Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
Someone I am acquainted with (online) in the Pac northwest that uses a substantially similar username across accounts. I don't wish to share any information that might identify them, since I don't know how tightly they try to control information about all of their activities.
It would have been a strange coincidence to run across them on a Lemmy instance, but stranger things have happened.
It’s doubtful. Unless they went to medical school, it’s doubtful it’s the same person.
This is a topic that causes people to lose their mittens. They confuse the two and want to go alpha male in we will kill the pedophiles when the answer is more nuanced.
You described it correctly. It’s part of maturity to understand nuance and many people can’t. They think not wanting to kill pedophiles is the same as advocating for child molestation. That isn’t true.
I’m a strong advocate that help should be available to people to avoid criminal behavior.
Dsm V caused a huge uproar and I get the uproar but it better explains the disorder. With that we can do better treatment.
No, the Wintermute that I know, AFAIK, is not a med school graduate. :)
I agree that it's complicated, and that nuance would be preferred. I'm not sure we can get that as long as the attraction itself--not actions--is treated like a moral issue. I don't think that it's even possible to have a serious discussion about the ramifications of issues of sexual attraction--again, not actions--without it being treated like a moral issue.
Just think! Maybe if we could talk about things like this seriously, without moralizing, we'd have fewer youth pastors that sexually assaulted kids, and fewer kids thinking that it was their fault that the youth pastor sexually assaulted them for five years.
I went to medical school and then did my residency in psychiatry. I worked PT for the local SWAT team, which is why I was involved in law enforcement. They like the entry team to have a medical doctor with them. I don't practice anymore; I went into tech because of the crap pay as a psychiatrist, among other reasons. That is how I met my girlfriend, she did my license when I switched states.
Don't forget youth doesn't mean pedophile. Pedophilia is distinct as it's pre-pubescent and isn't a blanket term for children.
If we treat them like criminals, they won't get help.
Another issue I have is it's hard to get mental health treatment for many people. Cost, Stigma, shortage of providers, etc.
Yeah, but this--again--is one of those super culturally-loaded things. If you say something like, "Matt Goetz is an ephebophile, not a pedophile!", people get furious as though you're supporting his criminal sexual behaviour (and, in fairness, the people that are most likely to say shit like that are people that oppose age of consent laws because of muh freedums). People are more comfortable lumping any sexual contact with minors under the blanket term 'pedophilia'.
I 100% agree that non-offending pedophiles (and hebephiles, et al.) should be able to seek psychological and psychiatric help without immediately being treated as though they had already committed a moral or criminal offense. If we want to prevent the from harming children, then we need to make sure that they're as well-equipped as possible to avoid behaviours that put them at risk of committing offenses. But, again, too many people treat it like a moral issue rather than a risk-reduction issue. It's deeply irrational.
Also, I'm not sure why someone keeps downvoting you for factual information.
If it's a conservative downvote, it's because I am not saying kill them all.
If it's a liberal, it's because I am a conservative.
I don't mind differing opinions, but I like to keep conversations as factual as possible especially when it is an emotional topic like this.