Taboos/laws

Additionally, virtually all laws are for threat-proxy acts, and one requires the social mindset and spontaneous amygdala activity to profit out of the displeasure of non-threats.

As such, as covered in the Threat-proxy features section, we do not see gain in committing harm against non-threats for pleasure, such as in assault, theft, rape, child sexual abuse, etc.

In essence, both opposition to crimes and support or intentional commission of harmful crimes are the social mindset.

At age 19, I stated:

‘The only issue that could even conceivably come up is a sexual orientation that involves unwanted harm to the other person. For that reason, even necrophilia is not an issue in my eyes, nor is BDSM, where the harm is wanted; zoophilia, not an issue. Practically any fetish is not an issue in my eyes, coprophilia, urolagnia, whatever.

I’m starting to think normal people have this natural inclination to intervene on the behalf of others, even when it makes no sense. That’s why empathy is mostly nonsense, because much of the time, they get it wrong; they don’t know if the other person wants help or how they’re feeling.

Even though I am not creeped out by any sexual orientation, it’s still never a personal thing. I don’t feel empathy for the person with it, because a person is more than just a sexual orientation.’

At age 20, I stated:

‘The fact someone simply sending you an indecent image you didn’t ask for can get you in prison; the fact you’d be liable for prosecution for the period you have that image received in your messenger, because it’ll be in a cache on the phone or PC, is a gross, horrid miscarriage of justice.

It means the flaw would be with the law, not with your conduct. If that’s even possible, it means the law is the problem, not you, because it means any good, moral citizen can get imprisoned if the person screenshots them having sent the message to you and reports it, and the police get a warrant to search your drive, and then they find it in a cache folder.

That recipient will immediately be eligible for conviction under a possession charge, having done absolutely 0 wrong. They’d have to do an overwrite power-erase, all for nothing, all because of a complete stranger who sent an indecent image of an underage person or, indeed, an underage person who sent an indecent image of themselves (or anyone else underage) to you without your consent.

So even if they themselves are committing a crime of revenge porn or of distributing underage material, you yourself would be committing a crime by receiving it. Fucking mental. But do they even see it that way? I doubt they see underage girls sending nudes to older men as the girls committing the crime of distributing underage material.

[“Some teenagers who have texted photographs of themselves, or of their friends or partners, have been charged with distribution of child pornography, while those who have received the images have been charged with possession of child pornography; in some cases, the possession charge has been applied to school administrators who have investigated sexting incidents as well.”^[1]]

It’s this whole hellhole of massive ambiguity up for interpretation, because the laws are inherently contradictory and impossible. They are inherently complex and flawed and allow for all these preposterous scenarios, but because it’s the law, the police could still use it to prosecute you, just because it’s the law, no matter how ridiculous it is. That would be the argument: “It’s the law.” It being a law would give them that power, no matter the basis behind it.

And who knows how they’d interpret an underage person possessing media of themselves? It’s a terrible set of laws that permits the emotional whims of the judge or jury to decide your guilt.

No solid line can be drawn. The line is drawn behind you from the start. You’re already past the line, as with the underage person sending a good, moral adult a nude picture of themselves without knowing them or them even asking or contacting first. So it’s up to their emotional whims. They become the judge.

It’s not a fair legal process. It throws that out of the window. The rules are thrown out. You’re considered to have already broken the rules by existing, by doing nothing wrong, so it’s up to them to decide on their own personal whim just how much you’ve broken the rules or what punishment you deserve. There’s no regulation.’

I then sent a screenshot and stated, ‘So in that case, it’s a girl getting done for distribution of indecent underage images and the boy getting no punishment? There’s no standard.’

I then sent a screenshot of a case in which a girl was prosecuted for posting her own underage photos on MySpace and stated, ‘But she’s the victim as well as the perpetrator. If someone else had published her images, she’d be considered the victim, even though the effect is the same – her images are public.

But instead, she’s considered the perpetrator, so what does it mean if she would’ve been okay with someone else publishing her images? The law would punish that person, even though she did not consider him or her a harmer.

It’s all nonsense. The law doesn’t know how to work with these things. The law doesn’t work here, and you know why, because it’s not the responsibility of the law.

It’s like trying to regulate breathing, a fundamental function of the human body, entirely within the individual, not causing harm. Who knows what tricks their emotional whims would play? It contorts and distorts anything, any fact, into fiction.

An unsolicited photo of a penis is, for some reason, treated with a low level of severity. If that’s how they’re going to treat underage cases, men who send unsolicited dick photos should receive years in prison, immediately. It shouldn’t matter the age.

If you send sexual material of yourself without consent, it should all be treated the same, because that’s the same as exhibitionism in public [which may include exposure to children]. These women receiving unsolicited dick pics are not consensual cases.

In fact, unsolicited dick pics are not punished at all. It can go public. The women can talk about it publicly and report it, post about it in YouTube videos, and no police action will be taken.

It is a grey area. It is subjective. There is an objective fact about the situation. There are objective facts; they just ignore them. And when other countries are involved, it gets even weirder.

Only when images have been published without consent has a crime, something harmful, been committed, because the intent itself would be to humiliate the other person. The intent would be to harm.

All crimes and motives and intents should be considered. All consent should be considered. There should be no room for these “automatic” crimes just due to age when a victim hasn’t been proven or when there is objective evidence that there isn’t a victim, that the person wanted it.’

[A 2017 study of 3,223 Spanish adolescents from ages 12–17 found that the percentage of those who had voluntarily sexted someone (i.e. not as a result of harassment or after receiving threats) increased linearly from 3.6% at age 12 to 36.4% at age 17.^[2]

A 2015 study of 2,243 Australians found that 38% of those aged 13–15 had sent a sexually explicit photo or video of themselves, and most of those who had engaged in sexting had done so “‘consensually’ and with few sexting partners.”^[3]

The study noted, “[It] is important to recognise that for most participants who engage in sexting, negative motivations are not responsible for their sexting behaviours.”^[3]

An editorial on a 2018 meta-analysis of sexting studies noted, “In a few studies, researchers noted that most people who sext felt positively about the experience and that positive outcomes seem to be associated with sexting within established relationships.^[4]

Other studies examining outcomes such as harassment or bullying by peers, lost opportunities, trouble with parents or school authorities, or having the picture posted online found such outcomes to be unusual. Most were endorsed by less than 5% of people who sext.”^[4]

“[A 2015 study^[5] found that] some teenagers shared that their ‘main risks of parental discovery were embarrassment (for both parents and young people) and “overreaction” from adults who feared the photo had been shared.’ …^[1]

Albury and Crawford (2012)^[6] argue that adolescents are well aware of the differences between consensual sexting and distribution of private images with negative intent. Further, they argue young people are developing norms and ethics of sexting based on consent. …^[1]]‘

At age 20, my friend stated:

‘The fact the table [of consent ages across the world] exists with so many columns and variations and classifications.’ I replied, ‘Yes. Regular people presented with that fact will argue that their own opinion should be law across all countries. They’ll disagree with most countries and go with one country’s age and say it should be all.’

I later stated, ‘Yes, it’s the illogical enigma of the social mindset. A police officer on a video was making scathing remarks about the people he’d arrested having had sex with a 14- or 15-year-old, not realising that that’s the consent age in places like Germany, Japan, Mexico, Philippines, Italy, Austria, Portugal, Estonia, Hungary, Serbia, Bulgaria, etc.^[7]‘

At age 20, I stated:

‘This guy [on a podcast] said incest and arguably bestiality should be allowed, because it’s none of his business, but guess what? Someone commented, ‘David is very suspiciously defensive xDDD’, and got 33 likes.

Even though he made very clear he doesn’t like either, they still try to pull that out of it. See, you can’t even talk about these topics without someone saying something like that. It’s just not possible.

A mob mentality sets in, the exact same basis of stonings to death in mediaeval times, and half the comments are apocalyptic terror over incest, bestiality or paedophilia becoming normalised in the future [which basically will not happen]. One person said it’s “scary af”.’

At age 20, I stated:

‘[The police] neglect crimes similar to what they do.‘ My friend replied, ‘Yes. They relate to drinking offences.’

I replied, ‘Exactly. They have the smallest sentences. You could do drinking violations all your life and still get out of prison multiple times in no time.’

At age 20, I stated:

‘I now see laws as a EULA [end-user licence agreement] that you’re forced to sign when you’re born, which lists a bunch of impossible demands and gives extreme powers, and they don’t get enforced until you get on their wrong side somehow, and then they can just enforce any law you’ve inevitably broken at will.

Just think: it’s 100% certain that tonnes of police officers have had sex before the age of consent, have drunk and driven. Millions of people, including successful artists, have pirated software.

Millions of people are breaking these small, loosely enforced laws all the time, so it’s exactly like EULAs, in which they can revoke your right to freedom at any time for any reason at all and give the excuse that you broke a little law.

That’s why law is hypocrisy. You saw on my CCTV: a police car parks inside a bus stop while not in an emergency and completely ignores the 3 or 4 other cars parked on top of the bus stop. Meanwhile, a few weeks earlier, a traffic warden writes a ticket for 1 van parked on the same bus stop.

It’s pick and choose, pick and choose. Laws are never enforced per the code; they’re enforced whenever the authority decides, based on a particular person sometimes. Well, it’s just another one of those things that is made to look moral but is just another tool of control, like Western invasions [of foreign states].

It’s an ultimatum that you can never meet. It’s practically impossible for anyone to live their lives without breaking at least 1 law, and that’s how it’s meant to be, so they can seize on that 1 broken law when they decide they don’t like the person.’

My friend replied, ‘I feel like people who are less extreme than us have committed shootings and bombings.’

I replied, ‘Well, we know this. We know that murderers get a better reputation than we would, worshipped even, sometimes. Total criminals are seen in a better light than us: killers, vandalisers, robbers.’ My friend replied, ‘Yes, drug-takers, smokers.’ I replied, ‘There’s a whole subculture dedicated to idolising crime. Exactly.’

At age 21, in response to my friend explaining how he would resist if he were being raped and suggesting that I would too, I stated:

‘Well, I can’t imagine ever getting into that scenario, due to my sexuality [1, 2, 3]. There are about 100 things I could list that would prevent that scenario from ever occurring to me, things inside things, things that depend on other things in the list such that if one were knocked off, you’d still have to deal with the other one.

The thing is, if I were ever to go into a sexual encounter with someone I didn’t love or trust, which would never happen anyway, I would always go with the utmost preparedness, with defence options galore.

It’s not possible for me to trust the sort of people who would rape or have the capability to rape, so it’s impossible for me to fall in love with them anyway, so it’s impossible for me to get raped through that traditional route. …

I have to imagine I had a gay uncle who would sexually molest me when I was a child. That’s basically the only other scenario I can give any sort of feasible thought to, but again, I don’t see how he could do anything that I wouldn’t defend against if it were actually harming me.

I mean, for goodness’ sake, a dick’s just a dick. Is him showing the dick supposed to be traumatising? There’s nothing he could do that could potentially be sexually related and not cause that much physical harm but still potentially have a mental effect, even anal rape. Even back then, I would never allow that, and hence, he would need to forcibly physically manipulate me, which would cause physical harm, and then it would be a matter of physical harm, just like my mother hitting me.

The sexual side has nothing to do with it. I don’t see why the fact it’s sex or the fact the person’s getting enjoyment means anything. Bullies get enjoyment from what they do. My dad used to kiss me, so that wouldn’t matter.

I used to hate kisses from my mum’s family. I have memories of that, but my mum’s family’s kisses still did not cause me mental trauma. There’s no basis, no basis to sex itself causing mental trauma, only physical harm and threat to survival.

Sex is literally nothing except its purpose. It’s physical actions, the same that would cause physical harm. Why separate it? So what? The only difference is if it’s done correctly, it leads to impregnation.

Why is ejaculating on someone different from urinating on someone? It should be treated with the same level of response and trauma and criminality, because fundamentally, physically, in a physical and harm-based way, it is practically identical. Why do people have to create all these stupid, pointless taboos?’

I later stated at age 21, in response to a YouTube video debate, ‘They literally have no argument. It’s all confabulations. … Lol, the man went the [former-friend] route of “just wanting to stop talking about it”. They literally can’t, because there’s nothing there.‘

My friend replied, ‘Yes, their reasoning, “Because it’s a dick, dude”. They’re answering with the question. He’s asking why touching a dick is a big deal, and they say, “Because it’s a dick”, like there’s a hidden meaning going on that they expect him to have and relate to, like it’s obvious that’s their basis. That’s the basis they use.

It’s like a “Come on, because it’s a dick. Don’t you remember absolutely everything we’ve been taught and everything everyone’s ever said and school and all the laws and what our parents have said and what every YouTuber has ever said and what our friends have said? Come on. You know that’s the code of how to interact and get on in society. How can you even say that?”

That’s what the argument is. That’s why they don’t need to elaborate. They only need to nudge you towards that, just by saying the name of the taboo with emphasis. It’s like they don’t even want, have or need to repeat those teachings. It’s a square-one debate to them.’

I later stated, ‘The arguments they make about the reasons for the crime aren’t compatible with the origin of the taboo. It’s not why or how it came about originally. It’s a future confabulation, like recessive conditions for the incest taboo [or makeup being “self-expression” or money as a “medium of exchange” or the reasons people give for recreational drug consumption or basically any attempt by anyone to explain why they feel any form of empathy in general].

It’s not the reason, because they can’t see the reason, because it’s appropriated defensive aggression. That’s the only reason, only can be the reason, because it’s what they’re feeling from others.

It’s a literal feeling that drives the criminalisation. When people find something criminal, it gives them rage and aggression, and that’s what had to be at the root, initially. It has to be appropriated, seen in others and then felt.’

At age 21, I stated:

‘”The length of bail periods … when investigating hacking, sexual abuse and serious fraud investigations…”^[8] Of course, literally those exact categories mentioned in print. Why hacking though? It sounds so out of place.’

My friend replied, ‘Hacking, sexual abuse. No, you know what? It’s not out of place. Doesn’t it say it all? It’s something inherent they can’t compute about it, which causes that extreme reaction.

It is linked that they base their lives around angrily prosecuting those things. Lol, the fact murder isn’t there. How much longer is this going to go on for? Our lives?’

At age 21, I stated:

‘Now that I’m learning actual programming, it’s even funnier that I got a detention for typing msg *^[9] in cmd in primary school, an actual detention, while others were beating people up, and a whole assembly about it and the accusation of “hacking”.’

My friend replied, ‘It’s because beating up is part of the culture and social mindset. It’s closer to it and more understood, whereas hacking is something they don’t understand and is closer to the lack of the social mindset.

Hacking [or anything remotely resembling it] is that enigma, because we know being scared of hacking is the same as the ability to be scammed, and we know it’s also linked to the enigma of blind belief in Western politics and being against Russia.’

At age 20, my friend stated in a voice message:

‘You know when that [teacher] got really pissed off at us for throwing bits of paper or stones in that vent [and gave us both detentions for it], the fact that it meant so much to him, the fact that seeing that evoked such an anger, such an emotion in him, I have to think, why that anger?

Is it because he was genuinely upset that a building that he cares about and its principles and its social meaning was being desecrated that much? Is it that? …’

I replied, ‘He also misinterpreted what we did. He saw [us throwing the stones at the ventilation fan, which was near the dining hall] as a slight against the dinner ladies, a purposeful one, like the only way or reason we could possibly be doing that is if we were insulting the dinner ladies and their work, when it had nothing to do with it. We weren’t even thinking of them. I don’t know what a single one looks like. …

Haha, yes, about [another teacher]. Well, do we need to go on? Any reaction from the school about our actions was an overreaction, especially about “hacking”, and a misinterpretation. We are the number 1 people most prone to getting misinterpreted.‘

At age 21, I stated:

‘I basically have no legal rights. I can’t legally defend my own room, because it’s not my property, can’t defend it from my parents, anyway. I was born into a contract, essentially, that I didn’t sign, contractually obligated to behave in a certain way where they reserve the right to kick me out if I don’t.

I basically can’t own anything, really, to live in or on, unless I earnt money, so even if I were homeless, I’d be on public property with the right to be moved off it by the council.

You actually can’t even go into a distant forest without it being state-owned or regulated land. You can’t do anything, yet none of those laws apply to other animals. You’re not allowed to exist as a human and not be subject to the laws. It’s assumed simply that because other humans are (with the social mindset that created them), you will be.

It’s both protection and subjugation, euthanasia and all that. I can’t do perfectly reasonable things that have nothing to do with anyone else’s business. The law encroaches even when no one else is involved and no one is harmed.’

At age 21, I stated:

‘I always feel like I’m unable to call the police or launch a court case against anyone. I feel like I don’t have a right. I feel like I don’t even have a right to call an ambulance sometimes.‘

I later elaborated, ‘I act as if there is no law, basically, but not in regards to me, in regards to others; I act as if law doesn’t apply to them. I act as if everyone could kill me now, and there’d be no repercussions, because I lack the social mindset that appropriates law as one’s own beliefs.

I act as if the law doesn’t protect me, let alone everyone else. I act as if I have no rights. I act as if I can’t call an ambulance, can’t call police, can’t call fire. That is how I act, all human creations, all because I lack the social mindset. Yes, it’s like the querulous schizophrenics are regulating you.’

At age 21, I stated in a voice message:

‘When I said how, to some people, the outcome of withering away with no social relationships or food is a better outcome than anything that a therapist or whoever could recommend, I forgot to mention that they are in no place to say that is not a better outcome for that person, because it’s not their life. They are in no place at all. If someone wants to wither away and die; if someone wants to commit suicide, let them.

That’s the thing in these mostly pre-modern societies where suicide was illegal or punished, punishing the family. That’s all well and good in a societal perspective, of course, when they are perceived as being an important component in the society, whatever occupation they do, then yes, obviously, it’s understandable that that is a criminalised thing.

That’s speaking from the societal perspective. Then there’s the practical one, the non-social one, the one where one person doesn’t matter to the next as long as they’re not physically affecting them, not based on theory or expectings.

You know, that’s all it is. The societal world and the societal model is a world based on expectations. The society is expecting that person who committed suicide to be a part of the society and expecting them to have a role in society.

They’re assumed to be a part of a greater picture. They’re assumed to be a part of something that is inextricably tied with a bunch of other people and a bunch of other stuff, so when they go and kill themselves, it’s seen to affect the whole. It’s seen to be like something that takes a part out of a larger picture.

It’s not just seen to be some one person deciding to end their life with nothing to do with anyone else or anything else. It’s never seen like that. It’s always seen as a chunk being taken out of a larger picture.

That’s the problem, because in the real, physical world, that’s not what happens. In the atoms, cells, physics world, all other people, physically: they’re fine. They’re the same. It’s just that one person decided to deconstruct themselves, decided to come apart. The cells came apart, dispersed into the ground.

Everyone else’s cells are still intact. The cell-adhesion protein complexes are still holding their cells together; they’re still working. Nothing changed.

But it’s assumed; that person is expected; the expectation is of that person that they are a part of the greater picture, a part of the whole, and that they’ve done the whole a disservice by ending themselves.

And that’s obviously the wrong way to think from my perspective of the non-social perspective; in the physical, real world, that’s how it is.

You know, it’s the whole problem with “sectioning”. There’s a real, real problem with the policies that go, “people who might be a danger to themselves or others.” The “themselves” part is a real problem, real, real, real problem.

Because then, it’s like, do you realise who you’re talking about? You’re talking about a “themselves”; you’re talking about “them-selves”. You’re not talking about you or anyone else, so what does it matter?

Why are you talking for them? Why are you talking for another person who’s made a decision for themselves? Why are you trying to control their decision to even exist, to even have control over whether they exist or not?

And I’m not talking about stuff like euthanasia, because euthanasia does involve another person, and another person has to take that person’s life.

And of course, in my view, there are a lot of people who go to euthanasia who don’t actually need it, who could very well do the act themselves. Euthanasia should be reserved for the people who actually cannot take their own life, because they’re ill, physically.

But for those who can, they can find a way. Why do they need to involve some other person in it? Doesn’t have to happen, so why campaign for that? It’s the wrong campaign to be making. The campaign should be for the people who can’t end their life, who have no control over ending their life but want to.

But the ones who do have control, the ones who can carry it out, why not just let them, if that’s really what they want?

And it doesn’t even matter if they’re off their head at the time that it happens. They’ll make the argument that a very large proportion of suicides are done under the influence of a drug, alcohol, mental illness, all that stuff, mood swings: “They did it when they were at a low point. They wouldn’t have done it at any other time.” Whatever the case may be.

Obviously, that’s the social mindset. That’s not a situation that would ever come about for me, of course.

I mean, I can understand a person who knows the person who committed suicide at a low point or under the influence of something. Obviously, the rules don’t apply to me, because I’m not that person, but to that person, who is a socially influenced person, you can think, “Oh, it’s unfortunate that they committed suicide.”

I mean, I’m really trying my hardest to take the perspective of a person who actually does value a person like that, but I wouldn’t, so no one I’m ever going to be dealing with is going to be someone who has the social impressionability to actually do something like that when a certain condition is met, only when a certain influence is met. It wouldn’t be possible in a person who gets along with me or is me.

I’m trying to say there’s not a problem with any way someone might feel about that person dying, but it’s when it becomes a case of physical control, feelings vs. actually physically trying to control them doing that thing.

This is a personal view, of course – non-social-mindset view – to try and control a person who has that mind that is mentally ill in that way, where it’s a matter of social impressionability, alcohol, drugs, whatever it is, stuff that is absorbed socially and then just done, whatever it is. Obviously, any attempt from us, from a person like me, to do something to lessen that or intervene to stop the person committing suicide would be considered completely pointless.’

At age 21, I sent the following excerpt from a Stack Exchange answer:

‘… in some jurisdictions, primarily civil law ones, the author’s moral rights are inalienable. That is, the author cannot lawfully give up those rights, however much (s)he wants to. France and Italy are examples of such jurisdictions.’^[10]

I remarked, ‘Reminds me of euthanasia and suicide illegality, more suicide than euthanasia, the fact you can’t do what you want to with yourself in a society of the social mindset.’

At age 21, I stated:

‘It’s funny, because it’s just like where I said listing valuation of money or empathy as features of the social mindset would make people think we’d throw all our money away or harm any old person; the same effect will be applied to taboos/laws. They’ll think that because it’s a social-mindset feature we lack, we’d flagrantly break the law.

Funnily enough, all 3 of those things I listed are what ASPD [antisocial-personality-disorder] people do [splashing money, harming any old person and flagrantly breaking the law, all social-mindset features].

It’s an example of them being trapped in the social mindset. They can only imagine what they would do in their world if they said something like that. They think if you don’t support, you oppose, and if you don’t oppose, you support.

They assume. It’s this world of assumptions that are wrong and not based in reality. The reality is, we are like other animals [with no pointless harming for pleasure], which, funnily enough, also get wrapped up in the human emotional sphere, as you said.

They also get treated with the law, “protected” by the law, get all sorts done to them. They get put down when they act normally and rationally, get tags and chips put in them or get made into fetish content.

Even they can’t escape it, and the saddest thing is, they’re not aware of it. They don’t know the human world or what’s going on. We just happen to have the brains to know what’s going on, and it’s sad.

It’s like they assume malintent. They assume spite. They assume we would want to spite the law, purposefully break it like those with ASPD do, lol, so much like paranoid schizophrenia.

It’s like, ‘How could you denigrate the law? You must want to do this or that illogical harmful thing, because you’ve offended our holy social custom’, when the reality is no, we’ve just offended your holy social custom. That’s it. We continue to go about our business.’

At age 21, I stated:

‘That’s it then. All these reactions we’ve had are manifestations of [a mild form of] paranoid schizophrenia. It’s genetically, neurologically and phenotypically the case, the misattribution of bad intent.

Even the taboos I describe are, the misattribution of an intent to harm in cases where there just isn’t one. That is textbook schizophrenia right there.

These people are psychotic. They are psychotic, delusional, overattributing, magical thinking, ideas of reference, paranoia. That is them, to the book, genetically and neurologically. We are surrounded by psychos. What a world. The norm is psychosis.

Remember what I said earlier [“It’s funny how our ‘problem’ is that we’re not psychotic enough“]? That’s our problem. We’re not psychotic enough. We’re not psychotic enough to be brought up to the norm of psychosis, where everyone’s as psychotic each other and engaging in shared psychosis, and so it’s just common understanding.

We’re outside that, and that’s our problem. Just wow. What a world.’

At age 21, my friend stated:

‘I hate the term “indecent assault”. What’s not “decent” about it? Such a stupid fucking word.

Bullies at secondary school should be in prison then. That’s indecent assault. Them touching me anywhere had the same effect as touching my penis. I didn’t want them to touch me anywhere. Had the same effect.

It’s only other people that would have been affected more by them touching my penis, just because that act has a higher social weighting. I’m not concerned with the social damage. The whole concept of being traumatised because something has a greater social weighting is stupid.‘

I replied, ‘Implying there could be “decent assault”.’

At age 21, I stated:

‘It’s physical abuse, not sexual abuse. The “sexual” part is human-made. It’s a physical aggression response when it’s not wanted; it’s not a specific sexual aggression response. It’s same-old regular aggression, defensive aggression.

Sex and aggression are powered by the same network in the amygdala, hypothalamus and brainstem, so any seeing of a sex crime as worse than a physical crime is made up.

Literally, touching a nipple unasked is worse than punching a face unasked. How does that make sense? Doesn’t, obviously. Then you make it a child, and it gets 100x worse, when hardly anything’s changed.

The child won’t even have breasts at that point. The male and female children will look the same, but for some reason, touching a male’s nipple will still not be as bad as touching a female’s.’

At age 21, I stated:

‘The funny thing is, paedophilia is the social mindset. It’s a threat-proxy feature of the social mindset.

Although I wasn’t wrong to initially not understand its criminalisation (due to liking a child not actually being harmful in its own right), I found out that the only reason such an exclusive liking comes about is a result of a social-mindset threat-proxy feature, so yes, it will almost always have negative intentions in practice. In that sense, [a former friend] was right.

The problem is not necessarily in the criminalisation of stuff like it that those people actually do and do serve as a representation that they would go on to harm; the problem is in the criminalisation of those things the times there isn’t that harm or intent to harm, or, indeed, the belief, like [the former friend’s], that that’s impossible, that it’s impossible for it not to harm.

It’s like what third-world societies believe about homosexuality; they believe it couldn’t possibly be consensual or that homosexuality itself couldn’t possibly truly exist [as distinct from a nefarious act].^[11][12][13]

And the reason is, that’s the appropriated norm, stemming out of there not being enough interconnected homosexuals finding each other and showing that it can be consensual and does work out, which eventually did change the laws in the West.

It’s an appropriated thought, so it isn’t actually reality (as represented by that law change), just an appropriated emotion that they can’t look past, and the same thing happens with any crime.

Laws are thought appropriations. Laws are this thing that hovers above reality rather than actually being reality, like God, like all social-mindset features, but they are believed as if they were reality, could only be reality.

The thought is appropriated, and those with the thought are not aware of how or where it came from. It’s subconscious and regulates their behaviour, regulates what they get worked up over.

It’s an interesting but crazy effect.’

At age 21, I stated:

‘Anyway, that’s where it starts to go wrong, like I said, because so many people have had sex before they were the age of consent, more than a third, according to those earlier figures [34.9% of males and 39.9% of females aged 15 in England in 2008^[14]], and so many people have sexted before they were the legal images age of 18 usually. They weren’t raped. They weren’t harmed. Usually, no predation occurred in those scenarios.

