I think you have a rather unfortunate bias here. You’re not going to win anyone over to the argument that"almost a paedophile is fine" concept. The vast majority are going to find it morally reprehensible. They’re going to say barely legal is not morally nominal.
You have an opinion, it’s yours. It’s not an opinion that you’re going to defend and change people’s minds on, though. They’re going to see you as a paedophile supporter, whether you consider that to be your situation or not.
“that "almost a paedophile is fine" concept”
That's not fine, and a loaded argument.
"They’re going to say barely legal is not morally nominal."
At what point would it be morally nominal? Should there be a different cutoff age? Should there be a maximum age disparity? How do we even decide on this stuff objectively? And I'm not asking this rhetorically. As far as I know most things human are normally distributed and such ages were decided by looking at what age the majority of people are cognitively mature enough to make their own decisions without being easily manipulated. If, supposedly, most people think Seinfeld was morally reprehensible, then perhaps we should decide upon an age where it wouldn't have been? Or use different metrics altogether perhaps. I don't know.
Believe it or not, your level of maturity at 17 years old does not represent the majority of 17 year olds. Nor does mine and I considered myself to be reasonably mature at that age, as it seems you believe yourself to have been. What makes grooming so effective is that the targets of grooming don’t realize when it is happening. You may be right about the definition, but the way you are going about trying to correct people is insensitive to the topic at hand. Especially when it is so obvious that said point has gone straight over your head. You are completely off topic with the definitions argument.
Wait, the topic at hand is "Jerry Seinfeld says people who say 'Free Palestine' are worse than the Ku Klux Klan", right? The whole reason I brought this up was because unjustly calling him a paedophile does discussing this topic a disservice because any further arguments won't be taken as seriously. Sprinkling valid criticism with lies doesn't strengthen an argument.
Why can't it be? What's the point otherwise. My objective is mutual understanding, learning something new, and reaching an agreement or compromise. I know that might still be a pipe-dream online, but yeah, I try.
Yes because we all know every relationship is consensual. Especially when it’s between a man in his late 30s who took an interest in a 17 year old girl. Why would the word “grooming” ever be a thought on anyone’s mind in such a scenario.
Were you cognitively not capable at seventeen to detect grooming? And I'm not saying this acerbically. People who argue your point seem to talk as if at seventeen they still thought as 12-year-olds. If that's the case, then yes I agree. But in my late adolescence I was definitely capable of discerning vice from virtue.
Anyway, here we go with definitions again:
“Sexual grooming is the action or behavior used to establish an emotional connection with a vulnerable person – generally a minor under the age of consent[1][2] – and sometimes the victim's family,[3] to lower their inhibitions with the objective of sexual abuse.” ―https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_grooming
While the corporate elites don't really have a great track-record, especially considering "where are the Epstein files?", I don't think it applies in Seinfeld's case, even though he strikes me as a douchebag. But I might be wrong, have been before.
Classic comedy, great bit. But he's not a doctor, not a lawyer, not a judge. Whoever thinks that conflating terms will help stop actual paedophilia is kidding themselves.
They dated for four years, therefore I assume there was consent. I don't think the word predatory applies in such cases.
Conversely, we had a comedian in my country who relentlessly messaged women he worked with to the point of once going to their home and knocking on her door begging she opened. That's predatory.
While agree that words should have meanings, he definitely still was nearly 40 and apparently preferring the company of a 17 year old. Not a pedo by the evidence presented, ok, but that ice is thin.
That's not thin ice. Paedophiles are attracted to prepubescent children, i.e., below the age of 13. Here's where the ice is at its thinnest to diagnose someone as a paedophile, while ethically one is already submerged of course, when acted upon. It's obviously not to be taken lightly with traumatic life-changing consequences when indulged. This is why it's important to not throw terms around ignoring their meaning. People who actually are born with this condition should find ways to get psychological help to prevent it manifesting into reality. Irresponsibly throwing reputation destroying terms around causes people not to communicate, to suppress, and in the worst cases to satisfy their urges in secret which in turn increases the most wicked forms of suffering.
The aforementioned conditions are not at all present in Seinfeld-Lonstein's case, where context matters. Here's a quote from a book I'm reading which is an apt litmus test to decide if any relationship is weird or not.
“I spent Saturday evening at Leonberg. In Lisa [Remppis] I’ve found a person I can love wholeheartedly. Don’t misunderstand me, though. I realize Lisa’s half a child still, and I’m not depriving her of her childishness. I can’t philosophize with her.” ―Hans Scholl, At the Heart of the White Rose: Letters and Diaries of Hans and Sophie Scholl
Judging from the sources I've read Shoshanna and Jerry were able to talk to each other without one manipulating the other. While it's statistically more unlikely considering their indeed unusual age gap, it does happen. They had a relationship for four years, so clearly it seems she was fine with it. Conversely, I've seen people in their thirties talk to each other where one was clearly dumbing themself down when talking to their significant other, which seemed quite weird.
TL;DR: there's a night and day difference between actual indulging paedophiles who cause human trafficking and unimaginable suffering/death, and haphazardly being attracted to someone in their late adolescence. Conflating the two does the victims and the justice system a disservice. The former belongs to the most horrible forms of human depravity, while the latter, well, doesn't. If one needs to manipulate another to form a connection, then it is ethically wrong regardless of age.
“The minimum legal age of consent to sex in New York is now and was then 17. They dated for approximately four years, from 1993 to 1997. During the relationship, she transferred from George Washington University to UCLA, in part to be with Seinfeld; she cited constant press coverage and missing New York City as reasons for the relationship ending.” ―https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshanna_Lonstein_Gruss
I don't understand why people feel the need to call others things they're not and simultaneously want to be taken seriously in a debate. If words have no meaning then what's the point? Jerry Seinfeld strikes me as a pretentious greedy immoral douchebag and his comparison with the KKK can stand on its own as a proper reason for ridicule.
So, a large age gap is automatically predatory? When I was in my early twenties I had something with someone 30 years older. Was she predatory even though there was consent?
What behaviour exactly? I'm pointing this out because misuse of words can have dire consequences. In the same vain, just because the UK government practically labels people who utter "Free Palestine" as terrorists, it doesn't make them so.
While Jerry's statement "'Free Palestine' are worse than the Ku Klux Klan" is absolutely moronic, he is not attracted to prepubescent children:
“Pedophilia (alternatively spelled paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12, psychiatric diagnostic criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.” ―https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia
While Jerry's statement "'Free Palestine' are worse than the Ku Klux Klan" is absolutely moronic, he is not attracted to prepubescent children:
“Pedophilia (alternatively spelled paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12, psychiatric diagnostic criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.” ―https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia
Windows and Mac are both easier to use for the standard user.
Not at all true anymore for Windoze. Windows 7 was the last installment where that was true. Linux distributions are consistent. Once shown how the basics works, e.g., apt install or pacman -S and the general whereabouts of settings or software, it's super easy to get them going, indefinitely. Even troubleshooting is within reach because searching the settings isn't a maze within a maze (except for Gnome sometimes). Windoze keeps changing shit constantly, reinstalls uninstalled software, search algorithm is horrible and has Bing search results within the menu enabled by default [the fuck?], updates don't indicate how long they'll last, setting a default program often requires configuring it manually for every file extension, oh goddamn fuckers I have to stop typing because Microsoft pisses me off so bad.Tabula rasa, if I had to teach a 70-year-old who's never touched a computer before, to do so, I'd pick Linux every time. Consistency and customization is key.
Microsoft makes their users dumb by an illusion of convenience which shatters the instant something goes wrong, like riding a bike with helper wheels that constantly fail. Linux does none of that. It empowers users quite quickly by simply learning how to ride a bike properly. Sure, you fall every so often at the start, but that made mastery that much more satisfying.
Please sit down for what I'm about to tell you.
When a Linux user communicates with someone using Windows, the Linux user's sent data is still being harvested.
💢
“that "almost a paedophile is fine" concept”
That's not fine, and a loaded argument.
At what point would it be morally nominal? Should there be a different cutoff age? Should there be a maximum age disparity? How do we even decide on this stuff objectively? And I'm not asking this rhetorically. As far as I know most things human are normally distributed and such ages were decided by looking at what age the majority of people are cognitively mature enough to make their own decisions without being easily manipulated. If, supposedly, most people think Seinfeld was morally reprehensible, then perhaps we should decide upon an age where it wouldn't have been? Or use different metrics altogether perhaps. I don't know.