Bill that requires child molesters be castrated.

[God Kefka]

I think taking away people's sexual organs constitutes a serious violation of human rights. I mean, above all else it places an unreasonable limit on their right to have fun. This is unacceptable even for child molesters.

Even where they do not have the right molest children, child molesters should at the very least be afforded the fundamental human right to masturbation. Without a cock... this function simply cannot be performed. Also, how is one to engage in healthy sexual activity without a cock? He can't have quality bedroom time anymore...

Without a cock, many people wouldn't have much reason to want to live on and I just don't want to see the suicide rates go up it's the LAST thing we need.

This policy, of removing people's cocks if they commit a certain crime, is one of the biggest prick suggestions I have yet to encounter in my time here...

[Romano-Germanic Empire]

This just gets more disturbing when you consider the fact that some "child molesters" are simply 16 year old boys who had consensual sex with their 15 year old girlfriends. The girl got pregnant, her parents got mad and pressed charges. Now the kid has to go on the sex offender registry for decades and now, according to this law, be castrated. What about this is ok?

[Vault 1]

Oh, so satisfaction is all that matters?
I guess that makes theft, rape, bestiality and assault ok. They satisfy the person doing it, after all.

And then we rough them up, cut off their balls and lock them up, which satisfies us law-abiding citizens.

Thus the circle of life goes on and keeps everyone pleased.

[Lemanrussland]

This just gets more disturbing when you consider the fact that some "child molesters" are simply 16 year old boys who had consensual sex with their 15 year old girlfriends. The girl got pregnant, her parents got mad and pressed charges. Now the kid has to go on the sex offender registry for decades and now, according to this law, be castrated. What about this is ok?

We just want our bloody vengeance!

Whoever proposed this piece of legislation is just appealing to the lowest common denominator, reminds me of those debates on minimum mandatory sentencing laws (screw what the judges think, I'm tough on crime, and by extension, my political opponent is soft on crime, gibbe votes plz)

[Rocopurr]

Oh, so satisfaction is all that matters?
I guess that makes theft, rape, bestiality and assault ok. They satisfy the person doing it, after all.

And then we rough them up, cut off their balls and lock them up, which satisfies us law-abiding citizens.

Thus the circle of life goes on and keeps everyone pleased.

And for female offenders?

[Vault 1]

And for female offenders?

It's the social norm to go easier on the females.

That said, would pumping HPFRCC concrete into the cavities work as a long-term solution? IANAD.

[Freelanderness]

I think taking away people's sexual organs constitutes a serious violation of human rights. I mean, above all else it places an unreasonable limit on their right to have fun. This is unacceptable even for child molesters.

Even where they do not have the right molest children, child molesters should at the very least be afforded the fundamental human right to masturbation. Without a cock... this function simply cannot be performed. Also, how is one to engage in healthy sexual activity without a cock? He can't have quality bedroom time anymore...

Without a cock, many people wouldn't have much reason to want to live on and I just don't want to see the suicide rates go up it's the LAST thing we need.

This policy, of removing people's cocks if they commit a certain crime, is one of the biggest prick suggestions I have yet to encounter in my time here...

your gratuitous mention of cock makes me wonder whether you realise that a. women can be child molesters and b. castration in a basic sense can still be performed on women.

Also, I would think the actual desecration of someone's whole body is the most vile part of it. Harkens back to the ol' lose a finger for stealing days.

[Freelanderness]

And then we rough them up, cut off their balls and lock them up, which satisfies us law-abiding citizens.

Thus the circle of life goes on and keeps everyone pleased.

And for female offenders?

an extreme hysterectomy and removal of all sex organs. then watch as they die 10 years later because the loss of sex organs dramatically affect people's health.

[Zottistan]

Oh, so satisfaction is all that matters?
I guess that makes theft, rape, bestiality and assault ok. They satisfy the person doing it, after all.

And then we rough them up, cut off their balls and lock them up, which satisfies us law-abiding citizens.

Thus the circle of life goes on and keeps everyone pleased.

But theft, rape, bestiality and assault are fundamentally ok, by your logic.

[God Kefka]

I think taking away people's sexual organs constitutes a serious violation of human rights. I mean, above all else it places an unreasonable limit on their right to have fun. This is unacceptable even for child molesters.

Even where they do not have the right molest children, child molesters should at the very least be afforded the fundamental human right to masturbation. Without a cock... this function simply cannot be performed. Also, how is one to engage in healthy sexual activity without a cock? He can't have quality bedroom time anymore...

Without a cock, many people wouldn't have much reason to want to live on and I just don't want to see the suicide rates go up it's the LAST thing we need.

This policy, of removing people's cocks if they commit a certain crime, is one of the biggest prick suggestions I have yet to encounter in my time here...

your gratuitous mention of cock makes me wonder whether you realise that a. women can be child molesters and b. castration in a basic sense can still be performed on women.

Also, I would think the actual desecration of someone's whole body is the most vile part of it. Harkens back to the ol' lose a finger for stealing days.

Oh yeah THE GIRLS (I always forget about them)...

This sort of stuff is well... most unacceptable.

We can't start mutilating people and stuff...

[Vault 1]

But theft, rape, bestiality and assault are fundamentally ok.

I don't see why you put theft (covert transfer of property), bestiality (sexual activity with a genetically incompatible species) and assault (hostile contact without lasting physical harm) in the same sentence.

[Magna Libero]

I think taking away people's sexual organs constitutes a serious violation of human rights. I mean, above all else it places an unreasonable limit on their right to have fun. This is unacceptable even for child molesters.

Even where they do not have the right molest children, child molesters should at the very least be afforded the fundamental human right to masturbation. Without a cock... this function simply cannot be performed. Also, how is one to engage in healthy sexual activity without a cock? He can't have quality bedroom time anymore...

Without a cock, many people wouldn't have much reason to want to live on and I just don't want to see the suicide rates go up it's the LAST thing we need.

This policy, of removing people's cocks if they commit a certain crime, is one of the biggest prick suggestions I have yet to encounter in my time here...

Masturbation is a venial sin, some would say??

No. I would maybe support this if the results were good, but I just realized that I don't want to think about it. I. Just. Hate. Surgeries.

[Zottistan]

But theft, rape, bestiality and assault are fundamentally ok.

I don't see why you put theft (covert transfer of property), bestiality (sexual activity with a genetically incompatible species) and assault (hostile contact without lasting physical harm) in the same sentence.

They all bring satisfaction.

You're not doing a very good job of avoiding the point.

[God Kefka]

I think taking away people's sexual organs constitutes a serious violation of human rights. I mean, above all else it places an unreasonable limit on their right to have fun. This is unacceptable even for child molesters.

Even where they do not have the right molest children, child molesters should at the very least be afforded the fundamental human right to masturbation. Without a cock... this function simply cannot be performed. Also, how is one to engage in healthy sexual activity without a cock? He can't have quality bedroom time anymore...

Without a cock, many people wouldn't have much reason to want to live on and I just don't want to see the suicide rates go up it's the LAST thing we need.

This policy, of removing people's cocks if they commit a certain crime, is one of the biggest prick suggestions I have yet to encounter in my time here...

Masturbation is a venial sin, some would say??

No. I would maybe support this if the results were good, but I just realized that I don't want to think about it. I. Just. Hate. Surgeries.

Masturbation is such a fundamental human right (if one were to believe in natural rights theory) that I am truly SURPRISED it has not been enshrined in any kind of constitutional document anywhere...

I mean for realz?

[Kaztropol]

Seems a lot of people are of the opinions that a child molestor cannot be rehabilitated, cannot be reintegrated into society, is permanently a danger to others because they will reoffend, and so, castrations, locking up for life and/or executions are what must be done.

OK then.

So, when a substantial number of abuse victims turn into abusers themselves, then it is clear that victims of child sexual abuse must be locked up for life, castrated and/or executed. Because, obviously, there is a danger of them offending in the future, and you know, those kinds of offenders cannot be rehabilitated.

Or, are children special, and can be rehabilitated ? But not adults ? When does a person become magically, unable to be rehabilitated ?

Take the post as seriously or flippantly as you please, it's what everyone else seems to do.

[Rocopurr]

And for female offenders?

It's the social norm to go easier on the females.

That said, would pumping HPFRCC concrete into the cavities work as a long-term solution? IANAD.

Yeah, fuck that. Rape is rape, and we ahould my go easier on a criminal purely because of their gender.

I know little about that, but I'm against pumping any type of concrete into anyone as punishment.

[Galborg]

This just gets more disturbing when you consider the fact that some "child molesters" are simply 16 year old boys who had consensual sex with their 15 year old girlfriends. The girl got pregnant, her parents got mad and pressed charges. Now the kid has to go on the sex offender registry for decades and now, according to this law, be castrated. What about this is ok?

Read the OP sheeple! The proposed statute includes Romeo and Juliet clause.

If the Victim don't want, it is Regular rape.
If the Victim wants, but is underage it is Statutory rape, a lesser crime.

