Secretary of Eumenes Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Sorry, sorry. I know I'm bad. I know. But it's just that I reeeally should have gone with 48 minutes ago, whatever... said: I do not follow these people. Or any people really. Not since I ran out of space for Social Media Influencers in my life. In my life. (accents and all that) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darzin Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Yeah I thought this thread was about H&M going out of business and was a bit bummed about that, but I couldn't for the life of me figure out when we had the H&M part 1 thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 (edited) 13 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said: “Actuwally she was 13 so calling me a pedophile is wrong.” You know there may be a nuanced conversation worth discussing but Cas Stark is just using pedantry here to deflect from the fact queen Elizabeth used her power and influence to protect man who raped sex slaves who were minors. Oh, to be sure I was not going along with that, in fact I was trying to say that the argument about whether or not he was a pedophile was not only just an attempted deflection, it was irrelevant. Being a pedophile is a horrible fate…the suicide numbers, for example, are through the roof, can you imagine what every single day must be like for these poor bastards…but it is not a crime and harms no one. It’s the assault which is both, it’s the abuse which demands justice and it is towards the abusers our righteous anger should be directed. And Prince…I forget, the sexual predator of teens one…is the latter. Whether or not he’s the former is irrelevant. Completely OT, and I admit this is so far out of the box it’s probably in another box, but I have come to think of these people who fight their strong nature-given urge their entire adult lives…and I mean the ones who truly do, not the liars…or sadly end up taking it, in order to not victimize innocents…I find that a weird, looooooong-term kind of courage or even weird heroism and worthy of our sympathy, admiration and respect. I’m not saying this to continue the derail, but to further illustrate the distinction between pedophiles and the sexual abusers of children. And the fact that most abusers of children would prefer to rape adults but choose children as targets of opportunity imo makes them even more worthy of our condemnation. So, again, far from contributing to the deflection, I am saying it isn’t even trying to deflect to anything true or relevant. Sorry if it wasn’t clear. Edited January 15 by James Arryn Zorral and Wade1865 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 That was a buncha word salad w/o sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 I understood it. There is some wisdom in having compassion for a person who has a difficult to control compulsion to do something that society condemns and that harms others. BigFatCoward, Secretary of Eumenes and Wade1865 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 3 hours ago, James Arryn said: it is not a crime and harms no one. 6 minutes ago, Cas Stark said: compassion for a person who has a difficult to control compulsion to do something that society condemns and that harms others. My compassion is for those who the victims of what is claimed not a crime and harms no one. Because adults using people who are not consenting to sex even when committed upon other adults, much less, on those below the age of consent -- and often committed coercively even unto violence -- is a crime and it harms and damages -- yeah, even unto death -- not infrequently. Not to mention what surrounds such crimes that enables and protects those who commit it and have other committing other crimes to enable them to act out the crime. It's obscene and beyond the pale. Secretary of Eumenes 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Zorral said: My compassion is for those who the victims of what is claimed not a crime and harms no one. Because adults using people who are not consenting to sex even when committed upon other adults, much less, on those below the age of consent -- and often committed coercively even unto violence -- is a crime and it harms and damages -- yeah, even unto death -- not infrequently. Not to mention what surrounds such crimes that enables and protects those who commit it and have other committing other crimes to enable them to act out the crime. It's obscene and beyond the pale. I don't think you understood the previous poster, or I misunderstood him. I believe he was talking about pedophiles who don't act on their impulses...e.g. they are still attracted to pre-pubescent children... but they do not act on those feelings. Thus, no one is harmed and no crime is committed. Edited January 15 by Cas Stark Wade1865 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyria Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Technically it is ephebophilia for adults who are attracted to teenagers. It is still fucking gross, so I personally don't mind them being lumped in with pedos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Back to the topic of Harold and Meghan. The RF floated having a summit to clear the air that would happen before the coronation. This strikes me as a bad idea. H & M appear, by their own account, to be the type of people who think all disagreement, or even lack of enthusiasm, is a personal attack that must be refuted. They seem absolutely of the 'give an inch, take a mile' type. Wade1865 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Yeah it’s not helpful if people are going to confuse paedophilia, being attracted to prepubescent infants, to someone how has sex with a 17 year old. ( I suspect Andrew also assumed that girl was 18 as well) While both are gross, there is clearly a difference. Worth also mentioning that 17 is over the age of consent in many countries, including the UK. If you can’t make that distinction then it’s not worth talking about it. Wade1865 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 (edited) Bullet form: 1) Pedophilia is not the act of sexually abusing children. It is the sexual attraction to children, and it is not a voluntary condition, but rather a psychological disorder. 2) The people who commit sexual abuse against children are the criminals/rapists/monsters. 3) Most of the people who commit assaults against children are NOT pedophiles, but just scumbags picking easier targets…if they had their way they’d prefer teens or adults. 4) but even that’s ~ as for many rapists it’s about power and domination rather than pursuing physical attraction. 5) There are a great many pedophiles who never touch any children sexually, who go their whole lives resisting their nature, for lack of a better word, because fulfilling their nature necessarily victimizes a child. So pedophile =/= sexual abuser of children, and equally the sexual abuse of children =/= pedophilia. Edited January 15 by James Arryn Zorral and Heartofice 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 (edited) 40 minutes ago, Heartofice said: Yeah it’s not helpful if people are going to confuse paedophilia, being attracted to prepubescent infants, to someone how has sex with a 17 year old. ( I suspect Andrew also assumed that girl was 18 as well) Yeah it’s not helpful to pretend all the minors Epstein trafficked were primarily people couple months from lega adulthood. Quote Wild, who first met Epstein in 2002, when she was 14, told the Herald that by the time she was 16, she “had probably brought him 70 to 80 girls who were all 14 and 15 years old.” It’s also not helpful it’s some great travesty to call a man in his 50s who had sex with a 15 year old or, 14 pedohile. https://www.thecut.com/2019/07/how-many-jeffrey-epstein-victims-are-there.html Edited January 15 by Varysblackfyre321 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 For the effect upon and outcome for victims which makes it OK for them: the power demonstrated by their rapist rather than their own vulnerability and lack of power? that the rapist isn't actually attracted to them because they are powerless children? that the rapist has chosen them because he is attracted by their youth? Gosh -- support monarchy be all sympathetic to those who attack those below age of consent -- not infrequently coercively and violently, and be totally finicky -- and supportive -- about whom and which are textbook paedophiles -- and, well others who do what the textbook paedophile does. Somehow you all have persuaded me that the two go together, along with all the other hideous exploitation exercised by monarchs, royalty and titled douches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 For the record, in 34 US states the age of consent is 16. The age of consent in England is 16, it is 17 in New York and is 18 in Florida. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Cas Stark said: For the record, in 34 US states the age of consent is 16. The age of consent in England is 16, it is 17 in New York and is 18 in Florida. Yes, yes, we get it you think 50 year old man who shags sex trafficked minors isn’t that bad because puberty. The queen was so brave to bail Andrew out—truly her most greatest as England’s over paid mascot. Edited January 15 by Varysblackfyre321 Deadlines? What Deadlines? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 It's useful to know what the laws are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 36 minutes ago, James Arryn said: Bullet form: 1) Pedophilia is not the act of sexually abusing children. It is the sexual attraction to children, and it is not a voluntary condition, but rather a psychological disorder. 2) The people who commit sexual abuse against children are the criminals/rapists/monsters. 3) Most of the people who commit assaults against children are NOT pedophiles, but just scumbags picking easier targets…if they had their way they’d prefer teens or adults. 4) but even that’s ~ as for many rapists it’s about power and domination rather than pursuing physical attraction. 5) There are a great many pedophiles who never touch any children sexually, who go their whole lives resisting their nature, for lack of a better word, because fulfilling their nature necessarily victimizes a child. So pedophile =/= sexual abuser of children, and equally the sexual abuse of children =/= pedophilia. Ok I am totally leaving this conversation. Cas Stark 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 1 minute ago, Heartofice said: Ok I am totally leaving this conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadlines? What Deadlines? Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Yikes. How old was he when the tabloids were running this shit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 He would have been fairly young, because I think it became public about the affair with Hewitt while Diana was still alive, I'm not sure about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts