I'll call you a pedophile to your face for sex with an 18-year-old just to make you argue for legality in public
this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2025
148 points (99.3% liked)
chapotraphouse
13866 readers
722 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
I guess if you're eighteen and they're seventeen, then sure? But also if you're in college it'd be kinda weird to be with a high school student like that. Maybe on some technicality, but let's err on the side of don't do that.
i'm gonna be a junior in college next semester and couldn't even see myself getting with a freshman..meanwhile every other old married couple i know seems like they met at like 16 and 24??
insane to me how age gaps like that were morally acceptable back then yet being gay or bi somehow made you the spawn of satan
In the United States, many states have adopted close-in-age exemptions. These laws, known as "Romeo and Juliet laws", provide that a person can legally have consensual sex with a minor provided that they are not more than a given number of years older, generally four years or less.
But yeah, it'd be weird anyway. I wouldn't do it. Only maybe if they have started dating when one is 15 and the other is 16 or something like that. Even then, at that age 1 year can be a non-negligible age difference.
And, for an instant, she stared directly into those soft blue eyes and knew, with an instinctive mammalian certainty, that the exceedingly rich were no longer even remotely human.
I need to read Count Zero again
“People often use the term ‘pedophile’ in a commonly understood way that is semantically incorrect,” and “I, Peter Schiff, am probably guilty of felony statutory rape,” may both be true statements, but one of them is considerably more newsworthy than the other, and I think he’s pretty dramatically mistaken about which one that is.
Doesn't it though? Doesn't it make him a pedophile morally, linguistically and legally?
I'm only a pedophile using the natural language, colloquial definition of the word.
With the finite time one has on this planet, I can't imagine spending any of it correcting someone on the technical definition of harm to a minor.
When i was in college I Killed and Ate people. That doesn't make me a cannibal!
I didn't eat people, I ate corpses 
Don't you see the difference! I'm just pointing out the difference! Why are you getting mad at me for my pedantic semantics!!
pedantphile
It’s sad honestly because anyone with two brain cells can figure out that only a pedo would start a semanic argument about the word “pedophile.”
It’s a pretty simple concept that applies to pretty much any pseudo intellectual trying to escape a negative label.
We need to add an asterisk to the Sartre quote:
Never believe that [right-wingers] are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words*.
* With the exception of 'pedophile'. For some reason they take that one REAL seriously
Sartre isn't the best guy to quote when the topic is pedophilia
What the fuck did I just read
.........
I want some kind of emoji or something to use as a response to this type of comment that flags it as like... the moment when a Fallout NPC says something that makes you open V.A.T.S. and target their head as soon as the dialog finishes.
Hmmm maybe Caesar/House/Kimball/other NPC with their head highlighted in VATS? Might be a good set of emojis
?
Oh god the ephebophile argument rises once again
I mean, we could just say that (IIRC the group names) pedophiles, hebephiles, and ephebophiles all deserve the same punishment for their crime? At a certain point we're just arguing semantics. Just don't fuck someone unless they're a consenting coherent adult. Call it what you will, the result can just be the same: 
Having a mental disorder isn't a crime. Sexually abusing a child is, and obviously deserves to be punished, severely.
The context of this tweet makes it even worse. The tweet you posted is part of a tweet thread where Peter tries to argue that Epstein was not a pedophile.
Also gonna hit him on the semantic part here because why not but I remember seeing a documentary a long time ago about a rural village in an impoverished nation where girls were constantly developing incontinence issues and other long-term injuries because they were often giving birth at 14-15 and some anglo documentarian was saying how even waiting until they were 16 would have greatly reduced these rates because their bodies were too small and undeveloped (
). So no Peter, 14-17 is not fucking "developed sexually" 
Holy shit he's actually doing the "actually it's ephebophilia" meme
hes also saying he did it too
It's not even true that he only trafficked teenagers, a lot of his victims were even younger.
Even without seeing that my first guess was dead on: they think it's a vice, like just a little crime that special good boy rich white patriarchs can do as a treat, and are very, very invested in insisting that it's not disordered and it doesn't make them other and weird. Crimes against people they see as beneath them are just fun little treats that rich guys get to do as long as they don't piss off the wrong people, but having something wrong with them? The very notion of it is deeply offensive to their fragile little egos.
If you feel the need to point out the difference between pedophilia and hebephilia you're probably a pedophile.
If you do it because you just confessed to being a hebephile, you're definitely a pedophile.
Teens are kids, you can't change my mind.
"Well I'm not technically wrong" yeah but you're still arguing for something nobody should approve of so fuck off?
Yeah its not the textbook definition of "pedophile" but the cultural definition says its "pedophilia" and is condemned as imbalanced and immoral.
Ask this person if they are capable of understanding why they don't call cigarettes "f*ggots" despite it being "tEcHnIcALlY tRuE."
Because you have a cultural, socially determined definition, Pete. You fucking pedantic dweeb.
We all know what you are doing. You know what you are doing.
Linguistic prescriptivising one's way into a prison cell would be pretty funny if a cop would do something productive for once and arrest this sex pervert.
"If you ignore the definition of a word and change the definition to something else entirely, then it's not the meaning of the word."
I hate these fucking "Ummm ackshully....." debatelord libertarians. Him and the thousand people who liked his post need to be lined up against a wall and shot. I mean that literally, FBI agent reading this. Fuck these snakes.
this dude needs a swift, knuckle-first slap in the mouth
and probably a whole lot more
view more: next ›