>A supply of tea with milk and sugar would be nice. If it is tea I really like, I like it without milk and sugar. With milk and sugar, any kind of tea is fine. I always bring tea bags with me, so if we use my tea bags, I will certainly like that tea without milk or sugar.

>I always bring tea bags with me, open-source teabags that respect my freedom.

I don't eat breakfast either. Somtimes a cup of coffe, but that's it.
I don't know why, I just have zero appetite in the morning. Is this so abnormal?

someone buy this guy a parrot please

This is the nth time we've had this thread, etc.

The breakfast thing really does stick out though. Maybe I'll drive down to Oxford, run into the Martin Wood Lecture Theatre and shout, "STALLMAN Y U NO EAT BREAKFAST?!" then I'll post it on /g/ and get flamed. And then I'll post it on Reddit and get upvoted to Level 37!

>not eating breakfast
I don't understand this at all.
You've just went 7-9 hours without eating.
It's like only filling your car up on the way home.

That's why he's a cool guy after all.

is he autistic? the huge set of detailed demands reeks of it

>>20827989
Same. Unless it's some really tasty shit it's almost torture eating it.

the ancient greeks didn't eat breakfast either.

course they also fucked boys.

>>20828015
Unlike you, RMS traveled a lot and know what matters when one goes for a trip.
He probably has encountered some trouble in the past and don't want those to repeat.

>>20828015
Probably. He's just very...`efficient', I guess. Someone link the taxi story from one of his books. It gives you a good idea of his mindset.

>I do NOT use browsers, I use the SSH protocol. If the network requires a proxy for SSH, I probably can't use it at all.

Maybe he thinks breakfast is just cereal and milk because of so many tasteless faggots eating it day after day

>>20828058

;_;

so ronery

>>20828050
>Unlike you, RMS traveled a lot and know what matters when one goes for a trip.
If you can find a host for me that has a friendly parrot, I will be
very very glad. If you can find someone who has a friendly parrot I
can visit with, that will be nice too.

>>20828015
Or maybe after all the lectures he already has made he knows (at least some of) those matters will come up at one point and instead of repeating for the nth times what he wants/doesn;t want/likes/hates/knows/doesn't know he just copypastes this to the organizer.

You're on /g/ ; you should appreciate automatism.

He seems like a reasonable person. I would totally love to buy him a Free Beer.

http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html

>I firmly refuse to install non-free software or tolerate its installed presence on my computer or on computers set up for me to use.

>As for Facebook or Google+, I reject them on principle because they require people to use their "real names". I am proud to identify myself when stating my views; I can afford to do that because I am in a fairly safe position. There are people who rationally fear reprisals (from employers, gangsters, bullies, or the state) if they state their views. For their sake, let's reject any social networking site which insists on being told a user's real name.

>I have several free web browsers on my laptop, but I generally do not look at web sites from my own machine, aside from a few sites operated for or by the GNU Project, FSF or me. I fetch web pages from other sites by sending mail to a program that fetches them, much like wget, and then mails them back to me.

wat

>Above 72 fahrenheit (22 centigrade) I find sleeping quite difficult.
(If the air is dry, I can stand 23 degrees.) A little above that
temperature, a strong electric fan blowing on me enables me to sleep.
More than 3 degrees above that temperature, I need air conditioning to
sleep.

RSM confirmed for massive assburgers

>>20828077
So? What's the problem with those statements?

>>20827791
Why are you furthering this stupid smear campaign started by gizmodo? How much are they paying you, macwhore?

>>20828091
>not using wget
>2011
enjoy you're botnet

>>20828097
>Above 72 fahrenheit (22 centigrade) I find sleeping quite difficult.

so much this. fucking sub-tropics I HATE YOU.

>One situation where I do not need help, let alone supervision, is in crossing streets. I grew up in the middle of the world's biggest city, full of cars, and I have crossed streets without assistance even in the chaotic traffic of Bangalore and Delhi. Please just leave me alone when I cross streets.

