Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 168 of 168
Like Tree64Likes

Thread: Should violent criminals be castrated?

  1. #101  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    I don't think castration would be very effective. I think forced castration would yield some very bitter criminals - forget aggression, what about the effects of resentment? I just don't see the point. If these are violent criminals that repeatedly offend, then stop releasing them.
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by stander-j View Post
    I don't think castration would be very effective. I think forced castration would yield some very bitter criminals - forget aggression, what about the effects of resentment? I just don't see the point. If these are violent criminals that repeatedly offend, then stop releasing them.
    It's a testosterone thing. Less hormone less aggression. Simple as that, without the aggression any resentment probably won't amount to very much. At least that's the theory, I don't have any first hand knowledge. But I'm sure you can look it up easy enough.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    I understand the concept of castration reducing aggression in males. but how would you go about reducing aggression in females. Females can be as violent and dangerous as any man and often against men. What part of the woman will you cut off to change that? Laws have a funny way of needing to be one size fits all or you run into a problem of discrimination. Equality is equality. "Equal but different", regardless of how logically fitting it can be in some cases, usually doesn't fair very well when it comes to the constitutionality of laws.
    Females can have their ovaries removed in a less painful way than men can have their balls lopped off. Just a thought.
    That would likely make us more aggressive. I am less willing to take risks with my life because I have children. And having ovaries makes me more emotionally stable. Ever meet a woman who had to have her ovaries or uterus removed that didn't have emotional imbalance without medication afterward. We tend to go a little psycho when we have our womanly parts removed if we don't have estrogen replacement therapy afterward.

    The only sure fire way to make a criminal less aggressive is to permanently stop all of their bodily functions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    I understand the concept of castration reducing aggression in males. but how would you go about reducing aggression in females. Females can be as violent and dangerous as any man and often against men. What part of the woman will you cut off to change that? Laws have a funny way of needing to be one size fits all or you run into a problem of discrimination. Equality is equality. "Equal but different", regardless of how logically fitting it can be in some cases, usually doesn't fair very well when it comes to the constitutionality of laws.
    Females can have their ovaries removed in a less painful way than men can have their balls lopped off. Just a thought.
    That would likely make us more aggressive. I am less willing to take risks with my life because I have children. And having ovaries makes me more emotionally stable. Ever meet a woman who had to have her ovaries or uterus removed that didn't have emotional imbalance without medication afterward. We tend to go a little psycho when we have our womanly parts removed if we don't have estrogen replacement therapy afterward.

    The only sure fire way to make a criminal less aggressive is to permanently stop all of their bodily functions.
    When it comes to women you are probably right. Even the ones with all their parts that seem sane most of the time, can go off the deep end on short notice. But it does seem to work on males and I was looking to cover the equality problem you brought to our attention.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by stander-j View Post
    I don't think castration would be very effective. I think forced castration would yield some very bitter criminals - forget aggression, what about the effects of resentment? I just don't see the point. If these are violent criminals that repeatedly offend, then stop releasing them.
    It's a testosterone thing. Less hormone less aggression. Simple as that, without the aggression any resentment probably won't amount to very much. At least that's the theory, I don't have any first hand knowledge. But I'm sure you can look it up easy enough.
    I might be looking at this wrong, but the way I'm seeing it, less Testosterone simply means less testosterone-influenced aggression. There is a pretty big relationship with resentment and anger, and it doesn't take a lot of resentment for what is perceived to get the ball rolling. I'd imagine that it doesn't really matter how aggressive of a person you are, if you're angry enough, you're going to become aggressive - and I think that's what the castration idea doesn't consider.

    Now that I think about it, maybe getting a violent criminal to participate in some sort of hormone therapy could work - but straight up castration? That could lead to a lot of unforeseen consequences.
    Neverfly likes this.
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by stander-j View Post
    I might be looking at this wrong, but the way I'm seeing it, less Testosterone simply means less testosterone-influenced aggression. There is a pretty big relationship with resentment and anger, and it doesn't take a lot of resentment for what is perceived to get the ball rolling. I'd imagine that it doesn't really matter how aggressive of a person you are, if you're angry enough, you're going to become aggressive - and I think that's what the castration idea doesn't consider.

    Now that I think about it, maybe getting a violent criminal to participate in some sort of hormone therapy could work - but straight up castration? That could lead to a lot of unforeseen consequences.
    Perhaps your right, if I got castrated against my will. I wouldn't be very happy with the perpetrators and I could see planning revenge on all of them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Yes, the levels of testosterone fluctuate wildly, from region to region, from socio-economic context and culture to another. People in Austria, Japan, and Norway should have their balls examined, somethings wrong here, their testosterone levels are way too low , while people in Columbia wow with all the murders there they probably have mango sized testicles, chest hair coming out of their turtle necks and need 4 or 5 vasectomies . When illegal drug trafficking comes to town, testosterone levels suddenly soar to new heights, between criminal mobsters whose testosterone level make them use illegal murder to eliminate rival criminal mobster competitors instead of using peaceful legal means like asking a judge who should be in charge of peddling Cocaine, Crystal Meth and Heroin, like they usually do when their testosterone levels are lower.
    Last edited by icewendigo; May 21st, 2013 at 11:28 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    Yes, the levels of testosterone fluctuate wildly, from region to region, from socio-economic context and culture to another. People in Austria, Japan, and Norway should have their balls examined, somethings wrong here, their testosterone levels are way too low , while people in Columbia wow with all the murders there they probably have mango sized testicles, chest hair coming out of their turtle necks and need 4 or 5 vasectomies . When illegal drug trafficking comes to town, testosterone levels suddenly soar to new heights, between criminal mobsters whose testosterone level make them use illegal murder to eliminate rival criminal mobster competitors instead of using peaceful legal means like asking a judge who should be in charge of peddling Cocaine, Crystal Meth and Heroin, like they usually do when their testosterone levels are lower.
    Truthfully I have no idea if clipping the balls off would pacify a criminal, but I do know they wouldn't breed anymore and that would be a big plus.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    but I do know they wouldn't breed anymore and that would be a big plus.
    This drops the ball, because by over emphasizing individualistic causes you sweep the systemic/environment problems under the carpet and do not address it to prevent the problem, thats in part why theres so much crime in the US. If you take the newborn child of a poor criminal and give it to a normal family in Norway, odds are that it will be very likely the child will not be a criminal.

    AS an example, close to where I live there was an intersection with very frequent accidents. The city could have said its the driver's fault, they need to strap themselves up by their shoelaces(bootstraps or whatever he expression is supposed to be
    ) and take personal responsibility. From one perspective, this limited/weak/primitive/first degree reactionary analysis is true, but it utterly fails to look at the big picture and fails to address systemic causes. Had they done this, you would still have people that failed to take their responsablity etc and people rammed by others that werent paying attention enough. But Instead, they left the reactionary impulse in the stone age trash can were it belongs and reconfigured the intersection, since then, for some magical reason, everyone takes their responsability for their own individualistic unicellular uncoordinated self serving action all the time, theres no more accidents as if everyone had changed by a holly miracle. If some regions have far far fewer violent crimes, the social environment has a major role, which means that if you keep acting on primitive reptilian-reflex reactionary solutions that dont change the environment you will not solve the problem (otherwise the US would be the most criminal free place on earth). The whole in the ground is not water, its unseen because its the shape, but if you think water puddle is a problem focusing on the water itself will make you miss the cause completely, the water (crime) is a symptom and not the root cause problem itself.

    So not only do I think castrating people is a BAD idea, but its worse than a bad idea because it misleads people into focusing on the wrong cause and give a bogus sense of having done something (like the coyote deploying the umbrella as the 60 tons of rocks are falling
    , if he had no umbrella he'd probably step aside, but having an umbrella and thinking it helps actually is worse than not having the umbrella in this case).

    My opinion anyway,

    sorry for the anti-reactionary rant, Its about the ideas not the people, Ill try to substitute these for less rant-y more moderate zen adjectives when/if I get a chance


    (I can already imagine the "if its not the criminal's own fault whose is it?" flak, yes, just like all he accents were each guilty drivers fault, and changing the intersection magically made the drivers no longer guilty and magically turn into competent drivers overnight)

    Eventually a really exceptionally less competent or inattentive driver may have an accident, thats the rare exception and in this case its at a relatively marginal level compared to the systemic flawed intersection levels. When socio-economic environment is such that there no longer is any systemic causes, the level of crime should be marginal and relatively/virtually non existent.
    Last edited by icewendigo; May 22nd, 2013 at 01:27 PM.
    seagypsy likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    This drops the ball,
    Dropping the balls in this thread is a very bad idea.
    seagypsy likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Dropping the balls in this thread is a very bad idea.


    LOL

    I have to get back to my CBT

    (computer based training)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    Dropping the balls in this thread is a very bad idea.


    LOL

    I have to get back to my CBT

    (computer based training)
    I don't really think it's a great idea either, but I was trying to see some possible good reasons to castrate violent criminals. It's obvious criminals are not going to make good parents and when they are parents, those kids are starting life at a big disadvantage. It's a proven fact that disadvantaged kids are more likely to grow up and become criminals themselves. Not very many of them will get a new home in Norway or anywhere for that matter.

    Personally I think our government is a big part of the problem. The war on drugs sounds good, but all it does is make the drug business more profitable for the criminals and now every city in the US has a serious gang problem and we put more people in prison than any other nation on Earth. When you do something and it doesn't work, why keep doing it hoping for a different result?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    but I do know they wouldn't breed anymore and that would be a big plus.
    This drops the ball, because by over emphasizing individualistic causes you sweep the systemic/environment problems under the carpet and do not address it to prevent the problem, thats in part why theres so much crime in the US. If you take the newborn child of a poor criminal and give it to a normal family in Norway, odds are that it will be very likely the child will not be a criminal.


    How do you propose to do that? You think the poor criminal will willingly surrender their offspring to that family in Norway?

    Sterilization prevents both the child inheriting the parents' genes AND the child growing up in the environment the parent will likely provide. It's possible that the second result is a greater benefit than the first.

    If you want children not to grow up in poverty, then don't let them be born into poverty. Problem solved.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Forum Junior sampson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    246
    Why bother, hang em high at the public square.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    but I do know they wouldn't breed anymore and that would be a big plus.
    This drops the ball, because by over emphasizing individualistic causes you sweep the systemic/environment problems under the carpet and do not address it to prevent the problem, thats in part why theres so much crime in the US. If you take the newborn child of a poor criminal and give it to a normal family in Norway, odds are that it will be very likely the child will not be a criminal.



    How do you propose to do that? You think the poor criminal will willingly surrender their offspring to that family in Norway?

    Sterilization prevents both the child inheriting the parents' genes AND the child growing up in the environment the parent will likely provide. It's possible that the second result is a greater benefit than the first.

    If you want children not to grow up in poverty, then don't let them be born into poverty. Problem solved.

    A good number of people become criminals AFTER becoming parents. The male criminals, often make numerous babies with numerous women, failing to ever claim or support them long before ever being convicted of a crime.

    And many men who never get convicted of any violent crime are men who engage in serial hit and run fatherhood. Hit and run fatherhood contributes to the environmental factors that create criminals.

    Maybe hit and run fathers need to be castrated more so than violent criminals. And copy machine welfare moms as well.
    Bad Robot likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    Why bother, hang em high at the public square.
    And televised for the late night news. But hanging is to quick for some criminals. I'd be in favor bringing back the Roman arena and charging good money for those that wanted to watch what happens violent criminals.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post

    And many men who never get convicted of any violent crime are men who engage in serial hit and run fatherhood. Hit and run fatherhood contributes to the environmental factors that create criminals.

    Maybe hit and run fathers need to be castrated more so than violent criminals. And copy machine welfare moms as well.
    Agreed. People should have to make a cash deposit with the government at conception. Maybe $10,000.

    The deposit is then collected when the kid reaches the age of 18 - by the kid. That would filter out all the deadbeats. However there would have to be a way to reliably prevent pregnancies.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post

    And many men who never get convicted of any violent crime are men who engage in serial hit and run fatherhood. Hit and run fatherhood contributes to the environmental factors that create criminals.

    Maybe hit and run fathers need to be castrated more so than violent criminals. And copy machine welfare moms as well.
    Agreed. People should have to make a cash deposit with the government at conception. Maybe $10,000.

    The deposit is then collected when the kid reaches the age of 18 - by the kid. That would filter out all the deadbeats. However there would have to be a way to reliably prevent pregnancies.
    Yes a reversible vaccination against pregnancies would be very nice indeed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post

    And many men who never get convicted of any violent crime are men who engage in serial hit and run fatherhood. Hit and run fatherhood contributes to the environmental factors that create criminals.

    Maybe hit and run fathers need to be castrated more so than violent criminals. And copy machine welfare moms as well.
    Agreed. People should have to make a cash deposit with the government at conception. Maybe $10,000.

    The deposit is then collected when the kid reaches the age of 18 - by the kid. That would filter out all the deadbeats. However there would have to be a way to reliably prevent pregnancies.
    Yes a reversible vaccination against pregnancies would be very nice indeed.
    Smart chastity belts that have gov access codes. You can only unlock them when you are actively employed at living at 300% poverty level and educated with a minimum of a 2 year degree and an IQ of 115 or higher. (joking of course)
    Ascended likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post

    And many men who never get convicted of any violent crime are men who engage in serial hit and run fatherhood. Hit and run fatherhood contributes to the environmental factors that create criminals.

    Maybe hit and run fathers need to be castrated more so than violent criminals. And copy machine welfare moms as well.
    Agreed. People should have to make a cash deposit with the government at conception. Maybe $10,000.

    The deposit is then collected when the kid reaches the age of 18 - by the kid. That would filter out all the deadbeats. However there would have to be a way to reliably prevent pregnancies.
    Yes a reversible vaccination against pregnancies would be very nice indeed.
    Smart chastity belts that have gov access codes. You can only unlock them when you are actively employed at living at 300% poverty level and educated with a minimum of a 2 year degree and an IQ of 115 or higher. (joking of course)
    Lol, that is funny makes think of all these people queing up in shady back alleys waiting to try and get their belts hacked, or some big comapany like microsoft giving you a special code that open them for a short while, for a fee of course.
    But really though the idea of criminality and parenting don't seem to directly affect each other. People have children whether they are criminals or not and I can't see that changing any time soon. What does make a big difference though is poverty, poorer areas tend to have higher crime rates and create more criminals, so generally children brought up in poverty will have a higher chance of becoming criminals, so really the only way to reduce this effect is to either ensure that when people become parents they given proper financial support to mean that they don't live in poverty or to stop pooper people from having children.

    One way you end up taking a basic human right away from people whilst the other way protects everybodies right to have children and takes people out of poverty, it also says something about people themselves as to which of these two approaches they might actually favour, I mean there will be certain types of people that would really actually rather see poor people deprived of their right to have children, as they believe this will reduce the number of criminals, than see them given financial support and help to raise their children and then their will be other types of people that believe that everybody should be equal and have the same rights regardless of their financial status but should be supported financially and educationally to ensure their children are brought up in the right way and enviroment to prevent a life of criminality.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post

    Smart chastity belts that have gov access codes. You can only unlock them when you are actively employed at living at 300% poverty level and educated with a minimum of a 2 year degree and an IQ of 115 or higher. (joking of course)
    Lol, that is funny makes think of all these people queing up in shady back alleys waiting to try and get their belts hacked, or some big comapany like microsoft giving you a special code that open them for a short while, for a fee of course.
    [/quote]

    If it leads to a pregnancy, then it's an easily provable offense. I'm thinking something more along the lines of an overy/testicle impediment that blocks the tubes so people can have sex but at no risk of pregnancy.

    If you hack those, and a kid results, then you'd go straight to jail because it's obvious to everyone that it wasn't an accidental pregnancy.

    But really though the idea of criminality and parenting don't seem to directly affect each other. People have children whether they are criminals or not and I can't see that changing any time soon. What does make a big difference though is poverty, poorer areas tend to have higher crime rates and create more criminals, so generally children brought up in poverty will have a higher chance of becoming criminals, so really the only way to reduce this effect is to either ensure that when people become parents they given proper financial support to mean that they don't live in poverty or to stop pooper people from having children.
    Oh I see. So we should automatically elevate everyone who gets pregnant up to wealthy status?

    If you outlaw poor people getting pregnant in the first place, you create an incentive for people to want to work hard. They have to earn that baby, so odds are better they'll take good care of it if they do. If they're not hard working enough to get there, then they probably wouldn't be willing to put the work in to be good parents either.




    One way you end up taking a basic human right away from people
    Or maybe it shouldn't be a right.

    You have to work for the right to food. Why shouldn't you have to work for the right to reproduction?


    whilst the other way protects everybodies right to have children and takes people out of poverty,
    Really? It takes them out of poverty? Or did you mean that it mandates for them to be taken out of poverty? There's a big difference.

    With a mandate, you're making some richer and some poorer. The parents get wealthier, but other people who (very likely) earned it, must become poorer for that to happen.


    it also says something about people themselves as to which of these two approaches they might actually favour, I mean there will be certain types of people that would really actually rather see poor people deprived of their right to have children, as they believe this will reduce the number of criminals, than see them given financial support and help to raise their children and then their will be other types of people that believe that everybody should be equal and have the same rights regardless of their financial status but should be supported financially and educationally to ensure their children are brought up in the right way and enviroment to prevent a life of criminality.
    "see them given financial support"? Don't you mean, be forced to give them money?

    The financial support isn't going to come from a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. Raising kids is expensive. Very expensive. So you're expecting society to come up with unimaginably big gobs of money to help raise somebody else's kids.
    Bad Robot likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy

    Smart chastity belts that have gov access codes. You can only unlock them when you are actively employed at living at 300% poverty level and educated with a minimum of a 2 year degree and an IQ of 115 or higher. (joking of course)
    Lol, that is funny makes think of all these people queing up in shady back alleys waiting to try and get their belts hacked, or some big comapany like microsoft giving you a special code that open them for a short while, for a fee of course.
    If it leads to a pregnancy, then it's an easily provable offense. I'm thinking something more along the lines of an overy/testicle impediment that blocks the tubes so people can have sex but at no risk of pregnancy.

    If you hack those, and a kid results, then you'd go straight to jail because it's obvious to everyone that it wasn't an accidental pregnancy.

    But really though the idea of criminality and parenting don't seem to directly affect each other. People have children whether they are criminals or not and I can't see that changing any time soon. What does make a big difference though is poverty, poorer areas tend to have higher crime rates and create more criminals, so generally children brought up in poverty will have a higher chance of becoming criminals, so really the only way to reduce this effect is to either ensure that when people become parents they given proper financial support to mean that they don't live in poverty or to stop pooper people from having children.
    Oh I see. So we should automatically elevate everyone who gets pregnant up to wealthy status?

    If you outlaw poor people getting pregnant in the first place, you create an incentive for people to want to work hard. They have to earn that baby, so odds are better they'll take good care of it if they do. If they're not hard working enough to get there, then they probably wouldn't be willing to put the work in to be good parents either.




    One way you end up taking a basic human right away from people
    Or maybe it shouldn't be a right.

    You have to work for the right to food. Why shouldn't you have to work for the right to reproduction?


    whilst the other way protects everybodies right to have children and takes people out of poverty,
    Really? It takes them out of poverty? Or did you mean that it mandates for them to be taken out of poverty? There's a big difference.

    With a mandate, you're making some richer and some poorer. The parents get wealthier, but other people who (very likely) earned it, must become poorer for that to happen.


    it also says something about people themselves as to which of these two approaches they might actually favour, I mean there will be certain types of people that would really actually rather see poor people deprived of their right to have children, as they believe this will reduce the number of criminals, than see them given financial support and help to raise their children and then their will be other types of people that believe that everybody should be equal and have the same rights regardless of their financial status but should be supported financially and educationally to ensure their children are brought up in the right way and enviroment to prevent a life of criminality.
    "see them given financial support"? Don't you mean, be forced to give them money?

    The financial support isn't going to come from a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. Raising kids is expensive. Very expensive. So you're expecting society to come up with unimaginably big gobs of money to help raise somebody else's kids.
    As cruel and inhuman as kojax seems to be coming off, I can't help but agree with his logic. I have been poor all my life. I am medically disabled but still managed, mostly due to an abusive first husband that wouldnt take no for an answer and would prevent me from getting birth control or working outside the home, to have 4 kids. Who ultimately he walked out on and left me to care for on my own. I was just 18 when we got together and had not finished highschool or had any college at the time. Now my oldest is 18 and I am STILL struggling to finish my degree so that hopefully I will be able to help him go to college when he finishes highschool. I am on disability and have been for most of my adult life but have hated every minute of it and long for the days I can bitch about how much I have to pay in taxes. My kids would have had a better life and an so would I had I not had them so young and unprepared for life myself. And if I had had them with someone who wasn't a completel lunatic who also couldn't hold a job and constantly demanded that I fudge the welfare system so he wouldn't have to do as much. I didn't get child support from him until 8 years after he left us and only because the state started garnishing what little pay he made. He works under the table so he can get free rent and free utilities and food stamps while still bringing in what he brags to be about $1000 cash selling roses in bars. He is a person who does not deserve to live in my opinion.

    I don't think parenting or even living should be a right beyond the age of 20. You should have all the rights of a child up until that point, but after that, everything should be treated as what it really is, A PRIVILEGE that can be revoked. Humanity is suffering, our species is getting fatter and dumber by the day. More and more people being brought up with entitlement attitude where if we don't start making super robots there is no way any manufacturing will ever get done in our country because no one is willing to do any work that causes us to sweat.

