Bill that requires child molesters be castrated.

[Blasveck]

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.

"People are fundamentally good, so they won't molest anybody, and if they do, it's because they don't know any better, because people are fundamentally good."

Circular Logic.

Try again.

And you still haven't proved the statement "People are fundamentally Good.", even if it may be obvious to you, but nobody else.

[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.

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?

Correct. They didn't know any better. They need love and compassion to help them learn, not scorn and hatred that only intensifies their alienation and makes them more likely to keep on doing it.

There are no bad people. There are only good people, who may do horrifically bad things because they didn't know any better. The blame lies with the system (usually, in the modern era, capitalism), not the person.

[Velkanika]

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.

Really? Why don't you take a look at the thrill murder of that Aussie jogger in the US from a few months back? They knew it was wrong, but those teenagers still gunned him down for the hell of it in their own words. How about a bank robber who shoots at the police during their getaway? They knew it was wrong, but did it anyways because they didn't want to get caught.

[Velkanika]

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?

Correct. They didn't know any better. They need love and compassion to help them learn, not scorn and hatred that only intensifies their alienation and makes them more likely to keep on doing it.

There are no bad people. There are only good people, who may do horrifically bad things because they didn't know any better. The blame lies with the system (usually, in the modern era, capitalism), not the person.

You are out of your fucking mind. Don't associate yourself with me or the Democratic Party in the future and stay the hell out of any thread I post in.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Correct. They didn't know any better. They need love and compassion to help them learn, not scorn and hatred that only intensifies their alienation and makes them more likely to keep on doing it.

There are no bad people. There are only good people, who may do horrifically bad things because they didn't know any better. The blame lies with the system (usually, in the modern era, capitalism), not the person.

You are out of your fucking mind. Don't associate yourself with me or the Democratic Party in the future and stay the hell out of any thread I post in.

I'm "out of [my] fucking mind" because I'm actually willing to engage in critical analysis of the origins of social and global problems rather than just make outdated, simplistic assumptions that may give me a false feeling of superiority to others but do nothing to actually create positive outcomes?

[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!

[Blasveck]

You are out of your fucking mind. Don't associate yourself with me or the Democratic Party in the future and stay the hell out of any thread I post in.

I'm "out of [my] fucking mind" because I'm actually willing to engage in critical analysis of the origins of social and global problems rather than just make outdated, simplistic assumptions that may give me a false feeling of superiority to others but do nothing to actually create positive outcomes?

You are out of your fucking mind when you resort to circular logic to support your arguments.

[Natapoc]

How about no.

It makes you a dick for doing shit like that.

The justice system isn't meant for revenge.

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

Sure you can (depending on how you define castration). It just was not as popular as male castration back in the day due to lack of modern surgery making it likely a fatal operation for females.
It could include one or more of the following:
(Oophorectomy , radical vaginectomy, or cliterectomy)

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

I'm "out of [my] fucking mind" because I'm actually willing to engage in critical analysis of the origins of social and global problems rather than just make outdated, simplistic assumptions that may give me a false feeling of superiority to others but do nothing to actually create positive outcomes?

You are out of your fucking mind when you resort to circular logic to support your arguments.

Yes, I saw that.

It only appears as circular logic if you maliciously misrepresent it.

[Blasveck]

You are out of your fucking mind when you resort to circular logic to support your arguments.

Yes, I saw that.

It only appears as circular logic if you maliciously misrepresent it.

"Maliciously misrepresent"

Explain to me which part I misrepresented (Even though I nearly quoted your exact arguments verbatim) and ill be happy to correct them.

[Abatael]

I would say that the Supreme Court would find this to be a cruel and unusual punishment and, thus, unconstitutional.
I think they should simply condemn such offenders to death.

[Imperializt Russia]

I would say that the Supreme Court would find this to be a cruel and unusual punishment and, thus, unconstitutional.
I think they should simply condemn such offenders to death.

The death penalty is conclusively proven to not be a deterrent to capital offences.

[Salandriagado]

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.

"People are fundamentally good, so they won't molest anybody, and if they do, it's because they don't know any better, because people are fundamentally good."

Circular Logic.

Try again.

And you still haven't proved the statement "People are fundamentally Good.", even if it may be obvious to you, but nobody else.

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.

[Blasveck]

"People are fundamentally good, so they won't molest anybody, and if they do, it's because they don't know any better, because people are fundamentally good."

Circular Logic.

Try again.

And you still haven't proved the statement "People are fundamentally Good.", even if it may be obvious to you, but nobody else.

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

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

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.

Exactly.

In other words, I'm saying "If A, then B. A; therefore, B." It's a simple syllogism. If you want to question whether or not A actually implies B, or the truth of A, then fine, that can be argued. But it's not circular in the least.

[The Grey Wolf]

I would say that the Supreme Court would find this to be a cruel and unusual punishment and, thus, unconstitutional.
I think they should simply condemn such offenders to death.

^ This.

[The Grey Wolf]

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?

Correct. They didn't know any better. They need love and compassion to help them learn, not scorn and hatred that only intensifies their alienation and makes them more likely to keep on doing it.

There are no bad people. There are only good people, who may do horrifically bad things because they didn't know any better. The blame lies with the system (usually, in the modern era, capitalism), not the person.

That is literally one of the most bullshit arguments I have ever seen on nation states.

[Galborg]

Correct. They didn't know any better. They need love and compassion to help them learn, not scorn and hatred that only intensifies their alienation and makes them more likely to keep on doing it.

There are no bad people. There are only good people, who may do horrifically bad things because they didn't know any better. The blame lies with the system (usually, in the modern era, capitalism), not the person.

That is literally one of the most bullshit arguments I have ever seen on nation states.

Indeed. If Bluth had said "People are fundamentally good therefore when they do evil, it is a deviation from their true nature." that would have been a valid proposition and we could have debated the yea or nay of it.

What Bluth said was "People are so good that any example of people being evil don' t count because I say that people are good."

What Bluth meant was "People are fundamentally stupid because they don't bow down and worship me."

[New Acardia]

The molester brought it on them selves by rapeing children.
And I have to ask are the views you put on NS your real views or you are you spoofing ?

How about this little loophole. Here if a 16 year old boy has sex with a 15 yr old girl he is a child molester. Should you be castrated for that?

One. they.are. both under 18.
Two. If the 15 girl was willing then no

[Minarchist States]

Idk. The collateral damage (losing both your economic and social integrity) for life is already a harsh punishment. On the other hand, id probably pick castration before being eternally monitored.

[Neo-Mlytoria]

On the "people are fundamentally good" thing:

"I firmly believe I am doing the work of God." ~ Adolf Hitler (roughly translated from German, natch).

Everyone thinks they're doing right. Everyone. However, this doesn't mean it's exactly practical to fix these delusions. Often it's the best option to just throw 'em in jail and work them like an industrial battery until they die of exhaustion. At least that way they're somewhere they can't reasonably do any more harm and they're paying off their debt to society.

[Freelanderness]

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.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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.

My God.

Just when you see some fucked up shit, and you think that is the worst that can happen, you see something else that makes you lose whatever hope you were regaining in humanity. (General you's all around).

[Freelanderness]

They already are.

My God.

Just when you see some fucked up shit, and you think that is the worst that can happen, you see something else that makes you lose whatever hope you were regaining in humanity. (General you's all around).

Yep. I think I must be a little crazy, considering the amount of horrible stories I hear on a daily basis, and still being able to not lose hope.

But yeah, the crime here is that they had children, I guess.

[Distruzio]

At what point was the post you quoted unclear as to my meaning? I asked how this law does not reaffirm the public trust as an implied corollary to why it is offensive.

You said it can "help" both potential victims and victimizers.

If it has no preventative quality, and doesn't change the severity of the crimes, how exactly does it "help" victims? How does forced castration "help" victimizers?

Perhaps the argument could be made that the mental anguish for the victim may be, somewhat, diminished knowing that, upon conviction, a castration of their assailant was assured and the offense is less likely to be repeated (either upon them or another victim) due to the change in hormonal balance resulting from the castration?

Perhaps the argument could be made that the mental anguish for the victimizer may be, somewhat, diminished knowing that, upon conviction, a castration would likely alter their hormonal balance to such a degree that the compulsion/desire to victimize they (hopefully) struggle against is diminished to a greater or lesser degree?

Granted, I'm not suggesting that castration be a cure all. Neither am I suggesting that it necessarily be physical or without consent. Nor am I suggesting that castration upon consent not come without psychotherapy. I'm only suggesting that, perhaps, this shouldn't be so offensive a topic given the severity of the crimes committed.