thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
No bio...
User ID: 1081
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
5mo ago
Oh yeah, the asteroid resistances are particularly egregious.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
6mo ago
I've only played 3, 4, and particle fleet, but I enjoyed them quite a bit. I'd agree that 3 seems to be the best of the bunch, particularly with the community maps (the CSM variants are way too addictive).
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
6mo ago
See her post stating that is not just true, but too obvious to say that you should cryonically freeze yourself when you die, on the off-chance that you may be revived in the future.
Hopefully all the crazy shit people will do to a frozen corpse won't cause too many issues after her revival...
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
Organizations often have privileges beyond those granted to individual members. Why should we be able to grant such privileges to organizations but not set restrictions on them?
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
HexCasting has a few built-in ways to store spells, and most of the time people will just load three or four spells down and never have to use a wand again.
I really like the looks of this. It reminds me greatly of the spellcasting from Arx Fatalis, which I was disappointed to see wasn't replicated and expanded on in other games. Now if only I hadn't just started GTNH...
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
Ah, I missed that he flamed out. I thought you meant he literally asked to be banned and was very confused since neither his user page nor the mod log indicated he had been.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
Now? Hasn't he been relatively inactive since before the move from reddit?
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
As with straight male sexuality more generally, they have no wish to destroy pedophilia. Their desire is to exploit it to coerce pedophiles into supporting them in various ways.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
11mo ago
Then they belong in the Special Olympics with all the other carve-outs.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
(which is why I found it weird you're throwing seemingly-unrelated grenades here) ... Yeah, that's what women tell me when I whip out the Fleshlight and start using it while thinking about them; I'm appropriating what beauty they have while rejecting the notion I owe them respect for their wishes and desires.
Had I not spent most of my life getting progressively more fucked up from the grenades they and their ideological allies have been chucking my way, I wouldn't be feeling the need to lob a few back now.
Sure, growing a kid inside yourself absolutely is an intensely sexual thing (even ignoring that it's just an outright fetish for some people), but I'm not as convinced it's the main attraction for lesbians looking for anonymous donations especially because it kind of sucks after a certain point. Maybe there just aren't enough lesbians on the face of the earth to have even one (IVF) Lesbian Octomom?
The issue is pregnancy (and motherhood more generally) is also an intensely female thing. They see straight women bonding over it and feel left out. They cannot accept that not having sex with men could deny them access to such an important aspect of womanhood.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
Your question is just trivial. Lesbians can have participation of men in many aspects of life. So long as they aren't also having sex with them, then they're still lesbians and not in some contradictory way.
If I subjected a woman to IVF against her will, would people consider it a sex crime?
A man's sperm fertilizing a woman's egg IS sex, by definition. Intercourse is commonly referred to as 'sex' because it often results in such fertilization. By framing IVF as '[get an egg fertilized by donated sperm]', you are dehumanizing the participants, which is the entire point for lesbians as they must dehumanize the male sperm donor in order to maintain their identity as a lesbian.
Also, isn't their identity based on mutual attraction to women? Is this reframing gayness as a negative rejection of the opposite sex?
It's not a reframing as far as I can tell. Such a negative rejection is inherent to gayness. If you remove it you get bisexuality instead.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
Why should gamete mixing be considered special, compared to blood transfusions?
I'm not arguing it should be. I'm asking why other people consider sexual orientation to be some sacred piece of their identity that needs to be special-cased in law, but then carefully define sexual orientation to only consider a subset of acts that can be considered sexual. If it is all about physical intimacy rather than sexual reproduction, why is it not romantic orientation?
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
why do you believe that a majority of pedophiles pose little to no risk to children? I've already freely conceded that many don't, but I keep saying we can't quantify the risk because we just don't have the denominator. Given that we don't have that denominator, why do you seem so confident that "a large majority of pedophiles never sexually abuse a child"?
Confident is definitely not the right word. It'd be better to say I hope it is the case because it lets me believe in the possibility of a better future and not fall even deeper into nihilistic despair. Also, we're not completely unsure of the denominator--eg, there is some research that estimates it at 1-2% of the population depending on how strictly you define pedophilia.
I feel like that simplistic popular consensus is getting in our way again...
No, in this case I think it is probably my own paranoia getting in the way. I have a lot of hang-ups around sex even beyond attraction to kids (eg, see this old chain), so it is difficult not to be overly defensive here.
If people aren't stupid or crazy for connecting CP with the victimization of children, then your strong claim seems like an overstatement (though perhaps an understandable one born of personal suffering).
I think we're still talking past each other here. Let me try rephrasing my assertion in a less disdainful way and maybe that will help. The comment which I was replying to was making a utilitarian argument that the sexualization of kids in video games could not be immoral because the characters in games are not sapient and thus actions toward them have no moral dimension. I think it is more accurate to model people's response in terms of virtue ethics rather than utilitarian ethics, in which case the harm or lack thereof of the specific situation has little to no moral bearing. I used much cruder terminology because I don't have a very high opinion of that view for probably obvious reasons, but I think this is effectively the same thing you were getting at with
Our psychology is geared toward discerning what kind of person they are
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
I'm genuinely curious about the motivations you've described
I'm happy to go into more detail about my thoughts and experiences if people are honestly interested and don't just want a freak show. I struggle a lot in gathering my thoughts for broad expositions after a serious concussion a few years ago though, so more specific prompting would be helpful.
From your comment, I felt like I was accused of believing 1) child molesters are conscious evildoers, sadists fantasizing about harming children and plotting to get at them
Well that is pretty much what I felt you were saying about pedophiles when you said
there is a direct causal link between pedophilia and trying to have sex with kids
and
So they're not fantasizing about victimizing children?
It seemed to me that you do not recognize the possibility for sexual activity with a child to not be victimization even in a fantasy setting rather than the real world nor that someone could desire it without eventually trying to act it out. I reject a framing of my fantasies as a desire to victimize children, even if I acknowledge that would be the actual result were they to play out in the real world.
My model of child molesters...
I would broadly model child molestation as three largely separate categories: 1) the molester is viewing the child as a fetish, 2) the molester is attempting to have a sexual relationship with the child, and 3) the molester is asserting dominance (not necessarily sadistically) over the child.
An example of the first category would be something like this where the relationship between the molester and the child is largely irrelevant to the act. An example of the second category would be the relationship between Asia Argento and Jimmy Bennett. As you said, this usually involves some level of delusion or motivated reasoning on the part of the molester as to the nature of the situation. I think this category largely corresponds to how you model child molesters? The third category covers things like sexual hazing and other forms of bullying.
Are you asking in what way pedophiles can express their desires without me calling for punishment?
Ways pedophiles can actively seek enjoyment in them without sanction. So tolerating their use of virtual CP would be an example, but probably not explaining it to a therapist.
I'd prefer to wall off anything depicting preadolescents from the general public, to keep it on purpose-specific platforms, where no actual children are likely to stumble upon it. If that's "censorship," then I suppose I am calling for some of it.
I think that's reasonable so long as it is actually accessible to pedophiles and not merely theoretically "accessible" in the way say CCL permits are to residents of NYC.
People are not stupid or crazy for connecting child pornography with the victimization of children, is all I'm saying.
I agree that the reason for their disgust with people who consume virtual CP is both reasonable and understandable. What I'm asserting is that even if it were conclusively shown that consumption of virtual CP significantly reduced the likelihood of a person to molest a child, most people would still be against the consumption of virtual CP because their disgust is more motivating than their desire to reduce the incidence of child abuse. I think this extends well beyond CP as well. For example, I have a decently well-paying job that doesn't involve any interaction with children. I expect that were it to become known that I'm a pedophile, I would be forced out of that job because people don't believe pedophiles deserve such a job--a disgust reaction based not on any actual risk. Do you think I'm wrong in that assessment?
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
My cats are about 50/50 with looking at my finger or what I'm pointing at, which isn't that much worse than my dog, so I'm not sure that's completely true.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
This might be a particularly feminine social weapon, I admit.
Girls do seem more prone to it than boys. Eg, https://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/girls
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
Consider two groups. Group 1 consists of convicted child molesters who report attraction to kids. Group 2 consists of people who aren't known to have had any sexual contact with kids and report attraction to kids. If an academic studies Group 2 and uses the technically correct term pedophile, people--particularly non-technical people--will assume they are referring to Group 1 because the term has lost its nuance and studies based on Group 1 are far more common for various reasons. Thus minor attracted person was coined to convey that lost nuance. By "pulled out of someone's butt with zero basis in reality", are you asserting that such confusion does not exist with the term pedophile, that such nuance is unnecessary, or something else?
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
I think it is less that the accusations came from outsiders and more that those outsiders were just using the accusations to discredit her arguments via ad hominem.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
There was no grief. The problem is merely one of not being able to organize my thoughts well enough and keep them organized long enough to write coherently. The more I tried to focus on the topic to better describe it, the more chaotic and fragmented my thoughts became.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
Hanlon's razor begs to differ. It seems much more likely to me that they didn't even realize they were publicly insulting their core customers until it was too late.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
This would seem to be a question about the hypothetical God's capacities, saying that he's not omniscient, and possibly degrading his omnipotence by his incapacity to aim or direct his absolute power. But saying that this would make him unable to lift a rock seems like linguistic confusion; the simplest way of describing this scenario is that he can lift the rock, what he can't do is find it, or notice it, or however we describe it being irretrievably outside his attention.
I don't think I explained what I meant here. It's not that He is incapable of finding or noticing it in my formulation, but that He chooses not to because for whatever reason He doesn't deign to grace it with His attention. Now that I say it like that, I guess I'm asking if an omnipotent/omniscient God can have free will.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
If I create a simulation of a human society on a computer, am I an omniscient God relative to the simulated humans? In some sense I am--I could instrument the simulation as much as I like, inspect every aspect of it in a debugger, etc. In another sense, the amount of data involved likely overwhelms my ability to focus on every little detail. There'd almost certainly be things about the simulation that I was completely unaware of not because I was incapable of knowing but because I had no reason to put in the effort to do so. Do you think there an analog to this with omnipotence? Does a rock that God is "incapable" of lifting because the mere existence of that specific rock is so beneath Him that He can't be bothered to distinguish it fit?
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
Ah, the limitations of our text-only medium strike again. It can be so hard to judge such things without the indirect cues of in-person communication. I'm glad it was just my misunderstanding then.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
1yr ago
Sorry, I think you misunderstood me. I mentioned it because there is usually an expectation that women don't have to face that particular issue and I thought you were underselling what women faced in this situation for not bringing it up. Women may be much less likely to be tarred as creeps, but that's only because we tar them as whores instead.
How is this evidence that Wikipedia is ideologically captured? It seems like a rather banal description of terminology with little editorialization. Is there something in particular about the article beyond its mere existence that makes you think otherwise?
In contrast, the 'Same-sex marriage' section of the 'Christian views on marriage' article seems more like evidence of ideological capture than the article you linked, as the listing out of individual denominations that recognize same-sex marriage while grouping opposition is pretty clearly an editorial decision to make the former seem more popular than the latter.
More options
Context Copy link