    My mom worked 3 jobs to avoid welfare when my dad walked out on us. Luckily she had a strong healthy body and was able to do that. I wasn't so lucky. But too many people are content with just getting by and they have no sense of responsibility to society. Citizenship is simply no longer a concept taught in American society.
    Bad Robot likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    I understand the concept of castration reducing aggression in males. but how would you go about reducing aggression in females. Females can be as violent and dangerous as any man and often against men. What part of the woman will you cut off to change that? Laws have a funny way of needing to be one size fits all or you run into a problem of discrimination. Equality is equality. "Equal but different", regardless of how logically fitting it can be in some cases, usually doesn't fair very well when it comes to the constitutionality of laws.
    We'll just cut their balls off as well.
    Last edited by shlunka; May 26th, 2013 at 11:12 AM. Reason: To maximize swagger
    Bad Robot likes this.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    "see them given financial support"? Don't you mean, be forced to give them money?

    The financial support isn't going to come from a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. Raising kids is expensive. Very expensive. So you're expecting society to come up with unimaginably big gobs of money to help raise somebody else's kids.
    As cruel and inhuman as kojax seems to be coming off, I can't help but agree with his logic. I have been poor all my life. I am medically disabled but still managed, mostly due to an abusive first husband that wouldnt take no for an answer and would prevent me from getting birth control or working outside the home, to have 4 kids. Who ultimately he walked out on and left me to care for on my own. I was just 18 when we got together and had not finished highschool or had any college at the time. Now my oldest is 18 and I am STILL struggling to finish my degree so that hopefully I will be able to help him go to college when he finishes highschool. I am on disability and have been for most of my adult life but have hated every minute of it and long for the days I can bitch about how much I have to pay in taxes. My kids would have had a better life and an so would I had I not had them so young and unprepared for life myself. And if I had had them with someone who wasn't a completel lunatic who also couldn't hold a job and constantly demanded that I fudge the welfare system so he wouldn't have to do as much. I didn't get child support from him until 8 years after he left us and only because the state started garnishing what little pay he made. He works under the table so he can get free rent and free utilities and food stamps while still bringing in what he brags to be about $1000 cash selling roses in bars. He is a person who does not deserve to live in my opinion.

    I don't think parenting or even living should be a right beyond the age of 20. You should have all the rights of a child up until that point, but after that, everything should be treated as what it really is, A PRIVILEGE that can be revoked. Humanity is suffering, our species is getting fatter and dumber by the day. More and more people being brought up with entitlement attitude where if we don't start making super robots there is no way any manufacturing will ever get done in our country because no one is willing to do any work that causes us to sweat.

    My mom worked 3 jobs to avoid welfare when my dad walked out on us. Luckily she had a strong healthy body and was able to do that. I wasn't so lucky. But too many people are content with just getting by and they have no sense of responsibility to society. Citizenship is simply no longer a concept taught in American society.

    Seagypsy first let me say your first husband sounds like a right twat, it's sad that in this day and age idiots can still behave like that and get away with it. Nobody should be treated in the manner that you were and any man who could treat a woman in this manner or walk out on his kids without being willing to support them is most certainly not a real man and would, could and should more aptly be described as something unpleasant on the sidewalk everyone wishes to avoid stepping in.

    I guess I don't really agree about the idea of rights and privileges though. I think we all as human being have basic rights, rights that match the things we really need in life. But this being said I also feel we all have responsibilities that go hand in hand with our rights. We have responsibilities to each other, to treat others with fairness, kindness, compassion and respect. We also have responsibilities to be law abiding, to be good citizens and to create or achieve something with our lives, dependant only on our abilities.

    What I do feel though is that people need a chance and opportunities and if they are given these and use them properly can and do make something of themselves. However this being said there to many times where the deck is stacked against people and they just don't end up with same opportunities as the rest of us. Just as we all have a responsibility to the society in which we live equally that society has a responsibility to each of us to ensure everyone does get their fair chance in life, so when that society fails people lets them down, when people don't have the right education, when they can't get a job, when they can't find somewhere to live then this is when I believe that the society should help people and if this means also financial support then so be it, and really even more so in the case of parents who are struggling to bring up children.

    We, or should I say most people, live in a world that says to people if you do something wrong, break the rules, laws etc..., then you will be punished and people are with fines and imprisonment etc...., but it isn't right to say to people who are in poverty through no fault of their own that they should be punished or that they are some how unworthy to have children, this would simply be wrong. Are people with money better people?, would they automatically make better parents? I would say no. Also when someone has children they are bringing into the world the next generation, people who will pay taxes throughout their working lives to pay for our pensions, running the government and all the other miriad of expenses that make a society run, So if these people do actually need some financial help is it really so much of a burden to give them some support when they need it?, well I guess I don't think so.

    Also there is another question of basic fairness, there are many many people with far more money than they actually need and certainly more than they've ever had to work for and yet we have all these other people in poverty who can't afford the reall basics, is this really fair? Can we, should really turn round to these people and say "well you'll just have to go without" or "no you're to poor to have children tough". I think perhaps if those with so much money they don't really need would have to pay a bit more of this money in tax then perhaps those who really need it could get it when they are obviously so much more in need, and I'm not talking French style top tax rates of 75% here, 35% - 40% seems much fairer, and certainly when you hear about billionaires paying less than 7%!

    So yes I believe people should work for a living, they should earn their own money, but when they can't when the system lets them down then that system should support and help people, I don't want to see people living in poverty in this day and age and if this means I have to pay a bit more tax to prevent it then that is something I'm certainly willing to do, I think it's something everyone else should also do.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    "see them given financial support"? Don't you mean, be forced to give them money?

    The financial support isn't going to come from a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. Raising kids is expensive. Very expensive. So you're expecting society to come up with unimaginably big gobs of money to help raise somebody else's kids.
    As cruel and inhuman as kojax seems to be coming off, I can't help but agree with his logic. I have been poor all my life. I am medically disabled but still managed, mostly due to an abusive first husband that wouldnt take no for an answer and would prevent me from getting birth control or working outside the home, to have 4 kids. Who ultimately he walked out on and left me to care for on my own. I was just 18 when we got together and had not finished highschool or had any college at the time. Now my oldest is 18 and I am STILL struggling to finish my degree so that hopefully I will be able to help him go to college when he finishes highschool. I am on disability and have been for most of my adult life but have hated every minute of it and long for the days I can bitch about how much I have to pay in taxes. My kids would have had a better life and an so would I had I not had them so young and unprepared for life myself. And if I had had them with someone who wasn't a completel lunatic who also couldn't hold a job and constantly demanded that I fudge the welfare system so he wouldn't have to do as much. I didn't get child support from him until 8 years after he left us and only because the state started garnishing what little pay he made. He works under the table so he can get free rent and free utilities and food stamps while still bringing in what he brags to be about $1000 cash selling roses in bars. He is a person who does not deserve to live in my opinion.

    I don't think parenting or even living should be a right beyond the age of 20. You should have all the rights of a child up until that point, but after that, everything should be treated as what it really is, A PRIVILEGE that can be revoked. Humanity is suffering, our species is getting fatter and dumber by the day. More and more people being brought up with entitlement attitude where if we don't start making super robots there is no way any manufacturing will ever get done in our country because no one is willing to do any work that causes us to sweat.

    My mom worked 3 jobs to avoid welfare when my dad walked out on us. Luckily she had a strong healthy body and was able to do that. I wasn't so lucky. But too many people are content with just getting by and they have no sense of responsibility to society. Citizenship is simply no longer a concept taught in American society.

    Seagypsy first let me say your first husband sounds like a right twat, it's sad that in this day and age idiots can still behave like that and get away with it. Nobody should be treated in the manner that you were and any man who could treat a woman in this manner or walk out on his kids without being willing to support them is most certainly not a real man and would, could and should more aptly be described as something unpleasant on the sidewalk everyone wishes to avoid stepping in.

    I guess I don't really agree about the idea of rights and privileges though. I think we all as human being have basic rights, rights that match the things we really need in life. But this being said I also feel we all have responsibilities that go hand in hand with our rights. We have responsibilities to each other, to treat others with fairness, kindness, compassion and respect. We also have responsibilities to be law abiding, to be good citizens and to create or achieve something with our lives, dependant only on our abilities.

    What I do feel though is that people need a chance and opportunities and if they are given these and use them properly can and do make something of themselves. However this being said there to many times where the deck is stacked against people and they just don't end up with same opportunities as the rest of us. Just as we all have a responsibility to the society in which we live equally that society has a responsibility to each of us to ensure everyone does get their fair chance in life, so when that society fails people lets them down, when people don't have the right education, when they can't get a job, when they can't find somewhere to live then this is when I believe that the society should help people and if this means also financial support then so be it, and really even more so in the case of parents who are struggling to bring up children.

    We, or should I say most people, live in a world that says to people if you do something wrong, break the rules, laws etc..., then you will be punished and people are with fines and imprisonment etc...., but it isn't right to say to people who are in poverty through no fault of their own that they should be punished or that they are some how unworthy to have children, this would simply be wrong. Are people with money better people?, would they automatically make better parents? I would say no. Also when someone has children they are bringing into the world the next generation, people who will pay taxes throughout their working lives to pay for our pensions, running the government and all the other miriad of expenses that make a society run, So if these people do actually need some financial help is it really so much of a burden to give them some support when they need it?, well I guess I don't think so.

    Also there is another question of basic fairness, there are many many people with far more money than they actually need and certainly more than they've ever had to work for and yet we have all these other people in poverty who can't afford the reall basics, is this really fair? Can we, should really turn round to these people and say "well you'll just have to go without" or "no you're to poor to have children tough". I think perhaps if those with so much money they don't really need would have to pay a bit more of this money in tax then perhaps those who really need it could get it when they are obviously so much more in need, and I'm not talking French style top tax rates of 75% here, 35% - 40% seems much fairer, and certainly when you hear about billionaires paying less than 7%!

    So yes I believe people should work for a living, they should earn their own money, but when they can't when the system lets them down then that system should support and help people, I don't want to see people living in poverty in this day and age and if this means I have to pay a bit more tax to prevent it then that is something I'm certainly willing to do, I think it's something everyone else should also do.
    I agree that everyone should have equal opportunities. In America we do. Education is free and mandetory through the age of 16. I think it should be mandetory that one gets at least a 2 year degree in something. Even college is free in the US. I'm not talking about Universties or Ivy League schools, but community colleges that are state run have low tuition and there are government grants for people who want to go to college but can't afford to pay for it. They are called Pell grants. Most states also offer state education grants. Now Pell grants are only about $5000/yr and state grants usually no more than $600/year, but it is enough to cover tuition and books at most community colleges with money to spare and you get the full amount. I usually had about $1200 left of grant money after paying for tuition and books for a semester. That money was always set aside to cover transportation to and from school. Then I started getting student loans as well when the cost of living went up and I was no longer getting rental assistance. The student loans I will end up paying on for the rest of my life but I will be repaying them.

