I'm doing my partđź’Ş
-
That doesn't require a monopoly, just more force than the terrorist can produce.
wrote last edited by [email protected]It requires not allowing the police to be outgunned by terrorists.
Notice that it was after the LA bank robbery in the 90s, where two guys had tons of body armour and military rifles and outgunned the LAPD with their 6 shooters, that you suddenly saw every single police force across the country militarize and buy assault rifles, body armour, and APCs.
Notice how in the UK their cops still patrol without guns.
The state will always maintain a monopoly on the top level of violence. The idea of gun ownership to oppose the state is laughable. Notice: right now, no gun owners using them to oppose the state.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Depends.
Pedophilia is likely an inherent sexual attraction, much like being straight, or LGBTQ+. It appears that the sexual attraction is not something that the person has control over. There's no good evidence that it can be changed. Some pedophiles are also sexually attracted to age-appropriate partners, some appear to be exclusively attracted to children. Moreover, it appears to split into nepophilia (infants, toddlers), pedophilia (pre-pubescent children older than toddlers), and ephebophilia (pubescent children and post-pubescent children younger than the legal age of consent).
Epstein appears to have been attracted to post-pubescent girls younger below the age of consent, but he also seems to have had sexual relationships with adult women. E.g., he wasn't exclusively a pedophile.
Child molestation is a completely different matter. Child molesters can be pedophiles, but they can also be opportunistic sexual predators. A significant amount of child molestation is also incest, e.g., a parent or close relative (almost always male) using a child for sexual gratification because they can (proximity, opportunity), rather than preferring children. Either way, child molesters that sexually abuse children are very high risk offenders; they are often very, very likely to commit the same crime repeatedly.
So, I'd draw the line a line between someone that's sexually attracted to minors, and someone that acts. The child molester? Yeah, fuck 'em with a chainsaw. Pedophiles that haven't yet done anything (including grooming!)? No.
-
As I understand it, pedophilia is just attraction; not taking action. And many people who were abused as children themselves end up developing the condition. I think it is treatable, but probably not "curable" (maybe, IDK).
AFAIK, child molestation victims are not more likely to become pedophiles or molest children; usually they've got a lot of PTSD.
The only treatment that's available is chemical castration (to largely eliminate sexual urges, although that creates a ton of health issues), and therapy that reduces the probability of criminal offenses against children. It's not treating pedophilia per se, it's helping people learn to avoid triggers and spaces where they're likely to feel overwhelmed by sexual impulses. There's no cure.
-
Only if the system concents and is 18+
The system is currently 237 years old, which would make fucking the system the opposite of child molestation.
-
This post did not contain any content.
This kind of rhetoric doesn't sit well with me. There is a difference between being a pedophile and abusing children. Pedophilia is a mental disorder and I can imagine that being attracted to children is pretty damn terrible if you're also trying to do the right thing. I think there needs to be acceptance towards pedophilia (not towards abusing children) so that the affected people feel safe in talking about their condition and get the appropriate help (so that they don't end up abusing children).
-
Okay but is rape as a weapon of terror during wartime as practiced on children still pedophilia if the perpetrator literally just punched a clock and popped a viagra or even military issued strap-on? or would that just be normal war crimes? Serious legal qiestion.
Also because i get the feeling a lot more people would be fans if it was.
AFAIK, pedophilia refers specifically to the sexual attraction to children. When it's used as a weapon per your scenario, it's both a war crime and child rape.
Like, if adult men as sexually assaulted as part of war crimes (and that's distressingly common), the perpetrators are likely not gay or bi-; they're 'just' committing atrocities.
-
AFAIK, pedophilia refers specifically to the sexual attraction to children. When it's used as a weapon per your scenario, it's both a war crime and child rape.
Like, if adult men as sexually assaulted as part of war crimes (and that's distressingly common), the perpetrators are likely not gay or bi-; they're 'just' committing atrocities.
So i proposed hypothetical child rapists who are not pedophiles? I think i get, like, a thousand pedantry points. And i think an extra hundred silver on my next rimworld start.
-
it can also easily become the bad, which is why "i have nothing to hide" morons need to be yanked by the ear
Yeah you can see that with trans people. They've always been in kind of danger, and the easy target for the butt of a joke, but they've become a political target seemingly out of nowhere.
-
Okay but is rape as a weapon of terror during wartime as practiced on children still pedophilia if the perpetrator literally just punched a clock and popped a viagra or even military issued strap-on? or would that just be normal war crimes? Serious legal qiestion.
Also because i get the feeling a lot more people would be fans if it was.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Only if the system concents and is 18+
-
This post did not contain any content.
This is a very obvious trick from the right.
"Kill all pedophiles!"
Yeah most people will say pedophiles are really bad and nobody wants to defend them, so they'll either agree or let it slide. However, they're not anticipating the next part
"All trans people are pedophiles!"
"All gay people are pedophiles!"
"All immigrants are pedophiles!"
Once you define a group of people as being subhuman and unworthy of human rights, then there is a strong motivation to expand the definition of that group to include more people that a lot of people don't like and won't stick their neck out to support for fear of getting labeled as part of that group and oppressed like them. The circle then just keeps growing as the machine needs more people in the outgroup to oppose. If there is broad consensus that pedophiles (or people who commit any type of crime) are a danger so foul that the people who might commit said crime should be summarily executed to subjected to torture, then oppressed minority groups will just be identified with said crime. Think about how panic about urban theft and murder was used to advance policies that harm racial minorities in the late 20th century, and how panic about "bolshevism" was a major driving force of the Holocaust. Nothing good comes from this path.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Why does this only have 4 pixels?
-
This is a very obvious trick from the right.
"Kill all pedophiles!"
Yeah most people will say pedophiles are really bad and nobody wants to defend them, so they'll either agree or let it slide. However, they're not anticipating the next part
"All trans people are pedophiles!"
"All gay people are pedophiles!"
"All immigrants are pedophiles!"
Once you define a group of people as being subhuman and unworthy of human rights, then there is a strong motivation to expand the definition of that group to include more people that a lot of people don't like and won't stick their neck out to support for fear of getting labeled as part of that group and oppressed like them. The circle then just keeps growing as the machine needs more people in the outgroup to oppose. If there is broad consensus that pedophiles (or people who commit any type of crime) are a danger so foul that the people who might commit said crime should be summarily executed to subjected to torture, then oppressed minority groups will just be identified with said crime. Think about how panic about urban theft and murder was used to advance policies that harm racial minorities in the late 20th century, and how panic about "bolshevism" was a major driving force of the Holocaust. Nothing good comes from this path.
However, they’re not anticipating the next part
I think we can easily retort “All pedophile killers are pedophiles!”.
-
This kind of rhetoric doesn't sit well with me. There is a difference between being a pedophile and abusing children. Pedophilia is a mental disorder and I can imagine that being attracted to children is pretty damn terrible if you're also trying to do the right thing. I think there needs to be acceptance towards pedophilia (not towards abusing children) so that the affected people feel safe in talking about their condition and get the appropriate help (so that they don't end up abusing children).
wrote last edited by [email protected]And here I thought you were going to counter with ahimsa or non-violence by urging violence is wrong.
Nope, still lemmy. -
This kind of rhetoric doesn't sit well with me. There is a difference between being a pedophile and abusing children. Pedophilia is a mental disorder and I can imagine that being attracted to children is pretty damn terrible if you're also trying to do the right thing. I think there needs to be acceptance towards pedophilia (not towards abusing children) so that the affected people feel safe in talking about their condition and get the appropriate help (so that they don't end up abusing children).
wrote last edited by [email protected]That's a sane take on a emotional matter. I agree.
We've had some success here with a program called "Don't become a perpetrator". Pedosexuals (which is the scientific term for people attracted to minors without acting upon their urges) could enter, as long as they hadn't committed any crime in regards to children or consuming illegal content. They could get psychological help as well as a chemical castration. Preventive approaches like this should be more common.
-
Depends.
Pedophilia is likely an inherent sexual attraction, much like being straight, or LGBTQ+. It appears that the sexual attraction is not something that the person has control over. There's no good evidence that it can be changed. Some pedophiles are also sexually attracted to age-appropriate partners, some appear to be exclusively attracted to children. Moreover, it appears to split into nepophilia (infants, toddlers), pedophilia (pre-pubescent children older than toddlers), and ephebophilia (pubescent children and post-pubescent children younger than the legal age of consent).
Epstein appears to have been attracted to post-pubescent girls younger below the age of consent, but he also seems to have had sexual relationships with adult women. E.g., he wasn't exclusively a pedophile.
Child molestation is a completely different matter. Child molesters can be pedophiles, but they can also be opportunistic sexual predators. A significant amount of child molestation is also incest, e.g., a parent or close relative (almost always male) using a child for sexual gratification because they can (proximity, opportunity), rather than preferring children. Either way, child molesters that sexually abuse children are very high risk offenders; they are often very, very likely to commit the same crime repeatedly.
So, I'd draw the line a line between someone that's sexually attracted to minors, and someone that acts. The child molester? Yeah, fuck 'em with a chainsaw. Pedophiles that haven't yet done anything (including grooming!)? No.
Finally, an actual good use of the "chainsaw of bureaucracy".
