Why is it so that there is so much irrational hate against pedophiles...

Why is it so that there is so much irrational hate against pedophiles? These people cannot be blamed for their attraction to children.

Intolerance against pedos create many forms of structural oppression against sexual minorities, so that the privileged people don't even realize the persecution they are implementing.

Other urls found in this thread:

dw.de/when-society-mistakes-pedophiles-for-molesters/a-18104211
thestar.com/news/insight/2013/12/22/is_pedophilia_a_sexual_orientation.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Defects need to be put down.

The same reason old people have an irrational hate toward gay people.
They grew up where everyone they knew hated gay people and all the media they watched hated gay people so they learned to hate gay people too.

Do you think of gay people have a defect too? Or left-handed people?

This is partly true. But then they learned more about homosexuality, and as sensible persons they changed their mind. Why hasn't the same happened with pedos?

fixed

Why did you do that?

What makes you think they learned more about gays and decided they weren't so bad after all?
the only anti gay people I ever see nowadays are out of touch old people, gay rights activists basically just have to wait until they all die and they'll just get any rights they want by default because nobody else has that level of ingrained bigotry against gay people anymore.
Its going to take a generation before people stop seeing pedos the same way people used to see gays or blacks.
The next generation isn't going to be brought up with the same "all pedos are heartless predatory monsters who only derive any feeling from destroying the lives of innocent children" horseshit and will just be waiting for the previous generation to die off so they can give pedos basic human rights just like what happened with the gays.

for the lulz

Also, faggots and kiddy diddlers get butthurt too easily, remember where you are, you deserve no special treatment for being a faggot, dike or a child molesting cock goblin, just fap to your freaky shit as much as you want, but you're less likely to be accepted in society than a fucking cock sucking furfag degenerate, you're the lowest of the low in the pits of degeneracy, society will spit on you and your grave, deal with it.

Keep dreaming pedoscum

No, but pedos deserve equal treatment. Not being routinely banned on forums just for saying out loud that he is attracted to kids.

Accepting this kind of behavior is enabling oppression of less-privileged minorities, and cannot be tolerated.

What have I done to desrve this kind of name-calling?

why do you take pleasure in brainwashing children?

Are you implying that false prejudices about pedophiles should be perpetuated over and over again? Don't you understand this is harmful to everyone?

dw.de/when-society-mistakes-pedophiles-for-molesters/a-18104211

Look, you don't need to even mention that you're attracted to little kids, it's like how females are called out on Holla Forums for saying they're girls, it's attention seeking and has no reason to be said, chans are about anonymous conversations, there's no reason to mention that you're a pedo on chans unless it's to circlejerk to pictures of little girls, and that's EXACTLY what jimbo jimnigger is against, it puts Holla Forums as a whole in danger from feds because some freak couldn't help put spam the boards full of child porn which is illegal whether you like it or not…

I heard that there are other chans that will accept your ilk, but Holla Forums has never really been pedo friendly from the start, child porn was never allowed. Pedos are still allowed and accepted, just shut your mouth about it and you won't have any trouble. It's like if you were a kike or a nigger and you went to visit Holla Forums, you wouldn't just scream from the rooftops that you were a kike or a nigger.

Bottom line is that advocating for people to "tolerate" pedos is a very dangerous thing, sure, not all of you are evil. But it's something you really should keep hidden because just like faggots, no one really likes them. It's just propaganda and strict laws that keeps everything sunshine and rainbows for cocksuckers.

You've done nothing wrong as such to warrent my name calling, but seeing that this is Holla Forums, you can't do shit to stop me :^)

Yeah I'm sure the people against gay marriage or interracial marriage in the past knew they'd be on the wrong side of history all along.
You on the other hand know for sure you're on the right side of history this time, right?

[ mischievous yiddish music intensifies ]

...

Freedom for Gay Left-Handed Paedophile Scat-Munching Grandmothers NOW!!!

quality content

thanks for saving the thread user

But almost all homosexuals are actually unbearable faggots no one would like if they weren't gay and blackmailing you into it because they'd call you a bigot otherwise. You realize that just because someone tells you something in primary school it doesn't necessarily make it true, right?

EAT SHIT AND DIE IN A FIRE PEDO

nice shiggy my man.

it passes. time marches on. people will always be people no matter how much people try tpo change people.

Are you seriously implying that pedophilia cannot be compared to homosexuality as an orientation? All facts point to this being true.

thestar.com/news/insight/2013/12/22/is_pedophilia_a_sexual_orientation.html

for all the haters

OP is a faggot.

nigger you compared homosexuality to left-handedness, you fucking mook

No, I'm hetero and pedo.

Barth2032

Don't you think it's important that the public learns about peodphiles? That most of us don't want to hurt children, because we appreciate them?

i sexually identify as a hater

where is your god now

Do you fall in love with hate? Have you been a hater ever since you was a teenager? Do you find hate attractive?

pic related

Just buy an ad. Selfserve is so easy: 5 miserable bucks and you'll learn just how stupid you really are.

Halp. I don't understand what is habbening?

Tbh I'm surprised not banned for posting 100% legal pictures.

If you have some point please explain it for stupid people too. Not everyone are geniuses like you.

pls leaf paedophilic scum. The only way child sexy times would ever be okay is when ur fabbin 2 ur lolis at home and real eyes you will never have a 6yrold gf.

OR

yuo wurkk owt 2 look sexy foar a sexchewilly confuset 6 you're old grill so edcheese 2 aboid her barends n da law at 4 or w/e ur after bro

ooze-ooly the olny gril ls dum enuohg ar 8-12th gradrz now aday bub ib yuo wan sumbuddyz # or snabchad i cn hewk u ^ bro ;))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) :^) just gidding gtfo eff bee eye oh my is the sky

I dun even

bump with unpleasant(?) truth

The problem with pedos is they want to have a relationship with children, and children most likely don't make good decisions by themselves, they need to consult an adult, most likely their parernts. What makes a pedo a scum in the eyes of the society is the fact that children can be groomed very easily, and could regret that decision later in life.

...

...

...

...

...

...

==I AM LE MASTER OF LE 8CHANZ==

You're mixing someone who is a pedo and who acts on those feelings in unacceptable ways.

lel oc I made with paint 2014 ;)

If a pedo confesses his feelings to me, the only rational way to think is that he wants to have an affair with a child, and to have that affair either the child should accept to be his partner without asking permission from the parents (assuming the parents are in a society where pedophilia is unacceptable) or the pedo should groom the child. (This of course with the disregard of rare cases where the parents approve of pedophilia)

...

Maybe there's a reason why no-one ever confesses that to you?

Is it beyond your imagination this is beyond his will? He can however, choose not to pursue such relationships. A lot of pedophiles choose to just fantasize and never find real girlfriends.

Stop putting every pedophile under same umbrella. Not everyone is child molester.

need moar of these

THEN WHY THE FUCK DO YOU NEED THOSE "Accept Pedophiles" SHIT???????

Why not accept pedophiles?

Chances are there is lot of shitposting from both sides of fences tbh.

Nice trips
Not that I don't accept them, I also consider myself a pedo, but that whole pedo movement just makes pedos look more like feminist and gays with the *Pedo rights*, if you just fantasize keep it to yourself bruh

Agreed

...

...

...

...

...

...

because they don't want to get caught. they abstain out of fear, not morality.

...

...

...

...

Nope tbh

tbqhwitchyoufamsmh

its like they don't even realize that permabanning all these IPs for trivial shit that doesn't break any rules is just making it worse for everyone

...

...

...

It is clearly the fag's fault who is constantly shitposting with his proxy all the time. Nothing of value.

...

...

...

...

Since when was shitposting on Holla Forums worthy of a permaban?
The answer is since this place became just as bad as 4chan.

4chan isn't/wasn't bad because it banned pedos, it was/is bad because of its freedom of speech restrictions. Go on the darkweb if you want cp, keep that shit off the surface web tho.

Not with children.

Account stealing must really bother you on an anonymous board tbh.

Nobody is even posting CP, you're just banning everything you don't like.

Talking about board owner accounts so yes.
Tripcode is not account tbh.

Pedophiles are sex predators. They rape and molest children. This is why the majority of people are against pedophiles and there's nothing you can do about it.

...

...

...

...

4chan banning pedos is proof of those restrictions

Does anybody know any website from outside of the united states that i can watch all the pizza i want for free

masterchan.org

The one big difference between a pedophile and most other forms of "sexuality" is that they want to fuck children.

Children. Mentally unstable, formative, malleable children. Children who have lives to lead and who will get seriously fucked up by someone fucking them. Children who can't properly give consent because of their mental state. It all comes back to consent and mental state. We hate rapists because they defy consent. We hate animal fuckers because they use/abuse an animal with a lesser mental state (and also it's cross-species).

There's no "safe way" to fuck a kid. There's no "right way" or "consensual way". You're fucking up a child permanently for your own temporary gain.

Since when wanting to do something meant anything. If you've ever got angry enough "wanting to kill someone" did you just commit a murder?

It's not irrational to want to protect children from rape, protecting children is hardwired into us because it increases the odds of survival as a species.

When you start going out protesting or wanting to normalize and ask for the right to go around killing people, yeah.

r/K Selection Theory

Biologists have long noted that species will tend to evolve behaviors which best aid them to effectively exploit their environment. Among these behavioral life history traits are reproductive strategies. Reproductive strategies are, as the name implies, the strategies individuals will use to reproduce. Here we will focus upon the two strategies demonstrated in r/K Selection Theory in Evolutionary Biology.

The science behind r/K Selection theory was hashed out decades ago. It emerged as biologists pondered why some species reproduced slowly using monogamy and high-investment parenting, while other species reproduced explosively, using promiscuity and single parenting. At the time this science was developed, the researchers were wholly unaware of its relevance to our modern ideological battles in the world of politics. The terms r and K came from variables in equations which described how populations would change over time. r represented the maximal reproductive rate of an individual, while K represented the carrying capacity of an environment.

r/K selection theory describes two environmental extremes, and the strategies a population will produce to exploit each extreme. As a result of these strategies, each of these two environments will produce a very particular psychology in the individuals exposed to them.

The first environment an organism may face is the presence of freely available resources, which is referred to as an r-selective environment. This most often occurs when a predator keeps a population consistently lower than the carrying capacity of its environment. Just as rabbits do not strip their grassy fields bare due to the predation they endure, the r-strategy is designed to exploit an environment where resources are freely available, everywhere.

In r-selection, those individuals who waste time fighting for food will be out-reproduced by pacifists, who simply focus upon eating, and reproducing. Fighting also entails risks of injury or death – risks which are pointless given the free availability of resources everywhere. Hence this environment will favor a tendency towards conflict avoidance, and tend to cull the aggressive and competitive. It will also evolve tendencies towards mating as early as possible, as often as possible, with as many mates as possible, while investing as little effort as possible rearing offspring. Here, there are unlimited resources just waiting to be utilized, and even the most unfit can acquire them. As a result, it is more advantageous to produce as many offspring as possible, as quickly as possible, regardless of fitness, so as to out-reproduce those who either waste time producing quality offspring or waste time competing with each other.

Since group competition will not arise in the r-selected environment, r-type organisms will not exhibit loyalty to fellow members of their species, or a drive to sacrifice on their behalf. Indeed, the very notion of in-group will be foreign, and the concept of personal sacrifice for other in-group members will be wholly alien. This is why rabbits, mice, antelope, and other r-selected species, although pleasant, will tend to not exhibit any loyalty or emotional attachment to peers. When resources are freely available, group competition is a risk one need not engage in to acquire resources, so this loyalty to in-group and emotional attachment to peers is not favored.

Here in the r-strategy, we see the origins of the Liberal’s tendencies towards conflict avoidance, from oppositions to free-market capitalism, to pacifism, to demands that all citizens disarm so as to avoid any chance of conflict and competition. Even the newer tendencies to support the ”everyone gets a trophy” movement are outgrowths of this competition-averse urge, and desire for free resource availability. Similarly, Liberals are supportive of promiscuity, supportive of efforts to expose children to ever earlier sexual education, and, as the debate over Murphy Brown showed, Liberals are supportive of low-investment, single parenting. Finally, as John Jost has shown, Liberals show diminished loyalty to in-group, similar to how r-selected organisms do not fully understand the reason for even perceiving an in-group in nature.

In the other environment, a population exists at the carrying capacity of its environment. Since there is not enough food to go around, and someone must die from starvation, this will evolve a specific psychology within such a species.

Termed a K-type psychology, or K-Selected Reproductive Strategy, this psychology will embrace competitions between individuals and accept disparities in competitive outcomes as an innate part of the world, that is not to be challenged. Since individuals who do not fight for some portion of the limited resources will starve, this environment will favor an innately competitive, conflict-prone psychology. Study shows, such a psychology will also tend to embrace monogamy, embrace chastity until monogamous adulthood, and favor high-investment, two-parent parenting, with an emphasis upon rearing as successful an offspring as possible. This sexual selectiveness, mate monopolization, and high-investment rearing is all a form of competing to produce fitter offspring than peers. This evolves, because if one’s offspring are fitter than the offspring of peers, they will be likely to acquire resources themselves, and reproduce successfully.

Although total numbers of offspring will be diminished with this high-investment rearing strategy, the offspring’s success in competition is what is most important in a K-selective environment. Here, wasting time producing numerous offspring that are not as fit as possible will doom one to Darwinian failure. As time goes on, and K-selection continues, forming into competitive groups will often emerge as a strategy to acquire resources. This will add add loyalty to in-group to the suite of K-type psychological characteristics. This is why when we look at K-selected species in nature, we see packs of wolves, herds of elephants, prides of lions, and pods of dolphins, and each individual is loyal to their group and its competitive success. Since the only way to survive will be to acquire one’s resources by out-competing peers, this invariably produces tremendously fast rates of evolutionary advancement. For this reason, K-selected organisms are usually more evolutionarily advanced than their r-selected counterparts, and will exhibit more complex adaptations, from increased intelligence and sentience, to increased physical capabilities, to loyalty and prosociality, in species where group competition occurs.

Clearly, this mirrors the Conservative’s embrace of competitions, such as war, capitalism, and even the bearing of arms in self-defense against criminals. It also mirrors the Conservatives tendency to favor family values, such as abstinence until monogamy and two-parent parenting. It even explains why Conservatives feel driven to see their nation succeed as greatly as possible, regardless of the effects this has upon other nations or just members of their out-group.

To my eye, it is inherently clear that this r/K divergence is the origin of our political divide. Indeed, while policy proposals from Conservatives are predicated upon the premise that resources are inherently limited, and individuals should have to work and demonstrate merit to acquire them, Liberals advocate on behalf of policy proposals which seem to be predicated upon an assumption that there are always more than sufficient resources to let everyone live lives of equal leisure. To a Liberal, any scarcity must clearly arise due to some individual’s personal greed and evil altering a natural state of perpetual plenty.

Here, we see how these two deeply imbued psychologies generate grossly different perceptual frameworks within those who are imbued with them. Just as a Liberal will never grasp why a Conservative will look down upon frequent promiscuity and single parenting, the Conservative will never grasp why the Liberal will be so firmly opposed to free market Capitalism, or the right to self defense when threatened. Each sees an inherently different world, and is programmed to desire an inherently different environment.

In nature, since it is the individuals who best exemplify this r-selected psychological standard who will reproduce under conditions of resource abundance, their offspring will carry these traits. As time goes on, the population will gradually develop ever more extreme presentations of these traits. As we show, there is copious evidence that a genetic allele, which diminishes dopamine signaling, is associated with every facet of the r-strategy’s psychology, as well as a predisposition towards political Liberalism.

In addition, the r-strategy may have evolved to be engendered within individuals by environmental stimuli as well, through a desensitization to the neurotransmitter dopamine. This effect arises from its copious release in such an environment down-regulating receptor expression and consequently reducing receptor densities in nervous tissue. We also maintain that a lack of adversity in the environment will fail to develop a drive or ability to confront adversity, through a failure to develop a brain structure called the amygdala. In summary, an organism placed in an environment devoid of adversity, and filled with pleasure, may find itself more demanding of pleasure and less tolerant of adversity, than an organism which is enured to a less hospitable environment.

Within r/K selection theory, all populations will contain some differing degrees of r and K selected psychologies. As an environment shifts to one extreme or the other, a population will adopt a more r or K-selected psychology, but this will only last as long as the environmental conditions which produced the shift continue. Under conditions of reduced mortality, and copious resource availability, both r and K-selected psychologies will be present. This will continue until such time as resources become limited, and a competitive, K-selected pressure takes hold, or predation begins to cull both sides evenly, and the K-selected individuals, being slower reproducers are relatively culled back.

Interestingly, r/K Theory not only explains a means by which our political ideologies are adaptive to a specific environment. Many have noted an increasingly masculine quality to the women in our culture, as well as a corresponding effeminate nature to our men. Rush Limbaugh will often refer to them as the Feminazis, and the Castrati. In nature, a K-selected model of rearing involves a feminine mother, who nurtures offspring and guides them away from danger, combined with a more masculine male who will aggressively confront dangers, so as to protect his family.

