Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

[PensivePenny]

What if someone just masturbated while thinking of the stop sign?

Should they be prosecuted for going through the stop sign?

[The_Metatron]

Empathy guides, it prevents nothing, Thomas.

Speaking of empathy, tortured naked girls. They don't rate any?

[The_Metatron]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Here's another go, Thomas.

Of these two objects, which can you simply ignore if you wish, and which will stop you regardless of your decision?





Are you beginning to get it yet?

If the stop sign prevented people from ignoring them, we would have no need of the barricade, would we?

If a person wants to get through, the barricade won't stop them either. And yet, somehow despite your assertions, stop signs DO stop people the vast majority of the time! But I guess we should throw people who enjoy thinking about running the stop sign in prison, right?

Are you beginning to get how fucking stupid your analogies are yet?

You aren't getting it, either.

People stop themselves at intersections controlled by stop signs.

Those wedge barricades? Here you go:



One thing prevents continuing, the other asks the driver not to continue.

[SafeAsMilk]

Speaking of empathy, tortured naked girls. They don't rate any?

Sure. You know who else deserves empathy? People who haven't actually committed any crimes and have no intention of doing so. For some reason, some folks go around condemning and threatening to murder such people. But hey, fuck those people, right?

[Rachel Bronwyn]

OMG, this fucking derail...

[The_Metatron]

I have to admit I'm surprised at the demonstrated lack of understanding of the concept of prevention. I wonder if this is a product of environment.

I've been frequently exposed to environments that do not tolerate certain actions. Nuclear missile systems, for example. The technical orders that prescribe various maintenance procedures tell you what to do and what not to do.

But, it's the lockouts that prevent the catastrophic results possible if the guy performing the procedure fails to adhere to the technical order.

It's one thing to tell a kid not to play with my guns. That tells them what behavior is acceptable or not. But, it's my positive actions of using a safe to which they have no access that prevents them from blowing their heads off with one.

Yeah, that's a good example of the concept. Establishing the expected standard of behavior is not preventive.

To prevent something is to make it so it cannot happen. Regardless of the decision of the person trying to make it happen.

[SafeAsMilk]

What if someone just masturbated while thinking of the stop sign?

Should they be prosecuted for going through the stop sign?

Did they stop first? Probably to masturbate?

[The_Metatron]

OMG, this fucking derail...

You think so?

Have you written your letter to Eric? If not, why not? Eric has confessed to possessing child pornography, yes?

Pretty dark topic.

Is discussion about it not appropriate here?

[Skinny Puppy]

Just wondering...

You’re a mom and dad with 2 kids. Your next-door neighbour is a known pedophile; however, he has (up to this point) never, ever acted on his urges and states that he never will.

Come Friday you and the Mrs want to go to a movie... can’t find a babysitter. But hey, the next-door neighbour offers to look after your kids for you. And, since he really is a nice guy he also says he’d like to take them to the park on Saturday to give the two of you a break and after the park he’s wants to take them swimming at the local lake.

Now I’d like to know (names please) how many here will take him up on his offer.

Yes I would
1
2
3
4

No I wouldn’t
1 Skinny Puppy
2
3
4

[SafeAsMilk]

I have to admit I'm surprised at the demonstrated lack of understanding of the concept of prevention. I wonder if this is a product of environment.

I've been frequently exposed to environments that do not tolerate certain actions. Nuclear missile systems, for example. The technical orders that prescribe various maintenance procedures tell you what to do and what not to do.

But, it's the lockouts that prevent the catastrophic results possible if the guy performing the procedure fails to adhere to the technical order.

It's one thing to tell a kid not to play with my guns. That tells them what behavior is acceptable or not. But, it's my positive actions of using a safe to which they have no access that prevents them from blowing their heads off with one.

Yeah, that's a good example of the concept. Establishing the expected standard of behavior is not preventive.

To prevent something is to make it so it cannot happen. Regardless of the decision of the person trying to make it happen.

Yeah, I get that, I'm pointing out that it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic being discussed. What's the gun safe or the truck barrier in this situation? Murdering people who think about stuff that gives you the heebies? Are you saying that there's nothing preventing a person from burning and murdering a girl other than good faith? If not, what the fuck are you talking about?

[SafeAsMilk]

Just wondering...

You’re a mom and dad with 2 kids. Your next-door neighbour is a known pedophile; however, he has (up to this point) never, ever acted on his urges and states that he never will.

Come Friday you and the Mrs want to go to a movie... can’t find a babysitter. But hey, the next-door neighbour offers to look after your kids for you. And, since he really is a nice guy he also says he’d like to take them to the park on Saturday to give the two of you a break and after the park he’s wants to take them swimming at the local lake.

Now I’d like to know (names please) how many here will take him up on his offer.

Yes I would
1
2
3
4

No I wouldn’t
1 Skinny Puppy
2
3
4

Basically nobody. So, shoot them in the face, right?

