Read this, lost 2 IQ points.
this post was submitted on 29 May 2024
-45 points (7.5% liked)
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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Only 2?
I think a number of books on civics fell out of my head and burst into flame.
Creating a class of people who don’t have rights, no matter what they’ve done to “deserve” it, just creates a class that unsavory people can use as a dumping ground for their enemies. Antifa is all pedophiles now. Pro-vaccine people? Also all pedophiles. Democrats? Believe it or not, pedophiles.
Even if you somehow had a work force to deal with this population that was made up entirely of angels (which, good luck), it is impossible to prevent innocent people from being subjected to it. There is no such thing as a legal system that has never falsely convicted someone, either from faulty evidence or malfeasance.
Queer people in particular have also been victims of false accusations of pedophilia, both historically and recently. You can’t just ignore that there is a rabidly bigoted segment of the US that would not rest until all queer people got classified as pedophiles.
Tl;dr: unsurprisingly your revenge fantasy has bad real world implications
Not all humans inherently deserve rights just because they are human.
And you're immediately wrong.
The exact thing that distinguishes rights is that they're universally held.
If they can be granted or withheld, then they're not rights - they're privileges.
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.
Nice pivot. Your point is about rights, but in your argument you equate that with sympathy.
Even a person who doesn't deserve sympathy deserves, or rather has human rights – even when they're violated.
Rights and sympathy are two very different things.
Seeing people you have no sympathy with as somehow not having human rights is exactly how we get to genocide.
It's your last sentence that perfectly points out the flaw in your logic. There will always be variations on your "perfect pedo" that you've created in your head that would warrant some consideration regarding punishments and rights.
Being a person that was molested as a child, I find you just choosing one type of predator absurd and dismissive of every other victim that doesn't fall into your "special victim" classification. I don't think the person that offended against me was any worse or better than someone that did it to an adult or committed elder abuse, etc.
Ideally it should always be extremely difficult and expensive, and certainly not of economic benefit, to take basic rights away from people, otherwise that line you've staked out will move relentlessly to include more and more "inhuman" people. As we know, because we don't live in an ideal world.
But the other problem is what do you think your idea does to the scientists and slave owners and everyone else with knowledge of it? A disgusting idea doesn't get less disgusting just by applying it to only a few. This is just degrading to everyone involved, and erodes compassion on all sides.
It's certainly controversial. And pathological, maybe even psychopathological thinking. But it also seems to be a lot of American's and literal Nazi ideals.
How do you feel this applies to non-acting pedophiles?
I think it's easier to make this kind of opinion about child abusers or rapists, but there are pedophiles who are aware of their problem and seek assistance in dealing with it in a way that avoids harming any children, e.g. therapeutic solutions. Does your judgement apply to them in the same way?
If no one is being harmed and they are seeking help then no this wouldnt apply
How could families & or Carers even know if someone was a "N.A.P" when and or if the potential threat is right there chatting to their 8 y.o in the front yard or park with a parked car nearby? Should they carry a neon sign atop their do, "Non convicted Pedo, means no harm!" Silly thing to say unless....
Nobody:
Dude who spends a ton of time world building pedophiles:
People who make nonsensical claims like this, with utter ignorance of the meanings of the words they're using, don't deserve any rights whatsoever.
Like the sound of that?
What words did I misuse exactly?
You react violently like the people you despise (pedos or not). I do believe it’s a psychopathic behavior that your should be cured, and meanwhile, your rights should be revoked as long as you have those bursts of anger.
Do you still agree with what you wrote?
If difference is my "violence" wouldn't exist if pedophiles kept themselves under control
I'm not going out and actively harming innocent people for no reason. They've done something that deserves to be punished
No. There's where you're wrong.
Pedophile is a state of existence, much like gay. It's a sexual attraction NOT an action. A pedophile doesn't choose to be sexually attracted to children, any more than a gay person chooses to be gay. (The obvious difference is that gay people that are adults can consent; there can be no moral, ethical, or legal relationship with a child.)
What you're looking for a child molester. Not all pedophiles are child molesters. Not all people that molest children at pedophiles; many are likely not, but are simply opportunistic sexual predators attacking the most vulnerable population.
Beyond that, 100+ years of psychology research has demonstrated that punishment is a very poor deterrent to behaviour. If you want to change the way people act, then you need to reform behaviour, rather than punishing it. But it's clear that you don't care about actually solving the problem, you just want revenge.
What you're looking for a child molester.
Ill give you that one, I was specifically mentioning child molesters and rapist. Albeit most people use the 2 interchangeably
but are simply opportunistic sexual predators attacking the most vulnerable population.
This furthers my reason for having no sympathy for them. They are such animals that they only think about themselves, and will happily look the other direction when someone gets hurt directly because of them. So why should I care when they get hurt because of their own selfish actions?
I want to quote you for a second "Pedophile is a state of existence, much like gay. It's a sexual attraction NOT an action. A pedophile doesn't choose to be sexually attracted to children, any more than a gay person chooses to be gay" so you said yourself these people can not be changed. They are born like this and will always be like this. You said it yourself, there literally is no change for them. Sure therapy can help them BEFORE they act. But after the damage is done it's clear that help won't stop them.
you just want revenge
How is this a problem exactly? Do you not think people (especially child rapists) should be punished for their crimes? Because that's a type of revenge. The fact is while punishment my not be the best at reform, you've already made it clear these people are born this way, and there is no reform for them. If the people who are attracted to children get help BEFORE they act and harm an innocent person then that's a different story, they understand they have a problem and are working to fix it. But someone who rapes a child doesn't have this same mindset and understanding. They are selfish psychopaths with no care except themselves and would likely do it again since nothing morally stopped them the first time.
Do you not think people (especially child rapists) should be punished for their crimes?
No, I don't. Punishment doesn't change behaviour. I think that when people offend against other people, they should be required to do what they can to make things right, and they should change how they act in the future. In many cases--not just talking about child sexual assualt--'making things right' means monetary damages, but it could also be, for instance, community service. Changing behaviour for the future requires things like therapy, and requires buy-in from the offender. That is, the person that's committed the offense has to want to change. Punishing people doesn't do any of that; in fact, it's more likely to harden people so that they're more resistant to change than they would be otherwise.
you’ve already made it clear these people are born this way, and there is no reform for them.
No, that isn't what I said at all. You can't make a gay person straight, that's absolutely true. On the other hand, you can moderate behaviour. Intensive therapy is pretty good at that, as long as a person is willing to change
How is this a problem exactly?
Because it's counter-productive. It actively makes reform more difficult, and is more costly. And what happens when the conviction is wrong? What happens when the victim has a faulty memory, and the tech in the lab has been falsifying evidence?
They are selfish psychopaths with no care except themselves and would likely do it again since nothing morally stopped them the first time.
Okay, so what's your cutoff point? We know, with near absolute certainty, that increased speeds in cars are directly linked to both probability and severity of accidents. So isn't it entirely reasonable to say that a person that's speeding has demonstrated that they're a selfish psychopath with no regard for anyone other than their own desires and conveniences, and that, since they weren't morally stopped by laws in the past, that they deserve no civil rights moving forwards? After all, they're acting with reckless indifference to the well-being of others, and the fact that they haven't harmed someone else yet, doesn't mean that they haven't demonstrated a willingness to do so in order to get to their destination just a little faster.
Rights are innate, a property of being born, not something granted, or conferred, by government or anyone else. Anything granted by someone else is a privilege, not a right.
Whether one's rights are constrained via due process is a different question: criminal's rights are curtailed when they're jailed after being convicted by a jury of their peers (a right established in US criminal law, to be tried by one's peers, not just some magistrate, or some land owner).
Methinks you should revisit civics 101.
Rights are innate, a property of being born, not something granted, or conferred, by government or anyone else. Anything granted by someone else is a privilege, not a right
This would make everything a privilege. The only reason rights exist is because governments allow it, so if tomorrow they said we don't have rights, then what are we going to do about it?
Even the American Bill of Rights has been edited, added to, and have had things removed over time
The fact is rights are a human construct that only exist because of us. The universe or God doesn't give us rights, government leaders do.
Whether one's rights are constrained via due process is a different question
The concept of constrained or curtailed rights is a contradiction. If rights are inherent by birth and can not be taken away, then that also means you can not reduce, shorten, or edit them in any way. As that would be a violation of rights that seemingly can not be taken away
Rights aren't, and shouldn't be, all or nothing. Criminals, for instance, forfeit certain rights depending on the crime and the jurisdiction. Often they forfeit the right to freedom and end up in prison. In some places, for some crimes, they might even forfeit the right to life and get executed.
But the important things is we have a system for determining what those things are. If, as with your example, we said pedophiles have zero rights, that would mean that anyone would be free to kill them, to steal from them, to torture them, or whatever. That doesn't seem like a good move for society, especially given the potential for abuse.
If, as with your example, we said pedophiles have zero rights, that would mean that anyone would be free to kill them, to steal from them, to torture them, or whatever.
That's literal outlawry: being put outside the protection of the law. Anyone being free to kill an outlaw is a feature of outlawry, not a bug.
Victims of abuse become perpetrators of abuse.
Do what you want with that take, but remember most of these people weren't born broken, like Dahmer. They were broken by people.
Catholic church and Boy Scouts, so sorry, now named SA, still exist. Still abuse people. Still break people.
Victims of abuse become perpetrators of abuse.
This doesn't justify anything, just because someone did it to you, doesnt mean you can do it to someone else. If anything this supports my point, because now there would be less child rapists which means less people would turn into predators
Hey, I'm not defending them. At all. I'm not sure I'm not on team bullet to the back of the head.
I'm just saying maybe focus on the problem as a whole instead of going straight to the pitchfork.
Cut off the head of a hydra in a mindless frenzy and it spawns 2 more. Gotta have the presence of mind to cauterize the neck.
They can't help thinking that way if they were subject to it, part of the mind, maybe. Look how you're thinking. It's horrifically broken. So hi, choose to think differently or maybe do you deserve being used as a slave or a nice visit with Dr. Mengele?
I don't think that, I do think this attitude is extremely problematic and would encourage you to seek behavioral therapy, stat.
They can't help thinking that way if they were subject to it, part of the mind
Already responded to this in like 10 other comments
So hi, choose to think differently or maybe do you deserve being used as a slave or a nice visit with Dr. Mengele
Also Already responded to this in 10 other comments, nothing new. You people look at things so 1 dimensionally, both harm so both evil. No, one harms innocent child, the other harms monsters that actively planned their attacks. Using this logic no one should pay for any crime and everyone should do as they please with no repercussion
We're trying to tell you that's psychopathology. Please seek help immediately. Not for you, because you'll likely never see anything wrong with it. ASPD and psychopathology aren't generally responsive to therapy. The best we, the rest of society, can hope for is that you get help before you act on those thoughts, if you haven't, already.
If I'm wrong then prove it. Because as of now the only legitimate argument I've heard in these comments is how the people in power would use this to frame non offenders
As of now I've seen nothing but sympathy and defense for child rapists with no explanation as to why they deserve it.
The best we, the rest of society, can hope for is that you get help before you act on those thoughts, if you haven't, already.
Bro i don't know if you realize this but your inadvertently saying you think the world would be better if pedophiles where apart of society. You realize how fucked that sounds right? Your acting as though ridding the world of child rapists is a bad thing and to that I have to ask, how exactly? How is making spaces safer for children a bad idea?
No one can convince you of anything, because you're psycho, and no one is saying that. We are saying that thinking doesn't separate you at all from those you seek to torture, and why would anyone try to convince a psychopath of that when they are convinced they're so. much. more. clever, than anyone else? Go read a few advanced abpsych textbook's entries for psychopathology and sociopathy for better arguments, but you probably would argue with those, too.
No one can convince you of anything, because you're psycho
Literally a text book definition of a kafka trap.
You have nothing bro. You've lost and now your scrapping the bottom of the barrel trying to not look like a complete buffoon.
Listen to this, your a pedophile who likes to rape children. How exactly? Well I can't explain it to you because all child rapists are convinced they aren't... Now your a child rapist.
You people get so upset whenever your own logic gets used against you, that you have to resort to the lowest forms of "defense"