How Should Society Handle Pedophiles

[Raptorsin7]

So i've been watching the youtuber mrgirl recently and I think it's good that he's pushing boundaries by trying to create more empathy for demonized groups like Pedophiles.

But I'm torn on what is the appropriate perspective to have towards pedophiles. On the one hand I think it's possible to transcend pedophilia like it's a mental disorder, but there may be many people who never get that chance in this life time so they will be stuck with sexual attraction to children. 

Isn't it true to say that pedophilia is actually all good, because reality allows and accepts pedophilia? So from the highest truth there is literally nothing wrong with pedophilia? But at the same time I could not handle if I had kids and they were being sexually abused, but maybe this is my own judgment and projection?

It seems like the appropriate response is to accept pedophiles and let them express their desires, but not through actual interaction with children but maybe only fantasy or virtual reality or something? But doesn't this perspective still contain some demonization of pedophiles? 

I just can't get past the perspective that pedophilia is harmful to society/children, but this seems to contradict the truth that reality is all good.

[Preety_India]

By punishing pedophiles and sending them to prison when they act on their dirty fantasies.

I personally don't give two shits about pedophiles being demonized if it means saving some potential children from being abused. 

The suffering of an abused child is greater and torturous than the humiliation of a pedophile 

 

 

[Raptorsin7]

@Preety_India What if your son was a pedophile? If we follow your logic we should be hunting pedophiles wherever we find them and murder them where they stand.

[Preety_India]

@Raptorsin7 notice that I mentioned specifically in my earlier post that they should be sent to prison when they act on their fantasies. Legally having fantasies is not enough to reach a conviction. They have to either possess material that causes harm (because such material is only produced by causing harm) or they should have engaged in such acts that lead to harm. 

If anyone hoards such thoughts but doesn't act on them, then they are not liable for punishment although public scrutiny and judgement might exist 

Coming to the subject of what I would do if my child grew up to be a pedo, then I would disown him unless he showed willingness to change and become a better person. If he didn't and if I found that he possess stuff or that he has thoughts of hurting then I would be the first person to immediately report him to the cops since I would consider that to be my utmost  moral and civil responsibility to society and community. 

In my mind morality comes before family, even if I became a mother, that won't change. 

 

[Joel3102]

my take is basically summed up in this video

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Raptorsin7 said:

I just can't get past the perspective that pedophilia is harmful to society/children, but this seems to contradict the truth that reality is all good.

No need to reflexively invoke The Absolute when thinking about relative matters. Reality doesn't care if all of humanity dies right now. Morality is about finding out what people want. What do children want? What do parents want? What do pedophiles want? What do everyday citizens want? The most moral person would want to find the best solution for everyone. The only problem is that nobody agrees on a solution. The Tier 2 approach is to not force anyone to adopt the value systems they're opposing, but to encourage them to evolve to a place where they no longer dehumanize opposing points of view, and Mr.Girl does this by creating a dialogue between different people.

[Raptorsin7]

8 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

No need to reflexively invoke The Absolute when thinking about relative matters. Reality doesn't care if all of humanity dies right now. Morality is about finding out what people want. What do children want? What do parents want? What do pedophiles want? What do everyday citizens want? The most moral person would want to find the best solution for everyone. The only problem is that nobody agrees on a solution. The Tier 2 approach is to encourage people to evolve to a place where they no longer dehumanize each other, and Mr.Girl does this by creating a dialogue between different people.

Well my goal is to collapse the distinction between the relative and absolute so I don't see why I wouldn't include it in an analysis. Unless you have some aversion to the truth, I don't see why you wouldn't it include in any meaningful analysis of a situation.

I don't think mrgirl is trying to create a dialogue, it's more like he's just expressing his perspective in an uncompromising manner. He's pointing out flaws in tier 1 thinking and exposing blindspots, but he's doesn't seem particularly interested in changing anyone's view or trying to facilitate conversations between right wingers or left wingers for example.

Edited January 4, 2022 by Raptorsin7

[Carl-Richard]

10 minutes ago, Raptorsin7 said:

Well my goal is to collapse the distinction between the relative and absolute so I don't see why I wouldn't include it, in an analysis. Unless you have some aversion to the truth, I don't see why you wouldn't include in any meaningful analysis of a situation.

The Absolute doesn't speak. Don't speak for it  

 

10 minutes ago, Raptorsin7 said:

I don't think mrgirl is trying to create a dialogue

It's literally how he introduces himself on every podcast.

"Empathizing across party lines" 2:27

 

10 minutes ago, Raptorsin7 said:

He's pointing out flaws in tier 1 thinking and exposing blindspots, but he's doesn't seem particularly interested in changing anyone's view

That's the point. You don't start with trying to change anybody else's view (because you actually can't). You start by trying to understand them and make them understand you, which is how you evolve to a place where you no longer dehumanize other people. Dehumanization is congruent with a lack of understanding (or willingness to understand).

[Raptorsin7]

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

The Absolute doesn't speak. Don't speak for it  

Lol. What you were saying is basically an argument for devilry and suffering.

If you don't strive for living from the absolute and collapsing the duality, you are arguing for living and operating from the egoic self perspective without a greater understanding. I am saying we shouldn't accept that we must or should live without collapsing the relative and absolute distinction.

5 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

It's literally how he introduces himself on every podcast.

"Empathizing across party lines" 2:27

That doesn't necessitate dialogue. He's just expressing an empathic perspective, but you can see he's not particularly interested in fully accepting or exchanging ideas. But this isn't a particularly interesting or meaningful point to discuss (:

7 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

That's the point. You don't start with trying to change anybody else's view (because you actually can't). You start by trying to understand them and make them understand you, which is how you evolve to a place where you no longer dehumanize other people. Dehumanization is congruent with a lack of understanding (or willingness to understand).

Yeah I agree. But from his debates he's not really trying to understand alternative views (I think he assumes he already understands it), he's just expressing his view in an uncompromising manner

[Scholar]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

No need to reflexively invoke The Absolute when thinking about relative matters. Reality doesn't care if all of humanity dies right now. Morality is about finding out what people want. What do children want? What do parents want? What do pedophiles want? What do everyday citizens want? The most moral person would want to find the best solution for everyone. The only problem is that nobody agrees on a solution. The Tier 2 approach is to not force anyone to adopt the value systems they're opposing, but to encourage them to evolve to a place where they no longer dehumanize opposing points of view, and Mr.Girl does this by creating a dialogue between different people.

You frame morality in an objectivist way and then you proceed to completely subjectively draw the line on what you determine to be worthy of moral consideration. Who says that that's what morality is all about? And why do draw the line at people? Why is it not your race? Or all mammals?

[Wilhelm44]

@Raptorsin7  Interesting theory in this video: That pedophiles were hurt so badly as children that they completely rejected their own innocence, ie the child completely rejected itself. Then as an adult becomes sexually attracted to the innocence of children. To become whole again the pedophile simply needs to connect with his own innocence. Therapy is therefore always a possibility. 

 

 

[Carl-Richard]

52 minutes ago, Raptorsin7 said:

Lol. What you were saying is basically an argument for devilry and suffering.

If you don't strive for living from the absolute and collapsing the duality, you are arguing for living and operating from the egoic self perspective without a greater understanding. I am saying we shouldn't accept that we must or should live without collapsing the relative and absolute distinction.

There is no living from The Absolute perspective.

 

53 minutes ago, Raptorsin7 said:

That doesn't necessitate dialogue. He's just expressing an empathic perspective, but you can see he's not particularly interested in fully accepting or exchanging ideas. But this isn't a particularly interesting or meaningful point to discuss (:

He isn't just content with himself expressing empathy. He wants different people to empathize with each other, and he goes around on different online platforms literally creating dialogue on a practical level while also trying to create a dialogue between different perspectives on an ideological level.

 

55 minutes ago, Raptorsin7 said:

Yeah I agree. But from his debates he's not really trying to understand alternative views (I think he assumes he already understands it), he's just expressing his view in an uncompromising manner

I reject the disagreement.

[Raptorsin7]

Just now, Carl-Richard said:

There is no living from The Absolute perspective.

My point was your reflexive dismissal of the absolute is an ego tactic that perpetuates your own suffering.

Just now, Carl-Richard said:

He isn't just content with himself expressing empathy. He wants different people to empathize with each other, and he goes around on different online platforms literally creating dialogue on a practical level while also trying to create a dialogue between different perspectives on an ideological level.

 

That's fair, I think I interpreted dialogue different than how you meant it. I interpreted it as him trying to promote a dialogue across different view points, so for example bringing together right and left wing views to find a middle ground. But I agree he is dialoguing with other people.

 

[Carl-Richard]

36 minutes ago, Scholar said:

You frame morality in an objectivist way and then you proceed to completely subjectively draw the line on what you determine to be worthy of moral consideration. Who says that that's what morality is all about? And why do draw the line at people? Why is it not your race? Or all mammals?

Another way to put it: morality is about what humans want to say it is.

In our current world, anyone that has anything to say about what morality is (or isn't) is a human saying what they want, thus morality is still fundamentally about what humans want.

[Carl-Richard]

2 minutes ago, Raptorsin7 said:

interpreted it as him trying to promote a dialogue across different view points, so for example bringing together right and left wing views to find a middle ground. 

I also said he is doing that.

Quote

while also trying to create a dialogue between different perspectives on an ideological level.

 

[Raptorsin7]

@Wilhelm44 Nice theory, that makes a lot of sense. 

[Raptorsin7]

2 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I also said he is doing that.

That's where I disagree. I don't see him doing that. I see him expressing his own unique view that is transcendent of both right and left wing views.

It may be a byproduct that left wingers and right wingers may find more common ground. But the intent of his conversations isn't explicitly to do that. If it was you would see him bringing in right wingers and left wingers and having some kind of mediated conversation.

This debate is a good example of what i'm talking about. He's not trying to incorporate or reconcile the views of the person he's talking with, i.e it's not a "productive" dialogue, instead he's pointing out flaws in their reasoning and expressing his views in an uncompromising manner.

[happyhappy]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

No need to reflexively invoke The Absolute when thinking about relative matters. Reality doesn't care if all of humanity dies right now. Morality is about finding out what people want. What do children want? What do parents want? What do pedophiles want? What do everyday citizens want? The most moral person would want to find the best solution for everyone. The only problem is that nobody agrees on a solution. The Tier 2 approach is to not force anyone to adopt the value systems they're opposing, but to encourage them to evolve to a place where they no longer dehumanize opposing points of view, and Mr.Girl does this by creating a dialogue between different people.

ohh man..  spot on! we cannot make everyone equally happy. there will be trade offs. by demonizing pedophilia, we are forcing a part of reality under oppression in our concern for the collective survival.

same with laws IG. we are punishing criminals to maintain order. 

2 hours ago, Raptorsin7 said:

@Preety_India What if your son was a pedophile? If we follow your logic we should be hunting pedophiles wherever we find them and murder them where they stand.

true! Leo made this point in one of his videos...

[Carl-Richard]

19 minutes ago, Raptorsin7 said:

If it was you would see him bringing in right wingers and left wingers and having some kind of mediated conversation.

Seems more like you're questioning the effectiveness of his methods than the sincerity of his intentions. Why not take his word for it?

[Ulax]

@Raptorsin7 What if your son was abused by a paedophile?