Free Speech

butthurt

And this is why you will die, never achieving your ideology.
No wonder why people look at you as some pathetic, useless edgy teenager.

Says the Tankie that still screeches "gulag" to anyone they disagree with.

What's it like having a dead political ideology?
Even Zizek fully admits that the 20th century Left is dead.

...

Shocking

...

We just don't think mass deportations, discrimination against disadvantaged groups, "peaceful ethnic cleansing" and the like are ideas that should be protected.

Yes
No

You are politically impotent, you will die poor and this is the best you can do?

...

I used to be a big free speech fan, but then I realized that most people are literally feral apes, and have nothing useful to say.

It's better to harshly prohibit "bad speech", while knowing that people who have things to say will say those things.

Heavily encrypted, in complete privacy, as anonymous as possible. It will be said.

But honestly, I think "social justice" is the right path.

It sounds absurd, but after the rise of these trumptard-esque nazis, I'm pretty sure that I prefer a more politically correct society.

I'll say whatever I want over encrypted chat though, or in my own house.

lol

So Holla Forums has finally embraced political correctness?

...

Meanwhile, the alt-right wants to throw leftists out of helicopters while others disrupt events while others want to silence forms of artistic expression.

Fucking hypocrite.

costanzabelittles.jpg

This is an appalling quality of posting that belongs more in Holla Forums than here. For fucks sake I had to quote so many people I looks like I'm doing that annoying meme where I quote everyone in the thread. You should feel ashamed and if you do not change your ways you should immediately go to >>>/gulag/ or >>>Holla Forums

Not embraced.

I simply prefer the sheep of society believing it.

Nazi-esque propaganda is simply worse.

No one wants free speech on either side, of course. Not "real" free speech, where you actually can say *anything*.

That sort of thing doesn't happen, and never will, so out of the two choices: "freer speech" with a dose of straight up nazism vs "be nice to everyone or else" social justice.

I prefer the second, is all.

As for freedom: If we wanted freedom, we'd have it.

Instead, revolutions, protests, and elections consistently fail because the majority of people are not able to make good decisions.

So fuck freedom if it's not really going to be freedom, but instead, just some alt-right jr. nazi shit, where the only free speech is just allowing people to make fun of minorities or some petty shit.

That's not freedom. So if it's that against social justice, I'll go SJ anyday.

This is a low-effort OP, and so it will get low-effort responses.

Those who oppose free speech cannot be Leftists by definition.

I support free speech, with one exception: you should not be allowed to advocate that any human should be given a different set of legal rights than any other.

people who are so pathetic that they want a tankie goonsqaud to tell them what to say
also

castro died peacefully in his bed after fucking your mom i'm pretty happy bout that honestly

also your political opponents are teenagers, thats pretty fucking pathetic

...

...

*precident
(wow i suck)

you're the bad guy how does it feel?

Don't try to rephrase "violently suppressing or reacting" as "protecting"

Try to be consistent.

I support free speech also, with one exception: no one is allowed to advocate for beliefs I do not like

...

This is what I mean by not caring if free speech is banned.

This fucking moron right here can't even spell, can't make grammatical sense, and probably has nothing useful to say, even if I did spend another minute trying to comprehend these words.

"banning the world"?

Like, what are you even doing? Sheesh.

I've got nothing against you personally, but this sort of comment belongs on a youtube video or something.

Anyways, this has basically cemented my anti-free-speech philosophy.

I'll talk freely over encrypted chat, but as for public society, I think heavy censorship is best. People don't need so many thoughts or ideas. Not when most people are so fucking stupid.

They just need to be nice to people, not cause chaos or harm, and to shut the fuck up, because everything they say is vapid bullshit.

A lot of effort for a post-ironic Fascist shitpost

At least you openly support tyranny.

He's dead and so is his legacy.
I wouldn't really even call you my "opponents", that would require intelligence and dignity on your part.
You are the edgy teenagers that r/drama mocks.
You are below r/drama.

...

I never mentioned beliefs.

There's literally nothing wrong with posting pig testicles.

...

Aye, if the people are to be oppressed and unjust laws enforced, might as well go all the way.

People might just fight for freedom when they realize they have none. Instead of some bullshit "left-right-left-right" march based on rigged elections.