    The point is, in America, there is very little excuse for failure. There are already so many social services out there to help those who are willing to improve themselves. No one is being neglected. People simply refuse to take the best help for them. They want the hand outs, the free food, free cash, free rent and free utilities, but refuse to go to job training or get their ged or go to college. They make excuses for why they can't work or why society owes them their very existence. Meanwhile running around making babies who they end up training to think exactly like them. My first husband tells the kids they will never be anything because they are black and the white man won't let them succeed. Luckily they have been raised by me all this time and he only showed up wanting to be dad a couple years ago. His parental rights were revoked 3 years after he walked out. He has no say so in their up bringing and because of his idiotic attempts to sabotage the lives of our kids I have cut him off from contact again.

    The right of parenthood can be taken away and there are already establish legal grounds for doing so in many states here.

    I simply think that becoming a parent should be something that is indoctrinated into people as being and earned honor, not a right. Humans like to call themselves superior to animals all the time and call animals dumb, yet even animals have enough sense to not breed during a drought and to not breed with a mate who is in inferior in ability to survive.

    And so animals don't tend to live beyond the means of the environment they live in and the animals in the wild don't tend to be come fat lazy gluttons waiting for some other members of their species to come and care for them. If they don't work they starve.
    Bad Robot likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post

    I guess I don't really agree about the idea of rights and privileges though. I think we all as human being have basic rights, rights that match the things we really need in life. But this being said I also feel we all have responsibilities that go hand in hand with our rights. We have responsibilities to each other, to treat others with fairness, kindness, compassion and respect. We also have responsibilities to be law abiding, to be good citizens and to create or achieve something with our lives, dependant only on our abilities.

    What I do feel though is that people need a chance and opportunities and if they are given these and use them properly can and do make something of themselves. However this being said there to many times where the deck is stacked against people and they just don't end up with same opportunities as the rest of us. Just as we all have a responsibility to the society in which we live equally that society has a responsibility to each of us to ensure everyone does get their fair chance in life, so when that society fails people lets them down, when people don't have the right education, when they can't get a job, when they can't find somewhere to live then this is when I believe that the society should help people and if this means also financial support then so be it, and really even more so in the case of parents who are struggling to bring up children.
    The USA already comes pretty close to this ideal.

    Look at the number of Mexican illegal immigrants who come across the border every year with nothing but the shirt on their backs and a strong work ethic. Many of them manage to become homeowners with decent lives. They don't even have legal green cards and they can do that. Imagine what those same people might have accomplished if they did have green cards.

    Until illegal immigrants stop being able to achieve the American dream, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that poverty of American citizens is ever "not their fault".


    We, or should I say most people, live in a world that says to people if you do something wrong, break the rules, laws etc..., then you will be punished and people are with fines and imprisonment etc...., but it isn't right to say to people who are in poverty through no fault of their own that they should be punished or that they are some how unworthy to have children, this would simply be wrong. Are people with money better people?, would they automatically make better parents? I would say no. Also when someone has children they are bringing into the world the next generation, people who will pay taxes throughout their working lives to pay for our pensions, running the government and all the other miriad of expenses that make a society run, So if these people do actually need some financial help is it really so much of a burden to give them some support when they need it?, well I guess I don't think so.
    Why don't we get them wealthy first, and *then* let them be parents?

    Wealth is a prerequisite. Children need to live without want. It's a basic need. They need a chance to learn, grow, and develop without the fear over where their next plate of food will come from.

    I don't know if it is "possible" to be a good parent without it, but it is improbable. I think, for the sake of decency, that we owe it to the children to bet with the odds. Any decent parent would be willing to make that sacrifice if they were the ones who the odds were against.


    Also there is another question of basic fairness, there are many many people with far more money than they actually need and certainly more than they've ever had to work for and yet we have all these other people in poverty who can't afford the reall basics, is this really fair? Can we, should really turn round to these people and say "well you'll just have to go without" or "no you're to poor to have children tough". I think perhaps if those with so much money they don't really need would have to pay a bit more of this money in tax then perhaps those who really need it could get it when they are obviously so much more in need, and I'm not talking French style top tax rates of 75% here, 35% - 40% seems much fairer, and certainly when you hear about billionaires paying less than 7%!

    So yes I believe people should work for a living, they should earn their own money, but when they can't when the system lets them down then that system should support and help people, I don't want to see people living in poverty in this day and age and if this means I have to pay a bit more tax to prevent it then that is something I'm certainly willing to do, I think it's something everyone else should also do.
    "A bit more" tax? Yeah right. Most of the poor people in America are drug addicts, gambling addicts, or just plain bad with money. That's the only reason they're poor. If you have alimony, debt, and got fired from your last three jobs for insubordination, then you'll always be having a hard time making your rent payment.

    There is no such thing as any amount of money that will keep a gambling addict well fed. If you give him $2,000 per month, he'll gamble 1,400 away and maybe just barely make rent. If you gave him $10,000 a month, he'd gamble 9,400 away and just barely make rent.
    seagypsy and Bad Robot like this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Well you're all wrong, so humbug!
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    How do you propose to do that? You think the poor criminal will willingly surrender their offspring to that family in Norway?
    No, this is not what I propose, you are missing the point, which is that if people born in another society have less chances of being criminals than in the country with the highest prison population in the world, then maybe its worth reexamining/challenging/changing the social environment in the US so that it eventually becomes an environment where much less crimes occur (prevention instead of reactionary repression).


    I cant relate to most of the dehumanizing-the-poor right wing discourse but here's a few fun points I can draw humor from, to lighten up the prince-of-sorrow trend

    "Education is free"

    Hence the 1 Trillion $ Student Debt catastrophe and indebted servitude to come.
    (There no technical reason why education could not be 100% "really" "free" "for real" with all educational material available at all times online. The barrier is the antiquated socioeconomic system which people are gradually starting to understand it is crude, wasteful and outdated.)

    "And so animals don't tend to live beyond the means of the environment they live in"
    Imo It is incorrect to attribute various limitations in animal population to animals having the "sense" to do anything.
    Unless the animal says "hey Im deciding to ovulate 3 eggs instead of 5 this spring, yeah that's it, 3 should be just about right".


    "Most of the poor people in America are drug addicts, gambling addicts, or just plain bad with money. That's the only reason they're poor. "
    Wow thats incredible, all this time I thought socioeconomic conditions were a factor, it turns out the levels of drug addictions and gambling explain it all. They should replace news of re-localisation of a plant to china with "in todays news the drug addiction just soared overnight!", meanwhile the ipad Factory is installing anti-suicide nets because the workers there cant gamble or smoke crack, and In other news, repossession of homes is at an all time high, that is why theres such a shortage of poker chips and crack pipes! Everyone just gave the word and all started to smoke crack and gamble away their homes! At the same time!
    I traveled to many 3rd world countries, rich in resources but where people worked long and hard for pennies, I should have known why they live in shanty huts and were so poor, its all because of their gambling! Yes Now it all makes sense!



    Since reason appears to have left the ~lets-castrate-them!~ room a while ago, I might as well participate and start bashing moderation like a pinata too...
    ~I have an idea! I say we should castrate and sterilize all US citizens, and once the US is depopulated, all thats left are vegetation and the ruins of a civilization, start Norwegian colonies with a better social equilibrium and less crime. You will get actual free education, less poverty and less crime! Voila! Problem solved!~
    Sin tid for å starte opplæring!
    (of course this is satire)
    Last edited by icewendigo; May 27th, 2013 at 12:20 PM.
    Ascended likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    How do you propose to do that? You think the poor criminal will willingly surrender their offspring to that family in Norway?
    No, this is not what I propose, you are missing the point, which is that if people born in another society have less chances of being criminals than in the country with the highest prison population in the world, then maybe it worth reexamining/challenging/changing the social environment in the US so that it eventually becomes and environment where much less crimes occur (prevention instead of reactionary repression).


    And if we can't achieve that? Shall we just keep on letting kids get born into an environment where they don't have a chance?

    By being unfair to one generation of people we put our self in a position where we can achieve fairness for all generations thereafter.

    You don't think the trade is worth it?

    It's not meant as cruelty. It's cruel, but it's not intended as punishment. It protects children. Children have to matter more than adults if we are to value the future. Adults need to be willing to make sacrifices for their welfare. (Those who don't feel that way should absolutely never be allowed to become parents.)


    "And so animals don't tend to live beyond the means of the environment they live in"
    Imo It is incorrect to attribute various limitations in animal population to animals having the "sense" to do anything.
    Unless the animal says "hey Im deciding to ovulate 3 eggs instead of 5 this spring, yeah that's it, 3 should be just about right".
    Animals' instincts have evolved over millions of years to fit their environment. Individually, an animal's cognitive abilities may not be impressive, but the evolution process that defines their instincts is extremely effective at determining the right course of action by trial and error.

    With evolution, it doesn't matter whether a choice is being made by hormones, physiology, instinct, or cognitive decision. All are available tools.


    "Most of the poor people in America are drug addicts, gambling addicts, or just plain bad with money. That's the only reason they're poor. "
    Wow thats incredible, all this time I thought socioeconomic conditions were a factor, it turns out the levels of drug addictions and gambling explain it all. They should replace news of re-localisation of a plant to china with "in todays news the drug addiction just soared overnight!", meanwhile the ipad Factory is installing anti-suicide nets because the workers there cant gamble or smoke crack, and In other news, repossession of homes is at an all time high, that is why theres such a shortage of poker chips and crack pipes! Everyone just gave the word and all started to smoke crack and gamble away their homes! At the same time!
    I traveled to many 3rd world countries, rich in resources but where people worked long and hard for pennies, I should have known why they live in shanty huts and were so poor, its all because of their gambling! Yes Now it all makes sense!


    I wasn't talking about the poor in the third world. That's why I qualified my statement with the words "in America".
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post

    "Education is free"
    Hence the 1 Trillion $ Student Debt catastrophe and indebted servitude to come.
    (There no technical reason why education could not be 100% "really" "free" "for real" with all educational material available at all times online. The barrier is the antiquated socioeconomic system which people are gradually starting to understand it is crude, wasteful and outdated.)
    It is totally free for those who cannot pay. No one HAS to take student loans. That is a choice. As I already pointed out, community colleges have really cheap tuition and Pell grants (money that does not have to be repaid) more than cover the cost of tuition, books, and supplies.

    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    "And so animals don't tend to live beyond the means of the environment they live in"
    Imo It is incorrect to attribute various limitations in animal population to animals having the "sense" to do anything.
    Unless the animal says "hey Im deciding to ovulate 3 eggs instead of 5 this spring, yeah that's it, 3 should be just about right".


    You totally misrepresented what I said about animals having sense not to breed. I didn't say they consciously decide how many eggs to ovulate. I said they don't breed. as in, they don't have sex.

    And I am NOT an advocate for castration of all criminals. Just the ones who use their genitals to inflict harm on others. Though I don't think simple castration should be enough. I think the entire penis should be removed from men who are rapists or knowingly infect people with STDs, like syphilis, hepatitis C and HIV. For women maybe their vagina's removed if they are knowingly spreading disease. Yes, I said it. Sew the damned thing shut. If that shudders the sensitivities of those who delude themselves that every human being is inherently good and DESERVES some kind of compassion, then perhaps a person who has been convicted of spreading one of these diseases knowingly and without warning to their partner, should be branded somewhere near the genitals with a symbol that represents the disease they are carrying so that they can't hide it from potential sex partners.

    I don't however think castrating criminals in general will make any difference in reducing violent crime all together and I certainly don't think it will prevent any crime of desperation, such as theft.

    I do think our society is sick though. I won't deny this. Too much entitlement attitude and not enough work ethic. We have Politically corrected ourselves to the point we can't even criticize people for using drugs or being criminals. There is no social pressure to behave in a civilized manner and without social repercussions, people assume no matter what they do, the ACLU will come defend their right to do it and force the rest of society to pay for the consequences of that individuals choices. And the sad thing is, they are probably right. And it makes about as much sense as the idiot woman who sued McDonald's for having the audacity to server her HOT coffee.

    We may as well make everything legal. Then there will be no crime in America. No need for jails. Stop taxing people and let the highways, hospitals, and schools go to hell because there is no money to support the infrastructure. And when people stop working and live by stealing from one another, until there are no productive people left, we can just wage war against Norway and take everything they have, then move to the next country and the next.

    Freedom is not a right. It's a an honored privilege. Too many people think they are entitled to certain rewards because their ANCESTORS did some cool stuff. Well while we are rewarding everyone for what good their ancestors did, maybe we should start jailing people for the horrific crimes their ancestors committed as well. Or maybe people should just stop taking credit for what other people have done. And stop blaming other people for their own personal mistakes, shortcomings, and imperfections. Maybe we should treat every individual according to their own merit, their own deeds. Entitlements are for children, forcibly brought into this world. They didn't ask to be born and are not born with the skills necessary to provide for themselves or make good decisions, but in 20 years they should have been taught all this. If their parents fail in teaching these things, the parents should be reprimanded in proper proportion to the damage they caused by any willful neglect. Special consideration being given on a case by case basis to account for unforeseeable hardships such as sudden onset of cancer or death of a key providing member of the family, or abandonment/abuse by the other parent(in which case the one parent in the wrong takes full punishment for any harm caused to the children so long as the remaining parent shows that they did all they could within their ability to compensate for the cruelty of the other parent.)

    But once a person is an adult (and I think the legal age of adulthood should be raised to 20 with early adulthood status being obtainable if the kid can pass certain tests of academic achievement as well as life skills and social skills and psychologically evaluated for sanity and basic work ethic.

    At that point, freedoms are earned to through testing and proving ones worthiness of it. We already have the concept in practice. it is no longer legal for anyone that can manage to operate a vehicle to drive. Now you have to have a license. You have to have a license to practice medicine, law, plumbing, electrical work, building contractor, run any type of business, even to style hair. You can't even buy food unless the facilities that produced it pass a strict health code inspection. You can't live in a home unless the housing authority and fire department inspect it and declare it to be built according to certain standards.

    What is this freedom you speak of. It's a delusion. And to keep insisting we have freedom when it is clear that what we have are privileges is a disturbing lie that we like to tell ourselves to make us comfortable in our reality of privileges rather than rights. I'm OK with privileges rather than rights. It makes sense because too many human beings simply do not respect freedom. They abuse it, and when it is abused it gets taken away. It's that simple.

    Personally though, I'd like to go full on freedom. Allow those who appreciate freedom to have the freedom to eliminate those who do not appreciate freedom. Population will go down and the people who are left behind will learn to cooperate and get along without over regulation and laws. Nature will take care of itself.

    Stop whining about how poor you are and waiting for someone else to fix it and get off your ass and do something to improve yourself. Stop making excuses for why you cannot do anything for yourself.

    There was this kid, Ben Underwood, that made me cry because I saw him as being what all poor people should be inspired by. He lost his eyes when he was three. He didn't go blind. They had to remove his actual eyeballs because he developed cancer along the optic nerve that would have killed him.

    When he woke from his surgery he told his mom, "Mommy it's dark I can't see!" Her response," Yes you can baby, mommy is right here, use your hands to see." as she led his hands to feel her face. She never let him call himself blind and the kid actually learned how to see through echo location. Somehow he even learned how to play and win at video games often using a hand held Nintendo DS. Unfortunately the cancer came back when he was 16 and he died.



    But he never considered himself disabled and he made me feel ashamed of myself for accepting my own disability. The boy who sees without eyes - Extraordinary People - YouTube
    Last edited by seagypsy; May 27th, 2013 at 01:39 PM. Reason: spelling errors mostly, corrected reprehended to reprimanded
    Neverfly and Bad Robot like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    That's a mouthful.
    Some parts- harsh and very authoritarian. As a libertarian, not what I usually go for- you already know this

    But I like that you said it. A great deal of it makes sad sense.
    And populations breeding less when that population is dense is well established. Acting as though they chose to ovulate less was nonsense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    This whole topic has reminded me of a SciFi story I read a long time ago. It was about a society that was plagued by massive amounts of crime. Their solution was that if anybody was convicted of a felony, they and their entire immediate family was put to death. That included the parents, brothers and sisters and any children they might have had.

    After the initial rounds of executions, most all crime was stopped and the society was able to function without much crime.

    I can see where this punishment might cause parents to put more effort into bringing their kids up right. I know this seems a bit extreme, but it does go along with the theme SG made about only really affecting one generation and then after that all the rest of humanity would have much better lives.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    ut animals having sense not to breed. I didn't say they consciously decide how many eggs to ovulate. I said they don't breed. as in, they don't have sex.

    And I am NOT an advocate for castration of all criminals. Just the ones who use their genitals to inflict harm on others. Though I don't think simple castration should be enough. I think the entire penis should be removed from men who are rapists or knowingly infect people with STDs, like syphilis, hepatitis C and HIV. For women maybe their vagina's removed if they are knowingly spreading disease. Yes, I said it. Sew the damned thing shut. If that shudders the sensitivities of those who delude themselves that every human being is inherently good and DESERVES some kind of compassion, then perhaps a person who has been convicted of spreading one of these diseases knowingly and without warning to their partner, should be branded somewhere near the genitals with a symbol that represents the disease they are carrying so that they can't hide it from potential sex partners.
    I'd be ok with branding even those who haven't done so, to be honest. A quarantine is not a "punishment". But quarantines are effective ways to stop the spread of misery.

    We'd be removing the temptation, so there's no problem in the first place. .

    Only trouble is, then people might refuse to seek treatment for fear of getting branded.


    I don't however think castrating criminals in general will make any difference in reducing violent crime all together and I certainly don't think it will prevent any crime of desperation, such as theft.
    It prevents existing criminals from having children. That in turn prevents the next generation of children from being raised by criminals. In the case of crimes of desperation it prevents another child growing up under conditions of extreme poverty which might motivate them to also go on to commit crimes of desperation.

    I just think of it as a quarantine. Poverty is a disease. It spreads from parent to child. Some children manage to cure themselves of it upon reaching adulthood, but there's no reason why they should have had to catch it to begin with.

    It's not necessarily a person's fault if they catch it, anymore than it would e their fault if they were to catch Bubbonic plague, but it is their fault if they spread it to another person after they know they've contracted it. We're not wrong to demand for people to honor the quarantine.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    St.ives- the perfect town
    Posts
    69
    yes sexually violent crimminals shoudl defantly be castrated chemically or physcially, so with peadophiles also, human rights are there to protect society haowever these worngens would argue there human beings and they shouldnt be made to listen to a body set up by past people who problaby comttied crimes aswell along the way to become in powe, SO i say ok if you dont want to be chemically castrated and live in our society like that..then send them to a place like antatrica or a desert or some shite country to live with other crimminals who dont sort them selves out. ANd let them set themselves up there, they wont like it coz they'd get killed for food by natures annimals and other crimminals, never let the place they live become to powerful and every now and again sewnd in our militatry to search and knock them back in development a bit so they could never become to powerful and become there own country.
    Our courts only have power because they protect our society, so if someone keeps breaking the law because they feel knowone can tell them what to do then send them somewhere else, it aspecially pisses me off in countrys like uk and usa where we are so fortunate to have such a shit hot democracy, admitley controlled by rich wankers who families have always controlled but i'd rather live here than have my 5 yr old daughter shot at like in pakistaN afgahnstan etc, our contry would be great if we adopted comunism but had independant bodies of residents who would change every year to portect us from corruption , thats the problem with us we shoudl be like a hive culture, then we woudltn get as much crime.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Sexual violence stems from psycholigical issues in the mind of the criminal and you can't just cut off or chemically neutralise bits of them and hope they can't or won't reoffend because it just doesn't that way. Psychological issues have to be addressed in the mind and human rights violations of against them won't help anybody.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by graemedon View Post
    yes sexually violent crimminals shoudl defantly be castrated chemically or physcially, so with peadophiles also...
    How does one castrate female sexual offenders?
    Ascended likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,924
    This is where prisons could do a better job with respect to implementing programs that actually help to rehabilitate prisoners. Aggression often starts in the mind, and many people who wind up incarcerated, suffered a lot at the hands of their parents, as kids. Not excusing their behaviors as adults, but making the assertion that they could be aggressive because they simply haven’t found a productive way of dealing with their painful pasts. If we don’tattempt at healing them at that level, all other attempts will most likely fail. Castration, in my eyes, is like putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound. It simply doesn’t address the larger problem at play. And frankly, if we hope to lessen the violence and aggression often exhibited in prisons, treating human beings like caged animals probably won’t achieve that desired result.
    Ascended and RedPanda like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    I find the question weird... I don't think we live in hitlers time to talk about such possibilitys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Japith View Post
    genetics has nothing to do with aggresive action on behalf of people who are suspect to be criminal. it is there phucking mind that does it, THE MIND. ITS THEIR BRAIN!!!! NOT THE ORGAN, THE CONTENT INSIDE OF IT.
    CONTENT THAT WAS PUT THERE AND CONTENT THAT WAS GAINED BY EXPERIENCE.
    That's not a very good bit of reasoning. There might well be genetic predispositions to reduced emotional control and violence. There is no separate mind and brain. I do agree from the point of view that even the disposition shouldn't ever enter the courtroom--it's use if established should be towards teaching the person coping mechanisms or treatment.

    As for castration, the closest we get is chemical castration which turns out to be one of the more effective means to control pedophiles.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    I find the question weird... I don't think we live in hitlers time to talk about such possibilitys
    Well society may have moved on in some respects, but we might not have advanced all that far in others. Most countries believe in at least some human rights, usually this means that even the worst of societies criminals are free from any form state sponsored violence, this includes torture, mutilations or execution, again I say most but certainly not all. This is because a society has a responsibility to all it's citizens and has to set that countries correct moral standard of behaviour, e.g. that can't treat people differently just because they have committed crimes, people are still human beings.

    So here we have it the fact that most countries certainly won't accept the attrocities perputrated during Hitler's regime. But this being said we cannot just let violent sex offenders roam the streets when they pose a threat to the public, responsibility is a 2 way street it's about protecting the rights of everybody. So this is where such criminals should be in secure mental hospitals, away from the public. Criminals that commit crimes with an obvious logical motive can be put in prison, but criminals committing crimes because of mental illness need to recieve proper treatment before ever being let back out into society.

    The idea of castrating a rapist or pedophile and thinking this is the answer seems flawed, the crimes they commit are clearly not motivated by normal understandable rational sexual desire so to think that just taking away their sexual fuction makes them safe is a folly. Many of these kind of criminals exhibit a desire to hurt or inflict suffering on others that goes beyond any mere sexual motivation and as such will always present a danger whilst ever they maintain such attitudes. The only safe way to deal with such people is to remove them from society until they are no longer mentally ill. How many of us would really trust a rapist or paedophile around their wife or kids just because they knew he'd been castrated, not many I'm willing to guess. The idea is totally flawed.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141 Chemically 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    St.ives- the perfect town
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by graemedon View Post
    yes sexually violent crimminals shoudl defantly be castrated chemically or physcially, so with peadophiles also...
    How does one castrate female sexual offenders?
    the chemicals that would stop a male having sexual arrousel would i guess still work on a female. im talking about paeadophiles not violent crimminals who arent sexually motivated. god knows what to do with someone who isnt sexually motivated in what sick things they are doing to kids..? but women/men sex offenders could both be chemically castrated so they are not arroused by children ,who they say give them the same feelings as me and you have for adults. it is a dodgy subject and until a life long peadophil volunteers themselves and then is shown that with that and councelling to live a normal life they can be given chemcials to uncastrate them and they go on to live normal lives then we just wont know. coz if you gave it to all sex offenders for the rest of their lives you wont ever know the full capapbility of such a experiment. they used to put bromeid in prisoners tea to stop them gettin aroused so that is on the same family tree as what we are talking about here so jumping to this wouldnt be such a biggy!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by graemedon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by graemedon View Post
    yes sexually violent criminals should defiantly be castrated chemically or physically, so with pedophiles also...
    How does one castrate female sexual offenders?
    the chemicals that would stop a male having sexual arousal would i guess still work on a female. I'm talking about pedophiles not violent criminals who aren't sexually motivated. god knows what to do with someone who isn't sexually motivated in what sick things they are doing to kids..? but women/men sex offenders could both be chemically castrated so they are not aroused by children ,who they say give them the same feelings as me and you have for adults. it is a dodgy subject and until a life long pedophile volunteers themselves and then is shown that with that and counseling to live a normal life they can be given chemicals to uncastrate them and they go on to live normal lives then we just wont know. Because if you gave it to all sex offenders for the rest of their lives you wont ever know the full capability of such a experiment. they used to put bromide in prisoners tea to stop them getting aroused so that is on the same family tree as what we are talking about here so jumping to this wouldn't be such a biggy!!
    First of all you need a better understanding of chemical castration, so please review the the link below.

    Chemical castration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Next most people don't commit rape just because they get aroused. Sexual offenders hurt people and that's the bottom line. Would you think that someone that likes to hurt other people will change just because they can't get a hard-on?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,924
    Rape is all about power, and control. Forcing one's self on another person sexually, is the bridge to that end. While castration might mitigate the risk that rapists pose, it won't eradicate them. I'm against castration also, in the same way that I'm against the death penalty--I find both to be inhumane.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    It's really not that black and white. Pedophiles are often motivated sexually, which is why there's often a large stash of kiddy porn and other signs it's not just about control and power. Chemical castration is extremely effective in targeted cases, often with dramatic reductions of fantasies and recidivism. This is one of the reasons several states have returned to it--it might not be PC, but it's effective and they are following the science(good for them). Posting a meta-study that looks at the research. Some key quote from the study.

    "Studies of the use of antiandrogenic drugs report similar efficacy,567 and a large meta-analysis of treatment in sex offenders found that “organic” interventions (surgical castration and hormones) reduce recidivism much more than any other treatment approach (although the authors found that nowadays drugs are usually used alongside psychological treatment).8"

    "It is not surprising that antiandrogens have such a big effect on the risk of sexual offences. Regardless of the strong psychological factors that contribute to sexual offending, at its root lies the pressure exerted by sexual drive and sexual arousal, mediated by biological mechanisms dependent on testosterone."
    Chemical castration for sex offenders | BMJ
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    It's really not that black and white. Pedophiles are often motivated sexually, which is why there's often a large stash of kiddy porn and other signs it's not just about control and power. Chemical castration is extremely effective in targeted cases, often with dramatic reductions of fantasies and recidivism. This is one of the reasons several states have returned to it--it might not be PC, but it's effective and they are following the science(good for them). Posting a meta-study that looks at the research. Some key quote from the study.

    "Studies of the use of antiandrogenic drugs report similar efficacy,567 and a large meta-analysis of treatment in sex offenders found that “organic” interventions (surgical castration and hormones) reduce recidivism much more than any other treatment approach (although the authors found that nowadays drugs are usually used alongside psychological treatment).8"

    "It is not surprising that antiandrogens have such a big effect on the risk of sexual offences. Regardless of the strong psychological factors that contribute to sexual offending, at its root lies the pressure exerted by sexual drive and sexual arousal, mediated by biological mechanisms dependent on testosterone."
    Chemical castration for sex offenders | BMJ
    (bolded for emphasis by me) Wow, I honestly didn't know that--thanks for this information. I'm sitting here in quasi- disbelief (in a positive way), as I really had no idea castration could reduce pedophile fantasies and recidivism. That's pretty interesting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    It's really not that black and white. Pedophiles are often motivated sexually, which is why there's often a large stash of kiddy porn and other signs it's not just about control and power. Chemical castration is extremely effective in targeted cases, often with dramatic reductions of fantasies and recidivism. This is one of the reasons several states have returned to it--it might not be PC, but it's effective and they are following the science(good for them). Posting a meta-study that looks at the research. Some key quote from the study.

    "Studies of the use of antiandrogenic drugs report similar efficacy,567 and a large meta-analysis of treatment in sex offenders found that “organic” interventions (surgical castration and hormones) reduce recidivism much more than any other treatment approach (although the authors found that nowadays drugs are usually used alongside psychological treatment).8"

    "It is not surprising that antiandrogens have such a big effect on the risk of sexual offences. Regardless of the strong psychological factors that contribute to sexual offending, at its root lies the pressure exerted by sexual drive and sexual arousal, mediated by biological mechanisms dependent on testosterone."
    Chemical castration for sex offenders | BMJ
    (bolded for emphasis by me) Wow, I honestly didn't know that--thanks for this information. I'm sitting here in quasi- disbelief (in a positive way), as I really had no idea castration could reduce pedophile fantasies and recidivism. That's pretty interesting.
    In many cases they give the offender a choice to either be locked up or chemically castrated with ankle monitor. This would probably get around your objection to chemical castration as it would be a choice. A choice that seems like a no brainer to me.
    wegs likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Rape is all about power, and control. Forcing one's self on another person sexually, is the bridge to that end. While castration might mitigate the risk that rapists pose, it won't eradicate them. I'm against castration also, in the same way that I'm against the death penalty--I find both to be inhumane.
    So we should never conflate two rather different groups. Rapists who target adult men and women may have little to no interest in children. And those whose sexual interest is almost entirely in children have very little interest in adult sexual relationships.

    There is some overlap. Repeat rapists (of women) are more likely than other rapists to be violent towards their victims, they're also more likely to engage in domestic violence and they're also more likely to physically or sexually abuse children - more likely than other rapists. (There's no equivalent analysis for men who rape men as far as I can find.)

    But by and large, a technique that deals with sexual attraction is much more likely to work with people whose problem is sexual attraction in and of itself. Remove the sexual arousal and the problem of who you find attractive recedes into the background.

    For run of the mill, non-child rapists, the issue is not really about sexual attraction at all. It is about power and dominance - whether that's directly about subjection of women or indirectly about claiming more power than other men - and that is based on wrong-headed notions about men and women and relationships between them. Even if you disregard the rights issues, chemical or physical castration isn't going to do anything positive about these men's impulses and could even make some such men more dangerous to others rather than less.
    wegs likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    This is where prisons could do a better job with respect to implementing programs that actually help to rehabilitate prisoners. Aggression often starts in the mind, and many people who wind up incarcerated, suffered a lot at the hands of their parents, as kids. Not excusing their behaviors as adults, but making the assertion that they could be aggressive because they simply haven’t found a productive way of dealing with their painful pasts. If we don’tattempt at healing them at that level, all other attempts will most likely fail. Castration, in my eyes, is like putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound. It simply doesn’t address the larger problem at play. And frankly, if we hope to lessen the violence and aggression often exhibited in prisons, treating human beings like caged animals probably won’t achieve that desired result.
    The problem here is you're choosing between an ideal and a practical solution. Probably most people would agree with the ideal. The ideal would be to both:

    A- Help the offender.

    and

    B - Not have any more victims.


    However, that mix of outcomes is elusive at best. I think more often we'll end up having to choose A or B. Not A and B.

    Surely the offender, if they come from an abusive past, does need help. However, the victims can be perfectly helped by way of simple prevention. (By not being made into victims to start with.) That's an absolutely perfect outcome for them.

    The offender, on the other hand, can only be offered a somewhat imperfect outcome. Their wounds will never heal perfectly no matter what we do. If we allow them to continue offending then we're allowing new wounds to be inflicted, all in the hope of partially healing one wound.

    Life doesn't always offer us perfect alternatives.

    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post

    For run of the mill, non-child rapists, the issue is not really about sexual attraction at all. It is about power and dominance - whether that's directly about subjection of women or indirectly about claiming more power than other men - and that is based on wrong-headed notions about men and women and relationships between them. Even if you disregard the rights issues, chemical or physical castration isn't going to do anything positive about these men's impulses and could even make some such men more dangerous to others rather than less.
    Don't forget about the punishment aspect. The possibility that, when offered a disincentive, a person might choose not to act out to begin with.

    Being castrated would be incredibly dis-empowering to a person who's already feeling a deficit of power over their life. That's probably why they might become more violent (instead of less violent) afterward. Their need is now even more un-met than ever.

    But look at it from a foresight perspective. Going into it, the knowledge that they are risking castration for what they are doing might make rape feel less empowering. The punishment (or lack of punishment) that awaits is part of the empowerment. The less punishment, the more empowered they feel.

    If they know they'll be castrated, thus giving power back to the victim, they might choose to seek satisfaction somewhere else.
    wegs likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    But look at it from a foresight perspective. Going into it, the knowledge that they are risking castration for what they are doing might make rape feel less empowering. The punishment (or lack of punishment) that awaits is part of the empowerment. The less punishment, the more empowered they feel.
    Severity of eventual punishment has never, ever worked as a deterrent against any kind of crime.

    This is true even for crimes that involve little or no emotions or feelings so, you'd think, would be amenable to rational considerations of consequences. People in England still stole all kinds of stuff back in the days when the punishment was death or, when juries eventually jacked up and refused to convict people because of the extreme punishment, transportation, the old version of life imprisonment.

    If you seriously think that a violent rapist would desist from his criminal activities on the basis of severity of anticipated punishment, take a look at what happens/ doesn't happen to rapists now.

    a 2004 Justice Department report that estimated that evidence from about 221,000 rape and murder cases remained untested, Congress acted by passing the landmark Debbie Smith Act. This bill, which has been called the most important anti-rape legislation in history, has provided several hundred million dollars of funding to local law enforcement to help them eliminate their DNA evidence backlog. As a result, police have been able to identify a suspect in thousands of violent crimes.

    ... The new Justice Department report found that, in the last five years, DNA evidence from about 32,000 unsolved rape and murder cases was never submitted to a crime lab for analysis.


    And the likelihood of a rapist being convicted at all?




    https://www.rainn.org/get-informatio...eporting-rates

    If you're serious about dealing with rape, the first target, maybe the only target for the foreseeable future, should be increasing the certainty of punishment rather than the severity of punishment for the occasionally convicted.

    Read this article. (If you google severity versus certainty of punishment, you'll find a lot of good stuff.) It's just an intro.
    A Way To Reduce Crime Costs

    Severity is not only a poor substitute for swiftness and certainty, he says, but also their enemy. That's because the more severe a sanction is, the less frequently it can be administered (prison cells are scarce) and the less quickly it tends to arrive.

    Bad Robot and wegs like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    But look at it from a foresight perspective. Going into it, the knowledge that they are risking castration for what they are doing might make rape feel less empowering. The punishment (or lack of punishment) that awaits is part of the empowerment. The less punishment, the more empowered they feel.
    Severity of eventual punishment has never, ever worked as a deterrent against any kind of crime.

    This is true even for crimes that involve little or no emotions or feelings so, you'd think, would be amenable to rational considerations of consequences. People in England still stole all kinds of stuff back in the days when the punishment was death or, when juries eventually jacked up and refused to convict people because of the extreme punishment, transportation, the old version of life imprisonment.

    If you seriously think that a violent rapist would desist from his criminal activities on the basis of severity of anticipated punishment, take a look at what happens/ doesn't happen to rapists now.
    Right. But power is the goal of a rapist. Power is measured by how a person measures "winning". A rapist might purge them self of the fear of imprisonment. Decide that they will have still "won" if they can rape several women before being caught.

    People with that kind of pathology often want to get caught. That way others will know what they did. They can laugh as the justice system painstakingly documents their conquests, knowing that no matter how many crimes are connected to them they'll still only serve one life sentence. The horror they see in the eyes of the jury is just an added bonus. The helplessness of knowing that sending them to prison won't change them.

    It's all about how a person keeps score. I'd say it's less likely you'd find a rapist who considers them self to have still "won" after they get castrated.

    The goal isn't to extract revenge, but rather to deprive them of their prize in the first place. No prize. No crime. A rapist who is willing to endure castration for their crimes would be like a bank robber who still decides to rob a bank when they know there's only 20 bucks in the vault.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,924
    kojax, your points have been particularly enlightening about this topic--you are correct--there are no 'perfect' alternatives in life sometimes, especially in cases such as these.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    I'm not entirely sure if castration will be entirely effective if we aren't talking opportunistic criminals. There are historical records of various China eunuchs that were pretty vicious either in their private affairs or when partaking in political intrigue. Some of the infamous ones do not appear to have reduced criminality since they supplement their tendencies with other forms of gratification.

    Also, does chemical castration work on females? And does that mean infertile man and women are less likely to be (violent) criminals?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    I'm not entirely sure if castration will be entirely effective if we aren't talking opportunistic criminals. There are historical records of various China eunuchs that were pretty vicious either in their private affairs or when partaking in political intrigue. Some of the infamous ones do not appear to have reduced criminality since they supplement their tendencies with other forms of gratification.

    Also, does chemical castration work on females? And does that mean infertile man and women are less likely to be (violent) criminals?
    Chemical castration happens when you reduce the sex hormone production in the body to zero. In men this is testosterone and in females it's estrogen. This normally requires regular visits to a doctor for injections and possibly daily pills. It is claimed that when this treatment is stopped, that hormone production will start again and reach normal levels. However there are many cases where this does not happen. This outcome increases with the length of time one is being chemically castrated.

    Your choice to be a criminal has nothing to do with your hormone levels, however your hormone levels probably do influence activity level of your criminal activities. Basically being a criminal is a choice and when it's made you will most likely be a criminal for life, whether you are an active criminal or not, you will still be a criminal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    St.ives- the perfect town
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Rape is all about power, and control. Forcing one's self on another person sexually, is the bridge to that end. While castration might mitigate the risk that rapists pose, it won't eradicate them. I'm against castration also, in the same way that I'm against the death penalty--I find both to be inhumane.
    I agree with you on the point of the death penalty, for several reasons 1) the big point of no matter what crime someone commits we are merely all humans on a tiny planet and what gives a governemtn the right to put you to death,no matter the crime, as is with some crimminals they have grown up as kids gettin abused, being fed drugs by older people etc and realeasing agression in means of violence is how they have been taught. this does mean they are a danger to society though and should not be in our society but until they start sending crimminals to serbia or antartica to live in a crimminal colony like i am proposing to the uk government now thats not going to happen. 2) DNA and fingerprints have proved people havent done something years later, death would surely end the investigation as not to bring a hefty law suit. on the castration issue i disagree, if the man or woman . well lets focus on the man for this, if the man cannot get a erection then how can they please themselves sexually against women or children with rape, or sexual assault. why would they want to look at child porn if they cant get a erection. peados portray in court all the time that they arent evil they are merely doing what there bodies want them to do, as us normal people get aroused by people the same age as us and want to have sex with people the same age as us because we find them attractive. peadophiles say that this is exactly same for them except with children. and rapists rape for power and/or they think they cant fofill women, it varys case to case oviosuly some married men become rapists, oviously they can and have got women nicely but they need a power fix so they rape women. if you took the arousel off them they wouldnt and coudnt have sex, there human rights would not be affected as the right to family life with the technology nowadays there sperm could be harvested and if they found love and a women who would accept them without the normal sexual relationship then they could still have kids.
    I dont think there is any reason it couldnt work. some people in this thread beleive that it woudlnt work with male or female but it would im not talking about un fertalising someone im taling about blocking chemially there blood vessels to the penis so it cannot be erect and also using chemicals to stop the brain from issuing commands of arousel, you would need both. with women i believe it would be possible with drugs to stop arouself.
    And then if peadophiles continued to abuse then the courts would know it isnt a sexual thing and research would have to be undertaken, but it would show that the person could not and will change no matter what and they should basicly be lifed off as it were, from our society. because i have no problems with a nonce who has served there jail sentence for there crimes living in my town if that nonce will not get sexually aroused by my children or freinds children. if that isnt the case no law abing person would want that person any where near them. so my idear of a crimminal colony run by private firms who would be paid alot less per priosner than it costs a country already to give the crimminal 3 meals a day so no to effect there human rights until they had set up a job to sell a product say wood or vegtables grown on the land that is now there home. im thinking siberia or antartica or nothern canada.somewhere derelict . admittadly it would be a increddibly dangerous place but with enough checks every week by armed security personall so any weapons are taken and punishment would have to be worked out its only a basid idear but it would solve the issue of "life means life prisoners" they would be given a tent, stove etc, and be given 3 meals worth a day and basicly let lose in the area. it woudl save the countries of our world millions and to be honest i dont think there would be much op[positon among the priosners going there as they would have alot more freedom, and it is defanatly more humane than prisons as they are no longer confined to a cell by another human being but merely been put out of our society into a society they chose to be in when they broke the law so bad they got life no parole. and to get a sentence like that you must of done something bad.
    Any idears regarding my plan wich i have alreeady wrote to the Prime Minister of england about then private message me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    It's all about how a person keeps score. I'd say it's less likely you'd find a rapist who considers them self to have still "won" after they get castrated.
    Keeping score. If that's how a person's mind works - and that's very much an open question - they'd also make a similarly rational calculation or estimation of the likelihood of that ever happening.

    When the chance of ever facing court for the offence is less than 10%, and the chance of any conviction is less than half of that, a good many quite rational people would go right ahead anyway.

    Of course, if people aren't really rational and don't think much about the possible consequences of their actions all of this is irrelevant to them. Which is very likely the case. After all, if the death penalty worked as a deterrent to murder, you'd expect that places which impose the death penalty would have lower murder rates. Seeing as the US has a much, much higher murder rate than all the other industrialised democracies which don't have the death penalty, it's clearly a failure on that score.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156  
    Forum Junior anticorncob28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Nebraska, USA
    Posts
    214
    This reminds me of anti-domestic violence organizations focusing on domestic violence and rape solely as a male-on-female issue, and whenever somebody brings it up, their excuse is "Yes, women can do that to men, but men are stronger and do it much more often, so this should be getting all the attention".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I must say that I'm not terribly afraid that a woman is going to rape me any time soon.

    I do sometimes worry that one of my sisters could have it happen to her, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    It's all about how a person keeps score. I'd say it's less likely you'd find a rapist who considers them self to have still "won" after they get castrated.
    Keeping score. If that's how a person's mind works - and that's very much an open question - they'd also make a similarly rational calculation or estimation of the likelihood of that ever happening.
    I call it "keeping score", but the idea is that you can't pursue something without first establishing a basis to measure it.

    Power is the ability to act with impunity, or consequences. At least despotic power is. Once the prospect of suffering an unacceptable loss enters the picture, there is less of a feeling of power to be had.


    When the chance of ever facing court for the offence is less than 10%, and the chance of any conviction is less than half of that, a good many quite rational people would go right ahead anyway.

    A lot of what makes rape hard to prosecute is the humiliation felt by the victim, and their resulting reluctance to make known what has happened to them.

