Lol, way to demonstrate your ignorance.
He cheated on his wife with his nurse, that’s why they separated.
Comment on Nope, not visiting that
phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 day agolittle ablist
Oh FFS, cut it out already with the “ablist!!” screeching
The guy literally can only move his eyes, he literally can barely do anything without a support staff. He can breathe on his own, he can think on his own, that’s about it
He cannot be a pedophile is not being ablisi, it’s being realistic.
He was there for a scientific conference that was organized there.
flying_sheep@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
I’m going to regret this but I just have to see where your synaptic misfire is going to land. What are you implying happened?
Are you suggesting someone serviced Stephen Hawking using 9 year old a fleshlight? What exactly would “supporting a paralyzed pedophile” entail?
Seriously, this is dumb.
flying_sheep@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
I’m not implying anything, I’m saying that if he wanted, he could have done a lot of things by meeting people who would make it happen for him.
muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 23 hours ago
Exactly. You aren’t saying anything specific. You are implying something so you don’t have to support a claim.
PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 1 day ago
You’re the only one interested in the logistics (might be something to reflect on…jkjk haha), all we’re saying is that being a quadriplegic has no bearing on what makes you horny.
muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
That is not the argument I’m making. Please reread my post.
PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 1 day ago
He absolutely could have been a pedophile, it just would have been impossible to act on the urges without enablers.
muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
As amusing as this slap fight is to watch, there’s an important point I think needs to be made.
The use of the word “pedophile” has multiple interpretations. (Yes I’m going to be that guy but follow me for a minute. I promise this is going somewhere.) For sake of argument, let’s look at the two most common uses: “is sexually attracted to children” and “fucks children”. I’m using fucks because that’s what that interpretation calls for. Consent is irrelevant, whether you think a child can give it or not. In the latter case we are discussing the physical act.
In the case of sexual attraction, I would imagine there are far more people in that crowd than most people realize. Don’t give me the studies and stats. I already have enough reasons to want to kill myself in 2026. I don’t want to know. Just acknowledge there is a number, we don’t have to like it. However, that’s not actionable by itself. It’s awful but it’s not relevant to anything. In the case of “Stephen hawking can be a pedophile without the ability to move his hips” this is correct. It is also entirely irrelevant because you know goddamn well what we are actually talking about.
Which brings me to the second interpretation, fucks children. In this use, the pedophile does a thing to a child. Not just fantasizes about it but actually does the thing. It’s cut and dry. THIS is what we are pissed about. When you see public outcry about pedophile stuff, it’s not about the pedantic argument of “well technically that’s not pedophilia.” Language is contextual. You know goddamn well that while most of us aren’t exactly thrilled about someone feeling arousal toward children, the thought itself is irrelevant. The action is.
A thought doesn’t harm children. It’s creeps us out and can serve as a warning sign of “you know, let’s not have Elon babysit. He’s either going to fuck it or eat it.”
What my post asked was what Stephen Hawking was accused of doing in the Epstein files. He’s not able to move his hips or legs of really any of his body in any weaponized capacity so I’m really wondering what the fuck his presence in the files is supposed to imply.
So please ignore the charged label and pay attention to the actual question:
What are people saying Stephen Hawking did on Epstein island?
PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 1 day ago
No, there is one definition of pedophile, the second thing you described is called a child rapist. Naturally, the second is also usually the first, but the reverse is not so reliably true. Y’know, that classic square : rhombus :: child rapist : pedophile analogy. Pretty sure it used to be in the SATs.
I’m not saying he did anything anywhere or that he even was a pedophile, I really don’t care either way. It’s hard to prove and nearly impossible to disprove, since we still don’t know how to read people’s minds, especially dead people. The only horse I’m backing in this race is objective truth. Someone said he couldn’t he a pedophile, which is just so obviously false 🤷♂️.
muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
So are we talking using Hawking as a child-juicer kind of situation?
Follow the thought just a little bit farther. It’s ridiculous. You are pointing toward a more actionable definition of this. It’s not “a thought occurred” but “a child had sex inflicted upon them”
So if you asking if is it possible to insert a Stephen Hawking into a child I will admit that grim situation is possible.
But what it would take to pull such a thing off…it’s like if you explained Schrodinger’s cat to someone whose intellectual development stopped at watching Care Bears.