed in the same way. Pursuit of purely carnal pleasure at the expense of all else? Bad. Sharing love with many people? Good.

>>6207 I see, well in that sense, I do not disagree as much then. It is definitely not healthy today, and it was oftentimes unhealthy in a different way in the more recent past, but you're right that it seems to have been restrictive in some senses back in the ancient past, but simultaneously more positive and healthy-seeming in many respects.

>>6208 We definitely agree a lot on the issues of modern society, I think. It can get hard to communicate when a lot of terms get used by certain groups towards political ends, which makes their meaning fuzzy. In plain and simple terms, I am for a society that has healthy views on sex and supports love (obviously including little girls, but I would like to live in a world where such a distinction isn't necessary beyond preference).

>>6203 I see. But can pickup culture even be reversed at this point we're in? I have first heard about this shallowless culture when I first glanced at this 2003 Zigmunt Bauman book, but I haven't read it. This book is part of a larger collection Bauman wrote about this new aspect of our "liquid society" -- i.e. the new post-modern society that changes incessantly, that refuses the idea of adopting a single shape, making itself "liquid", and has change, swiftness, adaptability and mobility as its most fundamental values. I think the real danger here may be that pickup culture is just a product of a much larger problem in our post-modern modernity. If that is the case, I'm not sure how all this incessant amount of progress that has so quickly gotten us where we are could be undone at this stage.

>>6264 I don't believe it can be reversed in the sense that our society is intrinsically built this was, no. This is again part of why I believe collapse is not only necessary, but inevitable. As for Mr. Bauman, he seems to be putting into words something I struggle to explain. I think I'll be looking into his thoughts, so thank you for the recommendation! To put it into the terms you have used so far, the trouble with liquid society as that it is fundamentally unstable. It's newton's laws applied to the immaterial; a society in motion will stay in motion until something stops it. A society that can only function in motion, once brought to rest, will cease to function. The issue lies in that human nature is at odds with the fundamental values Bauman outlines (according to your post). Humans do not like change, they build tribes that they stay in their whole lives. They are creatures who fall into habitual practices easily. A human is a creature designed to identify the subtle outlier, as pedos (or any other outgroup) are painfully aware. A society, as described above, would have to view anything that could cause it to halt it's motion as an existential threat; It would seek to continue to gain speed to make it more difficult to stop. This is the key part, because that means that the biggest existential threat to liquid society is human nature, and it's end goal is to gain speed until it is moving so fast that it tears itself apart. I'm already in love with this explanation. Post-modern society is unsustainable by design, and is thus impossible to fix without changing fundamentally. To change a society fundamentally you have to destroy it utterly. You are correct in saying that pickup culture is a minor symptom of a much more dire issue,

Conservatives are propedo. Leftists are the antifreedom zioshit types now.

>>6069 >next wave They have for decades, retard.

>>6338 reddit and neoliberals are antipedo.

>>6148 you just gave me a boner, im hard as diamonds!

I can appreciate being optimistic but some of the ideas people get are dumb as fuck. If you think the consenting age is going any direction but up in the next ten years you've been in this cumbrain echo-chamber too long. The VERY BEST we can hope for in the next ten years is that the public realizes it's a sexuality, whether it can ethically be expressed or not. Beyond that, don't expect much else in our lifetime. Another thing, it appears to be a popular opinion that as we move towards a secular future, that myths about purity in regards to sex will be dispelled, leaving us open to pursue child lovers. Wrong again. It objectively does not benefit society/ humanity as a whole to give us these kinds of rights. Population control is already an issue, younger mothers and fathers aren't beneficial, child abuse run rampant; it's just not in the cards motherfuckers. Society is an angry god, snuffing out our primitive instincts to further feed itself. It's the natural progression of evolution. I say all this with love <3