It’s difficult to judge when their whims will act, because it’s all illogical, obviously. You get the 18 and 14 example I sent a year ago, where everyone immediately picked up on [a woman mentioning in a YouTube video that she lost her virginity when she was 14 to someone who was 18], a few-second mention within a 14-min video of something totally unrelated, and all the top comments were discussing it, so they consider even that that bad to make that much of a point out of it, immediately assume the older male is a predator and had nefarious intent, but that’s not really classic paedophilia.

That’s when they start blurring the lines. First of all, obviously, paedophilia is for prepubescent, not pubescent. Secondly, the age gap is usually not as little as 4 years. That’s why it’s quite crazy how that example can send them into that much of a hysteria about it, so it just makes you wonder how to reason them out of it, say exactly what goes on and why.’

My friend replied, ‘Well, it’s like the swastika. They absolutely jump on anything that is out of line with social norms and has a stigma as being something that is a common misstep, like sharks, and they’re adding nothing at all, because it’s already been done and argued to death.

It’s already been said by those people millions of times. It’s already the law. There is no progression beyond that. They jump on those things every time they come up, with the same argument, and the argument never progresses, and they never lose motivation to.

It’s that same one argument I’ve seen millions of times and nothing else, and it comes across as a joke to me. It feels like they’re joking, or they’re going to add something else.’

I replied, ‘No, but they have to, otherwise it stops being the law. The law is a reflection of that mentality. It won’t progress, for the biological reasons I’ve documented on the site. If it did, the law would change.

It’s the fact it’s a good chunk of society that has done these things. That’s why it’s so awful and such a grey area. They don’t go prosecuted, but nominally, they should be. De jure, they are criminals, so the law, by name, isn’t really how it is; it’s more so its application, how and where it’s applied, those specific situations.

The specifics of those situations constitute the de facto law, the application, so you never know what that covers. It’s a weird dynamic.’

My friend replied, ‘The difference is that they can’t see what’s all going on, but we can. They can only see it from the perspective of the phenomenon that exists and not study the phenomenon itself.’

I continued in a voice message, ‘[The first explanation] was how [the taboo/law] comes about; second was how it gets transmitted without having to observe the act directly; third would be why they assume the thoughts of the other person.

And that would simply be that when that’s the thought that’s appropriated, when that’s what gets told to them and, of course, is what the original scenario is, the formative scenario at the taboo’s origin – a person showing defensive aggression – it now means that any vague potential warning sign of that act, any vaguely resembling act, triggers that same aggression.

The people who are telling children that idea as they grow up will be showing expressions of anger and displeasure at this concept, so that’s what will get drilled into them. Because they’re drilling the defensive aggression in association with the idea of any pursuit of someone under a certain age at all, that becomes the episodic memory that triggers it.

So basically, it’s the same reason as to why we, pets, nature, whatever it may be, trigger certain brainstem responses that lead people to assume the things that triggered the episodic memories have a certain intent or a certain brainstem response behind them.

It’s the same thing going on here. Just like they get things wrong with us and get things wrong with animals, think that animals have human intentions, think that we have bad intentions, loving intentions when we don’t, the same takes place, just because it happens to resemble an episodic memory that they’ve had shoved down their throat. That’s all it is.

And you know, it’s also the reason why you can’t reason them out of it. It’s also the reason why you can’t reason people out of God, why you can’t convince people that their pets don’t love them, why we can’t convince people that we didn’t mean someone harm or that we didn’t mean to offend, whatever it may be, or, of course, people who continue to send us stuff that we tell them we don’t like, or you tell your nan how you can’t take tablets, and she still believes you’re choosing it, or how I tell my mum about my eating difficulties, and she still believes I’m doing it to piss her off – whatever the examples from our past may be, that’s why you can’t convince them out of it.

Because it’s an episodic memory that we happen to resemble that triggers a brainstem response in them that then comes to characterise us, so it’s characterising us, out of their control, and there’s no way to reason out of it, because it’s how their brain works.

The point of that is that when I went on about how we’d need to show them exactly what takes place, yes, we can show certain proofs, because we know that science has taught people out of theism as it’s progressed. It’s not impossible, but it’s just extremely difficult.

It would be very difficult, just like with [a former friend]. We couldn’t talk him out of it, so it depends. It depends on the evidence, because you’re going against episodic memories. Episodic memories take a while to have an effect. That’s why mood disorders have episodes that take place over weeks or months.

It’s a very incremental and cumulative effect, and that’s why every time we’ve exhibited a certain defence of someone that had a social-mindset behaviour – the examples that I like to give are past girlfriends, because they’re very good – for the whole time that we were speaking to them, no matter how much either one of us tried to talk each other out of the behaviour and tried to show each other what the person was for what they were and not give them weight or value or relatability where there wasn’t any, it didn’t have any effect.

So basically, we couldn’t talk each other out of it, and that’s basically how it is. We could only realise after a long period of it just going wrong and then learning over that period, because it’s all just episodic memories.

A simple read of the site: I’m not sure if that would really do it. I know it’s a lot of really coherent science and really coherent research, but it depends. Some things just trigger people. I mean, I know that the site’s going to trigger them.

I mean, we can’t really blame our parents too much, because whilst we told them explicitly the things they need to know about us and how we operate, and they didn’t take it on board, it was still this piecemeal, sort of non-scientific… You know, it was just here and there, and also, because it was a one-on-one interaction, because we actually look like and are presenting as people, the episodic-memory triggers are even stronger, because we’re presenting one-on-one in person form, so that did not help at all, and to them, we just looked like angry, ranting people.

So that’s why the site is a benefit, and that’s one advantage that the site does have, but also, of course, it’s the fact it didn’t look scientific, so everything we’ve ever said: it couldn’t get past that barrier of assuming individuality and assuming agency. It couldn’t get past that, no matter how much you tried.

You know, I would get told by my mum, “You’re using your condition as an excuse.” The only reason that could come about is if you assume the person actually has an ability, so when you say, “You’re using your condition as an excuse”, it basically means that you’re trying to say that you don’t have the barriers that your condition has put in place. It basically means you’re trying to say that you don’t have the condition, so it’s just the most absurd thing you could ever say, but it’s really what happens when that “assuming intent” takes over. Really, just the most ridiculous, crazy things happen.

The science will basically show exactly how the condition leads to every single thing, and everything just lines up, you know, the neurology, genetics, etc. of what they have and also what we lack, and everything just lines up perfectly. That’s what we have now that we didn’t have back then, so it may work.

It just has to be coherent, because the thing about episodic memories is that they’re all based on commonalities and how much something resembles something else. That’s what triggers the emotion attached to the episodic memory, and that’s what allows it to be characterised and added as a new reference node.

That’s exactly why science could dispel polytheism, because back before there was science, all there was was nature behaving in a way that vaguely resembled humans, so because of that vague resemblance, because they had nothing else to go off, that’s all there was.

But it’s when you can link. It’s all about the resemblance. It’s like sticking chains or beads on to some toy, some childhood building toy, and you basically have to do that in the opposite direction: you’ve got one guy on one end that’s trying to add loads of beads to the brainstem end, and you’ve got to try and do that to the innate survival end so that the pivot, if you like, is all the way over at the brainstem end, so there’s a tonne of weight on the innate end and not much weight on the brainstem end.

And we weren’t able to do that, because we didn’t have that coherent argument. We didn’t have that resemblance away from the brainstem response. All we had were these individual, random arguments, and we had far too much of a resemblance to other people, because we were appearing in person, speaking. We just looked way too much like everyone they’ve ever known; themselves, of course, and so that’s why they assumed that intent and why they couldn’t get past that delusion.

But with the site, that’s why that’ll be less likely to occur, especially with the whole scientific basis and premise that the site’s going on. Who I’m going to send it to are more likely to understand, purely because they have a career in the science field, and they would’ve seen – they would’ve had all the episodic memories of science, so it basically will trigger those memories more than it will trigger some ridiculous delusion or, at least, is more likely to. It will resemble more of what they’ve seen in literature, of course, with their whole life dedication. That’s why they’re the right people to send it to.

That’s why the site is at an advantage, but again, you never know just what will trigger, but it is about resemblance. It’s all about how coherent and how much you can make it outcompete the episodic memories that are linked to brainstem responses.’

At age 21, I stated:

‘Here’s what it is, the question of why paedophilia becomes such a big topic of discussion in people like us.

With normal people, there’s a defence against crimes; with criminals, there’s a pursuit of crimes for pleasure from harm; with us, there’s neither of those things.

That leaves us with only the non-social-mindset biological mechanisms. Because we neither appropriate the defensive aggression and disgust nor appropriate the pleasure from pain, essentially the only scenarios in which we could ever be seen to be “doing a crime” is one that doesn’t involve profiting off anyone’s displeasure.

We lack pleasure from displeasure, and we lack displeasure from pleasure from displeasure. It’s neither, so basically, it falls back down to the lower common denominator of rules.

So, for example, I wouldn’t have sex with an animal because I’m not attracted to them via imprinting, and I don’t have sexual social-mindset associations, i.e. I don’t get off to the general idea, episodic memories. I wouldn’t engage in BDSM because I avoid sources of pain, and I don’t have sexual social-mindset associations, which BDSM is, as a manifestation of pleasure from pain.

I wouldn’t have sex with a sibling or enjoy watching this because I’m not attracted to siblings due to negative imprinting, and I don’t have sexual social-mindset associations, i.e. I don’t get off to the general idea. I wouldn’t rape because I don’t get off to causing harm.

This is besides the asexuality stuff. Obviously, the reason they should be interested in is that I don’t like sex, but that’s a different [atypical-imprinting-related] reason.

It’s merely the fact that the taboo doesn’t form part of my aversion to these things. Likewise, pleasure from displeasure doesn’t form any attraction. I’m averse to them for reasons other than the taboo.

It means that if I did for whatever reason land myself in any situation covered by a threat-proxy crime, it would not be for a threat-proxy reason; it would be void of intent to harm for pleasure, void of harm in general. Whatever it would be would be a matter with only good intentions and reciprocal pleasure, either that or self-defence in the case of violence.

So I wouldn’t be able to land myself in a bestiality, rape, incest, murder situation. If you want to, we can add the auxiliary reason of the inability to land myself in a sex situation in general, because I don’t like sex.

So now we get to why paedophilia remains as the topic of discussion, because the crime extends way beyond that, way beyond sex, and ends up covering situations that are possible for me to land in, possible for anyone, such as receiving nudes unasked.

That’s why it ends up as the highlight, not paedophilia per se but those non-harmful scenarios that still get criminalised that literally don’t involve paedophilia at all, don’t involve any exclusive or primary liking of children, don’t involve any profiting off displeasure. That’s why it ends up as the point of debate, the fact I could do nothing wrong and still be considered a harmer.

The problem is that I wouldn’t be averse to those scenarios for the reason of the taboo, but it wouldn’t matter, because I also wouldn’t be attracted to them for the reason of profiting off displeasure or exploitation or manipulation.

They can’t compute it being neither of those things. They consider it to be either one or the other. They don’t compute that a third reason exists, which is funny, because it’s the natural way of the rest of higher animals [and themselves, beneath the social mindset].

It’s literally that it’s impossible for there to be harmful intent behind any scenario covered by the threat-proxy crime. That’s what they’d need to recognise but won’t recognise, so that’s why it remains the talking point, because it covers possible scenarios in line with non-social-mindset biology, while the others just don’t.’

At age 21, I stated:

‘People admit to crimes publicly all the time; they don’t go prosecuted, because it’s not based on logic, what criminal admission gets prosecuted and what doesn’t.

It’s based on what they tolerate and how relatable they find it, and they find people admitting to drug and drinking crimes relatable, admitting to theft, assault.

All of those categories, I see admissions to crimes of on a regular basis. It’s constant, on YouTube videos, social media. People are constantly admitting to crimes, constantly, constantly saying things that make them eligible for prosecution.

Politicians do it, admit to drug use, admit to many things. There’s no rationalising it. It’s hocus-pocus.‘

My friend replied, ‘Like Kamala Harris lol, a top policewoman saying she did drugs but is prosecuting people who do drugs and admits publicly she did drugs.^[15]‘ I replied, ‘Yes, happens all the time, constantly, from all politicians and everyone.’

I continued, ‘There’s absolutely zero rationalising. It’s air. There’s no rationalising what will get you bad treatment. There’s no respect about law. Law is emotion. Law is that air. Law is that irrationality. It’s just given a name.

Law is the reflection of what unrelatable thing you admit to that will get you scorn and punishment from society. There’s zero difference between law in practice and what I’m describing here.

Law on paper is just handy notes. It’s nothing to do with how it is in reality; it’s just a handy, up-to-date note on what people currently get angry about and stigmatise. It’s not an application; it’s a reflection, and it changes constantly to keep up to date.

People don’t use the codified law to prosecute; what they actually use is their and others’ emotions. The codified law is just the helpful reminder of what those emotions currently are across the society, so that’s why it’s no different to de facto societal exclusion and punishment.

That’s why these people can get away with saying what they say, admitting to what they admit to, because that’s what law is. Law, in actuality, in practice, de facto, is to allow those things. It’s to let them slide. That’s the common mentality, so they can admit to crimes and stay free, while we’d never be able to make that bet if we committed a “crime”.’

At age 21, my friend stated:

‘Lol, taboos: they all like it, and they all hate it at the same time, like how everyone’s an individual, and everyone’s the same.

It’s a condition of 2 contradictions, things often present in diametrical pairs. That’s what I’ve noticed in this condition, and they’ve carefully created a rulebook that allows them to exist at the same time without there being a contradiction by disabling one in one scenario and enabling the other.’

I replied, ‘Yes; the social mindset is full of contradictions and hypocrisy [1, 2, 3, 4].’ My friend continued, ‘The rulebook created prevents them from seeing the contradiction.’

My friend later stated, ‘That’s what it does; it allows them to be convinced of the coherence and not spot the issue with a set of views when they’re actually all polar opposites of each other and baseless-to-have views out of line with the rest of views of the same theme.’

References

1. ^ ^{a b c} "Sexting". Wikipedia. 2020-12-12.
2. ^ Gámez-Guadix, Manuel; de Santisteban, Patricia; Resett, Santiago (2017). "Sexting among Spanish adolescents: Prevalence and personality profiles". Psicothema. 29 (1): 29–34. doi:10.7334/psicothema2016.222.
3. ^ ^{a b} Lee, Murray; Crofts, Thomas; McGovern, Alyce; Sanja, Milivojevic (2015-12-09). "Sexting among young people: Perceptions and practices". Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice. 508. (Archive version from 15 July 2020.)
4. ^ ^{a b} Englander, Elizabeth; McCoy, Meghan (2018-04-01). "Sexting—Prevalence, Age, Sex, and Outcomes". JAMA Pediatrics. jamanetwork.com. 172 (4): 317–318. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.5682. ISSN 2168-6203.
5. ^ Albury, Kath (2015-05-15). "Selfies| Selfies, Sexts and Sneaky Hats: Young People's Understandings of Gendered Practices of Self-Representation". International Journal of Communication. ijoc.org. 9 (0): 12. ISSN 1932-8036.
6. ^ Albury, Kath; Crawford, Kate (2012-06-01). "Sexting, consent and young people's ethics: Beyond Megan's Story". Continuum. Taylor and Francis+NEJM. 26 (3): 463–473. doi:10.1080/10304312.2012.665840. ISSN 1030-4312.
7. ^ "List of countries by age of consent § Table". Wikipedia. 2020-08-29.
8. ^ "Beware, a voluntary police interview is not a cosy chat with the authorities". Lewis Nedas Law. 2017-05-02. (Archive version from 15 August 2020.)
9. ^ "How to Use the Msg Command in Windows". Lifewire. (Archive version from 10 July 2020.)
10. ^ "Why is there no public domain licensing in Europe?" Open Source Stack Exchange. (Archive version from 11 June 2020.)
11. ^ "Russia Tells UN There Are No Gays in Chechnya". The Moscow Times. 2018-05-15. (Archive version from 8 August 2020.)
12. ^ "Ahmadinejad: No Gays, No Oppression of Women in Iran". ABC News. 2009-02-09. (Archive version from 4 October 2020.)
13. ^ "Gays? No such thing in our country, says Malaysian Tourism Minister". The Straits Times. 2019-03-06. (Archive version from 10 August 2020.)
14. ^ Godeau, Emmanuelle; Nic Gabhainn, Saoirse; Vignes, Céline; Ross, Jim; Boyce, Will; Todd, Joanna (2008-01). "Contraceptive use by 15-year-old students at their last sexual intercourse: results from 24 countries". Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. PubMed. 162 (1): 66–73. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2007.8. ISSN 1538-3628. PMID 18180415.
15. ^ Relman, Eliza (2019-02-11). "Kamala Harris admits she smoked marijuana in college even though she didn't support legalization until recently". Business Insider. (Archive version from 12 August 2020.)

< Back to Presentation and progression