Controversial - the place to discuss controversial topics

430 readers

5 users here now

Controversial - the community to discuss controversial topics.

Challenge others opinions and be challenged on your own.

This is not a safe space nor an echo-chamber, you come here to discuss in a civilized way, no flaming, no insults!

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, "trust me bro" is not a valid argument.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

-45

Pedophiles don't deserve rights (self.controversial)

submitted 7 months ago by Bezzelbob to c/[email protected]

48 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Not all humans inherently deserve rights just because they are human. Think of people like Hiter, Jeffrey Dahmer, and the dozens of other evil people. No one would reasonably think they deserve sympathy, because of what they chose to do.

If your evil enough to commit such a heinous act as child rape, I don't see any legitimate reason why that person should deserve any sort of sympathy.

Subconsciously everyone agrees on this to some extent. Look at prisons, (depending on the crime) they remove your right to vote, own a gun, even walk outside, and have certain jobs.

The reason I believed my take is controversial is because of how I think those pedos would lose their rights. I believe people as evil as them aren't people at all. They are simply containers of flesh with a human face, and should be seen as such. I have no issue with the idea they should be used as slaves and test subjects. Arguably this would actually benefit humanity (especially in terms of medicine) because now instead of risking the lives of innocent people like doctors or everyday Joe's, we could use them to see if the experimental drug has any side effects. Honestly, what are they going to do? Revoke consent? I wonder of the child they raped got that same privilege...

I'm sure this goes without saying but the person would have to be caught red-handed with undeniable proof to be subjected to this

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] Bezzelbob -9 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Nice pivot. Your point is about rights, but in your argument you equate that with sympathy.

When you boil it down, that's what rights are, government sympathy. The government feels sympathy to its citizens so it trys to protect them by giving them rights. Take North Korea for example, that dictator has no sympathy and in turn the people have no nights. If tomorrow the government said we don't have rights, then what are we going to do about it?

Even a person who doesn't deserve sympathy deserves, or rather has human rights

Using this logic the prison system is a violation of rights. If prisoners still deserve to have rights then why can't they vote, or own a gun? The prison system is a direct violation of a human's rights yet everyone agrees we need it to have a civil society

[–] KISSmyOSFeddit 10 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Taking away a prisoner's right to vote is wrong (not to mention dangerous for a democracy) and not everyone agrees with it.
Owning a gun isn't a human right.

And a government is an entity made up of rules and thousands of people who constantly change. It can't feel sympathy towards individuals.

Anyway, you're quick to claim that "everyone agrees" or "no one would reasonably believe" the points you are for or against, but you have an incredibly US-centric view, and not even half the US citizens would agree with you.

[–] Bezzelbob -1 points 7 months ago

Taking away a prisoner's right to vote is wrong

Yet it still happens because rights are given by government, not inherented by birth

Owning a gun isn't a human right

It is in America, which further proves my point that this idea of Rights being deserved and internationally had is flawed. Your rights are given to you by your country. Not God, or the universe, or society. Rights are a human construct that can be taken away at any moment for any reason

I understand if you think this isn't fair, your entitled to your opinion, but I simply disagree on it, I believe in an eye for an eye.

And a government is an entity made up of rules and thousands of people who constantly change. It can't feel sympathy towards individuals.

You say a government is made up of people... but also say it can't feel sympathy? So then who creates the laws and decides what's illegal? If governments can't have sympathy then why is searching someone's house without a warrant illegal? You could make the argument that if you have nothing to hide why can't they search? Yet we all understand this to be wrong because we and the people who make laws (who made up government) have sympathy.

[–] Bezzelbob -2 points 7 months ago

Forgot to respond to this

but you have an incredibly US-centric view, and not even half the US citizens would agree with you.

Which is also wrong.

In 2016 Indonesia passed a law authorising chemical castration

The Czech Republic still uses surgical castration regularly

Russia, Poland, and South Korea still use chemical castration as a preventative measure.

So no. This isn't "American centric". You people are just defending child rapists.

[–] littlebluespark 3 points 6 months ago

Tell me you're a teenager without saying those words exactly.

Check.