Where was that said? To say this has anything to do with gender is a purposefully dishonest argument. Secondly, by that same logic, she also had someone force their tongue down her throat because the video clearly also shows the boy lean forward to kiss her following the first one. Your interpretation is trying to force the misusage of the word even when it clearly is nonsensical to do so.
That’s a purposefully ignorant interpretation of it. You deciding to use the term in way that it isn’t normally used bastardized the term and downplays how awful being a pedophile actually is. The whole thing seems like you are commenting in bad faith with that interpretation
Except that just fundamentally isn’t what being a pedophile is, socially or professionally speaking. You are the one trying to take past events into the present and connect them to our morality so I would argue that your actions much better mirror that of those reactionaries, since I am not arguing for any connection to our present times.
Fundamentally, I think you are arguing against a straw man that doesn’t exist. You keep bringing up points I haven’t made. Fundamentally, this action isn’t pedophilic from any definition of the word. Other actions may be or may not be. That isn’t relevant. I just think that by conflating this with actual pedophilia, you work to undermine how awful it really is.
I’m not saying what should be or shouldn’t be legal or acceptable. It can be wrong but that doesn’t make it correct for you to use a term that clearly has different meaning than this professionally and commonly. It dilutes the meaning and does undermine the cultural perception of the severity of pedophilia by calling other things, right or wrong morally, the same term. Even if you argue that it’s a slippery slope, it still dilutes the meaning. From your legalistic perspective, it would make it morally right or wrong depending on location while simultaneously taking a position based on our modern perceptions of past events. I’m not saying that this is correct, just that it makes the term lose its severity, which I think is a very significant thing.
You know there is a difference between the people being 4 years apart, and both teenagers and like a 40 year old and a 12 year old right? It downplays how terrible pedophiles actually are by calling everything pedophilic. And the power argument doesn’t really make sense as plenty would argue that male individuals have power over female individuals and they were both kissing one another. This is like calling shoplifting the same thing as robbing, they might both be stealing but it undermines what robbing is by comparing them in such a manner.
Second of all, your comment is just largely incorrect. Plenty of places have age of consent laws (which apply to sexual relations, by the way) that are below 18. Most of the US has one at 16. Vietnam’s is 15 and PRC’s is 14. This is culturally dependent. Actual pedophilic behavior is awful and one of the worst crimes possible, that’s why I have an issue with you calling this pedophilic behavior because it undermines the gravity of the crime.
Oh, I guess you know better than all social norms and the authors of the DSM-5. Why in the world is their psychology research being done when we have you to just declare that two teenagers kissing one another (as they do in the video) is pedophilic? Let’s just downplay every single term by applying it to everything we disagree with! Why not?
If pedophilia is pedophilia then you should be well aware that pedophilia required a 5 year age difference. This is two teenagers kissing. If your family can’t control themselves to the extent that they would physically attack someone over consensually kissing another teenager then I don’t know what to say. Your comments are 1) encouraging and defending violence over two teenagers kissing and 2) it is so absurdly chauvinistic and full of yourself it is crazy. This being wrong isn’t widely accepted by our modern society in the west but it certainly wasn’t seen as wrong in the past and has difference views on this. Honestly, your post just reeks of chronic-onlineism.
You aren’t “protecting kids” by clutching your pearls about two teenagers kissing. You are actively downplaying actual pedophilia by comparing it to this. You are only proving my point about your parents supposed opinion on this being irrelevant if they would physically harm someone for consensually kissing someone else close in age. Go talk to someone in real life and you will see how crazy this take is.
Just because your parents are crazy doesn’t mean the rest of the world is. They are really quite close in age and you can clearly see that it’s consensual. To act like this is the same as pedophilia when it’s people so close in age is truly and utterly ridiculous. That whole statement reeks of chronically-onlineism. The DSM-5 requires there to be a 5-year age gap to be qualified as pedophilic and cultural and social norms would also indicate that this is perfectly fine and certainly not pedophilia even if it is wrong.
Well, socialism is when the government does stuff. That Bismarck guy was always doing this or that.
Oreos are not vegan in any way, shape, or form. They experiment on mice (https://support.peta.org/page/75390/action/1?locale=en-US) and completely are involved in animal experimentation. That is not vegan and it is immoral.
No, this is more like arguing if it’s murder or running a stop sign, it’s simply ridiculous to put them in the same realm. The idea that someone consuming CSAM or committing sexual assault is the same as two teenagers who are only 4 years apart in age kissing is ridiculous. Even your concept that it is wrong ignores the idea of cultural and time period differences in seeing what was wrong and what wasn’t. It’s very chauvinistic while simultaneously downplaying actual pedophilia.
Calling that pedophilic undermines what pedophilia actually is. You can argue that it’s wrong, sure, but a 19 year old and a 15 year old kissing does not meet any psychological criterion to be qualified as pedophilia. The concept of it being wrong would be controversial and culturally relative but even if we accept this as wrong, that still directly undermines actual pedophilia by misusing the word to describe situations like this. Pedophilia implies that the victim is prepubescent, in this situation, this is not the case.
The Chinese government doesn’t manage such data. WeChat is owned by Tencent so Tencent would be asked. How do you think a private business would concern itself with such a request? They would comply but China is not Tencent nor is Tencent China.
Historically that has not been the trend. Prohibition had related issues that could be dealt with, with the hindsight we have now but it you look at it, Prohibition was successful at reducing alcoholism. Secondly, no one said to make it illegal, just to put warnings on it to reduce consumption. Thirdly, there are other ways of reducing consumption besides outright criminalization, like raising taxes on a product significantly or limiting its sales for individuals.
It’s not because they believe his lies. It’s because they their own conditions are enriched by upholding a system that extracts profits from the third world through neocolonialism. You should read Settlers by J. Sakai and see how it is.
I’ll maybe take your thoughts on Lenin seriously when you accomplish anything even comparable to what he did. Until then, you can sit around and feel superior over individuals who brought about earth-shattering change created through the correct analysis of the conditions that he saw.
I would even argue that, to some level, pre-notions of later views of Dialects could be seen in Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. His conception of the Categorical Imperative relies on the same principles of the contradictory position of opposing ideas determining the correct way of viewing (in his position) moral actions. Though this was less applied to viewing social trends, I think it is interesting to see as a historical perspective.
And none of that makes it pedophilia. You aren’t even worse discussing this with anymore because you are just promoting those reactionary tropes about “women getting away with anything” You still never showed how it is pedophilic as it fails the basic definitions of pedophilia. You continue to work to minimize the word’s meanings. You are either A) arguing in bad faith or B) Chronically online/delusional about this. Either way it is impossible to continue any conversation when you just shift the focus to try and get in ad hominem attack rather than responding to the issue at hand.