This guy also has a whole post on Substack complaining that the left is too wary of age gaps in relationships and that this is an “attack on heterosexuality” or whatever. It’s kind of funny how these “anti woke” types will decry that queer people are all groomers and yet proclaim that age gaps and adults dating teenagers is part of heterosexual culture under the same breath.
Because the only thing that’s keeping them from the most depraved things humans can do is the laws. They grew up wrong. The rest of us are asking to live our authentic lives and they can’t think of anything that would stop us, upon living our authentic lives, from committing depraved acts because that’s what they would do if the laws allowed it. We ask to be allowed to have healthy relationships between consenting adults and they see a dangerous precedent that once we’re allowed to do that, then what else are we allowed to do. Its from a basic difference in where they think ethics and morality come from. I think ethics and morality come from within ourselves and that laws should be written to establish communal protections that allow people to achieve true freedom from oppression. They believe ethics and morality exist separate from humanity and laws exist to ensure intrinsically bad people (everyone) remains moral. Within that group, the repressives we’re talking about in this post are truly the most dangerous.
Look. All this is super complicated and I’m realizing I’m over simplifying entire systems of ethics it took me 35 pages single spaced to describe in college. Its valuable to have discussions about where ethics come from when discussing politics because ultimately that’s what you actually vote on and about
Very well put, thank you
Edit: replied to the wrong comment. I absolutely agree with you
That was some wild and deranged shit holy fuck. And the comments too.
There is a loooooooooooooong fucked up history of this being sanctioned by organized religions of all types. It stems from the patriarchal ideal woman being a baby factory and is absolutely a barbaric practice. The men in these religions are conditioned to be interested in young virginal girls that they call women but treat like property.
https://phys.org/news/2020-08-reveal-patterns-sexual-abuse-religious.html
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352250X20301421
https://www.gotquestions.org/child-marriage.html
https://www.teenvogue.com/story/child-marriage-and-religion-in-the-united-states
Thought experiment for anyone who thinks $10 million would make this acceptable. Which I hope is no one here in this thread, but bear with me while I argue with no one.
What if we asked this question again for $5 million? $1 million? $100,000? $10,000? $100? $1?
How would you ever begin to draw a line? Should the law say that there is a particular price tag at which this suddenly becomes legal?
Also, suppose, not so hypothetically, that we live in a world where poverty is itself a coercive factor. If the girl and her parents can’t afford to say no, is this really consent?
I once came around the hypothetical of like, for how much would you sell your foot. People talked about millions. I modified the question to selling a toe because I couldn’t find anyone willing to even name a price for their foot. My friends were still like 5 mil, 10 mil, 100 mil when it was about a middle toe. Except my coworker, not having heard anyone answer the question, he was like “oof, hard question, I guess 50€”.
People always say stuff like “I would not sell my toe for 5 million usd”
And then you rephrase the question into something like
“Would you sell your toe if you never had to work again, could pursue any hobby you wanted within reasonable limits, and could own a reasonable home for the rest of your life?”
And suddenly it seems infinitely more appealing
To me that someone wouldn’t cut off their toe (assuming anesthesia and all that) for something like 1 million usd is ridiculous. We already sell so much of ourselves and our time for work and the pursuit of money for survival.
I don’t know exactly what my limit would be, but for a toe it might have been closer to somewhere in the tens of thousands of dollars range.
You want a toe? I can get you a toe, believe me. There are ways, Dude. You don’t wanna know about it, believe me.
I’m not touching the original question with a 10ft pole but…
“Where’s the Line?” Counterpoint: you’re parachuting out of the sky onto an island. There’s a sandy beach on your left and an ocean with 20 ft waves pounding on your right. The exact line between the ocean and the sand is undefinable. I can still easily choose the sandy side, because drowning sucks.
“Get banged by creepy old dude for $1” is definitely the water, “get banged by creepy old dude for $10million+” is definitely the beach.
“Not getting propositioned by creepy old guy” is “not riding in homemade airplanes” maybe? 🤷♂️
It’s called Pedophilia, he’s a pedophile or in the making.
It’s actually called hebephilia when it’s about the sexual attraction to pubescent children between 11 and 16
why are people obsessed with coming up with scenarios in which it could be okay to have sex with children
Be… because they want to have sex with children?
Found the pedophile.
Well, first of all, I don’t think I’ve ever been asked a question in such a horrible manner, the first question. You don’t even say, ‘Hello. How are you?
How this post really reads:
Let’s say I want to have sex with a 14 year-old girl, and pay her parents $10K. Blah blah blah the girl is not victimized blah blah she really benfits from this too blah blah really, I swear blah blah. The girl agrees, as do both of her parents. Should I do it? And does your opinion matter to me or are you female?
deleted by creator
Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds? Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course… Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?! Churchill: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.deleted by creator
And does your opinion matter to me or are you female?
this is weird considering females are a considerably less respondent subsection, as well as tend to agree substantially more than males, which is certainly an odd statistical anomaly. You would think it would only be no in response, but this is also twitter, so maybe people were just shitposting?
Try reading “Delusions of Gender” by Cordelia Fine.
yeah, that’s why i’m saying that it’s weird that they’re different response groups. I can see why more men responded, but unless trolling it doesn’t really explain the variations all that much, but then again it could just be bad sample sizing, stats data collection is hard.
The guy who asked this is basically asking if it’s okay for parents to prostitute out their child.
And sadly that is quite common
I love this meme format
Sadly, this is so common around the world, I would say that if this poll was done for every person in the world we would have maybe even a tie.
I’m talking about child marriages (which are legal and common in some US states) they are basically this, except there is less money, some of it goes to the parents, some to the child (because shared assets)
Yes exactly.
In the States where child marriage is not legalized, it’s treated as an informally arranged marriage. Basically, one guy promises his daughter to another guy in exchange for something and they wait until the girl is 18 or in some cases 17 or 16 before getting anything on paper.
You did notice the majority of “No” answers came from men?
Are you seriously trying to say that, because of this random online post on a predominantly male site (where most of the yes answers for “women” are likely men) that means that the predatory group isn’t overwhelmingly men when it comes to child marriages? Or am I just cataclysmically misunderstanding your comment about the stated gender of the responses of post in response to someone simply talking about girls getting informally married off to men?
The UNFPA & UNICEF report that 95% of adults who marry children are men, while 5% are women. Between 85% and 95% of marriages between a child and an adult involve an adult male marrying a girl. The UN claims that in the US in particular, 86% of married children are girls, a significant majority of whom are married to adult men. According to the UNFPA, globally 25-30% of women get married before age 18, while 3-5% of men get married before age 18; and while most girls who get married are married to adult men, most boys who get married are married to girls (who are also children). Additionally, 10% of women get married before age 15, while 0.3% of men get married before age 15. This is likely because 1. a majority of cultures are highly patriarchal and young girls are often “sold off” as sex objects for (usually wealthy) men and 2. females are highly likely to be able to reproduce before 15, while males are more likely to not be able to reproduce until mid-adolescence, so girls are married much younger (again, nearly always adult men) in order to have children, while boys are usually married to girls around their age because they can have children anyways.
It’s not like child marriage between boys and adult women doesn’t happen, but let’s not pretend that an overwhelming majority of adults marrying children aren’t men marrying girls. The same goes for these unofficial marriages.
if this poll was done for every person in the world we would have maybe even a tie.
“Hello person in desperate poverty, I am your landlord and I am here to offer you a discount on the exorbitant rents I charge you for existing. All you need to do is this single morally abhorrent thing. After that, you’re on easy street for the rest of your life.”
I suspect the number of people who would take this deal is well over 50%, if for no other reason than being press ganged into doing morally repugnant things by an exploitative economic system is the norm and the enormous payout is the exception.
A better way to spin this is to rephrase the question: “Blah blah 14 year old blah blah everyone consents, in exchange for $120 half of which goes to your pimp.” Then you get to the more grisly truth of what’s being asked, and the popularity falls significantly.
Where I live, it’s called arranged marriage, a form of forced marriage where parents choose who their child should live with. It’s more common than many people would imagine, especially among women, girls and other non-male genders, and 93% of married Indians had an arranged marriage (data from a 2018 survey, source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-59530706)
Someone needs to check that guys computer for CP.
In poor third world countries you find old men paying the father to let them rape his virgin underage girl or force marry her. His justification is that they are poor and that man paid them “a lot”. Only the lowest scummiest cunts of people would allow this upon their daughter and set her for life-long trauma of all types.
i feel gross just from reading that.
Richard forgot to include nonbinary and intersex options in his poll. What a blunder! Egg on his face, he sure looks incompetent
That blue checkmark carries more information then any single word ever could.
<thisPersonPays14AMonthToTwitter yes=‘yes’/>
“Hey should the rich and wealthy be able to rape children as long as they pay them afterwards?”
What a weird fucking question to ask.
I think it must be fairly normal to wonder things like this. Once I saw a video of a man standing on a busy sidewalk offering passersby the opportunity to shoot a staple gun into his bare chest for a dollar or so. It was immediately fascinating. The proposition was so direct: pay money to inflict pain. And people were taking him up on it!
Interesting, sort of in the same way that this Twitter guy’s question is interesting. The same way other moral thought experiments like “the trolley problem” are interesting.
No. What? “Is it moral if I rape a girl for money” is not peak philosophy. It’s not even a new idea. Holy fuck. You give philosophy a bad name.
What do you think about the parallel I was trying to draw between the video I mentioned and this guy’s question about paying for rape? I thought the reason that someone’s interest could be caught by the video is similar in nature to the reasons someone might wonder “is it okay to pay to hurt someone”? And that train of thought leads naturally enough to “Well how much harm is permissible for what amount of money?” which leads naturally enough to imagining specific circumstances.
And those trains of thought are similar to the thought behind people’s ancient musings about other tricky question of morality like the trolley problem. It’s not peak philosophy it’s just ordinary human thought. You shouldn’t be so afraid or repulsed by it or whatever.
The train of thought that youtube story leads me to is not ‘how much harm is permissible’ but ‘why are humans such vile creatures?’. Does everbody just love the thought of hurting others? Is this normal? Why the fuck would anyone want to staple some guys chest?
