|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States44287 Posts
On January 08 2022 15:26 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2022 11:59 KwarK wrote:On January 08 2022 09:43 Doc.Rivers wrote:On January 08 2022 08:55 Gorsameth wrote:On January 08 2022 08:33 WombaT wrote:On January 08 2022 05:41 maybenexttime wrote:On January 08 2022 04:43 Mohdoo wrote:On January 08 2022 04:12 maybenexttime wrote:On January 08 2022 03:53 Mohdoo wrote:Sorry for being imprecise with my language. What I’m talking about is positions held by large swaths of conservatives, including significant amount of elected politicians. The things I listed were listed because you can look back on polls and politicians showing these weren’t remotely fringe. Look up polls regarding interracial marriage at the time it was legalized for example. I don’t mean any position that could be described as conservative Out of the things you listed, I don’t think there were 10s of US senators supporting. Don't know about the US senators, but Free Love and feminism were massive popular movements. Eugenics was also hardly fringe. Like I said, it was actual policy enacted by democratically elected, often social-democratic governments in a bunch of countries. Abolishing religion also had a massive popular support. But your point was that conservatism always loses. That would mean that whenever there is a new progressive idea, it will eventually win. That clearly hasn't been the case throughout history. Eugenics was definitely supported and you’re right about that. Can you clarify what you mean by “abolish religion”? Can you point to when that was largely supported by a large number of US senators? My point wasn’t that any conceivable idea that could ever be framed as conservative always loses. We still allow humans to live, which is what we also did previously, so you could label that a conservative viewpoint and I guess it wouldn’t be wrong. But no one is really fighting against continuing the human species. I’m talking about actual contentious issues that had widespread support. Eugenics appears to be the only one on the losing side of history. But even then, ethnic/genetic superiority is much more of a right wing idea nowadays. Are we talking exclusively about the US Senate? You framed your point as a universal truth: "(...) social conservatives have yet to win a single war on history. Every single socially conservative perspective of the last 200 years is deeply frowned on. They lose *every* time." Progressives have lost when it comes to eugenics, the Green Party backtracked on their ideas regarding paedophilia and the left changed its stance on marriage. Like I said, abolishing religion was championed by massively popular movements in many parts of Europe. That too is a thing of the past. What about communism vs. capitalism? The former was very much a progressive idea, with massive popular support. The Multikulti approach to immigration is also losing in Europe. @JimmiC Kwark's argument is irrelevant to the discussion. We are talking about the battle of ideas, not practical handling of paedophilia. As far as I know, conservatives have never championed the idea of normalizing paedophilia. They have always condemned it, while sweeping it under the rug if it happened within its ranks. The Green Party, however, had the idea on its agenda for a while. In what form? Outside of fringe lunatics on Twitter, many of whom I suspect are motivated by their own sexual proclivities, I’ve not really seen any paedophilia advocacy. I’ve seen plenty of stuff framed by critics as doing that, but not in actuality. Would you care to elaborate on this? I’m not particularly familiar with the Polish Green’s platform You are, and Kwark too absolutely correct on this issue. In my experience its Conservatives who most enthusiastically, but not exclusively let it be known that they think any convicted paedophile should be hung, or are fine with vigilantes doing the deed. Hell Pizzagate is about elites operating as a paedophilic cabal. Q-Anon or Q-Anon adjacent stuff heavily features conspiracies about elite paedophile rings. They have myriad awful positions IMO, but any charge of conservatives as a bloc being pro-paedophilia is just absurd IMO Conservatives are not 'pro-paedophilia' but as Kwark puts it conservatives care more about protecting the social hierarchy and institutions than individual rights and if those those hierarchies and institutions engage in immoral acts (like paedophilia) then they will more easily look the other way to preserve said hierarchy/institution. See for example the catholic church. KwarK did describe pedophilia as a "decidedly conservative thing," although I guess he was trying to draw an inference from this catholic church thing. But really, any attempt to describe pedophilia as more strongly associated with conservatives is just absurd on its face. I mean there comes a point where one's political bias and partisan loyalty should be reigned in. Pedophilia flourishes where adults are in positions of authority and in frequent contact with children, teaching positions being an example. You’re trying to argue that it’s not a conservative thing, it’s about authority, as if the worship of authority wasn’t the central tenet of political conservatism. Conservatives may not want to fuck your kids but they certainly don’t want you holding the kid fuckers accountable. They’d rather live in a world with powerful establishments that sometimes fuck kids than one without them. The generalization to conservatives writ large just isn't persuasive when all you're really talking about is the particular circumstances of the catholic church. Clearly conservatives, like most others, want to hold pedophiles accountable by any means possible.
The Catholic Church isn’t unusual in this regard. All organizations that aren’t held accountable by their communities attract predators. It’s not a Catholic problem, the evangelicals, Mormons, Muslims, Amish, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Orthodox Jews etc. all have the same issues.
So do other groups with power that aren’t held accountable. The super rich, royalty, politicians. Well connected people in industries like television, film, and music.
The only connection between all of these is that they have power and that their victims do not. Conservatives want to preserve that hierarchy, liberals (not to be confused with the left) believe in a society in which no individual has more power than another.
|
On January 08 2022 23:34 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2022 15:26 Doc.Rivers wrote:On January 08 2022 11:59 KwarK wrote:On January 08 2022 09:43 Doc.Rivers wrote:On January 08 2022 08:55 Gorsameth wrote:On January 08 2022 08:33 WombaT wrote:On January 08 2022 05:41 maybenexttime wrote:On January 08 2022 04:43 Mohdoo wrote:On January 08 2022 04:12 maybenexttime wrote:On January 08 2022 03:53 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
Sorry for being imprecise with my language. What I’m talking about is positions held by large swaths of conservatives, including significant amount of elected politicians. The things I listed were listed because you can look back on polls and politicians showing these weren’t remotely fringe. Look up polls regarding interracial marriage at the time it was legalized for example. I don’t mean any position that could be described as conservative
Out of the things you listed, I don’t think there were 10s of US senators supporting. Don't know about the US senators, but Free Love and feminism were massive popular movements. Eugenics was also hardly fringe. Like I said, it was actual policy enacted by democratically elected, often social-democratic governments in a bunch of countries. Abolishing religion also had a massive popular support. But your point was that conservatism always loses. That would mean that whenever there is a new progressive idea, it will eventually win. That clearly hasn't been the case throughout history. Eugenics was definitely supported and you’re right about that. Can you clarify what you mean by “abolish religion”? Can you point to when that was largely supported by a large number of US senators? My point wasn’t that any conceivable idea that could ever be framed as conservative always loses. We still allow humans to live, which is what we also did previously, so you could label that a conservative viewpoint and I guess it wouldn’t be wrong. But no one is really fighting against continuing the human species. I’m talking about actual contentious issues that had widespread support. Eugenics appears to be the only one on the losing side of history. But even then, ethnic/genetic superiority is much more of a right wing idea nowadays. Are we talking exclusively about the US Senate? You framed your point as a universal truth: "(...) social conservatives have yet to win a single war on history. Every single socially conservative perspective of the last 200 years is deeply frowned on. They lose *every* time." Progressives have lost when it comes to eugenics, the Green Party backtracked on their ideas regarding paedophilia and the left changed its stance on marriage. Like I said, abolishing religion was championed by massively popular movements in many parts of Europe. That too is a thing of the past. What about communism vs. capitalism? The former was very much a progressive idea, with massive popular support. The Multikulti approach to immigration is also losing in Europe. @JimmiC Kwark's argument is irrelevant to the discussion. We are talking about the battle of ideas, not practical handling of paedophilia. As far as I know, conservatives have never championed the idea of normalizing paedophilia. They have always condemned it, while sweeping it under the rug if it happened within its ranks. The Green Party, however, had the idea on its agenda for a while. In what form? Outside of fringe lunatics on Twitter, many of whom I suspect are motivated by their own sexual proclivities, I’ve not really seen any paedophilia advocacy. I’ve seen plenty of stuff framed by critics as doing that, but not in actuality. Would you care to elaborate on this? I’m not particularly familiar with the Polish Green’s platform You are, and Kwark too absolutely correct on this issue. In my experience its Conservatives who most enthusiastically, but not exclusively let it be known that they think any convicted paedophile should be hung, or are fine with vigilantes doing the deed. Hell Pizzagate is about elites operating as a paedophilic cabal. Q-Anon or Q-Anon adjacent stuff heavily features conspiracies about elite paedophile rings. They have myriad awful positions IMO, but any charge of conservatives as a bloc being pro-paedophilia is just absurd IMO Conservatives are not 'pro-paedophilia' but as Kwark puts it conservatives care more about protecting the social hierarchy and institutions than individual rights and if those those hierarchies and institutions engage in immoral acts (like paedophilia) then they will more easily look the other way to preserve said hierarchy/institution. See for example the catholic church. KwarK did describe pedophilia as a "decidedly conservative thing," although I guess he was trying to draw an inference from this catholic church thing. But really, any attempt to describe pedophilia as more strongly associated with conservatives is just absurd on its face. I mean there comes a point where one's political bias and partisan loyalty should be reigned in. Pedophilia flourishes where adults are in positions of authority and in frequent contact with children, teaching positions being an example. You’re trying to argue that it’s not a conservative thing, it’s about authority, as if the worship of authority wasn’t the central tenet of political conservatism. Conservatives may not want to fuck your kids but they certainly don’t want you holding the kid fuckers accountable. They’d rather live in a world with powerful establishments that sometimes fuck kids than one without them. The generalization to conservatives writ large just isn't persuasive when all you're really talking about is the particular circumstances of the catholic church. Clearly conservatives, like most others, want to hold pedophiles accountable by any means possible. The Catholic Church isn’t unusual in this regard. All organizations that aren’t held accountable by their communities attract predators. It’s not a Catholic problem, the evangelicals, Mormons, Muslims, Amish, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Orthodox Jews etc. all have the same issues. So do other groups with power that aren’t held accountable. The super rich, royalty, politicians. Well connected people in industries like television, film, and music. The only connection between all of these is that they have power and that their victims do not. Conservatives want to preserve that hierarchy, liberals (not to be confused with the left) believe in a society in which no individual has more power than another.
I'm not aware of liberals actually wanting communes in which children (the victims) have the same amount of power as adults. In any case, conservatives want to remove pedophiles from power and hold them accountable. No abstract argument about conservatives favoring power hierarchies changes that.
Though it would certainly be a reasonable argument to say that the structure of the catholic church, a largely conservative institution (although that's a modern phenomenon if I'm not mistaken, and all the notorious pedophilia and coverups were not necessarily in the same modern times), is such that it creates a haven for pedophiles.
That said I think I've now spent enough time arguing over whether pedophilia can be pinned on one political side or another lol.
|
Northern Ireland27360 Posts
On January 09 2022 02:22 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2022 23:34 KwarK wrote:On January 08 2022 15:26 Doc.Rivers wrote:On January 08 2022 11:59 KwarK wrote:On January 08 2022 09:43 Doc.Rivers wrote:On January 08 2022 08:55 Gorsameth wrote:On January 08 2022 08:33 WombaT wrote:On January 08 2022 05:41 maybenexttime wrote:On January 08 2022 04:43 Mohdoo wrote:On January 08 2022 04:12 maybenexttime wrote:
[quote]
Don't know about the US senators, but Free Love and feminism were massive popular movements. Eugenics was also hardly fringe. Like I said, it was actual policy enacted by democratically elected, often social-democratic governments in a bunch of countries. Abolishing religion also had a massive popular support.
But your point was that conservatism always loses. That would mean that whenever there is a new progressive idea, it will eventually win. That clearly hasn't been the case throughout history. Eugenics was definitely supported and you’re right about that. Can you clarify what you mean by “abolish religion”? Can you point to when that was largely supported by a large number of US senators? My point wasn’t that any conceivable idea that could ever be framed as conservative always loses. We still allow humans to live, which is what we also did previously, so you could label that a conservative viewpoint and I guess it wouldn’t be wrong. But no one is really fighting against continuing the human species. I’m talking about actual contentious issues that had widespread support. Eugenics appears to be the only one on the losing side of history. But even then, ethnic/genetic superiority is much more of a right wing idea nowadays. Are we talking exclusively about the US Senate? You framed your point as a universal truth: "(...) social conservatives have yet to win a single war on history. Every single socially conservative perspective of the last 200 years is deeply frowned on. They lose *every* time." Progressives have lost when it comes to eugenics, the Green Party backtracked on their ideas regarding paedophilia and the left changed its stance on marriage. Like I said, abolishing religion was championed by massively popular movements in many parts of Europe. That too is a thing of the past. What about communism vs. capitalism? The former was very much a progressive idea, with massive popular support. The Multikulti approach to immigration is also losing in Europe. @JimmiC Kwark's argument is irrelevant to the discussion. We are talking about the battle of ideas, not practical handling of paedophilia. As far as I know, conservatives have never championed the idea of normalizing paedophilia. They have always condemned it, while sweeping it under the rug if it happened within its ranks. The Green Party, however, had the idea on its agenda for a while. In what form? Outside of fringe lunatics on Twitter, many of whom I suspect are motivated by their own sexual proclivities, I’ve not really seen any paedophilia advocacy. I’ve seen plenty of stuff framed by critics as doing that, but not in actuality. Would you care to elaborate on this? I’m not particularly familiar with the Polish Green’s platform You are, and Kwark too absolutely correct on this issue. In my experience its Conservatives who most enthusiastically, but not exclusively let it be known that they think any convicted paedophile should be hung, or are fine with vigilantes doing the deed. Hell Pizzagate is about elites operating as a paedophilic cabal. Q-Anon or Q-Anon adjacent stuff heavily features conspiracies about elite paedophile rings. They have myriad awful positions IMO, but any charge of conservatives as a bloc being pro-paedophilia is just absurd IMO Conservatives are not 'pro-paedophilia' but as Kwark puts it conservatives care more about protecting the social hierarchy and institutions than individual rights and if those those hierarchies and institutions engage in immoral acts (like paedophilia) then they will more easily look the other way to preserve said hierarchy/institution. See for example the catholic church. KwarK did describe pedophilia as a "decidedly conservative thing," although I guess he was trying to draw an inference from this catholic church thing. But really, any attempt to describe pedophilia as more strongly associated with conservatives is just absurd on its face. I mean there comes a point where one's political bias and partisan loyalty should be reigned in. Pedophilia flourishes where adults are in positions of authority and in frequent contact with children, teaching positions being an example. You’re trying to argue that it’s not a conservative thing, it’s about authority, as if the worship of authority wasn’t the central tenet of political conservatism. Conservatives may not want to fuck your kids but they certainly don’t want you holding the kid fuckers accountable. They’d rather live in a world with powerful establishments that sometimes fuck kids than one without them. The generalization to conservatives writ large just isn't persuasive when all you're really talking about is the particular circumstances of the catholic church. Clearly conservatives, like most others, want to hold pedophiles accountable by any means possible. The Catholic Church isn’t unusual in this regard. All organizations that aren’t held accountable by their communities attract predators. It’s not a Catholic problem, the evangelicals, Mormons, Muslims, Amish, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Orthodox Jews etc. all have the same issues. So do other groups with power that aren’t held accountable. The super rich, royalty, politicians. Well connected people in industries like television, film, and music. The only connection between all of these is that they have power and that their victims do not. Conservatives want to preserve that hierarchy, liberals (not to be confused with the left) believe in a society in which no individual has more power than another. I'm not aware of liberals actually wanting communes in which children (the victims) have the same amount of power as adults. In any case, conservatives want to remove pedophiles from power and hold them accountable. No abstract argument about conservatives favoring power hierarchies changes that. Though it would certainly be a reasonable argument to say that the structure of the catholic church, a largely conservative institution (although that's a modern phenomenon if I'm not mistaken, and all the notorious pedophilia and coverups were not necessarily in the same modern times), is such that it creates a haven for pedophiles. That said I think I've now spent enough time arguing over whether pedophilia can be pinned on one political side or another lol.
In what sense, from power? From up on high, or from all sorts of groups and organisations where individuals can be preyed upon and need protection? Not to mention sex trafficking in the equation. Or having robust social services and reporting mechanisms to protect people abused by relatives?
Rhetoric I encounter, thankfully largely not here is mostly using paedophilia to augment wild conspiracy theories. People who are concerned about largely fictitious child abuse and not that fussed about where the vast, vast amount of it actually occurs.
It’s not an abstract argument, these things are intimately interlinked in the real world and can’t be separated.
It’s a matter of when power and authority interacts with something else undesirable, and what actually happens and what side of the ledger people come down on.
You’re the one trying to make a claim that is abstract, or in a vacuum.
In a vacuum, I don’t believe most conservatives want police to extrajudiciously shoot people, but when it does occur they tend to victim blame, stretch to exculpatory interpretations etc.
In the most simplistic sense, if I value this institution and the form of law and order it represents, if it does something bad that reflects badly in my values, there must be some other explanation. Or alternatively the value of the institution outweighs the value of the individuals affected, so it must be protected over giving those individuals justice.
The police is probably a better example of this phenomenon in a wider sense of the population, given child abuse occurred in closed off institutions, and largely away from the knowledge of Joe Public. The history of the Church is an example of this problem within a body institutionally, but there’s a level of abstraction away from say, a weekly churchgoer or what have you.
With the Church, the wider populace can truthfully claim to not have been aware of rampant child abuse until it broke, a claim nobody can really credibly make on the issue of policing in 2022.
I think it’s a bit reductive to break it down to conservatives favouring power hierarchies mind. Just ones they like or that dovetail with their values. I don’t think I’m going out on a limb to say they don’t particularly value much of the news media, academia etc. Who are top of their respective hierarchies.
It is 100% worth noting that, in my country paedophilia and grooming gangs were covered up for other reasons distinct from historic conservative looking the other ways. A fear of appearing racist being one of them.
Many folks do a shit job in protecting children from across the political spectrum.
|
United States44287 Posts
On January 09 2022 02:22 Doc.Rivers wrote:
In any case, conservatives want to remove pedophiles from power and hold them accountable.
This is literally the opposite of true. Conservatives would rather strong unaccountable traditionalist institutions with paedophiles than accountable weak institutions without paedophiles. And it's not just paedophiles, it's all sorts of sexual abuse. Plus hazing, bigotry, corruption, nepotism, and so forth. The whole philosophy prioritizes the institutions over the individuals impacted by them.
Honestly it's not clear that you know what conservatism is. You may have confused it with neoliberalism as they often hang out together in the US. Conservatives look like the Taliban.
|
On January 09 2022 03:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2022 02:22 Doc.Rivers wrote:
In any case, conservatives want to remove pedophiles from power and hold them accountable. This is literally the opposite of true. Conservatives would rather strong unaccountable traditionalist institutions with paedophiles than accountable weak institutions without paedophiles. And it's not just paedophiles, it's all sorts of sexual abuse. Plus hazing, bigotry, corruption, nepotism, and so forth. The whole philosophy prioritizes the institutions over the individuals impacted by them. Honestly it's not clear that you know what conservatism is. You may have confused it with neoliberalism as they often hang out together in the US. Conservatives look like the Taliban.
Not in the US. There they look like Mike Pence.
|
A core tenet of conservatism is maintaining the hierarchy and power structure, even in the face of wrongdoing. Appeals to authority are *A REALLY BIG DEAL* in conservative ideology. Pretending that doesn't lead to giving figures of authority a get out of jail free card on pedo shit (in addition to many other things) is dishonest.
|
Liberals favor change. If society was more sympathetic to pedophiles, that would be a change from the status quo. Thus pedophiles feel more at home among liberals, and likely feel empowered by the prospect of societal change. (After all, Pedophilia is an immutable trait, and liberals believe that society should change to be more accepting of everyone's immutable traits.) Therefore, liberalism creates a situation in which pedophilia is more likely to be acted upon.
|
United States44287 Posts
On January 09 2022 17:25 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Liberals favor change. If society was more sympathetic to pedophiles, that would be a change from the status quo. Thus pedophiles feel more at home among liberals, and likely feel empowered by the prospect of societal change. (After all, Pedophilia is an immutable trait, and liberals believe that society should change to be more accepting of everyone's immutable traits.) Therefore, liberalism creates a situation in which pedophilia is more likely to be acted upon.
That’s not what liberalism is. You need to learn the names for political ideologies before you attempt to talk about them. Liberals favour liberalism, they have no inclination to change from liberalism.
You may wish to start here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Your argument also extends only to whether paedophiles should be punished for what they are, not what they do. It’s the child abuse part that I have a problem with, if they stay away from that then honestly I’m good with them. No different to someone with a rape fantasy that knows not to rape anyone. My suspicion is that most paedophiles are relatively good people who recognize that their sexual desires aren’t morally attainable and just don’t talk about it. It’s the ones abusing children you hear about but that’s classic selection bias, I believe that most people wouldn’t abuse children even if it turned them on. Just like how most people wouldn’t hurt a child for money or whatever.
|
On January 09 2022 17:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2022 17:25 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Liberals favor change. If society was more sympathetic to pedophiles, that would be a change from the status quo. Thus pedophiles feel more at home among liberals, and likely feel empowered by the prospect of societal change. (After all, Pedophilia is an immutable trait, and liberals believe that society should change to be more accepting of everyone's immutable traits.) Therefore, liberalism creates a situation in which pedophilia is more likely to be acted upon. That’s not what liberalism is. You need to learn the names for political ideologies before you attempt to talk about them. Liberals favour liberalism, they have no inclination to change from liberalism. You may wish to start here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiberalismYour argument also extends only to whether paedophiles should be punished for what they are, not what they do. It’s the child abuse part that I have a problem with, if they stay away from that then honestly I’m good with them. No different to someone with a rape fantasy that knows not to rape anyone. My suspicion is that most paedophiles are relatively good people who recognize that their sexual desires aren’t morally attainable and just don’t talk about it. It’s the ones abusing children you hear about but that’s classic selection bias, I believe that most people wouldn’t abuse children even if it turned them on. Just like how most people wouldn’t hurt a child for money or whatever.
I'm obviously talking about modern liberalism in the US, which favors change in a very real sense. E.g. it is clear that liberals believe that society should change to be more accepting of everyone's immutable traits.
FDR, 1941:
"The liberal party believes that, as new conditions and problems arise beyond the power of men and women to meet as individuals, it becomes the duty of the Government itself to find new remedies with which to meet them. The liberal party insists that the Government has the definite duty to use all its power and resources to meet new social problems with new social controls."
He was talking about change.
JFK, 1960:
"If by a 'Liberal,' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions . . . then I'm proud to say that I'm a 'Liberal.'"
He was also talking about change.
As for the second part of your post - I'm not talking about whether liberals believe pedophiles should be punished for what they do. I'm talking about whether liberalism creates a situation in which pedophilia is more likely to be acted upon. And that can be the case even though liberals strongly believe (as do conservatives) that pedophiles should be held accountable when they abuse children.
|
United States44287 Posts
On January 09 2022 18:06 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2022 17:40 KwarK wrote:On January 09 2022 17:25 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Liberals favor change. If society was more sympathetic to pedophiles, that would be a change from the status quo. Thus pedophiles feel more at home among liberals, and likely feel empowered by the prospect of societal change. (After all, Pedophilia is an immutable trait, and liberals believe that society should change to be more accepting of everyone's immutable traits.) Therefore, liberalism creates a situation in which pedophilia is more likely to be acted upon. That’s not what liberalism is. You need to learn the names for political ideologies before you attempt to talk about them. Liberals favour liberalism, they have no inclination to change from liberalism. You may wish to start here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiberalismYour argument also extends only to whether paedophiles should be punished for what they are, not what they do. It’s the child abuse part that I have a problem with, if they stay away from that then honestly I’m good with them. No different to someone with a rape fantasy that knows not to rape anyone. My suspicion is that most paedophiles are relatively good people who recognize that their sexual desires aren’t morally attainable and just don’t talk about it. It’s the ones abusing children you hear about but that’s classic selection bias, I believe that most people wouldn’t abuse children even if it turned them on. Just like how most people wouldn’t hurt a child for money or whatever. I'm obviously talking about modern liberalism in the US, which favors change in a very real sense. E.g. it is clear that liberals believe that society should change to be more accepting of everyone's immutable traits. FDR, 1941: "The liberal party believes that, as new conditions and problems arise beyond the power of men and women to meet as individuals, it becomes the duty of the Government itself to find new remedies with which to meet them. The liberal party insists that the Government has the definite duty to use all its power and resources to meet new social problems with new social controls." He was talking about change. JFK, 1960: "If by a 'Liberal,' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions . . . then I'm proud to say that I'm a 'Liberal.'" He was also talking about change. As for the second part of your post - I'm not talking about whether liberals believe pedophiles should be punished for what they do. I'm talking about whether liberalism creates a situation in which pedophilia is more likely to be acted upon. And that can be the case even though liberals strongly believe (as do conservatives) that pedophiles should be held accountable when they abuse children.
Liberals are right wing. You’re confusing them with leftists and progressives.
Did you bother to read the Wikipedia article?
Your argument also doesn’t really follow. It amounts to “Conservatives don’t like change therefore liberals (you mean progressives) do. Right now X is the case which means progressives must favour Y”.
Consider the silliness of that argument for a minute. One could argue that progressives support everything that isn’t currently true based upon that. Reinstating slavery, going to war with Britain, anything. It’s just not a good argument. The opposite of defending everything old simply because it is old is not attacking everything old because it is old, it is evaluating things based on their merits.
|
Northern Ireland27360 Posts
On January 09 2022 17:25 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Liberals favor change. If society was more sympathetic to pedophiles, that would be a change from the status quo. Thus pedophiles feel more at home among liberals, and likely feel empowered by the prospect of societal change. (After all, Pedophilia is an immutable trait, and liberals believe that society should change to be more accepting of everyone's immutable traits.) Therefore, liberalism creates a situation in which pedophilia is more likely to be acted upon.
I’ll not be as picky as Kwark, I’ve conceded the correct usage of liberal is a cat that’s very much out of the bag. Although I wish it weren’t and words meant the things they mean.
What is one of these cause celebres of the wider left, one that conservative talking heads frequently invoke as having ‘gone too far’.
It’s MeToo, and trying to normalise conceptions of sexual impropriety extending beyond outright rape, and for mechanisms to be more robust in holding people to account.
It is a conservative mindset that is more likely (not always) to say that x woman was asking for it, or didn’t ‘have’ to sleep with someone to have a career, so it was ultimately voluntary
If the wider left is doing this for adults (primarily women got this reaction, but men too), who have developed and the legal ability to consent, why would children who don’t have the ability to consent be moving in the opposite direction in terms of protection.
Indeed they should be even more protected as on top of being vulnerable various circumstances and wielding of power and influence in an unethical manner, that MeToo has pushed to the forefront of the conversation, children cannot consent, full stop even without that impropriety.
If you can point to examples to the contrary, that aren’t a fringe academic paper that nobody has read, or outrage to the film Cuties, I would be interested to see them.
Change isn’t a guiding principle, it’s just a willingness to change things being higher.
If there’s a particular problem, that a change may fix, and doesn’t impact on somebody’s rights negatively, then yes go for it. Or be more willing to throw out certain rights I suppose, on a case by case basis.
It depends on the immutable traits. Dudes be pretty horny, I don’t see much advocacy for just letting us fuck anything we set eyes on, because that would conflict with somebody else’s rights. Or psychopaths getting a free pass to practice their craft.
I’m not sure what is forming your perception on what the wider left wing believe, but it seems pretty off base on a fair few things here.
|
United States44287 Posts
If we let progressives be called liberals then how do we describe liberalism? It still exists.
|
If we start letting people describe liberalism as only wanting things to be different, then yeah, we're going to start seeing lots of insane arguments about what they then support. Not to mention that progressives and anyone left wing also seem to be getting lumped in with liberals? Which very much sounds like those headlines and talking points about how Biden, Howard Stern, and CNN are somehow the radical left, which... I don't know how to fucking handle that, lol. It already made me choke on my breakfast once.
|
On January 09 2022 18:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2022 18:06 Doc.Rivers wrote:On January 09 2022 17:40 KwarK wrote:On January 09 2022 17:25 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Liberals favor change. If society was more sympathetic to pedophiles, that would be a change from the status quo. Thus pedophiles feel more at home among liberals, and likely feel empowered by the prospect of societal change. (After all, Pedophilia is an immutable trait, and liberals believe that society should change to be more accepting of everyone's immutable traits.) Therefore, liberalism creates a situation in which pedophilia is more likely to be acted upon. That’s not what liberalism is. You need to learn the names for political ideologies before you attempt to talk about them. Liberals favour liberalism, they have no inclination to change from liberalism. You may wish to start here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiberalismYour argument also extends only to whether paedophiles should be punished for what they are, not what they do. It’s the child abuse part that I have a problem with, if they stay away from that then honestly I’m good with them. No different to someone with a rape fantasy that knows not to rape anyone. My suspicion is that most paedophiles are relatively good people who recognize that their sexual desires aren’t morally attainable and just don’t talk about it. It’s the ones abusing children you hear about but that’s classic selection bias, I believe that most people wouldn’t abuse children even if it turned them on. Just like how most people wouldn’t hurt a child for money or whatever. I'm obviously talking about modern liberalism in the US, which favors change in a very real sense. E.g. it is clear that liberals believe that society should change to be more accepting of everyone's immutable traits. FDR, 1941: "The liberal party believes that, as new conditions and problems arise beyond the power of men and women to meet as individuals, it becomes the duty of the Government itself to find new remedies with which to meet them. The liberal party insists that the Government has the definite duty to use all its power and resources to meet new social problems with new social controls." He was talking about change. JFK, 1960: "If by a 'Liberal,' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions . . . then I'm proud to say that I'm a 'Liberal.'" He was also talking about change. As for the second part of your post - I'm not talking about whether liberals believe pedophiles should be punished for what they do. I'm talking about whether liberalism creates a situation in which pedophilia is more likely to be acted upon. And that can be the case even though liberals strongly believe (as do conservatives) that pedophiles should be held accountable when they abuse children. Liberals are right wing. You’re confusing them with leftists and progressives. Did you bother to read the Wikipedia article? Your argument also doesn’t really follow. It amounts to “Conservatives don’t like change therefore liberals (you mean progressives) do. Right now X is the case which means progressives must favour Y”. Consider the silliness of that argument for a minute. One could argue that progressives support everything that isn’t currently true based upon that. Reinstating slavery, going to war with Britain, anything. It’s just not a good argument. The opposite of defending everything old simply because it is old is not attacking everything old because it is old, it is evaluating things based on their merits.
I don't know why you're pretending that modern liberalism in the US is not associated with change. I even provided hard evidence of what the word "liberal" means. (Both progressivism and liberalism can be associated with change, you know.) Modern liberalism in the US is typically associated with the democratic party and the left. That's the ordinary meaning of the word, even if you read a book once that tried to impose a different definition.
I've also given a specific example of liberals' current desire for change, one that is directly related to pedophilia. The argument, of course, is based on that specific example.
|
United States44287 Posts
There is gun control in many cities. Conservatives believe that things should stay the same. Therefore conservatives support gun control. There is legal abortion in many states. Liberals support changing things and therefore liberals support banning abortion.
Do you see why you can’t argue like this and expect anyone to take you seriously?
The book with a different definition to the one you’re using is called a dictionary. Conservatives used liberal as a slur to describe the ideology they disagreed with. As liberalism triumphed and became consensus within the United States across all major parties Republicans just kept calling Democrats liberals, despite both parties being dominated by liberal philosophy.
You need to learn what these words mean if you wish to be taken seriously. All I ask is that you say progressive when you mean progressive. It matters because this isn’t a Republican vs Democrat divide, conservatives are a subset as are liberals etc. Misusing these broad labels makes the whole discussion impossible because the specific implications of conservative philosophy cannot be applied to every Republican.
|
Again your examples ignore that I referred to a specific example of American liberals' current desire for change.
It is true that your argument about conservatism & pedophilia, and my argument about liberalism & pedophilia, are using different senses of the words liberal and conservative. Mine is the ordinary meaning of those words as used in the US, including by FDR, JFK and Obama.
In truth I don't actually believe my argument about liberalism & pedophilia. It was just to illustrate the absurdity of proceeding from abstract propositions about political philosophies to an argument about engendering pedophilia, as KwarK and Mohdoo did. It's a silly discussion from the outset.
|
United States44287 Posts
On January 10 2022 03:21 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Again your examples ignore that I referred to a specific example of American liberals' current desire for change.
It is true that your argument about conservatism & pedophilia, and my argument about liberalism & pedophilia, are using different senses of the words liberal and conservative. Mine is the ordinary meaning of those words as used in the US, including by FDR, JFK and Obama.
In truth I don't actually believe my argument about liberalism & pedophilia. It was just to illustrate the absurdity of proceeding from abstract propositions about political philosophies to an argument about engendering pedophilia, as KwarK and Mohdoo did. It's a silly discussion from the outset.
Obama is a liberal, as is Bush. That’s what you’re not getting.
The attempt to spin this into “I know my argument is nonsense, surely we can all agree both arguments are nonsense” is just more nonsense by you. You can’t make my argument invalid by making enough invalid counter arguments.
Conservatism has both an a priori ideological reason to protect child abusers and a long track record of actually doing it. Conservatives value hierarchical authority for its own sake and believe that the rights of individuals, particularly individuals from lower social echelons, are secondary to the maintenance of social order through hierarchies. For example they would prioritize the reputation of the British monarchy over getting justice for the victims of Prince Andrew, not because they support what he is alleged to have done but because they support the institution of monarchy. To them the collective social good stemming from the institution outweighs any individual harm.
Liberalism is a philosophy predicated in the inalienable rights of man, regardless of class, race, sex etc. It is an individualist philosophy that places no value on the institutions that abuse children and focuses on the rights of the victims. You might be interested to learn that socialism, like conservatism, is not individualist and is opposed to liberalism.
|
On January 10 2022 03:21 Doc.Rivers wrote:
In truth I don't actually believe my argument about liberalism & pedophilia. It was just to illustrate the absurdity of proceeding from abstract propositions about political philosophies to an argument about engendering pedophilia, as KwarK and Mohdoo did. It's a silly discussion from the outset.
Except they gave examples of many powerful groups in which pedophilia and other crimes are in fact protected, by the use of authority which conservatives wish to preserve or to increase. In response, as far as I can tell you've made the argument "liberals want change, acceptance of pedophelia would be a change, therefore liberals will cause acceptance of pedophelia." These aren't equally strong arguments.
|
On January 10 2022 03:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2022 03:21 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Again your examples ignore that I referred to a specific example of American liberals' current desire for change.
It is true that your argument about conservatism & pedophilia, and my argument about liberalism & pedophilia, are using different senses of the words liberal and conservative. Mine is the ordinary meaning of those words as used in the US, including by FDR, JFK and Obama.
In truth I don't actually believe my argument about liberalism & pedophilia. It was just to illustrate the absurdity of proceeding from abstract propositions about political philosophies to an argument about engendering pedophilia, as KwarK and Mohdoo did. It's a silly discussion from the outset. Obama is a liberal, as is Bush. That’s what you’re not getting. The attempt to spin this into “I know my argument is nonsense, surely we can all agree both arguments are nonsense” is just more nonsense by you. You can’t make my argument invalid by making enough invalid counter arguments. Conservatism has both an a priori ideological reason to protect child abusers and a long track record of actually doing it. Conservatives value hierarchical authority for its own sake and believe that the rights of individuals, particularly individuals from lower social echelons, are secondary to the maintenance of social order through hierarchies. For example they would prioritize the reputation of the British monarchy over getting justice for the victims of Prince Andrew, not because they support what he is alleged to have done but because they support the institution of monarchy. To them the collective social good stemming from the institution outweighs any individual harm. Liberalism is a philosophy predicated in the inalienable rights of man, regardless of class, race, sex etc. It is an individualist philosophy that places no value on the institutions that abuse children and focuses on the rights of the victims. You might be interested to learn that socialism, like conservatism, is not individualist and is opposed to liberalism.
As you know we are using different senses of the words liberal and conservative. And as you know, the sense in which I'm using it is the ordinary meaning in the US. It's a US politics thread so I'm not sure what the point is of your making an argument about an ideology that, as you put it, matches up with the Taliban.
It should have been immediately obvious that I didn't actually believe what I was saying, because it directly contradicted my prior posts about the silly pedophilia arguments which fail to establish a nexus between political philosophy and the incidence of pedophilia. Granted I should not have taken the bait and continued the discussion.
|
Yeah and in some parts of america "communism" means anything not rabidly pro trump, so we should probably use the correct definition of terms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
