The slippery slope


#41

The whole point of “born this way” is to deny responsibility by denying free will. If we deny free will, then consent becomes a meaningless word, and the only difference between an adult and a child is height.

The flip side of this is: all sex is rape. And the bonus track is: no rapist is responsible for his actions.

I can’t prove free will exists, but we’d damn better act as if it does or society will be one big rape party.

Anyone here remember when they used to push Teh Ghey as a lifestyle choice? AIDS killed that off by making it look like a really stupid lifestyle choice, so they went for the exact opposite argument. And that has survived to this day, because it’s at least plausible on its face.

The question no one is asking: does it even matter why they rape kids? Is there even a valid reason to do that?


#42

The new point of view is: consenting adults AND consenting kids, because some kids can be sexually attracted to adults. It’s explained in the video.

Why I lump them together? It’s a provocation, looks like it’s working. What I learned today: adding the P to the lgbqt is haram, but finding point of views that make pedophilia acceptable or more understandable is ok.


#43

Does that apply to dimorphism? Paging @finley, @Andrew0409 and @OrangeOrganics


#44

Damn it, fine, I’m watching the video.

First 1 minute I hate the timber and tone of her voice. I don’t know if it’s just her accent or if it’s because she’s an oddball. Seems to be a mixture of both.

At about 4 minutes in she clearly outlines what the difference between pedophilia and child sexual abuse is. Goes on to say: “Let me be very clear here: abusing children is wrong without any doubt. But a pedophile who doesn’t abuse children has done nothing wrong.”

Her point seems to be isolating and ostracizing people who identify as pedophiles but who won’t abuse children is counter intuitive; leading them to be isolated and more likely to commit crimes (including child sexual abuse). I don’t necessarily agree that embracing them is the answer, but I don’t see much of a problem with what she’s saying.

At no point does she say kids can be sexually attracted to adults. She says more than a few times how wrong child sexual abuse is. Goes on about counselling and medication to help them. “Nobody is responsible for their feelings but everyone is responsible for their actions” is the button on the conversation. Makes perfect sense. She still sounds like a weirdo, and I don’t agree about “embracing” them… but I don’t think ostracizing people who do want help is the answer either.

Well, okay, provocation… It’s unfortunate that your fight against pedophilia requires you to bring homosexuals down. You may want to check out Hannah Gadsby’s Nanette “stand up” set. Basically she’s said she’s stopped doing self-deprecating humor after coming to a realization. This is her line: “Because you do understand what self -deprecation means from somebody who already exists in the margins? It’s not humility. It’s humiliation.” It doesn’t quite fit the conversation, granted, but it hopefully illustrates why I think it’s a big deal.


#45

Today’s DR: does it matter why cancer happens? We’re all going to die anyway. It’s not like understanding the causes would make any difference.


#46

No idea what you are talking about mate


#47

Hmmm, @gaboman disagrees, and I can’t watch it at the moment.

There’s a long history of trying to badmouth gay people by association with pedophilia. It sounds like the video is from a psychologist noting the obvious truth that some people have such inclinations (and for those who don’t act on them, would you still burn them in acid?) I still don’t get the need to force your own impressions onto another person’s chosen label.


#48

Say, how does this fit in?

Humanity sucks.


#49

Well, I don’t think it fits the attempt at normalizing pedophilia…it feels more like some parents who failed at life.
IF it’s true though, because it’s the DAILY BEAST. I’m on the phone and reading articles here is cancer (half screen lost color), so I can only judge based on the title.


#50

It’s been picked up multiple places, for what that’s worth.

Parents suck. But if you blame them, they can just blame their parents, all the way back to Piltdown Man and Eve. Nature or nurture - it’s all about evading accountability.

Me, my only interest in human evil is making it stop. Any information in the past that can be used to make it stop is of interest to me, but any other appeal to the past is just part of the problem.

People who make excuses are not interested in making bad things stop. Fuck those people. Figuratively speaking, of course.