>I refuse to have supermarket frequent buyer cards because they are a form of surveillance

>I refuse to have a cell phone because they are tracking and surveillance devices. They all enable the phone system to record where the user goes, and many (perhaps all) can be remotely converted into listening devices.

-http://stallman.org/rms-lifestyle.html

>>20828179
In his defence, his carers probably take one look at him and wonder if he should be allowed outside unattended, so that's probably necessary.

>>20828183
>Implying the fact I don't want to be tracked by the government makes me a paedophile.
Go away Bush.

>>20828226
No, I mean IIRC he's said in the past that he thinks sexual relationships with children should be allowed, and he finds children attractive.

>>20828235
[citation needed]

>>20828235
>subtlely twisting his words.
>blatantly adding baseless shit to it
0/10

>>20828235
He hasn't said he find children attractive...

Inane comment

>>20828235
wow, libel much?

>>20828235
No. •

>>20828257
Why do you think there's a question mark you retard?
>Trying to block "adult" material (please don't call it "content") from children is ineffective, and harmful to them.

>It is also a fundamental injustice to adults when applied in public access locations such as libraries.

-http://stallman.org/archives/2011-jul-oct.html#24_October_2011_%28Adult_Filters_And_Children%29

>>20828282
But neither of those things have anything to do with the boldly retarded claim you just made

>>20828282
lol, how can anyone interpret this as being in favor of sexual relations with children?

>>20828086
> I would totally love to buy him a Free Beer.
Did you even read it?

>Dogs that bark angrily and/or jump up on me frighten me, unless they are small and cannot reach much above my knees. But if they only bark or jump when we enter the house, I can cope, as long as you hold the dog away from me at that time. Aside from that issue, I'm ok with dogs.


What the fuck kind of a pussy is he?

>>20828282
>Why do you think there's a question mark you retard?
wat
>Trying to block "adult" material (please don't call it "content") from children is ineffective, and harmful to them.
and you think this means he's a pedo? are you retarded?

>>20828282
And in which way does it make him a pedo?
Protip: none.

>>20828282
>Oh my god RMS used the word "children" so he must be a dangerous pedophile

>>20828273
Welcome to both speculative discussion and 4chan. It's not libel.

>>20828298
>>20828301
Jesus you guys are defensive. Unrelated material, but the
>Trying to block "adult" material from children is...harmful to them.

>>20827989
It's not abnormal but breakfast helps to start your metabolism. If you can fit in a breakfast bar that's better than nothing. I buy those 20g protein bars and that's my breakfast with orange juice. I couldn't possible have a huge breakfast.

>>20827989

Same here, I have a coffee every morning and that's it. I can't eat in the morning without feeling sick.

https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=pedophilia%20OR%20%22child%20pornography%22%20site:s
tallman.org

His stance is that he thinks consensual pedophiliac sex should be allowed, and that child pornography should not be illegal.
Frankly if you sit down and think about it, there's nothing wrong with what he's saying. You've just been programmer to think, "OMG! PEDO! CP! BAD! ALERT ALERT ALERT!"

>>20828338
>>Trying to block "adult" material from children is...harmful to them.
That makes him a reasonable human being, not a pedophile, you idiot.

OK, we have the claim child molestation shouldn't be illegal:
I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.

Butthurt commencing in -3

>>20828365
Absolutely nothing wrong with what he's saying.
Also, it's not molestation if the child consents. Troll harder!

http://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%202006%20%28Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%
20political%20party%29

>HE ISN'T
[proof he is]
>HE IS BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER

>>20828315
I would be pissed as hell if a person was sniffing my crotch, jumping on me, slobbering on me and yelling at me.

Somehow I'm supposed to be totally cool with it when their agent does it? They obviously condone such actions, because it's not exactly a surprise that their dogs do it. What's surprising is that they subject their guests to such behavior.

They could leash the dog outside but they don't, clearly because they think it's appropriate to subject their guests to.

