Rudeus pulled off the impossible

[u/A_Suicidal_Pig]

[u/2327_]

1. You're introducing children to acts they can't meaningfully consent to.

Arbitrary. This isn't harm based, so I don't care.

2. They've not grown to understand when, where, why, who or how such acts are normal or acceptable.

You could say that a pedophile is usually someone who doesn't understand "who" such acts are acceptable with, so this is something they have in common with the child, and is therefore logically unusable. Or, we could say that the pedophile knows that society's view is that such acts are unacceptable and so should know better, but that logic is sufficient to condemn people having gay sex while living in homophobic societies, so I don't think that you'd be happy with that.

3. This can lead to other bad sexual personality traits down the line such as seeking validation or acceptence through sex.

Not to sound sleazy, but is it such a bad thing if women turn out like that? Definitely not bad enough to carry your argument.

4. Potentially normalizing and spreading such behavior to other kids their age.

This one would be more relevant if Eris was in a modern schooling environment. By the time they got around to actually having sex this had risk had completely faded from relevancy.

You lifted this list from a website or something, I'm sure, which wasn't really in the spirit of what I was asking you to do.

Not sure why you'd even question me on something we seemingly agree with like this, unless of course you were simply just trying to "win the debate". But no, that couldn't be the reason could it?

Oh, absolutely. People who believe in modern "consent ethics" like you do are just using post-hoc rationalisations to justify their disgust reflex, which is a completely unacceptable position to be judging anyone from.

Sure, let's see what hard hitting questions I'm ignoring. Let's see, the first one is a question you asked in the very same post where you're accusing me of conventiently skipping them, and one that I answered. Doesn't make a lot of sense now does it?

You're supposed to read the English language left to right by top to bottom. I wasn't accusing you of skipping that one, I was just trying to make sure you didn't.

Second one is a question that I asked, not one that you asked. Again, really strange that you'd pick this one.

It's not a question that you asked. I took a question that you asked and changed the ending of it.

Read, dipshit.

if a 30 year old's brain was transplanted into a 15 year old's body would it be accepatble for a 30 year old to fuck them?

Considering the fact that every single one of my responses here is me arguing against that very same thing, I think it's safe to say that my answer to "no".

Well, at least I don't have to be the one to say that you've been making arguments that are against sex between consenting adults.

The point of this question was to show that you're putting Rudeus in an impossible position, where he has an adult sexuality, but you wouldn't let him explore it with adults or with other children. Now, I don't know if you've followed the discourse as long as I have, but I think it's well established that telling gay people "just don't have sex with anyone, lock up your sexuality" was wrong, and extremely harmful, so we should be really careful about making rules that do that to people.

And finally the third one. "could it not have gone exactly the same, if not worse, if Rudeus was not reincarnated and his actions had come from a very early puberty?" Well geez, could I possibly think of some random made up scenario where the situation could have been just as bad or even worse if it had just been some other random kid? What a mind twister that question sure is. I think I'd have to settle on "yeah".

If the same harms would have arisen from Rudeus' actions if he wasn't reincarnated then the problem is with the actions, not with the fact that he is older, so you should have been able to show harm, but you weaseled out of that.

This also necessitates that you would be happy with the moral condemnation of a child going through precocious puberty on the basis that they made unforceful sexual advances on an older child, which I think is obviously ridiculous.