Freedom of association

[eynon81]

[The Dharma Bum]

[gla22]

[The Dharma Bum]

[The Comrade]

i don't even know what to feel about this topic anymore because i feel like i'm reading the onion at this point

[JDHURF]

[eynon81]

[The Comrade]

i clocked out at shrill, then i super noped at raping children.

guys, i'm disappoint.

[The Dharma Bum]

[exploited]

Are you guys asking me if a baker should be forced to make a cake for a pedophile, with a pornographic picture of a young boy on it, because a baker was forced to make a wedding cake for a homosexual?

The answer is no.

OMG THIS MEANS I AM IDEOLOGICALLY UNSOUND. PANICCCCCCCCC!!11~

This is exactly what I am talking about. Theoretical freedom - let's say you have your freedom of association. That it means less people being actually able to associate is irrelevant. What matters is ideological consistency. Nevermind that the reason I want to protect gays and blacks and women more is because they have suffered more - if I support one, I MUST support the other. And because I want to suppress behaviour I find offensive here, I have to want to suppress it there.

All that being said, guess what? I think we need to drastically alter our treatment of pedophiles. We are criminalizing a behaviour that does seem to have some sort of an innate basis. We should probably just start work on realistic computer-generated child porn and get these folks help, to help eliminate the dangers of sex-starved pedophiles.