[worry]

Yah, if you've ever uttered the phrase "it's ephebophilia, not pedophilia" maybe join the line directly into the volcano.

[worry]

Fantastic article on the dissonance and denial inherent in Trumpism.

Quote

It was not just Trump’s supporters who were in denial about what they were voting for, but Americans across the political spectrum, who, as had been the case with those who had backed [David] Duke, searched desperately for any alternative explanation—outsourcing, anti-Washington anger, economic anxiety—to the one staring them in the face. The frequent postelection media expeditions to Trump country to see whether the fever has broken, or whether Trump’s most ardent supporters have changed their minds, are a direct outgrowth of this mistake. These supporters will not change their minds, because this is what they always wanted: a president who embodies the rage they feel toward those they hate and fear, while reassuring them that that rage is nothing to be ashamed of.

https://www.theatlan...elusion/546356/

[Primateus]

worry, on 21 November 2017 - 09:54 PM, said:

Yah, if you've ever uttered the phrase "it's ephebophilia, not pedophilia" maybe join the line directly into the volcano.

I had to google ephebophilia. Apparently it's a real thing. A real, creepy, thing.

In Denmark, it's not illegal when they're 15, but it's still frowned upon. There was this one politician who basically committed political suicide when it became publicly known he had had sex with a 15 year old girl after a youth event. He hadn't done anything illegal, and everyone agreed with that. But come on! Dude, you're in your thirties, not cool!

So yeah, maybe not jump in the volcano, but please kindly be quiet.

[Gorefest]

If we are going into semantics, really you should also be making a distinction between pedophilia and pedosexuality. Pedophilia is the attraction to minors, which is not really something that you can just turn off at will but that you can (get help with to) control. Pedosexuality is actually acting on the impulses. So really sexual predators who target minors should be labeled pedosexuals, not pedophiles.

[Primateus]

Gorefest, on 22 November 2017 - 11:04 AM, said:

If we are going into semantics, really you should also be making a distinction between pedophilia and pedosexuality. Pedophilia is the attraction to minors, which is not really something that you can just turn off at will but that you can (get help with to) control. Pedosexuality is actually acting on the impulses. So really sexual predators who target minors should be labeled pedosexuals, not pedophiles.

I guess I sort of agree with you, Gore. Being a pedophile isn't illegal, acting on it is. Though I think it's justifiable to have concerns with leaving your children in the care of a person like that.

[Gorefest]

Oh, I know in practice for most people the distinction is irrelevant, I just thought I'd throw it in there as a consideration because of the nature of the above discussion. I do think the principle is valid though, as I genuinely believe that people who feel sexual attraction to minors are not being consciously malicious. It is not a choice as such, it is an impulse. But (western) society has deemed that it is morally objectionable to act on this impulse due to the reduced responsibility or judgemental ability of the subject of the obsession, as with e.g. necrophilia and bestiality. Only when you act on this impulse you cross a line.

[worry]

Well I think my point (and HD's, minus the volcano, if I read him right) wasn't that people who simply know the semantic differences are tainted...just that there exists a certain kind of ghoulish individual who insists on focusing on the semantics instead of the behaviors. And they do the (often self-serving) reddit/channer/Twitter thing of "you got this one semantic detail wrong, thus your stance is invalid".

I do agree with the controlled impulse vs. indulged impulse point you're making, by and large.

[Gorefest]

Ah, fair enough. Yeah, lots of deflection techniques going on on various alt-right tinted forums.

[Primateus]

worry, on 22 November 2017 - 08:13 PM, said:

Well I think my point (and HD's, minus the volcano, if I read him right) wasn't that people who simply know the semantic differences are tainted...just that there exists a certain kind of ghoulish individual who insists on focusing on the semantics instead of the behaviors. And they do the (often self-serving) reddit/channer/Twitter thing of "you got this one semantic detail wrong, thus your stance is invalid".

