You're viewing a single thread.
pic of the newly married couple
this was pretty bad. it was bad enough that even back then you had people pointing out how bad it was. it was so bad that various states passed laws so that it would be against the law, going forward.
the textbook's point is that even though this wasn't common place, it was somewhat taken for granted.
i can kind of understand somethings. like how it was probably far more common back then for people to be married by the ages of 15-18. i can get that. but the case of Johns and Eunice, it was shocking even then. that should tell you something.
that thing being that Johns was a pedophile.
I agree. It was certainly more common for child marriages but not that extreme. That guy was definitely a pedo. If you are buying your wife a doll for her wedding present you need to rethink your life choices.
Ok, this may be wrong history but I could have sworn I saw some article a few years ago explaining that this marriage happened because it was the middle of the great depression and her parents couldn't afford to feed her or something like that.
Makes it worse, imo.
That said, was he a pedo? If sex happened then obviously yes, but I thought this marriage was a charity case more so than a "indulge a pedo who's interested in our daughter during the depression" situation...
I'm gonna have to go find that article at some point...
Edit: welp, I went looking for it, couldn't find it, so everything above this line may be bullshit, but based on the age she had her first child at, yeah I'd say that obviously counts as some pedo shit
Even if it was a charity case and he waited to fuck her until she was of age it's still grooming. They should have lynched this motherfucker as soon as he expressed interest in marrying a 9 year old.
Yes yes death is the only solution to anything bad
It's the only solution to child molesters.
I've tried to get a pedophile to see a therapist. I can tell you from a pure harm reduction perspective a bullet is much more likely to be the solution.
Is anecdotal evidence accurate? This guy says yes.
Don't call me a guy. And if you don't cite a study, anecdotes are still legitimately a better bet than pulling shit out of your arse
Go on, genuinely willing to have my mind changed. Something tells me you haven't googled any literature on the topic until now tho.
First things first: the only thing I did was disqualifying what you said, and since you used anecdotal evidence, I think it is more than fair that I did just that. How can I have pulled anything out of my arse if that is the only thing I did?
Anecdotal evidence being better than the supposed shit I said (I didn't find any, maybe you can point it out?) doesn't mean that your argument is any good, and wouldn't it be reasonable to expect good arguments if you are arguing for the bullet?
And I didn't need to do any research so far because just thinking for myself is sufficient at the moment, and before you ask me to do research, I'll recommend doing some yourself.
Anexdotal & qualitative evidence is absolutely preferable to no evidence. And there are areas where quantitative evidence is impossible to gather and/or, in individual cases, inapplicable.
I assummed from context that your conclusion was that killing a pedo isn't the answer. Sorry if the assumption was wrong but I think it's reasonable. In that case, the fact that you didn't even bother to provide analysis for that conclusion is NOT A POSITIVE. You can't assert something, then when asked for data to back it up say 'I didn't make a proper argument do I don't need data'.
My suggestion in the first place was: if you cannnot get a danger to children to seek help and/or can't get them locked up a bullet can very well and often be a justifiable course of action. I think you assummed I was drawing a universal moral prescription of how to deal with all cases and I see how, but I wasn't.
All I'm saying is that in many cases, a bullet for those who aren't willing to rehab is a valid way out, and there are a lot of those people.
Sorry for the lengthy ass comment, didn't see a way to shorten what I said while keepin the substance. When I have time I'd rather avoid empty snide quips like those you've been making
I want to make one thing clear about the intentions of my comments: all I was trying to do was disqualifying what you said, and the reason for that is simple: you drew a serious conclusion (arguing for the bullet) supported by weak evidence (anecdotal evidence), and I can't stand that.
The conclusion that you assumed in article 2 is not true, I wasn't asserting that, so I don't need evidence for that. My 'proper argument' was that yours was weak.
About article 3: Your conclusion appears to be quite different from the comment you made earlier. First you said that you tried to get a pedo to seek help, that your attempt failed and that therefore the bullet is the answer. Now you say that that is the solution when locking them up doesn't work (or get them to seek help.) Wouldn't that be a better solution in the first place? Why did you argue for the bullet straight away? Heck you even started arguing for the bullet without considering imprisonment one article further.
No, my argument was, as I said: a) if you cannot get a pedo to rehab, a bullet is better than letting them endanger others b) Those situations seem significantly more likely than pedos willingly participating in therapy - I listed an anecdote as an example because I thought the analysis as to why this is relatively intuitive. I can write it out if you disagree.
Hence a bullet is the more likely solution, not a universal one.
That's what I said, and I stand by it. And I stand by the example provided because I don't think analysis is needed for why a pedo is more likely to reject help than accept it and quantitative data on the subject is inexistent and unachievable.
Adding imprisonment to the mix is a valid complaint but doesn't change much, given how hard it is to even gather enough to allow police intervention, even when dealing with a self-admitted pedophile like I was.
The reason I assumed your conclusion is because of the context of the thread. Sorry for misunderstanding. Your stubborness on putting words in my mouth makes me a little more comfortable about it tho.
Interesting. That would certainly change the situation. Please post it if you do find it or DM me. I would be curious if that was the case!
It would not change how bad that guy's actions are. If anything it would make it worse.
My dad was born in Eastern Kentucky in 1916 so grew up in the same era and region. He knew a guy that married a 12 year old and the guy confided in him that the first day he came home from work after getting married he found his wife playing with a doll. He felt bad, and of course he should have.
Even that marriage was considered bad back then, and this 9 year old of course is about as horrible as can be imagined.
Maybe it's just unfortunate connotation with the phrasing but "these marriages were taken for granted" sounds like the author is saying that people didn't appreciate that they could do that back then.
That really isn't what that phrase means, taken for granted just means people thought it was a normal part of life. It's taken for granted now that we don't have metallic skin and electric eyes, but if we are lucky that won't always be the case.
I beg to differ. This is straight up the second definition on Merriam Webster. It's a poor choice of words if the author didn't want readers to interpret it this way.
to value (something or someone) too lightly
