Just destroy the Earth before we get off of it.
Inside of what? Who said the solution to anything is more prisons?
so I said, (as a joke, btw) if that’s true, women must be pretty damn smart and might be able to solve the problems men have not been able to solve.
The odds are very much against women trying the same failed strategies that men have been attempting for so long. Odds are, they would lock nobody up, but organize a society where crime is prevented, rather than incited and then punished — that’s the Abrahamian approach.
Noooooo. Humunculus, responded “sounds like 49%” to the question “What percent of the population do these dumb bitches want to put in prison?”
About 51% of the population is female. I don’t know how many of “these dumb bitches” - whom I have neither seen nor heard - there are, or what percent of all women they represent.
In neither case are they expressing my statistics, convictions or desires.
And they didn’t commit a crime. However, the person showing them child porn is an accessory to the crime of producing child porn.
what the psychologist conducting the experiment?
Yes.
If real child pornography exists, somebody made it. Making it is both immoral and illegal. So is procuring and distributing it.
If the psychologist was able to produce a facsimile of child porn, without the presence of any children at any stage of the production, and it never leaves the laboratory, he’s still contributing to the delinquency - or potential delinquency - of the subjects of the experiment. He has no way of knowing how many of the sample are latent already pedophiles (have not yet acted on it), and how many have the predilection but have not yet discovered it. He has no way of knowing how his research will affect these vulnerable subjects, and how they will later affect the community.
Science and reality are incompatible.
In what way?
Specifically, how does that perceived incompatibility pertain to the subject of sex crime?
humunculus wrote
Science has a way of disparaging better judgement in the name of science contributing to the lack of better judgement in those individuals with predilections of sexual disorders who participate in all sorts of “warped” experiments, thus science is currently incompatible with reality in it’s projected outcomes. Not knowing how his research will affect these vulnerable subjects seems to in reality be not caring about the vulnerable subjects, which should make said scientists criminally responsible for playing with fire.
I don’t actually know about the particular experiment. It does seem to have a degree of irresponsibility or callousness about it, but I couldn’t judge from so little information.
However, that single experiment - or eve if there are dozens, equally ill-conceived - doesn’t represent all of science.
Nor do pedophiles and potential pedophiles represent all of reality.
Let’s say : Some approaches to science are incompatible with social mores.
And then be circumspect in designing our psychological research experiments. Some of them really can go quite horribly wrong.
We can suppose that the research - if genuine and properly documented - might be helpful in early diagnosis and prevention; might be helpful in the education of boys and young men; might even be helpful in the treatment of pedophiles.
But, of course, if we really cared about the children, we’d make a less shitty society.
A less shitty society means less regard for science, more regard for nature and its people.
I don’t think so: science is natural. Science is something people naturally do, in order to understand the world and ourselves.
Remember, it’s the scientists that have changed the treatment of illness from purging and chants to surgery and medication;
it’s the scientists who look for causes other than the wrath of some god;
it’s the scientists who have been warning us about environmental degradation and climate change –
and the religious who have been vehemently denying all evidence.
What we need is less hubris: less certainty about our assumptions, less conclusion-jumping, more thought and care and treading softly.
Balance could be achieved between head and heart - if balance were what we wanted.
Lol. Couldn’t help yourself could you?
Wasn’t in need of help. Truth stands.
In this instance, it’s also relevant: the dominant religions of the last couple of millennia have been hostile to nature,
and way too cozy with the secular powers that are most destructive to nature. They had the obligation to reconcile
man’s ambition with his altruism, and they didn’t settle for failure; they went on to evil.
humunculus wrote
Science and its industry refuses to be reconciled. Each adult man and woman is responsible for their actions contributing to the decline on planet Earth, but science is corrupted, yes, by ambition in the most destructive ways in existence from global warming, oceans dying, outer space littered with dangerous trash, landfills overflowing, air polluted, nuclear waste leaking everywhere. If scientists are the more intelligent beings, why are they not acting with forethought in responsible manners to reign their actions in, to slow the decline? If the link between scientific methodology, its findings, its products, its consequences escape a delicate understanding for the scientific minded, then I’d be happy to further explain the hows and whys.
You guys know what being one with nature means? ~ lions kill, men fuck children etc. Society probably needs to be secular so at least we aren’t driven by nature [as if akin to a religion] or religion, it places us philosophically outside of such things.
Are men soulless? I’m beginning to wonder. Men around here are trying to rationalize their brute behaviors as natural, such a sexing a child.
Since the majority of the American population defines a “child” as someone who is 16…
Anyway, I’m done talking with you. You aren’t a real friend, won’t even join my forums, you are a fake, hollow person just like the rest…doubt you even have a soul.
That’s a very good point; the authorities have upped the age so what was normal in the 1970’s [under age attraction], now puts everyone who thinks like that into the monster category. Move the lines and you increase the amount of criminals without there actually being any extra.
men aren’t soul-less, they are what women would be if they weren’t historically subordinate to males. the female praying mantis predates the males. the idea that men are as if a different species is nonsense, women if in our position would be EXACTLY like what men are if the roles were reversed, its a zero sum equation. for humanity to survive until now they would have had to be able to kill predators and other humans for the same reasons as men did, and hence they would be like us.
Men refuse to take responsibility for what men do.
Make less laws.
That’s a very good point. But you do hint at a distinction between 1) what women would be like if they weren’t historically subordinate to men, and 2) what women would be like if they evolved without men doing all the killing and violence.
Yes, I think in both cases, we’d be surprised to see how brutish and violence prone women would be. I don’t know if they’d be just as brutish and violence prone, but they’d be right up there with men. In all honesty, I think if things switched around tomorrow and women suddenly had the opportunity to rule the world, there’d be slightly less violence and war–not much less, but less–but that might come along with other negative consequences (maybe more psychological abuse, less freedom, etc.). Then there’s the question of what would happen if women evolved into a position of being the hunters, warriors, law enforcers, etc. (and men, the caregivers, moralists, humanitarians, etc.)–would they have been just as prone to violence and war? I think probably. After all, in any society, somebody has to be prepared to go to war, to use violence as a means of curtailing harm to one’s own society. Men have always been in a position to be elected for that purpose, to be the ones to put themselves in harm’s way in order to protect others who are more vulnerable to physical harm and death (women and children). I’m not sure what would entail from women evolving into that roll–maybe greater muscle mass, more aggressive hormones, certainly not baby incubators–essentially, just being men. ← But the point stands in principle.
Gib
Less laws is so true.
Wouldn’t it be more or less the same, for example female humans [probably quite recently in evolutionary terms] ‘take on’ the roles of subordinates and homely mothers, the only difference I can see is that some of them would go hunting whilst other look after the kids and what have you. Men are only like men because that’s the roles they take on, that is, except in ancient amazon societies where the women dominated.
Take a look around facebook and see who’s causing all the trouble lol. Women are if anything the ones driving men to not let them say or do ‘that’, whatever that is. In my experience the kinds of men I least like are the kinds who like to big themselves up by making others look small, and they always have women who question them upon any iteration of perceived weakness. Indeed they encourage them to go around picking fights.
In nature female predators aren’t weak, and one wouldn’t want to approach them.
this is why I say its a zero sum equation, causality means that given the same causes [survival etc] then women would develop relative to those causes. the whole baby thing doesn’t make them weaker, it makes them stronger.