[Thomas Eshuis]

Empathy guides, it prevents nothing, Thomas.

More blind, counterfactual assertions.

Speaking of empathy, tortured naked girls. They don't rate any?

Speaking of non-sequitur straw-men, why do you keep throwing them out instead of actually adresssing my points? Or providing evidence for your assertions?

[Thomas Eshuis]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Here's another go, Thomas.

Of these two objects, which can you simply ignore if you wish, and which will stop you regardless of your decision?





Are you beginning to get it yet?

If the stop sign prevented people from ignoring them, we would have no need of the barricade, would we?

If a person wants to get through, the barricade won't stop them either. And yet, somehow despite your assertions, stop signs DO stop people the vast majority of the time! But I guess we should throw people who enjoy thinking about running the stop sign in prison, right?

Are you beginning to get how fucking stupid your analogies are yet?

You aren't getting it, either.

People stop themselves at intersections controlled by stop signs.

Those wedge barricades? Here you go:



One thing prevents continuing, the other asks the driver not to continue.

Still baselessly asserting that prevention can only apply to physical obstacles.

[Skinny Puppy]

Just wondering...

You’re a mom and dad with 2 kids. Your next-door neighbour is a known pedophile; however, he has (up to this point) never, ever acted on his urges and states that he never will.

Come Friday you and the Mrs want to go to a movie... can’t find a babysitter. But hey, the next-door neighbour offers to look after your kids for you. And, since he really is a nice guy he also says he’d like to take them to the park on Saturday to give the two of you a break and after the park he’s wants to take them swimming at the local lake.

Now I’d like to know (names please) how many here will take him up on his offer.

Yes I would
1
2
3
4

No I wouldn’t
1 Skinny Puppy
2
3
4

Basically nobody. So, shoot them in the face, right?

That’s not what I said or implied. My point is that up until now they are 100% innocent, but they do present a very real (or potential) threat to your kids regardless of innocence. Is that fair? Fair doesn’t count when talking about keeping one’s kiddies safe.

[Thomas Eshuis]

I have to admit I'm surprised at the demonstrated lack of understanding of the concept of prevention. I wonder if this is a product of environment.

It's a product of you insisting your idiosyncratic usage of the term is the only real TM definition.
In the broadest sense, prevention applies to anything that stops something from occuring.
Including personal ethics, empathy and/or neurological disorders.

I've been frequently exposed to environments that do not tolerate certain actions. Nuclear missile systems, for example. The technical orders that prescribe various maintenance procedures tell you what to do and what not to do.

But, it's the lockouts that prevent the catastrophic results possible if the guy performing the procedure fails to adhere to the technical order.

It's one thing to tell a kid not to play with my guns. That tells them what behavior is acceptable or not. But, it's my positive actions of using a safe to which they have no access that prevents them from blowing their heads off with one.

For the umpteenth time.
Empathy not moral rules or explanations.

Yeah, that's a good example of the concept. Establishing the expected standard of behavior is not preventive.

It's also an incredibly disengenuous straw-man after I've repeatedly pointed out to yout its about empathy not social pressure, consensus or moral rules.

To prevent something is to make it so it cannot happen.

Indeed.
If I empathize with other people, I don't want to hurt them. Meaning I am prevented from forcing myself on them sexually, or otherwise, because it I could not bear to do it.

Regardless of the decision of the person trying to make it happen.

Except, again, it's not a decision, it's mentally impossible to conciously make that decision in the first place.

You can continue to ignore these points as much as you want, it will only demonstrate you won't engage on this topic with any degree of rationality.

[The_Metatron]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

I have to admit I'm surprised at the demonstrated lack of understanding of the concept of prevention. I wonder if this is a product of environment.

I've been frequently exposed to environments that do not tolerate certain actions. Nuclear missile systems, for example. The technical orders that prescribe various maintenance procedures tell you what to do and what not to do.

But, it's the lockouts that prevent the catastrophic results possible if the guy performing the procedure fails to adhere to the technical order.

It's one thing to tell a kid not to play with my guns. That tells them what behavior is acceptable or not. But, it's my positive actions of using a safe to which they have no access that prevents them from blowing their heads off with one.

Yeah, that's a good example of the concept. Establishing the expected standard of behavior is not preventive.

To prevent something is to make it so it cannot happen. Regardless of the decision of the person trying to make it happen.

Yeah, I get that, I'm pointing out that it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic being discussed. What's the gun safe or the truck barrier in this situation? Murdering people who think about stuff that gives you the heebies? Are you saying that there's nothing preventing a person from burning and murdering a girl other than good faith? If not, what the fuck are you talking about?

I"m talking about an unsupported and high risk idea that pedophiles' controlling their behavior using their own sense of empathy or social mores is somehow "preventive". Is this not plain?

Also, take some care as to how you represent that which I've written. Pretty sure I've been clear that I've been talking about something a touch more sever than "people who think about stuff ".

Take Skinny Puppy's recent post, for example. Do you consider a confessed pedophile's professed sense of empathy to be sufficient preventative to hire him to babysit your own 9 year old daughter?

[SafeAsMilk]

Just wondering...

You’re a mom and dad with 2 kids. Your next-door neighbour is a known pedophile; however, he has (up to this point) never, ever acted on his urges and states that he never will.

Come Friday you and the Mrs want to go to a movie... can’t find a babysitter. But hey, the next-door neighbour offers to look after your kids for you. And, since he really is a nice guy he also says he’d like to take them to the park on Saturday to give the two of you a break and after the park he’s wants to take them swimming at the local lake.

Now I’d like to know (names please) how many here will take him up on his offer.

Yes I would
1
2
3
4

No I wouldn’t
1 Skinny Puppy
2
3
4

Basically nobody. So, shoot them in the face, right?

That’s not what I said or implied.

That's where the thread's gone, in case you haven't been reading.

My point is that up until now they are 100% innocent, but they do present a very real (or potential) threat to your kids regardless of innocence. Is that fair? Fair doesn’t count when talking about keeping one’s kiddies safe.

The point is that you don't trust them. Fair, I wouldn't trust them either. I also don't trust the homeless guy down the street to watch my kids for another set of reasons. If you have a point you haven't made it yet, I think it would be helpful to state it plainly instead of being coy.

[PensivePenny]

Just wondering...

You’re a mom and dad with 2 kids. Your next-door neighbour is a known pedophile; however, he has (up to this point) never, ever acted on his urges and states that he never will.

Come Friday you and the Mrs want to go to a movie... can’t find a babysitter. But hey, the next-door neighbour offers to look after your kids for you. And, since he really is a nice guy he also says he’d like to take them to the park on Saturday to give the two of you a break and after the park he’s wants to take them swimming at the local lake.

Now I’d like to know (names please) how many here will take him up on his offer.

Yes I would
1
2
3
4

No I wouldn’t
1 Skinny Puppy
2
3
4

Basically nobody. So, shoot them in the face, right?

That’s not what I said or implied. My point is that up until now they are 100% innocent, but they do present a very real (or potential) threat to your kids regardless of innocence. Is that fair? Fair doesn’t count when talking about keeping one’s kiddies safe.

Well, that has kinda been the argument here. What if that neighbor fantasized about your child while masturbating? Would that be cause for retribution? You can keep your kids safe, respect a man who abstains from improper behavior that would affect your children, and refuse to leave him alone with the kids.

I've invited drug addicts into my home. I just hide my scripts. Same with my wallet. I keep it close if there's a thief around.

[Thomas Eshuis]

Just wondering...

You’re a mom and dad with 2 kids. Your next-door neighbour is a known pedophile; however, he has (up to this point) never, ever acted on his urges and states that he never will.

Come Friday you and the Mrs want to go to a movie... can’t find a babysitter. But hey, the next-door neighbour offers to look after your kids for you. And, since he really is a nice guy he also says he’d like to take them to the park on Saturday to give the two of you a break and after the park he’s wants to take them swimming at the local lake.

Now I’d like to know (names please) how many here will take him up on his offer.

Yes I would
1
2
3
4

No I wouldn’t
1 Skinny Puppy
2
3
4

You're a filatelist, with a large, exclusive and very valuable stamp collection. Your nextdoor neighbour is a known environmental activist who thinks the post systems is harmful to the environment. However, he has, to this point, not destroyed any mail related items nor attacked members of the postal system.

Come Friday you and the Mrs want to go to a movie... can’t find a stampsitter. But hey, the next-door neighbour offers to look after your stamps for you. And, since he really is a nice guy he also says he’d like to take them with them to the Burning Man festival on Saturday to give the two of you a break and after the Burning Man festival he’s wants to take take your chrismas letters to the post office for you.

Now I’d like to know (names please) how many here will take him up on his offer.

Yes I would
1
2
3
4

No I wouldn’t
1
2
3
4

[The_Metatron]

Thomas, you ascribe to empathy much more than it deserves.

You ever slaughter an animal? With your bare hands?

You think that animal enjoys it? Or, do you think it does what it can to protect its own life?

Do you further think that stops the butcher from slaughtering the animal?

I've killed plenty of animals to eat them. Hundreds. I knew perfectly well their fear. I sure wouldn't have wanted what I was about to do to them to be done to me.

But, I did it anyway. Lots of times. I did it as quickly and cleanly as I could, but I did it anyway.

That empathy prevented nothing. Even in its presence, I made a decision to act.

As an aside, if you eat meat, you do also. Every time.

If I had to kill animals to sustain my family now, I would do it. The animals wouldn't like it, and I would be perfectly aware that they don't, but I'd do it anyway.

So much for the power of your precious empathy.