Still trying to figure out how #MeToo works into all of this. It seems the sexual revolution is eating its own tail.

Everyone wants freedom, but nobody wants responsibility.


#51

Like a water park, there’s more than one slippery slope…

Ignore the lede, because LA Times. TL,DR: gender confusion led to ill-considered sex change led to financial problems led to homelessness. If at some point he/she had thought it through… but, no.

Much of homelessness is due to bad life choices. But if there is no free will, then no one can be blamed for bad life choices, because choice is an illusion.

Born what way, now?

Odammitcare can’t fix stupid.


#52

Rowland was taking a position that came across as anti-nature, in terms of “nature vs. nurture”, so I thought (based on previous threads) that pro-nature people might have something to say about it.

He’s now claiming, however, to be both anti-nature and anti-nurture because he’s really anti-evasion :rofl: and pro-responsibility. He’s even claiming to be anti-evil now!

But Rollo, if you blame a slope for its slipperiness, are you not evading responsibility for your own act of slipping? :no_no:


#53

I can’t remember being pro nature.that isn’t a position I would take. Things are complex


#54

Fair enough. :slight_smile:

I still think Rowland’s the whole point of “born this way” is to evade responsibility for one’s actions makes an interesting angle for the gender identity debate. If one applies that line to LGBT people, it logically follows that one should apply it equally to non-LGBT people. :2cents:


#55

I thought for a minute that was an April Fools joke, but no, it was the 26th.

I suppose it’s reasonable to object to the word ‘natural’ on the basis of the naturalistic fallacy, but just because the fallacy exists doesn’t mean that everything natural is open to question.


#56

I didn’t read it that way (and I don’t see what sexual dimorphism has to do with it). Asserting that people have responsibility for their actions in no way negates the possibility that bad behaviour is in some sense “natural”. In fact why would we even need to take responsibility (or exercise self-control) if we weren’t subject to natural impulses that could be socially or personally harmful?

Most human characteristics are affected by both genetic inheritance and environment. One can split hairs over how much is nurture and how much is nature, but it’s not usually “98:2” or vice versa. Even sexual dimorphism is subject to environmental manipulation - for example you can go to any British council estate and see a surfeit of five-foot-four, rodent-like men and lumbering iceberg-like heifers, although that reversal of ‘normal’ is caused by the way men and women react differently to malnutrition.

The zeitgeist smacks of Victoriana: public moralising, handwringing and prudery, and child prostitution for the weekends. I suppose it’s not quite that bad yet, but the parallels are quite striking.


#57

that’s such a bigoted statement…you should apologize and start breastfeeding, I think that’s the only solution.


#58

That’s easy.

A: I’m a member of the alphabet soup community.
B: That’s your choice.
A: Actually, I was born this way. You see, there are scientific studies…
B: Quit making excuses! :no_no: You just don’t want to take responsbility for your actions!

Rowland wants us to believe A would not claim to be born a certain way if not for A’s moral failings. Then in the very next sentence he brings in the P word, thus producing a pseudo-intellectual justification for Ibby’s thesis that alphabet soup activism is a conspiracy to destroy civilization – except for the marriage part, for some reason. I’d love to see Ibby argue that about 20 years ago. (“Stop sex ed curriculum revision! Stop anti-discrimination laws! Stop normalizing gayness! But, uh, legalize gay marriage, because that’s totally cool!” Please correct me if I’m misrepresenting your opinion, @IbisWtf.)

Now let’s flip it around:

A: I’m a perfectly normal cisgender individual. I have a certain sex and zero ambiguity.
B: That’s your choice.
A: Actually, I was born this way. You see, there are scientific studies…
B: Quit making excuses! :no_no: You just don’t want to take responsbility for your actions!

See what I mean?

Honorable Finsky lecturing my worthless self about Victoriana? :astonished: I can’t even.


#59

I’ll gladly honor their scientific studies after they’ve got the replication scandals sorted out.

“Mountains and mountains of studies” as a certain hedge fund hawker once said.


#60

Go on. :slight_smile: