Poster in /r/relationships caught her husband catfishing underage girls for nudes. But she doesn't agree when they react in horror. Is there a "sketchy artifical butter" flair? Tastes buttery but leaves you very, very nauseous? (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
215 ups - 57 downs = 158 votes
144 comments submitted at 22:51:41 on Aug 17, 2013 by BaseballGuyCAA
I'm always skeptical of the legitimacy of /r/relationships drama, but it's always so buttery...
As expected, drama like this is never complete without the pedophile vs ephebophile argument.
Ephebololophiles think they deserve a medal for wanting to fuck 14 year olds as opposed to 10 year olds.
Sorry epheebololokophiles, you're still pedos under the law and should be treated accordingly
I hate your post, for two reasons.
First, shit like
> Ephebololophiles
> epheebololokophiles
only makes you look like a smug idiot, and gives justification to the diddlers. They'll rationalize you away as a braying idiot who ain't to be listened to.
Secondly, your appeal to "it's wrong because it's against the law." Not all laws are just, and to claim the moral high ground because "the law says so" when you're in the right opens up a lot of doors that are best left unopened.
Well in this scenario where dude is 31, fucking a 14 year old would he pretty fucked up, to be fair.
>these girls were only 14 and 15 years old. and some were my sons school friends
Being attracted to young teens is one thing but hitting up your partner's son's 14 or 15 year old friends for dirty pics via Facebook, that's pretty high on the creepy scale.
I agree, it's just that we should state it the way you just did.
>only makes you look like a smug idiot
That's because NMB is a smug idiot.
edit: This comment is what it is, despite what's said below I'm ambivalent on the actual topic.
I'm surprised they get upvoted as much as they do, since the vast majority of their posts are of this 'quality'.
Despite being in a forum for tracking online drama and gossiping at it like schoolchildren, not everyone follows or remembers every user.
I remember quite a few, and I don't even use RES.
I think I need a better hobby.
I can explain that with three letters, two of which are 's'.
And I think the majority of the mens rights quality posts can be defined by issues like a half inch piece of skin on the penis, woman hating, and the ever so holy distinction of epbololoopilia vs pedophilia. Surely going to reach mainstream success with an ideology fighting such major battles as this /s
What are you trying to say? I'm completely confused where MRA's got brought into this discussion at all.
They're setting up a straw man and lighting it on fire, stand back cause that thing is gonna be hot.
Most of the comments above me are by mras, who take the ephbo vs pedo debate as a holy crusade.
It's not a "debate" or a "crusade", it's a belief that your moral principles shouldn't get in the way of understanding what words actually mean. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the MRM; your implication to the contrary is a crude attempt at smearing them.
Well, given the number of SJW who are frequenting SRD with greater and greater regularity, it's not the least bit surprising that smug self-indulgent tripe like that gets upvoted. At least not when idiots with a black-and-white worldview can so easily push a little arrow and feel righteous.
Third, because "you're still pedos under the law" is a nonsensical claim: the law does not define "pedophilia", it defines statutory rape, CP, etc.
I don't think you're really going to convince a pedophile not to be a pedophile by presenting convincing evidence on the internet.
Predators can't generally be talked out of predatory acts.
This isn't really about trying to do that, though; it's about having a discussion where people actually care about what words mean and have a reason to listen to each other.
No, "the diddlers" don't need the "justification" of "smug idiots", and will rationalize everything away as needed. But it makes it harder for onlookers to take the argument seriously
> only makes you look like a smug idiot
Ironic, because that's what I feel anytime some tries to state they're epboloololophiles instead of pedophiles when they're morally and legally the same thing in almost every instance.
>morally
TIL a 19-year-old having sex with a 15-year-old is totally the same thing as a 19-year-old having sex with a 3-year-old.
>and legally the same thing
This claim makes no sense, because "pedophile" is not a term that the law defines. For example, here is the full text of the Criminal Code of Canada on one page, sourced directly by the government. Ctrl-f
pedo; you won't find it.You know the one redeeming quality of people like the one with whom you're arguing? You never have to wonder if they're idiots because they'll prove it to you time-after-time, opening their fat mouths to practically brag about their ignorance.
Sometimes I find myself in a pickle because I try to consider all sides of an issue and contemplate the possibility that what I advocate could be wrong... but these wankers argue as effectively as a part-time curator at the Creationist museum.
>Sometimes I find myself in a pickle because I try to consider all sides of an issue and contemplate the possibility that what I advocate could be wrong... but these wankers argue as effectively as a part-time curator at the Creationist museum.