The question reads like a sexual fantasy, to be clear. It doesn’t read like a normal innocent question. It reads like he thinks a LOT about how he can rape kids and get away with it socially, hence the poll. It does not read innocently. It is entirely too specific.
You’re probably right about this specific dude’s motivations for posing the question, but I think I am right that this type of thought is entirely normal and even common to have. You are right about the dismissiveness too, sorry.
Just chiming in to say I think you’re right in that these types of thought experiments pop into people’s heads pretty regularly, albeit with way less “trying to justify a creepy sex fantasy” intent like the public poll post seems to have.
Though I have to question why it was public in the first place. I don’t know who the poster is or if it’s their real name, but what if it’s less “projection” and more “morbid curiosity” in seeing just how many people would answer yes to this heinous question? There is some merit in gauging reactions to this from a social psychology point of view (even if this is an non-scientific example).
Follow-up thought. Without morbid thought experiments, how do people create horror stories and gritty crime dramas like L&O:SVU when a story has no particular real life basis? I’m not sure it’s wholly possible in a fictional novel or show. There’s a reason people eat crime dramas up; it’s fascinating and horrifying to see how far a real and fictionalized human will go in various circumstances.
In a way, it’s a manifestation of the “call of the void” situation, where an intrusive thought (what if I jump off this bridge right now? what happens if I yank the steering wheel driving 50mph? spook a herd of grazing horses? slap grandpa upside the head? while out hunting??) so I think its purpose is more to keep you aware of harzards in whatever the situation may be. Avoidance through sudden acknowledgement of the risk.
Again, I don’t recognize this person or know any background, but maybe they posed the question as a wacky means of self-preservation on a broader level? As if the poller thought, “How many of my viewers would prostitute out their child if given the most forgiving, financially advantageous, and seemingly consensual circumstances?” to figure out how worried they should be about a certain percentage of their friends, neighbors, and/or followers. Avoidance through asking weird questions publicly.
Edit: Holy ship I managed to write a whole novel on my thought experiment about thought experiments ahhahh.
Lol no. If this was something I thought was said in “good faith,” then it would be fine to discuss. However, I don’t think it was said in good faith and I think the person was being intentionally disgusting. It’s not ordinary human thought. But thanks for being so dismissive.
But thanks for being so dismissive.
Like you weren’t?
Where? Disagreement isn’t dismissiveness.
i think there is something to be said about the value of money, there is ALWAYS an amount of money people are willing to be paid to do something.
What a weird fucking question to ask.
wait until you figured out how we discovered science
or better yet, if you’re more of a normie, who figured out you can drink cow milk first.
Haha Lemmy hates to hear this, good luck.
yeah, i do a bit of lolcowing on lemmy from time to time, same as i did on reddit.
It’s fun. Would recommend people stop caring about the shit they read/write on the internet, its mostly bullshit anyway.
I don’t look to create unnecessary consternation but for an outcast community this place sure can be super hostile to ‘against the grain’ opinions. I don’t want adulation but an explanation to go with the downvote parade would be nice sometimes.
Not even talking about political or ethical subjects, take OP above you as an example.
it’s typical for online communities such as this, it’s worse in some places, better in others, depends on the community and the instance. And how much of a pain in the ass you are.
“How we discovered science” this is such a stupid statement. Nonsensical.
It was a woman. Who figured out we could drink other animal milks first, by watching a calf drink it. She probably needed it for a human baby. A lot of stuff that doesn’t make sense to men makes sense to women.
And it is a weird and boring question in the OP. He wants to rape a girl for money. Gee, that’s never been asked before. What a deep philospher.
You got way too hung on their example. The point was science is tinkering and following weird curiosities but with extra steps. Virtually every major innovation in the last century (for most of civilisation I would argue) has been a result of indirect tinkering, or benefitted from a completely unrelated field.
You were in such a rush to defend their point, you missed mine. Which is that pseudoscience and pseudointellectualism look exactly like this - made up bullshit based in nothing. I’m not “too hung up” on their examples - that’s exactly how I’m showing their nonsense. Get some intellectual hygiene. Question things. Demand proof and exactitudes. THAT is the basis of real critical thought and scientific reasoning.
Sure, curiosity can lead to scientific advancements. Or it can lead to conspiracies. It depends on what it’s being based on.
Advancements are made in the cognitive mortar between the bricks of knowledge we have. If those bricks aren’t made of anything substantial, the mortar won’t save it either. Gotta have a basis in something solid. That’s why we take measurements and data.
It was a woman. Who figured out we could drink other animal milks first, by watching a calf drink it. She probably needed it for a human baby. A lot of stuff that doesn’t make sense to men makes sense to women.
that seems plausible. I would imagine this happened on pretty early in human history, but it would have to be late enough that we had somewhat domesticated animals.
And it is a weird and boring question in the OP. He wants to rape a girl for money.
it’s certainly weird, but so are a lot of questions, and it’s boring, but then again, when are questions ever exciting lol.
As for philosophy, the single most intriguing question that has ever been asked is quite literally “what is the meaning of life”
