site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   686 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for January 2, 2026

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Alright this has come up before. No more pedophilia cases in the Friday Fun Thread. It's just not fun for a lot of people.

That's as good an excuse as any to end the whole series, then.

I originally started it because I had a bunch of free time at work, court websites seemed like a browsing target that the IT people wouldn't be able to complain about1,2, and the funny and interesting opinions that I found were a good karma farm3. After retiring, I continued it out of habit and for more karma. But I'm not going to post expurgated summaries just to satisfy some whiners.

1Especially because I actually found opinions directly relevant to my civil-engineering job every few months or so.

2My coworkers never got censured for browsing stock-market and news websites on their own work computers. But better safe than sorry.

3Though of course this website does not actually list a user's total karma anywhere, so perhaps the concept of "karma farming" is not applicable.

Look, you do you, but throwing a fit and saying you don't want to do this anymore because you can't include cute and funny pedophile stories... like, c'mon man.

Honestly, if you hadn't called it "hilariously hentai facts," you probably wouldn't have gotten reported. What was "hilarious" about it?

cute and funny [child-molester] stories

I resent this characterization. I do not glorify child molestation*, find the enjoyability of loli hentai inversely proportional to the realism of the girls' depictions**, and definitely am not a pedophile or a child molester.

What was "hilarious" about it?

I already explained that here.

*I find it hard to believe that the behavior depicted in this particular case would inflict any permanent psychological harm on the children involved, but I haven't done any research on this topic and do not have a strong, evidence-based opinion on it.

**Skinny = unrealistic = titillating, chubby = realistic = not titillating.

I am not saying you're a pedophile. I'm saying the story isn't funny, and presenting it as "funny" is why you're getting a lot of flack.

I find it hard to believe that the behavior depicted in this particular case would inflict any permanent psychological harm on the children involved

This really isn't helping the impression that you're being a little oblivious here.

I find it hard to believe that the behavior depicted in this particular case would inflict any permanent psychological harm on the children involved

This really isn't helping the impression that you're being a little oblivious here.

I think you are confusing 2 things:

  1. Thinking this kind of thing causes permanent psychological harm
  2. Thinking that many in society believe (or say they believe, to avoid repercussions) this kind of thing causes permanent psychological harm

I assume TK is aware of (2), but he is contesting (1). It does not seem at all obvious that this action, where there was not only consent, but the children actively engaged in the behaviour themselves, suggesting they enjoyed it ("...then allowed both children...") - would actually cause permanent psychological harm.

It does not seem at all obvious that this action, where there was not only consent, but the children actively engaged in the behaviour themselves, suggesting they enjoyed it ("...then allowed both children...")

I assume that "they wanted to do this, and I allowed them to" was the defendant's account of what transpired. Obviously there were no adults in the vicinity who can corroborate it. You'll note that essentially every adult charged with sexually interfering with children will at some point claim that the child in question seduced or took advantage of him. It was a cliché when Lolita came out, which Nabokov was banking on the reader recognising so as to understand that Humbert is an unreliable narrator.

No, I do not uncritically accept a convicted pederast's version of exactly how his act of child molestation transpired. It rather alarms me that you, apparently, do.

Well, sure - if he actually lied, and in fact had non-consensually made them do it, then yes it would be uncontroversially bad (because rape, irregardless of victim age, is bad)

No, I do not uncritically accept a convicted pederast's version of exactly how his act of child molestation transpired. It rather alarms me that you, apparently, do.

I concede it is very possible he lied and only gave a warped version of events to his wife to soothe his guilt. I was originally just assuming he told the full truth, since he was confessing to a crime, but I realise that sometimes even when people admit wrongdoing, they only admit to parts of it.

But this feels like a dodge - certainly what the defendent described as happening could happen. And it seems that everyone views even that as wrong. Would you be okay with it if the defendant provided objective proof that it was consensual? (e.g. by a video recording)

But this feels like a dodge - certainly what the defendent described as happening could happen.

It feels like a dodge for you to claim that his version of events could be what really happened. My prior is that people accused of wrongdoing will almost always deny the thing they're accused of. If they do concede that they did it, they will do everything in their power to make it sound more understandable and less wrong. This goes double if they're accused of an exceptionally heinous crime.

So: because the perpetrator did not inform his wife of what he'd done, he obviously knew that he'd done something wrong (at the bare minimum, done something he knew his wife wouldn't approve of). Once the older of the two children told the mother what he'd done, then short of accusing his three-year-old of lying, the game is up. The only way he can make what he did seem less heinous is by claiming that the children wanted to do it and he just permitted them to. I do not accept this version of events for a second, any more than I would accept a rapist's claim that the victim was a tease or a wife-beater's claim that his wife provoked him. I would put money on some form of coercion, manipulation or outright physical force being employed in this case.

Would you be okay with it if the defendant provided objective proof that it was consensual? (e.g. by a video recording)

If he provided video evidence of the crime, I would believe his version of events. I would not be "okay" with what he did, because child abuse is evil.

More comments

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats