Jeffrey Epstein arrested for child sex trafficking

Mike! said:
There's a joke in there someplace.
Click to expand...


Ever heard the story of Saint Ursula and the 11,000 British Virgins?

Unfortunately Ursula and her travel companions – said to be anywhere between 11 and 11,000 virgin maidens – found themselves in the city of Cologne in Germany, where they were cruelly massacred for refusing to copulate with or marry the invading Huns, a nomadic race from Central Asia who conquered much of Europe in the fourth century.
Click to expand...


The Virgin Islands are named after them. And I bet that Epstein has cracked a joke or two about it over the years.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I'm still waiting for another run-in from one of our Master Pedants about how Epstein wasn't technically a pedophile and that DISTINCTION IS VERY IMPORTANT AND WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW.
Click to expand...

I was about to mention it, but given how bat **** people get when it's pointed out that they're wrong, I opted not to.

Go ahead, lump all of them together. I'm sure it'll help.
 
Belz... said:
I was about to mention it, but given how bat **** people get when it's pointed out that they're wrong, I opted not to.

Go ahead, lump all of them together. I'm sure it'll help.
Click to expand...

It's okay, Bob beat you too waaaaaaaay back on page one.

BobTheCoward said:
The most important discussion is going to be pointing out that Epstein is not a pedophile.
Click to expand...
 
Belz... said:
Well forgive me if I think it's rather important to make the distinction. I seem to be in the minority on this forum.
Click to expand...

It's really weird that this one bit of overprecision is so important to you when you are generally pretty hard core "anti-pedantics" (and pedantics always hide behind "We just need to be clear") in most other discussion.

And I don't mean that insultingly or snarkily. It's not wrong or bad (we all have that things that we need/desire to be more precise about) just weird.
 
JoeMorgue said:
It's really weird that this one bit of overprecision is so important to you when you are generally pretty hard core "anti-pedantics" (and pedantics always hide behind "We just need to be clear") in most other discussion.
Click to expand...

That's odd. Am I not _always_ in favour of precise language?

And what do you mean by "weird"? Are you making an implication, here? I'd be very careful about that, if I were you.

And I don't mean that insultingly or snarkily. It's not wrong or bad (we all have that things that we need/desire to be more precise about) just weird.
Click to expand...

Do you find it weird if I explain it this way: treating pedophiles as if they are the exact same thing as a child molester drives them even moreso into the darkness where they are harder to track, treat and stop. In so doing those who promote impresice language, in this instance, are putting real children in greater risk of molestation. I care about that very much.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
That's odd. Am I not _always_ in favour of precise language?

And what do you mean by "weird"? Are you making an implication, here? I'd be very careful about that, if I were you.
Click to expand...

Dude calm down. I'm just saying that you are the kind of person that gets the difference between precision and pedantry and I've seen you apply that multiple times. Nothing more sinister then that.

And in this case I see what you are doing as pedantics, not precision.

Do you find it weird if I explain it this way: treating pedophiles as if they are the exact same thing as a child molester drives them even moreso into the darkness where they are harder to track, treat and stop. In so doing those who promote impresice language, in this instance, are putting real children in greater risk of molestation.
Click to expand...

*Trying to find the best way to word this*

I think it's better to have that discussion in a discussion about a pedophile being assumed to be a predator instead of in a discussion about an actual predator.

That's when precision turns into pedantics, when you can just never let it slide.

I care about that very much.
Click to expand...

You can dig your heels in a fight the common usage of words all you want. You can also go down to the shoreline and try to piss the rising tide back into the ocean.
 
JoeMorgue said:
And in this case I see what you are doing as pedantics, not precision.
Click to expand...

Given that the two terms are actually pretty different, I don't see how you could think that.

*Trying to find the best way to word this*

I think it's better to have that discussion in a discussion about a pedophile being assumed to be a predator instead of in a discussion about an actual predator.
Click to expand...

Except that both of them have the same effect. By now, it's unrecoverable anyway. The term "pedophile" means "child molester" in the minds of too many.

