DoubleD @[email protected]

@Stahesh @YoMomz @UncleIroh @ButtWorldsMan I hear you, and I understand that this is a value judgement, which is fine.

A "better safe than sorry" attitude will certainly stop perpetrators, and even if there is a question, you can easily see in many cases what is legitimate and what is not as you outlined above.

As long as you understand the ramifications of your choices, I am sanguine.

@YoMomz I agree. It they are taking provable actions to make someone into a victim, the victim must be protected, and they must be stopped.

@Stahesh @YoMomz @UncleIroh @ButtWorldsMan Those actions are red flags and the actors are guilty of those acts; they likely have the intention to do more terrible things; I agree.

In these cases, it is up to the fathers to protect themselves and their families, which I fully support. I don't support granting the government the power to decide if someone is guilty of having the wrong intentions.

@Stahesh @YoMomz Being redpilled is both painful and wonderful. The truth often has that quality.

@YoMomz @Stahesh I sympathize. I've known people who have experienced such things too.

@MrpoopyButhole Agreed.

@Stahesh @YoMomz @UncleIroh @ButtWorldsMan I understand your perspective in this.

The issue is that we have to "draw the line somewhere".

We could prosecute an individual based upon their perceived intention, and you'd probably rightly identify and prevent acts like molesting children, but where do you draw the line?

The state, the means of coercion and control via force then has the authority to criminalize people's intentions because they've been given the responsibility thereof.

@YoMomz @Stahesh @UncleIroh @ButtWorldsMan

Could it be considered a disease if someone was groomed and molested as a child in the same way that a predisposition to heart failure is a disease?

They might have a proclivity to the outcomes of the disease, but similar to how you don't have to get fat if you have a proclivity to heart failure, you don't have to molest children if you were molested.

From action and not intention or its proclivity is where the execution of judicial action comes.

@UncleIroh @YoMomz @ButtWorldsMan
Normalizing pedophilia, anti-natalism (whether via abortion,
intentional degradation of the mother figure as an object of aspiration for young females, or lies about equality between the sexes), destruction of the father figure as the strong, central figure of the family (whether through emasculation of males physically, socially (such as in media), or spiritually via religious teachings of the same stripe)

All of these have the same effect: societal death.

@UncleIroh @YoMomz @ButtWorldsMan Indeed. Many efforts we see in western society have at their heart the explicit or implicit objective of the destruction of the family, which being the bedrock of all society, yields the destruction thereof.

@YoMomz @Stahesh @UncleIroh @ButtWorldsMan The whole question is one of guilt in intention or guilt in action:

To prevent continued victimization of children we want to prosecute those who are guilty action.

To prevent possible victimization of children we want to prosecute those who are guilty of intention.

We cannot now nor may ever be able to know people's intentions without evidence as displayed by attempts or completed acts.