Unearthed audio of Tucker Carlson defending paedophilia etc.

[BlueSwan]

Was prepared to come in here and throw Tucker under the bus, because the bastard deserves to be.

Was disappointed.

Basically, I don't see what the big deal is. He never defended paedophilia or anything of that nature and made a technically correct point. That's it. I really can't see what I am supposed to be offended at here and this is coming from someone who despises Tucker Carlson.

[BlueSwan]

Was prepared to come in here and throw Tucker under the bus, because the bastard deserves to be.

Was disappoited.

Basically, I don't see what the big deal is. He never defended paedophilia or anything of that nature and made a technically correct point. That's it. I really can't see what I am supposed to be offended at here and this is coming from someone who despises Tucker Carlson.

CARLSON: Look, just to make it absolutely clear. I am not defending underage marriage at all. I just don't think it's the same thing exactly as pulling a child from a bus stop and sexually assaulting that child.

CO-HOST: Yeah, it's -- you know what it is? It's much more planned out and plotted.

THE LOVE SPONGE: Yeah, it should be almost -- you almost should put a premeditation --

CARLSON: Wait, wait! Hold on a second. The rapist, in this case, has made a lifelong commitment to live and take care of the person, so it is a little different. I mean, let's me honest about it.

This is indefensible. He's saying "statutory rape is ok if you marry your victim". Sure, he says he's not defending underage marriage, but then he goes on and repeatedly does so over the course of the transcript.  That doesn't somehow absolve him, it just means that he's lying about what he's doing!

No he isn't. He is saying that there is a difference between underage marriage and raping a strange underage person and he is right. He is also explicitly stating that he does not condone underage marriage. I'm sick of nuances leaving political discourse. Saying that X is worse than Y does not equal defending Y. Both things can be wrong without them being equally wrong.

[BlueSwan]

Could we also not call people who are sexually attracted to 16 year olds pedophiles, please?

A pedophile in medical/psychiatric terms is someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent kids, not to 16 year olds who in any biological sense are adults, if not in a mental sense.

[BlueSwan]

Could we also not call people who are sexually attracted to 16 year olds pedophiles, please?

A pedophile in medical/psychiatric terms is someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent kids, not to 16 year olds who in any biological sense are adults, if not in a mental sense.

16 year olds are most definitely not adults mentally. They do not have good decision-making skills as a matter of biology.

Also, I always get creeped out by comments like this. It feels like defense of pedophilia without outright saying it.

It is the exact opposite. Calling a 20-year old who is attracted to a 16-year old a "pedophile" completely trivializes pedophilia and the victims of it.

Also, as I stated earlier in the thread, it really annoys me how nuances have totally left the political discourse. Pedophilia is a medical term for someone who is attracted to pre-pubescent children, period. Someone who is attracted to a young adult (in the biological sense) is not a pedophile. This statement in itself holds no moral judgment of either, it is simply a matter of definition.