The pics thread
- Thread starter Ender Rises
- Start date
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
Salon deleted the articles they hosted which were written by a self-admitted pedophile, but they were archived here and here.
Overall, I think there's a slow-motion attempt on the more fringe progressive section to separate pedophiles from child molesters by pointing out that you can be a non-active pedophile. It's not the same as saying pedophiles are just like homosexuals and Mort is correct when he says the left by their own ideology could never truly support pedophilia because it inherently needs a rape victim to be what it is, but to some degree there is an attempt to generate sympathy for non-active pedophiles.
Overall, I think there's a slow-motion attempt on the more fringe progressive section to separate pedophiles from child molesters by pointing out that you can be a non-active pedophile. It's not the same as saying pedophiles are just like homosexuals and Mort is correct when he says the left by their own ideology could never truly support pedophilia because it inherently needs a rape victim to be what it is, but to some degree there is an attempt to generate sympathy for non-active pedophiles.
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
So basically a child can be a pedophilia victim at age 8 because they can't consent but also can consent to saying they identify as something other than their biological sex? I call bullshit.
Last edited:
Mort Divine
Shrine Maiden of the In-Crowd
Considering gender identity is largely solidified early on in a child's development call it all you want.
"Core gender identity is usually formed by age three.[7][8] After age three, it is extremely difficult to change,[7] and attempts to reassign it can result in gender dysphoria.[9] Both biological and social factors have been suggested to influence its formation"
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
I didn't even know how to tie my shoes at age 3. Utter trash viewpoint tbh.
What did you identify as at age 3? Serious question.
What did you identify as at age 3? Serious question.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
Mort Divine
Shrine Maiden of the In-Crowd
Honestly, I don't remember much of my childhood, but I imagine the same as I do now ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
>"This isn't going to end well"
>Ends with a noncommittal
Probably the best outcome you can have with Mort tbh
Krow
Garbage Connoisseur
I don’t remember much of anything from before middle school. Three year olds chew on rocks and eat shit if left unchecked. Telling them they aren’t a girl is probably similar.
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
If my parents taught me money management and invested in my future with a strong emphasis on education, I'd take some weird gender identity issues on balance. Useless cunts.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Why? The former involves a relationship between two people; the latter involves an individual person's sense of self-identity, and eight is smack in the middle of formative years. The eight-year-old isn't making a decision that involves the livelihood of another human being. It's a completely personal process that the eight-year-old probably doesn't fully understand. But then why prohibit any given eight-year-old from playing with certain toys, or dressing in certain clothes, or performing as a different gender than their biological sex, just because they don't fully understand the political valences of what they're doing? They're not actively hurting anyone else.
Unless you count having to address them by their chosen gender as "hurting" you. Which, if that's the case, then I'd say you have larger issues to worry about.
That pic isn't saying that homoesexuals et al are comparable in their behavior to paedophiles. Some irony though in having a priest as the victim.
Sorry, I'm not sure I understanding how these two things follow.
It seems you're saying that the meme is criticizing how LGBTQ values might be coopted by pedophiles because they aren't homogeneous or coherent enough. Given the incoherence of the image itself, it's impossible to extricate the conflation of LGBTQ members with pedophiles. It only appears obvious to you because you're on the defensive side and the image isn't specific enough to prove that it's conflating LGBTQ members and pedophiles. But given its composition, I'd say it's aiming to provoke that response. And it certainly can be read either way, which is problematic.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
It's simple really, pedophiles are opportunistically taking advantage of the "born this way" rhetoric. It's disgusting tbh.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Fair enough, but the meme doesn't specify "pedophile rights"; it specifies "LGBTQ rights," which means it's conflating the two. It's ostensibly about those who identify as LGBTQ, and then crudely qualifies that identity as pedophilic.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
I don't agree with the meme because I don't have to be a rabid progressive LGBT activist to know that the LGBT as a specific political unit isn't pro-non-consensual sex (or simply rape) so there's no danger of pedophile rights becoming a pillar of the LGBT.
However, you cannot ignore this weird new trend of trying to gain sympathy for non-active pedophiles. There are literal articles that have been written by noteworthy left-wing media orgs like Salon.
However, you cannot ignore this weird new trend of trying to gain sympathy for non-active pedophiles. There are literal articles that have been written by noteworthy left-wing media orgs like Salon.
viewerfromnihil
Vein-Marbled Tower
It's not exactly a new trope though, to conflate gays to pedophiles. CiG is partially right that some pedos are being opportunistic, but the primary opportunists are the internet reactionaries.
edit: just to expand on that, CiG, some non-pedo idiots are sympathetic to the idea, yes, but I think the Salon article can partially be written off as a terrible editorial mistake and lapse of judgement.
edit: just to expand on that, CiG, some non-pedo idiots are sympathetic to the idea, yes, but I think the Salon article can partially be written off as a terrible editorial mistake and lapse of judgement.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
All sides of the political spectrum jump on any chance to fear-monger using the safety of children. The right hunt down pedophiles to be outraged about like the left hunts down racists. The right uses pedophilia jokes by leftists to claim there's a normalization of pedophilia on the rise, the left writes racist messages on a wall or a napkin and then contacts the media about it.
A bunch of ghostbusting "what about the children" fools all around.
I'd agree if there weren't two of them and I'd agree if they weren't suddenly deleted because Salon decided to write a bunch of articles about Milo Yiannopoulos and his tacit acceptance of pedophilia by not reporting the adult who molested him to the police.
A bunch of ghostbusting "what about the children" fools all around.
I'd agree if there weren't two of them and I'd agree if they weren't suddenly deleted because Salon decided to write a bunch of articles about Milo Yiannopoulos and his tacit acceptance of pedophilia by not reporting the adult who molested him to the police.
Einherjar86
Active Member
My thoughts as well.
At any rate, this is the pics thread, so all I'll say is that meme was pretty callous and logically incoherent.
Dak
mentat
LGBT (the specific acronym on the meme) is not merely limited to those letters anymore though. The meme isn't well done, it left off a critical portion of the acronym to better make its point (aside from the priest thing); "Q+" is widely accepted at this point and the + is infinite, and all of it is encapsulating sexually non-normative populations: both in sexual practice and/or identification. This includes paedophiles by default.
re: The "paedophilia requires a victim" argument. This is an increasingly difficult argument for the left as they have been recently arguing for more autonomy of children both sexually and politically, just not specifically in the area of consenting to sex with adults. These arguments won't be difficult to turn to other purposes.
Unless the left just continues to Mort at everything they don't like: "No, just no. Fuck off." It's ostracism but it's not an argument.
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
This is my argument. If children are granted this autonomy to determine their sexual preference, couldn't this stem to preferring to date adults? If the children consent, where does that leave the people in the movement who are anti-pedophilia because rape is lack of consent. With consent, the 'rape' or 'lack of choice' argument is negated. Where is the line drawn? The slippery slope is becoming a cliff at this point.
Similar threads
