The Trump Administration (just Trump) Thread

[MediumBaller]

Whoops!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...opoulos-resigns-breitbart-pedophilia-comments

The Alt-Right needs to stop normalizing pedophilia.

Milo is gay, soo...

 

[TyGuy]

Damn Pedophile sympathizers.

 

[David.]

I completely understand where you're going with this Dave, and I think there is a philosophical debate to be had somewhere in this space. However, do you think this particular application fits though? That is to say, do you think the principles are close enough to be comparable or nearly equivalent?

So, while I agree an adult and a child can have a loving relationship, I'm not sure they can have a loving sexual relationship. I'm not sure how that really works, psychologically?

IMHO, it would seem the extreme tilt in power dynamics would suggest that the ideal of love is a facade over a relationship that is really built on sexual domination for solely individual / personal sense gratification and empowerment.

To the pedophile, I think almost universally, the inability not to act speaks to their nature to dominate the will of another person, no? This is more comparable to rape, and the uncontrollable urge to rape, rather than consensual sex which is more of an act of intercourse between two people where as much is given as is received (or sometimes more is given).

This is where I think the application of principles, so to speak, breaks down when comparing specifically pedophilia (again, in the medical sense) with something like homosexual sex.

Not necessarily.

Could be an emotionally stunted, asexual adult.

IF the relationship truly didnt hurt anyone, wouldnt that be ok?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Sure but the legality wasn't my argument. The solution to someome elses argument was signing off on it, therefore providing the samre situation on principle if that was only argument to overcome.

What society deems moral is subjective. Application of principle exposes that. Thats the whole point - or at least one of them.

We began the discussion comparing logical paths and specifically saying they werent equivalent morally. No one made tgat argument.

I mentioned legally as well.

However if you'd like to philosophically - and simultaneously continue the point of applying principle-"if the relationship is truly, genunely not hurting anybody, why make it your business?"

Because it is reasonable to assume that children are not in a position to know if a relationship is truly, genuinely hurting them or not. That is inherent in the idea that you would require parents to "sign off" in the first place.

Now, if we're no longer talking about children at all, then (as I've said elsewhere), the best comparator to gay marriage is incestuous marriage - especially where there is no possibility of children (for example - two brothers or two sisters, or any number of other fact patterns). That is two (and only two) consenting adults. But, that argument has been had here before and I really don't have any interest in re-arguing it.

 

[-Akronite-]

It's an interesting idea that's being put into practice. The question is, will these folks be less prone to assaulting children if given this kind of outlet?

Yeah... I don't know if that ends up being any kind of solution. Is there any evidence that something like that gets it "out of their system" or staves off the desire enough to not act on a person? Obviously you're stating you don't know, but that's my question.

I agree with the sentiment that there needs to be less stigmatization around the psychological issue of pedophilia when separate from the criminal act. These people need serious help to prevent them from doing something awful. I mean, imagine if that was your life and you had that attraction. If you had whatever ability to will yourself away from acting on it, I would hope that a solution could be found to help you have a normal life. The whole discussion is really awful though because in many instances these people have either acted on it or at least participated in the child porn industry in some way, which is about as vile as it gets.

 

[David.]

I mentioned legally as well.



Because it is reasonable to assume that children are not be in a position to know if a relationship is truly, genuinely hurting them or not. That is inherent in the idea that you would require parents to "sign off" in the first place.

Now, if we're no longer talking about children at all, then (as I've said elsewhere), the best comparator to gay marriage is incestuous marriage - especially where there is no possibility of children (for example - two brothers or two sisters, or any number of other fact patterns). That is two (and only two) consenting adults. But, that argument has been had here before and I really don't have any interest in re-arguing it.

Or mnetally handicapped.

 

[gourimoko]

Not necessarily.

Could be an emotionally stunted, asexual adult.

IF the relationship truly didnt hurt anyone, wouldnt that be ok?

Well, if I understand you correctly, then if the person were truly asexual and developmentally stunted, then I don't think they could actually be a pedophile in that, they wouldn't be sexually attracted to children.

Now, if this person isn't asexual and is a pedophile (I do think these two terms are mutually exclusive), and is somewhat emotionally stunted, then I do think in the majority of instances such a relationship would likely be harmful without any sexual activity involved.

If however, sex were to be involved, then, based on countless instances of children growing up with deep feelings of shame based on sexual ..encounters.. as children; then I would argue that any sexual relationship between a child and an adult could and likely would do irreparable harm to said child.

So no, I don't think it wouldn't be okay. I would argue that such a relationship is extremely harmful to the child.

 

[gourimoko]

Yeah... I don't know if that ends up being any kind of solution. Is there any evidence that something like that gets it "out of their system" or staves off the desire enough to not act on a person? Obviously you're stating you don't know, but that's my question.

Yep, I have the very same question.

I don't know that the simulation would be good enough... Perhaps in some cases it might make them more willing to act simply because they're consciously playing these situations out now?

 

[David.]

Well, if I understand you correctly, then if the person were truly asexual and developmentally stunted, then I don't think they could actually be a pedophile in that, they wouldn't be sexually attracted to children.

Now, if this person isn't asexual and is a pedophile (I do think these two terms are mutually exclusive), and is somewhat emotionally stunted, then I do think in the majority of instances such a relationship would likely be harmful without any sexual activity involved.

If however, sex were to be involved, then, based on countless instances of children growing up with deep feelings of shame based on sexual ..encounters.. as children; then I would argue that any sexual relationship between a child and an adult could and likely would do irreparable harm to said child.

So no, I don't think it wouldn't be okay. I would argue that such a relationship is extremely harmful to the child.

There is lots of negative data on trans people in the military but to not accept any trans people would be discrimination.

Sex and love overlap but love doesnt necessitate sex. Someone stunted could see themself as a child, and relate emotionally to one. That would be consistent with views on sex hypothetically.

 

[-Akronite-]

Yep, I have the very same question.

I don't know that the simulation would be good enough... Perhaps in some cases it might make them more willing to act simply because they're consciously playing these situations out now?

That was my first thought as well. I have a hard time believing there is a "safe" or "healthy" way to handle the issue that includes any sort of pedophilia simulations.

Does anybody know if they've found success in convincing kids with murderous tendencies to be effectively conditioned away from that. I'm sure there's been a case where a kid kills animals or something but they were able to help them before they committed homicide.

 

[Binkster]

Milo is gay, soo...

Ok?

 

[gourimoko]

There is lots of negative data on trans people in the military but to not accept any trans people would be discrimination.

Well, I would argue that between myself, @King Stannis and several others, we've discussed the qualitative and quantitative negatives associated with transgendered individuals serving in the military. And with that being said, I don't think there's a compelling argument that the government should engage in discrimination (it is discrimination, is it not?) against transgendered persons for any of the stated reasons by the administration.

I mean, simply put, the pros of admission seem to outweigh the cons of discrimination in this instance, right?

Sex and love overlap but love doesnt necessitate sex. Someone stunted could see themself as a child, and relate emotionally to one. That would be consistent with views on sex hypothetically.

I agree love and sex are two different things, but love is generally expressed as a communicative process where a person feels a two-way connection; that is to say, love is both given and received. In the instance of a pedophile specifically, I don't think this two-way street can actually exist.

I would also assert that there are different kinds of love. For example, one doesn't feel the same love towards their spouse as they do their child. Both may be full and complete but they're completely different in nature, intent, action and expression. They don't come from the same place in the brain, and aren't expressed the same way psychologically, and thus, don't manifest themselves the same way in our actions.

Now having said that, I think you present an interesting proposition where there is essentially a childlike adult, with the developmental psyche of a child who is somehow in a relationship with an actual child. I think this speaks more the question of intent and the degree to which the adult is to blame; but I don't think it changes the overall ethical question as to whether or not the situation itself is immoral, unethical, or harmful.

To that end, my question to the proposition you're putting forward would be: if this person is as stunted as we claim, why do they feel sexual attraction in this regard at all? That would be atypical for a child, right? Children don't typically "make love" with one another, being that developmentally, they're not generally sexually attracted to others.

And so this is what I mean by not being a two-way street as while children can love their parents or their siblings; children do not romantically love others. I don't think they're psychologically capable.

So for the pedophile, given he/she is acting on a sexual desire which seems impossible for the child to return; it would seem that they would be imposing their will and their desire over that of child's and the child's well-being. They feel sexual desire, but the child almost assuredly doesn't until taught to do so. So again, I think it's important to note this isn't really a relationship based on love and an exchange of that love, but, I would argue, one of control - a power dynamic where the adult is enforcing their desire over that of the child, either physically or manipulatively.

I don't think that's actually "love" in any real sense of the term?

 

[Cavatt]

That was my first thought as well. I have a hard time believing there is a "safe" or "healthy" way to handle the issue that includes any sort of pedophilia simulations.

Does anybody know if they've found success in convincing kids with murderous tendencies to be effectively conditioned away from that. I'm sure there's been a case where a kid kills animals or something but they were able to help them before they committed homicide.

Getting to people with these sociopathic or psychopathic tendencies tends to fail a lot. There is not much you can do. Most of them are not murderers, but if they do get into murder, there is almost no hope. It is scary and tragic. It is like they are missing a part of their brain to feel for others.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/why-you-cant-punish-a-psychopath-according-to-science

 

[David.]

Getting to people with these sociopathic or psychopathic tendencies tends to fail a lot. There is not much you can do. Most of them are not murderers, but if they do get into murder, there is almost no hope. It is scary and tragic. It is like they are missing a part of their brain to feel for others.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/why-you-cant-punish-a-psychopath-according-to-science

Same with socipaths.

They didn't choose their brain chemistry. You aren't better than them, youre just lucky you werent born that way. But whether or not they should be on the street is another question.

 

[TyGuy]

Same with socipaths.

They didn't choose their brain chemistry. You aren't better than them, youre just lucky you werent born that way. But whether or not they should be on the street is another question.

Damn sociopath synthesizer.