World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
The pelgrimage to Mekka where Muslims worship uuuuuhhhhh....
Mohammed! Their God!
Which uhhhh
frantically pastes generic poorly researched Wikipedia article full of contradictions
Pedophile!
Don't look up the history of anyone from before the 20th century when these supposed Christians suddenly reached enlightenment. The inclusion of Christians is especially weird since they always pushed for younger ages of marriage than Muslims in the middle ages. Back then the Muslims were supposedly prudes.
Wonder why everyone didn't wait until they were 35 to get married in a time where the average life expectancy was 31 years.
Isn't the average life expectancy caused by infant death? Anyone living through pubity probably had a good chance of living to 70.
Back then you would die of what are now easily treatable diseases.
Yes. And that's why life expectancy of a 20yr old was 60yrs not 80+.
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/its-not-just-about-child-mortality-life-expectancy-improved-at-all-ages
The average age going up appears to directly correlate with the heightening of the definition of adulthood.
If humans could live to 1000 we would call a 600 year old dating a 40 year old a pedo
In 1885 the legal age of consent in the UK was raised to 16. The average life expectancy of adults had barely changed.
So while this disproves your correlation theory, it's also important to remind the reader that correlation is not the same as causation. Society, the role of government, the rule of law and its encroachment on personal choice changed hugely from the 13th Century and 17th Century - I would therefore claim that society would not have been accepting of paedophilia in the 13th Century despite the lack of law.
Sexual desire of prepubescent children has, as far as I know, never been considered the norm.
According to random internet person you are incorrect. Though I have not fact checked this much your comment sounds extremely improbable.
https://genealogy.stackexchange.com/questions/1595/what-is-the-earliest-age-a-boy-in-england-could-get-married-in-the-1800s
And we are still all teaching teenage "kids" about sexuality and "experimenting" is totally fine. Do the sex thing "kids"! As long as they do it with other "kids"....
As for the rest of the Euro moral high grounding I don't know which history books you have been reading but marrying young and the monarchy was a rather popular combo. Plenty of kings with brides even younger than 9.
Even now our leading Elites enjoy private Epstein island visits filled with girls not considered legal age.
If my life expectancy drops I don't think it's going to suddenlyb make me stick my dong into a 9 year old
Presentism is the fallacy you are looking for.
Humans have even changed their bodies since the middle ages. Menstrual periods are later. Maturity goes slower. People don't die in 30 years.
Children having their parents die when they are 10 and get married at 20. Or children getting married at 10 and having their parents die at 20. All great choices which we don't have to make and can moral high ground about.
I could ask why you think dating an 18 year old is fine but a 17 year old is not. Because modern research suggests the brain only finishes development at 25. But of course our sense of "morals" is solely based on arbitrary laws in < present time > in < present location >.
Ah, the Great Cascade of excusing pedophilia
~~It didn't happen~~
~~Her age was 'unclear'~~
Her 9-year-old body was 'ready for it' <-- You are here
He had to plow her, as her parents could die any day <-- Moving here
Why would there be a problem with a 50-year old 'dating' a 9-year old <-- Nice to see that thrown in
She loved him
She was begging for it
Furthermore, your excuses just confirm Sunzu's allegation that 'modern' Muslims have not 'moved on' from these practices - they use them to excuse legalizing and enabling pedophilia today. Muhammad set the bar for them. And he set it very, very low.
You striped away points never mentioned and did not answer the question about the age of 25.
100 years ago the age of consent in Delaware was 7 years old. Your argument has been a non issue for the entire history of humanity until last 100 year until your magic universal definition of a chil turning adult at 18 took place.
And let's not forget the age of consent being 12 in many American places up to recently.
But nonetheless nobody takes this dumb moral highgrounding serious as the secular west is currently committing a Genocide on mostly children in a concentration camp in Gaza. But those are of course not children they are "terrorists" who are allowed to be killed.
Seems I forgot the last line:
Try to change the subject
You are doing that indeed
Muslims do not generally believe in cultural or moral relativism. Allah is the one true God, his moral teachings are objectively correct. Why offer them a way out that they themselves aren't able to coherently accept?
Besides, cultural relativism is nonsense. If someone tells me it's okay to molest children, their perspective is not "just as valid" as mine. They're a monster.
Yes, this means a lot of people in the past, and today, are monsters. That's extremely plausible.
Not sure why in 2024 we still making excuses for pedohiles...
Christian clergy notorious pedos, nothing is done...
Other cultures bending out of shape to explain away their own pedophiles as this thread shows...
I am assume these are adult people and likely men. Are they pathetic or are they just pushing pedophilia?
Society committing Genocide on children and calling them terrorists suddenly are very worried about when a girl of menstrual age willingly gets married.
Bro this melt down... stop.
Calling 10yo a girl mestrual age is really stretching what that means. Stop digging your own hole. You really need to consider what you are really saying here. The optics are beyond bad. I hope you really don't think that.
This has nothing to with the Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign in Gaza. Pretty sure most people can agree that Mohammed was a pedo and Israel is a committing war crimes.
Frankly you mixing the two together is not appreciated.
Who is having a meltdown, you?
If she had a menstruation she was of menstrual age. And if she then willingly got married that's her own decision.
You were bringing up moral "evolution".
Simply pointing out that a society electing leaders knowing they will commit Genocide on little babies does not appear morally evolved really hits a nerve.
Would you suggest I refer to all Americans as "baby murderers"?
Age is just a number... Prison is just a place.
I am assumining you would let 50yo geatric clown fuck your child at 10?
Obviously as long as she consents!
Does it count when talking about prophets, deities, gods and such? Weren't they meant to be perfect?
I don't recall the possibility of god and his messangers being imperfect, in any century.
We humans, we are flawed and have societies whose notions are not static because we evolve. God can't afford the excuse of "errors of the past, I evolved"
You are ascribing evolution to a society of warmongers committing Genocide on children in Palestine. A society addicted more to wealth than human suffering trying to lecture people on what correct morals are.
A society with an abundance of food where people are starving.
I would reconsider how correct the Wests morals are.
I didn't even specify any religion. I just said that god, any god, by definition, can't evolve.
This ain't Hercules adventures where gods are just sky humans with perks. Mainstream gods (&co) are all perfect in their "mysterious ways".
As such, if a prophet was into pedophilia, then either pedophilia is right (which I personally find odd... but them I'm merely human...) or that prophet wasn't exactly the most exemplary lad.
Whatever the case, people's lives are worth of dignity, be it Palestinians, Israelis, South Africans or Santa. That's not what I was arguing against at all. We can defend people while, at the same time, pointing the finger out at some bullshit they do.
The west is also full of bullshit. So what? We can also point the finger at that. Be my guest. I never said that we were perfect.
The discussion is so shunned in Western society that it is well understood one should always repeat your opinion in public and never question it.
I would once again ask why teenagers having sex is regarded as totally normal as long as long as the person they are having sex with is not 18 yet.
If teenagers truly should not be subject to sexual experiences because they are not ready then surely this would not be normal. Or is it okay if a victim performs the deed?
That's not the case in my western country but sure, hit that scarecrow. I personally know underage people dating 25-ish people.
What is frowned upon is people in completely different levels of maturity creating a tremendous imbalance, and usually abuse. DiCaprio dating teens is not a "we stand on an equal footing and love each other" kind of thing, is a "I'm famous and will use this fact to mess with teenagers".
An elderly hardly has a healthy relationship with a teenager, and this is particularly true for arranged marriages.
This western civilization thing of your already had that in the past. We stopped doing that rather recently as we figured it creates more trouble than not. Let's not pretend that "western" is some sort of axiom that just appeared and not the product of the evolution of some society. Just like eastern societies have such evolutions in some aspects. For example some eastern civilisations figured that clean spaces are better and so they try real hard to try to keep them that way. Of course you're free to argue that this cleanliness is not needed so it is a purely subjective thing of these societies and not necessarily better, but sociologists night disagree.
As for "ok if the victim preforms the deed", that's irrelevant. The same criteria applies. Promoting healthier relationships promotes a healthier society. If some 14/yo teenager is obsessed with dating way older men for whatever reason, chances are people are going to judge it, legal or not, no matter the society.
Society had no issues with this for the past millenia. This new social construct of adulthood and finding it weird is far more recent. Mohammed's first wife was 41 when he was 25. Age differences at the time were far more usual.
Granted that our culture now changes so fast that it would mean someone that grew up with Madonna and someone that grows up with Skibidi toilet would get together. The generational cultural gaps are far greater than in the past. But this is overcome when people spend time together.
The only real reason that people can use is that a younger person can be easier to manipulate. Which holds an element of truth but the question remains at what age we allow a person full control over their actions. Currently this is 18. Yet research suggests the brain is only fully matured at 25. So will the new age be 25?
The Leonardo DiCaprio example is a classic one. Most people that say they would never act similar to Dicaprio will do so once they are actually presented with the option. It is moral highgrounding purely based on never having been presented with the option.
Everyone considers stealing wrong. Everyone condemns big fat pigs robbing millions from the financial system wrong. If I had to place a bet, most people would of they had the chance. The fact people are hypocritical doesn't mean it is not condemnable. DiCaprio is a piece of shit in a lot of people's mind, just not in the judicial system.
No shit that a lot of middle-aged or maybe elderly man would enjoy 16 year old teasing them. Not so much for woman but if I had to bet it would happen as well. Our sex drive plays a lot here. Back in the we're animals in nature thingy, putting dicks into young women was almost always a "good thing"; propagating genes and stuff. Just so happens that we're trying not to behave like wild beasts anymore.
The brain would ideally be fully matured before one is to take life-long decisions, however 25 years is an awful lot of time. My armchair sociologist says that people would not tolerate that for the same reason people do not tolerate expecting for their kids to be 25 before allowing them to cross the road by themselves. Maturity is not a linear thing. At the age of 5 you'll try to kill yourself every now and then. At the age of 10 you barely do that. 18 is an arbitrary line, yes, because it is believed that most people at that age are able to figure life long decisions well-enough. People still get some sparks of development after 18, but it is nowhere compared to the 5-10 or the 10-15.
You state that age differences at the time were far more common. Well, at the time most marriages were arranged and considered plenty of things above the wellbeing of the brides.
In any case, we're working around my key argument. We're all silly animals, but god and it's prophets are supposed to be perfect. You can point a finger at them for that. Yes, fuck Francis. That guy is a piece of shit as well and points fairly well at the bullshit that Christianity is. This is not a anti-muslim rant; it is a "can we condemn condemnable people that were supposed to know what they were doing as they were 'perfect'?"
You are correct in your assessment of perfection. But the question is what is perfect morality. And mostly one of where to draw the line. The equation with stealing and murder is questionable as that has been a moral wrong through all of humanity. Whereas this debate is mostly one of the last 100 years. In the past this objective morality had never existed thus I question whether it is as objective as you make it seem. When you go a few generations back you'll usually find your great-great grandfather was a 25 year old dude that married as 13-15 year old.
Flipping to the modern age I knew a 19 year old guy that was ashamed of dating a 17 year old because he felt other people thought there was too big of an age gap. A mere two year difference. The "objective morality" on this subject really appears to be "whatever everyone else thinks about it". Even funnier is that a 60 year old dating a 30 year old is suddenly becoming predatory too. The last 10-20 years people are starting to condemn two "mature adults" with a large age gap for having a relationship. DiCaprio is a perfect example of this. He violates no laws nor "morals" but somehow is wrong.
If were morally consistent we would acknowledge that if the brain is "fully matured" at 25 that the age of consent would be 25...But as that is currently not the societal norm we see no reason to accept this. If society had already changed into this logic I am quite sure you would adhere to it as well. Especially seeing that there would now be a "scientific reasoning" behind it. And it would be even more difficult to convince you because now I would have to argue with science. Yet we stick to this very arbitrary number of 18. Even you are saying 18 is okay and 16 is weird. I cannot comprehend this. Make it 25.
The question of consent is a very emphasized one that was introduced back then. Before the prophet consent was an arbitrary cause. Women were regarded as property at that time. Suddenly men had to actually appeal to a woman to marry her. Even in modern day if a woman does not wish to get married at a young age there is absolutely no reason for her to do so. The legal permissible age refers to the age at which a woman gets control to decide. It does not force her to get married. It only presents her with the right to do so.
We still condone sexual intercourse between teenagers and accept that when they reach puberty some have a desire to become sexually active. We have not mitigated this in fact we promote safe sex in schools and say experimenting is totally fine. We have only restricted it to other "children". We made the age gap a defining factor in what we deem okay, and don't say that "children" are being "raped" by other "children". Once again, I can't find moral consistency in this. If the brain's finished age is 25 why do we condone a 17 and 15 year old, but not a 19 and 17 year old? And now even between "adults" this age gap is coming into play.
There appears to be no coherent argument. Everything that is deemed okay is based on current traditions and the "science" is ignored.