I do agree with the controlled impulse vs. indulged impulse point you're making, by and large.

While I believe that semantic distinctions can be important, I also agree with you on this. It's like when people defend their bigotry with "Islam is not a race." Yeah, douchebag, we know. And yet, somehow, you're still a bigoted asshole!

My reasoning for why semantics matter is that if you just plow on with no regards for what you're actually saying, you end up accusing, and condemning, people for something they didn't do.

Roy Moore is a creepy old bastard, even when he was in his twenties and thirties as he cruised malls for teenage girls. That doesn't make him a pedophile (though he might well be one). And I think it kinda muddies the waters in his favor to say that it does. Because if he isn't and he's accused of being one, I can guarantee you his defenders will focus on how the "liberuls" lied about how Roy Moore was a pedophile.

Am I making sense? I think so, but let me know if I'm not.

[worry]

Yah, I think I get your point. Being as accurate as possible from the start is a good defense against the nitpickers.

[Vengeance]

Primateus, on 22 November 2017 - 08:23 PM, said:

worry, on 22 November 2017 - 08:13 PM, said:

Well I think my point (and HD's, minus the volcano, if I read him right) wasn't that people who simply know the semantic differences are tainted...just that there exists a certain kind of ghoulish individual who insists on focusing on the semantics instead of the behaviors. And they do the (often self-serving) reddit/channer/Twitter thing of "you got this one semantic detail wrong, thus your stance is invalid".

I do agree with the controlled impulse vs. indulged impulse point you're making, by and large.

While I believe that semantic distinctions can be important, I also agree with you on this. It's like when people defend their bigotry with "Islam is not a race." Yeah, douchebag, we know. And yet, somehow, you're still a bigoted asshole!

My reasoning for why semantics matter is that if you just plow on with no regards for what you're actually saying, you end up accusing, and condemning, people for something they didn't do.

Roy Moore is a creepy old bastard, even when he was in his twenties and thirties as he cruised malls for teenage girls. That doesn't make him a pedophile (though he might well be one). And I think it kinda muddies the waters in his favor to say that it does. Because if he isn't and he's accused of being one, I can guarantee you his defenders will focus on how the "liberuls" lied about how Roy Moore was a pedophile.

Am I making sense? I think so, but let me know if I'm not.

Well if he had sex with a 14yr old then that would make him both a rapist and a pedophile.

[Primateus]

Vengeance, on 22 November 2017 - 09:00 PM, said:

Primateus, on 22 November 2017 - 08:23 PM, said:

worry, on 22 November 2017 - 08:13 PM, said:

Well I think my point (and HD's, minus the volcano, if I read him right) wasn't that people who simply know the semantic differences are tainted...just that there exists a certain kind of ghoulish individual who insists on focusing on the semantics instead of the behaviors. And they do the (often self-serving) reddit/channer/Twitter thing of "you got this one semantic detail wrong, thus your stance is invalid".

I do agree with the controlled impulse vs. indulged impulse point you're making, by and large.

While I believe that semantic distinctions can be important, I also agree with you on this. It's like when people defend their bigotry with "Islam is not a race." Yeah, douchebag, we know. And yet, somehow, you're still a bigoted asshole!

My reasoning for why semantics matter is that if you just plow on with no regards for what you're actually saying, you end up accusing, and condemning, people for something they didn't do.

Roy Moore is a creepy old bastard, even when he was in his twenties and thirties as he cruised malls for teenage girls. That doesn't make him a pedophile (though he might well be one). And I think it kinda muddies the waters in his favor to say that it does. Because if he isn't and he's accused of being one, I can guarantee you his defenders will focus on how the "liberuls" lied about how Roy Moore was a pedophile.

Am I making sense? I think so, but let me know if I'm not.

Well if he had sex with a 14yr old then that would make him both a rapist and a pedophile.

