3 ms·

? Not sure I understand the point you're making. Maybe we are using different age cutoffs. And Republicans are justifying Trumps actions by lowering the age be

? Not sure I understand the point you're making. Maybe we are using different age cutoffs. And Republicans are justifying Trumps actions by lowering the age before being considered children? Thus making it not pedophilia?

9rx 1y ago
> Not sure I understand the point you're making. Where in my questions to try and understand what you are trying to say do you find a point? > Republicans are justifying Trumps actions by lowering the age before being considered children? What has you questioning that? I mean, research has shown a link between exposure to certain chemicals and early-onset puberty. It is technically possible to lower the average age where one stops being a child, but that it is being purposefully done by Republicans as some kind of Trump justification is one of the more, uh, interesting conspiracy theories I've heard. > Thus making it not pedophilia? Even if we were to buy into this conspiracy theory, it wouldn't change anything about pedophilia. But this has little to do with the discussion that was taking place. As amusing as this has been, let's get back on-topic: Where did the original pedophilia idea you had come from?
- FrustratedMonky 1y ago
  I never said anything about Republicans using chemicals to create younger adults. It was about changing the age of consent. I was saying they are arguing for a lower age to be ok. It seemed as if the argument was just around moving the age where childhood ends. Just re-contextualizing the argument. Like the argument "well she looked older" so it is ok. Kind of like middle eastern countries marry off girls at 11 or 12. That would be disgusting to the west. But if Trump does it, it seems like Republicans are happy enough to slide the scale and say "well 14 isn't that bad". Since so many Republicans and Church officials get charged with having sex with kids, and there are so many arguments trying to justify it, and they continue to vote for and support these people, that I can say Republicans support pedophiles.
  - 9rx 1y ago
    > I never said anything about Republicans using chemicals to create younger adults. You don't say? Try reading it again. > I was saying they are arguing for a lower age to be ok. We likely touched on that when we talked about people starting to reject what I called the "Teen Mom" movement. Yes, people are waking up to the fact that not having children until their geriatric years, if at all, is... not great. They are sick of being shamed for wanting to have children and are pushing back. But my question was about your claims related to pedophilia. That's another subject entirely. > I can say Republicans support pedophiles. So you keep saying, but all you've come up with is some groups of people who have no doubt broken the law, but haven't exhibited any signs of pedophilia. At this point the only logical expiation here is that you've made up a random definition for the word on the spot and are trying to use it as some kind of boogieman in hopes on preying on those who assume you are using the term in good faith. And if that is the case, I have to question why you find your bad faith participation acceptable?
    - FrustratedMonky 1y ago
      That you keep disagreeing, made me doubt, maybe I am using the word wrong. So I looked it up. You are technically correct. If Trump was sleeping with 14 year old, and the cutoff for Pedophilia is 13. Then, guess he is in the clear. And Gaetz, paid for sex with 17 year old. So guess again, you could argue 17 is "old enough to play ball". Guess I was wrong. 14-18 is ok for Republicans. I'd say the Church steers younger, but I'm sure you can look that up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia "Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12,[3] psychiatric diagnostic criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13"
      - 9rx 1y ago
        > the cutoff for Pedophilia is 13. The "cutoff" is normally considered to be puberty. At puberty the human form starts to change, which is what we consider significant. That doesn't magically happen on your 13th birthday. Not having reached puberty by the age of 13 would be statistically unusual, though. I guess that is what you mean? But, sure, pedophilia might even apply to a 14 year old in some extreme cases. Regardless, it is quite apparent that Trump's ilk like those who at least show some "development". If they are closeted pedophiles, they have certainly done well to keep that from the limelight. > Guess I was wrong. Arbitrarily defining a word doesn't make you wrong. All words are ultimately randomly made up on the spot. That is how natural language works. However, the behaviour that followed was, let's say... interesting. I specifically asked in the very first sentence if you meant ephebophilia to clarify your intent. Rationally, that is where one would say: "Oh yes, that is what I am talking about", "I define pedophilia as...", or at very least "I am not familiar with ephebophilia. What is that?" so that we could converge on a shared understanding. Instead, we got a wild train ride to nowhere, only now finally getting an answer to the original question. But, hey, you do you.

9rx 1y ago

> Not sure I understand the point you're making. Where in my questions to try and understand what you are trying to say do you find a point? > Republicans are justifying Trumps actions by lowering the age before being considered children? What has you questioning that? I mean, research has shown a link between exposure to certain chemicals and early-onset puberty. It is technically possible to lower the average age where one stops being a child, but that it is being purposefully done by Republicans as some kind of Trump justification is one of the more, uh, interesting conspiracy theories I've heard. > Thus making it not pedophilia? Even if we were to buy into this conspiracy theory, it wouldn't change anything about pedophilia. But this has little to do with the discussion that was taking place. As amusing as this has been, let's get back on-topic: Where did the original pedophilia idea you had come from?

FrustratedMonky 1y ago
I never said anything about Republicans using chemicals to create younger adults. It was about changing the age of consent. I was saying they are arguing for a lower age to be ok. It seemed as if the argument was just around moving the age where childhood ends. Just re-contextualizing the argument. Like the argument "well she looked older" so it is ok. Kind of like middle eastern countries marry off girls at 11 or 12. That would be disgusting to the west. But if Trump does it, it seems like Republicans are happy enough to slide the scale and say "well 14 isn't that bad". Since so many Republicans and Church officials get charged with having sex with kids, and there are so many arguments trying to justify it, and they continue to vote for and support these people, that I can say Republicans support pedophiles.
- 9rx 1y ago
  > I never said anything about Republicans using chemicals to create younger adults. You don't say? Try reading it again. > I was saying they are arguing for a lower age to be ok. We likely touched on that when we talked about people starting to reject what I called the "Teen Mom" movement. Yes, people are waking up to the fact that not having children until their geriatric years, if at all, is... not great. They are sick of being shamed for wanting to have children and are pushing back. But my question was about your claims related to pedophilia. That's another subject entirely. > I can say Republicans support pedophiles. So you keep saying, but all you've come up with is some groups of people who have no doubt broken the law, but haven't exhibited any signs of pedophilia. At this point the only logical expiation here is that you've made up a random definition for the word on the spot and are trying to use it as some kind of boogieman in hopes on preying on those who assume you are using the term in good faith. And if that is the case, I have to question why you find your bad faith participation acceptable?
  - FrustratedMonky 1y ago
    That you keep disagreeing, made me doubt, maybe I am using the word wrong. So I looked it up. You are technically correct. If Trump was sleeping with 14 year old, and the cutoff for Pedophilia is 13. Then, guess he is in the clear. And Gaetz, paid for sex with 17 year old. So guess again, you could argue 17 is "old enough to play ball". Guess I was wrong. 14-18 is ok for Republicans. I'd say the Church steers younger, but I'm sure you can look that up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia "Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12,[3] psychiatric diagnostic criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13"
    - 9rx 1y ago
      > the cutoff for Pedophilia is 13. The "cutoff" is normally considered to be puberty. At puberty the human form starts to change, which is what we consider significant. That doesn't magically happen on your 13th birthday. Not having reached puberty by the age of 13 would be statistically unusual, though. I guess that is what you mean? But, sure, pedophilia might even apply to a 14 year old in some extreme cases. Regardless, it is quite apparent that Trump's ilk like those who at least show some "development". If they are closeted pedophiles, they have certainly done well to keep that from the limelight. > Guess I was wrong. Arbitrarily defining a word doesn't make you wrong. All words are ultimately randomly made up on the spot. That is how natural language works. However, the behaviour that followed was, let's say... interesting. I specifically asked in the very first sentence if you meant ephebophilia to clarify your intent. Rationally, that is where one would say: "Oh yes, that is what I am talking about", "I define pedophilia as...", or at very least "I am not familiar with ephebophilia. What is that?" so that we could converge on a shared understanding. Instead, we got a wild train ride to nowhere, only now finally getting an answer to the original question. But, hey, you do you.