Top | Newest First | Oldest First
cherokeepatti · 61-69, F
View 2 more replies »
MntoNc · 36-40, M
@cherokeepatti look him on youtube
MntoNc · 36-40, M
@cherokeepatti [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdmXsJvUC4A]
cherokeepatti · 61-69, F
empanadas · 31-35, M
bruh edp445? the eagles #1 fan...damn you really dont know someone. yeah he deserves jail time
This message was deleted by its author.
FCNantes · 22-25, M
Free choice's unfalsifiable, meaning it's possible (& I'd argue likely) that no 1 has free choice.
So no.
So no.
FCNantes · 22-25, M
@MntoNc This way to look at it's flawed. I probably noticed at least 20 different occassions when 1 of the sting operators said something untrue or flawed.
I'm going to try critically analyse that hour (focussing on the sting operators).
First, the positives: they successfully punished a wealthy popular figure & made this publicly available on YouTube.
They gave him sufficient time to give his opinions.
They adressed some of the implications of his actions quite well.
The negatives:
They criticised him for being attracted to underage girls. They criticised him for finding the idea of sexual activity with girls appealing. I don't think they did enough to delineate the line between interacting with girls inappropriately & merely having the inclination to do so. I'd imagine the vast majority of viewers came into this with pre-held beliefs without the level of critical thinking someone like me has. By failing to emphasise how these 2 things^ are vastly & fundamentally different, many of the viewers'll have watched this video with their biases strengthened & a huge morally-centred hatred, not just focussed at those who do terrible things towards kids but those who are attracted to them. It serves to strengthen the stigma towards paedophiles (paedophile means person who's attracted to children, not person who seeks to do sexual things to children) as a whole, rather than the 1s who cause harm. This serves to harm the innocents. For example, let's say there's someone who doesn't have the lucidity that I (think I) have, when it comes to their worldview & all that. This person may believe their feelings are morally wrong, that they must be sick to the core & that they're a burden to society.
This hardly helps the non-paedophiles, either, as you can imagine that having innocent paedophiles think they're monsters might actually encourage them to tip over to the other side (read up on self-fulfilling prophecy if you're unaware of the phenomenon). Oh, wait, our demonisation of child molestors has led to more child molestors.
Where I found there to be a particular blurring between these 2^ was there use of subjective words like disgusting, creep & the like. We live in a society that 'uses' these words as if some things are inherently disgusting, or charming, or soft. This's not the case, obviously, but many people have never really considered just how socially constructed these words are (entirely so). I also think it's convenient to use them as if they're factual, since the non-factual nature of these words makes it impossible for any statement to be disproved, but that's probably a topic for another discussion.
With all this in mind, it's not helpful when 1 moment he's getting criticised for his 'disgusting' actions, the next for his 'disgusting' emotional reactions.
On the whole, I suspect that this video might do more bad than good, although it's very hard to say if this's true.
^ linked
I'm going to try critically analyse that hour (focussing on the sting operators).
First, the positives: they successfully punished a wealthy popular figure & made this publicly available on YouTube.
They gave him sufficient time to give his opinions.
They adressed some of the implications of his actions quite well.
The negatives:
They criticised him for being attracted to underage girls. They criticised him for finding the idea of sexual activity with girls appealing. I don't think they did enough to delineate the line between interacting with girls inappropriately & merely having the inclination to do so. I'd imagine the vast majority of viewers came into this with pre-held beliefs without the level of critical thinking someone like me has. By failing to emphasise how these 2 things^ are vastly & fundamentally different, many of the viewers'll have watched this video with their biases strengthened & a huge morally-centred hatred, not just focussed at those who do terrible things towards kids but those who are attracted to them. It serves to strengthen the stigma towards paedophiles (paedophile means person who's attracted to children, not person who seeks to do sexual things to children) as a whole, rather than the 1s who cause harm. This serves to harm the innocents. For example, let's say there's someone who doesn't have the lucidity that I (think I) have, when it comes to their worldview & all that. This person may believe their feelings are morally wrong, that they must be sick to the core & that they're a burden to society.
This hardly helps the non-paedophiles, either, as you can imagine that having innocent paedophiles think they're monsters might actually encourage them to tip over to the other side (read up on self-fulfilling prophecy if you're unaware of the phenomenon). Oh, wait, our demonisation of child molestors has led to more child molestors.
Where I found there to be a particular blurring between these 2^ was there use of subjective words like disgusting, creep & the like. We live in a society that 'uses' these words as if some things are inherently disgusting, or charming, or soft. This's not the case, obviously, but many people have never really considered just how socially constructed these words are (entirely so). I also think it's convenient to use them as if they're factual, since the non-factual nature of these words makes it impossible for any statement to be disproved, but that's probably a topic for another discussion.
With all this in mind, it's not helpful when 1 moment he's getting criticised for his 'disgusting' actions, the next for his 'disgusting' emotional reactions.
On the whole, I suspect that this video might do more bad than good, although it's very hard to say if this's true.
^ linked
FCNantes · 22-25, M
[different point here]
I think we need to remind ourselves of what deserving something means; we know the jist of it but of fundamental importance to the concept's that people inherently deserve what they deserve. Having the opinion that someone deserves x has no bearing on whether or not that person deserves x. It can not be subjective. This'd also mean that deserving isn't a social construct.
I'm not going to deny that there's a such thing as deserving, rather than it merely being a social construct that fails to inform us of reality.
But neither am I going to deny that it may be the case that none of us have free choice.
I don't know if you showed me that video to challenge my view. I'm going to assume for a moment you did:
It doesn't matter what you show me or how what you show me makes me feel, the crux of my argument's based on a logic that can't be broken. In fact, if I was to change my view after watching the video, this'd demonstrate that I haven't really grasped the logic of what I had stated, as the crux of my argument's based on a logic that can't be broken.
I think we need to remind ourselves of what deserving something means; we know the jist of it but of fundamental importance to the concept's that people inherently deserve what they deserve. Having the opinion that someone deserves x has no bearing on whether or not that person deserves x. It can not be subjective. This'd also mean that deserving isn't a social construct.
I'm not going to deny that there's a such thing as deserving, rather than it merely being a social construct that fails to inform us of reality.
But neither am I going to deny that it may be the case that none of us have free choice.
I don't know if you showed me that video to challenge my view. I'm going to assume for a moment you did:
It doesn't matter what you show me or how what you show me makes me feel, the crux of my argument's based on a logic that can't be broken. In fact, if I was to change my view after watching the video, this'd demonstrate that I haven't really grasped the logic of what I had stated, as the crux of my argument's based on a logic that can't be broken.
Synyster · 51-55, M
Watch them burn alive.
![]()
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