A complete establishment of an authoritarian command, where p2p internet is disabled, and you can only connect to the most popular servers, such as Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Holla Forums, and other popular websites where peoples' words can be easily scanned, and where the people can be tracked by IP.

The common person doesn't deserve freedom.

They deserve slavery and oppression.

Thinking certain humans should be treated differently is a belief.

Haven't seen this level of teenage misanthropy and nihilism in a long time.

Read half the posts here.

These people are fucking stupid.

And that's just within Holla Forums.

It gets worse in Holla Forums

Worse on Reddit.

Worse on Facebook.

Worse on Youtube.

Worse on Tumblr.

And worst of all on Twitter. Or maybe there's another trash heap where people speak their minds, no matter how shitty and incoherent their thoughts are.

Fuck free speech. People need to be lead like cattle, lest they go full tribal and try to play some "muh traditional values require genocide to work" or some other insane shit.

...

Have you looked around at who makes up humanity?

Do you think what I'm saying is untrue?

Don't you remember all those people you've met in life, but forgot? Generic people who are essentially domesticated ape-like animals.

Not even a bit of "person" in them. Just dumb creatures who learn to speak from sheer mimicry. They have no minds.

They just obey memetic viruses and do whatever is popular. They join the popular religions. They join the popular societal movements. They join the popular political parties.

They're fucking idiots, and if you can't see that, you're one of them.

I'm not mocking the i that people are dumb. I'm mocking you and how you think you are no different.

*idea

I'm sure you are.

Well, I hope you're having fun with your intellectual discussion then. Have fun mocking one anonymous person.

Goodbye.

Wow you sure taught me.

hawaiileftreview.wordpress.com/2017/03/03/free-speech-rights-and-the-state/

t. senior redditor of /r/hapas

...

1) Idiots that that just because they say shit, it's admirable. Nope. Your message matters more than your flapping lips.
2) idiots think they have a right to be praised or their asses kissed for their views. Again, nope.
3) These are the morons that often think stolen valor, lolicon(or even real cp) or cries of genocide are free speech.
4) These are idiots that think being blocked on social media is a violation of free speech
5) these idiots think free speech is worldwide, when it's not even close

Funny how it's okay when the Republicans silenced a recent Democrat speaker for trying to talk about black civil rights advocates, yet they cry if you so much as refuse to pay attention to them.

Fuck tolerating your sorry ass.

didn't read more than a few lines, could tell it was whiny propaganda narrative bullshit with little truth to it.

Not an argument.

Here's what I'm curious about.. In the US, the argument for freedom of speech and expression was to encourage conflict among political parties, thereby encouraging harsher debate. The entire point is to slow down the progression and also abuse of the state.

If a political ideology were to challenge the freedoms of speech and expression, is that at all telling of their arguments to begin with? If your side is so right, why would one feel the need to restrict certain speech or arguments should it even feel its position holds such esteem as to have such a muh privilege to decide right and wrong speak?

Maybe you should read the rest, my man.

Honestly sounding a bit like a redditor m8

Shut up Nazi, imma punch you IRL.

;^)

Says the man who worships Hitler, you think he would have allowed free speech? You're an overgrown baby who had parents unwilling to tell you NO and because they were lazy, you think you can do whatever you wish without consequence.

Honestly sounding like a spoiled brat masturb8or

I'm not your mate, you dumb cunt.

don't give a mother fuck, sorry.

The problem with this argument is that it's holding one standard over another, one set of values higher than another without addressing how it got there. It's like when I hear Christians say "God is real", then if you ask "who created your god". If you get rid of debate, you're only operating based on an undisputed conclusion, like a religion.

Because people against free speech are usually either patronizing twats who think that the dumb proles are too easy to dupe so they must be protected against "dangerous" ideas or are just belligerent twats who want to be allowed to attack someone for saying something they don't like.

Check the flag, babe.
Pretty sure I've heard reactionaries say the exact same thing.
Correctly guessing one out of three ain't bad.
:^(

This thread is about debate and general freedom of speech and expression, not how much you hate a generalized staw-man

Debate is for Nazis. Real leftists all agree already and anyone who wants to debate is just a controlled opposition agent stirring up shit.

;^)

Are you actually Anarcho-Communist

Yes, but I was joking. I'm also a pacifist.

Convert to AnCap or I will punch you not really

I'm not AnCap myself but still lol

:^(

Well to be perfectly clear I feel that violence might be justified as an absolute last resort, but part of me wants to go full Jesus/Socrates mode and sacrifice myself for symbolic effect.

Can the NAP cover AnCom

...

Speaking as someone who is both not a leftist and is staunchly against the concept of 'free speech' - It has been my experience over my years on this board that the vast majority here are supportive of it.
For whatever reason.
Indeed my objection to it has repeatedly been a point of contention.

The only leftists I could think of that would also object to 'free speech' would be SJWs, but most of them are just liberals anyway.

Iktf

Unfortunately the symbolism doesn't last for long. Christians allowing themselves to be crucified didn't change Rome, Rome changed them so they'd be the ones doing the crucifying.

Basically this

Ancoms believe in creating a truly voluntary non-coercive society, which can only be achieved through abolishing private property.

The post isn't arguing against debate, but rather the liberal notion that politics begins and ends with debate and that all conflicts can be resolved through it.

This is fundamentally incorrect. Politics are about the dynamics of power and the organization, direction and goals of society. Not all of these things can be, or should be resolved in the arena of debate. For instance, this worldview doesn't account for people using debate in bad faith as a bully pulpit for demagoguery.

Criminals shouldn't be allowed to vote, pedophiles and rapists shouldn't have a right to live, the mentally infirmed shouldn't have the right to walk the street freely.

The other part of me feels that we should avoid violence for as long as we can so we can claim the moral high ground and be free to organize without be labeled as terrorists, but then when the time is right strike a fatal blow. But before violence we should just all go on strike and see what they do. We shouldn't even occupy the workplace, we should just amass a stockpile of food and supplies and then stay home for a year or two and dare them to… what… evict us all for squatting? They wouldn't have the prison space to keep all of us if our numbers were sufficient. And if our numbers weren't sufficient then any sort of violent revolution would be doomed.

The ability to speak freely is a form of power. Anyone who opposes free speech wants to take power from the masses and give it to the rulers.

As an anarcho-technotheist I hope that we will eventually be ruled by a benevolent dictator with sufficiently overwhelming power that it isn't necessary to curtail people's freedom of speech. For now I support free speech because those in power are not fit to wield that power.

You're like the equivalent of a half drank coffee cup outside of an AA meeting filled with cigarette butts.

I know what a good use of free speech would be
PUTTING THAT QUESTION TO MR HEATH
U
T
T
I
N
G

T
H
A
T

Q
U
E
S
T
I
O
N

T
O

M
R

H
E
A
T
H

W H E R E D O P E O P L E G E T T H E M O N E Y T O B U Y Y A C H T S ?

Debate and political discourse isn't just about refining ideas, but also gaining political power. The end goal of politics isn't gaining the "correct ideas", but gaining power. That's the point.

This is pretty good.
The moment I snapped out of social democracy was when I realized that smart economists don't run economies. Keynes wasn't cast aside based on some flawed, partisan ideas, he was cast aside fundamentally because that's what capitalism does

And no matter how freely I can explain this to people, no matter how strong my right to free speech, reasoned argument isn't even going to overthrow this system run by liberals who ostensibly believe in it, let alone fascists or lolbertarians.

Its not that the concept of free speech is a bad thing, its just that the idea of total freedom of speech existing under capitalism is laughable. Watch Jim Profit

So, in other words: Liberals mistakenly believe science supports their worldview. Radicals believe that science is a conspiracy against them.

The right could not have asked for better allies.

This reminds me, Marxist memes made a good post the other day about the shitty liberal American antifa and their stupid scuffles with the aut right. I've been thinking about it, and I've been wondering if, as a bourgeois reactionary element, at least in initial stages, the primary opponent of the alt right or fascists or whatever you want to call them, is the liberal, as these two reactionary elements vie for control over primacy of capitalist society.

This is like if somebody somehow derived their political philosophy from a gamefaqs walkthrough of Shadow The Hedgehog. If you're at all serious, I recommend that you deepthroat a gun barrel.

Are you under the impression the US supports free speech or something?

You realise the same people at free speech rallies will also spout helicopter memes and do so with

ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE OF IRONY.

