Deutschland 2050: Es gab schon immer mindestens 10 Tage mit über 40 Grad, das ist ganz normal.

So yeah, complex issue. Thanks for your valuable contribution.

On the contrary, I was happy to engage with a position that wasn’t along the lines of “all pedophiles should commit suicide”.

It is, as you say, a complex issue. That complexity and any nuance is usually absent of discussions about the topic on the Internet. Thanks for adding it here.

Do you have any real-world or professional experience with people suffering from pedophilia?

I have been schooled on pedophilia in a professional context, during my undergrad and in a work-context. Yet I have not worked with pedophiles directly, nor have I had any contact to one, that I would be aware of.

Looking at the science both of our positions are reflected. As with so many things the answer is not a simple “yes” or “no”.

If you want to take a bit of a deep dive, I recoment this study from 2023.

It looked at both of our positions: FSM (Fantasy Sexual Material) leads to real sexual violence against children vs. FSM reduces the risk of said practice.

Here is their summary of my position (FSM leads to sexual violence against children):

When applying the motivation-facilitation model to the context of FSM use, it can be theorized as to why, for a subset of users, engaging with such material could become problematic and increase the likelihood of committing a child sexual offense (whether that be offline or online), while for others this is not the case. As pedohebephilia is thought to be a motivating factor towards sexual offending in Seto’s model [21], engaging with FSM relating to children could heighten sexual arousal and therefore act as a facilitator to increase offending likelihood. With abstinence from masturbation being self-reported as a risk-management technique by some people who are attracted to children [16], this is a recognized idea by some members of the community. Over time, engaging in CSEM (especially forms such as child-like sex dolls, which offer a more realistic sexual experience) may contribute to the development of offence-supportive beliefs and the adoption of implicit theories about the acceptability of engaging in sexual activity with children (or child-like targets). The combination of enhanced sexual arousal to children (a potential motivator of offending), coupled with the development of permission-giving beliefs (facilitators of offending), may subsequently increase the risk of abuse being committed by somebody with attractions to children.

Here they are summarising your position, as far as I understand it (FSM helps to prevent sexual child abuse):

Alternatively, FSM use could be seen as beneficial by the motivation-facilitation model and instead reduce the likelihood of offending. Rather than heightening arousal, FSM could act as a safe sexual outlet that allows for a feeling of release and sense of catharsis [84], which could reduce a motivation to seek out real children as a sexual partner. Engaging with FSM also avoids the problematic suppression of sexual interests, with such suppression being linked to increases in self-perceived risks for offending among those with attractions to children [15]. In contrast to Stevens and Wood [16], Houtepen and colleagues reported that engagement in masturbatory fantasies was a common coping mechanism used by some people experiencing attractions to children, avoiding the need to access CSEM due to an alternative outlet being identified [3•].

They conclude, basicly, that more research is needed:

Given the present lack of understanding of FSM and how they are used, it is important to identify the factors associated with use and whether they are risk-enhancing or risk-reducing (i.e., protective). This knowledge could be beneficial to clinicians in the search for more effective methods to support people who are attracted to children when they are seeking help to manage their sexual interests. Nonetheless, Seto’s motivation-facilitation model provides a theoretical framework for thinking about this topic in a more nuanced way [21].

So, there we are. A long post to say maybe.

I suppose both of our positions might be viable and it can’t be said yet, under what circumstances each one of us might be right.

The “video games cause violence” argument is wrong, because the vast majority of gamers don’t try to use games as a substitute action for violent behaviour.

But there are of cause at least some mass murderers and school shooters, that have played violent games in order to fulfill their violent phantasies, couldn’t do so in a long term and murdered real people instead.

Same goes with pedophiles. They want to fuck a child, use fictional characters to fulfill the phanstasy, get used to it and then escalate to pictures of real children and eventually real children.

Nightwalker Gloomy

I think I just briefly died of cringe.

Yeah, same here. I just don’t see the need to block people. Some might have a different opinion on one topic than me, but be no in agreement or have something worthwile to say on another.

If I was activly harassed or anything, I’d use the block function to protect myself from that. Never had to do that so far.

Sure, I’d be interested if you think this is a broken plate situation or not.

