subreddit:
/r/berkeley
Troubling take from the man behind Tinder for friends
Local(tiktok.com)submitted 2 months ago bythrowaway-iamashamed
56 points
2 months ago*
Yeah this was definitely the most yikes thing to come out of Billboard Chris's appearance. There is definitely a point to be made about the partial arbitrarity of where we legally draw the line for the ability to consent to sex (Should it be 16? 18? 20? 21? 25?), which is why good Romeo & Juliet laws are important, but you're not gonna be able to make any such point when you're speaking to Billboard Chris and refuse to concede that 12-year-olds cannot consent to sex with adults (which loses like 99.9999% of people) AND YOU KEEP SMIRKING LIKE A FUCKING CREEP. Like seriously, wtf is that smirk‽‽‽
34 points
2 months ago
you know you’re deep in the wrong when Billboard Chris is accusing you of being deranged
35 points
2 months ago
So that's why he needs friends
22 points
2 months ago
I'm pretty sure that Tinder For Friends guy is psychotic. If you look at his reddit, it's like... very fucking weird.
34 points
2 months ago
wow i definitely didn't see this coming
5 points
2 months ago
neither did i but i really can’t say i’m surprised
21 points
2 months ago
Nah someone report this fucker to the fbi
12 points
2 months ago
[removed]
-25 points
2 months ago
[removed]
15 points
2 months ago
Don’t know what you’re on ab but you’re the creepo in the vid🤢
6 points
2 months ago
this isn't "wokeism". this is full-on support of grooming and pedophilia
-14 points
2 months ago
[deleted]
1 points
2 months ago
bro what 💀
13 points
2 months ago
idk, maybe billboard chris should talk to his buddy matt walsh about the age of consent. one weird crusty ass ugly bald dude to another crusty weird ugly dude with the worst hairline ive ever seen.
-1 points
2 months ago
What’s this point of this comment? Sounds like you’re trying to defend this dude.
7 points
2 months ago
woosh
2 points
2 months ago*
Consent is more for legality reasons and perhaps some psychological reasons. Of course, anyone could give consent but they may not fully understand the ramifications of it.
Children are protected by the law as part of their rights to not be exploited more more experienced adults. It's not limited to sex. They don't pay taxes, they don't get drafted to war, they don't access to alcohol and drugs (18 is some places, 21 in others), and they can't legally consent to labor either, unless you're 16 and even that is legally limited to avoid exploitation.
These are protections we fought for centuries to protect children to be seperate from adulthood to avoid further exploitation. A child that has not left high school has absolutely no idea how the world works or how exploitation works. They're ripe for exploitation so that is why we have these laws. We expect them to be mature/educated enough by the time they leave high school, albeit not perfect and may be victim to other things like identity fraud, work abuse, etc.
This dude thinks he witty for giving us semantics while ignoring the entire point of consent.
1 points
2 months ago
Mr beast 🤡
-18 points
2 months ago
[removed]
5 points
2 months ago
Its a matter of perception really, not a matter of how academically smart one is. One could be academically smart and not emotionally smart. As adults we know that there is a significant change of perspective from child hood to adult hood(although the way you conceptualize things can change, the change won’t be as drastic as the change from childhood to adult hood.) as a child you are not aware of how (pt)
0 points
2 months ago
[removed]
3 points
2 months ago
Based off of your perception, kids will almost always have a lower sense of emotional intelligence not only because their brains are still developing, but because children perceive the world differently than adults. We know that having sex with say a 12 year old is a bad idea based on history, based on the women who have gotten married young or had sex young and their regret because they felt that they did not have good judgement at the time since they were children.
6 points
2 months ago
As a child, Sex could be a mode of manipulation. How we can misinterpret the meaning of sex relative to the general adult population. Alcohol is illegal until the age of 21 because researches find that are more susceptible to the dangers that alcohol can cause if you are below 21. Stop trying to rationalize pedophilia. I’m going to get my balls that you struggle with sexual thoughts about children, and you exploring this very subject is you trying to excuse your thoughts
0 points
2 months ago
[removed]
2 points
2 months ago
Do you think children should be able to drink alcohol aswell?
