Bill that requires child molesters be castrated.

[Neutraligon]

That is an very dangerous procedure

I wasn't serious, obviously.

And here we go with the ban circumcision law...
But yeah, what do you do? People say male circumcision is bad, how about female? Damn...

I wasn't serious, but on this note: circumcision argument is overrated.

I know, I decided to respond seriously

[Fascist Russian Empire]

As much as I support this, it would be unconstitutional by American standards.

[Velkanika]

I love how you ignore the rest of my post.

I ignored it because I've addressed literally that exact matter at least twice already in this very thread.

So I noticed, and your previous argument is based on a fallacy. We're going to keep calling you out until you make a valid argument on this.

[Neutraligon]

As much as I support this, it would be unconstitutional by American standards.

So do you have an answer on what should be done for female offenders?

[Leningrad Union]

I support it. Only through chemical castration and meds, cutting the dick off is just cruel.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

I ignored it because I've addressed literally that exact matter at least twice already in this very thread.

So I noticed, and your previous argument is based on a fallacy. We're going to keep calling you out until you make a valid argument on this.

No, it's not. It's not really my problem if your thinking is so astoundingly concrete-bound that you can't grasp the essential and relevant points of the metaphor.

[Fascist Russian Empire]

As much as I support this, it would be unconstitutional by American standards.

So do you have an answer on what should be done for female offenders?

Death penalty, perhaps? Indentured servitude for the government?

[Hathradic States]

So I noticed, and your previous argument is based on a fallacy. We're going to keep calling you out until you make a valid argument on this.

No, it's not. It's not really my problem if your thinking is so astoundingly concrete-bound that you can't grasp the essential and relevant points of the metaphor.

Yes, it is. You have no sources to back your claims. So far, the only argument I've seen you make is "People are inherently good".

[Neutraligon]

So do you have an answer on what should be done for female offenders?

Death penalty, perhaps? Indentured servitude for the government?

Death penalty instead of castration... Sounds fair.

[Hathradic States]

Death penalty, perhaps? Indentured servitude for the government?

Death penalty instead of castration... Sounds fair.

Outlawry?

[Fascist Russian Empire]

Death penalty, perhaps? Indentured servitude for the government?

Death penalty instead of castration... Sounds fair.

I for one think that dying is better than castration.

[Neutraligon]

Death penalty instead of castration... Sounds fair.

I for one think that dying is better than castration.

Then it isn't fair to men. Either way the punishment is unfair since two people committing the same crime would get different punishments due to their sex.

[Indira]

So I noticed, and your previous argument is based on a fallacy. We're going to keep calling you out until you make a valid argument on this.

No, it's not. It's not really my problem if your thinking is so astoundingly concrete-bound that you can't grasp the essential and relevant points of the metaphor.

Bluth, your argument is dodging the question. And he will keep calling you out on it until you actually answer it. Or you can choose to be dishonest and keep dodging the question.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

No, it's not. It's not really my problem if your thinking is so astoundingly concrete-bound that you can't grasp the essential and relevant points of the metaphor.

Bluth, your argument is dodging the question.

No, it's not. The question was "Doesn't the fact that they tried to hide it show that they knew it was wrong?" My argument is that it was not, and I gave an example of people hiding their activities where it is clear that they did not themselves believe they were doing anything wrong but rather were aware that others thought so.

[Hathradic States]

Bluth, your argument is dodging the question.

No, it's not. The question was "Doesn't the fact that they tried to hide it show that they knew it was wrong?" My argument is that it was not, and I gave an example of people hiding their activities where it is clear that they did not themselves believe they were doing anything wrong but rather were aware that others thought so.

Which still means they knew it was wrong even if they themselves did not believe it is.

[Katganistan]

It also disturbingly assumes all child molesters are male. You can't castrate females, can you?

That's actually a good point that I overlooked. Good looking out Kat!

Certainly unfair as well as, well, insane.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

No, it's not. The question was "Doesn't the fact that they tried to hide it show that they knew it was wrong?" My argument is that it was not, and I gave an example of people hiding their activities where it is clear that they did not themselves believe they were doing anything wrong but rather were aware that others thought so.

Which still means they knew it was wrong even if they themselves did not believe it is.

Are you even paying attention to what you're saying at this point? How can you know that something is indeed wrong, while at the same time not believe that it is wrong? That doesn't even make any sense!

It's quite possible to know that it's considered wrong by other people while still not being aware that it is in fact wrong, yes, which is kind of my whole point They're not the same thing. Knowing that other people think it's wrong, is not the same thing as knowing oneself that it is indeed wrong. Are you quite sure you grasp the inescapable logical consequences of considering the two to be equivalent?

Should conductors on the Underground Railroad have refrained from helping escaped slaves flee to Canada, because even though they didn't think it was wrong they knew other people did?

Now, you might say, the difference is that helping escaped slaves flee is in fact not wrong, unlike child molesting (which is clearly wrong). That's correct, but it's irrelevant--because you're suggesting that our standard here should not be the actual wrongness of the act, but merely having the awareness that others think it is wrong.

[Katganistan]

I support it. Only through chemical castration and meds, cutting the dick off is just cruel.

Perhaps you need to look up castration?
I'm pretty sure "only" the testicles are removed.

[Ethel mermania]

I support it. Only through chemical castration and meds, cutting the dick off is just cruel.

Perhaps you need to look up castration?
I'm pretty sure "only" the testicles are removed.

your right of course, but after reading this thread i am not going to be able to pee for a week.

[Blasveck]

Which still means they knew it was wrong even if they themselves did not believe it is.

Are you even paying attention to what you're saying at this point? How can you know that something is indeed wrong, while at the same time not believe that it is wrong? That doesn't even make any sense!

It's quite possible to know that it's considered wrong by other people while still not being aware that it is in fact wrong, yes, which is kind of my whole point They're not the same thing. Knowing that other people think it's wrong, is not the same thing as knowing oneself that it is indeed wrong. Are you quite sure you grasp the inescapable logical consequences of considering the two to be equivalent?

Should conductors on the Underground Railroad have refrained from helping escaped slaves flee to Canada, because even though they didn't think it was wrong they knew other people did?

Now, you might say, the difference is that helping escaped slaves flee is in fact not wrong, unlike child molesting (which is clearly wrong). That's correct, but it's irrelevant--because you're suggesting that our standard here should not be the actual wrongness of the act, but merely having the awareness that others think it is wrong.

And if a child molester is aware what they are doing is wrong?

[Velkanika]

Which still means they knew it was wrong even if they themselves did not believe it is.

Are you even paying attention to what you're saying at this point? How can you know that something is indeed wrong, while at the same time not believe that it is wrong? That doesn't even make any sense!

It's quite possible to know that it's considered wrong by other people while still not being aware that it is in fact wrong, yes, which is kind of my whole point They're not the same thing. Knowing that other people think it's wrong, is not the same thing as knowing oneself that it is indeed wrong. Are you quite sure you grasp the inescapable logical consequences of considering the two to be equivalent?

Should conductors on the Underground Railroad have refrained from helping escaped slaves flee to Canada, because even though they didn't think it was wrong they knew other people did?

Now, you might say, the difference is that helping escaped slaves flee is in fact not wrong, unlike child molesting (which is clearly wrong). That's correct, but it's irrelevant--because you're suggesting that our standard here should not be the actual wrongness of the act, but merely having the awareness that others think it is wrong.

Again with the metaphors that equate raping kids with helping slaves escape and the French Resistance. You might want to take a step back here before the fluoridation in your drinking water corrupts the last of your bodily fluids and you loose all perspective on life.

As for the argument that someone isn't doing wrong if they don't believe it:

Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. Just because someone doesn't believe what they're doing is evil does not make it less so or excuse their actions. Adolf Hitler himself was actually quite a kind, passionate person who happened to have reprehensible morals that caused him to kill approximately 3 million people for no good reason on top of all the combat casualties of WWII. He didn't think what he was doing was evil in the slightest, so are you saying that he actually was a good person?

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Again with the metaphors that equate raping kids with helping slaves escape and the French Resistance.

If you weren't bogged down with concrete-bound thinking, you'd be able to grasp the relevant elements and understand what I'm talking about. I'm not equating them at all. I'm using them to demonstrate the complete absurdity of a broader concept that's been brought into play.

As for the argument that someone isn't doing wrong if they don't believe it:

That's not my argument, though, so try again.

My argument isn't "it's ok that they're doing it if they don't know it's wrong"; it's that they can't be held blameworthy if they don't know that it's wrong. It doesn't excuse the action, but it does excuse the person--and we need to teach the person that what he or she was doing was in fact wrong.

[Blasveck]

Again with the metaphors that equate raping kids with helping slaves escape and the French Resistance.

If you weren't bogged down with concrete-bound thinking, you'd be able to grasp the relevant elements and understand what I'm talking about. I'm not equating them at all. I'm using them to demonstrate the complete absurdity of a broader concept that's been brought into play.

As for the argument that someone isn't doing wrong if they don't believe it:

That's not my argument, though, so try again.

My argument isn't "it's ok that they're doing it if they don't know it's wrong"; it's that they can't be held blameworthy if they don't know that it's wrong. It doesn't excuse the action, but it does excuse the person--and we need to teach the person that what he or she was doing was in fact wrong.

And if they do know that it's wrong?

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

If you weren't bogged down with concrete-bound thinking, you'd be able to grasp the relevant elements and understand what I'm talking about. I'm not equating them at all. I'm using them to demonstrate the complete absurdity of a broader concept that's been brought into play.


That's not my argument, though, so try again.

My argument isn't "it's ok that they're doing it if they don't know it's wrong"; it's that they can't be held blameworthy if they don't know that it's wrong. It doesn't excuse the action, but it does excuse the person--and we need to teach the person that what he or she was doing was in fact wrong.

And if they do know that it's wrong?

Then they wouldn't do it in the first place, since all people are fundamentally good. So we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

[Velkanika]

Again with the metaphors that equate raping kids with helping slaves escape and the French Resistance.

If you weren't bogged down with concrete-bound thinking, you'd be able to grasp the relevant elements and understand what I'm talking about. I'm not equating them at all. I'm using them to demonstrate the complete absurdity of a broader concept that's been brought into play.

As for the argument that someone isn't doing wrong if they don't believe it:

That's not my argument, though, so try again.

My argument isn't "it's ok that they're doing it if they don't know it's wrong"; it's that they can't be held blameworthy if they don't know that it's wrong. It doesn't excuse the action, but it does excuse the person--and we need to teach the person that what he or she was doing was in fact wrong.

So every mass-murder war criminal, despot dictator, and Jhiaddist, Crusader, or other Holy Warrior that raped, pillaged, slaughtered, and burned their way across communities of innocents is blameless because they thought that what they were doing was justified?