Epstein arrested

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I looked up one of them - John Casablancas. Consensual relationship with a 16 year old model. Not even close to pedophilia, and if fact legal in most of the developed world.

A common excuse is that she was 16 when the relationship started. She could have been 14.

 

[Derec]

The Democrats self-corrected. Remember John Edwards? Cheated on his wife. Political career ended. Al Franken was caught not actually touching a woman's breasts. Political career ended.

The Dems did not self-correct, they over-corrected. Badly.

 

[Derec]

A common excuse is that she was 16 when the relationship started. She could have been 14.

A lot of things "could be".

 

[Angry Floof]

A common excuse is that she was 16 when the relationship started. She could have been 14.

A lot of things "could be".

"Always err on the side of powerful white men." - Derec

 

[ZiprHead]

I looked up one of them - John Casablancas. Consensual relationship with a 16 year old model. Not even close to pedophilia, and if fact legal in most of the developed world.

A common excuse is that she was 16 when the relationship started. She could have been 14.

Yeah, a forty + year old guy with a sixteen year old girl. Nothing wrong or wierd about that.

 

[Derec]

Yeah, a forty + year old guy with a sixteen year old girl. Nothing wrong or wierd about that.

Of course it's weird! Nobody claimed otherwise.

But the claim in the anonymous jpeg you posted wasn't that it was weird, but that it was "pedophilia". Which it most certainly isn't.
It is also legal in most of the Western, developed world.

By the way, 41 year old in a relationship with an 18 year old is almost as weird. Would you argue then that it should be illegal or that it should be labeled as "pedophilia"?

 

[Jarhyn]

Yeah, a forty + year old guy with a sixteen year old girl. Nothing wrong or wierd about that.

Of course it's weird! Nobody claimed otherwise.

But the claim in the anonymous jpeg you posted wasn't that it was weird, but that it was "pedophilia". Which it most certainly isn't.
It is also legal in most of the Western, developed world.

By the way, 41 year old in a relationship with an 18 year old is almost as weird. Would you argue then that it should be illegal or that it should be labeled as "pedophilia"?

You are attempting to make a weak semantic argument and nobody here is going to accept it except maybe pedophiles.

This is because pedophilia is wrong for a reason.

It is not wrong strictly as a function of the victim's age but rather as a function of the possibility of symmetrical informed consent. How much does the person know about the risks, what does a person know about the implications, vs the other person. If one party to an act is incapable of being elevated to the level of the other party, to the point that both parties can make an even exchange, then there is a lack of symmetry, even in the case of consent, and this lack of symmetry invalidates consent.

In modern language, pedophilia refers generally to an attraction, any attraction, where there can be no symmetrical informed consent due to differences in experience due to differences in the very opportunity to gain exoerience.

Or, imagine a man and a little boy have had their brains swapped. The little boy is now man shaped, and the man is now little-boy-shaped.

It would be pedophilia to fuck the man-shaped-boy.

It would not be pedophilia to fuck the boy-shaped-man.

This is what pedophilia means to modern people. Quit complaining at us about how you think language shouldn't change. Language changes to suit modern understanding.

 

[Sarpedon]

Holy Fucking Shit.

Just look at everyone he's connected to. This is the scandal of the century.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is because pedophilia is wrong for a reason.

It is not wrong strictly as a function of the victim's age but rather as a function of the possibility of symmetrical informed consent. How much does the person know about the risks, what does a person know about the implications, vs the other person. If one party to an act is incapable of being elevated to the level of the other party, to the point that both parties can make an even exchange, then there is a lack of symmetry, even in the case of consent, and this lack of symmetry invalidates consent.

In modern language, pedophilia refers generally to an attraction, any attraction, where there can be no symmetrical informed consent due to differences in experience due to differences in the very opportunity to gain exoerience.

While I agree with the reasoning that's not what pedophilia means. Sexual relationships involving too much power imbalance are a bad thing, we only ban the most extreme cases but we should probably go farther.

 

[Toni]

This is because pedophilia is wrong for a reason.

It is not wrong strictly as a function of the victim's age but rather as a function of the possibility of symmetrical informed consent. How much does the person know about the risks, what does a person know about the implications, vs the other person. If one party to an act is incapable of being elevated to the level of the other party, to the point that both parties can make an even exchange, then there is a lack of symmetry, even in the case of consent, and this lack of symmetry invalidates consent.

In modern language, pedophilia refers generally to an attraction, any attraction, where there can be no symmetrical informed consent due to differences in experience due to differences in the very opportunity to gain exoerience.

While I agree with the reasoning that's not what pedophilia means. Sexual relationships involving too much power imbalance are a bad thing, we only ban the most extreme cases but we should probably go farther.

Which is why there are statutory rape laws in place now. In addition to the statuatory rapes that already virtually certain to have occurred, it is credibly claimed by multiple victoms that the rape was forceable and violent.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Holy Fucking Shit.

Just look at everyone he's connected to. This is the scandal of the century.

I hope so.

And I'm going to get whiplash watching the reaction to it as which party is more guilty changes back and forth as the story grows.

I was accused of supporting the Republicans when I pointed out this potentially catches both Clinton and Trump.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Holy Fucking Shit.

Just look at everyone he's connected to. This is the scandal of the century.

I hope so.

And I'm going to get whiplash watching the reaction to it as which party is more guilty changes back and forth as the story grows.

