How Should Society Handle Pedophiles

[Raptorsin7]

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Seems more like you're questioning the effectiveness of his methods rather than the sincerity of his intentions. Why not take his word for it?

No i'm not questioning his effectiveness, I actually appreciate the way he's going about it.

I like mrgirl I think what he's doing is good and I was kind of longing for an online content creator to speak sense to some of the blind spots in progressive ideology.

I just view what's he's doing as distinct from simply dialoging with progressives and conservatives to promote more inter-political dialogue. I can see how what he's doing is a dialogue in some sense so my initial criticism may been unwarranted, but I see it more as getting on his soapbox and speaking the truth to whoever he can. 

[Etherial Cat]

3 hours ago, Raptorsin7 said:

I just can't get past the perspective that pedophilia is harmful to society/children, but this seems to contradict the truth that reality is all good.

There is an absolute truth, but it has to be put in balance with relative truths. And not all relative perspectives are made equals.

Someone could kidnap you, and leave you to starve to death and thirst in the desert. Would you find it all good while dying? Should we find it all good?

Surely, if you'd take some very high perspectives, you'd still see how it is all love. But you'll get plenty of relative truth under where this move would be far from "all good".

Invalidating relative truth=  best way for spiritual bypassing!

[Raptorsin7]

1 minute ago, Ulax said:

@Raptorsin7 What if your son was abused by a paedophile?

Idk it's a tough question. Part of me would want vengeance and retribution. Another part would see that I could have been that pedophile and he didn't choose to be a pedophile 

[Scholar]

31 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Another way to put it: morality is about humans want to say it is.

In our current world, anyone that has anything to say about what morality is (or isn't) is a human saying what they want, thus morality is still fundamentally about what humans want.

But that's just your opinion, none of this is objective whatsoever. I view morality as something metaphysical, not just something humans come up with. Morality means preference, and firstly, all conscious beings have preferences, not just humans. Just because someone cannot communcate their morality, or symbolize it via language, does not mean it is not present.

So you are just asserting that only humans have anything to say about morality, but that might simply only be because humans can speak. And then you are saying, that morality is about those wants of those individuals who can speak. It is a nice structure you  have created for yourself where you can undermine the prefererences of anything that cannot speak, and infact you will most likely ignore other ways individuals communicate with you and deem it is irrelevant to morality.

None of this is objective, and all of it is simply a way to justify your view of human supremacy.

 

I could also create a nice little ideology that ties morality to be exclusive to white people, or somehow that it is tied to evolution, nature and natural selection as the nazi's successfully did. It was very popular back then, and the desire to construct these kinds of ideologies is no different in you than it was in Adolf Hitler.

Edited January 4, 2022 by Scholar

[Raptorsin7]

2 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

There is an absolute truth, but it has to be put in balance with relative truths. And not all relative perspectives are made equals.

Someone could kidnap you, and leave you to starve to death and thirst in the desert. Would you find it all good while dying? Should we find it all good?

Surely, if you'd take some very high perspectives, you'd still see how it is all love. But you'll get plenty of relative truth under where this move would be far from "all good".

Invalidating relative truth=  best way for spiritual bypassing!

I'm not attempting to invalidate relative truth. I want to reconcile them.

 

[Fearless_Bum]

Honestly I think first it's important to handle other social issues, then we go to the pedophile stuff. 

It's kinda like asking nowadays "how do we get a space ship into another solar system?" Like we are barely on Mars lol.

We will fix a shitload of social issues first before we even begin to seriously consider how to handle pedophiles. 

[vizual]

Just now, Fearless_Bum said:

Honestly I think first it's important to handle other social issues, then we go to the pedophile stuff. 

It's kinda like asking nowadays "how do we get a space ship into another solar system?" Like we are barely on Mars lol.

We will fix a shitload of social issues first before we even begin to seriously consider how to handle pedophiles. 

"That issue is irrelevant as long as there are children starving in Africa"

If I had a penny every time I heard a variation of that argument I'd be rich. And we know it's a bad argument.

[Carl-Richard]

59 minutes ago, Scholar said:

But that's just your opinion, none of this is objective whatsoever. I view morality as something metaphysical, not just something humans come up with. Morality means preference, and firstly, all conscious beings have preferences, not just humans. Just because someone cannot communcate their morality, or symbolize it via language, does not mean it is not present.

So you are just asserting that only humans have anything to say about morality, but that might simply only be because humans can speak. And then you are saying, that morality is about those wants of those individuals who can speak. It is a nice structure you  have created for yourself where you can undermine the prefererences of anything that cannot speak, and infact you will most likely ignore other ways individuals communicate with you and deem it is irrelevant to morality.

None of this is objective, and all of it is simply a way to justify your view of human supremacy.

I was actually kind of hesitant to say humans as I started thinking about animals and aliens. I guess this is what I was getting at: in our current world, only humans have an abstract understanding of morality as a concept and are able to discuss it, and this is both the origin of the diversity of values and the expression of disagreement itself.

In other words, if I'm allowed to modify my previous statement again: "moral frameworks are about what humans want to say they are", which is basically a roundabout way of saying "humans make moral frameworks", which is kinda "duh!"  But yes, I agree that morality is about preferences and that preferences exist universally for all creatures.

I've basically said a bunch of nothing, so I'll try to save my ass: You can't truly know somebody's preferences. You can only infer it based on your own. Even communication itself is a reflection of your own preferences, because like your preferences, your cognitive interpretative structures were molded by conditioning and evolution. However, we can't even pretend to know somebody's preferences if they don't communicate it somehow. Whether that communication is verbal and abstract (a moral framework) or non-verbal and empathetic (a mammalian cry) is just a matter about information density.

Nevertheless, in the words of the patron saint of pedos (joke), the path forward towards a global discussion of morality is mutual understanding, which requires finer communication, empathy and charity. Therefore, the future of animal rights is less about animal shelters and more about Neuralinks and Chinese lessons 

[Dryas]

Therapy

Edited January 4, 2022 by Dryas

[SgtPepper]

Put them in therapy.

If they commit a crime like sexual abuse of a child, neuter them and prison. 

[Consept]

One way to think about this is to imagine that whatever type of person you're attracted to, man, woman whatever, is seen as disgusting and evil by society, not only that but you yourself know you can't engage in any kind of relationship with them because its harmful to the other party. 

So from this point of view, how would you want to be treated and what do you think would help you not engage in potentially damaging behavior to vulnerable people?

 

 

[Danioover9000]

@Raptorsin7

9 hours ago, Raptorsin7 said:

So i've been watching the youtuber mrgirl recently and I think it's good that he's pushing boundaries by trying to create more empathy for demonized groups like Pedophiles.

But I'm torn on what is the appropriate perspective to have towards pedophiles. On the one hand I think it's possible to transcend pedophilia like it's a mental disorder, but there may be many people who never get that chance in this life time so they will be stuck with sexual attraction to children. 

Isn't it true to say that pedophilia is actually all good, because reality allows and accepts pedophilia? So from the highest truth there is literally nothing wrong with pedophilia? But at the same time I could not handle if I had kids and they were being sexually abused, but maybe this is my own judgment and projection?

It seems like the appropriate response is to accept pedophiles and let them express their desires, but not through actual interaction with children but maybe only fantasy or virtual reality or something? But doesn't this perspective still contain some demonization of pedophiles? 

I just can't get past the perspective that pedophilia is harmful to society/children, but this seems to contradict the truth that reality is all good.

   What do you like about his way of pushing boundaries specifically? Becauss I think that his style is much less about pushing boundaries and more about being non partisan and centrist while having a dry self deprecating sense of humor with a bit of trolling, in so far as I've seen his interactons with Vaush, Rose, BookSmarts, Stardust and Destiny, this is the style I intuit from him. He is also not that interested in optics, manipulation and rhetoric and more interested in triggering some kind of reaction which creates self awareness of one's blind spot on specific hot issues.

   Objectively speaking, we have to create a few categories in regards to handling Pedophilia: one catagory is those who have a natural attraction to children, yet are tame and congruent with their society around them that they are highly responsible in how they handle their sexual urge, for example masturbating in private. Another catagory is Paedophiles who have natural attraction, but are less tame and incongruous to society around them, and either have less responsibility in handling their sexual urge in a healthy way which can lead to catharsis, or don't care and choose to express those urges, aka the pedophiles who are more sociopathic and/or psychopathic, which creates the sub category of psychological development and personality traits/typing. Objectively speaking, if their behaviours are significantly self monitored by themselves, or are managed by outside, then they are in the first catagory which are benign pedos, whuch means that standards in treating such cases would be lighter. However, if they develop across to the second category, and are born with those tendencies and are traumatized in childhood and haven't processed the childhood abuse out of their system, and either have the desire, intent and a history of offense, then in the second catagory our prescriptive approach changes into harsher treatment of such hard cases. Your subjective experience unfortunately is inferior to the objective approach in handling this issue, because the way you are asking how this issue should be handled is at the collective level of institutions, organisations, court systems, which is largely governed by consensus reality, cultures and objective agreed upon standards using the secular modernism framework.

   Just because god is the highest love in the infinitum domain, does not equal all Pedophilia is good in the relative domain. You are conflating God's love to being equal to relative treatemnt of a finite issue. This is like taking Leo's premise about all of reality is good, then adding a specific finite issue, and concluding from that that all aspects of that specific issue is good. That is a valid argument, but isn't sound and tenuous at best going from premises to conclusion. You are also confusing and conflating the relativity domain to absolute, by saying how this struggle is contradicting the claim that reality is all good, which is like making an apples to orange comparison, except you are comparing an apple to an alien planet, which has many layers of contrasts and isn't the same catagory at all.

[Raptorsin7]

2 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

What do you like about his way of pushing boundaries specifically?

I think it's entertaining and refreshing. He brings up good points, and he has a nonchalant attitude I like, and I think it disarms his conversation partners so what he says is more palatable.

3 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

Just because god is the highest love in the infinitum domain, does not equal all Pedophilia is good in the relative domain. You are conflating God's love to being equal to relative treatemnt of a finite issue. This is like taking Leo's premise about all of reality is good, then adding a specific finite issue, and concluding from that that all aspects of that specific issue is good. That is a valid argument, but isn't sound and tenuous at best going from premises to conclusion. You are also confusing and conflating the relativity domain to absolute, by saying how this struggle is contradicting the claim that reality is all good, which is like making an apples to orange comparison, except you are comparing an apple to an alien planet, which has many layers of contrasts and isn't the same catagory at all.

I'm skeptical that it makes sense to hold relative and absolute distinctions as you progress on the path. It seems more like a stop gap approach for people who have to yet to embody or realize the truth of the absolute, but I am not sure this is just an assumption. I wonder if even the most enlightened among us hold these kinds of arbitrary distinctions between the relative and absolute, my intuition tells me that these kinds of distinctions are only tenable from an egoic/devil pov.

[Fearless_Bum]

@vizual read my post again, without your children in Africa example covering it up. 

No putting words in my mouth sir. 

[vizual]

1 minute ago, Fearless_Bum said:

@vizual read my post again, without your children in Africa example covering it up. 

No putting words in my mouth sir. 

you are arguing for the fallacy that we first have to tackle a bigger problem before we can tackle a smaller problem. And I'm saying that's nonsense.

[Fearless_Bum]

1 minute ago, vizual said:

you are arguing for the fallacy that we first have to tackle a bigger problem before we can tackle a smaller problem. And I'm saying that's nonsense.

@vizual woah no way, again read my post, I'm saying the opposite lol.

[Consept]

13 minutes ago, Knowledge Hoarder said:

The key question in this matter is: can pedophilia even be treated, and can it be treated effectivelly? The answer to that question most likely determines, how we should handle pedophiles.

Currently, our best option is to identify them as soon as possible, and put them in jail. But maybe that will change in the future.

Lets assume you cant treat them, there are conversion centers for gay people and they dont really work. If you mean treat as in stop them from committing abuse, im sure there are a good deal that dont and there are some that probably need treatment to not go down that road, the ones that do abuse or are likely to obviously put them away from the public. 

So the question remains, the ones that are just in public and dont commit any abuse, what do we do with them? Do we leave them to get on with their lives or is the risk too much?  

[Preety_India]

5 minutes ago, Consept said:

 

So the question remains, the ones that are just in public and dont commit any abuse, what do we do with them? Do we leave them to get on with their lives or is the risk too much?  

I think it's best to ostracize them. Won't we do the same to a potential terrorist who hasn't blown up a building yet? 

 

[Preety_India]

10 minutes ago, Knowledge Hoarder said:

@Consept Are the causes for pedophilia psychological or biological? And is it fair to compare pedophilia with homosexuality, which we already factually know is biological? I mean, we can observe gay animals too. I don't see many pedophilic animals.

I agree with this. You won't find pedophilia in nature. It's a deviance of the mind, specifically generated by some depraved evil minds. 

 

[vizual]

17 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

I agree with this. You won't find pedophilia in nature. It's a deviance of the mind, specifically generated by some depraved evil minds. 

 

Of course pedophilia happens in nature. Just like it has been happening since the dawn of mankind with humans. In human history; things like pedophilia, rape and murder are the norm, not the exception. Nature doesn't care about your age, if the woman is able to procreate than she's ready.

Of course pedophilia is not moral, just like rape and murder are not moral.