Is there any non-moralist argument against pedophilia?

Yes. Your only reason to exist is reproduction. You cant reproduce with a child.
End of the story.

This is your brain on statism

Pure ideology

this

also

smugemoji.jpg

i dislike pedos strongly but you gonna have to do better than that

Mandatory reading for browsing this thread

No.

Yes? Majority of children can't consent in capitalist society, because we teach them to be sheep consumers
In a socialist society, or at least in a society were children are not considered to be objects but humans, yeah, of course they could consent, and issues with pedophilia would vanish.

Ancaps and Agorists should be chemically castrated tbh

You realize how spooked you sound right?

you realize you just ascribed baseless reasoning behind my motivation for disliking pedo's when i implied none of that in my post, right?

OP asked for non-moralist reasons. "Naturalism", as you call it, is the opposite of that.

fair enough, m8

Huh so I guess we can't say people who want to have sex with non-consenting adult partners (i.e. people who want to rape) are not mentally ill either.

Huh, kind of sounds like rape. Regardless of whether society didn't want kids getting fucked by adults, this would still be a factor. Kids don't resist because they know society says it's wrong, and even if that was the reason it wouldn't matter. It doesn't matter what reason someone declines to have sex with you, not giving consent is not giving consent.

Not an argument. You wouldn't defend incels doing this to women.

Yeah, that's because the child sex offense of having child porn is no longer a sex offense. If literally nothing else changes other than the legalization, the legalization itself is going to reduce the rate of crime. Instances of molestation and rape could actually increase, as long as they don't increase enough to replace the decline in offenses due to the offenses eliminated through legalization.

anti-pedos need to explain how are we going to fight capitalism if capitalism and subject/object inversion is established in the brains of children since birth

In the end, it all boils down to education

...

Children can consent. Most of the pedos don't want to rape anyone, just like all the teleios aren't rapers

i wonder if half the people who talk shit about post-left anarchism have even read a single post-left document

The age of consent should be universal 16 tbqh

But even at that age teens lack the knowledge of what a sexual relationship entails, not because they are mentally unable, they just lack the experience to properly understand what it means to be in a relationship. They get this knowledge normally through high school relationships and tons of trial and error.
That being said, it will never be considered normal for a fifty year old to date a 16 year old. This is simply because their is an objective divide in cognitive age between the two. Though some teens are relatively smart, the vast majority are drooling, hormone fueled retards t-17 y/o so most adults who do want to get into a relationship with one don't want to because of emotional, intellectual, or personality reasons, they just want to fuck a kid which is pretty fucked IMHO.

And anybody who goes after children below the age of 12 should be put in a care home gulag if you ask me.

This leaves out quite a bit of important information and requires way more then three cites

I bet you're a burger

Homosexuality prevents homosexuals from passing on their evolutionary non-beneficial genes. Therefore, despite being evolutionary non-beneficial, homosexuality basically "weeds out itself". (Of course homosexuality is not entirely hereditary, therefore instances of homosexuality occur despite this.)
Pedophilia is different. It involves children who might have evolutionary beneficial genes. The relationship adult-child is constructed in a way that will not allow these genes to be passed on. A pedophile relationship therefore is unviable from an evolutionary standpoint, whereas a homosexual relationship is neutral.

agorists also try to use they grey flag

close ;^)

Yeah! That's why both still exist isn't it?

Anglo, burger, doesn't matter.

Also the insertion of a male reproductive organ into the reproductive organ of a female child can cause physical damage to the child's reproductive system. The same can be said for a male child's anorectal system. This is extremely un-beneficial as well, another biological argument against pedophilia.
(This was the weirdest thing I have ever written on the Internet.)

Homosexuality still exists because it has not only hereditary causes. This "weeding out" I mentioned eliminates only (part of) the hereditary factor, which is the factor relevant for relationships. (Remember, this is about pedophile *relationships*)
Yes, a pedophile relationship can last beyond fertility. However, there will not be sexual attraction from the pedophile anymore after a certain stage of development has been reached. This alone makes it highly unlikely for such a relationship to last into the optimal age of fertility.
Pedophilia is also not entirely hereditary, which is why it still exists. Just like homosexuality.

And it wouldn't be a pedophile relationship anymore after a certain stage of development was reached anyways, so it is irrelevant for the discussion. We only talk about relationships involving pedophilia.

Not an argument. Sex ≠ insertions

Sex literally is insertions. Anything else is petting or cuddling, or whatever you call it.

...

12/66

Clever

Holla Forums seal of approval

we may need another flag actually

Just imagine the reddit rage if these were actually implemented. I shouldn't indulge in idpol this hard but the potential to piss off all the reddit normalfags is so good with this one.

define "implemented".

This was paedophile flag on wikipedia before they removed it

reminder that jason unruhe thinks we are a child porn board

children arent sexually attractive in the slightest

they aren't for you.
they are for me.