he's probably right though. I have an easy time believing the reality of zoophilia is more often dirty slag housewives letting the family dog lick peanut butter off their fanny, than people in animal costumes sneaking into petting zoos to molest zebras.
The vast majority of paedophiles are actually close family members taking advantage of a position of trust. It's only because that's not as salacious, we prefer the tabloid image of the greasy fat carpet-bagger hanging about playgrounds offering kids sweets.
>>70749 >the reality of zoophilia is more often dirty slag housewives letting the family dog lick peanut butter off their fanny
Wait, that doesn't count a zoo. Does it?
>>70749 No. The number of people in or outside of the fur community does not mean there's a higher incidence of zoophiles in one or the other. Incidence means something like percent or ratio - there being more people who aren't furs can't in itself be a reason a higher ratio of them are zoophiles. That doesn't make any sense.
>The vast majority of paedophiles are actually close family members taking advantage of a position of trust. It's only because that's not as salacious, we prefer the tabloid image of the greasy fat carpet-bagger hanging about playgrounds offering kids sweets.
I've often thought about this. the "traditional" paedo, paedo classic if you will, has got to be vanishingly rare nowadays. you'd have to be daft to attempt it, because i can't think of a faster way to get your head kicked in. even on the internet, only the really thick or desperate ones are going to be cruising about the chatrooms trying to solicit kids.
>>70753 I think like with animal-bothering we only have the tip of the iceberg. Unless you bum a parrot you're not going to have the victim tell anyone just as I don't doubt for a minute that the real paedo factory is insular religious communities where it's hushed up like the recent Jesus Army scandal. I guess in a way that's what makes the stories so quick to catch-on in the public consciousness, to a degree it's pervasive and hidden where every scandal is seemingly unpredictable.
On the Mk.I paedo these days they probably just employ different methods what with chatrooms just being all police officers. Discord seems to be mostly employed to convince kids to self-harm but I bet there's some sex scandal that will come out soon about it just like we're soon to learn all the talk of 'mind worms' on here is underground carpet-bagger-speak for the paedo-wing of Sid Mier's Alpha Centauri game.
>EVEN ON THE INTERNET, ONLY THE REALLY THICK OR DESPERATE ONES ARE GOING TO BE CRUISING ABOUT THE CHATROOMS TRYING TO SOLICIT KIDS.
It still happens loads. Channel 4 had a documentary series just last year where they shadowed a police special unit and showed what happens when you pose as a child in certain chat rooms. They still nick plenty of people almost every day, I remember they arrested one of them on the programme who had travelled several hundred miles because he thought he'd get to have sex with an eleven year old.
I was thinking the traditional paedophile must be largely extinct just this week too. The thing that made me think that was, when did the country last mobilise itself to find a missing child? Kids don't really go missing any more. Obviously that's great, but it suggests nobody is kidnapping them. There used to be probably one a year with posters everywhere and parents crying on TV, but if you have a fetish for sobbing mothers on ITV News, these are lean times indeed.
As we so tragically saw in Rotherham, the trick is to target kids who won't be missed by anyone. There are no end of kids who run away from their children's home every other week, kids being raised by a single mum who is too off her head to know or care where her kids are. After more than a decade of austerity, public services have become purely reactive. The police, social services and mental health services are constantly in crisis mode, constantly prioritising only the most dire emergencies; they don't have the time to check up on people who might be vulnerable or follow a hunch when something just seems off.
On a related note, tens of thousands of kids stopped going to school after lockdown and nobody knows where they've gone. They haven't been suspended or expelled, they haven't moved to another school, they haven't been registered as home-schooled, they're just gone. They might turn up eventually, but nobody is looking for them. In the olden days a truancy officer would be out knocking on doors and checking the parks and shopping centres for kids who should be in school, but today it isn't the responsibility of the council and schools are quite happy if poor academic performers are off their books and out of their statistics.
The sheer vulnerability of people at the bottom end of society doesn't bear thinking about.
>>70755 It's been well known for years that paedos use dating sites to target single mums to get at their kids.
>The site says 44 per cent of female members are single mums. It allows men, who do not have to be parents, to tick an option saying they only want to date women with kids.
>A convicted paedophile - released early from a 15-year sentence - tricked his way into the home of a Strood mother-of three. Devious Billy Robinson met his victim on the dating site Plenty Of Fish after being allowed out of jail.
>The court heard Jacobs met the woman earlier this year on the Plenty of Fish dating site. The woman has four children aged under 13. Jacobs and the woman made regular contact with each other before the defendant began visiting her home.
Problem is, you can't keep paedophiles from having a social life entirely. With many rehabilitated criminals, letting them become part of the community again is key in keeping them from reoffending. Probably not as true for somebody who committed serious sexual offences, as that is based on sexual urges and harder to overcome than making a conscious decision to no longer nick cars or rob service stations. But while it's only reasonable to bar them from schools or playgrounds, it gets difficult to persuade them that they're jeopardising their freedom by reoffending if they aren't allowed to do the things a normal free person is allowed to do. That doesn't answer the question what you are supposed to do with paedos on adult dating sites, but I guess with anybody you get to know as a single mum with kids, just keep your safeguards up until you know the person you've met well enough to potentially leave them alone with your kids.
>The lowest rate of reoffending in the adult cohort was observed amongst those with a sexual offence as their index offence, with a rate of 10.5%.
What skews this statistic is probably that a significant number of sex offenders receive indeterminate sentences, meaning that while murderers are often free to go after somewhere around 12 to 15 years with good conduct, there is a reluctance to release paedos who have committed serious offences against children.
The key with paedoism is close monitoring and mandatory therapy. But even then, there's naturally no guarantee they won't reoffend. Because in therapy, it basically gets drummed into them that they must never live out their sexuality. And they can't even make do with pornography, because that's illegal too.
Must be a pretty shit life, but of course that's no excuse to harm and abuse children.
The thing I think we've got to grapple with is that it pretty much is a sexuality, in a similar way to being gay or asexual or whatever is. it's a deviant and obviously unacceptable sexuality that we shouldn't be in any way trying to excuse or normalise, so don't mistake me for saying that; but in dealing with people who exhibit it, we must understand that that's what it is. if conversion therapy is inhumane and doesn't work on gays, it's inhumane and won't work on paedos. what I'm trying to say is I don't think we can honestly expect to "cure" them, we have to deal with them as they are.
so the question remains of what to do with them. there's places in america where they use chemical castration for sex offenders but the number of ethical issues that brings up is completely unacceptable to me, ranging from the obvious question of wrongfully convicted innocents, to the fact it only works on males, to the fact it could just plain not work at all and they will still indulge their carpet-baggery habits even if they can't get it up. i mean I don't know about you but I wouldn't surrender my libido without a fight. so what options are there?
should we just ship them all off to an island where there aren't any kids for them to fiddle, and let them jack it to hentai? do we just give them all little real dolls so they don't have to take their urges out on real kids? or would simply executing them be a lesser evil, a mercy killing even?
>conversion therapy is inhumane and doesn't work on gays, it's inhumane and won't work on paedos. what I'm trying to say is I don't think we can honestly expect to "cure" them, we have to deal with them as they are.
The way I understand it, behavioural therapy for kiddie fiddlers doesn't try to convert them to fancying adults of whatever gender. They are told in a matter-of-fact way that that's their sexuality, but that unlike in many settings with adult sexual partners, there is no way for them to live it out besides wanking. So the key then is to learn how to avoid situations or behaviours which could lead to more abusive situations.
But I wonder what you are told in case that your paedo tendencies are just opportunistic or occasional. You know, the way some straight men now and then fancy a bit of shemale action. I think I read somewhere that that kind of thing exists in a similar way as bisexuality, so if you fancy both adult partners and now and then also children, maybe one therapy goal can be to get that person to seek all their release from being with adult partners instead.
Other than that, it's probably pretty shit in terms of your opportunities for sexual release. But it's the only way for you as a paedo to keep from committing new offences.
>there's places in america where they use chemical castration for sex offenders
I think that's only voluntary. I seem to remember that some states offer that option in exchange for being taken off the public sex offender register. Chemical castration seems to work really well, but it's not just your sex drive that will plummet, but you'll probably lose most of your energy for other things as well. Testosterone doesn't just make you want to have sex, after all, but it's also an important hormone for your overall physical and mental energy. Both in men and women, by the way.
