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.
…And so it’s not enough that she voted against the appropriations bill that would have entirely funded the Israel war machine, she also needed to vote for the amendment to the bill that would have cut ‘offensive weapons’ in a bill that she was going to vote against…? source for the bill, source for vote record
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”?
…And you expect me to believe that M-L wouldn’t still be saying that she voted for an amendment to continue funding the Israeli military? That’s simply not believable when she already voted against the whole bill.
Can you tell me which sentence in that statement clearly says, “I support sending weapons to Israel”? Or are you making a lot of inferences based on you a priori beliefs?
You’re not proving your point.
Hope that helps.
You aren’t making your case here.
It wouldn’t have mattered how she voted on this bill to anyone that thinks she isn’t far enough left, or left in the correct way, because that amendment wouldn’t have eliminated all Israel weapons from the bill. As you know. Voted to stop sending some weapons to Israel? That’s not enough, therefore she supports genocide. Didn’t vote to stop sending some weapons to Israel? She supports genocide. It’s ‘heads I win, tails you lose’.
She knew that, in the end, the bill would get passed despite her nay vote.
Okay, she also knew that the amendment wouldn’t get passed, so there’s no harm in voting against it, right? You’re applying two different standards of logic here. If you look at it through the lens of, “AOC wants to eliminate all military funding to Israel”, then the votes are ideologically consistent; the first fails to meet the goal, so gets voted down, the second vote–the overall military appropriation–funds Israel, and so also gets voted down.
You’re setting up an unfalsifiable argument, where there’s no condition that would lead you to believe that she’s opposed to the genocide in Palestine.
…Have you tried a leash? (On a hand, not a neck. For safety.)
IIRC, there have been a few car companies that claimed that the transmission didn’t need service. Without service the transmissions would fail at about 100k miles; with service they would last 2-3x longer.
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.
Given that the person claiming self defense can’t have been the aggressor, maaaaaaaaaaaybe people shouldn’t be threatening other people with serious bodily harm or death? I dunno, I’m just thinking that maybe those deaths prevented at least that many people from being seriously harmed in assaults?
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.