https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKdaFnru0Ko
This dude is unbelievably disgusting and weird... I mean, this guy is trying so hard to defend pedophilia that it's unbelievable.
This dude needs help...
Anyway, what do you think about this weirdo?
Didn't hear of this before. So one Youtuber is arranging attention for another Youtuber? Would never happen!
We had a pedo advocate posting here about 18 months ago. Wasn't too popular a string. As usual people here hair split over what age of consent defines pedo from regular adult predation.
Omnipolitics16 ... seems really desperate for attention. I don't know if I would believe his schtick or not. Could just be a exhibitionist/attention whore.
I see why you, you were banned. Posting even short videos is poor form to folks here ... I still do it, because sometimes that is the only way to get the point across. The lazy folks simply want you to take a 2 hour video and summarize it in two sentences. That is assuming they can even read ;-)
Well, I wasn't sure what category to make this thread in, but yeah...
Also, I know the video is long, but I thought it was kinda interesting, and other people might want to watch the entire debate.
Okay, well, to summarize the video in short is:
Omnipolitics16 is a pedophile who is advocating for pedophilia, and Andywarski & Blaire White are the people who are against pedophilia.
ZenKlassen for the win ... no video challenged people were harmed in the making of his summary ...
Geez... This Omniped freak called Anywarski's sexual abuse story a "kink".
He needs to get help before he does something really bad to a child.
The problem comes from how today, in a progressive society, where people have faught for years to get a normal basis of acceptance from 'normies', or the majority as in heterosexuals, today where gay, lesbian, trans and bi have faught for years to just be accepted as normal, as we've reached a stage in society (in the west) where it has gotten to that stage, it has brought with it its own troubles, as in these kind of sexual deviants who view the idea of being sexually attracted to children normal, and lump themselves into the same groups as lgbt.
but there isn't anything normal about a sexual attraction to someone else who is either beyond consent, or beyond a moral stage of being able to, its the same as someone who wants to fuck a horse, the animal is a creature unable to have consent as a species to a human, so the human being wanting to have sex with it is a deviant.
children are not sexually active creatures, so for someone to have sexual thoughts about them just as awful. Sex should only ever be an accepted premise where is the ones involved are within the status of it being acceptable or agreeable, otherwise its pretty much rape.
Also, bat boobs!
(http://sega-addicts.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/rouges-boobs.png)
Quote from: ƵenKlassen on December 13, 2017, 08:52:48 AM
Geez... This Omniped freak called Anywarski's sexual abuse story a "kink".
He needs to get help before he does something really bad to a child.
While I am pro-sex and anti-Puritan ... one has to be careful in framing sexual practice (if not fantasy) when it involves another person(s).
Thing is, we like people to be able to articulate their own opinion. We like videos posted as support for a poster's points, not as a substitute for them.
Anyhoo, I don't think that watching an hour and a half of arguing around the same points and then berating an obvious clueless and somewhat cagey creep was a very productive use of my time. I didn't even need the summary, because I am absolutely not even surprised what transpired in the video. It basically went how I expected it to go.
[spoiler]
Okay, that was a little lie. I was sincerely, genuinely surprised by the "kink" comment. Holy. Shit. You, Omni, are one clueless fuck-stain.
[/spoiler]
The reason why we don't like kids having sex is basically the same reason we don't like sending them to fight wars â€" mean, real wars, not that FPS crap. Sex, like war, is something that even some adults have trouble processing, let alone kids.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on December 13, 2017, 05:02:50 PM
Sex, like war, is something that even some adults have trouble processing, let alone kids.
I stopped watching when I learned "the most disgusting YouTuber" was a sixteen year old boy.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on December 13, 2017, 05:29:12 PM
I stopped watching when I learned "the most disgusting YouTuber" was a sixteen year old boy.
Well, I'm not really sure he's really 16 years old... I mean, he looks like he's 26, not 16.Either he's lying about his age to make it seem less severe or he is one old looking 16 year old.
Quote from: ƵenKlassen on December 13, 2017, 06:27:33 PM
Well, I'm not really sure he's really 16 years old... I mean, he looks like he's 26, not 16.
Either he's lying about his age to make it seem less severe or he is one old looking 16 year old.
Mental age is more important than chronological age. He probably needed to be from my generation, and be kidnapped to the Playboy mansion and taught proper sex.
Quote from: Baruch on December 13, 2017, 08:42:06 PM
Mental age is more important than chronological age. He probably needed to be from my generation, and be kidnapped to the Playboy mansion and taught proper sex.
Well, he is pretty screwed up mentally... I mean, promoting something so controversial and morally reprehensible like pedophilia while showing his face... He pretty much ruined his life right there...
Quote from: ƵenKlassen on December 13, 2017, 09:26:05 PM
Well, he is pretty screwed up mentally... I mean, promoting something so controversial and morally reprehensible like pedophilia while showing his face... He pretty much ruined his life right there...
Sex education in the US has been pretty screwed up since the Puritans. If a primal drive doesn't find an outlet, it can come out anywhere.
Quote from: Baruch on December 13, 2017, 08:42:06 PM
Mental age is more important than chronological age. He probably needed to be from my generation, and be kidnapped to the Playboy mansion and taught proper sex.
The law says otherwise. And ethics agree.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 18, 2017, 06:26:00 AM
The law says otherwise. And ethics agree.
Depends on the "age of consent" and you and I don't disagree. Definitely no sex before 40 (my daughter is 27, so when she is 40 I will raise the age of consent) ;-) As far as Playboy goes, I was referring to the magazine BTW.
Quote from: Baruch on December 18, 2017, 06:54:48 AM
Depends on the "age of consent" and you and I don't disagree. Definitely no sex before 40 (my daughter is 27, so when she is 40 I will raise the age of consent) ;-) As far as Playboy goes, I was referring to the magazine BTW.
Try to get real on 'age of consent". It matters. You are reverting to mere jesting again.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 18, 2017, 06:57:32 AM
Try to get real on 'age of consent". It matters. You are reverting to mere jesting again.
You weren't here, when we debated a real pedophile. I would be happy with 18 or 21 as a compromise, that is the current law. But fact is, girls mature faster than boys, and boys aren't mature until they are 25, and it all depends on the individual. My daughter is handicapped, so not mature at 27.
Quote from: Baruch on December 18, 2017, 07:00:02 AM
You weren't here, when we debated a real pedophile. I would be happy with 18 or 21 as a compromise, that is the current law. But fact is, girls mature faster than boys, and boys aren't mature until they are 25, and it all depends on the individual. My daughter is handicapped, so not mature at 27.
You made sense until the last sentence. Then it was specific to an individual. And I agree. "consent" beyond the chronological age also requires "informed". Non Compos Mentis is almost a forever "NO".
Quote from: Cavebear on December 18, 2017, 07:24:16 AM
You made sense until the last sentence. Then it was specific to an individual. And I agree. "consent" beyond the chronological age also requires "informed". Non Compos Mentis is almost a forever "NO".
Correct. Depends on the handicap.
Quote from: Baruch on December 18, 2017, 10:51:44 PM
Correct. Depends on the handicap.
And you just HAD to suggest a handicap. Define please...
Quote from: Cavebear on December 23, 2017, 05:47:54 AM
And you just HAD to suggest a handicap. Define please...
If someone is "compos mentis" but has no legs, can they have sex? I would say yes. And I was describing "non compos mantis" as a handicap. Senility is another, old man ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on December 23, 2017, 07:02:47 AM
If someone is "compos mentis" but has no legs, can they have sex? I would say yes. And I was describing "non compos mantis" as a handicap. Senility is another, old man ;-)
Yes.
I read about NonComposMantis shrimpus. They discover new ones nearly every day. Haven't read about Senilus shrimpus, though...