saw this pointed out here and felt it deserved it’s own post

let me mention that this is exactly the sort of argument I’ve seen pedophilia enthusiasts break out many times:

hmm, we thoughtful inquirers should look at this incredibly tenous evidence I’ve curated. it raises questions about whether we should be superrrrr chill about sex with children. questions with answers that, I’m sold on!

  • maol@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    WHY ARE THEY DOING THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS THERE ARE REAL CHILD MARRAIGE SURVIVORS OUT THERE THEY CAN READ ABOUT

    • Deborah@hachyderm.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s them in a nutshell. Never ask an expert, study a field, or talk to an affected person if you can logically infer correctness from first principles and multisyllabic words.

    • sue_me_please@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Same reason they don’t talk to any of the minorities they Bayes about all day long: everything is a thought experiment to them because of their extremely sheltered lives and there’s no way they’re going to talk to some blue hair SJW, scary poor, or dumb immigrant. They’d be too woke, stupid and biased to be worth hearing from, anyway.

    • sc_griffith@awful.systemsOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      they want to think about fucking children without feeling bad, so they’re doing the libertarian “what if the child consents tho” argument. because they’re rationalists they have to rephrase it in their preferred format to be allowed to ingest it, so now it’s “what if the utils consent tho”