Comment

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 🤷‍♂️.

source

Sort:hotnew top

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.

source
- PapaStevesy@lemmy.world ⁨16⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  Idk what a child-juicer is, steroids really fuck with development so I don’t recommend that. Not sure what that has to do with anything.
  
  I’m not asking anything, I’ve only ever stated facts. You’re the one who keeps going out of their way to describe child rape, even though no one in this entire thread said “Stephen Hawking was definitely a child rapist.” No one’s even claiming that he definitely was a pedophile. But he could have been, even without being in the Epstein files, there’s a non-zero chance he was attracted to children. Which is true of every human on Earth.
  
  source