We left the pub as a group of four: her, me, and two male friends of hers. I was shitfaced as fuck, like on the verge of not beeing able to walk properly anymore. I didn’t chose to get shitfaced too. I was on a diet and skipped lunch to “afford” the calories of a few drinks. Turned out drinking and an empty stomach are a bad combination. Who would’ve thought, right? I ended up beeing way more wasted then I usually would have been. That is not any excuse for anything, I just bring it up because it is part of the facts

We approached the local train station to go home. Our train was allready standing and waiting to leave, but it would do so for another 20 minutes.

As we arrived at the train station I asked to sit down in the train, as I was feeling realy dizzy and increasingly cold (it was winter). My friend said she’d like us to wait outside at the station plattform and enter the train just before its final take of time.

I don’t recall much of the details, but an argument broke out about this, me wanting to go into the train and her wanting to wait outside. It was not a screaming match and not aggressiv, just a normal discussion (this has been confirmed by one of her male friends later, so you don’t need to trust my drunken recollection here).

Since there were two male friends of hers with us, it wasn’t an issue of her waiting alone at the plattform if I had left. I honestly don’t recall her reasoning, or any details of the discussion, nor why we didn’t simply split up. The argument ended with me beeing frustrated and saying: “You can sit around in the cold or on that guys dick, for all I care, but I’m going into the train now.”

I headed for the train and all three of them followed. We waited together until the train took of and everybody went their merry way. I have no recollection of any conversation that happens about the comment on the way home. She approached me a couple of days later and said that she took great offence.

And just to make this clear: This was the single thing that lead to her ending our friendship. It wasn’t the boiling over point, it wasn’t the last stupid thing in a long list of stupid things. A week earlier she had thanked me for beeing such a good friend.

I honestly have to admit, I still don’t get it. I see how it was a stupid thing to say and of course I see how it was offensiv. I still don’t see why it was bad enoth to end a friendship over, and she never explained it to me. I never tried to defend what I said, I apologised as soon as I was made aware of it (I don’t remember the incident in great detail. The above telling is put together from my memory fragments and the telling of her two male friends, whom I independently asked to fill me in on what had happend).

Yes, that’s true of course. I just don’t think it is of benefit to yourself to hold a grudge.

Have I moved past their betrayal? I think so. Have I forgiven them? Yes. Do I want those people in my life again? no. never.

That’s exactly what I was tyring to get at. Forgiving is something you do for yourself. That doesn’t mean you have to forget about what happend nor not let it have consequences. But holding to the grudge will do nothing but harm yourself.

I stopped drinking alcohol after the event for good, so there’s that. It’s not that I haven’t learned my lesson from it. (Not drinking not beeing the only one, but i won’t go into more personal details here).

And I wouldn’t call it a character flaw. More like an approach on how to handle live. And in this case, I think she didn’t chose a good approach for herself.

I have encountered this analogy irl. I was pretty drunk and said something distasteful to a friend. She ended our friendship over it and caused the group we were in to split into factions. We tried talking it over, but after I made all efforts I could to apologise, she responded with the plate analogy.

Honestly I thinks its a bad position to take. People have wronged me too over the years. Forgiving them, regardless of them apologising or not, is, in my experience, the better option for yourself.

The hate you carry with you if you don’t doesn’t do anything to them, but it eats you up from the inside. Forgiving somebody frees you from that. It’s not about forgetting what people have done to you (and maybe choosing not to keep them in your life depending on how bad it was that they did), it’s about not carrying the hate with you trough the years.

Kann ich bestätigen. Ein Restaurant mit zwei Hochstühlen zu finden ist die Pest in Deutschland.

Nirgendwo ist die Qualität des Essens schlechter, der Service unfreundlicher, das Kartenlesegerät kaputter und das Durchschnittsalter der Gäste höher als in Deutschland.

Ich bin neidisch darauf das du die Restaurants mit Kartenlesegerät gefunden hast.

Love my kids, love my wife. Feel useful at work. Getting rdy for the final stretch of my undergrad. Life is a grind atm and I don’t have a lot of free time, but I wouldn’t swap it for anything else.

Erst mal davon auszugehen, dass ich mir das ausgedacht habe ist jetzt aber auch nicht gerade die feine Art.

Habe ich nämlich nicht. Bin ich Experte auf dem Gebiet? Auch nicht. Ich habe nur über die Jahre ein paar Artikel gelesen, die den Verdacht nahelegen.

Zum Beispiel:

Dass viele kleinere Läden es mit der Pflicht zur Belegerstellung nicht so genau nehmen, habe einen Grund, sagt Florian Köbler, Chef der Deutschen Steuergewerkschaft (DSTG): “Der Verdacht lautet ganz klar: Steuerhinterziehung.” Dass Kunden in der Regel keinen Bon erhielten, sei nur die Spitze des Eisbergs.

Wo nicht ordnungsgemäß abgerechnet und verbucht werde, herrsche eine illegale Schattenwirtschaft - quasi in aller Öffentlichkeit beim Bäcker oder Kiosk in der Nachbarschaft. Wenn die Finanzämter jemanden beim Betrug erwischten - was selten genug der Fall sei -, zeige sich eine Faustregel, nach der häufig vorgegangen werde. “Zwei Drittel legal, ein Drittel Cash und ohne Steuern”, fasst Köbler die Erkenntnisse zusammen.

Tagesschau

Oder dieser hier:

“Bargeld ist das Bezahlmittel, mit dem am leichtesten betrogen werden kann”, sagt Florian Köbler, Bundesvorsitzender der Deutschen Steuergewerkschaft – das ist die Gewerkschaft der Finanzverwaltungen. “Es lädt regelrecht zum Betrug ein.” Als Beispiel nennt Köbler die sogenannte offene Ladenkasse: Viele Würstchenbuden oder Weihnachtsmarktstände rechnen am Ende des Tages alle Einnahmen zusammen und tragen sie in ein Kassenbuch ein. Auch Restaurants dürfen nach diesem Prinzip arbeiten. So weit, so legal und wunderbar unbürokratisch. Nur: Ob vor Kassenabschluss ein paar Scheine beiseitegelegt werden, merkt niemand. Dann verbucht der Gastronom weniger Einnahmen – und zahlt dementsprechend weniger Steuern.

Zeit Plus (Archivierte Version ohne Bezahlschranke)

Und ja, beide Artikel zitieren die selbe Person, ich weiß.

Wenn du, außer mir Populismus zu unterstellen, noch ein Argument oder gar, Gott bewahre, eine Quelle einwerfen willst, bin ich offen dafür meine Meinung nochmal zu überdenken.

Und so ganz nebenbei, abschaffen sollte man Bargeld meiner Meinung nach nicht. Es gibt Menschen, die einfach gerne mit Bargeld hantieren und das ist ja auch voll okay. Aber ich persönlich benutze kein Bargeld mehr, seit guten 5 oder 6 Jahren. Ich würde mich freuen wenn einfach alle Läden beide Optionen anbieten würden. Aus dem ganz schnöden, egoistischen, Grund, dass ich dann auch wieder bei allen Läden einkaufen kann :-).

Geschäfte die nur Bargeld annehmen, tun das eigentlich immer aus sehr guten Gründen

Und einer dieser Gründe ist halt häufig Steuerhinterziehung.

If you have the time, I heavily recommend Center Place as a great source for Christians and Atheists alike who wish to learn about schoolary views on Christianity.

It’s like a free seminar lecture. Here is one about Plato and Christianity:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLk6sdjAoAo&t=2006

EDIT: My brain somehow went to Greek phylisophy, not mythology. So the above link doesn’t suit the question at all, my apologies. I’ll let it stand non the less, it’s an intresting topic on it’s own.

A source for the ACTUAL question might be this paper The survival of the Greek gods in early Christianity

Same logic applied to something the right does:

“We are not banning books, we are just not allowing them in libraries and schools. You can always buy them if you feel the need to expose your child to them.”

So, following your logic, the right isn’t suppressing information about LGBtQI+ people.

Dont get me wrong please, I don’t think right wing content should stand unchallenged. I am just not a big fan of only allowing the “correct” information. Because, that is what the right is doing already (while screaming about free speach, mind you). I think it’s better to engage with right content and destroy it with arguments, rather then just banning it. I know I’m a minority with that opinion on Lemmy. I’m fine with that.

I would argue that censorship includes the suppression of information in its definition, not only it’s removal.