>>20828355
Some quotes for the lazy:
> "Child pornography" should be illegal only for those involved in an activity that involves real abuse or exploitation of a real child.

> I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.

> Dubya has nominated another caveman for a federal appeals court. Refreshingly, the Democratic Party is organizing opposition.
> The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.
> Some rules might be called for when these acts directly affect other people's interests. For incest, contraception could be mandatory to avoid risk of inbreeding. For prostitution, a license should be required to ensure prostitutes get regular medical check-ups, and they should have training and support in insisting on use of condoms. This will be an advance in public health, compared with the situation today.
> For necrophilia, it might be necessary to ask the next of kin for permission if the decedent's will did not authorize it. Necrophilia would be my second choice for what should be done with my corpse, the first being scientific or medical use. Once my dead body is no longer of any use to me, it may as well be of some use to someone. Besides, I often enjoy rhinophytonecrophilia (nasal sex with dead plants).

>>20828365
I'm skeptical of M-theory, that doesn't make it false. Or would you argue that it's alright to use children as sexual playthings until somebody can prove its harmful to them?

DON'T buy a parrot figuring that it will be a fun surprise for me. To
acquire a parrot is a major decision: it is likely to outlive you. If
you don't know how to treat the parrot, it could be emotionally
scarred and spend many decades feeling frightened and unhappy. If you
buy a captured wild parrot, you will promote a cruel and devastating
practice, and the parrot will be emotionally scarred before you get it.
Meeting that sad animal is not an agreeable surprise.

Why does he love parrots so much?

>>20828346
I get this too, but only sometimes. Maybe half the time. It's so weird.
Thing is, I LOVE breakfast foods. Pancakes, waffles, fuckin french toast, jesus I can eat that shit any time.

As for the food I wouldn't list everything I hate but I would simply say if you're preparing food, ask me beforehand if so and so is ok. He doesn't come off as a friendly person--he sounds pedantical.

>>20828355
i find that with alot of stallmans views

>hahaha, this guy is such a fucking idi-
>wait a minute, that actually makes sense...

>>20827970
>open sores teabags
OH MY GOD YES

I've been dying for a chance to post this! Thank you rms!

Pic related.

>>20828394
> The "child pornography" witch-hunt has made a possession of this high-school yearbook a crime - because of what two students in the background of a photo are doing.
> Imagine if the photo had been published in a newspaper. That could turn thousands of people into criminals.
> Doing foreplay in a dance is a little daring - it must have been fun. It suggests those two students are normal teenagers with a normal interest in sex. If there was anything harmful, wrong, or shameful about this photo, it wasn't them. Yet (according to an article on a site not suitable to link to) they might face prosecution, with the danger of being listed as "sex offenders", effectively "perverts", for being normal and hurting nobody.
> These laws are the perverted intersection of two irrational hot buttons: "sex is dirty" and "we must protect the children". Remember this when Internet filtering is imposed in order to block "child pornography".

>>20828338
that's because it is, you uncultured plebs.
sexual maturity is reached much sooner that legal maturity. the laws are not correspondent to the child's natural development.
read a book sometimes, it helps when you have no basic insights of your own.

>>20828414
>The demonization of "child" pornography has endangered US national security by creating an opportunity to blackmail officials that look at it.
> I put "child" in quotation marks because that word is part of the dishonesty. It is meant to suggest that only a pervert would find them attractive. Many of these "children" are old enough that they could legally get married in some states — and most normal adults will find them attractive.
> The article says that downloading "child" pornography converted these people into security risks. In the past, when people could be blackmailed for being gay, the same was said against homosexuals: that their conduct made them security risks. We now understand that it was the prejudice against homosexuality which had that effect.
> Note how the article calls it a "problem" that certain people could not be prosecuted because "it could not be established that the children had been abused." This shows the dishonesty of the claim that this is about protecting children. If that were their real goal, they would say, "We were pleased to discover in some cases that no children had been abused."
> If people are seriously concerned not to let children have sex in making porn films, they could use the approach that has succesfully eliminated cruelty to animals in films. You have seen the statements certifying that "no animals were harmed in making this film." There could be a similar certification that "no minors had sex or were nude with adults in making this film."