...You know, it's not like you require them to present their side of the argument, though. You're perfectly capable of going on to "consider all sides" yourself.
Sex offender=Pedophile & Epbophile in most cases. Nice of you to take two extremes of the context to warp the appearance of the argument without taking into account the middle ground. You're legally a sex offender with either title in most situations.
>Sex offender=Pedophile & Epbophile in most cases.
Only 1 in 5 acts of child sexual abuse are committed by pedophiles
Hrm. I wonder what other reasons are proposed for the abuse taking place?
You misunderstood. I'm not saying most sex offenders are pedophiles. I'm saying most pedophiles and ephbolololoollpiles are sex offenders if they act on their urges.
>Sex offender=Pedophile & Epbophile in most cases.
No, a sex offender is someone who acts on those urges.
>Nice of you to take two extremes of the context to warp the appearance of the argument without taking into account the middle ground.
You're the one who wants people to stop splitting hairs by using words like "ephebophile", and now you're going to complain to me about "not taking the middle ground into account"? Go on with you.
>No, a sex offender is someone who acts on those urges.
So you're claiming that pedo/epbos don't ever act on their urges? I'm not sure what you're trying to state.
>You're the one who wants people to stop splitting hairs by using words like "ephebophile", and now you're going to complain to me about "not taking the middle ground into account"? Go on with you.
No, I want people to stop crusading the issue because most cases it's largely the same issue with both terms. That doesn't give you license to create crap analogies to create an argument.
>So you're claiming that pedo/epbos don't ever act on their urges? I'm not sure what you're trying to state.
I'm claiming that the law doesn't define those terms. In the same way that the law defines the crime of rape, but not the psychological disposition of a rapist.
>No, I want people to stop crusading the issue because most cases it's largely the same issue with both terms.
Except it's not; the reasons why a person is sexually attracted to a teenager are obviously different from the reasons why a person is sexually attracted to a child. In case you haven't noticed, there's this thing called puberty that tends to imply rather significant changes to a person's physical appearance while growing up.
Similarly, there are many reasons why people commit rape, many psychological profiles of rapists; and ignoring this fact "because rape is rape in the eyes of the law" is not helpful when trying to reduce the incidence of rape.
>That doesn't give you license to create crap analogies to create an argument.
I didn't make any analogies at all, except in this post.
> I'm claiming that the law doesn't define those terms. In the same way that the law defines the crime of rape, but not the psychological disposition of a rapist.
I'm not stating the law defines the terms. I'm stating that in most instances if someone from either term acted on their results they would both end up as sex offenders in the majority of cases of possible outcomes.
>Except it's not; the reasons why a person is sexually attracted to a teenager are obviously different from the reasons why a person is sexually attracted to a child. In case you haven't noticed, there's this thing called puberty that tends to imply rather significant changes to a person's physical appearance while growing up.
They both require help, they're both immoral, in all cases for pedophilia, they both break laws in the majority of cases if they acted on their urges. Not only that but to society pedophilia IS epbporophilia. Epblololopelia is jargon.
Since you're slow, i'm referring to the fact that "ephebophile" isn't a real word.
It was invented in 2005 by pedo-apologists just like yourself!
The oxford English dictionary lists the earliest documented uses of the word in the 1960's.
Shhh, no facts, just feels
He was only using the terms u/hbnsckl introduced.
This is not actually the case.
top comment:
> drama like this is never complete without the pedophile vs ephebophile argument.
>ephebophile
>epheebololokophiles
Do you see how these are not the same thing?
Also, to describe the post as "only using the term" is incredibly disingenuous.
Less writing, more reading.
You asserted that he was "only using the terms". The proper term was introduced; he did not in fact use it, but instead made a mockery of it.
[deleted]
Anyone who claims Ebhebophilia is the same as Pedophilia is an idiot with a crippling fear of dictionaries.
>Anyone who claims Ebhebophilia is the same as Pedophilia is an idiot with a crippling fear of dictionaries.
Folks, this is what's known as "irony"
Maybe if you pedophile apologists read a dictionary every once in a while you'd realize Ephebophile isn't even a fucking recognized word
I think its Wikipedia page would like to have a word with you.
Presuming you're into social justice warriorism, you know another word that lacks dictionary recognition? Transphobia. Guess it doesn't exist if it's not in the dictionary, huh? How about phosphoenolpyruvate? It's not in the dictionary, thus -- according to you -- it doesn't exist despite having the highest-energy phosphate bond in biochemistry.
Really, is there some reason you're terrified that you cannot refer to adults fancying fully-developed 16-year-olds as pedophiles? Is calling names some sort of defense mechanism for you?