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?
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 be a pedophile, which is just so obviously false 🤷♂️.
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.
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.
He absolutely could have been a pedophile, it just would have been impossible to act on the urges without enablers.
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?
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 be a pedophile, which is just so obviously false 🤷♂️.
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.
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.