>>20828384
I'd be pissed off as hell if a person was touching my balls, my eyes, reaching into my mouth and my lungs and trying to get inside my ass.

Somehow I'm supposed to be totally cool with it when their agent does it? They obviously condone such actions, because it's not exactly a surprise that their air does it. What's surprising is that they subject their guests to such behavior.

They could leash the air outside but they don't, clearly because they think it's appropriate to subject their guests to.

>>20828416
BRB, finding my brother some videos of chechnyan beheading

>>20828411
>he quotes himself

>>20828376

That doesn't indicate that he is a paedophile though.

>>20828394

All these opinions are reasonable, if utterly unacceptable by mainstream thought.

>RMS is fine with someone raping his corpse after death
What a bro

>>20828384
Not everyone is a closed-off asspie who is incapable of interacting with creatures other than NPCs.

>>20828365
> child molestation shouldn't be illegal
Awkward phrasing aside,
> child molestation
> voluntarily pedophilia
Please get a dictionary.

>>20828371
It depends on if you believe children can be informed about the potential consequences and meaning of entering a sexual relationship with an adult. It is also a necessary requirement that children be rational beings for them to be informed. Without being informed their consent isn't meaningful.

Most people think children cannot ever be informed. I doubt anyone could deem an randomly chosen child a rational being. The laws reflect this.

>>20828355
>I often enjoy rhinophytonecrophilia (nasal sex with dead plants).

Fucking rms

>>20828440
Dude, I can tell a kid that their parents are robots and they'll believe me. Kids are impressionable fucktards, they can't give informed consent and it's retarded to think they can.

>>20828435
> That doesn't indicate that he is a paedophile though.
My guess is that rms identifies as something like a `non-practising heterosexual' or asexual. He has had relationships with women before[1] but he seems like the kind of person who doesn't care about any sort of sexual or romantic relationship because he could be emailing /g/ instead.

[1] http://stallman.org/articles/childhood-sweetheart.html

>>20828437
Why would anyone care? Yooos dead!

>>20828428
>BRB, finding my brother some videos of chechnyan beheading

you must be pretty young and overly sheltered.

i remember when i was young (20 years ago), i was able to see children with their heads chopped in half by machetes (during some african civil war).
>on the fucking 7 o'clock news

>>20828447
Why do so many people object to this?
Flowers = sexual organs of plants.
Nasal sex with dead plants = sniffing flowers.

And you guys call rms autistic...

I think rms isn't talking about actual pedophilia but ephebophilia and is a little confused if you ask me.

>>20828257
Not linked person, but I did see an email where he said that he thought a proper sex education involved kids having sex in the classroom. Of course, I suspected that Firebug or Photoshop may have been in play.

>>20828486
> I put "child" in quotation marks because that word is part of the dishonesty. It is meant to suggest that only a pervert would find them attractive. Many of these "children" are old enough that they could legally get married in some states — and most normal adults will find them attractive.

read it, dingleberry.

>>20828472
Yeah, and now you think that's remotely alright.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12530332


>>20828481
because by that definition we have eye sex whenever we look at each other and that's fucking retarded

>>20828449
I'm a fucking pedo and even I know this. Seriously guys. Seriously.

>>20828486
I'm sure he's aware of the distinction. He usually puts "child pornography" in quotes, especial when it's a news story explicitly referring to teenagers.

Though it might be worth clearing up. Someone email him and ask if he feels this way about all children, or just pubescent children.

>>20828506
Yeah, he definitely isn't talking about pedophilia. Really, this guy needs a dictionary.

>>20828439

It doesn't unnerve me but it does make the pet owners seem like ungracious hosts.

The worst is business owners with dogs that do this shit. That's wonderful that they own a business and they can do what they like. Unfortunately what they like seems to be subjecting every stranger that walks through the door to a friendly bout of crotch sniffing, drooling, loud noises jumping, and a dusting of disgusting dandruff all topped off with an offensive odor.

>>20828504
>Sex in classroom
I would definitely promote him president.
That bitch on my left in maths class...

>>20828510
No, because your eyes aren't sex organs. Flowers are.

>>20828510
yeh i do think that's remotely alright. & so does anybody who's not raised by a hicksville hockeymom.
i bet you peed your pants when watching disney films & still need regular counseling because daddy once slapped you when you were younger.

>>20828394
Everything on that list is perfectly reasonable. Personally, I think RMS is rather strange, but his core values are sound. Let people be free, as long as that freedom doesn't impede on other's freedoms. To reduce hostility between peers of differing view points, let people choose the amount of privacy in their lives, to a point of absolute anonimity.

It will never be this way, anywhere, any time. But it's certainly a nice thought.

>>20828541
I know right. that's why no one ever gets off on pornography.

>>20828541
No they aren't. Flowers don't have sex or reproduce, they are sex organs no more than my hand is and my eyes are because I fap.

>>20828546
>I have crippling mental problems and pretend the consequent psychopathy is normal and everyone else is weird

Get help.

>>20828557
>It will never be this way, anywhere, any time. But it's certainly a nice thought.

Feels really bad man

>>20828510
This reminds me, are there any proper studies on whether child pornography and pedophilia are actually harmful? Of course it would be impossible to set up in a controlled environment (because it's illegal and stuff), but perhaps something that has looked into past cases.
Specifically something that actually sets out to prove/disprove whether it's harmful without fear of judgment. I really want to know whether ex-child models were fine with it and happy to do it as child pornographers claim, or whether they're automatically scarred for life as the media claim.

>>20828570
>No they aren't. Flowers don't have sex or reproduce, they are sex organs no more than my hand is and my eyes are because I fap.

Go back to 5th grade biology, brosef

>Flowers don't have sex or reproduce
If you mean to say they don't reproduce sexually, you're simply wrong.

>>20828464

Actual, the last chapter of his biography, Free as in Freedom, leads me to believe he's heterosexual, and that he places a lot of importance on relationships.

>>20828428
We can safely assume that a guest would appreciate intimate contact with air, since we tend to die without it.

It's safe to assume that most people don't enjoy getting jumped on by a dog.

>>20828570
at least i'm not offended by some perfectly rational thought patterns.

>Flowers don't have sex or reproduce
then again i possess mental capacities significantly higher than your average toddler.

>>20828570
The biggest troll in all the lands, children!

>>20828577
Child pornography isn't harmful in itself, its production is harmful and its publication leads to psychological addiction and normalisation, leading to higher demand. Paedophilia again isn't in itself harmful, but it directly causes child sex abuse which is almost always.

Note that very few people say "sex with kids is always harmful". I just say it is most of the time, and that kids can't give informed consent.

>>20828585
Go backwards to rudimentary critical thinking, brotilla the hun

>>20828594
>any more than my hand or my eyes

>>20828614
So you're saying you force air on people in your home without asking them because you think it's best for them? Don't tell me what I want you privacy violating fascist.

>>20828616
I don't even know what you're responding to let alone whether we're in a conversation.

>>20828573

Well, it's one of those things 'wouldn't the world be better if...'

Things change from time to time, but nature has a way of creating hierarchies that put a defining 'head' at the top of the group, and ideals trickle down. The only way to achieve complete freedom would be to go completely off the grid, and live on some uncharted island in total solace. Even then, -you- are free, but in the world the strict social values remain, which is really what we are talking about. Not personal freedom, but global movement; And -that- is something we will never see. It is an impossible paradigm.

>>20828577
>pedophilia are actually harmful

How can an attraction be harmful. I think you meant practised pedophilia. Pedo here, expert on this topic.

There are some studies where apparently 70% of pre-teens who were abused had some "abnormalities". These "abnormalities" are basically anything you could possibly think off would be a mental handicap. There's no point even naming examples, just everything. There are no studies explaining why these symptoms happen with child-sex, but they certainly do happen. You could say "they only happen becuz societieh!!!" Nah, I think the problem here is if you have sex with a kid, let's say oral only, you take a part of their childhood away (many people know that but they actually don't know what they're talking about so I'll expand on that one), namely the part of exploring your sexuality, which is, if you think about it, a very, very important part of growing up. Instead of you playing with your peepee and gradually explore yourself everything is thrown at you suddenly and that's very bad. So that's the reason doing this stuff is bad.

>RMS thread
>End up discussing about the sex of flowers
Also technology general.

Wow. I thought people just didn't like him for nonsensical reasons. He's good at what he does, but HOLY SHIT he is an asspie fucking manchild.

>>20828675

>wise-ass comment
>hur dur gais I'm so funnay

>>20828652

You would be legally culpable for depriving a guest in your home of oxygen. Just like you would be legally culpable if your uncontrolled slobber monster were to bite your guest, which happens often enough with dogs to necessitate laws outlining specific procedures on how to destroy dogs that do this as well as penalties for the negligent owners.

http://mirror.wikileaks.info/wiki/An_insight_into_child_porn/
Read this, everyone!

>>20828652
> kids can't give informed consent.
I'm not disagreeing, but what do people mean by this? I mean, kids can cross the road by themselves and even form romantic relationships with each other. They're certainly not _illegal_ activities.
And yes, I get that children aren't sexually mature, but that doesn't necessarily mean
a) it won't feel good;
b) they can't do it for the benefit of someone who is.
It's 2011. Sex isn't just about making babies any more.

Sex with children ended here: >>20828446

Pedoporn is another issue:
>Does it encourage sex with children?
No.
>Is there evidence to support that it actually removes the tendencies of pedophiles to act on their impulses.
Yes.
>Would it even matter if a data stream promotes illegal activity?
No. First amendment.
>Should we sed the first amendment?
People can be disgusting scumbags. They can create instructions on fraud, lock-picking, homemade explosives, haxxoring. These are even more extreme than pedoporn if you think about it.
>What is pedoporn?
Media of crimes being committed. No one would suggest video of police brutality is illegal but pedoporn is somehow different.

Pedophilia is objectionable and there should be voluntary social measures taken to curb the appetites of pedophiles. Alcoholism is similarly objectionable, but few people think it should be illegal.

Learn to reason, fags.

/thread

>>20828699
>Butthurted autist.

>>20828691
He's promoted discussion about an issue that wouldn't have been addressed. Authoritarians and traditionalists get enraged by it but honestly, what doesn't enrage them? If it were up to them we'd still be teaching flat earth theory and the church would be dictating law.

>>20828738
Don't bring up any bullshit laws, you know you're forcing me to breath your air. Castle doctrine.

>>20828740
I mean sex is a serious thing, and not something you should just nonchalently do- an 11 year old could end up having to pay child support which is straight up retarded.
it might go fine, it might not, because there is a high risk of it not it is illegal and morally unacceptable. Crossing a road is something children are taught to do, has far lower risks, and is carefully monitored by all involved parties. Nobody advocates ignoring jaywalking children because they, though possibly knowing what they're doing, mightn't. I'm rambling.

Fapping to cp isn't wrong.
Doesn't harm anyone.
Doesn't promote child molesting.

Yep, I'm still pure, /g/.

>>20828748
>Butthurted
*Butthurt

>>20828667
I understand what you're saying, but I personally think it _is_ society's fault. If I had consensual (shush) sex when I was 8 and nobody rattled on to me about how wrong it was, I do think I would grow up fine. Look at children who are raised in whorehouses and end up desensitized to it. They're certainly not mentally scarred, it just becomes a part of life. Why would it be different if they were _having_ sex (of their own free will)?
Nude child modelling is even weirder. It used to be legal in some countries (notably Germany) and the children were all fine with it and happy to do it. Now that the media makes a big deal out of it, they were all `tricked' into it and are living in mental institutions, blah blah blah. I get that they may not have fully understood what was going on at the time, but you cannot deny that society has played a large part in this. `Concerned' adults probably made them see psychiatrist after psychiatrist, and frankly that messes a person up more than being naked and having your pictures taken.

>>20828820
Define "wrong." Sick and disgusting.

You think it's sick and disgusting. So do I, but I don't go legislating everything I think is sick and disgusting otherwise your diet and exercise routine would be Mandate #1.

>>20828814
Ok, you just go ahead and strangle your house guests.

>>20828820
Yes it is

No, but it is causally linked with harming

Yes it does.

>>20828833
I disagree completely, and even if that is the case you're doing wrong by knowingly molesting kids when you know they'll be traumatised as a result.

>They're certainly not mentally scarred, it just becomes a part of life

http://www.ipce.info/library_3/pdf/impact.pdf

/disagree

ITT: Pedo neckbeard circlejerk.


Yup. Typical /g/

>>20828874
>ok, you just go ahead and kill your dog

>>20828833
Yes, society has a large part in it. But it's certainly more favorable to not fuck a kid than to fuck it. The main reason for this witch hunt is of course the fact that people think children are asexual creatures. Not because of the (I think, at least) rational reasons I mentioned in my previous posts.

I think if society would be more acceptable, hypothetically, the rate of kids growing up with issues would be down to about 30-40%. This is still much. There will always be some who will not deal with it. Especially when they actually do understand what was going on and grow up their life thinking the guy used her only for sex. Kind of like when a friendzoned guy suddenly asks his crush out, the girl feels betrayed and thinks he was only nice because he wanted to fuck her. (I am at least sure some think like this)

>>20828893

I was arguing for chaining up dogs when guests are over, not killing dogs.

You were arguing for depriving guests of oxygen.

>>20828814
> I mean sex is a serious thing, and not something you should just nonchalently do
Agreed.
> an 11 year old could end up having to pay child support which is straight up retarded.
16-year-olds (and younger, in some countries) can end up having to pay child support. Of course it should fall to their partner and possibly sex education to teach safe sex, as with all relationships.
> it might go fine, it might not, because there is a high risk of it not it is illegal and morally unacceptable.
Of course it's illegal, but morally unacceptable is debatable.
> Crossing a road is something children are taught to do, has far lower risks, and is carefully monitored by all involved parties.
It's the same with sex, even in adults. You may not have been *taught* sex as straightforwardly as you liked, but you did learn it. Of course it would be nice if we all taught each other properly on our first times. Especially if you were having sex with someone who had a lot more experience than you and your penis kept coming out of her because you moved at awkward angles and ended up making her feel uncomfortable and elbowing her stomach but she was too polite to say anything and it was super awkward.
I forgot what I was talking about, but something about teaching people (perhaps even kids) sex.
> Nobody advocates ignoring jaywalking children because they, though possibly knowing what they're doing, mightn't.
Eh, I like in the UK so I'm not too sure what jaywalking constitutes. Here we're taught the Green Cross Code by hedgehogs then we can do whatever the fuck we like.

>>20828906
Sounds like you just have an immature understanding of what sex it.
And that's not your fault, it's the fault of society. You need to give it some more thought and deprogram yourself, perhaps then you'll understand.

>>20828879
You didn't refute the central point by having supporting evidence that it promotes child molestation, you
merely showed that the act of having sex with children is harmful. No one would disagree with you.
Even if it did promote pedophilia it shouldn't be illegal. See: >>20828747

>>20828910
and you are equating that to strangling guests

chaining up and killing the dog affect you the same way, in the same way that strangling and removing air from you do.

>>20828861
The problem is that I already fapped to cp, and enjoyed it.
My point was that fapping to cp it doesn't hurt anyone, doesn't do anything in fact, so it's not a wrong activity.

When it come for me to define the word "wrong", I reply that nothing is really wrong in that sens that we do know we're only made of atoms and that life is only is a chemical process. So all morality isn't actually worth anything.

>>20828951
You're fucking retarded but we reach similar conclusions.

>>20828934
Nope. I'm pretty confident about my understanding.

Sexuality is simply a huge part of yourself. Third-party taking part in your personal development of sexuality is dangerous when the kid loses control over its development. An 11 year old can in my opinion watch porn without problems because he's in control of what's happening. This is never the case with a pedo (like me) so it will cause harm and influence development bad. Deal with it.

>>20828932
>16-year-olds (and younger, in some countries) can end up having to pay child support. Of course it should fall to their partner and possibly sex education to teach safe sex, as with all relationships.

16 year olds have fully developed critical thinking abilities and- if nothing else- full legal autonomy.

>Of course it's illegal, but morally unacceptable is debatable.

Telling kids to play a version of russian roulette in which they get a video game every time they don't die is not moral. Neither is this.

>but something about teaching people (perhaps even kids) sex.

Tadah, sex ed.

Not sure what you mean by sex has far lower risks than sex.
>>20828937
Well then, give me something to refute other than "Kids who grow up in brothels aren't mentally scarred". It's a positive statement I tried to give the benefit of the doubt to.

>>20828307
Not >>20828086 here, but you pretty much just explained his joke. He obviously read it and was being sarcastic.

>>20828970
Not retarded.
I just have great problems expressing myself in English.
And I didn't re-read my post, sorry for all the faults.

>>20828942

I never advocated killing the dog.
you advocated killing your guests.

You can get as ridiculous as you want with your "LOL RANDUM" arguments. It just makes you look stupid and in no way refutes my point, which is that it's rude to subject your guests to crotch sniffing, drooling, loud noises jumping, showerings of dandruff and offensive odors.

>>20828879
>http://www.ipce.info/library_3/pdf/impact.pdf
Skimming this now. Good food for thought.
Though I would like to know whether these children were abused as in, well, abused, or abused as in, "They met one of the criteria in the Symptom column of Table 1 so it's classed as abuse."
Perhaps something comparing consentingly `abused' children, forcibly abused children, and non-abused children would be more appropriate. I would be eager to see the results.

>>20829035
No, I advocated not making them breath my oxygen unless they said they wanted to. You equated that with me deliberately removing any possibility of them choosing oxygen. I simply did the same with your idea.

It replies to your point in a refutable way, you just haven't managed to reach the correct conclusion yet.

>>20829044
confession- I haven't read it yet either, I was recommended it by someone lurking ITT. Hope it's useful.

WHEN I WAS A KID, WE HAD TO FIGHT DINOSAURS WITH OUR BARE HANDS. BUT NOW IT'S ALL "BAWWW THAT'S NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT!"
NOW WE CAN'T EVEN FUCK OUR CHILDREN?!

DEAR LORD, WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO?

>>20829019
Let me preface this by saying I support the legality of pedophiliac porn.

You're a sick fuck for enjoying it. Seek help. It is objectionable and I think you should look into a support group or hormone therapy to control your urges.
You're a stupid fuck for admitting flapping to cp on the Internet, regardless of your country.
You're a stupid fuck for refuting all ethical and moral reasoning because of a random science fact.

>>20829101
>You're a sick fuck for enjoying it.
Oh boy, welcome to the 21st century, grandpa.
Do you hate fags too?

>>20829126
>equating CSA with homosexuality
As a fag, fuck you. That's like saying "You hate neo-nazis? I bet you hate ghandi too"

>>20829101
>You're a sick fuck for enjoying it.

People who enjoy the extremely popular (badly played) rape videos are sick fucks for enjoying it as well.