>>6473 >in the next ten years If you think the current regime is going to last another 10 years you have spent too long in normalfag echochambers. I'll burn the fucking thing down myself. >The public realizes it's a sexuality Already an extreme left position, but the issues with that have already been discussed >whether it can be ethically expressed or not It can be ethically expressed and that's not up for debate really >Don't expect much else in our lifetime You should be expecting a lot in our lifetime, unless you are 70ish and expect to buy it within 10 years >secular future just as bad as christkike future desu >myths about purity...child lovers nobody is saying that religions (particularly abrahamic ones) going away will fix that. The USA was literally founded and built by extremists puritans who were so bad even britain told them to leave. It fucking shows. >It objectively does not benefit society/humanity How can you possibly argue that love and freedom is not beneficial to humanity lmao >Population control is already an issue There are millions of empty mansions in the USA alone. The world population could be doubled and we still wouldn't be resorting to tenement housing. We have a shit ton of space on earth left over even ignoring the cold places that suck to live and farmland. Also this is a non-issue once space colonization gets going, which isn't so far off historically. >Younger mothers and fathers aren't beneficial Why do you think nature gave teenagers and younger 20s people so much energy? To go drinking? Why do you think when you hit puberty your circadian rhythm shifts towards staying up into the wee hours of the morning? To text your friends about how shitty your parents are? People are literally designed to have children when they hit puberty. If children weren't being turned into clinical retards by the state and education system, they would be adequately equipped to deal with parenthood because that's what nature says is good. >Child abuse run rampant Pedos. Don't. Abuse. Children. This. Is. An. Anti. talking. Point. >Snuffing out our instincts, it's the natural progression of evolution Society isn't a living thing. Being antithetical to what makes humanity human and to nature itself is neither natural nor evolution. The status quo will not and does not persist, and society certainly doesn't march "forward" in a straight line. What makes you think what we have now is progress, and not a dead end? It's been less than 300 years and it's already completely falling apart.

>>6474 >normalfag echochambers Our nation is a normalfag echochamber. And yeah, I think it'll last. >extreme left position That's not the public. Even amongst the extreme left, I'll say it's extremely unlikely the majority feel that way. There's no real way to discern that though, so I'll agree to disagree. >not up for debate How is this not up for debate? >should be expecting a lot in our lifetime Why? I don't want to make a straw man here so I'm curious why you think so. >just as bad as christkike future desu I mean, I'm down for a secular future. I don't get where you were going with this. All futures are bad? The only good future is a natural one? >nobody is saying that religions... Maybe it was wrong in saying it's a popular opinion. >How can you possibly argue that... Freedom and Love are abstract concepts, of course they have the capacity to be harmful. >empty mansions...space colonization As if housing is the only thing that could be straining from overpopulation. Food, jobs and health also benefit from population control. >Younger mothers and fathers aren't beneficial Biologically sure, nature intended it that way, but we can't exclude society. In society, they'd be horribly disadvantaged. Kids can't work, fuck, they barely have rights. >Pedos.Don't.Abuse.Children. Anon, I didn't say pedos abuse children. I said child abuse would run rampant. Abusers would have easier access to children. >Society isn't a living thing... Mm. So I agree I may have jumped the gun by saying "it's the natural progression of evolution". Pretty cringe. But I still stand by my "society is an angry god" bit. In any case, I wasn't making judgement calls about what is or isn't progress. Mostly I just wanted to fix some skewed ideas some people have about where they think this is all going. Keep your expectations in check, it isn't healthy. Yo! I'm just a guy though, obviously think whatever you want. <3

>>6476 >I think it'll last Because you are a normalfag who doesn't look at the whole picture or understand that what exists now won't exist in perpetuity. >That's not the public... It's a part of the public. Ever hear about the overton window? 10 years ago it was unheard of for a tranny to even walk around crossdressing and now they get to go into the wrong bathroom and nobody can say boo. You are a retard who doesn't understand what the words "future" and "change" mean >How is this not up for debate? The only "unethical" sex is rape, and pedos are not child rapists. This is an anti position. >I'm down for a secular future >>>/reddit/ and don't forget your stupid hat >Maybe it was wrong It was wrong >Freedom and love are abstract concepts And yet we can discuss them in concrete terms and define exactly what both of them are with ease. Consult your nearest dictionary and don't think you can deflect. >As if housing and space are the biggest issues of overpopulation t. doesn't understand the history of the industrial revolution t. doesn't realize that even if every human had 3 square a day the world produces enough food to support twice it's current population t. doesn't know that food production is increasing faster than the human population because there is still unused arable land AND new technologies allow farms to expand both horizontally and vertically Read a book nigger >Kids can't work They used to just fine until feminism >can't fuck They used to just fine until feminism >They barely have rights They used to until feminism and all the issues you just listed as reasons society can't do it are entirely made up by the society itself. Did you know you can't hear as well when you cover your ears too? >Talking about pedos and includes a sentence fragment about child abuse being rampant That's on you, improve your grammar if you want to be understood. Child abuse already runs rampant. It's about as bad as it can get before it becomes comically and obviously malicious. >Pretty cringe Yeah overall I'd say so And my ideas for where this is going is a plan of action and not a prediction. I will fucking destroy the modern world or I will die trying, and I will also marry a little girl and have lots of sex with her too.

>>6477 based based based

>>6477 Our population would be easier to maintain if everyone in Chinkhive, Jewsville, the sand pit and coontown all collectively dieded to death.

>>6477 Yea I like this side of the argument. This whole shit show is falling apart, the train is rattling itself to pieces, the plane is falling apart in the turbulence. All the retards are getting loose, out of their dying masters pens. It will be chaos. But from that chaos (and this is not an assumption) will rise order, our only hope is that the new order will be based (BASED) on freedom, love, peace, respect, kindness, right duty or right action as the taoists call it. A society like this would not tolerate things like child genital mutilation (circumcision), or spousal abuse, or any form of non defensive violence. Sport would not be banned, because the actors in sport have consented to play, thus it is not violence. This society would believe it was their duty to uphold things like >Fairness >Justice >Genuineness >Generosity <(this does not mean simply to be giving in the physical sense, but to be generous with whomever you are dealing with, by showing patience and forgiveness for their imperfections) >Mercy Sidenote about mercy, it would only be extended to the remorseful, not for cases of obvious, calculated malice.

>>6480 High ideals but I think the world is a darker place. First of all there is no society that can exist without violence. You need violence to defend your borders, to enforce laws, and to project power into new areas. This is why war existed even before agriculture. The human animal is violent. Our violence is one of our many tools though, and if we liken it to a hammer some people think everything is a nail. The people running the show, however, may not be able to apply things like fairness and mercy. Think about the end of a revolution? Is it fair that the 7 year old son of the king you just executed is next? Absolutely not. But what happens to your society if he is allowed to survive and come back for revenge? Even if there is a better way, it might be too difficult. There are brutal, ugly sacrifices that need to be made to build and maintain any kind of society. That is the harsh reality, as unfortunate as it is. The ideal society would be one built to withstand change. There are obvious moral foundations that need to apply but the real meat of the issue is in it's structure. We have thousands of years of example to draw upon, and a clean slate. The only people we can trust are ourselves. We can't hope that it will work out in our favor. We can't hope that things will go our way. That is why I am 100% sure the modern world will fall apart, because I plan to make that happen because I know in my heart it needs to. It is also why I am 100% sure that what rises out of the ashes will be good and built to last, because I will make that happen. It's not about people and what they do, it's about ideas and how to act on them. If even half of what we all want happens hundreds of thousands would die horribly, likely children included. It's a question of whether we feel that the sacrifice is worth the benefit (freedom, including for children). I feel it's worth the cost, but I've begun to ramble on.

>>6481 >You need violence to defend your borders stopped reading I already said only non-defensive violence would be banned

>>6482 >I didn't read the whole post Am I supposed to take you seriously? Literally stopped before even getting to the meat of what was being said because it was complete instead of just omitting things that you already said.

>>6483 When you yourself prove to have disregarded or misunderstood MY post, I have no justifiable reason to read yours. Your indignance is unwarranted, go fuck yourself.

>>6484 >You disregarded and misunderstood my post you wrote 3 paragraphs in response to >I know this because I read 2 sentences and a fragment of the 3rd :/

>>6485 This dipshit can't even strawman properly. I read your worthless garbage rick sanchez rant about how humans are violent. Duh. Durr. I never said otherwise. DURR. DUH. and PHHFFFRTTTHHHTYP. That's your language. The language of retards.

I love tots and didn't read any of this.

>>6486 >Secular future >Rick and morty >This post is calling me out for being an unreasonable asshole and is therefore a strawman >Getting this upset over some vague nothing Are you okay? You are behaving like reddit but I'm a little worried that you are this upset over something so small. Try to take a breather, maybe rub one out and cool down.

>>6487 based nepi chad (((reading))) is a jewish trick

>will they they already do and have for a while especially ancoms

>>6489 mostly yeah but reading to tots is based especially wholesome stories that warn them of jewish conduct like the frog and the scorpion tots are too pure for this world and need to beware the lies of the jew early

>>6502 I'm not sure how to turn this into a shill but come to smolbox.pw I finished it it looks okay and mostly functions

>>6503 based

>>6069 I have a question for you: Do you care more about your moral superiority over pedos or about stopping children from being victimized? Because strident, mindless hatred ends in more children being victimized.

>>6516 Disregard that, I suck cocks

>>6069 >Call me crazy, I don't care, but I think minor-attracted people, then zoophiles, and then other paraphilics are going to be the new "oppressed minorities" in the future. I'll disagree with this point, only to the fact that the LGBT community managed to dominate the culture over the course of several decades in Western society. This took years of changing definitions and explaining how words like "fag" are offensive, to normalizing LGBT sexualities with a libertarian-esque cause, leading to the gay overton window. "We just want the right to marry," or "who cares what two consenting adults do in their bedroom" would quickly turn into arguments about who can operate their business how they see fit, are gays an oppressed minority, what types of public and private spaces like bathrooms need to change, and much more. And people 'want' these changes because they either fit into that category or they want to feel as if they are taking part in a revolution. They have gotten to a point where not only is gay marriage legalized, but now you have some of them complaining about "Rainbow Washing," when a corporation like Starbucks or Blizzard brands their logo with a rainbow but has no history of donating to LGBT causes. "It's not good enough." Long story short, I don't see any way for the pro-pedo crowd to win because they have not won the culture war like the blacks or the gays have. <What can we do against the Antis to win the culture war, then? I'm not a /hebe/, but I'm also not a radical Anti that wants people dead or raped in slave labor dungeons known as the American Prison-Industrial complex. I've always had this question as to why beautiful images of young boys fully nude were perfectly acceptable hundreds of years ago, thousands if you consider the symbolism - but are now problematic. From the 'amorino' (little cupid boy) being present in mythic and religious art, to sculptures prominently centering on his penis such as the 'puer mingens'. Some of my favorite paintings are by artists like Joaquín Bastida. His work was mostly done outside, meaning over just 100 years ago, it was perfectly acceptable for boys to swim naked in Spanish beaches with or without their parents supervision. These images capture a childlike youth and innocence that can't be captured with the restrictions of helicopter parenting and modern property law. Of course some countries like France still have family nude beaches, but they are changing with the times. It's frustrating, because anyone today who wants to tell a story or create art with nudity of children will be accused of the worst of evils, even if his 'intention' was for the good. On one hand, I know there are plenty of passionate people (myself included) who want to continue the tradition of story-telling without fear of censorship, but on the other hand, does anyone really want to face the wrath of the public mob?

>>6521 What a well-thought-out and articulate response. You are gay.

>>6521 Stricter child pornography laws started with the advent of digital photography. Those things you speak of happening in the past were allowed on the ground of "artistic freedom", but digital media meant that the volume of information was no longer small enough to moderate, resulting in sweeping restrictions.

>>6561 >volume of information was no longer small enough to moderate >volume of information was no longer small enough to hide from the gap-toothed masses fixed

>>6563 >The masses are who outlawed cp

>>6565 >we are women hear is roar! >Jesus said no sex! We are pure! >Society loves this! Yay! Oh no, here come those pervert hippies! >Get outta here you subberts, we, the MAJORITY, are anti sex RETARDS >Glad we chased those MINORITY HIPPES off, so we could SECRETLY MOLEST and act PURE IN PUBLIC

>>6569 If the men in charge of disseminating the propaganda that tells normalfags what to believe wanted pro-pedo legal CP and etc. the normalfags would already believe it and be threatening to kill antis while cracking cheap beers around their grills.

>>6561 >>6563 I'm >>6521 and I completely forgot to add a point that confuses me and also frustrates me to no end when it comes to culture surrounding how Antis behave. Why is it such a crime for me to paint or write about a child who happens to be in the nude playing outside or whatever it is they would be doing, but companies like Coppertone can have a half-naked loli as their company mascot placed in advertisements, logos, and other branding materials? This of course extends to products like Led Zeppelin's Houses of the Holy although the physical version I purchased recently covered the childrens' buttocks. Is there just no outrage when it comes to large, familiar brands (possibly bias)? Or do people just make excuses for them but not for individuals who wish to make art?

>>6575 Yes, the cognitive dissonance does go that deep. Makes you think about the real motivations behind the people running the show, huh?

>>6069 Unlikely. Leftists want to bump the age of consent from 18 to 21 and believe anyone dating a young women is 18-19 is a pedo especially if the girl looks young.

>>6069 A better compromise to discourage would be pedos from going after kids is to legalize non-nude/bikini modeling for underage girls and lower the age of consent and majority to 16. Legalizing swimsuit modeling would deter most pedos from going to the Dark web for child abuse content and lowering the age of consent/majority would allow teens to start working, voting, and get involved in whatever they like without restrictions and would. Everyone above 13-14 should be allowed to tackle more responsibilities and not be treated like children. Treating future generations of youth like children will hold them back.

>>6578 age of consent is 14 in lot of countries,and america and israel allow the marriage of childrens if is by religion. I don't know from what hole you come but is obvious you are either ignorant or stupid also girls underage take advantage of men stupidity and start demanding money after sex so even if there was consent in front of the law you will be labeled a pedo because the girl reported you to police (this is why is adviced either use recordings of everything so is clear there is consent or just pay the money) >>6577 you meant to say the guys from the right or facists want to raise the age of consent since they are the ultra prudes,what leftist have pedos,feminists,homosexuals,and similar stuff.

I love that last image! <3 There exist people that give children free candy without the wish to "use them" Also some of those people are child lovers and some also want to have secs with them. Yes. Secs with children is not "using them" because secs != rape.. they would be gaining something, too.

>>6579 >guys from the right or facists want to raise the age of consent never heard of right wanting to raise aoc while it's quite common in left i really hope left never legalizes pedophilia because if they do that with their values it will allow for child abuse

>>6779 >never heard of right wanting to raise aoc Just go ask nu/pol/ then.

here's a badass authoritarian /v/ nu/pol/er with a hot take on how to stop the evils of sex now

>>6141 I don't think so. The LGBTQ arena is the avenue for acceptance. Nambla and Drag Queen Children Indoctrination as well as Gay couples adopting. It is already here and getting intrenched.

>>6873 it just makes everyone hate pedos even more. i'm against nambla and indoctrination of kids, i want a little cute little wife not a prefucked trannie. even if they make it legal it won't last for long, the behavior they promote is destructive even for the adults

>>6897 Bible was right about faggots all along

>>6897 >seven counts of CP possession >uploaded 27 files I'm confused, isn't distributing a different crime? How does 27 translate to 7 charges? Shouldn't it be either 1 charge for doing it at all, or 27 charges for the total amount of times?

>>6897 some judges seem based. it's a shame they can't help destroy the SCOTUS hegemony that has bullshit decisions.

>>6897 you can go anti-homo AFTER propedo legality.

>>6910 YOU can help by picking up a rifle and making the french revolution look like a fucking fart in the wind.

A lot of good posts ITT