If the legal definition for pedophilia is sex with a 14 year old, then yes. If we're going by the actual definition, then no, it does not. And it would be a mistake to label him as such as, like I mentioned above, it'll only provide fuel for his defenders. And unless he actually forced himself upon a 14 year old, it would only make it statutory rape (or other such terms). Which, obviously, is bad enough in itself.

I'm only arguing this because I think being precise in topics like these matters.

This post has been edited by Primateus: 22 November 2017 - 09:10 PM

[worry]

The thing about that, though, is that you don't have to argue with people who make that distinction. You don't have to convince them of anything. You aren't going to convince them of anything. They've already decided who they're willing to sacrifice to get their way.

[Primateus]

worry, on 22 November 2017 - 09:10 PM, said:

The thing about that, though, is that you don't have to argue with people who make that distinction. You don't have to convince them of anything. You aren't going to convince them of anything. They've already decided who they're willing to sacrifice to get their way.

Very true. And in an argument with such a person, it would be a waste of time. But I think it's important that the rest of us don't fall into the same pit.

Here's a story about why being precise matters.

One or two years ago here in Denmark, there was this trial where a guy was accused of rape. He was being prosecuted for drugging the girl and having sex with her while she was unconscious. During the trial, the girl testified that that wasn't what happened. She testified that she hadn't been drugged, but rather that the guy had held her down and forced himself upon her.

The guy was acquitted of all charges. It pissed people off to no end. Especially because he was obviously guilty. But here's the thing. It was the only correct verdict the court could deliver, simply because the crime he was charged with wasn't the crime he had committed.

The prosecutor hadn't been precise or specific and then provided the rapist with a way to walk free.

Now, I know it isn't exactly the same as what we're discussing. But it does emphasize my point that being precise about what you intend to argue is important.


Goodness me, I think I might be rambling.

[HoosierDaddy]

Illegal.

This isn't Denmark.

[Vengeance]

Primateus, on 22 November 2017 - 09:06 PM, said:

Vengeance, on 22 November 2017 - 09:00 PM, said:

Primateus, on 22 November 2017 - 08:23 PM, said:

worry, on 22 November 2017 - 08:13 PM, said:

Well I think my point (and HD's, minus the volcano, if I read him right) wasn't that people who simply know the semantic differences are tainted...just that there exists a certain kind of ghoulish individual who insists on focusing on the semantics instead of the behaviors. And they do the (often self-serving) reddit/channer/Twitter thing of "you got this one semantic detail wrong, thus your stance is invalid".

I do agree with the controlled impulse vs. indulged impulse point you're making, by and large.

While I believe that semantic distinctions can be important, I also agree with you on this. It's like when people defend their bigotry with "Islam is not a race." Yeah, douchebag, we know. And yet, somehow, you're still a bigoted asshole!

My reasoning for why semantics matter is that if you just plow on with no regards for what you're actually saying, you end up accusing, and condemning, people for something they didn't do.

Roy Moore is a creepy old bastard, even when he was in his twenties and thirties as he cruised malls for teenage girls. That doesn't make him a pedophile (though he might well be one). And I think it kinda muddies the waters in his favor to say that it does. Because if he isn't and he's accused of being one, I can guarantee you his defenders will focus on how the "liberuls" lied about how Roy Moore was a pedophile.

Am I making sense? I think so, but let me know if I'm not.

Well if he had sex with a 14yr old then that would make him both a rapist and a pedophile.

If the legal definition for pedophilia is sex with a 14 year old, then yes. If we're going by the actual definition, then no, it does not. And it would be a mistake to label him as such as, like I mentioned above, it'll only provide fuel for his defenders. And unless he actually forced himself upon a 14 year old, it would only make it statutory rape (or other such terms). Which, obviously, is bad enough in itself.

I'm only arguing this because I think being precise in topics like these matters.

A 14 year old is a minor and intercourse with them makes you a child rapist and a pedophilia. There isn't really a grey area. Having any sexual relations with a minor makes you a rapist whether you force them physically or not. The definition of statutory rape is allowing for extenuating circumstances. There are no extenuating circumstances or culture differences for having sex with a minor.