But yeah, this needs to be said more.
The problem for me is that it's hard to see them being more than a potential child molester.
Maybe not so much if it's like just "the forbidden kink", but if it's more of the main show it feels like they're just so much more likely to do it eventually.
Now I haven't read any data on it, but it does naturally raise concern to be wary.
But people at large really love an easy target to dump rage on. And I get it, I've been in that crowd.
I may have been saddled with a really weird collection of my own kinks, preferences, and desires, but at least all of mine are kid free. And at my age I still call 20-somethings kids.
-
This is a very obvious trick from the right.
"Kill all pedophiles!"
Yeah most people will say pedophiles are really bad and nobody wants to defend them, so they'll either agree or let it slide. However, they're not anticipating the next part
"All trans people are pedophiles!"
"All gay people are pedophiles!"
"All immigrants are pedophiles!"
Once you define a group of people as being subhuman and unworthy of human rights, then there is a strong motivation to expand the definition of that group to include more people that a lot of people don't like and won't stick their neck out to support for fear of getting labeled as part of that group and oppressed like them. The circle then just keeps growing as the machine needs more people in the outgroup to oppose. If there is broad consensus that pedophiles (or people who commit any type of crime) are a danger so foul that the people who might commit said crime should be summarily executed to subjected to torture, then oppressed minority groups will just be identified with said crime. Think about how panic about urban theft and murder was used to advance policies that harm racial minorities in the late 20th century, and how panic about "bolshevism" was a major driving force of the Holocaust. Nothing good comes from this path.
Right, but at this point pedophilia does exist as an actual phenomenon, which the right uses to build a culture of fear and suspicion in which they can frame all their arguments credibly.
Like people are actually worried about child abuse, for many good and bad reasons. So without addressing the fear and the underlying desire for just governance then no amount of political humanism will get through. People are, irrationally, more afraid of pedophiles than they are willing to criticize the cultural implications of the meanings of words.
That's not your fault, you aren't creating or reproducing this phenomenon and I largely agree with you. I just think its time to start coming up with better criticisms than trying to poke logical holes. The right is fighting a war and we are having an intellectual debate. I'm a firm advocate for scientific intellectualism, while exploring even philosophical implications of your plans and actions. I think this is logically strong, but practically weak argument.
-
What about capitalist, pedophile nazis?
Thanks to the brave, strong internet tough guys at lemmy who totally aren't pathetic losers overcompensating for something, we have such brilliant hits as
- this
and who knows what else?
Time to consolidate & merge all these expressions into one proud circlejerk & achieve great glory.Being a Nazi is a choice someone actively makes. I don't think it's the same with being a pedophile (not defending pedophiles or anything)
I've heard people go with the thought that "they wish to cause harm to other individuals, so why should people not cause harm to them?" (For Nazis, obviously). Whether or not I totally agree with that sentiment..... I'm not sure.
But comparing Nazis to pedophiles doesn't work.
-
It requires not allowing the police to be outgunned by terrorists.
Notice that it was after the LA bank robbery in the 90s, where two guys had tons of body armour and military rifles and outgunned the LAPD with their 6 shooters, that you suddenly saw every single police force across the country militarize and buy assault rifles, body armour, and APCs.
Notice how in the UK their cops still patrol without guns.
The state will always maintain a monopoly on the top level of violence. The idea of gun ownership to oppose the state is laughable. Notice: right now, no gun owners using them to oppose the state.
I agree those people are foolish, but my statement was about the relationship between terrorists and the state.
- A state like the US will always have more firepower than a single terrorist group.
- A population where everyone is armed will also almost certainly have more firepower than a single terrorist group, too.
The power dynamic is between the terrorists and anyone who would oppose them, not just the state. You also reference police, when terrorists are basically always ultimately handled by a military force, which will have a monopoly on violence regardless of how one ignorantly attempts to organize or arm their police.
-
I agree those people are foolish, but my statement was about the relationship between terrorists and the state.
- A state like the US will always have more firepower than a single terrorist group.
- A population where everyone is armed will also almost certainly have more firepower than a single terrorist group, too.
The power dynamic is between the terrorists and anyone who would oppose them, not just the state. You also reference police, when terrorists are basically always ultimately handled by a military force, which will have a monopoly on violence regardless of how one ignorantly attempts to organize or arm their police.
A population where everyone is armed will also almost certainly have more firepower than a single terrorist group, too.
It will also arm a whole shit of load terrorists, and people just having a bad day.
The power dynamic is between the terrorists and anyone who would oppose them, not just the state.
Yeah, and now you've raised the floor massively.
when terrorists are basically always ultimately handled by a military force
[citation needed]
