thoughtcrimes

[Liyowo]

This is commonplace in a lot of countries. Having a sexual attraction to minors and being caught with PIM means any images you have are now "abusive" because they are in your possession. Since you "no doubt" used them to "abuse" the minors.

This is such a messed up use of language.

[Brain O'Conner]

i saw a comment on social media recently saying that "having sexual thoughts about a child makes you a predator" and it had hundreds of likes and almost everyone was agreeing

the moral panic about pedophiles has gotten so bad that simply THINKING about children in a sexual manner and having urges makes you a predator, literally the definition of thoughtcrimes.

i wonder where that even starts and ends, are people with intrusive thoughts also predators? even if they arent actual pedophiles? people are just so exhausting sometimes.

Yes, it has little to do with protecting children. The public need an acceptable target for their anger and hatred, and that's us. They can say or do whatever they want to us, and everyone will cheer them on. It won't be long until non-offending MAPs are being hunted and murdered in the streets unless we fight back hard.

Here is a video of a MAP being hunted with a crossbow. Our brother was probably looking for sex with an imaginary minor, so it's not entirely a thought crime, but the situation is still absolutely insane. How long is it before people are doing this, and getting away with it, with non-offending MAPs?

https://x.com/SaltOfTheNorth/status/1944849977139966362

A CROSSBOW?? Like we are wild animals to be hunted for sport and not human beings. This is why I am pro gun, mainly for minority groups like MAPs. I am not advocating for violence or breaking the law, in case anyone tries to say anything, but I AM advocating for self defense if you feel your life is in danger. If you live in a place with a gun ban like the UK, fine. But if you live in Murica’, there is absolutely no excuse for you to be a MAP, and not be armed. It sucks for sex offenders tho, because it is illegal yo own a weapon with a felony, which I think is bullshit, because being on the regristry puts you on a hitlist that puts your life in danger even more than the average joe, but still, buy a baseball bat, something?! Better than nothing(or if your willing to take the risk, still use a gun, yes u might go back to prison for breaking the gun law, but it is better than being dead at the hands of a vigillante)

Speaking of guns and offenders on the registry not being able to own firearms, they could technically own this since it's not classified as a weapon:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXkssRD ... NoICMWzndI. If someone wanted to assure lethality, then they could simply buy another model that has a higher pressure or make one themselves. Hell, they could make an EV gun for cheap I may add. Or even better since they're life is at risk, forge a weapon like a sword or gun. There are ways around everything, but I think the latter things are illegal, so their best bet is to go with the formers.

[John_Doe]

I've never understood encouraging people to repress their sexual attraction to others in terms of fantasy. I can understand encouraging them to not act on their attraction in real-life scenarios, and I can also understand the idea that certain 'fetishes' are anti-social (e.g. men who are turned on by women crushing small animals with their heels, it was a little difficult for me to write that out) but attraction is never wrong. There are no exceptions in this (if a naked woman runs up to a man screaming and crying in terror and distress and her attractiveness is all that he can focus on that implies a lack of sympathy, but the attraction per se is not wrong anymore than him finding the shade of blue the sky is at that moment aesthetically pleasing; it's just that her distress warrants greater attention). I wish pro-LGB liberals would take their stance to its logical conclusion. It's ok to be attracted to Nazis and serial killers and the most abusive or sociopathic people. It's ok for someone to be attracted to their parents, their children, their siblings or their relatives. It's ok to be attracted to babies, prepubescent children, teens and younger adults. There is not a single exception to this (I think that fetishizing death is immoral but there's nothing wrong with just being attracted to a corpse although I suspect that many of the people who are turned on by the idea of necrophilia would find it disgusting in real life depending on how far along decomposition is. Imagine a doctor who works in a hospital and, unfortunately, sees death relatively often. He comes across the body of an attractive woman, sympathizes with the people who loved her and appreciates the value of what she's lost and later on at night fantasizes about having sex with her, alive and happy and just as into it as he is, that would be completely benign to me). Trying to shame people for who they're attracted to and sexual fantasies that don't imply de-valuing anyone's happiness is one of the harshest things to me, it makes you a relatively unkind person (I've watched a couple of shows where someone would comment on the attractiveness of some 15-year-old girl in a photo who isn't even in the room and a character I liked would gently scold them for it, what's the point? They said nothing about having real-world sex with them, they're not cat calling them, not only does it not affect them in the slightest but it doesn't imply some callous disregard for their suffering or de-valuing their happiness either. What's the point in policing people's sexuality? Is this ever going to stop?).

One thing that might help put things into perspective- imagine a man who fantasizes about some of the 12 (or younger)-year-old girls that he went to school with, who are now his age. Would that be acceptable? They're the same age as he is. What about fantasizing about a 12-year-old girl you see in some historical photo from the 1800s? That woman is long dead and gone, hopefully having passed peacefully in old age after an overall decent life, who's the prey in that scenario? What if, when he fantasizes about any given 12-year-old girl, he is himself, in his fantasy, 12 or younger?

How do people honestly expect the average man to not have a sexual response to a nude conventionally attractive 15-year-old girl? Why would you ask him to suppress his natural urges so the fantasy of intimacy with her can't be a source of pleasure for him in the privacy of his own mind? I can get behind not making her feel uncomfortable with unwanted (revealed) attention, coming on to her, etc. (when it would make her uncomfortable or cause her stress for whatever reasons).

You would expect some of this from conservatives but in many ways leftists might be even more sexually repressed, almost certainly they are as repressed.

Brain O'Conner,

I guess by their own logic, they are all potentially cheaters and murderers since a lot of people have those thoughts on their mind. It makes you realize how silly these people are to the point I'm not even mad.

In my view, thoughts can't be unjust (if we define injustice as malintent or negligence + actual harm) but they can be immoral. If x is bad then a desire for x to exist is immoral, and fantasizing about x in a way that implies positively valuing it should be considered immoral from the standpoint that x is bad, albeit harmlessly. It's extremely unrealistic and even unsympathetic for people to expect their partners to not fantasize about anyone else but I think that's consistent with the monogamous ideal. If you're ok with your partner fantasizing about other people, I don't see how you can consistently oppose their actually being with other people on principle.

I thought GayWad69 made an interesting point about nudity or certain physical contact only being problematic if the adult viewing or engaging in it takes sexual pleasure in it (I only skimmed through her post, although I probably read it long ago). The goal here isn't to protect children but to prevent adults from privately sexualizing them.

[InfinityChild]

Yes, it has little to do with protecting children. The public need an acceptable target for their anger and hatred, and that's us. They can say or do whatever they want to us, and everyone will cheer them on. It won't be long until non-offending MAPs are being hunted and murdered in the streets unless we fight back hard.

Here is a video of a MAP being hunted with a crossbow. Our brother was probably looking for sex with an imaginary minor, so it's not entirely a thought crime, but the situation is still absolutely insane. How long is it before people are doing this, and getting away with it, with non-offending MAPs?

https://x.com/SaltOfTheNorth/status/1944849977139966362

A CROSSBOW?? Like we are wild animals to be hunted for sport and not human beings. This is why I am pro gun, mainly for minority groups like MAPs. I am not advocating for violence or breaking the law, in case anyone tries to say anything, but I AM advocating for self defense if you feel your life is in danger. If you live in a place with a gun ban like the UK, fine. But if you live in Murica’, there is absolutely no excuse for you to be a MAP, and not be armed. It sucks for sex offenders tho, because it is illegal yo own a weapon with a felony, which I think is bullshit, because being on the regristry puts you on a hitlist that puts your life in danger even more than the average joe, but still, buy a baseball bat, something?! Better than nothing(or if your willing to take the risk, still use a gun, yes u might go back to prison for breaking the gun law, but it is better than being dead at the hands of a vigillante)

So many MAPs (outside of this forum) are massive pussies. I mentioned this earlier in the week at BC. They are desperate for even the slightest bit of approval from the absolutely evil societies that have condemned them to a life of dehumanization, subjugation, and a constant threat of violence.

I searched for any news stories on the crossbow attack, and there were none. The UK government is happy to allow MAPs to be hunted down like animals, zero protection under the law. It's worth asking then, do British people have any obligation toward the state? Should they be subjected to human laws and morals if they are afforded no protection, no human rights, not even the concept of being deemed human?

I did find an article on another crossbow attack, in Northern Ireland. The attacker was caught, but the police were concerned only with their own cases being damaged, and on non-MAPs being harmed. By implication, attacking a MAP like an animal is acceptable, and therefore MAPs are not considered human.

They'd genocide us if they could. I wish the same upon them.

"They'd genocide us if they could. I wish the same upon them."

Is it OK if this language makes me uncomfortable?

[BLueRibbon]

They'd genocide us if they could. I wish the same upon them.

"They'd genocide us if they could. I wish the same upon them."

Is it OK if this language makes me uncomfortable?

Sure, but... do you disagree?

[InfinityChild]

They'd genocide us if they could. I wish the same upon them.

"They'd genocide us if they could. I wish the same upon them."

Is it OK if this language makes me uncomfortable?

Sure, but... do you disagree?

I don't disagree that many would like to do so to us.

[BLueRibbon]

"They'd genocide us if they could. I wish the same upon them."

Is it OK if this language makes me uncomfortable?

Sure, but... do you disagree?

I don't disagree that many would like to do so to us.

Then why do you not wish the same upon them?

[InfinityChild]

Sure, but... do you disagree?

I don't disagree that many would like to do so to us.

Then why do you not wish the same upon them?

Basically because I don't really think anyone deserves to die

[Bookshelf]

The only reason you can't be arrested for your thoughts is because we don't yet have a way to read them.

[Learning to undeny]

Then why do you not wish the same upon them?

I thought Code of Hammurabi was valid no more.