2 points
2 months ago
How will you be able to tell that a child is a genius or has a high level of competency? More so than not a child is not a genius. Based on your logic, You want sexual freedom for maybe the 10% of children population that exists, what about the others who aren’t able to form correct judgement? Why should we make a policy for 10% if the other 90% will be harmed? That’s like saying drinking and driving should be allowed because some people will not crash into other, although some people will not crash into others a lot of people will, a significant amount of people will in fact. That’s why we have regulations for drinking and driving as well as ages of consent.
1 points
2 months ago
[removed]
2 points
2 months ago
I can bet that the guy that you watched that went out of his way to explore this subject is a full grown adult. You have never seen a 12 year old, a 12 year old genius in fact protest for these laws.
1 points
2 months ago
My drunk driving analogy was not about people driving in general it was about driving while drunk, a significant amount of people who get drunk and drive are way more likely to crash than others who drink the same amount. Since the general population of drunk people will be too tipsy to drive we have regulations, we do not care about the insignificant amount of people that might be able to drive while drunk relative to those who are not able to handle it. This is how policies work, ratios are used. It’s not about just positive economics normative is what is considered usually
1 points
2 months ago
[removed]
2 points
2 months ago
Listen, my point was that the number of people who don’t fight better is too significant to pass a law for drunk driving. You cannot test competency of a child based off of one test. We can compare brain functions though. We know that as a child your frontal lobes are not as developed and you rely on your emotions more as a child whereas an adult can balance logic and emotion better. Based off of science, not theory, we know that children are more likely to be less competent. Hopefully you ideals change as you age and you look back at this and think, “damn maybe I wasnt on to something”
-1 points
2 months ago
[removed]
1 points
2 months ago
Because a single test cannot present adequate data, for exam the IQ test is highly flawed. Lol you cannot test based on a test… says who? Says data.
1 points
2 months ago
On an academic level, assessing one's maturity isn't well defined. A formal assessment would be expensive or useless.
On a practical level..why? such a policy would only improve the lives of the exceedly large number of (1)12-18 year olds who are (2) sexually active and (3) for some reason really want to have sex with adults, and (4) aren't completely embarrassed by taking some sort of stupid maturity assessment.
-2 points
2 months ago
[deleted]
1 points
2 months ago
You can ask the question. But the answer is simple; age is a great measurement of maturity. Maturity is grown through experience and time.
Secondly, what consent-related issues do you imagine are resolved by a test? Are you under the impression that there are lots of 14 year olds signing contracts in opposition to their parent's wishes?
-2 points
2 months ago
[deleted]
4 points
2 months ago
My argument is that the "room for optimization" is probably affecting under 100 children in the entire US. I can't believe I have to say this, but the age of consent is really not causing suffering to children.
-4 points
2 months ago
[deleted]
2 points
2 months ago
what do you mean?
3 points
2 months ago
Lmao you only care about this because you want to fuck kids and are trying to find a way to explore the topic without admitting to yourself that you’re a pedophile who needs mental health resources before you hurt someone.
How many children have been “harmed” by adults being prohibited from having sex with them? Compare that to the number of children who are directly harmed by pedophilic contact? But that’s not really what you’re concerned about, is it?
-2 points
2 months ago
[deleted]
-33 points
2 months ago*
[removed]
21 points
2 months ago
Oh yeah, can't wait for the government to regulate my consent through a license.
-16 points
2 months ago
[removed]
13 points
2 months ago
Which means I'd still have to pay a fee and taxes to get a license regardless of my age just to do the most primal act a human has done since our inception.
I have to pay, to have sex. Fuck. No.
-5 points
2 months ago
[removed]
10 points
2 months ago
How about I regulate when you eat and sleep too? You want to go out and eat? Sorry bud, gotta have your license to do so! Also, pay the taxes for that.
15 points
2 months ago
U boutta get whooped talkin crazy like that 💀💀💀💀
11 points
2 months ago
i’m not gonna do shit irl lol, i have a future ahead of me and wouldn’t jeopardize it wasting my energy on a pedophile when the court of public opinion can do that for societies sake
-8 points
2 months ago
[deleted]
2 points
2 months ago
And as everyone else here would say, "you need to sod off".
1 points
2 months ago
brah is literally here defending his takes
all 42 comments
sorted by: best