Jeffery Epstein indicted on charges of child sex trafficking

Discussion in 'World News, Current Events & Politics' started by Xzi, Jul 10, 2019.

  1. arcanine

    arcanine Advanced Member

    Newcomer
    3
    May 8, 2017
    Well it turns out this absolute cunt has taken the easy way out. Shame we won't get to enjoy knowing he is rotting in prison for the rest of his miserable life. Though at least this way there is no way for him to ever harm anybody else.
     
    Last edited by arcanine, Aug 17, 2019
  2. notimp

    notimp GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    10
    Sep 18, 2007
    There you have your humanity. People sometimes only wait for excuses to bask in the suffering of others. Which they very happily will induce.

    Understand, that I get just how effed up and wrong even just the part of what I read about his life was. But everytime someone tells me, I have children, so now I want to tell you about how I would have received joy from letting him rot, and was shortchanged by him killing himself, I think to myself - yes, this is also what society tries to prevent.

    If you are personally connected to one of the victims - slightly different story. But you are not (statistically speaking). You are just sharing your violence fantasies with the world.
     
    Last edited by notimp, Aug 17, 2019
    IncredulousP likes this.
  3. IncredulousP

    IncredulousP GBAtemp Fan

    Member
    5
    Aug 21, 2012
    United States
    Agreed. It's revenge, not punishment. Revenge doesn't cause anything but further suffering. His misery wouldn't unrape those kids, nor fix their lives, nor prevent something like this from happening again. It's a primal, emotional instinct to do harm to those that cause us misery, and while revenge may be cathartic, it is short-lived and ultimately fruitless.
     
    Xzi and Jiehfeng like this.
  4. arcanine

    arcanine Advanced Member

    Newcomer
    3
    May 8, 2017
    I have no moral qualms about revelling in the suffering of a monster who calculatedly trafficked children so that they can be raped over and over again. I think it would be immoral not to. If there isn't a horrifying punishment for this behaviour, then perhaps some people who might be considering it wouldn't think twice.
     
  5. azoreseuropa

    azoreseuropa GBAtemp Guru

    Member
    11
    Nov 6, 2002
    United States
    Azores/Portugal
    The reason those people are pervert because of influence from porn. It made some people doing crazy things and disgusting things.
     
  6. notimp

    notimp GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    10
    Sep 18, 2007
    *sigh*
    What was it? Too much certainty, too much emotion.

    :)

    (Also - no.)

    Wait a little - edit to follow.

    edit: @azoreseuropa : Here for you. :)


    (And please dont directly switch to homophobia after watching that. ;) )

    Also - read this, if interested:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_Sexuality

    :)

    Or this:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_in_Furs

    So, the cause of sexual perversions is probably not porn. Although through porn, pretty much the vast majority of those have become more 'commonly accepted'. Which actually helps most people that are into something like that.

    The thing is - we cant (nor should) do that with pedos, because we have to keep the well being of the child in mind. And when you add together the potential abuses of power (as in a power mismatch in a relationship) that might not be entirely consensual, and that a childs sense of self and the world is still developing, and that there is a built in dependency - you can easily mess up peoples lives pretty good at that point. Thats part of why its a crime. And there is little to no moral ambiguity there. Its a crime for a reason. Society shuns it, for a reason.

    With other forms of sexual perversion - not so much anymore. (Trumps alleged pee tapes, mainstream enough for you? ;) ) But as far as I know - there is no rise in sexually motivated crimes in the timeframe pr0n became widely available online. It probably even had the reverse effect. (Look for studies.. :) )
     
    Last edited by notimp, Aug 18, 2019
    Youkai and TheMrIron2 like this.
  7. WeedZ

    WeedZ Possibly an Enlightened Being

    Moderator
    14
    Jan 13, 2015
    United States
    The State of Denial
    @notimp you need to get your thoughts together before posting, or at least edit your previous posts if you have an after thought. This double/triple/quadruple posting makes threads a pain to read.
     
    supersonicwaffle and Jiehfeng like this.
  8. notimp

    notimp GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    10
    Sep 18, 2007
    The last posting was a direct reply to the posting before.

