you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]jamesK_3rd 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (23 children)

Is it really a problem though?

The religion of none dictate that really this should be thought of in terms of moral relativism.

Pedophilia, like many other "alternate" lifestyles really have bounds set by the Judeo Christian religious culture of the past few hundred years, which most of the current culture now view as illegitimate.

Sexual preference, gender constructions, and age of sexual awakening and preference are all changing.

[–]useless_aether[S] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

moral relativism is codeword for satanism which uses ritual child abuse to propagate it's power from generation to generation.

https://www.corbettreport.com/meet-the-kakistocracy-tjeerd-andringa-on-the-corbett-report/

[–]JasonCarswell 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

Satanism is often codeword for lazy label narrow thinking.

But there are indeed problems a plenty.

[–]Zahn 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

It can be, however often it's a quite succinct descriptor of those who indulge in selfish and destructive deviance, often at the expense of others via manipulations and deceit. Therefore places the fulfillment of their ego driven desires as if it was a higher law that supersedes respect and reverence to others and life in general.

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Naw.

"those who indulge in selfish and destructive deviance, often at the expense of others via manipulations and deceit"

That could apply to drug users, retailers, artists, corporate executives, musicians, actors, mechanics, bankers, Zionists, Wahabbists, politicians, priests, etc.

Indulgent Epicurean egotists may be lousy humans, but they are not all Satanists (though some may be, consciously or not).

[–]Zahn 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Like you said, whether they are conscious of it or not, they are in effect practising the concepts of Satanism. Hence, it's why the label can be thrown around loosely without the person being a literal one.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Yes the label can be thrown around loosely, but it's not very precise.

"He's a bad person." What does that even mean? A serial killer, Satanist, crook, pervert, pessimist, lazy, not very organized, doesn't tip? "Bad" is just soooo non-descript and imprecise. So is Satanist, with all it religious dogma shit piled on top.

You can't mistake what a Machiavellian and doctor do, though you may ask what kind of doctor are they. Being a Machiavellian, you know they're manipulative, lying, scamming, greedy, evil fuckers with deep dark secrets and entanglements.

[–]useless_aether[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (8 children)

satanism is the core ideology of all radicalisms that ever existed in history. in this case look no further than saul alinsky's 'rules for radicals' being dedicated to lucifer (who he calls the original radical). it's the actual antifa manual. and satanism always goes hand in hand with pedofilia (child sacrifice), sodomy and antisemitism.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Meh. You say Satanism, I say Machiavellianism.

Whether you're with the ruling class or their "radical" sheep dogs, their goals are the same - full spectrum dominance by any and all means.

I would consider myself a non-extremist, yet extreme. A radical but not their radical, if by radical you mean against their system.

I would call myself a Satanist if it actually meant something and/or I bought into it.

You say Satanism, I say Machiavellianism.

[–]useless_aether[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

satanism predates machiavellianism..

[–]joewest1313 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Try Luciferianism if you want to get to the center of the shrubbery maze.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Well that is the idea that humans can become God's. Lucifer in lore isn't Satan but a watcher that fell, ie. a fallen angle that now resides in hell as one of the chief fallen angels who works for Satan.

[–]AnarchySpeach 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

"We are made in God's image."

That means we have the potential to be like him. While other animals have great strength and claws we had to create our own. From the invention of the bow, to the gun, to nukes. We, as a species, can do anything. Cats that glow in the dark. Land on the moon. One day connect ourselves to machines to leave these fleshbags behind. Are we not gods, like Our Father before us?

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, of course, like Christ who comes from him. It means following "The Way." For you can do greater works than I.

Land on the moon.

Doubtful, but that is neither here nor there.

We can never be God because we are God's creation in God's universe that is ruled by the principalities of darkness. We can only be like Christ, and we must strive to follow him or fall into iniquity.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

My dad predates me. Doesn't mean he's always correct.

Satanism has too much religious stigma, esoteric nonsense and misinformation, and a touch of wild side charisma to many.

Machiavellianism is simply about manipulation feeding lusts for power. Clearer. The long name is a problem though.

Also, you can call anyone Machiavellian, whether they are or aren't ambitiously evil and it can still stick as your opinion (less so on non-political figures).

You can't call anyone a Satanist and have it stick - unless they actually are. It's just an insult.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

True, but Machiavellianism is part and parcel of Satan's doctrine. Neocons are big admiriers of Machiavelli.

[–]VanillaMaccaroni 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Gross

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

I agree and don't.

I'm conflicted.

It's a messy topic to be sure.

[–]ctvzbuxr 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

It's not actually that complicated if you reject moral relativism based on secular, universal ethics. You can never want to be raped, because rape must by definition be non-voluntary. Since rape cannot be universally rejected and accepted at the same time, the only universal can be that rape is wrong in all cases. Children can't possibly consent to sexual interaction, because they're not able to fully grasp what they would be consenting to. There you go, problem solved.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Actually pedophilia does get complicated as it's not all about involuntary rape. That part is obviously not complicated.

What they can and can't grasp is a whole other can of worms that is exceptionally broad, diverse, and individualized.

Then there is the multifaceted morality of it all within the individual, their tribes, and their cultures.

[–]ctvzbuxr 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I mean, I just made an argument for why ethics (=morality) is not dependant on tribes, cultures or individual views. When it comes to children (i.e. people who are not yet in puberty), no, I don't think things are that diverse and individualized either. The part where I admit things could get murky is when we are talking about teenagers. But pedophilia usually refers to small children.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Morality is utterly dependent on culture. Natural Law is not.

Is it moral to be naked around children? Depends on your culture. Even in the USA there is Burning Man, Vancouver has a nude beach, etc. Downtown Toronto would not be so cool to do so.

Is it moral to have children as wives? Depends on your culture. Just because they're married doesn't mean they're having sex, much less involuntarily, but she's bound and subservient - and it become obvious when she's pregnant.

Natural Law is simple - don't harm others - of any age.

If a child takes voluntary interest in someone sexually, then you've got a quandary.

[–]ctvzbuxr 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

"If a child takes voluntary interest in someone sexually, then you've got a quandary."
That's a pretty big "if", because that would never happen. "Is it moral to have children as wives? Depends on your culture."
No, it does not. No child seriously wants to get married unless heavily pressured. A child can't even know what that means. Any culture that endorses child marriage is degenerate, disgusting and immoral and should never exist.
"and it become obvious when she's pregnant."
Which means there was sex.
"Even in the USA there is Burning Man, Vancouver has a nude beach, etc."
I don't know what any of these things have to do with pedophilia. Children understand that people have a body under their clothes. What they don't understand is sexuality. If you are nude on a nude beach, children understand why you're naked, because it is normal to be nude on a nude beach. If you expose yourself in the streets, it traumatizes them because it's not normal to expose yourself on the streets.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"because that would never happen" You've got to be fucking kidding me.

I was VERY curious as a child and there were no limits until I learned about them. My first sexual experience, if you can call our voluntary "exploration" of our differences that, was at the age of 4 or 5 with girl a half year younger. Around the same age the boys on my block and I were comparing "dinkies". I got duped in grade 3 by a classmate, at 7 or 8 years old, though I won't go into details on that mutually voluntary event (I still don't know if it was an intentional lie or as naive as I was). The older I got the wiser I got so this idea that a child suddenly becomes sexual at a certain age is NONSENSE.

Marriage is different in different cultures. It's not always about love and voluntary interactions. In Africa people don't identify with Romeo & Juliet because those rotten kids disrespected their families and brought ruin - NOT romance.

Families and communities are far more important than the individual in much of the world - unlike the West, where we have cultural engineering in media to tell us to be feminists and shit to break up the strong ethnic communities and families. Whether it's a Polish community neighbourhood that is economically driven to the non-ethnic white suburban nightmare to weaken their unity, or whether it's a nation wide policy that Black women with kids cannot accept welfare if there's a man in the home. It's all designed to keep us weak. And it's all easy to temp the individual with unhealthy immediate gratification in their nightmare high-pressure low-wage world.

Your morals are of your culture. Whether it's about immoral child marriage or immorally accepting that a boss gets the profits and decides what to do with them rather than a worker cooperative. There are countless things we do that we accept as normal that are actually horrendous. Endless war is just fine. Baby fucking is bad - but baby killing and maiming for life is okay? Come on man.

Even if kids don't completely understand sexuality they understand sex organs and poopie doodoo. I agree that natural nudity doesn't demand the taboo stigma it gets - but it is related.

"_because it's not normal _" What is normal? Well, that's what's defined by your culture.

Maybe we should make all teen pregnancies get aborted? I don't think so, but there laws in the US, Canada, Australia, England, Europe, etc. about legal ages - ALL different and all, IMO, younger than they should be. Because their cultures accept them.

A pregnant 9 or 10 year old in India may not be common but it's tolerated if not embraced as "normal" and part of their culture.