However, when a population becomes increasingly r-selected, the nature of the sexual dimorphism and these sex-specific rearing behaviors will change. As you see a more r-strategy emerge, females of the species will need to become increasingly aggressive and masculine, since due to paternal abandonment, they must provision and protect their offspring alone. Since r-selected males are solely concerned with mating (before abandoning their mate), and fleeing from conflict, they become more diminutive, and more cowardly. The end result is the r-strategy has, inherent within it, a model of aggressive, manly females who raise children alone, and diminutive, effete males who are solely concerned with superficial, mate-attracting flash, and conflict avoidance.

there is evidence indicating that this phenomenon, accidentally over-expressed, may be responsible for producing males who are so effeminate that they are actually homosexual, and females who are so manly, they cross the boundary into lesbianism. Not only do the rearing behaviors and sexual characteristics change, but the males become attracted to more manly characteristics (which are now exhibited by the most adaptive females), and the females become more attracted to effeminate characteristics (which are now exhibited by the most adaptive males).

Some will ask, why would we have evolved both of these psychologies, within our species, instead of trending totally r or K. This can occur for a number of reasons. Obviously an organism which inhabits an environment where resources surge in availability, and then become scarce can see its r-types surge in number during times of plenty, only to die back once resources become scarce. Indeed, such a population may eventually see its individuals adapt to change their strategy with the availability of resources. Or, as time goes on, the r-types may evolve strategies designed to see a few members persist during times of scarcity, so they may explode again once resources become plentiful.

But in humans, the mechanism was probably a little more complex. When we first evolved, a critical adaptation was our loss of body hair. It allowed us to move about in the heat of an African day, when all other furred prey needed to bed down. To acquire meat, all we needed to do was roust a bedded down antelope, make it run a short distance, and it would rapidly collapse of heat stroke, so we could then acquire its meat. There are tribes in Africa who still hunt using this method.

This allowed us to explode in numbers, but as in all ecosystems, we eventually found there were not enough resources to support the population. It was at this time that our population divided.

At this point, the competition was fierce. One group adopted the K-selected psychology, stayed put, and slugged it out for resources, in free, merit based competition. They formed into groups, battled for territory and resources, and adopted a competitive, K-selected reproductive strategy. They became the K-type cohort of our population, embracing freedom and self-determination, free competition, monogamy, strong family values, loyalty to in-group, and sexual chastity in the youth.

As the battles began to rage, another cohort, more cowardly and weak, fled. Those who fled the fastest and the farthest, found themselves in a new, untapped territory, with free resource availability yet again. Those among them who did the best from Darwin’s perspective, were those who adopted the most r-type strategy of free promiscuity, single parenting, and early age at first intercourse. They had no need for loyalty to in-group, and indeed, would have adopted a more selfish and cowardly psychology, to better disperse their genes, and serve their own self interests. They became our population’s r-type cohort, and even today, the gene which is associated with Liberalism is found in large numbers in migratory populations, even as social psychologists note that Liberals score highly in novelty seeking, such as preferring new and novel environments, or unusual foods.

As time went on, Homo sapiens likely spread across the globe in this manner. r-types fled as the territory behind them became K-selective and competitive. As time went on, this constant selective pressure favoring fleeing gradually made the r-type more prone to flee competitions and adhere to an r-type mating strategy, and less able to even comprehend why K-types would ever seek monogamy or aggression when threatened, or innately perceive an in-group in need of defense.

In between where the r-types fled to, and where the K-types were battling it out, there was likely a sort of geographical spectrum. At one end were the extreme r-types on the frontier, and at the other were the extreme K-types, battling with neighbors. But in the middle, were areas where some r-types were mingling with some K-types. It is likely that there, these two strategies were evolving psychological traits which would allow them to persist in a mixed population. K-types tried to purge the disloyalty, selfishness, and promiscuity of the r-types, while r-types tried to use deception, as well as the rule-breaking and lack of loyalty identified by Jost (himself a Liberal), as an advantage. It would not surprise me if our political animus was evolved.

It is also interesting to note, even today, as r-types gain hold in a civilization, they seek to provide the unproductive and uncompetitive with the free resource availability of the r-selected environment. As in nature, as this goes on, the r-type cohort grows in the population, until the entire financial ecosystem collapses, the government dissolves, and the civilization becomes ruthlessly competitive. As in nature, free resource availability cannot go on forever.

To be clear, individuals are complex. Just as it is difficult to characterize a single individual organism’s exact reproductive strategy in nature, it is difficult to characterize a single human’s political strategy. However, just as the quantum mechanical world yields the chaos of its uncertainty to the order and formality of Newtonian physics when viewed from a distance, as we zoom out from our society we will find two primary ideologies within it. Just as in nature, these two ideologies match exactly the two psychologies of the r and K-type psychology.

Before closing, I would like to note that the primary environmental condition favoring an r-strategy is free resource availability. Too often the r-strategy is portrayed as a defensive adaptation designed solely to overcome the mortality of predation, or other forms of environmental harshness, through increased reproductive rates. The r-strategy however, is just as much an offensive adaptation designed to exploit free resource availability, and the absence of competitive selections for survival and reproduction.

In the book, we describe how this may be seen most clearly in the world of microbiology. There, complex, highly-adapted microbes are often drawn from a harsh, highly selective environment, and transferred to an unselective environment of ideal conditions and free resource availability (such as a petri dish of nutrient media housed in an incubator). There, they initially grow slowly, as each parent cell carefully produces colonies full of highly adapted daughter cells.
It is also interesting to note, even today, as r-types gain hold in a civilization, they seek to provide the unproductive and uncompetitive with the free resource availability of the r-selected environment. As in nature, as this goes on, the r-type cohort grows in the population, until the entire financial ecosystem collapses, the government dissolves, and the civilization becomes ruthlessly competitive. As in nature, free resource availability cannot go on forever.

To be clear, individuals are complex. Just as it is difficult to characterize a single individual organism’s exact reproductive strategy in nature, it is difficult to characterize a single human’s political strategy. However, just as the quantum mechanical world yields the chaos of its uncertainty to the order and formality of Newtonian physics when viewed from a distance, as we zoom out from our society we will find two primary ideologies within it. Just as in nature, these two ideologies match exactly the two psychologies of the r and K-type psychology.

Before closing, I would like to note that the primary environmental condition favoring an r-strategy is free resource availability. Too often the r-strategy is portrayed as a defensive adaptation designed solely to overcome the mortality of predation, or other forms of environmental harshness, through increased reproductive rates. The r-strategy however, is just as much an offensive adaptation designed to exploit free resource availability, and the absence of competitive selections for survival and reproduction.

In the book, we describe how this may be seen most clearly in the world of microbiology. There, complex, highly-adapted microbes are often drawn from a harsh, highly selective environment, and transferred to an unselective environment of ideal conditions and free resource availability (such as a petri dish of nutrient media housed in an incubator). There, they initially grow slowly, as each parent cell carefully produces colonies full of highly adapted daughter cells.

Some parent cells however, make mistakes, and produce less complex offspring, who reproduce more rapidly, as they devote less energy to their parent cell’s complex adaptations. As time goes on a highly evolved isolate can quickly shed its adaptations and devolve into a strain of simpler, less complex cells which grow colonies astonishingly quickly on agar. Over time, if given only free resource availability, the cells of the simpler dysgenic strain will numerically dominate any peers which retain their complexity and adaptation. In this environment, due to the absence of competitive selections favoring fitness or complexity, the sole determinate of survival becomes sheer numerical advantage. As a result, it is this standard which the organism will evolve towards, and one will increasingly find a less complex, less evolved organism devoted solely to mating and reproduction. Free resource availability, and an absence of competitive selection pressure, by itself, is all that is necessary to fuel a rapid growth in the r-strategist cohort within a population.

In closing, it is impossible to deny that every aspect of political ideology revolves around the same fundamental issues of behavior that r/K selection theory revolves around. Although our species’ embrace of group competition has further molded these urges, this is the evolutionary foundation of ideology. It is where political ideology began. For that reason, no individual can ever fully understand political ideology or the forces which motivate it, absent a grasp of r/K Selection Theory.

If you found this information interesting, please consider our plea for virality, on our front page. This information has the potential to greatly enhance our political dialog, and aid in the pursuit of freedom. But I cannot tell everyone about it all by myself. For it to go viral, I need the reader’s help. Please try to find two people who will spread this, and show it to them. I will be eternally greatful.

From the wall of text from above you can see, that protecting children from sexual predation and reproducing early is in general part of normal behavior of people everywhere. The irrational fear of pedophilia are not so irrational if you consider that these are disgust and fear reactions to those threats. Its not that pedophiles openly court kids, they usually groom them in secret. To that comes the damage that comes with the deeds. You don't want that shit happen to one of your underage relatives if you are not sick in your head.

With /cow/ nearby, I don't have to mention how most pedos are usually the losers of society, do I.