/liberty/ - Liberty

>>58477

>It's legal to own and distribute videos of people being tortured and killed(including kids) but it's illegal to own pictures of naked little girls making sexy poses.

I'm not sure what to make of that, either. The crucial question is whether it should be allowed to distribute illegally produced media, and, related to that, whether a prohibition should just hit the criminal or extend to everyone.

Insofar as you point out the double standard in age of consent laws, I agree with you, but I don't see how that's news. Pretty much everyone on this board will agree with you.

Also, fuck pedos.

>>58477

We know about these.

>How do we change it?

We point out the contradictions of arbitrary law and undemonize individuality and freedom. A lot of these have no business forbidding voluntary action of adults.

>>58477

Legalize CP, but keep the child abuse it records illegal, the cameraman is an accomplice.

Illegalize circumcision, it's a violation of the NAP, parents are the guardians of their kids, not their owners.

CP, if recorded by the kids themselves without the involvement of an adult, will not result in arrests, if an adult is involved in the production, they will be arrested.

prostitution should be legal.

military enlistment age should be raised, the draft, and conscription, are violations of the NAP and need to go.

We don't need yet another pedo thread so go fuck yourself. Why don't you use one of the existing threads?

>(If you don't agree debate me.)

Why should I?

>>58480

Denying children their sexual privileges and creative rights is a violation of the NAP. People who try to stop consenting parties involving adults from producing cp have every right to be shot in self defense.

>>58491

>obvious bait

Whatever, I'm hungry anyway

Most children are unable to give informed consent. Most children are completely incapable of dealing with the aftermath of a sexual encounter. The few (and I mean FEW) children that can meet the first condition almost certainly cannot accomplish the second.

You are hurting a child when you fuck them, whether you want to admit it or not, pedo. You don't give a damn about their happiness or well-being, otherwise you wouldn't subject them to the mental/emotional/physical risks involved with sexual activity. Most ADULTS are barely capable of dealing with those risks maturely, and you want to extend those to KIDS simply to tickle your pickle? End your life.

>>58496

>Most children are unable to give informed consent. Most children are completely incapable of dealing with the aftermath of a sexual encounter. The few (and I mean FEW) children that can meet the first condition almost certainly cannot accomplish the second.

Completely arbitrary moral reasoning, with no evidence whatsoever save for imaginary or worst case anecdote.

>Most ADULTS are barely capable of dealing with those risks maturely, and you want to extend those to KIDS simply to tickle your pickle?

By this reasoning, in line with your prior argument from morality, the best course of action is to raise the age of consent exorbitantly, such that these vulnerable adults are guaranteed protection from those risks. But any non mentally challenged person would tell that that is ridiculous and against the biological clock.

It is in the greatest injustices where hypocritical statists rear their dirty heads.

>>58499

Present sources from academic journals to support your case.

>>58496

1. We're talking about voluntary relationships and voluntary sexual encounters. If a child finds an activity risky or unpleasant, they should be able to withdraw consent.

2. Pedophiles probably do care about children quite a lot, and want to reduce any risks. Be careful your view is not based on prejudice.

3. Children don't need to fully understand activities to engage in them. A restraint of liberty is justified only by extreme risk. You need to justify the conclusion of extreme risk- within the boundary of 1) the child consents at the time, and 2) the pedophile usually tries to prevent any harm

>>58499

>Completely arbitrary moral reasoning, with no evidence whatsoever save for imaginary or worst case anecdote.

First hand experience with being sexually exploited as a child, you mongoloid

>By this reasoning, in line with your prior argument from morality, the best course of action is to raise the age of consent exorbitantly, such that these vulnerable adults are guaranteed protection from those risks. But any non mentally challenged person would tell that that is ridiculous and against the biological clock.

>It is in the greatest injustices where hypocritical statists rear their dirty heads.

I'm going to wrap my hands around your pedo neck and squeeze until your head pops off if I see you touch a child sexually. Is that perfectly clear, asshole?

>1. We're talking about voluntary relationships and voluntary sexual encounters. If a child finds an activity risky or unpleasant, they should be able to withdraw consent.

Most children can't even be counted on to honor contracts and you want to throw sex at them?

>2. Pedophiles probably do care about children quite a lot, and want to reduce any risks. Be careful your view is not based on prejudice.

No, they don't. They don't care. They care about slaking their paraphilia's thirst. They TELL themselves that they care about the child, but they don't. If they did, they wouldn't damn well sex the kid up in the first place.

>3. Children don't need to fully understand activities to engage in them. A restraint of liberty is justified only by extreme risk. You need to justify the conclusion of extreme risk- within the boundary of 1) the child consents at the time, and 2) the pedophile usually tries to prevent any harm

THE VAST MAJORITY OF CHILDREN CANNOT GIVE INFORMED CONSENT. Are you going to tell me that denying a child the ability to eat nothing but sweets 3 meals a day is abuse? Are you going to tell me that making a child observe basic hygiene is abuse? Kids are fucking NOTORIOUS for thinking it's ok to do shit that causes them harm because "they like sweets more than vegetables" or "they hate baths" and so on. That is not a being that can give informed consent to sexual activity with a FUCKING ADULT. Even TEENAGERS are notorious for all manner of self-destructive and overtly harmful behavior.

Parents don't own their kids, but their children are their WARDS and they have a duty as parents to educate and protect. Don't you fucking DARE tell me that most children know better than most parents and therefore sexing them up is A-OK.

>>58504

>Most children can't even be counted on to honor contracts and you want to throw sex at them?

It's not that I want children to have sexual experiences. I just don't know if I can support the state deterrent for pedophiles. When the state actually gets involved in these situations, it seems to make things worse for both the child and the adult. I have read the testimony of some of the former children who say that this was their experience.

>If they did, they wouldn't damn well sex the kid up in the first place.

This assumes the act is harmful in the first place, and the pedophile knows it to be harmful. Neither are necessarily true.

>THE VAST MAJORITY OF CHILDREN CANNOT GIVE INFORMED CONSENT.

I wasn't talking about informed consent, but just 'consent'. The child is a willing participant. They can certainly perceive the acts to be voluntary.

Constantine, Larry L. "Child Sexuality: Recent Developments and Implications for Treatment, Prevention, and Social Policy," International Journal of Medicine and Law, No. 2, pp. 55-67, 1983. 
Reviews findings of above article. Discusses implications for treatment, prevention, and social policy. Includes proposals for legal revisions. Among the findings of this major literature review: "The most important determinant in the outcome of adult-child sexual encounters is the child 's perception of freedom of choice in partici- pating."

>>58505

>It's not that I want children to have sexual experiences. I just don't know if I can support the state deterrent for pedophiles. When the state actually gets involved in these situations, it seems to make things worse for both the child and the adult. I have read the testimony of some of the former children who say that this was their experience.

The state is not known for competence in any given arena, this much is true. That being said, I think there is probably a good stateless solution to be found somewhere. There is nothing the state can do that an individual or group of individuals can't do better.

>This assumes the act is harmful in the first place, and the pedophile knows it to be harmful. Neither are necessarily true.

Exposing the child to a sexual situation, if it doesn't immediately cause a very negative reaction in the child, can have a number of negative knock-on effects. The child can start demonstrating inappropriate behavior with other children, for one. Children are generally not equipped with what one would consider a full "toolbox" of the stuff they need to conduct themselves in ostensibly adult situations - things like responsibility, empathy, the ability to think in the long-term, understanding of the importance of making and upholding contracts, and a number of other things. They're generally still learning a lot of this crap even in their mid to late teens, and for a lot of kids the "18 years old, you're on your own now" point ends up being a serious trial by fire. Some, most even, kids end up with enough of a decent head on their shoulders to transition to "adulthood" but between teenage arrogance and, at times, insufficient/improper parenting more than a few of them end up making a lot of very stupid mistakes.

>I wasn't talking about informed consent, but just 'consent'. The child is a willing participant. They can certainly perceive the acts to be voluntary.

Informed consent is a very necessary thing here - sex can be a positive experience, but (especially these days) it is FRAUGHT with peril. Most kids don't understand a lot of the unexpected shit that can occur with a sexual encounter. Sex, with human beings, is not some simple thing. Teenagers can kind of understand most of it, but they're exceedingly prone to taking really stupid chances because they tend to think of themselves as being invulnerable.

The risks associated with sexual acts are NUMEROUS.

1. Pregnancy, if one participant is male and the other female, and both participants have started producing their respective sex cells. Being an underage parent is a fantastic way to DESTROY your childhood and ensure that you enter adulthood with a MASSIVE handicap.

2. STDs. Combine this with kids' generally lax attitude towards things that can and will make them very sick (or teenagers' retarded sense of invincibility) and you have potential for a really bad situation.

3. The absolute emotional minefields present in most sexual relationships. Hormones do some really crazy shit to your brain.

4. Children's limited understanding of things like consent, contractual obligation, and so on. A child sexually interacting with an adult opens up the possibility of the child actually being afraid to retract consent if and when they start becoming uncomfortable with the encounter, for any number of reasons - assuming they weren't coerced, deceived or otherwise pressured into the encounter in the first place by an adult who pretty much has the upper hand in absolutely every way, mentally, physically, etc.

Depending on the child, some choices can be left to the child's discretion. Some choices have consequences severe enough that leaving them to a child is a good way to end up with a really bad situation. Sex is not simply harmless fun. Sex can and does have serious consequences, and it's honestly bad enough that young adults manage to ruin their lives to varying extents via casual sex - I don't want that visited upon a child, and neither should that child's parents.

>>58506

what the fuck, where did my flag go

>>58506

>I think there is probably a good stateless solution to be found somewhere.

Such as what? And why would people come to that gentler way rather than lynching or stoning or some other- worse- punishment? The state is more elitist than the people, and less vicious, in many cases.

>things like responsibility, empathy, the ability to think in the long-term, understanding of the importance of making and upholding contracts, and a number of other things

I don't see how these translate to harm.

>1. Pregnancy

Great majority of people would support abortions in cases like that.

Also, most child-adult sexual relations probably are not penetrative.

>2. STDs

Many of those can only really be spread through intercourse.

Anyway, children won't have had much sex, so it follows that pedophiles won't have many STDs.

>3. The absolute emotional minefields present in most sexual relationships

That's a legitimate concern, but it might have to be balanced with emotional upsides, if they can be found.

>4. Children's limited understanding of things like consent, contractual obligation, and so on. A child sexually interacting with an adult opens up the possibility of the child actually being afraid to retract consent if and when they start becoming uncomfortable with the encounter

How does their 'limited understanding of consent' cause this?

Though the issue is a very valid one, as people can become sexually possessive and vindictive.

>>58477

>It's legal to own and distribute videos of people being tortured and killed(including kids) but it's illegal to own pictures of naked little girls making sexy poses.

I believe the possession of child pornography -regardless of the age of those involved, and regardless of consent- should be allowed. But paying for it should be extremely illegal.

>it's legal to cut away a part of newborn's penis but it's illegal to give a blowjob to a 15yo boy

I believe that the age of consent should lowered to 13. I also believe that the circumcision of infants should be illegal.

>It's legal for 16yos to fuck each other(in some states) but they can be arrested if they record themselves.

Should be completely legal.

>It's legal for 16yo to enlist to the military(potentially getting sent to where they can be killed) but illegal for them to be recorded furing sex.

See above

>it's legal to do porn in general but prostitution is illegal.

See above.

>>58509

>Such as what? And why would people come to that gentler way rather than lynching or stoning or some other- worse- punishment? The state is more elitist than the people, and less vicious, in many cases.

These lynchings occurred because the courts allowed them to. With a competition among courts, it becomes very unlikely that every court will just look the other way. More so when the lynched person had a contract that his death is to be investigated and legally reviewed.

>>58477

It is a disease.

http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/jnp.12.1.71

>>58517

http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/355295

http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v24/n1/full/1395585a.html

>>58517

lol u cannot into science

pedophilia CAN (not must) be caused by disease like tumor

>>58516

>With a competition among courts, it becomes very unlikely that every court will just look the other way.

In a capitalist legal system, courts will sell whatever people want to buy.

A court that lets 'abusers' off too easily would get a bad reputation. Since pedophiles are only 1% of the population I think the courts wouldn't care about them too much.

>>58519

No. It simply shows that there is more to understanding the causes of pedophilia then simply saying it is a personal preference of one to engage in sexual activity with children. To suggest that children are able to give consent outside of the considerations of their parent or guardian is to propose the the parents of a child play no active role in guiding the development of that child. Any determination of child consent can only be made through the parents of that child. To say otherwise revokes the liberty of the parents as custodians of their child. To attempt to determine what is best for a child revokes the liberty of the parents to choose the cultural mores that they wish to live by. Advocating that parents infringe on a child's consent can only be accomplished by standing upon the soapbox of authority.

>>58522

Why should parents have special and particular authority over their children?

>>58523

Parents do have an inherent natural tendency to have authority over their children. This is reflected within higher order animals especially within mammals. One could make the case for humans that this responsibility ends with menses. However, does not a couple have the liberty to determine with which cultural mores they wish to establish their family? To suggest otherwise establishes authority upon the liberty of a couple and withdraws their freedom to determine the way they wish to live their life and raise their children. If we suggest that pedophilia may be an important and valued contribution to society, we only need look at societies where pedophilia is practiced without major taboo such as in Islam through Sharia law. Under Sharia law there is not a lot of liberty but a lot more pedophilia. While we cannot draw a correlation from this alone, it does allow us to see a society which places a value upon it. In a libertarian society people will organize as they wish. A code cannot be imposed upon them, only agreed by them. As such we cannot truly say that a parent has no right upon their children as a governing rule, as people that do feel that a parent does have a right will most likely organize with those that feel the same way. The only way then to determine what is a more successful rule is to judge these communities side by side, and to a degree we can by looking at where it is practiced now.

>>58525

>Parents do have an inherent natural tendency to have authority over their children.

Not my question.

>However, does not a couple have the liberty to determine with which cultural mores they wish to establish their family?

To some extent.

>To suggest otherwise establishes authority upon the liberty of a couple and withdraws their freedom to determine the way they wish to live their life and raise their children

Perhaps, but if the freedom is the freedom to reduce the freedom of others, then it might be desirable, and consistently libertarian, to be opposed to it

>A code cannot be imposed upon them, only agreed by them

People would, no doubt, be able to impose some laws on others. Otherwise the law would have a hard time operating.

>>58545

>Perhaps, but if the freedom is the freedom to reduce the freedom of others, then it might be desirable, and consistently libertarian, to be opposed to it

Some things are more important than ideological purity. You know, like raising kids that aren't completely fucking messed up in the head.

I'm against the state, but for the purposes of child-rearing a certain kind of vigilant-yet-lazy-tyranny is unfortunately required in the household to keep your children from being COMPLETE AND TOTAL FUCKUPS.

>>58553

Alright, but can you justify the claim that children who have sex turn into fuck-ups?

Interesting thread

https://8ch.net/younglove/res/34274.html

If pedo anarchists/libertines were a serious about their goal, they would realize their connection to anarchist groups are not beneficial and cut themselves off.

>>58554

I swear to god this is a fucking /int/ being a shitter and doing this just to piss us off.

GET OUT PEDO SCUM. I'VE SEEN THE FUCKED-UP KIDS THAT PEDOS LEAVE BEHIND.

>>58557

Hey. Do not forget about saging a thread.

>>58578

lol butthurt

dfgcvhbjm

fuck off

fuck off

>It's legal for 16yo to enlist to the military(potentially getting sent to where they can be killed) but illegal for them to be recorded furing sex.

>it's legal to do porn in general but prostitution is illegal.

>>58630

Bullshit, Nepiphilia, Pedophilia, Ebhebephilia, and Hebephilia are all literally defined by someone's desire to have sexual relations with someone under the age of consent, and under the universally accepted standards for age of consent in every developed country, you know, the ones that factor in human brain development into determining their age of consent laws, so the kiddy-fuckers in Saudi Arabia aren't even worth considering here: the Paraphilias listed cover babies and toddler, children, tweens, and young teens.

I understand you mean that just because someone has the sexual desires to do something, that it doesn't mean that they will actually do it, most people are good people with functioning consciences, but age paraphiliacs still have the sexual desires for doing something that is undeniably harmful to the person they want to do it to, and, like al groups of people, there are those among you who are not good people, and do not have a working conscience, or have desires that are so strong that they will be willing to do something that they know is wrong and that will make them feel guilty, just to satisfy their fetishes, or who can make pseudoscientific excuses to do something harmful and delude themselves into thinking that it wasn't, like the pedos who want their government to abolish the age of consent altogether by claiming that adult-child relationships can ever be something other than harmful to the child, and it's these types of fuckers who are the most commonly found identifying themselves as pedos online.

That includes you, you deserve all the hate you get when you say this shit.

Reminder to always sage the PSYOP pedo thread.

Pedos should be thrown out a helicopter just for being so damn insufferable.

>>58678

You're a retard, aren't you?

If you are sexually attracted to someone, that means you find them sexually desirable, which means you want to fuck them.

Your own wikipost proves my point, I honestly have no idea what you think it means.

>>58504

>I'm going to wrap my hands around your pedo neck and squeeze until your head pops off if I see you touch a child sexually. Is that perfectly clear, asshole?

Wow. You sound like a Nazi from /pol/. Asshole.

>>And to everyone else

Are we talking about whether or not 14-year-olds can consent or if 4-year-olds can consent, cause there's a HUG FUCKING difference. I'm pretty sure a 14-year-old knows what they're doing, but a 4-year-old? Hell no. Fuck no. Shit no. Goddamn it no.

What's also funny is how libertarians claim they want things back the way they were in the founding father's days (and in many cases, even more freedom then the founders gave us), but if you tell them that in the first thirteen states, the youngest age that a girl could be married at was anywhere from 8-12 years, libertarians go all SJW about how we need to protect children from the degenerate pedos.

I'm a lurker. When I first found this site I spent most my time at /pol/ but I couldn't stand all the hypocrisy there, so I checked out /leftypol/, they were even more hypocritical, then I found /liberty/ and thought maybe this place would be better, but no, you guys are just like all the others. Nothing but hate and threats of death to the people you consider "degenerate". Is there anywhere that isn't full of hypocrisy, or am I asking too much?

>>58706

The Founding Fathers were not consistent libertarians; they supported slavery and gave priority to men. Libertarians are consistent libertarians to a greater degree- they extend full rights to women, and despise the idea that men are using women without proper consent.

>>58707

I should have said '/liberty/' or 'present day libertarians', are consistent libertarians

This is and always has been a /leftypol/ shill thread.

>>58705

>Wow. You sound like a Nazi from /pol/. Asshole.

Sticks and stones, pedo. I won't need them to break YOUR bones if I ever see you or someone like you doing something uncouth to a child. I'll call the police and tell them that they get to race to where we are to keep me from killing you.

>>58706

>waaaaaaaah you guys are hypocrites because you disapprove of people like me harming children to satisfy our paraphilia waaaaaaaah

Kill yourself.

God dammit where did my sage and flag go. Fucking 8ch.

>>58707

How are men using women without their consent?

>>58710

It almost appears that way. Only instead of worshiping communism they worship capitalism.

>>58718

I am not a pedo you goddamn bastard! I would never touch a kid like that. I just don't like bloodlusted hate-mongers.

I wasn't crying, I was only disappointed that I can't seam to find a political ideology whose members aren't two-faced liars.

Facts:

All men are attracted to minors

Most men find 14-16 year old girls attractive over 20+

80-90% of girls prefer men over boys their own age.

>>58780

I meant they use girls without 'proper' consent

Daily reminder to sage your local COINTELPRO sponsored pedo thread.

>>58812

da fuq is "proper consent"?

a written contract, signed and notarized? they used to castrated rapists bro.

>>58820

It's basically a subjective standard. But most people agree that you should be a certain age

>>58822

yee but that's a good thing for the most part. but what society ever let people fuck toddlers?

fucking pedos

>>58477

No.

Not gonna read that.

Go fuck yourself.

A childs mind hasn't developed yet.

You can truly destroy and corrupt a child's mind by fucking him.

>>58843

Your mind doesn't develop till 25 hehe

>>58844

WAIT WAIT WAIT DID YOU JUST IMPLY THAT IT IS OKAY TO FUCK WOMEN BELOW 30?

