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.
The system is currently 237 years old, which would make fucking the system the opposite of child molestation.
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.
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.
What version of windows 11? I’ve been using Win 11 IoT Enterprise LTSC and haven’t had too many issues.
No, it’s surprising that Macs are not locked. Because the Mac OS ecosystem is usually locked tighter than a vir-, er, very tightly.
you’re just a Christian who hates God.
I’m a former Christian that’s been deeply disappointed by the followers of god, or gods; the hypocrisy and mental gymnastics of the purported followers was what eventually led me out of Plato’s Cave. If Jesus was real, and Christians truly followed the actual words of Christ in the four gospels (not Paul, Paul was a dick), then I’d likely never have started questioning my own faith. As it was, it still took me 25 years, four years in seminary, and working as a missionary before I started to question anything.
The reaction is certainly part of it. But that’s definitely not all of it.
Atheist says what I don’t believe: I don’t believe in any god, or anything supernatural. (Could there be one? Sure. But I haven’t seen any falsifiable evidence. So technically I’m agnostic, but I round up to atheist.)
Satanism says what I do believe: I believe that men are free to do as they want, as long as the don’t infringe on the rights of others. I believe in bodily and personal autonomy (including abortion, drugs, and yes, suicide). I believe in being free from unjust and unwarranted authority. I choose to model my life as much as I reasonably can on the version of Lucifer presented in Paradise Lost and other Romantic-era books.
Anton LaVay was an ass, a misogynist, a bit homophobic, and generally a bit of a douche-canoe, but he was very right in that the idea of a Satan, and of sin, was the best friend religion ever had; without the idea that men are inherently sinful, no one has any need for religion, because no one needs to be redeemed. You need to feel bad, because if you don’t, then there’s no reason to keep showing up at church every week to receive forgiveness.
Most of history from that time period is from books that don’t cite sources.
Most of the history that’s accepted from that time comes from multiple sources–rather than just one–and has some kind of archaeological evidence backing it up. In contrast, there’s essentially zero writing about a Jesus of Nazareth aside from books written a minimum of 70 years after he supposedly lived. If you choose to treat a single book as proof of truth, why the bible? Why not the Torah, or Quran? There’s certainly better evidence that Muhammed is at least a historical figure, although even that is debated. For that matter, why not the Tao Te Ching (although, again, the actual existence of a Laozi is very debateable)?
I do not condone that.
You say that you’re a Christian; the vast majority of Christian sects condemn homosexuality and marriage equality. Christians are called to evangelize (Matt. 5:14-16), and likewise the bible says in multiple places that homosexuality is sinful (along with divorce, eating cheeseburgers, and, well, just about everything that’s enjoyable in life). But you don’t condone it?
Never heard of this happening.
Oh really? You’re not aware of laws being passed that prevent access to and criminalize reproductive care, or laws that ban gender affirming care? Really?
Really?
Okay, what evidence convinces you? HOW do you “know”?
…Have you tried a leash? (On a hand, not a neck. For safety.)
And what is your belief based on? What falsifiable evidence do you have that it’s actually correct, factually true?
In other words, how do you know?
Because Jesus Christ rose from the dead. OP is a Christian and believes that.
Any evidence for that, aside from a book that doesn’t cite sources? Look mate, I can believe that Harry Potter really defeated He Who Shall Not Be Named and saved the muggle world from his domination, but does that make it right? Would that be a positive thing to base all of my life on?
This is the same as a Christian telling an atheist that their gay relationship is wrong.
…And yet, they do that all the time, don’t they? Not only that, but they try to pass laws preventing them from happening. Or to prevent trans people from accessing appropriate healthcare. Or to ensure that women don’t have rights to their own bodies.
No, it doesn’t matter to the universe. Morality can still matter to you. This is the idea that existentialism is built around: you have to make choices for yourself.
Define “cheating”.
I looked up an online answer key for the last test I took. The test was take-home and open book, and the teacher repeatedly said that we could use ANY resource to complete the test. I spent hours scouring the course material trying to find some of the answers, and they just weren’t there; the course simply didn’t cover some areas of the test at all. Or even mention them. It turned out that there were several version of the course that I took, and the teach taught one version, but used the test for a different version.
Is that “cheating”? I don’t know. I did all the parts that I could without looking online, but I’m still not happy that I needed to look online in order to complete a course ‘successfully’.
There’s nothing particularly wrong with lust, sexual attraction, desire for connection, etc. It’s all part of simply being human. Why would you assume that the teachings of the Christian bible are correct, not in just this matter, but any other? Why not any other scripture? Buddhists, for instance, would say that any desire prevents you from progressing spiritually. Satanists (me!) would say that no desire is inherently wrong, and that it’s how the desire is expressed, and it’s whether it overrides someone else’s autonomy that makes a thing right or wrong.
I don’t view paying a prostitute for sexual services as being inherently wrong. It’s wrong if you’ve agreed to sexual fidelity with another person (terms and conditions apply), and it’s wrong if you’re using a prostitute that has been forced into sexual labor. But if you haven’t promised a partner (or partners) that you will be sexually faithful to them, and the prostitute is in the field willingly–or, at least as willingly as anyone that works at any job–then it’s not really any more wrong than, say, paying someone to make a meal for you when you’re hungry. Labor is labor, regardless of the nature of the work.
The first step to overcoming this ‘problem’ is therapy. You want a sexual and emotional connection, and you feel like you’re unable to find it otherwise. You should find a licensed psychotherapist–not a member of the clergy, not a life coach–and work on why you have problems finding that.
Why do you believe that it does?
Look mate, we’re a cosmic blip. On the scale of the universe, we don’t even register. We’re born, we live, we die, and on the scale of how long the universe has existed, it’s not even a blink. The universe is about 13,900,000,000 years old. The first single-cell organisms emerged about 3,500,000,000 years ago. Humans, in our current form, have only existed for a mere 300,000 years. Our sun will turn into a red giant in about 5,000,000,000 years, which will sterilize the surface of the earth, but it won’t matter to humans, because we will have evolved into an entirely different species and almost certainly have gone completely extinct billions of years before that happens.
NOTHING we do matters to the universe. There is nothing we can do that will affect the course of the entire universe. Any belief to the contrary is simply terror management. So how could one moral code, in the grand scheme of the universe, matter more than any other?
What makes you believe, aside from your attempts to manage your terror of non-existence, that any of your morality matters at all?
Why do you assume that a god is necessary for morality? What led you to this conclusion? What falsifiable evidence do you have?
I know, right? How many of the people shitting on everyone right of Emma Goldman and Mikhail Bakunin ever did any real community organizing, volunteering, or political canvassing? How many have actively worked to push the Democratic party farther left, rather than just shitposting online about how awful Dems are? Sure, we all want (well, a lot of the people here, I suspect) want socialist candidates that are smart and tough on the ballot. But are we doing to work at a local level to get there? This shit doesn’t happen overnight; you start work locally, work up to a state level, and then go national, once you’ve got that base of support.
Yeah, it’s def. fed posting. Because you sure as fuck don’t do that kind of organizing online.
Here’s the thing: if you’re going to be a real revolutionary militia, you really don’t have a great way of organizing. Everything is going to have big risks. But encouraging people to commit crimes in a public forum, where every user name can be pretty easily traced back to a real person? Oh yeah, that’s absolutely fed posting, whether they know it or not.
The only way it wouldn’t be fed posting would be if this was a .onion site, and there was absolutely no verification of users. But then you’re just kicking the can down the road; sure, it’s safe to post stuff online then, but eventually you have to meet people IRL if you plan to do more than just talk, and that’s when the feds are gonna getcha.
Probably something like, “found dead in his bedroom when the nurse went to check in on him in the morning”. My MiL died in hospice, at home; she wasn’t hooked up to a ton of machines, so we don’t know exactly when she died. She was dead when my spouse woke up from napping.