Mandatory castration, on the other hand, even if only chemically, seems like it should be a violation of the UN charter of human rights, because it was used by other governments in the past as punishment or as part of euthanasia programmes, the latter of which even the U.S. took part in at some point before the Nazis ruined that for good. The Americans also have the Eighth Amendment which forbids cruel and unusual punishment.
>should we just ship them all off to an island where there aren't any kids for them to fiddle, and let them jack it to hentai? do we just give them all little real dolls so they don't have to take their urges out on real kids?
I think child sex dolls are more and more being made illegal in many countries. Hentai could be an alternative, but those, too, have been banned in many countries because it's feared that they normalise child sexual abuse and could have the opposite effect.
>>70765 enlightened countries have state sanctioned shooting galleries for controlled, monitored and safe(r) drug use.
I, for one,welcome anonymous facilities where paedos can go and crack one out to state provided hentai or shag a grey, worn-out state provided small realdoll.
Once they've provided 3 forms of ID, signed the register, smiled for the local newspaper photographer, and anything else possible to completely negate the point, of course.
It does seem unfortunate that nothing's legal for paedos except abstinence and denial. I'm not at all saying that kids should be involved in any way, but banning dolls and pics feels counterproductive. If everything's illegal, they're going to do illegal things, given how powerful a diver sex can be. Obviously the ones that want to degrade & exert power over actual kids can fuck right off.
Ah, fucked if I know, but hysteria will surely be looked back on unkindly when we work out what the sensible answer is.
>Ah, fucked if I know, but hysteria will surely be looked back on unkindly when we work out what the sensible answer is.
Hysteria always makes for good tabloid sales, but should never be the basis of laws which aim to protect vulnerable members of society, like children. Some child protection laws in the last 20 years were not necessarily made based on sound empirical evidence and solid legal theory, but by pandering to the angry mobs with torches and pitchforks. In that respect, if you were a politician running for (re-)election, passing ever harsher child protection laws was low-hanging fruit.
For example, I believe that while it can be a good idea to keep tabs on the sex offenders living in a community, the way the Americans have done it where all the personal details of a registered sex offender are freely accessible online to anyone, with a mugshot and a symbol on a street map, are the wrong way to go. Most importantly, there is proof they don't reduce recidivism. It may seem like a no brainer that by not allowing your children near a sex offender's house you'll keep them out of harm's way, but it just doesn't work that way. And also, if you actually bother to look at their offences, which can range from rape of adult victims (most states require the age of the victim to appear) to public indecency to downloading indecent pictures of a minor, or age of consent violations. The latter can be particularly misleading and pernicious when somebody had a consensual relationship in their youth with somebody of similar age but just shy of the age of consent, so that when a concerned citizen pulls up your profile and sees you as the middle aged person you are now, it'll still say you're a sex offender for sex with a minor. Because the date of the offence is often not listed, but the requiremet to register for a past offence can last 20 years or more. Some states deliberately omit clarification despite repeated appeals to change pertaining laws.
It's all well and good to say you violated society's laws and norms by sexually abusing its most vulnerable members. For the most part, well, you very probably did, unless you're on the register for accidental public urination in front of a minor (that, too, is an offence that'll get you registered in some states). But nobody wins if you add social punishment to legal punishment.
The only morally justifiable position is to pursue evidence-based policies that minimise harm. Anything else is just hollow the shipping forecast - they don't actually care about preventing kids from getting diddled, they just want to prove to everyone how much they hate carpet-baggers.
>they don't actually care about preventing kids from getting diddled, they just want to prove to everyone how much they hate carpet-baggers.
That, or they'll use THINK UV THAR CHILDRENS for any number of things that some people may not agree with but which really do no harm. For example, adult pornography is lumped together with child pornography by some radical fisherpersons in order to denigrate the former as being somehow the same thing. They know it isn't, but it doesn't stop them from using various verbal sleights of hand to further that myth. One way is that they'll be deliberately imprecise when talking about child pornography on the one hand and adult pornography that is shown to children on the other hand, to the point that they are used virtuall interchangeably in some of their position papers. Very arguably, you really shouldn't make adult pornography accessible to children, but what's really the ensuing disingenuous move is to insinuate that legal adult pornography hurts children in a similar way as child pornography.