YUCK, WHAT THE FUCK YOU EVEN ADMITTED IT, YOU'RE COMING WITH ME WITH THE CHARGES OF INCITATION TO BREEDING.

NEXT TIME YOU'LL THINK AGAIN BEFORE THINKING IT'S OKAY TO REPRODUCE. A LIFE OF PRISON AWAITS YOU, WHITEY.

PROCREATION IS DEGENERACY

EQUALITY IS PRIVILEGE

WAR IS FREEDOM.

LONG LIVE THE BIG BROTHER.

>>58888

What if this thread is just a slander COINTELPRO campaign to make libertarians look like a bunch of pedos?

Saging again.

>feminazi SJW cancer is trying to invade /liberty/ now

>>58501

>implying academic journals aren't all run by political commissars who forbid any research that questions the government's social control mechanisms

>>58656

>AoC is 14-16 in massive swaths of the first world

Try again, Tumblr. I can detect your disgusting roastie pussy from here. Sorry you're jealous that guys like teen girls and not you.

>>58888

Lol.

A bit off topic but how do I put a flag next to anonymous?

>>59065

>Show post options & limits

It's under the file-select field.

>>59063

>>Sorry you're jealous that guys like teen girls and not you.

Duh men want teens not used up granny cunts.

>>58656

Shut up used up granny cunt. Teen girls are peak for females. They have the best bodies, best fertility, tightest cunts, no sagging breast, no wrinkles, not a dumb bitch like you and they preferred by ALL men.

>>59090

>If you're not a pedo, that means you want to fuck grannies

I guess.

>>59090

Lowering the consent laws still won't get you laid. You're better off waiting for your robot lover.

>>59111

Yes it will because younger girls want older men but it is not legal.

>>59118

because feminists lobby because they do not want to compete with young non brainwashed modest and honest virgins for men

>>59120

This all day. Society cannot change nature.

Blood for the blood god

Sage for the bait thread

>>59144

Close minded bigot

>>59145

Eat shit and die

>>59146

Closet statism at it's finest here, folks.

>>59149

>you won't let me harm kids in order to let me sate my pedophile urges, t-that means you're a statist!

Motherfucker, I won't NEED a state's monopoly of violence to visit upon you the pain of fucking DEATH if I see you touch a child in their no-no spot.

>>59155

internet tough guy detected

>>59155

You'll be shot several times over in self defence before you can get your vigilante high, and you will die watching a child consensually enjoying herself against your wishes.

>>59158

internet non-tough guy detected

>>59155

> if I see you touch a child in their no-no spot.

what if im a father and im washing dicko of my son?

>>59155

>individualist attacking people based on their individualism

Hah.

>>59127

>elephant fucking a human

Fucking dead.

>>60299

Yeah, you're a faggot. Fuck you.

>>60301

Explain why or fuck off.

>>58477

>but it's illegal to own pictures of naked little girls making sexy poses.

pedo detected. fuck you.

State law is the one that makes legal age 18. Federal law is 16 iirc unless the people having sex are four years within each other and one or the other is not above 18, depending upon if the state has those Romeo and Juliet laws or not.

I believe until de facto adulthood from out of pubescence, which is around 15-18, one cannot consent to sexual acts. To me, CP under that age range is and should be illegal, because it is the exploitation of children.

Also, circumcision should be illegal unless one is 18. That is a purely religious practice, unlike what a Jew that works for the WHO would tell you. You won't -get- infections if you just take a fucking shower. And the reason people stop getting STDs if they're circumsized is because they lost a massive fucking chunk from their cocks and they're depressed and angry about that, and it makes them less appealing to both men and women, and experience less pleasure overall. Fuck Jews.

I believe drinking age should be 15 or so, and the age of 17 with parental consent for service or 18 on your own for the military is just fine.

Videos of snuff and gore? It depends. If they were killed, intentionally or unintentionally, they probably didn't -consent- to that. That makes it a legal gray zone. I'd rather leave it a gray zone. If they consented to the snuff porn or committed suicide and took footage of it? That makes it perfectly legal.

But you probably don't care what I say because it means I don't agree with your point of view still on child/adult sex, which to you means you don't have a fellow supporter of pedophilia with me. So fuck you.

maaaybe I'm influenced by an encounter i had with a 5/60+ year old man with meth teeth, but pedos are creepy and I don't want to have anything to do with them. (later found out he was a s** offender too.)

(yes, "are you lost" and "do you need help" are tactics they use. as is "where's your mom".)

>>60575

bleh.

>>60575

Advice for anyone who looks young and doesn't want to encounter them: keep a confident stance and generally have a serious demeanour. My working theory(haven't encountered any for a year+, thank god) is that they're attracted (in behavior) to shyness/demureness("innocence" or more specifically, naïveté) so generally have a confident, aware aura around you and they won't bother you.

Don't get distracted if you're in a crowded location.

Don't be unaware of your surroundings.

(i didn't think of it before now, but they probably go to crowded locations so they can blend into the crowd so that they can escape after the fact and before anyone can identify and apprehend them.)

Don't put yourself in a location where you could get cornered or trapped. Make sure that wherever you're at has multiple paths that you can escape/get away from them easily.