Ask Reagan how he felt about free speech for socialists in Nicaragua. Ask about free speech for Afghans, Panamanians, Cubans, Mexicans, Columbians, Jamaicans, Indonesians, the Vietnamese.

What was the Taft Hartley Act, in your opinion? Pro Free Speech? What did this bureau do?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee

If not spend all its time restricting free speech?

Who killed Fred Hampton and was he allowed to speak Freely? What about Huey Newton? MLK and Malcolm X? All allowed to speak freely before they were killed their own government for doing so.

Fucking kill yourself.

this is without even going into WHISTLEBLOWERS who cannot speak freely, because you neocon retards have such a hard on for state secrets.

I could go on. You're all a bunch of fucking retards, your candidate daddy Trump, well, webm related

It means the point flew right over your head, likely because you're still a liberal of some description.

If you truly believed of this, you would move to one of the many states in the world that prohibits any expression of freedom for the average person. But you don't actually believe anything you say, you're just drunk on your own ideology.

What good is the free speech to the sheeple?

It's an interesting perspective I've actually never considered seriously.
However, thinking about political debates solely in terms of power is the kind of shit that gives birth to liberal idpol or Stalinist brand of authoritarianism.
Humans can be fooled by rhetorics and conditioning, but we aren't that gullible. I still believe in the Enlightenment idea regarding reason being more important than gut feelings in debates, provided the audience is adequately educated.
If people are not taught to think critically, they will to cling more to fascists till the end of time, but in the end, the West has a strong foothold on the world right now because it allows the expression of distensive opinions to the established dogmas, just like the Islamic world did during our Dark Ages/post-Roman Europe.

Why do you think Macron and Le Pen ended up in the 2nd round of the French elections ?
Our media outlets like BFMTV or Libération has painted Le Pen as a kinda desirable scarecrow continuously since at least 2002. They paid no attention to Mélenchon and the likes between the elections.
Then, when the Le Pen family ends up against a former Rothschild banker, for example, the latter is guaranteed to win. And if the neoliberal miraculously loses, the neofascist at least won't threaten fundamentally the bourgeois interests.

Pro-tip : Bourgeois is an adjective, bourgeoisie is a shorthand for "bourgeois people" and is noun

Fuck me.

It's Holla Forums baiting Holla Forums trying to lower the level of discussion on /lefty/pol/

top fucking kek

WAAAAAAAAAAH EVERYTHING I DON'T LIKE IS HARMFUL BAN IT

The best argument for your position is that so many people share your beliefs about this. The average 14-year-old is more intellectually competent to appear in porn than you and your ilk are to make political decisions.

But Shadow eventually becomes less of an edgelord as he comes to terms with his past. This faggot on the other hand will likely continue being a faggot his entire life.

You sound an awful lot like a typical redditor. Ironically people like you who oppose free speech have a lot more in common with the fascists than the people who support free speech.

...

Face it, you would vote free speech out of existence if someone pushed YOUR button becuase you're just as insecure and powerless as every other pathetic hyooman

I really don't know how I feel about this, beacuse this kind of thinking can be used to shut out legitimate arguments from pretty much anyone, and it encourages a kind of society where people not only have to but they are actively encouraged to get by on rhetoric rather than facts. The solution to the problem of people not believing in evidence or listening to science isn't to do the same thing yourself.

This kind of thinking is really popular on the "SJW" leftist Reddit subs. But you see that it not only extends around fascists debating, it extends and serves to shut out any kind of thinking or discussion they don't like, out of "no platforming" or whatever.

Yes, actually doing shit is important, but so is actually encouraging a culture that you want to see, not merely trying to gain political power for your own goals while not thinking of the kind of people who would be living in such a society - people more vulnerable to fascist talking points, against freedom of expression etc., and even moreso than we have now. It's a never ending spiral into stupidity.

The cynicism for human thinking that underlies this post is rather uncharitable. Not everyone is a burger.

I'm undecided.
On one hand I kind of like free speech.
But I also like the idea of reactionaries and liberals getting their heads beaten in by red guards.

Gee, thanks for the obvious.

Valor is a spook, that's real stupid BS. Stop being so attached to your ego.
Loli is fine, you haven't provided any arguments against it.
CP in some instances is fine, you also haven't provided arguments against that.

I was hoping that maybe, just maybe, there could be some people who are in favor of letting people keep fucking drawings, but no, even on the left it's apparently full of people who want to ban things because "muh disgusting!!!!"

On what instances can you argue it's fine at all? The general argument for loli is "it's not real people", which I agree with. But CP? Inherently, a real kid got in the mix at some point. How do you justify that?

The act itself of abusing the child is wrong, though I'm not sure why creating the video ought to be necessarily wrong too, nor why distributing the video ought to be wrong. In many cases, the abuse would continue even if it was not being recorded, in which case people who simply download the material and possess it aren't doing any harm at all. Purchasing the video may count as financing the abuse, though I'm not sure I'd agree with the majority opinion that abuse is encouraged by being paid for it, at least necessarily.

The harm which is usually touted by circulation of CP after its production by people not involved in its production is that the abused children are hurt by the knowledge that the material is circulating. I think this is a relatively weak argument, if it was extended it would follow that saying bad things or circulating embarrasing videos or people being hurt severely ought not to be allowed too.

It depends where you draw the line, but I'm not really convinced, as of yet, that mere possession of child pornography or in fact even its trade is harmful to children, or that the *potential* harm incurred is sufficient to justify the restriction on freedom.

Speaking as someone who is staunchly pro-free speech, the non-spooky justification is that even when money isn't a direct factor, it provides social "capital" for those who create such recordings.

A similar argument can be applied to discouraging sensationalist media coverage of random crimes like spree killings, or even more particularly, terrorism.

What I find most annoying about the anti-CP arguments is that they ignore the harm caused by enforcement of the law. Throwing someone in a cage for years has a pretty fucking huge negative utility. To justify laws like that, there doesn't just have to be a little bit of harm associated with CP possession - there has to be a massive amount of harm which is somehow prevented by throwing people in prison. I have yet to see any evidence of harm on such a scale.

Because free speech doesn't mean everyone has to listen to you and give you a platform and let you into their houses to talk.
Kill yourself.

I propose we give 10 year prison sentences to anyone who watches a terrorist video on youtube. Even a single extra view helps the terrorists spread their message and recruit followers, so obviously that justifies taking away ~15% of someone's life. In fact, we can go further. Let's apply the same law to people who jaywalk, because they are demonstrably increasing the chances of a fatal car crash. They are literally endangering children! Throw away the key!

Im very tempted to support banning "hate speech" etc. but chomsky is right about this.

pedophile detected. I bet you think Chris Hansen is a fascist catching "innocent" men. End your life.

The fact you want cp to be legal is a sign you have a mental illness.

If I were president, I'd make Chris Hansen the Attorney General of this country.

You sick fuck pedos would have nowhere to hide.

I knew Holla Forums was big into kiddie diddling when I first read about white nationalist Kevin Alfred Strom being a convicted pedophile, every day they just confirm it harder.

Actually the argument I see moralfags using is that exposition to CP might "give bad ideas" to people. Like, someone might abuse a kid just because he/she watched a CP video.

...

why shouldn't it be

why should a collection of 1s and 0s that create a digital mosaic on a screen be "illegal"

No, the West allows a very narrow scope of opinions, largely just representative of inner conflicts between the bourgeoisie, and allows vigorous debate within that spectrum. It de facto no-platforms the left, and used to no-platform the far right until recently.

It's pointing out the difference between the liberal ideal of public debate and really existing public debate.

That is to say, public debate and discourse isn't used purely to hone and refine one's opinions, as liberals would like to believe, but as a way of selling one's ideology to a politically engaged audience.

In fact, by and at large this is its primary role. I'm unaware of the last presidential debate that was actually about refining your opinion and checking them against facts. Always its more of a competition for each speaker to sell their ideology, platform or "brand" to the masses.

This is simply recognizing public discourse for what it actually is, instead of what the liberal ideal states it ought to be. Yes, this is sometimes used to stifle important inner discourse and criticism, but you're going too far when you start thinking that actual fascists and reactionaries deserve a seat at the table to uphold some liberal ideal they don't actually care for beyond paying lipservice to it.

Because the consumption of those 1s and 0s helps drive the industry that helps create said 1s and 0s.

There is a different between the liberty to speak and wanting libertinage to speak. If the people in a community that they are involved in don't want someone to speak then so be it. Ancaps would ban certain types of speech as well. Just look at what's happening to youtube. Political thought is being defunded because of the major private entities not wanting any of it.

This is one of the worst goddamn threa I've seen in ages.

Frozen peaches were one of the cornerstones of the class left. Reddit seeks to dismantle that, as with everyone who smells of pork.

You sound distressed. You should probably go back to your hug box on Reddit, where those scary people with dissenting opinions won't hurt you anymore.

Fellate a shotgun.

herp derp

Generally it's the moderate leftists that tend to be opposed to free speech, not the radicals.

I don't care who riots who. I personally lose nothing from either side rioting the other. Btw the man who was shot at Seattle was shot by his own wife and he lied about an Asian man shooting him. I do think that Nazis get gulag and Communists get gas chamber.

But they are

Because they're liberals. When you suppress bigots, they just double down on their beliefs and fester in the dark. Instead of holding racism, fascism, etc. at arm's length we should do like Zizek says and take it more seriously than they purport to do. We should try to make them be as open in their bigotry as possible so that everyone can see what they are. The more open those people get, the fewer moderates and radical centrists will be able to pander to them or turn toward their side.

Bigots are a lot more effective when they're trying to show you a bunch of graphs on differences in Autism Level than when they're shouting about niggers.

First of all, information is not consumed. You can no more "consume" an image than you can "consume" the number 8.

Secondly, see . Even if we assume that viewing CP causes a small but non-zero amount of average harm, that is dwarfed by the harm caused by the "justice" system.

I don’t some do.

Now, quit being a pedo and apply the same logic to most "crimes".
For example smoking weed, or stealing money.

The problem is profit.
Something is rare and people pay a lot to have it.
People will create this rare illegal thing, cause profit is too high.

THE PROBLEM IS ALWAYS CAPITALISM.

As a voluntarily celibate pedo, my argument against CP being made and distributed is that people make and spread these things for two reasons, neither of them financial. One is that, not wanting to think of themselves as "morally wrong", they fully embrace the characteristic that they are ridiculed for (attraction to prepubescent children), express themselves for other pedophiles to see, and concoct a narrative so as feel neither empathy nor shame, nor anything negative about themselves (medically verified psychopaths notwithstanding). Secondly, the circulation of these videos becomes something of a micro economy, where various materials have an unspecified, but undeniable value in relation to others, and that even without actual monetary exchange, accumulation of valuable media is encouraged to exchange for those which one actually wants to acquire.

Although I do not watch, nor condone the viewing of CP, the one, and only pained reason I would personally not make the individual viewing and collection of CP illegal, is that, IMO, the best method for stopping child abuse is to prevent it in the first place. To me, that means a community support group that is willing to help people come to terms with the impossibility of their desire, learn to cope with it, and find satisfaction elsewhere. Perhaps viewership could even be made punishable after they've received therapy.

Even if arresting/gulaging/killing/castrating all pedos by any means necessary was totally accepted by society, they'd be made all the more predatory for it, feeling their back is against a wall.

"Free Speech" is just what the death cry of a capitalist against the wall sounds like. Their allies like the anarchists and OP here will get the same treatment.

Stolen valor fags just want people to treat them like heroes despite the fact they lacked the balls to earn those medals. It's cosplay for cowards and liars.

You pretend giving them the porn would magically make them not want a real child. That's clearly not happening, with the amount of pedos hurting/killing actual children. They are almost always found in possession of mountains of porn.

I've seen TCAP and Hansen VS Predator. Creepy guys involve

And so many of them had actual CP, like the Texas prosecutor who shot himself when the cops closed in. BULLSHIT that man's sister sued and won, they had his kiddie-fiddling ass dead to rights and he went out like a coward instead of face the charges.

They ALWAYS claim they either weren't there for sex(weeks of chats prove otherwise), they weren't going to do anything wrong(again, bullshit, they had proof) and other excuses that always get busted.

You can sit there and play pretend that you're not a threat to anyone and you just have a fetish, but the number of assaulted/murdered kids, the number of creepy men arrested, that all tells us otherwise. You construct lies to excuse yourself and pretend you're decent people.