    Castrating the offender should tend to reduce the victim's sense of humiliation. They can stand there and mock their attacker as his manhood is stripped from him.

    In a sense, it restores to the victim some portion of what they lost. Which in turn, might possibly increase the frequency with which it is reported.




    Of course, if people aren't really rational and don't think much about the possible consequences of their actions all of this is irrelevant to them. Which is very likely the case. After all, if the death penalty worked as a deterrent to murder, you'd expect that places which impose the death penalty would have lower murder rates. Seeing as the US has a much, much higher murder rate than all the other industrialised democracies which don't have the death penalty, it's clearly a failure on that score.
    Rape is not a rational decision. However, even unrational decisions usually have some kind of logic to them.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by anticorncob28 View Post
    This reminds me of anti-domestic violence organizations focusing on domestic violence and rape solely as a male-on-female issue, and whenever somebody brings it up, their excuse is "Yes, women can do that to men, but men are stronger and do it much more often, so this should be getting all the attention".
    But more often than they get credit for, the yell rape (falsely) and ruin a mans life. Then if they get caught they only get a slap on the wrist for punishment. It hardly seems fair. Just saying before they charge a man with rape, they really do need to have all the evidence in order first.
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Just saying before they charge a man with rape, they really do need to have all the evidence in order first.
    Not a problem. Read those stats.

    As for false rape accusations, you might be surprised to learn that a fair bit of research has been done on that topic. They tend to fall into a couple of large groups.

    1. Women who are mentally ill or emotionally disturbed. In these cases, the accusations are often exaggerations (or complete fantasies) about ordinary non-sexual contact, ordinary sexual contact, or no contact at all with the accused man/ men.
    2. Accusations brought by people other than the woman involved. Usually parents or other relatives, sometimes partners.
    3 ..... A dozen other categories, none very dominant.


    As for statistics about false rape accusations. A whole other kettle of very stinky fish. The FBI has real trouble collating these because of the practices of sloppy police departments or departments willing to fudge the numbers to make problems disappear - on top of the already complex problem of different states defining different forms of sexual assault as rape or not rape in the first place. The biggest issue is that too many police procedures routinely dump all the reports that are discontinued for any reason into the "false" basket. This problem is not confined to the USA, but it seriously distorts the figures regardless.

    It isn't a false report if a rape happens and the wrong person is identified.
    It isn't a false report if the woman decides that she was wrong to think she had the stamina to go through the 2 years of police and court proceedings, so she abandons the matter.
    It isn't a false report if the cops talk a woman out of it because they don't believe they can succeed in court or they know it will be difficult to investigate.
    It isn't a false report if the police don't investigate for any reason (or no reason at all).
    It isn't a false report if the matter slides because the money for processing rape kits has run out.


    Castrating the offender should tend to reduce the victim's sense of humiliation. They can stand there and mock their attacker as his manhood is stripped from him.
    I can't believe this.

    Do you know any rape victims? Have they ever suggested such a thing to you? (Please, please, please don't you raise it with any rape victim you happen to know. If they wanted to discuss this with you, they already would have.)

    The one thing rape victims want above all others is for other people to stop telling them how they should or shouldn't feel and what they should or shouldn't do about their own rape or rape in general.

    What rape victims want ...... is for police in particular and society in general to acknowledge that rape is not unusual or rare or exceptional in any way. The most important thing is that many women are raped or otherwise sexually assaulted but most of those rapes are committed by far fewer men than you might expect given the large number of victims. Extract from that pdf linked earlier.

    In addition to high rates of reoffending, several studies have shown that among incarcerated rapists the actual number
    of sexual crimes committed far exceeds the number of adjudicated charges against these men. For example, Abel and colleagues (1987) reported that when given assurances of confidentiality,

    .... 126 identified rapists admitted to 907 para*philic acts against 882 victims.

    Weinrott and Saylor (1991) conducted a similar study of sex offenders in a state treatment program. The 37 rapists in the study had been charged with 66 offenses against a mean of 1.8 victims. Yet under conditions of confidential self* report, these same

    .... 37 men admitted to 433 rapes against a mean of 11.7 victims.


    So if police had taken seriously a whole heap of rape reports that they'd dismissed or talked the complainant out of pursuing, they would very likely have put some repeat offenders away. But they didn't and they still don't.
    Last edited by adelady; November 4th, 2013 at 10:51 PM.
    Ascended and Bad Robot like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #160  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,924
    Rape may not be a rational decision, but it is a calculated and planned decision. And I disagree that a rape victim will gain pleasure out of or will even wish to "mock" her/his attacker, when/if he is castrated. Being raped is an incredibly horrifying and humiliating experience. No amount of "justice" truthfully will ever restore a rape victim back to where he/she was before the rape happened. It is a violation like no other.
    Last edited by wegs; November 4th, 2013 at 10:58 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #161  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    People also need to recognize that marital rape is still rape. And it is probably the most commonly unreported type out there. It's extremely difficult for a woman to press charges against a man who she and her children are dependent on for support. And more often than not marital rape is not a one time thing. since spouse can get away with it once, spouse will continue to help themselves to whatever they can take.
    wegs likes this.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #162  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Rape may not be a rational decision, but it is a calculated and planned decision. And I disagree that a rape victim will gain pleasure out of or will even wish to "mock" her/his attacker, when/if he is castrated. Being raped is an incredibly horrifying and humiliating experience. No amount of "justice" truthfully will ever restore a rape victim back to where he/she was before the rape happened. It is a violation like no other.
    A woman I knew told me she got herself in a situation where the guy she was with wasn't going to take no for an answer, so she just made the decision to go with it and not risk the consequences of insisting on NO. Sometimes just having sex beats the alternative all to hell, and then you never have to see that guy again or maybe you have a boyfriend that will take care of business. She told me that I was the first person she told about it, so apparently she didn't want to risk any negative results that could have happened if she told anyone right after it happened. We were just friends and I was a good listener.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #163  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Rape may not be a rational decision, but it is a calculated and planned decision. And I disagree that a rape victim will gain pleasure out of or will even wish to "mock" her/his attacker, when/if he is castrated. Being raped is an incredibly horrifying and humiliating experience. No amount of "justice" truthfully will ever restore a rape victim back to where he/she was before the rape happened. It is a violation like no other.
    A woman I knew told me she got herself in a situation where the guy she was with wasn't going to take no for an answer, so she just made the decision to go with it and not risk the consequences of insisting on NO. Sometimes just having sex beats the alternative all to hell, and then you never have to see that guy again or maybe you have a boyfriend that will take care of business. She told me that I was the first person she told about it, so apparently she didn't want to risk any negative results that could have happened if she told anyone right after it happened. We were just friends and I was a good listener.
    No matter the circumstances, rape is a violation like no other. She will ever be the same, sadly. I'm glad you let her share it with you. Many people don't ever share it for strangely, the victim sometimes feels shame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #164  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,445
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Rape may not be a rational decision, but it is a calculated and planned decision. And I disagree that a rape victim will gain pleasure out of or will even wish to "mock" her/his attacker, when/if he is castrated. Being raped is an incredibly horrifying and humiliating experience. No amount of "justice" truthfully will ever restore a rape victim back to where he/she was before the rape happened. It is a violation like no other.
    A woman I knew told me she got herself in a situation where the guy she was with wasn't going to take no for an answer, so she just made the decision to go with it and not risk the consequences of insisting on NO. Sometimes just having sex beats the alternative all to hell, and then you never have to see that guy again or maybe you have a boyfriend that will take care of business. She told me that I was the first person she told about it, so apparently she didn't want to risk any negative results that could have happened if she told anyone right after it happened. We were just friends and I was a good listener.
    I guarantee you that she NEVER FORGOT that experience and the pain, mentally or physically....though she probably chose the right thing, she will always wonder if she should have fought.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #165  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    she will always wonder if she should have fought.
    Not so much.

    The thing that most victims worry about is the fact that they didn't report ... and whether or not, and if so, how often, the bloke went on to assault other women.

    In the end, they have to do what's right for themselves.
    babe likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #166  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    she will always wonder if she should have fought.
    Not so much.

    The thing that most victims worry about is the fact that they didn't report ... and whether or not, and if so, how often, the bloke went on to assault other women.

    In the end, they have to do what's right for themselves.
    The thing I always wonder about is how many years I would get if I took them off the face off the earth so many years after the fact. My situation was more complex than just rape. And I will never be fully happy as long as either of my exhusbands breathe free air or any air at all.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #167  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post


    Castrating the offender should tend to reduce the victim's sense of humiliation. They can stand there and mock their attacker as his manhood is stripped from him.
    I can't believe this.

    Do you know any rape victims? Have they ever suggested such a thing to you? (Please, please, please don't you raise it with any rape victim you happen to know. If they wanted to discuss this with you, they already would have.)

    The one thing rape victims want above all others is for other people to stop telling them how they should or shouldn't feel and what they should or shouldn't do about their own rape or rape in general.

    What rape victims want ...... is for police in particular and society in general to acknowledge that rape is not unusual or rare or exceptional in any way. The most important thing is that many women are raped or otherwise sexually assaulted but most of those rapes are committed by far fewer men than you might expect given the large number of victims. Extract from that pdf linked earlier.
    I could be wrong here.... but I think she'd be more interested in knowing how I (or society) feels about what happened to them. If we castrate the offender, then we're showing that we feel very strongly that the rape ought not to have happened.

    She can feel whatever she wants.

    People shouldn't be victimized. It's just that simple. There's no point in trying to make it more complicated. I don't like when people whom I value or who I care about get hurt. I tend to become very emotionally callous toward whoever it was that has hurt them.

    Most of the time they don't want revenge. It makes them feel even more powerless, while forgiveness might make them feel they have at least a small bit of control. Fine. They can forgive. I just won't abide by their forgiveness. That lets them have it both ways. Have one's cake, and eat it too.

    edit:

    However I see where you're coming from. All too often society expects a former victim to be their own advocate. To seek revenge on their own, or to lead the charge. I'm sure a lot of cases go unreported because we insist that a person who has already suffered should suffer more for us, instead of admitting that we're the ones that let them down, and let them take a back seat while we correct the problem.
    Last edited by kojax; November 5th, 2013 at 10:04 PM.
    seagypsy and babe like this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #168  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    69
    no and im against death penalty i guess--im for prison i guess -costs less
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Is it criminal to steal from criminals?
    By Stanley514 in forum Criminology and Forensic Science
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: September 15th, 2012, 07:24 PM
  2. Giving People non-Violent Recourse
    By kojax in forum Military Technology
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: March 16th, 2012, 10:37 PM
  3. violent reactions
    By rhysboi1991 in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: May 21st, 2008, 07:03 AM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: August 25th, 2007, 01:04 PM
  5. FASTEST GROWING- Most Unrecognized -VIOLENT CRIME IN U.S.A
    By That Rascal Puff in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 8th, 2006, 07:54 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •