@mario If I participated I would be ashamed (this doesn't mean I wouldn't participate just that I would be very ashamed if I did)
it'll be all lesbians and then lecter
@bitterblossom @mario I wish Lecter would like me but he's such a pretentious faggot who is super ceral all the fucking time, can't even say nigger or retard or "damn kids are stupid" around that guy.
i don't know tham
@mario @bitterblossom He runs a little cult of personality regarding mapness, and they gatekeep the fuck out of their gay little clubhouse. They say I'm fake and shit or a troll or something just because I'm a free speech absolutist and I don't respect their touchy feely sensibilities because I'm not so retarded that I can be tricked by lovebombing or naming and shaming.
i've got my disagreements with him, but i dont have any hate for him. his garden isn't as rough as my preferred neighborhood.
>NNIA
fuck them lmao
legit pedophiles should seek help not create online communities around being pedophiles
@mario @bitterblossom Agree to disagree if you're saying maps are sick and need correction, no sicker than any other paraphiles at least, and perhaps even less, as studies show it is normal (NOT abnormal) to find girls as young as 9 sexually arousing. What is NOT normal and is NOT common is finding girls much younger than that to be arousing, that is unusual, behaviorally speaking. Society has to accept what is normal, before it can offer help to those who are abnormal and want the help, grouping all maps into the "banish" category will leave you with an endless war against mostly innocent people, since (statistically) every normal human man is a "map".
they can't enter any legal contract
technically, consent can be given by anyone on any issue; even infants can "consent" by means of body language. what you should be focusing this issue on is whether or not an individual in a particular case is capable of giving "informed consent".
which, in most practical cases, toddlers can provide - provided somebody actually educates and informs them, instead of this bullshit "oh, you aren't allowed to learn about that word until you're older".
how can you be sure what the infant consents to if it can't give a description of it?
>a child is literally a slave
because children can't make informed decisions and require their guardians to make sure they're not get taken advantage of
(continuing here bc l.t is bugging out on me too much)
consent choice is a simple positive or negative. that doesn't require a description, that's where the concept of informed consent comes in. which, clearly, an infant is not going to be able to provide (unless you got some freak genius baby on hand, which is a whole other mess of concerns).
the only reason children can't make informed consent decisions is because the adults refuse to fucking educate them properly. contemporary society forces children to be ignorant of many things, especially sexual ones, for no good reason - and then uses that abuse to justify overbearing protections "because they don't know better".
and despite it being the legal guardian's legal duty to protect a child from being taken advantage of, it's almost always the legal guardian who provides that sort of abuse, because the child has no means or rights with which to escape or prevent such abuse. nor is there any substantial system in place to check things and ensure that abuse isn't taking place - not until it's too late. AFTER a child starts showing the signs of being hurt, publicly, then MAYBE some other authority figure willl bother to contact legal authorities, and then they MIGHT bother to show up to investigate, and even when they do, chances are they don't do anything at all, because it's too bothersome for them to interfere and too expensive for the state to put more kids into protective custody.
informed consent required the subject to:
- actually be informed. if you don't allow a child to learn about love, sex, babies, etc, then you have failed them; they aren't inherently incapable of learning the information.
- make a decision based on that information and their own desires. it may be a positive or negative result. that is their decision to make, not yours, not anyone else's. you certainly don't get to say they don't have the right to make a decision in the first place.
the duty of a legal guardian comes into play when these conditions are not met. when the child is not yet capable of receiving, understanding, and communicating a choice of consent - then the parent would have the right to a decision on their behalf, PRESUMABLY for the child's benefit.
and this applies to mentally impaired adults as well as children. not everybody operates at the same level. age is literally not a factor, except that there's a bell curve of functionality, where the youngest edge of the spectrum is uneducated and unable to process complex information, and the eldest edge of the spectrum has gone senile and crippled and has lost necessary faculties. that middle section where one is perfectly capable of deciding things for one's self does not arbitrarily begin at 18+ years old. it would be far more accurate to say it begins around two years old, spikes around 4, and then rapidly accelerates as a child absorbs information from formal schooling.
@sekuhara @mario @bitterblossom Thankyou, seriously, because I did not have the fucking energy
