thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
No bio...
User ID: 1081
Sure, and once the euphoria of realizing your kid isn't going to die wears off, you'll be a good parent and start worrying about the next set of risks facing them--namely me. Hence the "Thanks, now gtfo." Helping kids almost always ends up being a net negative for my mental health, to which your response would almost certainly be "not my problem".
EDIT: Also, on a more humorous note, is it even physically possible to give CPR to a person "while slapping them in the face with a flaccid cock"? The flexibility required seems inhuman to me...
Break out what you mean by "sexual act," because it seems obvious to me that there are lots of "sexual acts" that are not procreation
I'm not trying to restrict "sexual acts" to only those that involve procreation though. I'm asking why procreative acts, which I believe should be central to the category, have been so thoroughly excised from it by others. What makes intercourse so important that it should completely push out everything else, and even that it should be expanded to cover things beyond PiV intercourse? To my eyes, the only plausible answer is that the people who did so are guilty of using self-motivated reasoning to gerrymander the definition to ensure they can have their cake and eat it too.
Find a different way to describe it, and you'll have an answer to your question.
No, I really won't. My confusion stems precisely from the definition of the category sexual because we consider sexual things to be special. Sexual assault is considered a worse offence than plain assault. Sexual harassment is considered a worse offence than plain harassment. Sexual orientation is similarly a legally protected category in much of the West. Somehow I'm displaying sexual entitlement by looking at a woman who chose to dress provocatively, but a woman isn't when she claims a right to be impregnated by people she's "not sexually attracted to" though? What kind of backwards definition is that?
EDIT: Grammar.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
4mo ago
No, the stranger part is the biggest reason it's not appealing to me.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
5mo ago
True, but "minor attracted person" originated in academia in people studying pedophilia specifically because the distinction you mentioned had broken down to the point of being unusable. The progressive movement adopting the term is merely the inevitable progression to it too losing its distinction. I don't know that it is possible to ever maintain the distinction since the topic holds so much power over people's emotions.
I don't think we disagree.
It's not clear to me whether we do or not.
All I'm saying is that Born This Way was never anywhere near the strongest argument for gay liberation. Acceptance of gay people and gay relationships should come from recognition that these behaviors aren't harmful and can indeed be extremely functional, personally fulfilling, and even prosocial, supporting stable family formation. ... Conversely, regardless of what causes attraction to prepubescent children, laws against child molestation should still stand.
There's an important difference between acceptance of gay people and acceptance of gay relationships, and similarly between acceptance of pedophiles and acceptance of sexual relationships between adults and children. Being outed as gay often meant losing your job, losing your social network, being subject to harassment or assault, etc, even if you didn't participate in gay relationships. Being outed as a pedophile (EDIT:) has can have similar repercussions even if you are never sexually involved with a child. The core of the Born This Way argument is that these desires are both immutable and not the result of a conscious choice, which I think is a very strong argument that they shouldn't have to hide those feelings simply to participate in society without being subject to such social sanction. The only way I think you can argue it was "never anywhere near the strongest argument for gay liberation" is if you restrict gay liberation to tolerance of openly gay relationships, which I agree it is not really relevant to, and ignore everything else it fights/fought for.
The majority of child abuse, including sexual abuse, is committed by non-pedophiles so society is apparently already on board with such trade-offs. Advocating the incarceration of pedophiles simply due to their attractions is just a way for lazy self-righteous people to feel like they are protecting children without having to do the work of actually looking into the causes of abuse and thinking seriously about the trade-offs that would be required to avert it.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
I'm pretty confident most people expect me to avoid relationships, if not interactions altogether, with people I'm attracted to.
Unfortunately I don't think that's the case. The moderation log shows @ZorbaTHut removed all her content and now her username has been updated. I don't know what happened, but it seems like it is pretty serious. Hopefully she's okay.
Feminists believe that the ordinary, non-abusive men you speak of are just sneaky abusers making big sad eyes at the judge and denying their crimes. I believe feminists wrong about this, and that they are doing considerable damage by being stupid and wrong. But they are not as willfully evil as you're portraying them.
This is not simply being stupid and wrong. This is not simply being stupid and wrong. Large prominent feminist organizations actively, willfully supporting and celebrating female abusers while completely erasing male victims if not making them out to be the abusers. They seem to justify any violence by women towards men as self-defense and any violence by men towards women as abusive. If you don't see that as willfully evil, I'm not sure what you would see as such.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
8mo ago
Yes, though I expect for interior worldspaces it'd wrap around to cover the walls and ceilings as well.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
9mo ago
This was probably in reference to their unconditional surrender in WWII and the coerced political changes that followed rather than to Perry's gunboats.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
For a close to home example, I don't think anyone at The Schism "hates" white people in the way, say, Hannah Nikole-Jones or Tema Okun does, but I think many of them would engage in a lot of hemming, hawing, and sanewashing why those attitudes make sense in context, or why they should be tolerated (but the opposite equivalent wouldn't be, a la the fiasco last month with Impassionata- I strongly doubt the mods would've tolerated a right-wing rant half as long), etc etc. Or why slurs are so much worse at certain targets, but basically don't matter towards others.
Do you have any evidence to support these claims? I find that the mods there are very hesitant to give out bans at all or even warnings for that matter, and as @drmanhattan16 notes, there's been plenty of right-wing or at least anti-progressive ranting in the sub over its lifetime. I vaguely recall @gemmaem discussing this hesitancy in a comment early on, though I'm having trouble finding a link to it with the reddit api fiasco making searching for old comments a bit troublesome at the moment.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
3mo ago
How much do you think it costs to prevent trace contamination from a fairly common ingredient in other products? Your options are effectively 1) extremely thorough cleaning, 2) completely separate production facilities, or 3) stop making either the products with sesame or those without. Option 3 is by far the cheapest and there's apparently more demand for products with sesame than without.
Right now you're talking to some harpy in your head who gives women a pass for letting their boyfriends molest their kids,
The "Ignore the shitbag mom pimping them out..." part of my comment was not intended to be a reflection of your views, but was me blowing steam on (my view of) the general status quo. I apologize for not making that clear.
who believes that all child molesters are cunning sadistic predators,
I have no idea where you got this from my comment. The best match I can come up with is
No, obviously it's just pedophiles evilly fantasizing about victimizing children until they finally get up the nerve to do it to real children. Because that's what we are. Evil people plotting evil things because we're evil. Any defense we give is just DARVO.
but even that's a very big stretch. If that is what you were referring to, then yes, let's not pursue this any further because I will very likely not be able to be civil to someone who that egregiously equates "pedophile" and "child molester" while claiming to differentiate them.
and who wants a blank check to hurt pedophiles for their desires alone.
What positive expression of those desires would you not see censored?
If I promise not to accuse you of believing child abuse is fine because you haven't given a loud enough condemnation of it, can you agree not to accuse me of believing "women can never be blamed for their contributions to child abuse and their abuse can never truly be sexual anyway"?
You don't even need to make that promise. As I said above, I didn't intend to accuse you of believing that and I'm sorry I didn't distinguish my "ranting at the sky" clearly enough.
But could you please, while you're talking to me, talk to me?
The best I can promise here is that I will try to be charitable and assume good faith. I cannot guarantee I will succeed or avoid misunderstandings however. Even putting aside the strong emotional response to the topic, there is a large inferential distance to cover.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
5mo ago
Tolkien didn't invent a new sort of hero, he was instantiating a very old (and very Catholic) sort of hero that 'most people today outside of the trad-right are simply unfamiliar with because modern culture is overwhelmingly secular and liberal.
...
I think a hero who accepts their mission specifically because it was handed down from God is of a very different nature, this is someone who believes there is an absolute authority that can and will be answered to. The moderns protagonists don't believe that, which is part of why they're so uncertain about their mission and nervous about accepting.
Again, an excellent point.
I'm disappointed Hlynka. You started out on the right path, but flubbed the ending. Tolkien's heroes are Catholic heroes not just because "Your will Lord, not mine, be done." I think the more important part distinguishing Tolkien's protagonists (and the opposite for his antagonists) is the emphasis on acting virtuously and avoiding sin even in the presence of great temptation--the ends do not justify the means and the world can never be saved through sin. Do not chase great deeds, but act appropriately when circumstances make them necessary. This is very different than what Greer and @Soriek are describing.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
6mo ago
The point was to normalize doing gay things, wasn't it?
Yes, normalizing "doing gay things" is one of the goals of the movement, but not the only one. I distinguished that from acceptance as gay people for two reasons. First, Western society was significantly more openly hostile to even celibate gay people when the Born This Way narrative became popular, which I think is important historical context to consider when evaluating its efficacy. Second, getting back to pedophilia, it is rather common for pedophiles to not actually care much about engaging in sexual relations with children but who still want to be able to participate somewhat normally in society without having to hide that they have those feelings, making the distinction between acceptance as people and acceptance of relationships a bit more pronounced in that case.
The Catholic Church's teachings are completely and totally consistent with Born This Way. They are lovingly accepting of people being gay, they just take a hard line against doing gay things. They have all kinds of programs to help people who struggle with their sinful compulsions. I don't think this comports at all with what the gay liberation movement fights/fought for.
This is a complex topic that I don't know that I can do justice to. The ideal that you refer to here is as you note only part of what they want and other aspects of the Church's teachings are incompatible with their desires. It is also unfortunately not always reflected in the actions of the faithful. For a little more detailed exploration of the topic, I'll refer you to an old discussion at r/theschism, particularly the long back and forth between /u/UAnchovy and /u/callmejay.
Note the heavy emphasis on free speech. Does this sound like modern feminism to you?
Yes, it does. Sex positive feminism maintains women should be free to engage in sex, in pornography, in sex work, etc without being shamed or otherwise punished for doing so. That seems to be by far the most prevalent form of modern feminism to me. This is completely separate from whether or not men should be able to take advantage of that freedom to satisfy their own desires.
If they were truly sex positive, they would deny that ‘objectification’ was even a real thing.
Hmmm. I thought they denied it was necessarily a bad thing, not that it exists at all.
EDIT: Grammar.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
From this description, it sounds more like a problem of excess energy than lack of training. How much exercise does he get beyond the "train him 10 minutes every day"?
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
3mo ago
Orgasms are only sexual because they can result in gamete mixing. If you remove that, what's to differentiate them from any other form of physical activity? Why should they be considered special?
I presume the shout-out relates to my advocacy for stronger standards of free speech around these parts?
No, I just thought you'd find it amusing given your views on LLMs. Or did I mix you up with someone?
I am not willing to extend that description to every single feminist who suspects that domestic abuse is rampant and primarily male-on-female, and who therefore resists efforts to change family law in men's favor.
Given the history of domestic violence research (see particularly the section on the harassment of researchers who found evidence of gender symmetry), I do not consider such ignorance to be a very good defense.
My personal understanding of the matter is that this body of evidence and theory is hopelessly biased by the Women Are Wonderful effect, plus all the other cognitive biases that lead us to assign infinite agency to men and none to women
I think it is less biases of agency that are the problem in this case and more biases in the acceptance of harm.
that sufficiently advanced wrongness is indistinguishable from malice. Willful evil, if you will.
I don't think all or possibly even most willfully evil behavior is based in malice. Gross negligence is I think an example of such, and one I think better describes my characterization of feminists in this case. They mostly don't necessarily want to hurt men, they just don't care if men get hurt.
I think a fairer characterization is "stupid and wrong." That seems like the appropriate level of charity to me.
I think that characterization is horribly infantilizing of feminists and is far less charitable than recognizing that they are being willfully evil for two primary reasons. First, doing so is in my mind just another way society doesn't take women seriously. Regardless of my disagreements with them, I don't believe they are stupid. I'd expect the average intelligence of feminists to be above the population average, as it is largely a movement of the well-educated.
Second, I think that this puts "evil" behavior on too high a pedestal, which I don't think is wise. Willfully evil behavior is normal human behavior, not something restricted to evil people. Importantly, how can I expect to recognize and not shy away from acknowledging when I'm being willfully evil to others if I close my eyes to the much easier-to-recognize case of others being willfully evil toward (people like) me? This is perhaps a bastardization of the Catholic teachings I was raised with and turned away from, but I think this ties directly in to the plea in the Lord's prayer to "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us"--there can be no forgiveness without acknowledgement.
EDIT: Grammar.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
4mo ago
I think there's something to that but it's still not that women are the ones discouraging high male sex drives, in that case it would be older men reigning in younger men.
That's just women arranging for the older men to control young men on women's behalf. Women are still ultimately responsible for it.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
5mo ago
Was the increase in the education of Afghan girls worth the increase in sexual abuse of Afghan boys?
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
8mo ago
This is true, but static objects (eg, boulders on mountains) intersect that heightmap and thus would be traversed by my search, and if they don't intersect it properly a surface without a texture on that object would be found.
I don't think I communicated the intended algorithm well. This is just intended to be a batch program that you point your load order at and it spits out a file listing all the "holes" it found. I would only cast a single ray per worldspace, straight down from the (first, if more than one) spawn location to identify a surface to start the breadth-first search. My assumption is that this initial surface would almost certainly be part of the composite surface surrounding the playable volume of that worldspace rather than something floating within it, and thus "flooding" over it with a breadth-first search would suffice to identify holes.
EDIT:
I do have a criteria to identify them: a surface with a texture adjacent to one without a texture. It is classification of them that I defer on. The definition of "adjacent to" is a bit complicated, but basically shares an edge with and if you rotated them around that edge they'd come together without intersecting another surface.
More options
Context Copy link