• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: axe battler | Pissed_and_messed

Jimmy Savile (aka: paedo speculation megathread)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Isn't that more about the need to rationalise "bad" desires/deeds rather than just having broken morals, Knock? You can know a certain action is morally unnacceptable but still find ways to rationalise it to yourself ("she was asking for it," "he had it coming" or whatever). I'd say that was somewhat different to just thinking something was acceptable per se. As PTCH said, if someone actually fucks a child they cannot possibly think of it as acceptable behaviour (at least not in societies where sex with chilldren is unnacceptable). If they did there'd be no shame or guilt involved and, aside from a few outright psychos, I just don't believe for a second that that is the case. Finding ways to rationalise the behaviour before and after the act is just a natural coping mechanism. More like making a (spurious) special exception to the rule rather than not accepting the rule itself, I'd say.
 
I think the main problem between you relating on this better is the vocabulary you're using

Along side 'right' and 'wrong' is 'normal' and 'not normal'

To anyone who has been exposed to abuse at an early age, and 'learned' to 'understand' what is 'right' or 'wrong' through what is 'normal' (in their life) and what is 'not normal' ... therein lies the crux of the problems/restrictions of the terminology and concepts you're arguing with

We learn what is normal from a very early age and it continues as we develop. That lays the foundations from the get go ... children understand what is 'right' via what experiences are 'normal' in their life (accepted behaviour) ... and this later often conflicts with the concept of right or wrong as we understand what is acceptable in the wider community later .. and those who have not been exposed to abuse from a young age group do not have that conflicting factor to 'reprogramme' when they're an adult and able to make up their own mind.

A person exposed to abuse has a huge struggle ahead of them and it's not a simple as just understanding 'right' or 'wrong' as they get older. They have to learn what is not normal and what is all over again, and that is something very different from right or wrong

'Learned' hardwired experience is a tremdously difficult thing for a person to understand and then overcome (if it's a negative). It takes a lot of skill and self awareness to even begin to understand your instincts and complexes from this kind of exposure. There isn't a magic switch for the brain that just suddenly makes a person intrinsically understand that what they inherently believe to be right, is actually very wrong. You can say the words ' i know it's wrong' but the brain is telling you a different story. Despite the fact that you're now exposed to, and have access to the same culture and wider influences that most other people have access to, and can now 'in theory' see exactly why it's wrong

[edit]
eh,a few edits to try to be clearer. I'm not being particularly clear. Just woke up so it's the best I can do atm.
There's quite a bit of literature on this ... should be fairly easy to look up and find someone who's written about it more cohesively than I can
 
Last edited:
I think paedophiles DO think fucking a child is acceptable behaviour don't they? In a similar way to how drug users like us see drug use as acceptable. We/they just think its a bad law.

The difference is that we have the argument that we are not harming anyone but ourselves. Whereas they are exploiting an unacceptable imbalance in a power relationship (which is what makes their actions wrong and properly illegal).
 
I don't think you can compare drug (ab)use with child (ab)use as such, SHM. Aside from both being illegal there's just not much of a comparison. Can of worms aside, drug use isn't an even vaguely "moral" issue.

As for nonces believing noncing to be acceptable behaviour, I'd still say the majority know fine well that it isn't. Although to be fair my opinion is based on very limited actual knowledge of the subject as we don't get to hear the paedo perspective very often. And as with most things I'd be fairly sure there's a spectrum going from the bloke who's just a bit overkeen on hentai at one end right up to Broadmore jobs on the other and plenty of variation betwixt the extremes.
 
Nearly time for a paedo speculation thread v2. What a wonderful age we live in.
 
Ha! I was actually just thinking that, Alby :D

Seems to eveolved into a comparatively sensible discussion though. Which is not necessarily the best way to go when there are libellous allegations to be made. I heard Ant & Dec double-teamed a toddler t'other day...
 
Shambles said:
Can of worms aside, drug use isn't an even vaguely "moral" issue.
Click to expand...

But Shambles, not to you it isn't! Not to me either, but there is a whole load of people for whom it fucking is, mainly because it's enjoyable/maybe a bit self-centred and pleasure is the devil's business.
 
That's just plain stupid though. It's like calling carrot cake a moral conundrum. I meant that drug use cannot legitimately be described as a moral issue. Cos it can't and isn't. Is it?
 
Shambles said:
That's just plain stupid though. It's like calling carrot cake a moral conundrum. I meant that drug use cannot legitimately be described as a moral issue. Cos it can't and isn't. Is it?
Click to expand...

Of course it can, because morals are not absolute and different people have different moral worlds depending on what they think is right and wrong.

Yes there are people, certainly there have been people, for whom self-indulgent carrot cake would be a mortal fucking sin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asceticism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cilice
 
I don't think paedophilia is a moral issue.

I don't think paedophilia should be against the law because it isn't virtuous, I think it should be against the law because like rape and murder it creates and exploits an imbalance of power to the disadvantage of one party with unbelievably serious consequences.

The comparison with drugs was for the purposes of judgements within the law only. And I think that stands. Both sets of people break the law. Most drug takers do not think they are doing anything that should be considered illegal. Because any hurt is self-inflicted. I think that's a valid, legal, argument. Paedophiles also think they are doing something that should not be illegal. It's just they fail to acknowledge the one-sidedness of their argument in terms of the power relationship and harm inflicted by the abuse of it.

But we can agree to differ Shammy, our clique of two is a broad church.
 
^ Actually we can probably agree to agree on the moral issue bit. Wasn't really what I mean at all but went with it cos it was near enough at the time. Perhaps not the best way to make a case one way or t'other on any issue really but heyho :eek:

knockando said:
Of course it can, because morals are not absolute and different people have different moral worlds depending on what they think is right and wrong.

Yes there are people, certainly there have been people, for whom self-indulgent carrot cake would be a mortal fucking sin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asceticism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cilice
Click to expand...

But there has to be a rationale behind it or it's meaningless. There's no conceivable rationale behind trying to frame drug use as a moral issue. People may sometimes act in morally reprehensible ways as a result of drugs (like us thieving junky scum) - can see that as a reasonable argument - but drug use in and of itself is amoral.

Any moral argument with a religious basis is inherently a bad argument and I can't see how drug use could ever be seen as a moral issue unless it's a religious argument and thus an irrelevant and meaningless argument.
 
This is the problem I have with seeing paedophilia, or anything, as a 'moral' issue. I believe morality is borne out of religion and...well, you know.

I don't think justice and injustice should be a question of morality, but a question of politics and philosophy. My politics start with equality.
 
StoneHappyMonday said:
This is the problem I have with seeing paedophilia, or anything, as a 'moral' issue. I believe morality is borne out of religion and...well, you know.

I don't think justice and injustice should be a question of morality, but a question of politics and philosophy. My politics start with equality.
Click to expand...

Yes.

Morals do exist though, people have them, but because they're a load of fucking nonsense which vary from individual to individual and then from locality to locality and then across the ages, they're not a sound basis for organising society.
 
Morality doesn't come from religion at all. Just got hijacked by it. Morality is a branch of philosophy and has far more meaning in that context as it has an actual basis in sound argument and reasoning. Am quite into secular morality at the moment. Well, not into (was never out of it really) but have been learning a bit more about it. Is good to know why you have the beliefs you do and can justify them properly rather than just regurgutating whatever you've been told is right (or wrong). Morals actually mean something then.
 
Shambles said:
Morality doesn't come from religion at all. Just got hijacked by it. Morality is a branch of philosophy and has far more meaning in that context as it has an actual basis in sound argument and reasoning. Am quite into secular morality at the moment. Well, not into (was never out of it really) but have been learning a bit more about it. Is good to know why you have the beliefs you do and can justify them properly rather. They actually mean something then.
Click to expand...

I think it was the other way round, I think kids were getting slapped for misbehaviour (wrongdoing, i.e. morally repugnant behaviour) many thousands of years before we had any concept of philosophy.

Surely! Animals have "morals". The dogs in a pack keep each other's behaviour in check with threatening and violent actions. They're acting on their "innate sense of right and wrong".
 
Animals do indeed display moral behaviour. It's part of being a social animal. "Morality" in some form is necessary for social creatures to be social. It's essentially built-in to the DNA. At least in basic form it is. More abstract ideas about morality are either based on philosophy or religion and only one of those is a legitimate basis for any system of morals for obvious reasons.
 
Shambles said:
Animals do indeed display moral behaviour. It's part of being a social animal.
Click to expand...

I agree with you up to here.

"Morality" in some form is necessary for social creatures to be social.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe individual morals are necessary as they are the internalisation of accepted behaviour. But what decides the accepted behaviour? If it's morals, then you're in a catch-22 situation. Step in the church, to provide a moral source from above.

I think we have different ideas of what morals are. For me, morals are the thing that's been driven into me during my upbringing about right and wrong. It's not a source of anything. It's just an internalisation of my perception of what the world around me thinks of my behaviour, or perhaps what the world around me demonstrates to be acceptable behaviour. That might be a very limited or strange perception, depending on my circumstances.

EDIT: I know I've not responded to your bit about it being in our DNA, and other sources of morals, I have something to say but I have to go to ASDA to get wine ;)
 
Last edited:
Ok, if it wasn't borne out of religion but high jacked by it it was highjacked very powerfully with consequences that last to this day, indeed, rule our lives to this day. So that highjacked morality is what counts, what informs. And it, itself, is informed by a spurious philosophy/cult/religion that sought to make morality based on judgements that were intended for nothing but social and political control.

So I don't buy the word, sorry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top