Either you accept that Statutory rape is a smaller crime than Regular and deserves a lesser punishment; or you assert that all crimes from murder to parking deserve the same punishment; or you assert that statutory deserve a bigger punishment than regular etc

[Vault 1]

Or, are children special, and can be rehabilitated ? But not adults ? When does a person become magically, unable to be rehabilitated ?

When they do something we profess ourselves as not being able to ever do.

E.g.: I will never, ever vote for the 'rats. So they aren't human or subject to rehabilitation for me. Therefore I'll take a truck with ANFO, park it in front of the Congress, then take a submachine gun and shoot up every member of the left wing I can, as a last-ditch attempt to stave off the passage of their vile legislation, then surrender and write a book about it.

But you, of course, don't see yourself as ever being able to do that, so now I'm no longer human and beneath rehabilitation for you.

[Nazi Flower Power]

This just gets more disturbing when you consider the fact that some "child molesters" are simply 16 year old boys who had consensual sex with their 15 year old girlfriends. The girl got pregnant, her parents got mad and pressed charges. Now the kid has to go on the sex offender registry for decades and now, according to this law, be castrated. What about this is ok?

The law would not apply to offenders under 21.

[Salandriagado]

It isn't circular. It just happens to be working from a slightly different axiom set to the one you prefer. That isn't even slightly the same thing.

How is it a slightly different axiom?

Bluth is claiming that people are fundamentally good, and he's said in the past that because people are fundamentally good, that if try do something wrong, it's because they don't know any better.

Am I missing something?

If I really am, feel free to correct me

That is a slightly different axiom, not circular logic. If he said "people are fundamentally good because they only do wrong because they don't know any better because they are fundamentally good", that would be circular logic (A -> B ->A). That isn't even slightly what he said. What he said was (A. A -> B. B). That's a perfectly valid logical inference, and if you really want, I can prove that it's valid in a sound proof system.

[Natapoc]

What a wonderful piece of legislation. A true reflection of the ingenuity of the people of Alabama and their fine Education system.

I can't wait till they start using non consensual genital mutilation as a punishment for other types of crimes too. Perhaps even performing the "procedure" in town squares and on live TV for added punishment value!

They already are.

A tubal ligation is more like a vasectomy. It's simply aimed at doing the minimum necessary damage required to prevent reproduction. It's not even remotely the same as castration (well except for the fact that it's non consensual mutilation of a persons genitals).

This type of practice is reminiscent of the various eugenics programs that were popular and celebrated a hundred years ago.

A better comparison with female anatomy in the recent history would be the frequent hysterectomy's performed on native American's up until at least the late 1970s as a continuation of the policies of eugenics that have been compared to genocide.

For instance: http://cbhd.org/content/forced-steriliz ... -national-

The poor, those with disabilities, and members of minority groups and religions are frequent targets of sterilization programs that often include procedures that could be considered forced or coerced "castration" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization ). Although women are the most frequent target for such programs, men are sometimes targeted as well.

Back to the bill at hand however, I'm pretty sure those advocating this are thinking primarily of male castration. The facts of the racist american justice system mean that if this were to become law it would primarily affect the poor and members of minority groups that have a history of being targeted by the systems of racism and hate in this country.

Regardless of if this passes or not it can be considered as yet another instance in a long tradition of genocide or eugenics under the cover of being tough on crime.

[LiamHerndon]

That's definitely a form of cruel and unusual punishment.

[Vault 1]

This type of practice is reminiscent of the various eugenics programs that were popular and celebrated a hundred years ago.

And should be reinstated in an improved, more scientific way, as modern science has gotten far better at this.

[Natapoc]

This type of practice is reminiscent of the various eugenics programs that were popular and celebrated a hundred years ago.

And should be reinstated in an improved, more scientific way, as modern science has gotten far better at this.

Are you seriously advocating eugenics?

[Blasveck]

How is it a slightly different axiom?

Bluth is claiming that people are fundamentally good, and he's said in the past that because people are fundamentally good, that if try do something wrong, it's because they don't know any better.

Am I missing something?

If I really am, feel free to correct me

That is a slightly different axiom, not circular logic. If he said "people are fundamentally good because they only do wrong because they don't know any better because they are fundamentally good", that would be circular logic (A -> B ->A). That isn't even slightly what he said. What he said was (A. A -> B. B). That's a perfectly valid logical inference, and if you really want, I can prove that it's valid in a sound proof system.

If I'm not mistaken, that's the argument Bluth is, or rather, has made, concerning te whole "People are fundamentally good" argumet.