    I edited it with more context.

    I will keep it in mind in the future.

    edit: Also some of the postings on the past page were 'work in progress' and only contextualized later.

    So when people were into the coroner conspiracy - I first gave some (proven) context for a states shady action in the MLK case, then looked up the coroner, saw how many autopsies he did (has an impact on probability. people usually resort to conspiracy theories, when they think, that there is no way that something could be chance, but with 20.000 done in a lifetime that changes), then I posted a video on what kind of personality type the guy seemed to be (likes to be a celebrity). Then I read that he was actually employed by the defense, and was not - as indicated - overlooking the autopsy - so none of the earlier stuff mattered much anymore.

    So first I was in fact finding mode - and then (later) posted something like a conclusion (Which made the topic 'disjointed'.).

    While we are still pooling together factoids, its hard to have my conclusion ready to go as well... ;)

    I know that this is a sensitive topic - but then I also dont want to just be like - 'hey this sounds like a conspiracy theory' - so probably not true. Lets show people a little how to judge based on a few more things than just feeling. ;) (probability, plausibility, ... that stuff.

    Most often, when posting a video in this forum, I actually try to make analogies - that would allow people to see a little more of the circumstances in other cases - that seemed similar. I cant make a 'this is why, and what you should think' suggestion on those cases, because - they are analogies. Either they work for you - or they don't. ;)

    F.e.: When people stated that violent protest is just for people getting off on watching the world burn, I show them monks burning themselves on streets in protest historically, and people ridiculing them for the same reasons ('they just troublemakers') - they ridiculed all violent protest in the past. But also I'm hopefully responsible enough - to state multiple times, that violent protest is not needed, nor wanted in democracies, generally and specifically speaking, its just - that people usually don't do it 'only to watch the world burn'. The example was taken from a different thread - with a similar issue. I don't want to tell you how the world works. Sometimes I just want to present allegories. (Stories that seem similar, in maybe a context thats a little different.)

    It can't be immoral not to derive pleasure from the suffering of another person. Because not all people do.

    Now, your position is generally socially accepted. But then there is something about sharing that feeling with the public to get a "common/shared notion" of basking in someones suffering. We generally don't want that as a society. The second line you crossed was to feel deprived, once the other person died, because you (as per your argument), couldnt get enough of the suffering to feel - what you needed to feel.

    So those sorts of feelings are normal or at least somewhat common. To try to connect in them with others, publicly is a little more problematic. To feel betrayed by someones death, because you couldn't see them suffer enough - is a little more over the line.

    The point I would make is, that none of you getting pleasure out of it, actually would help the victims, or even potential victims in the future. So from that position as well, its hard to see your position as 'a moral one'.

    Moral philosophy is not 'clear cut' though. So you could still be right and I could be wrong. :)
     
    Last edited by notimp, Aug 18, 2019
    IncredulousP likes this.
  9. IncredulousP

    IncredulousP GBAtemp Fan

    Member
    5
    Aug 21, 2012
    United States
    Please don't spread misinformation. People have been committing these acts millennia before porn existed.
     
    Xzi, TheMrIron2 and Jiehfeng like this.
  10. azoreseuropa

    azoreseuropa GBAtemp Guru

    Member
    11
    Nov 6, 2002
    United States
    Azores/Portugal
    I am talking about the future.. Not before that. It is much worse now after porn existed.
     
  11. TheMrIron2

    TheMrIron2 GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    6
    Aug 5, 2017
    Ireland
    Did you read any of the research notimp cited? His post completely debunks what you're saying.
     
  12. notimp

    notimp GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    10
    Sep 18, 2007
  13. IncredulousP

    IncredulousP GBAtemp Fan

    Member
    5
    Aug 21, 2012
    United States
    You can't know the future. Additionally, there are yet to be many studies on long-term effects of sexual crime rate due to new-age pornography.

    I do believe it is also necessary to mention: not all child molesters are pedophiles, and not all pedophiles are child molesters.

    Rape is a serious offense and the prime motives are very complex, psychologically. It is not solely attraction that incites molestation by molesters.
     
  14. arcanine

    arcanine Advanced Member

    Newcomer
    3
    May 8, 2017
    I didn't mean it was immoral not to derive pleasure from it. I meant it is immoral not to do it. Punishing behaviour which is unacceptable is how animal societies work. Canines, apes, dolphins, and lots of other later-evolving mammals will inflict pain on members of their pack in order to bring them in line. If they don't do it, there is less incentive for the pack to remain well-behaved and cohesive. Put another way, if there are no negative consequences to an action then an individual is more likely to do it if they are already inclined to do so, whereas if they know there is a chance of a horrible consequence to them of that action, then they might (attempt to) restrain themselves from that action. There is nothing immoral about imposing punishment under circumstances like this, and failing to punish behaviour like this is immoral as it increases the likelihood of the behaviour being repeated and therefore impacts negatively on the welfare of others. Taking pleasure from knowing that a disgusting act is being punished is cathartic yes, and this is important for the human psyche. Again, I do not consider this immoral as long as the punishment is proportionate to the action.

    You are assuming I share these views and attitudes with others. I don't. I don't need to know whether something is socially accepted or shared with the public, or a common/shared notion, to decide for myself whether or not I consider it to be moral. I make those decisions as an individual, not a member of a collective. It's what empathy is for. I don't need to negotiate morals with others because I can determine for myself whether or not my actions are harmful to others, and if that harm is necessary.

    Would you not consider it a miscarriage of justice if he were let off on a technicality and allowed to go free with no punishment? How is it any different to know that this happened because of suicide?

    Again, I don't care if this is a line for others. If somebody has orchestrated the rape of children then I will openly acknowledge that I derive pleasure from knowing that they now are suffering as a result.

    Ahh, I think I see the disconnect here. I am not feeling pleasure on my own behalf. It's not a sense of self-satisfaction that I KNOW that MY NEED for retribution was met. As you have said, it doesn't affect me at all either way as I don't know the victims or the perpetrator. But empathy allows me to take the perspective, to an extent, of the victims and the people who love them. And I know that THEY would be justified in feeling robbed of the knowledge that he is being punished for his actions, and I feel cheated on their behalf. The pleasure I feel in knowing a disgusting child rapist is now suffering is because I know that this will represent in some way reparations for the victims and their families.

    Well there we definitely agree. I do not believe in objective morality, but I think that wellbeing is a reasonable basis for some shared understanding of morals. And a world without punishment would be contrary to wellbeing in my opinion.
     
  15. EmulateLife

    EmulateLife GBAtemp Psycho!

    Member
    6
    May 30, 2016
    United States
    I think porn can trigger certain individuals that are already sick in the head. There's this channel Court TV and they show entire trials here in U.S. One just finished in Florida where this 29 year old guy was obsessed with this porn cam model from Bulgeria, and he stole like 200k from his family and gave it to her. Then when they tried to stop him he murdered his mom, dad and brother. He thought he was in a relationship with this women.
     
  16. notimp

    notimp GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    10
    Sep 18, 2007
    Yes, potentially - but then they are very likely to get a 'release' shortly thereafter.. ;) So the thing of 'obsessing about some thing that you might want, but dont have' - doesnt accumulate and doesnt amplify negative (harmful) thoughts in the same way. Because its actually interrupted by periods of feeling good. ;) I've not read into the theory of sex addiction (think David Duchovny ;)) so I dont know when for some people it becomes bothersome - but generally, its really not that much of a problem. ;)

    If you look at the relationship between sex crime, and availability of porn in society.
     
    Last edited by notimp, Aug 19, 2019
Loading...