Are our attitudes toward pedos actually endangering our children?

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Autumn wrote:

Non-reproduction, as a moral consideration, was likely a more valid concern in times when bolstering a tribe’s population was paramount for that tribe’s survival. While that doesn’t preclude homosexuality (you can make babies and still find ample time to be gay), you can still speculate why blanket prohibitions might have seemed sensible in certain cultures.

I just don’t think that’s the reason for the prohibitions against homosexuality.  I think it’s a matter of a combination of patriarchy / glorification of the “manly man” as child-fathering patriarch* together with the sacralisation of the male-female reproductive pair-bond, quite possibly amplified and refined in the hands of the Abrahamic religions.  Certainly the most prejudiced societies seem to be the most patriarchal.

* in contrast to the despised female gender, under patriarchy.

[AutumnParticipant]

Reproduction is a tenet of the Abrahamic faiths. It’s right there in Genesis. A number of the rules established in Leviticus appear to be more practical in nature. And Exodus definitely has elements of cultural preservation and tribal unification.

While paternalism has deep roots in this family of religions, the ‘manly-man’ ideation we have today is probably much more modern than the Old Testament. I am sure there has always been competitiveness regarding perceived masculine/ feminine virtues; however, many queer people are the archetypal ideals of gender-patterned behaviour.

[DavisModerator]

No Jake. The “every day” element is a silly excuse. It is absurd to claim certainty of something and ridicule those who even withold a position, and then go on to talk seriously and passionately about things that would require the thing you are certain about to not be the case. You are clearly not that certain if “every day life” pressures you enough to ignore the thing you’re certain about and act as though it is not true. Make up your mind.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Fellow Unvelievers,

While no problem should ever be approached with hysteria, and while we certainly should keep within the bounds of due process regarding accusations on matters like this, and should never pactice “preventive detention” on a mere possibility of a danger, it is perfectly rational, legal, and moral to practice Situational Awareness along with Avoid, Deny, and Defend and to teach children in our lives these practices. More to come later.

[AutumnParticipant]

Depends on what that means. One of the issues with the way these things were taught wheen I was young (and for many years before and after) is that adults were trying to speak around the issue of sex due to some disgusting puritanical notions that sex is some secret taboo and that there are body parts one ought to be ashamed of. What we’d get were messages about ‘good touch/ bad touch’ and ‘stranger danger’ sort of bullshit which didn’t really do much to help matters.

Over the last decade there has been a move to revise sex-ed curriculums so that some content is introduced younger. This, naturally, had some of the pearl-clutchers white-knuckled thinking it was all the liberal agenda trying to brainwash young Susie and Billy into the gay agenda, but part of what drove the change was input from police and child welfare services. It’s harder to deal with sexual abuse cases when the victims of that abuse can’t communicate what happened clearly (or at all). Knowing someone bad-touched their no-no place isn’t the most useful thing leading to more contrived efforts to get the correct information.

Also problematic was that adults had many faulty assumptions. They were all on high alert from some shadowy figures lurking in the bushes ready to snatch up their little ones. But there was a high likelihood that the person to abuse their child would actually be someone they knew and trusted. Not only that, but when you do things like insist that extended family are owed hugs and kisses, you’re sending pretty mixed messages about bodily autonomy. If stranger danger wants to bad touch your no-no, tell mom and dad. If Uncle Jim wants to special wrestle? Well, you’ve been told to listen to grown-ups and you’ve been taught that uncle Jim has some entitlements to your affection and respect.

On top of that, sex offenders—like nearly all humans—are capable of being adaptive. Realistically, the average kid isn’t going to keep pace with their tactics and manipulations. The average adult won’t either, in all likelihood, due to various cognitive biases. And to make matters worse, some children are much easier to target than others often due to hardships they are already facing leading to increased vulnerability and isolation.

So while I agree that educating children is valid, that education has to be fit for purpose, and it’s not going to be a full solution to the issue in itself.

[jakelafortParticipant]

Davis, you have misunderstood me.

I agree with you at least as to those who are convinced of strict determinism. I’ve indicated already that position is incompatible with moral responsibility. (The no free willers who base their opinion on matters extrinsic to physics of determinism may allow for some limited form of volition and control that is compatible with moral responsibility).

Logically, rationally it makes 0 sense. Yet we are animals and we simply go about our lives reacting and judging others. It would be utterly remarkable however convinced one is of determinism to find a person who does not react to affronts or insults and who does not judge others. I think we would have to look long and far and it might be found in someone who is so depressed that their affect is utterly flat.

So we end up with a philosopher who in contemplative moments conceives of a determined universe and the natural consequence being no moral responsibility. After their rumination and meditation they get in their car and are rear-ended by a person who is texting while driving. So they lash out, “you mother fucking asshole pay attention when you are driving!”

[UnseenParticipant]

jakelafort wrote:

What exactly does no free will mean?

Understanding differs. Strict determinism negates it. And if we go with that assumption then the idea of moral responsibility is impossible.

Regardless of how we conceptualize the issue we operate in our day to day lives as though we all have free will. And it is the same thing with how we conceptualize morality and ethics. The underpinnings may be absent but that does not prevent us from treating the topic in the same way as those who believe in free will.

I don’t need to deny we have free will which is, as you pointed out, a matter people define to suit their fancy.

I just make the rather humdrum observation that everything in our body, including our brain, operates in a lawful and non-miraculous manner. If anyone can find free will in there, more power to ’em. There is a way out, which is to opt for a dualism, typically something like a soul, that operates free from mundane constraints like the laws of the universe as revealed by Newton and Einstein (I think quantum physics doesn’t apply).

We all make decisions, of course, we don’t sit down at the lunch counter and when asked what we want just say “Let’s wait and see.” We go ahead and make a choice. So, in one situation a person decides on the meatloaf special and in another situation decides to pull the trigger. Our choices are unavoidable, and yet the choices we make are a combination of our past experiences, the options available in the moment, and our nature. Whatever we do is what is in our nature to do.

Does the pedophile have a choice whether to act out or not? Of course, in the way we talk about choosing on a shallow level. On a deep level? No. No more than the billiard ball freely decides whether or not to drop into the pocket.

On a shallow level, I go through my day making choices and feeling free as I do so. Until I really think about what’s going on deep deep down where the rubber meets the road.

• This reply was modified 4 months ago by  Unseen.

[UnseenParticipant]

jakelafort wrote:

I agree with you at least as to those who are convinced of strict determinism. I’ve indicated already that position is incompatible with moral responsibility. (The no free willers who base their opinion on matters extrinsic to physics of determinism may allow for some limited form of volition and control that is compatible with moral responsibility).

We don’t need “moral” responsibility. Responsibility alone is enough. We condemn people for deeds that outrage us not because they were immoral but just because they did them, causing outrage and a desire to reestablish an equilibrium we find comfortable.

I don’t see the need for the so-called “moral” dimension since all it seems to do is to allow us to excuse ourselves for limiting their freedom, damaging them in various ways, or even killing them.

But do fill me in.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Autumn wrote:

Reproduction is a tenet of the Abrahamic faiths. It’s right there in Genesis. A number of the rules established in Leviticus appear to be more practical in nature. And Exodus definitely has elements of cultural preservation and tribal unification.

When conservatives speak against homosexuality, they say, for some unknown reason, that it threatens the family unit.  I think this suggests a sacralisation of the male-female pair-bond as the only acceptable basis for the family.

[AutumnParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Autumn wrote:

Reproduction is a tenet of the Abrahamic faiths. It’s right there in Genesis. A number of the rules established in Leviticus appear to be more practical in nature. And Exodus definitely has elements of cultural preservation and tribal unification.

When conservatives speak against homosexuality, they say, for some unknown reason, that it threatens the family unit. I think this suggests a sacralisation of the male-female pair-bond as the only acceptable basis for the family.

You may be surprised to learn that contemporary conservatives did not author the books of the Old Testament neither did they act as consult to the tribes in the times of Levi nor Moses. Marriage and divorce are covered in the Mitzvot along with homosexuality, beaastiality, incest, diet, taxation, idolotry, Molech, circumcision, the Sabbath, fabrics, obligations to destroy cities, idol worship, consulting with wizards, interest loans, and many other things. So, the union between men and women is proscribed in religious law, and is at least as sacrosanct as not using utensils as collateral.

The sanctification of marriage in our contemporary sense may be a much younger concept, perhaps half a century ago or so when requirements for clergy to officiate marriages began to appear.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Autumn wrote:

The sanctification of marriage in our contemporary sense may be a much younger concept, perhaps half a century ago or so when requirements for clergy to officiate marriages began to appear.

How do you account for the vilification of homosexuality in the middle ages?  Between biblical times, and now, religion has taken on a life of its own.  I hold the Abrahamic religions, and the ways they have been practiced, as responsible for the Western prohibitions on non-standard sexuality.

[AutumnParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

How do you account for the vilification of homosexuality in the middle ages?

Why?

[DavisModerator]

My mistake Jake. Thanks for the clarification

(see Enco…see how easy it is to concede a point and admit you misconstrued someone else’s argument)!

[DavisModerator]

Unseen, how can someone make a decision if they cannot have done otherwise? That is like saying a computer makes a decision when in reality it is following a code it cannot but follow. It is not even that different to saying a rock makes a decision in which way it rolls down a hill. That the human phenomena is vastly more complex is irrelevant, if the human could not have done any differently, which is not meaningfully any different than the rock. Morality is meaningless in a world without free will. In such, blaming anyone for anything is absurd.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Autumn wrote:

Why?

You talk as if there was the Torah, then the Bible, then nothing happened or changed until the 20th century.  I’m saying that during the intervening time, religion went overboard culturally in oppressing “deviants”.

[Author]

Posts