They do the same with voluntary prostitution and forced prostitution. To a lot of fisherpersons, there is no separation between one and the other, and all prostitution is forced. Which again just isn't completely true. But they then throw around slogans like "no woman chooses to be a prostitute", which denies women any kind of agency to decide for themselves if, given a choice and with an absence of coercion or force, they want to offer sexual services to strangers in exchange for money.
You wouldn't call all labour forced and not distinguish between legal gainful employment and slave labour or labour that is against the person's will. On the bottom line, there is always an element of necessity to a job you have, as most people have no choice but to work for money to pay their monthly living expenses. But you wouldn't call that forced labour just because some unfortunate people are actually held as work slaves against their will.
>You wouldn't call all labour forced and not distinguish between legal gainful employment and slave labour or labour that is against the person's will
you would if you're of a more marxist bent. all labour under the system of capitalism is coerced because there is no realistic alternative for them to freely choose- Starving to death is not a realistic alternative to freely choose. you even realise and pretty much backtrack all the way around in your next sentence, lad.
you're right that the rhetoric a lot of fisherfolk tend to use is very disingenuous though, and ripping off a solid bit of marxist theory and twisting it towards abstract gender concepts instead of material circumstances is one they have got a shitload of mileage out of over the years.
in general i do disagree with prostitution, personally. but my perspective is kind of the diametric opposite of the one fisherpersons usually come from. the anti-prozzy fisherfolk see prostitution as a form of male power over women because having money is part of their essentialist view of the male gender, and we can use our magic ability to obtain money to force women to offer out their sacred pussy hole. what they fail to realise is that the truth is far more like the opposite, and that women have long realised their ability to gatekeep the fish finger palace is their most potent form of power and can also be used for material gain. sometimes men muscle in on that as pimps, but that can't be helped I suppose because as dudes, we just can't help but rock. but I digress.
my point is rather that whatever way you try to look at it, from a trad-con, neo-con, liberal, progressive, swerf, swirf, whatever. It always comes back to the commodification of sex. the commodification of sex is what truly stands between the genders and prevents them from acheiving equality. when you allow sex to be commodified, wether it by the traditional methods of the oldest profession, or by the modern meat market of dating sites, oinly fans, and what have you; you create an environment where the sexes have competing interests. they cannot acheive harmony because a man's interests in the sex marketplace directly oppose a woman's.
i have had people tell me that the "sexual marketplace" perspective is somehow inherently sexist but it's not, it's just the reality of the modern world. capitalism has sunk it's tendrils into the very act of human courtship and it's not letting go any time soon. it's a marketplace, like it or not, that's how it works now. but to make a very overdue tl;dr- it's unhealthy.
>you would if you're of a more marxist bent. all labour under the system of capitalism is coerced because there is no realistic alternative for them to freely choose- Starving to death is not a realistic alternative to freely choose. you even realise and pretty much backtrack all the way around in your next sentence, lad.
Now, now. You're twisting my words.
By and large, we've had to fight for a meal every day since we were lizards. Every higher species must make an effort every day to feed itself, from leopards to bonobos. And as self preservation is ingrained in all higher species as well, simply stopping to eat is not an option. The difference between us and leopards is just that as arguably the highest developed species, we make quite a faff about it and go about it in a very roundabout way. When we were still hunter-gatherers or even early farmers, there was still a very direct connection between the effort we put in every day and the amount of food we were able to eat. With milleniae of social evolution and division of labour, you don't have to sow grain anymore or hunt gazelles in order to come home to a wholesome dinner table every night.
In short, if you think all labour is forced, then you could also argue that having to eat every day is something that goes against your will and which you are free to choose not to do.
The part you're missing, or perhaps deliberately omitting, is that once upon a time there existed sufficient space and resources for a human to plausibly self-sustain if they didn't want to go along with whatever their tribe was doing. indeed that's how different tribes came to be, that's how we spread and propagated across the world, that's how we ended up with this mess of wierd arbitrary lines on the floor where the people on the other side speak in bizarre nonsense sounds like french. Anyway I'm getting distracted again.
point is you can't escape your obligation to eat and breathe air, but you used to be able to take charge for yourself of how you managed that.
but nowadays you can't do that, there are too many of us, there is no open land for you to fuck off to and set up your own little farmstead, or whatever it may be. if you are born in the modern world to anyone but exceedingly rich parents, you are forced to participate in the system of labour exchange. we have always been a social animal dependent to some extent on those around us for survival, but in a bygone (pre-capitalism) era, you did have the choice over whether or not you participated. The industrial revolution was where that all started to change, and while I'm not suggesting pre-industrial life was somehow better, we have to acknowledge that we did make sacrifices in the transition, and part of that was definitely the concept of true freedom.
so to bring it back around to marxism, since we can't give people the freedom which really should be their natural right, then it is our responsibility to ensure the system is fair and non-exploitative. it is our responsibility that if someone must participate in the collective labour that enables our society to function (and they must), then the burden must be shared equally, and freedom from it must be given out to the maximum potential enabled by the surplus of our productivity.
>we have always been a social animal dependent to some extent on those around us for survival, but in a bygone (pre-capitalism) era, you did have the choice over whether or not you participated.
That's only possibly true for an extraordinarily resourceful and lucky person. The reason we feel shame so acutely is because for most of human history, shunning was a death sentence.
Life for hunter-gatherers is incredibly precarious, but it becomes immeasurably more precarious without the tribe. Nobody to hunt with you, nobody to keep a lookout, nobody to keep the fire going at night.
Capitalism makes it more possible to survive alone because of the extraordinary abundance of our productive capacity. The scraps that fall from the table of capitalism are more nourishing than anything our ancient ancestors could have imagined. Cities have larger animal populations than wild spaces.
You haven't actually refuted anything that post said.
capitalism is more efficient than being a hunter gatherer or a feudal serf, no shit. very insightful observation. the fallacy here is to assume that means it's the end of the line, the final point of progress, that there's no way we can improve upon it.
>the fallacy here is to assume that means it's the end of the line, the final point of progress, that there's no way we can improve upon it.
Total non-sequitur. That lad was arguing that capitalism took away our natural freedom to go it alone. I'm arguing that we never had such natural freedom, because the natural state of humanity is abject squalor. Acknowledging that modern capitalism is the best system we've ever had doesn't mean you think it's perfect. Nearly all of the alternatives that people propose are horrendously flawed in ways that aren't obvious, because the free market has a lot of subtle but incredibly useful properties that are extremely difficult to replicate.
meh. If someone's trying to argue with you about a point which is only adjacent to the one you were actually making, there's really very little sense engaging. my posts said already what I wanted to say, so (shrug emoji)
I don't think anyone really had the option to just fuck off and lone-wolf it in communist countries either. But all the positives of capitalism are really just positives of industrialisation, and everyone had access to food grown by someone else in the Soviet Union too (most of the time). So the pair of you sound pretty clueless right now.
>But all the positives of capitalism are really just positives of industrialisation
I mean that was part of my point, i wasn't even really criticising capitalism directly until capitalist simplad came along to defend his precious ideology like an insecure videogame fanboy.
there are positives and negatives of the axis of progress we've followed, but what you can't argue with is the fact that a great deal of work is coerced, because it just is. nobody wants to be a bin man or change old people's shitted kegs, but someone has to.
>>70781 Taking this opportunity to moan about what annoys me most: That the government makes sure there's not enough work going around. We combine an economy run on the theory of a "Non accelerating inflation rate of unemployment" (practical meaning: keep about ~4-5% unemployment so workers are competing for jobs rather than employers competing for workers) with a welfare system that presumes you're a lazy scrounger. Not only are you compelled to take a job that nobody would want to do (at poverty wages!), you're compelled to degrade yourself in tens of interviews before you're "lucky" to get it because there's always someone more desperate out there
But we're going to blame the current inflationary blip on uppity workers, so there's no chance we're going to realise one of the cornerstones of post-1976 economic management is bollocks, stupid bollocks when combined with all the obvious and necessary work going undone, and kafkaesque bollocks when combined with the post-1996 benefits system. Capitalism I can handle, but I've been driven to madness by the way we structure it.
>Stand-up comedian Dave Chappelle has been attacked by a person who ran on stage at the Hollywood Bowl in LA.
>"A man charged and tackled" Chappelle just as the show was ending, according to Brianna Sacks, a reporter at the show. She said security "rushed and started punching and kicking the shit out of Chappelle's attacker".
>We combine an economy run on the theory of a "Non accelerating inflation rate of unemployment"
No we don't. NAIRU was never particularly popular among economists and never particularly widely known by politicians. It was largely discredited by the late 1990s and the only time I hear it mentioned now is by left-wing commentators.
Some central banks (not ours) do estimate NAIRU, but only use it as an indicator of potential inflationary trends in their decision-making over interest rates. Rate changes typically take at least a year to meaningfully impact inflation, so central banks inevitably have to do a bit of educated guesswork about future economic trends. I haven't heard of any politician anywhere in the world suggesting the idea of intentionally suppressing the rate of employment.
NAIRU has become a bit of a bogeyman trope based on a half-understanding, like the Phoebus cartel. Until the second world war, major lightbulb manufacturers agreed to limit the life of lightbulbs to 1,000 hours. This is commonly believed to be an example of planned obsolescence, with the manufacturers conspiring to sell more lightbulbs. The (only slightly) more complicated truth is that the energy efficiency of an incandescent bulb is inversely proportional to its lifespan - long-lasting bulbs produce less light per watt. 1,000 hours happened to be approximately the optimum balance between bulb life and energy efficiency, providing the lowest total cost of ownership.
>>70897 I appreciate it's never fun to get a short reply to a long post, but if-true this somehow makes the fact we abandoned any attempt to get unemployment down with demand management even worse. At least NAIRU offered everyone pre-2007 a fig-leaf for their inactivity.
>I haven't heard of any politician anywhere in the world suggesting the idea of intentionally suppressing the rate of employment.
Well yeah, it wouldn't be a decision for politicians when the central bank is independent. The politician's decision is to not spend more to get employment up, which he doesn't have to justify because he's forgotten that politicians used to do that. You've never heard a politician say NAIRU - but when's the last time you heard a politician say "full employment" and actually mean it?
(And if you want to go "well yeah, that doesn't work anymore" for whatever reason, fine, but that still leaves us with an unemployment system built around an assumption of scrounging and an economy with constant involuntary unemployment which nobody can do anything about.)
>>70895 It's always happened occasionally. I think most comedians would have a story like that if you asked them. Dave Chappelle just gets in the news when it happens to him because he's famous and has taken up a prominent position in the culture wars. When he gets smacked, we assume we know why. If Michael McIntyre got smacked, we would all pretend to be entirely confused by it.
>>70895 I don't understand the logic of using a fake gun to attack someone. Then again I suppose if you're jumping well guarded comics on stage you're probably not big into the whole "logic" game anyway.
>>70900 I read somewhere that it was a fake gun which could dispense a real knife secretly. Sounds kind of stupid now I think about it, but I want to believe.
>>70576>>70577 >Calling a man “bald” is sexual harassment, an employment tribunal has ruled. Hair loss is much more prevalent among men than women so using it to describe someone is a form of discrimination, a judge has concluded. Commenting on a man’s baldness in the workplace is equivalent to remarking on the size of a woman’s breasts, the finding suggests.
>>70928 >[The company’s lawyer] was right to submit that women as well as men may be bald. However, as all three members of the tribunal will vouchsafe, baldness is much more prevalent in men than women.
It does sound like they were having a little fun, with that, getting to say "bald cunt" again and again. But the heart of the issue:
>The tribunal therefore determines that by referring to the claimant as a ‘bald cunt’ … Mr King’s conduct was unwanted, it was a violation of the claimant’s dignity, it created an intimidating environment for him, it was done for that purpose, and it related to the claimant’s sex.
Is perfectly valid. Reporting on legal matters gets butchered as badly as science reporting, it's very annoying, especially because understanding legal matters is piss easy. Even those bald cunts can do it.
