"Davis spent years as a sexual assault prevention activist both on and off Columbia’s campus. He was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2015 for helping to found Youth to End Sexual Violence and serving as the chairman of the International Campaign to Stop Rape and Gender Violence.
After being arrested, Davis allegedly confessed to officers that he had sexually abused a thirteen-year-old boy in the past, and that he kept child pornography on his phone."
What? Why did he do this? How stupid do you have to be?
^ i assume Q is telling him its somehow directly connected to HRC via some laughably “cryptic” messages that mean next to nothing but say “GOD BLESS” and “PATRIOTISM” at lot.
Its always these types that are into this stuff. Priests, super anti-gay people, its always a cover (likely them trying to go 180 from their natural propensities)
So obviously the guy has major issues. I will point out that apparently he was writing articles about being a survivor of abuse, which could have just been him being a lying psychopath. On the other hand a large number of abused people go on to have psychological issues that cause them to carry out the same acts in a really messed up cycle of abuse. This has often come out in cases among Catholic Priests in which the abusers turned out to have been subject to similar things growing up. Clearly he’s guilty and it’s not an excuse, he’s responsible for his own actions, but might shed some light on the situation.
^lol. kind of makes me think of gays when they say they were born this way. maybe pedos were born this way too. and if so, should it be criminal? our laws today protect the youth which is defined as anyone below 18 doesnt know right and wrong. but what about during the ancient greece when it was more frequent for adult men to do so with little boys. anyways food for thots. very funny how much norms change. or how some norms in other countries are still gucci, like honor killings
Reportedly worked on the Clinton Campaign,Worked for the UN, Did Ted Talks,Went to Ivy League Schools, Nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, Did charity work (People like this are propped up for a reason). Self described as into age “0+” and has “no limits”. Self described as experienced with a nine month old boy, a six year old girl and a seven year old boy.
Here is the PREVIOUSLY SEALED indictment ( don’t read if you just ate lunch ):
They are trying their best to normalize it. The push is ramping up because they know what’s coming (public hangings) and are hoping people will just think it’s “gucci” (douche chill):
One could argue why 18 year olds suddenly have different rights than 17 year olds. The line is arbitrary at some point, and it is up to the social climate to calibrate where that line is.
Anyway, this guy f*cked up not just because he was pedo inside, but because he was pedo outside too, and he did something for which he might be jailed 75 years. Weigh the risk vs reward man.
No, I don’t think they’re born that way. However, it can be argued that men are instinctively attracted to younger but matured girls because younger girls have higher fertility rates, and life in it’s simplest form is just to reproduce and has as many offspring as possible. Before anyone takes anything out of context, I’m not justifying anything with little girls. I’m saying guys instinctively are attracted to girls/women younger than them
i buy the argument that people can be born pedos. there are many people that report the attraction to young kids, but understand its wrong and dont act on it. there are treatments available as with most things in the world, i assume its based on coping and dealing with triggers and such.
fully on board with BS though none of this excuses the behavior, people cant really control what turns them on, they can control their actions. this man was clearly smart, he knew better & put himself in a situation where he could have really cause serious harm to children who dont have the ability to make informed decisions or provide consent.
It’s ok to believe people can’t be born pedo - I don’t really have proof otherwise. However, if you make that argument based on biological and reproductive needs, you also have to accept that gays aren’t born to like dicks in their butts. Not saying anyone is wrong.
I don’t have a view one way or another based on how you’re born it seems reasonable to me that some people are born with certain preferences in either case. That’s one thing that’s always struck me as odd about the nature vs nature gay argument. Why would it be all one or the other? How is fitting everyone into one type mold any less dumb than what came before. There are high rates of people in that community that have histories of having been abused AND there’s proof in nature that mammals (and by extension humans) can be born that way. Clearly it’s a case by case basis and sometimes it may be a combination. Back on topic, it’s really not that relevant to discussion of law. Some people are born psychopaths and many of them are inclined to become serial killers. We rightly have laws to protect victims in these cases, which is sensible. I agree with your point about 17 vs 18, but we also have sentencing flexibility and in most states some gradients around age of consent for these reasons. Some cases are obviously more egregious than others.
Just because someone doesn’t have free will does not mean that anarchy is the only system. No one said rules and structures do not influence the actions of people. And it doesn’t mean that we can’t decide on rules to protect others. Free will is not necessary for any of these things to occur. But honestly I haven’t seen much evidence at all of free will, besides people’s belief they have it. Free will is so central to our identify that it is hard to imagine at first.
“Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. Which sort is the free will sort is what all the fuss is about. (And what a fuss it has been: philosophers have debated this question for over two millennia, and just about every major philosopher has had something to say about it.) Most philosophers suppose that the concept of free will is very closely connected to the concept of moral responsibility. Acting with free will, on such views, is just to satisfy the metaphysical requirement on being responsible for one’s action.
I studied theology at a Christian college, believe me I’ve spent more years studying the philosophical arguments for and against free will and the implications on Calvinism than I’d wish on anyone. I’m not struggling with it because “it’s hard to imagine”, what you said is illogical.
“Free will is not necessary for any of these things to occur.”
False by definition, see below.
“Just because someone doesn’t have free will does not mean that anarchy is the only system.”
Yes it does. For the same reason you are unfit for trial if you are ruled insane. Logically they’ve shown that you lacked the basic understanding and control of your actions to be deemed responsible for your actions. Without free will you’re basically punishing people for things beyond their control.
“No one said rules and structures do not influence the actions of people.”
The basic definition of free will is having control over your own actions (standard definition below), able to act at your own discretion. In other words, not having free will means you do not have the ability to choose your action. As a result, by definition, rules and structures cannot cause people to change behaviors they have no control over.
“And it doesn’t mean that we can’t decide on rules to protect others”
Again, see all of the above. Since you’d be punishing people retroactively for actions they have no control over, you’re not able to change their behavior and since its after the fact you’re not protecting anybody.