Like 90% of vets that wear their ex-military status on their sleeve are stolen valor faggots to at least to some degree.

I never said that, and I certainly did not even imply that porn should be given, as I clearly stated that I do not condone it.

Well, yeah, you watched reality TV designed to cash in on extreme elements of society. But the reality is that there are many people, mostly males, who's age of attraction fails to grow with them as they themselves age.

Conjecture.

Who cares? Not everyone here subscribes to your bullshit hysteria. Most teens are capable of consent barring brain damage of some sort. Sex isn't hard to understand.

I do apply it to all crimes. The entire injustice system is an abhorrent crime against humanity. I don't think it is possible to overstate just how much suffering is caused by humans.

You're treating anecdotes (from reality TV no less!) as if they were statistics. Holla Forums could do exactly the same thing to "prove" that lifting black people out of poverty doesn't stop them from committing crimes. Hell, if you look at only the people who get arrested you can "prove" that any minority group is violent and stupid.

If you wanted to actually prove your point you'd need to study the overall statistical trends for abuse rates between a population with CP available and a population without.

Anyway, making CP available doesn't actually solve the problem on its own. Pedophiles are still growing up in a society which overtly despises them. They're still reaching puberty and discovering that 99% of the population regards them as inherently evil. Puberty is normally the time when kids are starting to develop a self-image and identity independent of their parents, and then society is telling some of them that they are the embodiment of evil and will inevitably do monstrous things. It cannot be overstated just how much psychological damage this causes. At best, if they have the mental fortitude, they'll manage to build a self-image around their opposition to society and their refusal to be the monster society tells them they are. At worst they'll give in, accept their fate, and you've already shown plenty of examples of how that ends.

You want to end child abuse by pedophiles? Simply offer them another choice. Show them that if they live good lives and don't hurt others then they won't be despised. Give them positive role models to base their self-image upon when they first discover they are pedophiles. They will grow up to treat society with exactly the same level of respect that society treats them with.

Of course he/she is. You're wasting your time telling him/her that, though. They're puffed up on a self-righteous crusade because it lets them stroke their egos, and that's all they care about. They're not going to be deterred by trifling little things like statistical insignificance. I wish this type of behavior was exclusive to the right, but sadly it appears to be universal.

Why are you excepting people to care about muh troops shit on a leftist board? Fuck off with that patroitard shit no one cares over here

It really depends on what kind of "CP" you guys are talking about.
Anything involving actual abuse by an adult should obviously be illegal. But when people freak out about mere naked, or in some cases not even naked but just "sexy" pictures, they are just being spooked and dumb as fuck.

So what's with this anti-pedo shit?

I thought genders and age are spooks?

It's almost certainly an intentional tell that he's being sarcastic, since (just as OP said) tons of "leftists" give the freeze peach “argument” for all the other things he ticked off (“hate” speech, “offensive” behavior, bans from “private” online venues, “child” pornography, etc.), but practically no nominal “leftist” gives a damn about soldiers.

Define abuse. Desired sexual contact between an adult and someone who's 17 years and 364 days old doesn't even come close to qualifying.

Reddit's trying to colonize the board again. Just go to some of the other threads and see them promoting arch-liberal Stephen Colbert and bashing Wikileaks. You can detect them by their overuse of "creepy" and "gross."

Oh nice to know.

I guess everything leftist is gonna get co-opted by leddit after sometimes.

Forced sexual contact against the will of one or more people involved in the act.

Rights are merely muh privileges given to you by the capitalist state to keep you complacent. Any muh privilege given to you by that state is a muh privilege that can be taken away.

Moreover, the 'free expression' within a capitalist state is just a tiny range of views expressed extremely vigorously.

Same can be said to human rights and worker rights right?

Even then the negative utility of the punishment should never be greater in magnitude than the positive utility gained from the deterrent effect. Given how little harm is done by simply looking at a picture (it could easily be zero depending on where they got it from) and how ineffective the injustice system is as a deterrent, I couldn't really condone any punishment worse than a few hours of community service.

Punishing people for looking at images of terrible things happening is just a waste of effort. If you want to stop child abuse, spend your time implementing the suggestions in . If you're not going to try to fix the actual problem then you can't claim to have the moral high ground.

This