User talk:138.247.97.94

Please stop attempting to justify attraction to young teenagers in Pedophilia. You can rewrite the intro, but skip the pedantry about ephebophilia; the article already mentioned it. яεvεятεя σғ ωαη∂αℓιsм, ραтяσℓℓεя σғ ε∂ιтs, ΓУППЯ ・「ҭагк」・асђіεѵеϻԑηтѕ・тіме: 15:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * only pedophile apologists make the argument 138.247.97.94 is making. Should just ban this sick creep. Skeptical (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't ban them yet, they technically haven't broken the rules, and I'd like to assume good faith. яεvεятεя σғ ωαη∂αℓιsм, ραтяσℓℓεя σғ ε∂ιтs, ΓУППЯ ・「ҭагк」・асђіεѵеϻԑηтѕ・тіме: 15:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 138 wrote to feel sexual attraction to pubescent's is "biologically natural rather than a disorder". So according to him/her, someone sexually attracted to a 13 or 14 year old is "natural". It isn't. And only a pedophile would make this sort of creepy misinformed statement. 138 is trying to normalise sexual attraction to kids.Skeptical (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's against the rules, although it's disgusting. Let me review them and I'll see if this warrants a block. яεvεятεя σғ ωαη∂αℓιsм, ραтяσℓℓεя σғ ε∂ιтs, ΓУППЯ ・「ҭагк」・асђіεѵеϻԑηтѕ・тіме: 17:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)