I was accused of supporting the Republicans when I pointed out this potentially catches both Clinton and Trump.

That is such a Democrat thing to say.

 

[Angry Floof]

Liberals are already lining up to condemn Clinton if the evidence shows he is involved.

That's the difference between authority fellators and the rest of us - they worship authority, the rest of us have principles.

 

[Ford]

Holy Fucking Shit.

Just look at everyone he's connected to. This is the scandal of the century.

You'd think.

Yet a decade ago he was caught. Arrested. Charged. Child molestation. Rape. Sex trafficking. They had him dead to rights. His punishment?

13 months in jail. But not really. 6 out of 7 days a week he was able to go home. You know, because he had important work to do. The sort of sentence that you'd get for blowing a .09 on a breathalyzer in a state where .08 was DUI.

All the people associated with his sex trafficking ring? "We're not going to talk about that." The person in charge of the whole shebang is now a Cabinet Secretary. A Cabinet Secretary in an administration that has an Attorney General hired explicitly to absolve the Chief Executive of any crimes, and one that has for all intents and purposes flipped a middle finger to their hand-picked Supreme Court when said court opined that "you can't actually do that" in regards to the census.

 

[ZiprHead]

Holy Fucking Shit.

Just look at everyone he's connected to. This is the scandal of the century.

I hope so.

And I'm going to get whiplash watching the reaction to it as which party is more guilty changes back and forth as the story grows.

I was accused of supporting the Republicans when I pointed out this potentially catches both Clinton and Trump.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Liberals are already lining up to condemn Clinton if the evidence shows he is involved.

That's the difference between authority fellators and the rest of us - they worship authority, the rest of us have principles.

Good. But it wasn't always that way.

Back in the '90's Democrats were very eager to defend Bill from the multiple rape accusations, much like Republicans today with Trump. The Clintons are yesterday's news, which is why it is safe to throw them to the mob.

 

[Angry Floof]

Liberals are already lining up to condemn Clinton if the evidence shows he is involved.

That's the difference between authority fellators and the rest of us - they worship authority, the rest of us have principles.

Good. But it wasn't always that way.

Back in the '90's Democrats were very eager to defend Bill from the multiple rape accusations, much like Republicans today with Trump. The Clintons are yesterday's news, which is why it is safe to throw them to the mob.

Both sides are not the same, Jason, no matter how much you stomp your feet and insist so.

 

[Toni]

Liberals are already lining up to condemn Clinton if the evidence shows he is involved.

That's the difference between authority fellators and the rest of us - they worship authority, the rest of us have principles.

Good. But it wasn't always that way.

Back in the '90's Democrats were very eager to defend Bill from the multiple rape accusations, much like Republicans today with Trump. The Clintons are yesterday's news, which is why it is safe to throw them to the mob.

Not all of us disbelieved the allegations against Clinton or supported him.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Liberals are already lining up to condemn Clinton if the evidence shows he is involved.

That's the difference between authority fellators and the rest of us - they worship authority, the rest of us have principles.

Good. But it wasn't always that way.

Back in the '90's Democrats were very eager to defend Bill from the multiple rape accusations, much like Republicans today with Trump. The Clintons are yesterday's news, which is why it is safe to throw them to the mob.

Both sides are not the same, Jason, no matter how much you stomp your feet and insist so.

One is Red and one is Blue. That's completely different.

 

[Derec]

You are attempting to make a weak semantic argument and nobody here is going to accept it except maybe pedophiles.

Semantics is important. Without knowing the meaning of words, verbal communication is impossible.

This is because pedophilia is wrong for a reason.

It is, when the actual meaning of the word is used. If you play fast and loose with the definition, it is not necessarily.

It is not wrong strictly as a function of the victim's age but rather as a function of the possibility of symmetrical informed consent.

You are conflating the issues of age of consent and of pedophilia.

How much does the person know about the risks, what does a person know about the implications, vs the other person. If one party to an act is incapable of being elevated to the level of the other party, to the point that both parties can make an even exchange, then there is a lack of symmetry, even in the case of consent, and this lack of symmetry invalidates consent.

Many sexual relationships, even among adults, are not symmetrical. That does not make them nonconsensual. That does not make them "pedophilia".

In modern language, pedophilia refers generally to an attraction, any attraction, where there can be no symmetrical informed consent due to differences in experience due to differences in the very opportunity to gain exoerience.

No, in modern language pedophilia refers to primary attraction to prepubescent children.
I know some people use "pedophilia" as a general insult to basically weaponize the disgust people rightly feel over it.

By the way, given your "symmetry" definition, would you say that a 50 year old having a consensual sexual relationship with a 25 year old was a "pedophile"? After all, the 50 year old has a lot more experience.

Or, imagine a man and a little boy have had their brains swapped. The little boy is now man shaped, and the man is now little-boy-shaped.
It would be pedophilia to fuck the man-shaped-boy.
It would not be pedophilia to fuck the boy-shaped-man.

Sure, let's look at "Big". Elizabeth Perkins' character being sexually attracted to 32 year old Tom Hanks is not pedophilia.
It would be wrong for her to act out on it if she knew he was really 12 of course, but she did not know it (until the end of the movie if I remember correctly).

This is what pedophilia means to modern people. Quit complaining at us about how you think language shouldn't change. Language changes to suit modern understanding.

I am still not exactly sure what this "new" definition of pedophilia is. Nothing you have written here makes the least bit of sense.