Also they tend to stand out just by acting strange. There was this 20 something year old guy that got close(at the end of an aisle) in a bookstore and started laughing obnoxiously(snorting) at a book… that didn't have anything at all to do with humor. (it was a music history book.) So generally look out for odd behavior, especially at odds with what people normally('usually') do in a particular environment.)

>>60342

>hurr durr its liberty when I like it, statism when I don't

What a long winded pile of mental gymnastics.

>>60575

>>60576

>>60579

>regurgitating the blatantly false stranger danger that has stigmatized men from social pleasantry

>unprovoked bullying of non-attractive or inadequately successful men when sexual offenders who are very attractive and successful are fairly common

>typing like a stupid roastie

Women are really too self immersed and stupid to be making decisions for society.

>>58502

Pedophiles and their "consent."

http://www.inquisitr.com/4383572/pedophile-who-told-his-six-year-old-victim-to-bite-a-pillow-jailed-for-17-years/

>>60912

why when heterosexual person rapes ppl do not write

>HETEROSEXUAL CONVICTED

yet when pedophile rapes ppl write

>PEDOPHILE CONVICTED

? :(

>>58477

Off yourself.

>>61026

lol butthurt

>>61077

>butthurt

Just like those kids?

>>60967

Because paedophilia is abnormal. Being heterosexual is normal; it's the default position for humanity. When someone says "person", it's implied that the person is heterosexual, i.e. normal, and so nothing more needs to be said. Only abnormalities need to be explicitly mentioned. For example, if there was a news headline saying "man falls off ladder", you will automatically assume that the man is alive. Being alive is the default state for humans, so it doesn't need to be mentioned. If it was a dead man who fell off a ladder then that would be explicitly mentioned, since being dead is an abnormal state for humans, much like being a paedophile is. As an abnormal state of being, paedophilia, like death, is something that people try to prevent and avoid, and is something that we would eradicate altogether if we were able.

Your kind are not normal, so don't act surprised when people point it out.

Here's your candidate, OP.

http://www.larsonfordelegate.com/wiki/Abolition_of_the_age_of_marriageability

http://www.larsonfordelegate.com/wiki/Enactment_of_a_male_sexual_liberation_constitutional_amendment

http://www.larsonfordelegate.com/wiki/Legalization_of_incestuous_marriage

Degenerate.

> association fallacy

If your laws are retarded, that does not make you less of a pedo if you want younger people because of their youth. You have no moral, biological, practical justification for that, because if you had one your kind would fill the boards with it.

"after normalizing homosexuality they will want to normalize bestiality and pedophilia" they said. And I laughed. Silly me.

Fuck your overton window.

>>61160

mature women are more degenerate, they smoke, swear and drink alcohol nad have promiscuous sex

I could give a darn hoot less, I am getting me a robot lover. To hell with kids and women, I look towards the future!

>>61162

>moral justification

To not be discriminated against, or have freewill removed based on sexuality or age. To not have artificial barriers imposed that benefit a specific sect of society(older women) at the cost of others.

>biological, practical justification

Grooming is a form of courtship that can be advantageous in securing a mate earlier at the cost of greater sacrifice in resources. This falls perfectly in line with the currently socially acceptable reproductive tactics of being a long term provider(called betas today), or being a short term polygynist(alphas/chads).

Homosexuals have no such biological or practical justification and yet their rights are secured.

Statists belong on >>>/pol/

>>61265

>act like a statist

>reeeee I'm not a statist but I'll abuse the state to get rid of those I don't like

An individualist who can't respect individual rights. Pathetic.

>>58477

>Legal for 16y/o to enlist in military

Are you retarded? They have JROTC but that's not the military. It's legal to swear in at 17 but they won't let you actually go through boot camp until you graduate high school and turn 18.

Hod fucking damn it, I'm tired of all these shitty ass pedo threads shitting up the board. Will you fucking kiddy diddlers just fuck off already?

>>61298

This thread is still here a month later because you keep taking the bait.

>>61298

>>61299

>rights for all accept [what I don't like]

>I'm going to remove [what I don't like] despite there being no justification to do so

>internet tough guy threats that will never materialize

With so many edgy hypocrites behind the whole ancap movement, do you really need to wonder why it hasn't taken off? No wonder people assume ancaps are immature teenagers, many of them don't even know or believe in the principles they support. Quite pitiful how we've fallen as far as the libertarians.

>>61330

>reasonable discussion mired by autistic death threats

>MAHDS MAHDS CENSOR THIS THREAD FUH ME!!!11!

Individualists are pro-censorship too now, huh?

>shitposting to get a thread nuked

>in response to amicable discussion

>posting pictures of non pedos killing themselves

You know, if this crazy individualist hypocrite had felt the tender love of a pedophile when he was younger, he would have never grown up to be such a hateful burden to the ancap community as a whole.

Admin, pls nuke this thread already.

pls sticky

>>61355

>pedos use authority

Got a single fact to back that up? Or is "authority" just another word for the natural disparity of advantages and circumstances in which people find themselves in? What more authority does a pedo have than another person?

>Pedos rely on coercion, deception and physical force to do what they do

By that logic, you could say capitalists and the children of the wealthy use coercion, deception and physical force to force us to buy their things and "continue wealth equality". The typical authoritarian communist argument.

Negotiation of terms between two parties is not coercion and deception. And the use of physical force has as much relation to pedophiles as rapists represent heterosexuals.

>I'm fucking tired of arguing over absolutely unjustifiable pedoshit and any further attempts to bring up the subject of pedophilia should be met with a ban.

Translation: I'm a statist hypocrite who puts on this cyan and black flag for internet points. I have no commitment to individual rights or freedom of speech, and would sooner arbitrate right and wrong on a whim like the fascists I dislike.

>>61425

>fuck off and die

Not an argument!

>>61425

>he thinks there aren't multiple pro liberty supporters here

Just because you're a fake individualist and a hypocrite doesn't mean every one here doesn't know how to uphold the NAP.

>>61431

>You are not and have never been worth an argument. You don't argue with pedos, you don't reason with them, you don't debate them.

Translation: I'm a giant flappy pussy who doesn't have the brainpower to justify why I'm a shitty hypocrite, nor what my cyan and black flag represents. I'll type paragraphs of limp wristed threats because I'm an insecure baby.

>>61080

you do not have to be pedo to like kids

>>61501

>tfw leftist pedos LARP as people with a life and fail

Pics or it didn't happen.

>>58705

Soon.

>>61833

Feels like /b/ with a dash of politics

>>61818

Wykurwiaj stąd, libtardzie, i zabierz ze sobą swoje polackie memy.

>>61833

No idea why these threads get bumped. Pedos have nothing interesting to say, they're not pleasant company, and they're completely non-threatening in the sense that no one would take them serious, at least presently.

Also, I have to support what you say on slippery slopes. We already banned a pedo before, and no one felt bad for it. I'm still a supporter of the United Boards of Freedom, but that's mostly a matter of sensibility and not ethics.

>>61988

>razem

>literalnie partia, która chce zachować antynomiczne stosunki produkcji kapitalizmu, jedynie lekko go farbując na czerwono

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIL_ZH2oc_c

>>61945

chyba nie wiesz co to libtard znaczy nowokurwo

>>61995

euroazjata to ty? przyznaj sie

>>61997

Nic o tym nie wiem, archiwa spłonęły w Berlinie.

unofficial pole thread?

>>61745

>>61833

>being this allergic to differing viewpoints

Yeah fuck off you non ancap.

>>61939

what's coming soon is the day you statists get physically removed

>>61948

>and they're completely non-threatening in the sense that no one would take them serious, at least presently.

which is why you're so scared of association with pedos that you'd turn your back on your philosophy to censor them. you fuck off too you fake ancap.

>>62099

Praxis of your fetish is a violation of the NAP. In that sense, tolerating you is like how we tolerate ancoms–say all you want, but the reality is that your belief is incompatible with methodological individualism. And really at this point, your thread is no longer part of the board topic.

>>62102

not even my thread you gutless minarchist. if you hypocrites didn't shit up the thread with whining it would still be on topic, and not one statist here has made a valid counterpoint anyhow, just autistic screeching

>>62132

nice

>>62136

kill yourself faggot

>>62177

>>62178

>>62179

>>62180

>>62181

>>62182

>>62183

>>62184

>>62185

>>62187

>>62188

>>62189

>>62190

>>62191

>>62196

>>62197

>>62198

>>62201

>when you get so rectally ravaged you spend hours autistically talking to yourself, desperately clinging on to the hope that shitposting will make you feel stronger

Kek, keep pushing your blood pressure higher. Pedophiles will forever be a part of anarcho capitalism and nothing you do will ever stop it. If the day ever comes that your children or grandchildren get raped, you won't have the balls to move a finger and you know it.

>watch a couple videos

>come back to see multiple new notifications

>the autist is back

>started shitposting five minutes after I left

>apparently the autist spends all day rotting here

>he's posted dozens of shitposts

>types a long limerick for every one

>projects his insecurities in every one

>posts a chen vid in every one

>chen, one of the defining loli 2hus

>even I don't have this much chen content

>here is a guy pretending he hates pedos, but happens to have this much archived loli related content

So in a short span, you've shown that you not only spent 45 minutes shitposting straight, but also waste your life lurking this board long enough daily for an immediate response. And you're a self hating closet pedo at that. Phenomenal. Simply phenomenal. You really can weed out those you've triggered from those who don't really care.

Someone delete this thread already and ban the LARPing pedo.

sticky and cyclical

do it

anti-pedos do not belong on /liberty/. fuck off, you assblasted statist.

no kys pedo, no excuses for taking advantage of children, FUCK YOU

>>62286

>I-I'm n-not a pedo! I h-hate pedos!

>Doubles down on chen and shinobu

>Pulls out dozens of vigilante vids, the magnitude of which only someone upset about his life would keep on hand

>Projects his fears in every threat

>Spends a solid 3 hours straight with this style of shitposting to clear his name

There's being a self-hating closet pedo. And then there's being such an obvious pedo that the degree to which you try to hide your sexuality slips up enough evidence to put you so far out the closet you can never go back in. Christ, you're a complete disgrace. The fact that a pedo of tfwqtp2tlgf's tier could even bother you this much is a testament to what a lowly state you're in. This is what happens when you drink the anti-pedo cool aid. You rot in the most imaginably pitiful fashion, and all your innermost insecurities spill out for all to see.

>>62404

/leftytoilet/ is more like it

>>58478

>Also, fuck pedos.

fuck you

>>58504

>Even TEENAGERS are notorious for all manner of self-destructive and overtly harmful behavior

I agree with most of what you said but wtf do you want to happen? Raise the aoc to 21 like the drinking age?

>>62404

>hurr durr free speech is wrong

>>62414

>hurr durr pedos are tyranny for consensual encounters

>hurr durr asking for rights is tyranny

you are literally the reason why people don't give ancaps the right of freedom, you falseflagging statist. fuck off

>>61091

hot

yet another pedo thread go fuck yourself

Never forget the day the Revolutionary America flag became the default shitposting flag.

soundtrack to this thread

>>61088

Asexuality (demisexuals are just sexuals with low sex drives), Homosexuality, and Bisexuality (pansexuals are just pretentious virtue-signaling bisexuals) are abnormal, so would you support the illegaslization of those sexual acts as well?

On that note:

Would you also support the illegalization of incest between an adult brother and sister who are only a couple years apart? or does a familial relationship/familial upbringing create a situation that prevents meaningful consent from being given?

What about incest between an adult woman and her father (who raised her from birth)?

Finally:

What about group marriages?

>>64602

When did I mention outlawing anything?

>>64602

>What about group marriages?

Harmful and reprehensible, except when it's a clever shout-out to The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

>tfw no Mannie co-husband

>tfw you're not teaching a hyper-intelligent AI how humor works

the problem with child abuse is that pedos cannot legally castrate themselves chemically or physically

>>64722

because they're too busy getting their fill of that warm sweet cunny

>>64722

Cutting off your dick is perfectly legal in my country. And it's not like anyone's going to prosecute you, unless you go around showing everyone your non-existent dick.

>>58477

>it's legal to cut away a part of newborn's penis but it's illegal to give a blowjob to a 15yo boy

This is absurd but we all know it's the case because of (((them))). I am one such victim.

>>64626

>>What about group marriages?

>>Harmful and reprehensible

You have the right to your opinion, but if you support restricting people's rights to enter into such contracts, it's not libertarian.

>>64760

>I think one unavoidable exception to the NAP is children

You can't coerce non-existence.

>No child asks to be born

No child can ask and can not be asked. A result can not ask for its causation. The NAP does not deal with the inanimate. Not only that, but no child can even make its mind up on the subject until it has grown to adulthood.

Even from a Materialist's point the child is not only unmolested for being given life, it consents by its genetic instinct to cling to life.

Further more, how does someone "disagree" to exist while existing? If it truly were so, they'd be committing to that choice and instead of arguing over it needlessly, end their existence immediately, unless somehow physically unable to do so, which again poses a question how come they will to do something with their body but it "refuses"?

>a central power must exist in some-form or you have war

In order for there to be no injustice and conflict people have to submit to an unjust master with who they are locked in conflict?

>>64767

> what s/he/they allow is where liberty exists

Liberty is not power to have one's way. It does not exist outside of social conduct. It is a mutual agreement to not restrain each other's actions and choices. A master can not "give" freedom. His rule infringes Liberty.

> But, without any government, you have a situation like Europe before WWII or Japan before unification, inherently unstable and tending towards war.

Correlation does not necessitate causation. Mini states are neither anarchist, nor have anything to do with AnarchoCapitalism in particular. You'll need a lot less loose of a historical interpretation to have anything remotely close to an argument.

>>64780

>freedom only exists as long as your master permits

Which means it doesn't. You are either free or not. Both at the same time is incomprehensible. By your inconsistent definition nobody has been or ever will be free.

So long as you continue with the view that might makes right there is no point to continue arguing. Again, power is not freedom. If power can decide what is just then its definition is forever completely relative and inconsistent, and absolutely non-arguable.

>>64781

>that, I would argue is alone insufficient.

That is not an argument. That is an unsupported proposition.

>>64789

>They must adhere to certain rules set by you

You honestly think a contract is ruling over someone? You are way far off.

>What is to stop the wealth from bring the power that wealth has to bear in order to gain more wealth and power even if it breaks the NAP

Laws and people resisting it. Your obsession with power has little to do with actual freedom.

>>64790

>b-but freedom to take others freedom away from people = freedom

The fuck you're going on about? Finish a coherent sentence once. What freedom is being taken away?

>>64798

>If children are property from the start and have no right to their own body, then how can you possibly believe that once when you become an adult you wouldn't be enslaved for the rest of his life

Children have rights and before making an inflammatory statement explain how exactly are children able to make such decisions and take care of themselves on their own.

>Human rights in the ancap camp sound completely arbitrary and thus pointless tbh

How are they arbitrary? What rights do not apply consistently to all? Can you back anything you post up before agreeing with yourself?

>>64798

children aren't property, they are wards, parents aren't owners, they are guardians, children are people, and people can never be property.

>>64760

if they want to cease existing, they take the appropriate action to get to that result at any time.

There's no way to illegalize suicide.

>>65193

so there must be a bureucrat supervising parent and taking kid from him/her if he or she is not doing well in upbringing?