Dude calm down.
Click to expand...

Given that I've been accused of defending pedophiles at least twice on this forum just for suggesting that we should be careful about language in this case specifically in order to seek safer solutions to protect children, no I don't think I will.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
It's really weird that this one bit of overprecision is so important to you when you are generally pretty hard core "anti-pedantics" (and pedantics always hide behind "We just need to be clear") in most other discussion.
Click to expand...

I can see why it's important that correct people who are using the term wrongly, considering how common it is for people to abuse the term and broaden it to include perfectly legal relationships.

For example: my younger brother, who is certainly not the sharpest knife in the drawers, seriously accused my cousin of being a pedophile because he was in some kind relationship with a 16 year old girl. It's not the first time that I've heard him misuse the term. When he was 18 or so he said that some older guy would be a pedophile if he hit on him.

Given some people's tendency to spread rumours combined with the presence of a certain kind of mentally unhinged thugs (such as my brother) who feel that assaulting "pedos" is justified, I would implore people to avoid misusing the term. In the UK this kind of thuggery seems fairly common, with even people falsely accused of being pedophiles having been subject to quite widespread harrassment and abuse.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Warden at prison where Epstein died is temporarily reassigned and multiple staffers placed on leave
Click to expand...

That's the first thing you do in a conspiracy -- get rid of the people you hired to do the crime. OK, so they're still accessible, but I would not be a bit surprised if one or more turned up dead soon.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I'm still waiting for another run-in from one of our Master Pedants about how Epstein wasn't technically a pedophile and that DISTINCTION IS VERY IMPORTANT AND WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW.
Click to expand...


Really? I think it's an important thing to talk about.

I don't think it should have any bearing on how Jeff should be treated, but if you want to try to stop this sort of thing happening again then it's important to know exactly what this sort of thing is.
 
Belz... said:
Given that I've been accused of defending pedophiles at least twice on this forum just for suggesting that we should be careful about language in this case specifically in order to seek safer solutions to protect children, no I don't think I will.
Click to expand...


You're not really supposed to raise questions of technical fact. You're just supposed to be outraged and leave it at that.


Pedophilia is now absolutely no longer a medical/psychological condition, it's a catch all term for anyone that sleeps with someone under the age of consent (and this is a moving target, depending on where in the world you are). You and I just have to accept this.


This is going to make treating people very difficult, but what the hell, it allows us to be suitably (if inaccurately) outraged at Jeff.
 
3point14 said:
Really? I think it's an important thing to talk about.

I don't think it should have any bearing on how Jeff should be treated, but if you want to try to stop this sort of thing happening again then it's important to know exactly what this sort of thing is.
Click to expand...

I think it could be an important distinction, because the methods of preventing are different if the motivations are different. If one has an attraction to prepubescent children that is different that choosing young victims because they are powerless and easy to manipulate. It totally changes the methodology and motives, though certainly shouldn't be regarded as a mitigating factor.

But it is the difference between Epstein and Jackson for example.
 
Okay fair enough, I'll try (I said try) to be more precise with my language in the future.

//For the record though I didn't come up with "Pedophile Island."//
 
JoeMorgue said:
Okay fair enough, I'll try (I said try) to be more precise with my language in the future.

//For the record though I didn't come up with "Pedophile Island."//
Click to expand...

It's just a little too soon for joking about. Sixteen or eighteen years from now, depending on location, it'll be acceptable to laugh although still possibly creepy.
 
TragicMonkey said:
It's just a little too soon for joking about. Sixteen or eighteen years from now, depending on location, it'll be acceptable to laugh although still possibly creepy.
Click to expand...


I just want to be able to have a clinical conversation about these situations without being labelled an apologist.

It is becoming more and more difficult.
 
3point14 said:
I just want to be able to have a clinical conversation about these situations without being labelled an apologist.

It is becoming more and more difficult.
Click to expand...

Perhaps there should be separate threads for these things, one for expressing outrage and the other for clinical conversation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom