choose your stance
ひげ
@lamp pedophilic disorder isn't even diagnosed if it doesn't cause distress. pedophilia in general is incredibly sensationalized/weaponized and i would consider that a bad thing because when it gets like that, i believe it CAN cause distress. people get in their own head about it and start to freak out, maybe get depressed or do something rash. especially if there is something like childhood trauma that caused someone to think this way, or other mental issues.
even though many of my views are controversial (the circle i'm visiting just changes which ones are), i try my best to be as level-headed as possible and not let sensationalism get to me if i can help it. i feel like people wanting to kill/maim or otherwise harshly punish pedophiles are very similar to say, people who want to punch nazis or remove their rights for saying things they disagree with. two sides of the same coin. beliefs and thoughts should not be met with actions, they should be met with civilized debate, study, and philosophy.
killing or torturing someone who has technically done nothing wrong (and may have just had wrong done to them) is highly unethical and heartless from my point of view.
it's highly hypocritical when it is coming from people who advocate for free speech and to be left the fuck alone because they aren't doing anything harmful. you know that people who disagree with what you have to say would strip you of your rights (or worse) in an instant if they could, so why is it okay to do that to others?
two relevant quotes below:
@Mackiavelli13 @beardalaxy If you harm someone then sure, you ought to get locked up or whatever. But what about "pedophiles" who merely have the disorder that makes them get turned on to children, yet know their moral limits and have zero intention of ever touching anyone or even looking at CSAM? I mean, it's just like normal people who aren't gonna rape hot adults even if they're sexually arousing. I do not believe such people deserve the hate at all.
@Mackiavelli13 @beardalaxy @Delusionary_PhD @lamp You're like some retarded kike screaming about how racism is a mental illness that causes inherent harm. You're psyoped and retarded
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/child-marriage-rationale-historical-views-and-consequences.html
> Child marriages involving only one marriage partner below the age of 18, usually the female, are also quite common. Throughout history till the 20th century, child marriages were the norm in most parts of the world
>Girls were usually married off as soon as they reached puberty or sometimes even prior to that
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States&oldid=1104610475
> In 1880, the ages of consent were set at 10 or 12 in most states, with the exception of Delaware where it was 7.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J056v16n02_03
> Age of Consent throughout history has usually coincided with the age of puberty although at sometimes it has been as early as seven. Early on age of consent was a familial or tribal matter and only became a legal one in the Greco-Roman period. The Roman tradition served as the base for Christian Europe as well as the Christian Church itself which generally, essentially based upon biological development, set it at 12 or 14 but continued to set the absolute minimum at seven
@applejack @Mackiavelli13 @beardalaxy @Delusionary_PhD wtf 7??