[worry]

Primateus, it is so sweet of you to compare Roy Moore to someone who actually went to trial for his misdeeds! Unfortunately, Moore is the GOP's choice, so if he wins his election -- and it's like 50/50 at worst for him -- he will be as welcome as Dennis Hastert was in his day. If he loses, and so becomes politically useless, they might toss him to the wolves...but it's worth noting that people have known about his proclivities for decades and he's faced no more consequence than a mall ban, so the wolves are pretty toothless.

[Morgoth]

Primateus, on 22 November 2017 - 09:20 PM, said:

worry, on 22 November 2017 - 09:10 PM, said:

The thing about that, though, is that you don't have to argue with people who make that distinction. You don't have to convince them of anything. You aren't going to convince them of anything. They've already decided who they're willing to sacrifice to get their way.

Very true. And in an argument with such a person, it would be a waste of time. But I think it's important that the rest of us don't fall into the same pit.

Here's a story about why being precise matters.

One or two years ago here in Denmark, there was this trial where a guy was accused of rape. He was being prosecuted for drugging the girl and having sex with her while she was unconscious. During the trial, the girl testified that that wasn't what happened. She testified that she hadn't been drugged, but rather that the guy had held her down and forced himself upon her.

The guy was acquitted of all charges. It pissed people off to no end. Especially because he was obviously guilty. But here's the thing. It was the only correct verdict the court could deliver, simply because the crime he was charged with wasn't the crime he had committed.

The prosecutor hadn't been precise or specific and then provided the rapist with a way to walk free.

Now, I know it isn't exactly the same as what we're discussing. But it does emphasize my point that being precise about what you intend to argue is important.


Goodness me, I think I might be rambling.

We are not a court of law. We are not discussing specific statutes in which to prosecute anyone, nor are we in a position where such a thing would be relevant in the first place. Insisting that public discourse should be held with legal terminology is entirely nonsensical.

Also, I would very much like a link or something to the verdict you are referring to. I am pretty sure that would not have been the result in a Norwegian criminal trial, and Norway and Denmark function under much of the same legal principles.

Edit: my danish is a little rusty, but Google has failed me so far.

This post has been edited by Morgoth: 23 November 2017 - 01:20 PM

[Gust Hubb]

When talking semantics, think this:




To me, semantics only work in the case of a truly logical audience. Otherwise, it is a battle of words where the most logic-insensitive win.

Primateus, I totally agree with you. Speaking precisely is key to nailing these bastards, in a legal setting. Otherwise, I think the only way to argue a point with "the other side" public is to find a commonality and build a dialogue on their turf.

This isn't a war over the wrongness of pedophilia. This is an argument over conservatism and liberalism; christianity and secularism; the South vs the North. Sorry to post this, but suffer through it:

OMG, so sorry



Read the comments below the article to feel a little better.


I grew up as one of these. This is a war to stay ignorant, to hold on to spirituality and morality, to defend a lifestyle that is the framework of one's life. People don't think much beyond themselves, so think why such things are important to them. The conviction of Roy Moore, in my mind, is much like the Catholic priest scandal portrayed in the movie SpotLight. People are fighting for their world (tribalism). Destroy that and they are left with too many questions.


Take it from me. I am still recovering from the trauma of growing up Christian.

[Morgoth]

Semantics of that nature isn't even particularly important within the courtroom, as long as we're talking a criminal case that is. the court doesn't care about the correct use of the word pedophilia. In many ways, the court may well have less use of that than would a conversation outside the court room. In law we're as focused on people's individual understanding of a word as we are the correct definition. A statute would never say that a pedophile is to be punished with so and so many years of prison time. It would set a specific age and work from that. At least that's the case with laws as I know them.

If you want semantic arguments contract law is where you want to be. Or tax. Hah!

But again, it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion.