# Poland: pedophiles chemically castrated by law



## CaptainCool (Oct 23, 2009)

in poland it has been decided that convicted pedophiles will be forcibly castrated chemically after they get out of prison. they will have to undergo a treatment that blocks their sex drive completely. i have heard that the same thing counts as well for people who committed crimes involving incest.

what are your thoughts about this? is this the right thing to do?
personally i think it is... but executing them would be cheaper

by the way, source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090925/od_nm/us_castration (got another one but i think you appreciate a non-german source, right? )


----------



## ~secret~ (Oct 23, 2009)

Wow. Way to go Poland *high five*


----------



## Origamigryphon (Oct 23, 2009)

That sounds awesome. Its their sex drive that gets them to do that crazy shit; way to go for the source.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Oct 23, 2009)

Now Listening - Second Victim: With Brutal Force: My Pleasure Your Pain


----------



## Hir (Oct 23, 2009)

The fact you even got in prison for pedophillia obviously means you can't control your balls, so you shouldn't have them.


----------



## Ricky (Oct 23, 2009)

They do that in California, too...  At least according to legislation.

It's a good idea, the only problem is it doesn't always work.


----------



## Conker (Oct 23, 2009)

Gogo Poland! 

Extreme measures for extreme cases.


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

yes that is fine and good but

we are forgetting how stupid men are and how devious woman are

im stating this because one of my friends the local homeless guy was convicted and charged with the rape of 3 high school students 

but hears the kicker he couldn't have done that because while the rape was happening he was with me and i was buying him some lunch

after spending a year and a half in jail the girls finally admitted that he didnt do it the reason they lied so they could skip school

the place im getting at is the fbi could randomly but down my door and arest me for doing something i didnt just because a girl said i did because cops judges ect will always take a girls opinion over a guys


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 23, 2009)

Fuck yeah Poland


----------



## CaptainCool (Oct 23, 2009)

Ricky said:


> It's a good idea, the only problem is it doesn't always work.



well, there is always the "regular" castration method if the chemical one fails :V you dont even have to cut anything off, just use two bricks X3


----------



## Hir (Oct 23, 2009)

CaptainCool said:


> well, there is always the "regular" castration method if the chemical one fails :V you dont even have to cut anything off, just use two bricks X3


Or one brick if you're committed enough.


----------



## Ricky (Oct 23, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> yes that is fine and good but
> 
> we are forgetting how stupid men are and how devious woman are
> 
> ...



Usually (at least in America) the onus of proof is in the prosecution...

"He did this" isn't usually enough to prosecute someone for a crime.

Maybe he had a really shitty attorney?


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Oct 23, 2009)

hey what about for women


----------



## Ricky (Oct 23, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> hey what about for women



Women can't rape people, silly.

That's a well-known fact.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Oct 23, 2009)

Ricky said:


> Women can't rape people, silly.
> 
> That's a well-known fact.



What about with a strap-on


----------



## Ricky (Oct 23, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> What about with a strap-on



I think the logic goes something like...  You can't rape the willing and since guys always want sex -

Well I forget exactly but you get the point.


----------



## Origamigryphon (Oct 23, 2009)

Send 'em to the middle east where they'd get their clit cut off.


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

Ricky said:


> Usually (at least in America) the onus of proof is in the prosecution...
> 
> "He did this" isn't usually enough to prosecute someone for a crime.
> 
> Maybe he had a really shitty attorney?



yeah he is homeless he realy cant get a good one 

but yeah i used to be all like chop the murderers heads of and blah blah ect

but i think its a more fitting punishment to let em rot in jail the rest of there lives because killing a killer just keeps the killing going 

but murderers rapests and the like should never be aloud outside no tv no books they just get to sit and do nothing


----------



## FluffMouse (Oct 23, 2009)

When I heard chemical, I thought acid. :< I'm slightly less impressed now.


----------



## PriestRevan (Oct 23, 2009)

As long as it's only the convicted ones, then that's fine.

But, I think they shouldn't just focus on pedophiles. They should do the same with all sex offenders.


----------



## Ricky (Oct 23, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> yeah he is homeless he realy cant get a good one



Well that explains it then.  People who use public defenders get fucked over 100% of the time.



EinTheCorgi said:


> but yeah i used to be all like chop the murderers heads of and blah blah ect
> 
> but i think its a more fitting punishment to let em rot in jail the rest of there lives because killing a killer just keeps the killing going



Well, no...  The idea is if they are dead they can't kill more people.  It's usually pretty effective.



EinTheCorgi said:


> but murderers rapests and the like should never be aloud outside no tv no books they just get to sit and do nothing



Being vindictive is never a practical approach.  "Let's make them suffer because they deserve it" is faulty logic.  "Let's make them suffer as a deterrent" is a lot more effective.

At least here it's a means to an end.


----------



## ramsay_baggins (Oct 23, 2009)

Way to go Poland!


----------



## Scarborough (Oct 23, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> yes that is fine and good but
> 
> we are forgetting how stupid men are and how devious woman are
> 
> ...


It should be noted that chemical castration is vastly different from physical castration. That is, chemical castration works by repressing production of testosterone and other chemicals:


> Although physical castration seems definitive in preventing repeated sexual offenses, some physically castrated pedophiles have restored their potency by taking exogenous testosterone and then abused again. Chemical castration has many advantages over physical castration. It requires follow-up visits, continuous monitoring, and psychiatric reevaluation to continue the medication and *is reversible for health reasons.*


[1]

I'm not disagreeing with how biased the criminal justice system is, but chemical castration seems a lot better than physical castration.

And it's actually effective. Studies were done in Denmark, Germany, and Switzerland, and in those studies, fewer than three percent of individuals committed another sexually-based crime.

Which we can tell was not just a result of having been incarcerated. Of non-chemically-castrated people in Germany and Switzerland in the study, 39.1% went back to commit another sexually-based crime.[2]

[1]http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/82/4/457.abstract
[2]http://jaapl.org/cgi/content/abstract/33/1/16


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Oct 23, 2009)

I agree with Poland's actions.



DarkNoctus said:


> Or one brick if you're committed enough.



Or a hammer.    That would be fun.



PriestRevan said:


> As long as it's only the convicted ones, then that's fine.
> 
> But, I think they shouldn't just focus on pedophiles. They should do the same with all sex offenders.



Agree with this.  Maybe pedos are their biggest concern in Poland.


----------



## Sinjo (Oct 23, 2009)

Well there are two types of pedophiles. One's that actually do the deed and the ones who only watch videos. Does this mean, if you're just caught watching child porn you should have your sex drive cut out?


----------



## PriestRevan (Oct 23, 2009)

Sinjo said:


> Well there are two types of pedophiles. One's that actually do the deed and the ones who only watch videos. Does this mean, if you're just caught watching child porn you should have your sex drive cut out?



I guess so.


----------



## FluffMouse (Oct 23, 2009)

Sinjo said:


> Well there are two types of pedophiles. One's that actually do the deed and the ones who only watch videos. Does this mean, if you're just caught watching child porn you should have your sex drive cut out?


Real child porn.. I'd hope so.
Granted, I don't think it's much more of a stretch for fake child porn.. but still.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Oct 23, 2009)

SugarMental said:


> fake child porn



like midgets?


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 23, 2009)

Ricky said:


> Women can't rape people, silly.
> 
> That's a well-known fact.



I beg to differ.


----------



## FluffMouse (Oct 23, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> like midgets?


OHGOD.. The mental images.. whhhyyyy??!!


----------



## Xerox2 (Oct 23, 2009)

I'd say that's pretty damn cruel and unusual, especially if they haven't actually harmed anyone.


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

Sinjo said:


> Well there are two types of pedophiles. One's that actually do the deed and the ones who only watch videos. Does this mean, if you're just caught watching child porn you should have your sex drive cut out?



hmm yeah because that would be a little over kill 

and would that mean me because i have cub art on my comp : (


----------



## FluffMouse (Oct 23, 2009)

Xerox2 said:


> I'd say that's pretty damn cruel and unusual, especially if they haven't actually harmed anyone.


Not really.. they can get them back. It's not permanent.
It's basically like.. taking away the effect of drugs, instead of just the drugs.

Though.. in that sense.. it doesn't usually work. :<

You'd think once they got it back.. they'd explode into a fury of frustration.


----------



## KarabinerCoyote (Oct 23, 2009)

Gives new meaning to the verse "Every Pole to his bayonet!"

(From the Polish patriotic song _*Warszawianka*_.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLf2Th97h-4


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Oct 23, 2009)

I'm a bit torn on the issue, for the paedophiles anyway. There should not be any punishment for incest because there's no reason to punish it, unless it's rape or paedophilia in which case it falls under those laws. I can see the possible benefit it might have but it's also quite invasive and I doubt similar punishments would be accepted for other crimes. If it's only a temporary thing then that's okay, if it's permanent then I don't think so.


----------



## Scarborough (Oct 23, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> I'm a bit torn on the issue, for the paedophiles anyway. There should not be any punishment for incest because there's no reason to punish it, unless it's rape or paedophilia in which case it falls under those laws. I can see the possible benefit it might have *but it's also quite invasive* and I doubt similar punishments would be accepted for other crimes. If it's only a temporary thing then that's okay, if it's permanent then I don't think so.


http://forums.furaffinity.net/showthread.php?p=1305747&#post1305747

Pills/injections aren't that invasive, are they?


----------



## the_donut_master (Oct 23, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> yes that is fine and good but
> 
> we are forgetting how stupid men are and how devious woman are
> 
> ...



Ummm aren't they s upposed to dna semen before anyone goes to jail? Sounds like your friend got fucked... >.< 

But I think this is refering to *children*, not teens. Who gives a shit about who teens screw, it's their choice. But children...? That's just wrong. I've been on the recieving end and it isn't fun, let me tell you.


----------



## xcliber (Oct 23, 2009)

Don't hate me, but somehow, Poland's decision feels wrong IMHO.
Are we talking about just pedophiles that have been convicted of raping/molesting a child or are we talking about those searched for the resulting pictures online too?

Those people that search and view it, yes they definitely have mental issues, but most of them can't help that their mind derives sexual pleasure from it. I believe these people should be submitted for psychiatric help rather than punished.

I understand the point of it, and in some (or most) cases, it's totally justifiable. But I really think it should be on a case to case basis based on professional psychological evaluation rather than mandating it.

Like the death penalty, it's just too cruel to those few that are capable of atoning for there sins and are sincerely apologetic for there crimes. Not to say that I don't believe that _some_ child raping bastards deserve to die (specifically, those who have no conscience and feel no guilt; burn in hell for all eternity fuckers).

I'm not defending pedophilia in any way, I just think the punishment is being taken to an inhumane, extreme level. Now if the punishement is reversible later on (like being sentenced to 20 years without sexual activity), then I can see it as being an overall good solution.

And as far as incest goes, I personally am disgusted with the thought of even making out with a member of my own family, but if it's consensual between 2 people who are of legal age, I don't think it should be punishable period. Just my $0.02.


----------



## the_donut_master (Oct 23, 2009)

xcliber said:


> Don't hate me, but somehow, Poland's decision feels wrong IMHO.
> Are we talking about just pedophiles that have been convicted of raping/molesting a child or are we talking about those searched for the resulting pictures online too?
> 
> Those people that search and view it, yes they definitely have mental issues, but most of them can't help that their mind derives sexual pleasure from it. I believe these people should be submitted for psychiatric help rather than punished.
> ...



It's ok, I am pretty sure it is only for convicted criminals. They prolly just through the others in prison.

And the thing about incest is if one happens to get pregnant, that baby is fucked. Really, it's irresponsible and inconsiderate. I mean, there are 3 BILLION + people out there who AREN'T related to you... and you go for your cousin?


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

well the thing is the line between loving father or friend and captain pedo is a very thin and grey line and also it seems like humanity likes to put limits on love like 

im 19 ok and in my state if i was seen kissing a 17 year old i would be arrested and slapped with the sexual predator title 

witch would be oh so fun


----------



## CaptainCool (Oct 23, 2009)

xcliber said:


> Don't hate me, but somehow, Poland's decision feels wrong IMHO.
> Are we talking about just pedophiles that have been convicted of raping/molesting a child or are we talking about those searched for the resulting pictures online too?
> 
> Those people that search and view it, yes they definitely have mental issues, but most of them can't help that their mind derives sexual pleasure from it. I believe these people should be submitted for psychiatric help rather than punished.
> ...



as far as i know this is only about people who raped and killed children and went to jail for it. im not too sure but as it seems only those will have to undergo the treatment


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Oct 23, 2009)

> Pills/injections aren't that invasive, are they?



When I said invasive I was talking about its effect. An injection isn't really invasive but the injection is altering the chemical make-up of the body and changing the person's entire physiology. That's the invasive part.


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 23, 2009)

Sinjo said:


> Well there are two types of pedophiles. One's that actually do the deed and the ones who only watch videos. Does this mean, if you're just caught watching child porn you should have your sex drive cut out?


They said "convicted of raping a child under the age of 15 or a close relative".



Rakuen Growlithe said:


> When I said invasive I was talking about its effect. An injection isn't really invasive but the injection is altering the chemical make-up of the body and changing the person's entire physiology. That's the invasive part.


The person raped a child.  They inject him with something that the only real effect is making their sex drive almost non existent.  You don't think that's fair punishment? I mean, it'll prevent them from raping anyone else if they don't feel the sexual desire to (most likely, not 100%).


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Oct 23, 2009)

> The person raped a child. They inject him with something that the only real effect is making their sex drive almost non existent. You don't think that's fair punishment? I mean, it'll prevent them from raping anyone else if they don't feel the sexual desire to (most likely, not 100%).



How did I know you'd go after me... Anyway I said if it was temporary it probably is for the best.


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 23, 2009)

Finally someone has the balls to dish out a real punishment for a crime. It is hardly "inhumane" and is probably the best way to go for this. Supposedly save yourself the trouble of having to put these people back into prison, and stop them from raeping little kids at the same time. 

I mean it isn't like their life is adversely affected outside of not wanting to fuck little kids anymore. I don't see what the problem is.


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

that's a rather hard headed narrow minded way of thinking we as a species have forgotten that there only human they make mistakes and they regret we've become a bunch of media induced retards never thinking wait why is this illegal and the only answer people can give me is "because its wrong" wrong to you perhaps write to me though 

im not saying having sex with your sister or a little kid is write or wrong i would never do it my self but as long as the other party involved knows what there getting into i say go ahead 

i think its wrong that my asian friend got grounded because he got a B in one of his classes yet thats not illegal 

anyone see my point


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 23, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> How did I know you'd go after me... Anyway I said if it was temporary it probably is for the best.


I wasn't "going after you", for once at least.



EinTheCorgi said:


> that's a rather hard headed narrow minded way of thinking we as a species have forgotten that there only human they make mistakes and they regret we've become a bunch of media induced retards never thinking wait why is this illegal and the only answer people can give me is "because its wrong" wrong to you perhaps write to me though
> 
> im not saying having sex with your sister or a little kid is write or wrong i would never do it my self but as long as the other party involved knows what there getting into i say go ahead
> 
> ...


It's actually pretty clear why the latter is illegal.  It can cause severe emotional, mental, and physical trauma, as can all rape.  

The former, however, is not really justifiable.


----------



## Azure (Oct 23, 2009)

Progress.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Oct 23, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Progress.



*POLANSKI JOKE*


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> It's actually pretty clear why the latter is illegal.  It can cause severe emotional, mental, and physical trauma, as can all rape.
> 
> The former, however, is not really justifiable.



i think you may have miss read what i said as unlikely as it may seem if a 10 year old loved a 16 year old and they both knew what they were getting into i see no issues we dont give kids credit to how smart they really are so its not rape do i suport them doing it balls no but love works in crazy ways


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 23, 2009)

Is it rape or rape?


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 23, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> i think you may have miss read what i said as unlikely as it may seem if a 10 year old loved a 16 year old and they both knew what they were getting into i see no issues we dont give kids credit to how smart they really are so its not rape do i suport them doing it balls no but love works in crazy ways


10 year olds don't understand sex and therefore can't consent.   

That makes it rape.


----------



## Kanin (Oct 23, 2009)

Is that also for rapists?

And I agree, good idea.


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

thats were your wrong my 10 year old neace has told me things i didnt even know and that was scary kids are smarter than we think


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 23, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> thats were your wrong my 10 year old neace has told me things i didnt even know and that was scary kids are smarter than we think


That could just be because you're almost retarded.  Which, if your grammar and spelling are any indicator, you could be very close to. 

Knowing things=\=understanding things.  Plus, they aren't even beginning to sexually develop yet.


----------



## Hir (Oct 23, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> thats were your wrong my 10 year old neace has told me things i didnt even know and that was scary kids are smarter than we think


Being smart about sex =/= Consenting


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Oct 23, 2009)

I read a story where a ten year old girl fantasized about getting raped


It was written by a woman


----------



## Ilayas (Oct 23, 2009)

Ricky said:


> Usually (at least in America) the onus of proof is in the prosecution...
> 
> "He did this" isn't usually enough to prosecute someone for a crime.
> 
> Maybe he had a really shitty attorney?




O man you have no idea many innocent people get convicted of shit like this.  Long story short if you ever get in criminal legal trouble go broke getting a good attorney because public defenders will screw you.  

Public defenders fall into these categories:

Have no experience so this was the only job that they could get

Are too shitty a lawyer to get a decent job.  


Public defenders are under paid and over worked even if they were good lawyers they are not in a situation to do a good job.  Also in this country (U.S.A) you can be considered a pedophile being 19 years old and having sex with your 16 year old girlfriend.   

And just for example of how little "proof" needed to convince a young man of a "sex crime".  In a town I used to live in there were a bunch of high school kids at this party.  Well long story short there was booze involved and at the end of it there was a girl that claimed that she was raped.  There was no proof of forced sex but her word.  i.e. no one physical evidence, no one else backed up her story ect.... The boy was charged and convicted.  Luckily he was a minor but just the same having that on your record is pretty bad, even if it's your juvenile one.  

The thing is the girl was a known slut. Now that doesn't really disprove anything but she pulled the same crap again a year latter.  The boy's parents had more money thus he got a better lawyer and he wasn't charged. The school however punished him any ways and kicked him out (it's a public school).  He had to finish school in a town 50 miles away, and he didn't do anything wrong. 

The main difference between the 2 boys is one's family had more money.  Hardly fair.  When it comes down to it politicians don't get votes by saying that they are investing more money into defending criminals so it just doesn't happen. 

So yes people do get convicted of sex crimes based on nothing more then someone's word.  Hell if you want yet another example of this check out what's happening on the news right now with the lady that is recanting her accusation that all those people raped and beat her claiming she made the whole thing up.


----------



## Duality Jack (Oct 23, 2009)

> Under the law, sponsored by Poland's center-right government, pedophiles convicted of raping children under the age of 15 years or a close relative would have to undergo chemical therapy on their release from prison.


Under this context I approve. 

But not for all sex crimes. For example having sex when the two partners are drunk is technically a sex crime and not  just bad judgment as one cannot give consent when drunk under the eyes of law. Given that Violent rape by all means should be punished harshly.


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

DarkNoctus said:


> Being smart about sex =/= Consenting



pretty much yeah


----------



## PriestRevan (Oct 23, 2009)

DarkNoctus said:


> Being smart about sex =/= Consenting



What would happen if the kid said, "Yeah, fill my [genital area] with your huge [genital area]. I have touched myself before, but now I want the real thing."


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> I read a story where a ten year old girl fantasized about getting raped
> 
> 
> It was written by a woman



~_~ WAT!?!


----------



## Ilayas (Oct 23, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> that's a rather hard headed narrow minded way of thinking we as a species have forgotten that there only human they make mistakes and they regret we've become a bunch of media induced retards never thinking wait why is this illegal and the only answer people can give me is "because its wrong" wrong to you perhaps write to me though
> 
> im not saying having sex with your sister or a little kid is write or wrong i would never do it my self but as long as the other party involved knows what there getting into i say go ahead
> 
> ...



Didn't you say you were into cub porn in the other thread?  Honestly I think your own personal kink is getting in the way of your good judgment (if you have any).  I am saying that Having sex with a little kid is wrong.  Particularly if you are much much older then that said kid.  Just because it turns you on doesn't make it right.  There's plenty of research that says otherwise.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Oct 23, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> ~_~ WAT!?!



I know it was fucked up but good


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

[genital area]...lol


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

Ilayas said:


> Didn't you say you were into cub porn in the other thread?  Honestly I think your own personal kink is getting in the way of your good judgment (if you have any).  I am saying that Having sex with a little kid is wrong.  Particularly if you are much much older then that said kid.  Just because it turns you on doesn't make it right.  There's plenty of research that says otherwise.



your mostly correct but thats just my opinion it is not the same as my fetish for little furry girls


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 23, 2009)

What, your opinion that it is okay to rape little children? 

Whether or not the child "says" they want to get raped, the fact of the matter is that the are not fully developed, physically _or_ mentally, and so this really does fall into a case of "not knowing what you want." The laws for child molestation, for the most part, are not based on some arbitrary feeling on when it is okay to have sex, but rather they are based on biology. Children, young children at least, _cannot_ consent to sex the same way an adult would be able to.


----------



## PriestRevan (Oct 23, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> What, your opinion that it is okay to rape little children?
> 
> Whether or not the child "says" they want to get raped, the fact of the matter is that the are not fully developed, physically _or_ mentally, and so this really does fall into a case of "not knowing what you want." The laws for child molestation, for the most part, are not based on some arbitrary feeling on when it is okay to have sex, but rather they are based on biology. Children, young children at least, _cannot_ consent to sex the same way an adult would be able to.



What about when they're 14 or 16?


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 23, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> your mostly correct but thats just my opinion it is not the same as my fetish for little furry girls



But it can hurt your standing in a debate like this.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Oct 23, 2009)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> But it can hurt your standing in a debate like this.



So my love of loli should preclude me from any discussion involving PAEDOPHILIA?

That seems a little unfair doesn't it?


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> But it can hurt your standing in a debate like this.



yeah but they will only use that if there loseing ^_^

and as my one friend says you can't RAPE the willing


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 23, 2009)

PriestRevan said:


> What about when they're 14 or 16?



What about when they are 6 or 8? 

5? 

Clearly children undergo continuous development and so it is impossible to pin down "the year" that children are mentally  and physically developed enough to have sex. Because of this pedophilia laws tend to cover everyone under the legal adult age. Not because you are incapable of consenting until you reach the "legal adult age" but because there really is no way to pin down exactly "when" that point is. 

People are almost certainly able to consent to sex before the legal adult age, that really isn't something you can argue again. However, it is also certain that children that are young enough cannot consent to sex either. Child molestation laws exist as a compromise between the two.


----------



## PriestRevan (Oct 23, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> What about when they are 6 or 8?
> 
> 5?
> 
> ...



So it's possible a 10 or 11 year old COULD possess the maturity to consent.


----------



## Kanin (Oct 23, 2009)

PriestRevan said:


> So it's possible a 10 or 11 year old COULD possess the maturity to consent.


 
But with a world full of morons, it's highly unlikely.


----------



## Ilayas (Oct 23, 2009)

You sexualize underage characters and then claim that underage children are mentally capable of consenting to sex.  How are these not related?


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 23, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> So my love of loli should preclude me from any discussion involving PAEDOPHILIA?
> 
> That seems a little unfair doesn't it?



It's a slippery slope, but it also how you defend the "other  side".

Our loveable poke'fur here is an example of it.



EinTheCorgi said:


> yeah but they will only use that if there loseing ^_^
> 
> and as my one friend says you can't RAPE the willing



If a child has no level of understanding of why Uncle Bob asked your nephew to "Suck on his White toffee bar", then it classifies molestation.

If you ask your niece to "Touch her cat" and "Rub your stick", she will have no understanding to it, but it does not necessarily mean consent.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 23, 2009)

PriestRevan said:


> So it's possible a 10 or 11 year old COULD possess the maturity to consent.



A child can say yes or no, but it does not automatically mean consent.


----------



## PriestRevan (Oct 23, 2009)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> A child can say yes or no, but it does not automatically mean consent.



I'm talking the "understanding" of it. I'm not going to sit here and say that fucking 10 year olds is right (even if human history says otherwise), but it comes into question when certain children understand sex and understand what it means to say, "yes" or "no" in that situation.


----------



## Hir (Oct 23, 2009)

PriestRevan said:


> What would happen if the kid said, "Yeah, fill my [genital area] with your huge [genital area]. I have touched myself before, but now I want the real thing."


Fuck me and find out :V


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

Ilayas said:


> You sexualize underage characters and then claim that underage children are mentally capable of consenting to sex.  How are these not related?



well speaking in a science perspective a girl is sexually mature as soon as she has her first period in witch that case my mothers sister had her thing when she was the age of nine soo yeah...


----------



## Ilayas (Oct 23, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> well speaking in a science perspective a girl is sexually mature as soon as she has her first period in witch that case my mothers sister had her thing when she was the age of nine soo yeah...



Sooooooo let me get this strait you are saying that as soon as a girl has her period she is mature enough to consent to sex?


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 23, 2009)

PriestRevan said:


> I'm talking the "understanding" of it. I'm not going to sit here and say that fucking 10 year olds is right (even if human history says otherwise), but it comes into question when certain children understand sex and understand what it means to say, "yes" or "no" in that situation.



It all coes down to what the parent teaches the child.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 23, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> well speaking in a science perspective a girl is sexually mature as soon as she has her first period in witch that case my mothers sister had her thing when she was the age of nine soo yeah...



An eight year old can have a period, but that does not mean she understands what sex is, and it does not justify anyone to molest the child.


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

Ilayas said:


> Sooooooo let me get this strait you are saying that as soon as a girl has her period she is mature enough to consent to sex?



physically yes mentally i depends on the person


----------



## Ilayas (Oct 23, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> physically yes mentally i depends on the person



Show me some research that says that a very young child boy or girl has the mental maturity to consent to sex.  Your experience with your 10 year old niece (which I honestly find a bit frightening) does not count. 

The only thing you've presented is your unsported opinion. Your opinion can be wrong, particularly if you have no evidence to back it up.


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

im not saying a lot of them can but there are a few and dont be scared i dont even like my niece any way she's annoying


----------



## PriestRevan (Oct 23, 2009)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> It all coes down to what the parent teaches the child.



True enough. 

I think it also depends on the society in which this occurs. I mean, in some societies, children can get married and even understand the complexities that come along with sexual relationships.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 23, 2009)

PriestRevan said:


> True enough.
> 
> I think it also depends on the society in which this occurs. I mean, in some societies, children can get married and even understand the complexities that come along with sexual relationships.



Lol Yep.

In Islam, a girl can get married at the age of 13, reguardless if she is sexually mature or not.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 23, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> im not saying a lot of them can but there are a few and dont be scared i dont even like my niece any way she's annoying



If a child was put into an enviroment where the adults or young adults spoutiexplicit words, such as the kid you babysit and your friends that you invite, the kid will parrot it. It does not mean that they understand it.

Hell, when I was eight, I knew what sex was and I thought it was gross.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 23, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> What about with a strap-on



If you're raping someone with a strap-on then it's not really your sex-drive influencing you, so I don't see how destroying your sex drive makes any sense in this situation.

Also, I think it's a good idea. Get those sex crazed perverts under control. However, I sincerely hope they've become MUCH more cautious about wrongfully convicting innocent people.

Also, spay and neuter your pedophiles!


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

yeah the first time i saw a vagina in porn i was like eww that thing looks fuckin nasty its a largely where your mind set is


----------



## Ricky (Oct 23, 2009)

Ilayas said:


> Public defenders are under paid and over worked even if they were good lawyers they are not in a situation to do a good job.



Yeah, the problem is they deal with so many cases at a time there's no way to even invest enough time into one in order to be useful.

I've seen a very large number of people get completely fucked by public defenders to the point where it was nonsense.

Still, "he said this" should never be a valid prosecution in this country.  Fuck that.


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

Ricky said:


> Yeah, the problem is they deal with so many cases at a time there's no way to even invest enough time into one in order to be useful.
> 
> I've seen a very large number of people get completely fucked by public defenders to the point where it was nonsense.
> 
> Still, "he said this" should never be a valid prosecution in this country.  Fuck that.



yep just more proof that the US justice system is fucked


----------



## Ilayas (Oct 23, 2009)

PriestRevan said:


> True enough.
> 
> I think it also depends on the society in which this occurs. I mean, in some societies, children can get married and even understand the complexities that come along with sexual relationships.




Well I would say the augment that in other societies do something and that they've been doing it for a long time makes it ok isn't a valid one.  The classic example of this is slavery.  Which lots of people did for a very long time but there are very good social and scientific reasons why slavery is not justified. Or foot binding in China.  They've been doing it for centuries but it doesn't make it ok.  

So telling me that in X country a underage girl is married off to a husband and this the way it's been forever does little to convince me.  Cultural relativism only goes so far.  If you want to convince me that a under age child can be mature enough to consent to sex you'll have to give me a better example.

I like to add that in most countries were it's common place for underage girls to enter into marriage women don't have much or any rights.  They are treated little better then chattel.  Go ahead tell me that's healthy.


----------



## makmakmob (Oct 23, 2009)

I think this would be a wonderful idea if we lived in a society where the justice system was 100% accurate, but I'm sure we all agree that innocent people should have the right _not_ to be castrated.


----------



## Valnyr (Oct 23, 2009)

Just Sand blast the Genetalia off. Or just sand blast em entirely. Anyhow they deserve it.


----------



## Hir (Oct 23, 2009)

Valnyr said:


> Just Sand blast the Genetalia off. Or just sand blast em entirely. Anyhow they deserve it.


I think I've found future employment.


----------



## CaptainCool (Oct 23, 2009)

Valnyr said:


> Just Sand blast the Genetalia off. Or just sand blast em entirely. Anyhow they deserve it.



oh yeah, that would be so cool XD fuck chemistry, i found my future job!

i created this topic on the forum i moderate as well... we have a self proclaimed civil rights activist there who defends the fuck out of those pedos >.>


----------



## foxmusk (Oct 23, 2009)

how about we just not have sex with minors. that would be cool.


----------



## PriestRevan (Oct 23, 2009)

Ilayas said:


> Well I would say the augment that in other societies do something and that they've been doing it for a long time makes it ok isn't a valid one.  The classic example of this is slavery.  Which lots of people did for a very long time but there are very good social and scientific reasons why slavery is not justified. Or foot binding in China.  They've been doing it for centuries but it doesn't make it ok.
> 
> So telling me that in X country a underage girl is married off to a husband and this the way it's been forever does little to convince me.  Cultural relativism only goes so far.  If you want to convince me that a under age child can be mature enough to consent to sex you'll have to give me a better example.
> 
> I like to add that in most countries were it's common place for underage girls to enter into marriage women don't have much or any rights.  They are treated little better then chattel.  Go ahead tell me that's healthy.



What you say may be true, but I still think that it may not do all that much harm to the child. I mean, many societies existed on the concept of early marriage (and some still do)... and some of these societies where extremely powerful (look at the man-boy/woman-girl relationships of the Greek and Roman empires. It may be looked down upon now, but you have to stand back and see it from their point of view and even understand that such relationships, as far as I know, have never been recorded has having a negative effect on the children. In fact, I do recall it having a positive affect.)

As I said before, I don't support child fucking and whatnot, but at the same time, when I look at human history, I also don't see the negatives (other than forceful, contract marriages of course). I think whatever negatives come out of it today are 'caused by the changing times...even possibly more censorship.

*edit* I think the best way to say it is: What is different about children now then they were a 1000 years ago?


----------



## Hir (Oct 23, 2009)

HarleyParanoia said:


> how about we just not have sex with minors. that would be cool.


But....they wiggle ;~;




Ok ok ok too far.


----------



## foxmusk (Oct 23, 2009)

DarkNoctus said:


> But....they wiggle ;~;
> 
> Ok ok ok too far.



that's what she said!


----------



## Hir (Oct 23, 2009)

HarleyParanoia said:


> that's what she said!


Zing!


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

but if you think about it look a the media its always going on about so and so was raped and killed last night

and look at the role models for kids now miss montana and her short shorts yeah thats appropriate we just have to except that if we dont take a stand now you wont need a pedo to tarnish your kid the media will do that for him

theres being introduced to sex then theres having it crammed down your throat witch the media is doing happly to do


----------



## Ricky (Oct 23, 2009)

PriestRevan said:


> What you say may be true, but I still think that it may not do all that much harm to the child. I mean, many societies existed on the concept of early marriage (and some still do)... and some of these societies where extremely powerful (look at the man-boy/woman-girl relationships of the Greek and Roman empires. It may be looked down upon now, but you have to stand back and see it from their point of view and even understand that such relationships, as far as I know, have never been recorded has having a negative effect on the children. In fact, I do recall it having a positive affect.)
> 
> As I said before, I don't support child fucking and whatnot, but at the same time, when I look at human history, I also don't see the negatives (other than forceful, contract marriages of course). I think whatever negatives come out of it today are 'caused by the changing times...even possibly more censorship.
> 
> *edit* I think the best way to say it is: What is different about children now then they were a 1000 years ago?



Eh...  It's all a matter of opinion, really.  There's no quantitative test that will determine an exact age that's acceptable; that's ridiculous.

I think a lot of it _does_ have to do with the society though.  The difference between someone who is 13 now, and someone who was 13 1000 years ago is huge.  First of all, back then they would have a completely different role (especially for a female) and back then this was about the age of maturity.  You'd be off on your own and have a whole set of responsibilities people who are 13 today don't even have to think of.

I don't think there's any magical turning point where sex before a certain age becomes detrimental.  The problem is kids have no responsibilities and so they are naive and don't make the best of choices.  We're not protecting these kids from "mental anguish" but more from stuff like risky sex that could result in STD's, or even worse: kids!

There's a big difference here between someone going after a teen and someone who is going after a child.  These are the people we should really be concerned about.  Still, for some reason we try to define a magical age which makes no fucking sense at all and places someone who is a few years older than their 17 year old girlfriend on the same level as a child molester raping babies in some states.

Of course it's such a touchy subject people have their panties too in a bunch for any intelligent debate on the subject so I'm sure it will be a good fucking while before we see any legislation that makes any sense at all.


----------



## foxmusk (Oct 23, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> but if you think about it look a the media its always going on about so and so was raped and killed last night
> 
> and look at the role models for kids now miss montana and her short shorts yeah thats appropriate we just have to except that if we dont take a stand now you wont need a pedo to tarnish your kid the media will do that for him
> 
> theres being introduced to sex then theres having it crammed down your throat witch the media is doing happly to do



sooo, does that make it okay?


----------



## Ilayas (Oct 23, 2009)

PriestRevan said:


> What you say may be true, but I still think that it may not do all that much harm to the child. I mean, many societies existed on the concept of early marriage (and some still do)... and some of these societies where extremely powerful (look at the man-boy/woman-girl relationships of the Greek and Roman empires. It may be looked down upon now, but you have to stand back and see it from their point of view and even understand that such relationships, as far as I know, have never been recorded has having a negative effect on the children. In fact, I do recall it having a positive affect.)
> 
> As I said before, I don't support child fucking and whatnot, but at the same time, when I look at human history, I also don't see the negatives (other than forceful, contract marriages of course). I think whatever negatives come out of it today are 'caused by the changing times...even possibly more censorship.
> 
> *edit* I think the best way to say it is: What is different about children now then they were a 1000 years ago?



I ask you to show me a society that exists TODAY that has a majority of underage girls entering into marriage where women have equal (or at lest close to equal) rights men.   Just because you are taught that something is ok or common place doesn't make it right even morally or scientifically. 

I would ask that what makes you think that what they did over 1,000 years ago was a good idea and not harmful?  Have you done any research about how courtship and marriage worked in Hellenistic culture? I read an essay written in Roman times on advice on how to peruse relationships with women.  Part of it condones raping women and explicitly says that even if she fights against the man to keep going because women really do like it.  You'll find no roman texts saying that this had a determinable effect on women.  Something being socially acceptable in Roman times is a very very poor reason for to support it now.  

Edit: God I sound like a Fem-Nazi uggg......


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

Ricky said:


> Eh...  It's all a matter of opinion, really.  There's no quantitative test that will determine an exact age that's acceptable; that's ridiculous.
> 
> I think a lot of it _does_ have to do with the society though.  The difference between someone who is 13 now, and someone who was 13 1000 years ago is huge.  First of all, back then they would have a completely different role (especially for a female) and back then this was about the age of maturity.  You'd be off on your own and have a whole set of responsibilities people who are 13 today don't even have to think of.
> 
> ...



im glad that someone can keep a cool head 

HarleyParanoia what do you mean doing it with kids? im not sure if the two party's fully understand what there doing and they both love each other than i believe i nor any one else has the right to say no to that love

if your asking if i think the media has the right to molest our kids with there shit fuck no


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

Ilayas i have to agree with you there just because you can do it dont mean you should 

because i know more that a few people who are 18 but less mature than the 7 year old i watch


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Oct 23, 2009)

o.-.o  Wow.  This thread...


----------



## foxmusk (Oct 23, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> if your asking if i think the media has the right to molest our kids with there shit fuck no



but it's okay to make lewd comments to a minor as long as they're your friends and it's in joke.


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 23, 2009)

PriestRevan said:


> So it's possible a 10 or 11 year old COULD possess the maturity to consent.



_*shrugs_ 

I have been doing some searching on teh googles, and much to my chagrin I have not really found anything that supports the assumption that children ~11 and older or not physically mature enough for sex. 

Which of course only leaves mental and emotional factors to deal with. I couldn't find any references to mental development in children, at least not with a brief search and a few guidelines, so I can't really bring forward anything other than what I have heard myself. 

But I suppose it is unimportant because children develop on a case by case basis and there is no set age you can ping it to anyway. But this is why laws always have, and always will, work with generalities. The general consensus is (again only from what I have heard) that children can't really understand the implications, whatever they may be, of sex, and so cannot genuinely consent to it. The same theme is played on trying a child for a crime, or determining whether or not a child can consent to refuse a medical treatment (drugs etc). 

Certainly this is true at very young ages, through 8 perhaps, but no one knows at what point ignorance gives in to understanding; and as far as I know there is no good way to test for it either. 

In any event this is a case of a law covering all its bases. We don't know when a child can genuinely consent to sex so we overestimate the age. As far as the legislation itself is concerned, that is probably the best we can do given what we know about child development. The specifics of whether or not someone should go to jail over it (i.e a 19 year old getting down with a 16 year old vs. a 30 year old and a 8 year old) should naturally be handled on a case by case basis, but as far as how the laws cover it in general, they are fine. 


~~~

Now, as you said before a lot of this has to do with culture, and this is true. But it is also irrelevant. You make laws based on the culture the laws exist within. It makes no sense to look at what the Greeks did, or even another country now, and skew your laws based on that. Almost _every_ law exists because of cultural reasons, with very few being more "natural" or recurring laws, like stealing or murder (and even then there is variation.) All that matters in this case is whether or not a child can (a) consent, or (b) if it harms them, emotionally or physically. We have difficulty empirically proving the details of these conditions, hence the reason for the debate and the confusion, but ultimately pinning down these details is all that should matter.


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

HarleyParanoia said:


> but it's okay to make lewd comments to a minor as long as they're your friends and it's in joke.



like i told you yesterday i kicked his ass out for doing that


----------



## foxmusk (Oct 23, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> like i told you yesterday i kicked his ass out for doing that



what are you talking about?


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

HarleyParanoia said:


> what are you talking about?



when me friend made that gesture to Ren i kicked him uot after yelling at him


----------



## Cronus616 (Oct 23, 2009)

I'm reading this for the first time. That's just wrong. Sick and disturbing.
But I don't feel like reading every other post in this thread.


----------



## Ilayas (Oct 23, 2009)

I agree with you CommodoreKitty.  So what I am asking EinTheCorgi (and to a lesser extent PriestRevan) is to give me some evidence it isn't harmful for underage children (and I'm not talking mid to late teens here) have the maturity to consent to sex that isn't based on X culture does it so that makes it ok.  I mean my original question that EinTheCorgi has yet to answer is how his sexual attraction to under age characters doesn't have anything to do with him believing that a underage human is mature enough to consent to sex.


----------



## Hir (Oct 23, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> when me friend made that gesture to Ren i kicked him uot after yelling at him


I would have done more than that. The fact you still make up excuses to defend your perverted friends quite frankly shocks me.


----------



## foxmusk (Oct 23, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> when me friend made that gesture to Ren i kicked him uot after yelling at him



i bet you didn't.


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

Ilayas said:


> I agree with you CommodoreKitty.  So what I am asking EinTheCorgi (and to a lesser extent PriestRevan) is to give me some evidence it isn't harmful for underage children (and I'm not talking mid to late teens here) have the maturity to consent to sex that isn't based on X culture does it so that makes it ok.  I mean my original question that EinTheCorgi has yet to answer is how his sexual attraction to under age characters doesn't have anything to do with him believing that a underage human is mature enough to consent to sex.



umm because cubs are simply drawings and are not real and i dont confuse drawings with reality


----------



## Ilayas (Oct 23, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> umm because cubs are simply drawings and are not real and i dont confuse drawings with reality



So in reality what proof do you base the opinion that underage children have the maturity to consent to sex?  As I said before the perceived "maturity" of your 10 year old niece and the argument because X culture does it doesn't count.


----------



## Jude Prudence (Oct 23, 2009)

A Research Survey in canada awhile back concluded that Pedophiles are far more attracted to the violence and dominance exerted over the victim than the sexual aspect of rape. 

They're going for the trigger, here. Not the underlying source of these acts.

Also, people are neglecting the fact that there's a black market for Erectile Dysfunction pills just like there is for any other medication, it seems. Just because it's going to feel wierd for the determined types doesn't mean they won't try it.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...ehavioral treatment of sex offenders"&f=false

I believe it was this report I read from that made distinctions between pedophiles. While you have those that are only sexually attracted to children, you also have those were incidental pedophiles. IE Individuals open to the suggestion of carrying the act out while having access to potential victims.

For the individuals that could not carry out a normal, healthy relationship with someone within their age group, chemical castration would have to be seriously considered. Other individuals that could otherwise have normal relationships could probably be considered instead for isolation from potential victims first with the pill as a secondary option.

Really, under ideal circumstances, Child Molesters should have to submit to mandatory psychological / psychiatric research studies to speed up the development of new prevention tactics, treatments and the holy grail of a cure for this sickness. 

And beyond that, I'm not above considering the possibility of from kind of purpose made community to house these individuals away from potential victims. One of the main problems we have with keeping track of these people is where to put them in the first place. There's released sex offenders still living under a bridge in florida, I'm assuming.


----------



## Revy (Oct 23, 2009)

Thats a bit much...


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 23, 2009)

Jude said:
			
		

> Really, under ideal circumstances, Child Molesters should have to submit to mandatory psychological / psychiatric research studies to speed up the development of new prevention tactics, treatments and the holy grail of a cure for this sickness.



Am I the only one who finds the idea of "curing" thoughts a little bit discomforting?


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 23, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Am I the only one who finds the idea of "curing" thoughts a little bit discomforting?


A little electroshock therapy and we'll cure you of that discomfort.


----------



## Ilayas (Oct 23, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Am I the only one who finds the idea of "curing" thoughts a little bit discomforting?



What about anti-psychotic medication?  Or anti-depressants?


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 23, 2009)

Ilayas said:


> What about anti-psychotic medication?  Or anti-depressants?



All very temporary and incomplete masks for symptoms that are on the whole not enforced on people. I was thinking more about the "permanent" kind of mind alteration, whose intention is to "cure" thoughts the state finds undesirable. 

Also no I am not a conspiracy theorist don't judge me.


----------



## Jude Prudence (Oct 23, 2009)

Revy said:


> Thats a bit much...



Too Humane or too cruel?

I'm assuring you, it's neither.


----------



## Jude Prudence (Oct 23, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Am I the only one who finds the idea of "curing" thoughts a little bit discomforting?



The idea itself conjures up images of a rehabilitated Alex DeLarge released from treatment only to be preyed upon by his former victims. 

That, and I suppose a slippery slope argument could be used to justify the possibility of future dictatorships using such tactics to control their respective populations.

That said, it is highly unlikely that therapy of this type could be used in such ways for some time to come, and it seems just likely to happen at some point in the future even without this development.

That said, we have little to lose in trying to figure these individuals out in the grand scheme of things. 

And the reward? 

That's priceless, if you ask me.


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 23, 2009)

I do not have a problem with people studying these child molesters. I have a problem with people deciding what thoughts are "good" and which ones are not, and then acting on it. No matter which way you cut it, this is thought police. No person or entity has the authority to decide what thoughts you are allowed to have and what ones you are not; even if it is as seemingly "beneficial" as stopping the urges of pedos. 

When I said I was glad someone had the balls to punish these people earlier in the thread, I was not being clear and definitely was painting with a wide brush. It is actually pretty fucked up. The government has no business punishing people for what they "might" do in the future. If you have evidence that they might be planning to rape a child, then by all means act on it. But you have no right to punish someone for possible future offenses. Not like this. These people have already done their time in jail and payed for their crimes, assuming the sentencing was correct. Castrating them because you are scared that they _could_ do something in the future is not copacetic.

 You punish people for their _actions_, and the intent behind the castration is certainly not to punish them for the crime they committed as much as it is for crimes they might commit. This should never be okay; no one should have the authority to punish for what might be.


----------



## Scarborough (Oct 23, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> I do not have a problem with people studying these child molesters. I have a problem with people deciding what thoughts are "good" and which ones are not, and then acting on it. No matter which way you cut it, this is thought police. No person or entity has the authority to decide what thoughts you are allowed to have and what ones you are not; even if it is as seemingly "beneficial" as stopping the urges of pedos.



I'm going to ask this question and try not to sound as asshole-ish as possible, because this is a serious question. Though it might derail the topic a bit.

What do you think about life sentences?


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Am I the only one who finds the idea of "curing" thoughts a little bit discomforting?



thats the mind set now though you dont look like me so i hate you

you dont like the things that i like so i hate you 

you dont believe the things i do so i hate you ect ect 

i know that when i posted hear i wasnt expecting to get into an argument im not saying pedophilia is right BUT im also not saying its wrong under select circumstances it should be ok would i have sex with KIDs no not ever even if one wanted me to i couldn't do it i have to much self control 

im just trying to get people to open there minds to new ideas and perspectives


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 23, 2009)

Scarborough said:


> I'm going to ask this question and try not to sound as asshole-ish as possible, because this is a serious question. Though it might derail the topic a bit.
> 
> What do you think about life sentences?



The thing about a life sentence is that it is given to a crime heinous enough to merit the person being put away for life. You put people away for life as a punishment for a crime. Rehab is out of the question for these peopleas it would do no good anyway, they are never leaving. 

If child molestation is bad enough to warrant a lifetime of _punishment_ then so be it. You are not punishing them for what they might do, you are punishing them for what they did. Life sentences punish you for a crime you made, not one you might make, and so I approve of them.


----------



## Ilayas (Oct 23, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> All very temporary and incomplete masks for symptoms that are on the whole not enforced on people. I was thinking more about the "permanent" kind of mind alteration, whose intention is to "cure" thoughts the state finds undesirable.
> 
> Also no I am not a conspiracy theorist don't judge me.



You can be court ordered to take anti-psychotic drugs for the remainder of your natural life.  Anti-psychotic drugs do alter the mind and "cure" undesirable thoughts that make it impossible for said person to function in our society.  Their inability to function in our society isn't just the inability to hold down a job it also includes a tendency to harm people. 

A very similar argument could be made court ordered chemical castration.


----------



## Scarborough (Oct 23, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> The thing about a life sentence is that it is given to a crime heinous enough to merit the person being put away for life. You put people away for life as a punishment for a crime. *Rehab is out of the question for these peopleas it would do no good anyway, they are never leaving.*


This part confused me. Are you saying the following:

People who are facing life imprisonment don't need rehabilitation because they are never re-entering society.

So then can I extrapolate the following:

People who face imprisonment do need rehabilitation because they are re-entering society.

Would that be in line with what you're saying?


----------



## Shay Feral (Oct 23, 2009)

Ilayas said:


> You can be court ordered to take anti-psychotic drugs for the remainder of your natural life.  Anti-psychotic drugs do alter the mind and "cure" undesirable thoughts that make it impossible for said person to function in our society.  Their inability to function in our society isn't just the inability to hold down a job it also includes a tendency to harm people.
> 
> A very similar argument could be made court ordered chemical castration.



Not really, because people who have been ordered to take anti-psychotic drugs have been thoroughly evaluated and deemed a possible threat without them. If one wants to make that argument then one should be evaluated and deemed a possible threat before being castrated...

And that it's self is a flawed system...


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

Scarborough said:


> I'm going to ask this question and try not to sound as asshole-ish as possible, because this is a serious question. Though it might derail the topic a bit.
> 
> What do you think about life sentences?



well like i said we need to treat each case separately people are very diverse so not all killers are the same 

like if some one were to hit the girl i watch whom i love like my own and she was seriously hut like lost the ability to walk or was paralyzed because they were drunk

i dont think i could let that person live i would kill out of love

is that wrong think about it let your mind travel beyond its physical limits and put your self in my body with my emotions let your mind breath freely 

so do i believe in life sentences on occasion yes i do execution to


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 23, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> well like i said we need to treat each case separately people are very diverse so not all killers are the same
> 
> like if some one were to hit the girl i watch whom i love like my own and she was seriously hut like lost the ability to walk or was paralyzed because they were drunk
> 
> ...


one drunk driving mistake should equal death then?


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 23, 2009)

@Scar

I actually do not believe that rehabilitation should be a priority of prison at all. The comment was more geared to addressing the assertion that people, even if in prison for life, need to be rehabilitated before anyone brought it up as an objection to my point. In all honesty it was just to cover my bases and really has no bearing on my overall point. 

@Ilayas

I know that the courts can force people to take drugs for the remainder of their natural life, which is why I said "as a whole" in my post. Even still, the effects of the drugs are temporary and incomplete, and can be stopped at any time. It does not address the "cause" as much as the symptoms, and that difference is key. It does not cure as much as it mitigates, and it is by no means permanent. 

I was referring to a _permanent cure_ for "undesirable" traits; something we do not have the ability to do.


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

your not letting your mind open and feel the emotions. he chose to drink and drive and there for sealed his fate


----------



## Duality Jack (Oct 23, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> Not really, because people who have been ordered to take anti-psychotic drugs have been thoroughly evaluated and deemed a possible threat without them. If one wants to make that argument then one should be evaluated and deemed a possible threat before being castrated...
> 
> And that it's self is a flawed system...


 You should be chemically castrated :V


----------



## Shay Feral (Oct 23, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> @Scar
> 
> I actually do not believe that rehabilitation should be a priority of prison at all. The comment was more geared to addressing the assertion that people, even if in prison for life, need to be rehabilitated before anyone brought it up as an objection to my point. In all honesty it was just to cover my bases and really has no bearing on my overall point.



Well, rehabilitation should be somewhere on the prison's priority list, especially for those in there for a limited amount of time. Sometimes there are people who go to prison that just need to be set straight, and rehabilitation would help those people.



The Drunken Ace said:


> You should be chemically castrated :V


You should just be shot... In the nuts... then the head... and then the head attached to your shoulders


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 23, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> your not letting your mind open and feel the emotions. he chose to drink and drive and there for sealed his fate


So being impaired on one decision due to alcohol and he should die.  Right.  Because his whole life isn't worth anything.

Why would you want to "let your mind open and feel the emotions"?  That leads to illogical choices.  In fact, in an ideal world, there wouldn't be emotions involved in prosecution/punishment.


----------



## Scarborough (Oct 23, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> well like i said we need to treat each case separately people are very diverse so not all killers are the same
> 
> like if some one were to hit the girl i watch whom i love like my own and she was seriously hut like lost the ability to walk or was paralyzed because they were drunk
> 
> ...


Yeah, that's probably wrong. To kill that person (the drunk driver) anyway. The person definitely did something bad, but does that mean you're allowed to kill the person? Eye for an eye? Even if it was just an accident? I'm not saying that it's not terrible. I'm saying that there's a bigger picture you need to look at.

I mean, it might be right in your personal viewpoint, but it's wrong in mine.


CommodoreKitty said:


> @Scar
> 
> I actually do not believe that rehabilitation should be a priority of prison at all. The comment was more geared to addressing the assertion that people, even if in prison for life, need to be rehabilitated before anyone brought it up as an objection to my point. In all honesty it was just to cover my bases and really has no bearing on my overall point.


Which is why I asked. Just curious.


----------



## Duality Jack (Oct 23, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> You should just be shot... In the nuts... then the head... and then the head attached to your shoulders


Now now violence is not the solution.


----------



## feilen (Oct 23, 2009)

Ricky said:


> I think the logic goes something like...  You can't rape the willing and since guys always want sex -
> 
> Well I forget exactly but you get the point.



Even if they're kids.


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 23, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> Well, rehabilitation should be somewhere on the prison's priority list, especially for those in there for a limited amount of time. Sometimes there are people who go to prison that just need to be set straight, and rehabilitation would help those people.



The problem with that is it assumes a lot on the part of rehab programs to produce consistent or substantial results. I have no problem with criminals turning their back on criminality and integrating into society; I am simply unconvinced that rehab programs can deliver this, in general at least. 

Naturally not all crimes are the same so it would be silly to assume that rehab would not work on any crimes, but I personally have not seen much to support rehab on violent crime at least. AFAIK the recidivism rate for felonies is high, rehab or not. Of course comparisons between different programs is pretty much impossible (you can't compare one state or counties program to anothers in an objective manner; too many variables between them) but if you can find something that proves different I would certainly at least be willing to modify my view. 

I just think that between the inconsistency of rehab programs and their cost(?), punishment should be a priority over rehab. 

But then again I am a cold emotionless bastard so that could play a part too.


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

Scarborough said:


> Yeah, that's probably wrong. To kill that person (the drunk driver) anyway. The person definitely did something bad, but does that mean you're allowed to kill the person? Eye for an eye? Even if it was just an accident? I'm not saying that it's not terrible. I'm saying that there's a bigger picture you need to look at.
> 
> I mean, it might be right in your personal viewpoint, but it's wrong in mine.
> 
> Which is why I asked. Just curious.



im not saying that he should just that he would because i would grind his face on his own cars mortar fan. because i couldn't let him get away with it

and us human's are what make us us take that away and we are dead not really but on the inside yes


----------



## Ilayas (Oct 23, 2009)

@ Shay Feral Fair mostly I just wanted to see what you'd say to the argument.  


@ EinTheCorgi I love how you've totally ignored my question.  In case you forgot the one on page 5 



> So in reality what proof do you base the opinion that underage children have the maturity to consent to sex? As I said before the perceived "maturity" of your 10 year old niece and the argument because X culture does it doesn't count.


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> So being impaired on one decision due to alcohol and he should die.  Right.  Because his whole life isn't worth anything.
> 
> Why would you want to "let your mind open and feel the emotions"?  That leads to illogical choices.  In fact, in an ideal world, there wouldn't be emotions involved in prosecution/punishment.



ok but im going out on a limb now and thinking if someone killed your mom you wouldnt want them to die no you would want them to go to jail and be able to go outside and watch tv and read books ect because THATS punishment


----------



## Shay Feral (Oct 23, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> The problem with that is it assumes a lot on the part of rehab programs to produce consistent or substantial results. I have no problem with criminals turning their back on criminality and integrating into society; I am simply unconvinced that rehab programs can deliver this, in general at least.
> 
> Naturally not all crimes are the same so it would be silly to assume that rehab would not work on any crimes, but I personally have not seen much to support rehab on violent crime at least. AFAIK the recidivism rate for felonies is high, rehab or not. Of course comparisons between different programs is pretty much impossible (you can't compare one state or counties program to anothers in an objective manner; too many variables between them) but if you can find something that proves different I would certainly at least be willing to modify my view.
> 
> ...



I wouldn't say I disagree totally with your point of view, alot of cases rehabilitation just doesn't work. Sometimes people don't want to be rehabilitated and become a productive member of our monkey house we call "society".

But every criminal regardless of crime should be granted the ability to enter rehabilitation. But rehabilitation shouldn't be taken lightly, there are so many flaws and no actual guarantee that the person wouldn't return to their old ways. People will do just about anything to get out of trouble and to avoid it as well...



The Drunken Ace said:


> Now now violence is not the solution.



Sometimes violence is the solution, especially when someone is shooting at you with intentions to kill you. If that happens and giving them a cupcake and a flower doesn't work, then I think the best solution is to shoot back!


----------



## Scarborough (Oct 23, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> im not saying that he should just that he would because i would grind his face on his own cars mortar fan. because i couldn't let him get away with it
> 
> and us human's are what make us us take that away and we are dead not really but on the inside yes


Not everybody's like you.

And getting him arrested and imprisoned is not letting him "get away with it."


----------



## foxmusk (Oct 23, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> Sometimes violence is the solution, especially when someone is shooting at you with intentions to kill you. If that happens and giving them a cupcake and a flower doesn't work, then I think the best solution is to shoot back!



are you fifteen?


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

Ilayas said:


> @ Shay Feral Fair mostly I just wanted to see what you'd say to the argument.
> 
> 
> @ EinTheCorgi I love how you've totally ignored my question.  In case you forgot the one on page 5



well its reverse thinking on my part if there are 21 year olds whom hve the maturity of a toddler then there MUST be kids that are mature enough to understand sex and how serious it is ok is that a good answer


----------



## Duality Jack (Oct 23, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> Sometimes violence is the solution, especially when someone is shooting at you with intentions to kill you. If that happens and giving them a cupcake and a flower doesn't work, then I think the best solution is to shoot back!


 It is not today though. And besides its smarter to avoid situations like that. Oh and by the way thanks for giving me a stunng example "argument by changed context"  deemed to be one of the cheaper types of spin-talk.


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

Scarborough said:


> Not everybody's like you.
> 
> And getting him arrested and imprisoned is not letting him "get away with it."



i know everyones not like me thats the beauty of humanity but humanity as a whole have gotten detached from there emotion's and we need to see that before we lose them completely


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 23, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> ok but im going out on a limb now and thinking if someone killed your mom you wouldnt want them to die no you would want them to go to jail and be able to go outside and watch tv and read books ect because THATS punishment


If it's an accident like drunk driving, definitely.  I wouldn't totally blame the person like they murdered her.  Then again, I'm a reasonable human being, while you are not.


EinTheCorgi said:


> well its reverse thinking on my part if there are 21 year olds whom hve the maturity of a toddler then there MUST be kids that are mature enough to understand sex and how serious it is ok is that a good answer


That's exaggerating.  Even if a 21 year old acts immature, they're leagues more mature than a preteen kid. 


EinTheCorgi said:


> i know everyones not like me thats the beauty of humanity but humanity as a whole have gotten detached from there emotion's and we need to see that before we lose them completely


No.  There is absolutely nothing to support your theory that human's are being detached from their emotions.  

Ein, how old are you?


----------



## foxmusk (Oct 23, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> 21 year olds whom hve the maturity of a toddler then there MUST be kids that are mature enough to understand sex and how serious it is ok is that a good answer



now, by that, do you mean mentality of a kid as in mentally challenged, or as in babyfur?


----------



## Scarborough (Oct 23, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> i know everyones not like me thats the beauty of humanity but humanity as a whole have gotten detached from there emotion's and we need to see that before we lose them completely


I hope you're not implying that I wouldn't be angry/upset/scared/etc. if someone I knew got hit by a drunk driver.


----------



## Shay Feral (Oct 23, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> It is not today though. And besides its smarter to avoid situations like that. Oh and by the way thanks for giving me a stunng example "argument by changed context"  deemed to be one of the cheaper types of spin-talk.



Who gives a fuck? I wasn't even taking you seriously...


----------



## foxmusk (Oct 23, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> Who gives a fuck? I wasn't even taking you seriously...



scratch what i said before. are you fourteen?


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

harley no just 21 year olds who act like there four not that there handy caped you know just immature

jash how the hell can you be drunk driving accidentally he chose to go to the bar get smashed then try to drive home and then hit an innocent seven year old girl


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

Scarborough said:


> I hope you're not implying that I wouldn't be angry/upset/scared/etc. if someone I knew got hit by a drunk driver.



no im not saying that i know some of us still have hearts and souls


----------



## Duality Jack (Oct 23, 2009)

So anyhow, I personally it should be mandatory for repeat offenders of both pedophilia and Violent sex crime. 



Shay Feral said:


> Who gives a fuck? I wasn't even taking you seriously...


 Emotionally harsh statements now? God this is amusing.


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

jash im 19 and also you you a fact that people are losing there emotions not giving a crap if a little girl got hurt you tart


----------



## Ilayas (Oct 23, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> well its reverse thinking on my part if there are 21 year olds whom hve the maturity of a toddler then there MUST be kids that are mature enough to understand sex and how serious it is ok is that a good answer



That's a pretty shitty answer in fact that's the worst damn augment I've ever heard in favor of your position. 

The existence of immature adults does not prove the existence of overly mature underage children.  The fact that there are immature adults does nothing to help you argument.  

What you are saying is that some adults can't understand the implications involved in sex there for children can.  Do you even realize how stupid that sounds.  

Thus far you have done nothing to disprove my originally contention.  You think that underage children have the maturity to consent to sex because you are sexually attracted to underage characters.


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

sigh your not thinking with your mind your thinking with your morals theirs a time for that and this conversation is not that time


----------



## Shay Feral (Oct 23, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> Emotionally harsh statements now? God this is amusing.



Repeat answer: Who gives a fuck?


----------



## Duality Jack (Oct 23, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> Repeat answer: Who gives a fuck?


Yo do, You would not of replied if you did not care. I'm done here. Your too easy.


----------



## Jude Prudence (Oct 23, 2009)

HarleyParanoia said:


> are you fifteen?



Shay has long history of being mentally underdeveloped. It's one of the reasons it ended up getting banned from Yiffstar, of all places.

The person thats 15 here is einthecorgi


----------



## Ilayas (Oct 23, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> sigh your not thinking with your mind your thinking with your morals theirs a time for that and this conversation is not that time



No I am thinking with my mind YOU are thinking with your morals (or whatever is in your pants) as you haven't offered one damn good reason why you believe what you do.  

You hide behind it being your "opinion" but have offered nothing to back up your "opinion".   And this is just as good as any place for that discussion.  Or are you afraid that I just proved you wrong?  Are you afraid that everyone, including your self, will have to admit that the only reason you think that this is a valid opinion is because it's what gets you hard? 

Honestly I'd have more respect for you if you'd just own up to that if it's the case then trying to claim that your opinion is a valid one and have NOTHING to back it up.


----------



## Shay Feral (Oct 23, 2009)

Jude Prudence said:


> Shay has long history of being mentally underdeveloped. It's one of the reasons it ended up getting banned from Yiffstar, of all places.
> 
> The person thats 15 here is einthecorgi



Fuck you, I got banned from yiffstar because I made it clear the staff's actions were unfavorable. You people constantly accuse me of being "mentally challenged" just because I don't follow your beliefs and opinions.

You people just want to call everyone retarded because you can't hold a good fucking argument, you expect everyone to just take what you say and when they don't you gather your fucking like minded friends and say they are mentally unstable.

You want to talk about underdeveloped mentally, you should look at the rest of FAF instead of me. When I do something stupid it's because of my temper, I have a really short fuse. What's your fucking excuse? People who must resort to calling me retarded or challenge my mental capacity based around their inability to make sense are below me and are invited to my ignore list.

and to add a side note, a common occurance between people who insist on making derogatory comments about my mental capacity is the fact that they all have a rather large and venerable ego.


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

aww jude i wasnt doing nothing to you why you got to be a butt head

im sorry ilayas i come from a family of stubborn people so no i'll converse until i get tired and go to sleep but it is my "opinion" that my "facts" are actual "facts" in witch you just dont under stand


----------



## Ilayas (Oct 23, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> aww jude i wasnt doing nothing to you why you got to be a butt head
> 
> im sorry ilayas i come from a family of stubborn people so no i'll converse until i get tired and go to sleep but it is my "opinion" that my "facts" are actual "facts" in witch you just dont under stand



What facts? No seriously WHAT FACTS?


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

Ilayas said:


> What facts? No seriously WHAT FACTS?



i see them as facts but you dont so even if i restated them you still wouldnt get them


----------



## Ilayas (Oct 23, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> i see them as facts but you dont so even if i restated them you still wouldnt get them



What facts?  An opinion is not a fact.  

I've already gone through why if x culture does something it doesn't make it ok.  

As many people have stated just because a child knows what sex is does not mean he or she understands it's implications.  

Are you trying to say that because there are immature adults proves that there are overly mature children is a fact.  I can tell you that's just blatantly wrong and faulty logic.  

So What FACTS are you referring to?  You've offered none.  You are hiding behind a delusion because you really really really want it to be true.  But wanting something to be true does not make it true.  

The FACT is all you arguments are based on bad logic or just plain stupidity.


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

your raging on someone over the internet calm down miss i dont care having sex with kids could be legal tomorrow and i would not give a crud nore would i do it

ohh and very nice art on your FA page very nice


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 23, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> i see them as facts but you dont so even if i restated them you still wouldnt get them



You know, as a general rule, "facts" have numbers tied to them in some way and don't involve and evaluation of the data. 

So, in other words, "what facts?" Preferably in the form of links, too.


----------



## Ilayas (Oct 23, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> your raging on someone over the internet calm down miss i dont care having sex with kids could be legal tomorrow and i would not give a crud nore would i do it
> 
> ohh and very nice art on your FA page very nice



What annoys me the most is not your contention that under age children are capable to consent to sex but rather your inability to actually defend that opinion.  Your arguments have been god awful terrible.


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> You know, as a general rule, "facts" have numbers tied to them in some way and don't involve and evaluation of the data.
> 
> So, in other words, "what facts?" Preferably in the form of links, too.



oh well when you put it that way i dont have any because im having a nice conversation with miss Ilayas and im to lazy to go find some i dont like doing that


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 23, 2009)

So in other words, you have no facts, then?


----------



## Shay Feral (Oct 23, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> You know, as a general rule, "facts" have numbers tied to them in some way and don't involve and evaluation of the data.
> 
> So, in other words, "what facts?" Preferably in the form of links, too.



Well, facts are generally just theories that are the best explanations for our questions and observations. That being said, no fact is absolute. What we see as a fact today may change tomorrow... Not everyone will see current facts as such because people have different means of looking at problems and theories.

What the user says is a fact to them is an opinion being that it's not accepted by everyone as a fact.


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

yep because im to lazy and sleepy


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> Well, facts are generally just theories that are the best explanations for our questions and observations. That being said, no fact is absolute. What we see as a fact today may change tomorrow... Not everyone will see current facts as such because people have different means of looking at problems and theories.
> 
> What the user says is a fact to them is an opinion being that it's not accepted by everyone as a fact.



that is the point you need to look at what im saying with a open mind


----------



## Shay Feral (Oct 23, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> yep because im to lazy and sleepy



And which is why you should stop arguing, if you are lazy and sleepy it's best to stop because a lot of these users are arrogant enough to mistake it for blatant stupidity.



EinTheCorgi said:


> that is the point you need to look at what im saying with a open mind



Then you are stating an opinion, a theory, not a fact...


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

you have a point there but i want to talk to people


----------



## Shay Feral (Oct 23, 2009)

Then talk to people, but if your tired you shouldn't engage in thoughtful debate when you aren't able to concentrate and exert energy to make a point. If you want to talk just find a place you can talk rather than debate.


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

yeah im to tired to converse with these guys they just dont get my point from when i wasnt sleepy


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 23, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> Well, facts are generally just theories that are the best explanations for our questions and observations. That being said, no fact is absolute. What we see as a fact today may change tomorrow... Not everyone will see current facts as such because people have different means of looking at problems and theories.
> 
> What the user says is a fact to them is an opinion being that it's not accepted by everyone as a fact.



No, a theory is a theory. Facts are irrefutable and make no attempt to "explain" anything. For example, it is a FACT that time slows down relative to an object or space in the presence of massive bodies or when moving; the theory for WHY this is the case is general relativity. 

The fact is that time slows down, which can be measured and plotted down. This will never change and will be true in every case, because it is simply an observation of a natural phenomina and does not try to explain it. 

Now the theory of relativity tries to explain _why_ this is the case, and so may in fact (haha) be wrong. This is why it is a theory. But facts, by their very nature, cannot be wrong. They are not subjective or skewed towards a persons perception of reality.


----------



## Shay Feral (Oct 23, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> No, a theory is a theory. Facts are irrefutable and make no attempt to "explain" anything. For example, it is a FACT that time slows down relative to an object or space in the presence of massive bodies or when moving; the theory for WHY this is the case is general relativity.
> 
> The fact is that time slows down, which can be measured and plotted down. This will never change and will be true in every case, because it is simply an observation of a natural phenomina and does not try to explain it.
> 
> Now the theory of relativity tries to explain _why_ this is the case, and so may in fact (haha) be wrong. This is why it is a theory. But facts, by their very nature, cannot be wrong. They are not subjective or skewed towards a persons perception of reality.



Since when does time ever slow down? Thats my question...

But a fact is only absolute by our current means of observation, many years ago people believed as a fact that the world was flat and at that time it was irrefutable. But today we know the world isn't flat, and that it's spherical, and today that is a fact.

Also people believed as a fact that everything revolved around the earth, and at the time it was irrefutable. Now we have the ability to evaluate things that we weren't able to years ago and what was once a fact is now just a fairy tale...


----------



## Ilayas (Oct 23, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> And which is why you should stop arguing, if you are lazy and sleepy it's best to stop because a lot of these users are arrogant enough to mistake it for blatant stupidity.






> well its reverse thinking on my part if there are 21 year olds whom hve the maturity of a toddler then there MUST be kids that are mature enough to understand sex and how serious it is ok is that a good answer



I don't think that mere mental exhaustion is responsible for this statement.


----------



## Shay Feral (Oct 23, 2009)

Ilayas said:


> I don't think that mere mental exhaustion is responsible for this statement.



I didn't say it was...


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

it is sound logic like if there are people who like to dunk there burgers in ranch sauce than there must be people who dont that makes sense


----------



## Ibuuyk (Oct 23, 2009)

Ugh, they should do that worldwide


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 23, 2009)

What people "believe" does not make something any more or less a fact. Some people in the past may have thought that the Earth was flat but they had not _facts_ to justify the statement. 

Facts are measurements. If I use a crude scale to measure something, and come to the conclusion that it weighs 10.2g, this is a fact. No matter what you do, you will never encounter a situation where the item does not weigh that much. Now, facts come with _limitations_ and I think that is where you confusion comes from. 

If I were to use a more accurate scale, I may find that the item actually weighs 10.23223g. Does this mean that the first "fact" is wrong? No. The reason for this is because that fact comes with the statement that "this number is good to one decimal place." And it is true for the given conditions. Never, to one decimal place, will that number be wrong. It is a fact to that degree of accuracy. 

The second one is a fact to 5 decimal places, and so is more _accurate_, but the first one isn't wrong because of that. It weighs both 10.2g and 10.23223g, all that matters is how accurate you need the number to be. 

All facts come with caveats and conditions. "If you measure the weight of x substance under y conditions of humidity, temperature and other ambient conditions on an instrument with this degree of accuracy, you will get z mass." If you meet all of the conditions, the number will always be the same. Change the conditions and you change the number, but then it is hardly fair to compare the two isn't it? The other number will be a fact for the new set of conditions. 

Facts, when described under the appropriate conditions, are never wrong. If I give you 10g of gold and you measure it under the same condition, you will _never ever_ get a different number. It is impossible. Facts are numbers you get for a specific set of variables and are always absolute for the conditions they apply to.


----------



## Ilayas (Oct 23, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> it is sound logic like if there are people who like to dunk there burgers in ranch sauce than there must be people who dont that makes sense



OK what I think you are trying to say this argument is no different then arguing what tastes better on a burger?  

That's pretty much a false comparison.  Saying you like ranch on burgers is a hell of a lot different then saying that it's your opinion that underage children can consent to sex.  

*If this were true here are some other things that would also be the case:*

If you don't like some one its ok to kill them because it's your opinion.  

If you want to rape some one it's ok because that your opinion.  

If you want to cause physical harm to some one it's ok because it's your opinion.  


Do you think any of those things are ok? I'd wager that you do not.  I think why you believe those things are wrong goes beyond that it's just your opinion.  You could give me reasons why you believe those things are wrong, to back up that opinion. 

You haven't given any good reasons facts or cogent arguments to back up your opinion that under age children can consent to sex. 

In fact if you think that there is no difference between this argument and what you like on your burgers it pretty much proves my point.  

Why would some one put ranch on their burger?  Because they like it.  Why do you think that under age children are capable of consenting to sex?  Because you like that idea.   And why do you like that idea? Because you like thinking of underage characters in a sexual way.  

Again I challenge you to prove me wrong.  Or to just own up to it.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Oct 23, 2009)

Ah. I don't mean to pick on the Europeans today, but you guys have a horrible time reconozing how some laws can backfire and lead to other shit. Know a steppngstone when you see one.


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 23, 2009)

well i know my logic is sound and im going to sleep good night all


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Oct 23, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> well i know my logic is sound and im going to sleep good night all



Hahahahahahaha

:3


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 23, 2009)

You sick fucks. Every single one of you that thinks this is a good thing deserve to be place in some third world country where they do shit like this to people all the time for many things (thieves lose hands, etc).

Capital punishment in any form is fucking retarded, backward thinking bullshit designed to stroke the ego of morons or their revenge need. Every single one of you deserves to be placed in a situation where you're wrongly accused of a crime then punished in this manor.

You people disgust me beyond most. To think that after these people carry out their given punishment for their crimes, which WAS their punishment deemed worthy of their crimes, then to go on being punished afterward. Not even close to a step forward, you people will be the reason our world sits in the dark.


----------



## Shay Feral (Oct 23, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> What people "believe" does not make something any more or less a fact. Some people in the past may have thought that the Earth was flat but they had not _facts_ to justify the statement.



When I use the word "believe" I use it as a substitution for "know", "knowing" or "known".

This just further validates my statement about facts, they will change along with our ability to understand things. If you think with the technology we have today of course you are going to say they didn't have the facts to justify the statement. But back then they didn't have the technology to see or evaluate things as we do today. So back then just seeing that flat horizon in the distance followed by a flat empty sea was more than enough to justify that statement as a fact in that era.

One thing we see as a fact is that aids is only a treatable disease, and that it is not curable... As our technology changes, and if our ability to continue evolving in our thought processes the fact that aids is not curable might change with the invention of a new medicine.

And as of this very moment in time, aids being incurable is an irrefutable fact until/if we discover how to.



> Facts are measurements. If I use a crude scale to measure something, and come to the conclusion that it weighs 10.2g, this is a fact. No matter what you do, you will never encounter a situation where the item does not weigh that much. Now, facts come with _limitations_ and I think that is where you confusion comes from.



No, facts are how we understand things. A measurement would be like a foot or an inch, a mile or a kilometer, gallon or liter, minute or hour... Those are measurements...

If you weigh a brick of gold back in 1911 that weighed 10 lbs, at that time the brick weighed 10 lbs and it was a fact. If you weigh that same brick of gold with a modern, more precise standard modern tool to measure it's weight and it says it's 11 lbs then the fact becomes that the brick weighs 11 lbs.



> If I were to use a more accurate scale, I may find that the item actually weighs 10.23223g. Does this mean that the first "fact" is wrong? No. The reason for this is because that fact comes with the statement that "this number is good to one decimal place." And it is true for the given conditions. Never, to one decimal place, will that number be wrong. It is a fact to that degree of accuracy.



It can mean that it was wrong, but the reason why the fact wouldn't be wrong with such a minimal change in weight is the fact that it was so minor no one would care. And being that it actually weighs 10.232232g would mean that it would be rounded down to 10.23g and would remain a fact.

But we aren't talking about a hundredths and thousandths of a gram, we are talking about what was once _known_ as a fact years ago only to change with our ability to further evaluate it.



> Facts, when described under the appropriate conditions, are never wrong. If I give you 10g of gold and you measure it under the same condition, you will _never ever_ get a different number. It is impossible. Facts are numbers you get for a specific set of variables and are always absolute for the conditions they apply to.



You are right, but you have to realize that the facts we understood yesterday were facts through our current observations of the time. What we consider "appropriate conditions" today was not possible all those years ago. Facts change along with out ability to observe, measure, evaluate and understand.

Only obtuse facts remain the same, like the fact that people die. Thats an irrefutable fact...


----------



## Azure (Oct 23, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> You sick fucks. Every single one of you that thinks this is a good thing deserve to be place in some third world country where they do shit like this to people all the time for many things (thieves lose hands, etc).
> 
> Capital punishment in any form is fucking retarded, backward thinking bullshit designed to stroke the ego of morons or their revenge need. Every single one of you deserves to be placed in a situation where you're wrongly accused of a crime then punished in this manor.
> 
> You people disgust me beyond most. To think that after these people carry out their given punishment for their crimes, which WAS their punishment deemed worthy of their crimes, then to go on being punished afterward. Not even close to a step forward, you people will be the reason our world sits in the dark.


You are dumb in so many ways.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Oct 23, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:
			
		

> :librage:




Hmmmmmmmm


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 23, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> Since when does time ever slow down? Thats my question..


Also had to comment on this one:

He actually explained that in his post, and he is correct as well. Time is relevant to speed as well as the amount of mass (IE large body; planets; gravity) near the object. On mercury time moves differently than earth, by going there watches (one there, one on earth) would be greatly different in their readings after a short while and the same test can be carries out by speeding one watch up on earth while the other is stationary on earth. After a long while moving at a faster speed the watches will have very slight time differences.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 23, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> You are dumb in so many ways.



Clearly, all because I'm not hell-bent on fabricated revenge. As if somehow in some cosmic way by believing that punishing those that already carried out their punishment is a bad thing it's scrambling my intellect.


Load_Blown said:


> Hmmmmmmmm


If you think being liberal is a bad thing instantly then that says something. But no, that's not what this is.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Oct 23, 2009)

I mean really, what's next, in 20 years a law gets passed that says anybody who acts violent gets a lobotomy?


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Oct 23, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> If you think being liberal is a bad thing instantly then that says something. But no, that's not what this is.



Well I think being a "liberal" is pretty much useless but then again I am too far outside mainstream American political spectrum 


But I have nothing against you I just wanted a good chance to use :librage:



OR :GOONSAY: CAN'T HAVE ENOUGH GOONSAY


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 23, 2009)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> I mean really, what's next, in 20 years a law gets passed that says anybody who acts violent gets a lobotomy?



Exact-o-fucakly my good man. Or that before it escalates to that law thieves lose hands/fingers and people who run from the law lose feet/toes.


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 23, 2009)

@Shay

I really do not know any other way to describe this thing. Aids is not incurable, we simply don't have a cure, there is a massive conceptual difference here. A bar of gold weighs exactly the same as it did 100 years ago. If your measurement system changes you simply apply a conversion factor and it will be the same. 



> It can mean that it was wrong, but the reason why the fact wouldn't be wrong with such a minimal change in weight is the fact that it was so minor no one would care. And being that it actually weighs 10.232232g would mean that it would be rounded down to 10.23g and would remain a fact.


No, you would not round to that decimal place, _it is only good to one decimal place._ You don't tag a three on their because it rounds nicely. Again, to one decimal place, that item will _always_ weigh 10.2g. You can literally do the experiment a billion times, and not once will the number change. Present a situation where this would not be the case. (You won't find one)

Again, facts can have varying degrees of _accuracy_ but that does not make less accurate facts wrong. More accurate facts help you draw better conclusions, but that does nothing to change the validity of the first set of numbers in their set conditions. There is a difference between the two and it is very important to understand. There really is no other way to explain it; 10.2g is just as factual as 10.22332g just to a lower degree of accuracy.

Just because things can almost be measured to an infinite degree of accuracy does not mean that values failing to meet that level are invalid or false.


----------



## Shay Feral (Oct 23, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Also had to comment on this one:
> 
> He actually explained that in his post, and he is correct as well. Time is relevant to speed as well as the amount of mass (IE large body; planets; gravity) near the object. On mercury time moves differently than earth, by going there watches (one there, one on earth) would be greatly different in their readings after a short while and the same test can be carries out by speeding one watch up on earth while the other is stationary on earth. After a long while moving at a faster speed the watches will have very slight time differences.



Time is only a measurement, and slower readings by watches, our instruments for measuring time, could be interrupted by some outside interference on said planet. I'd say that statement would be the equivalent of your speedometer on your car being off after replacing your drive tires with tires of a different height.

I don't know how modern clocks and watches work, but electrical interference can change how fast or slow a clock works. Like if you are using a generator with an adjustable idle, they can effect how your clocks read by the increased or decreased cycle of the electricity produced



CommodoreKitty said:


> @Shay
> 
> I really do not know any other way to describe this thing. Aids is not incurable, we simply don't have a cure, there is a massive conceptual difference here. A bar of gold weighs exactly the same as it did 100 years ago. If your measurement system changes you simply apply a conversion factor and it will be the same.
> 
> ...



I suppose we are looking at two different kinds of facts, facts as verified and facts as understood.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Oct 23, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Exact-o-fucakly my good man. Or that before it escalates to that law thieves lose hands/fingers and people who run from the law lose feet/toes.


 
Finally something you and I can agree on. Where and when do we draw the line?


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 23, 2009)

@Shay

Read up on atomic clocks. They use the emission of microwaves from cesium atoms to set their time. 



			
				wiki said:
			
		

> Since 1967, the International System of Units (SI) has defined the second as the duration of 9,192,631,770 cycles of radiation corresponding to the transition between two energy levels of the caesium-133 atom.



In the transition between two energy states, the ceasium-133 atom has 9,192,631,770 cylces of radiation. It will _always_ be this number. No matter how many times you measure it, you will _never ever_ see a change in that number. It is impossible. Period. This is a fact and we use this fact to set our time. Provided that two clocks are in sync with each other and use cesium as a reference point, you eliminate differences in the time telling devices as a cause for discrepancies in measured time. 


Listen, these are things you just need to read up on. Time dilation is about as true as truth comes, and it has been proven countess times. In fact, our GPS systems would not even work if we did not account for time dilation. Scientists are good at measuring things, and you need to read up on the specifics to see _why_ what they say is true, is true. Naturally I am not going to be able to cover the history and development of the scientific method in a few posts.


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Oct 23, 2009)

From what I understand, the Polish government doesn't really see this as "punishment". More of a "cure".



			
				From the article said:
			
		

> If somebody is of sound mind, we punish him. If he is sick, we try to cure him -- that's how it works in Polish law. This bill introduces both approaches.


If someone is sick enough to rape another human being, there's probably a pretty good chance they're going to re-offend after they've been released. If you want to keep them from going off and committing more offenses, you basically have three options: Death penalty, life in prison, or this one. Frankly, I think chemical castration is the most humane. Actually, I'd like to see this extended so that is applies not only to child molesters but other rapists as well.



			
				NewfDraggie said:
			
		

> Every single one of you deserves to be placed in a situation where you're wrongly accused of a crime then punished in this manor.


Go and find me one case in the last coupole decades or so where someone was wrongly convicted of child molestation or a related crime.



			
				NewfDraggie said:
			
		

> Exact-o-fucakly my good man. Or that before it escalates to that law thieves lose hands/fingers and people who run from the law lose feet/toes.


Losing your sex drive is not the same as losing a limb.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 23, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> You sick fucks. Every single one of you that thinks this is a good thing deserve to be place in some third world country where they do shit like this to people all the time for many things (thieves lose hands, etc).
> 
> Capital punishment in any form is fucking retarded, backward thinking bullshit designed to stroke the ego of morons or their revenge need. Every single one of you deserves to be placed in a situation where you're wrongly accused of a crime then punished in this manor.
> 
> You people disgust me beyond most. To think that after these people carry out their given punishment for their crimes, which WAS their punishment deemed worthy of their crimes, then to go on being punished afterward. Not even close to a step forward, you people will be the reason our world sits in the dark.



If someone's sex drive causes them to hurt people, doesn't it make sense to remove the sex drive so that they can live normal lives? What would you rather them do? Either go back out into the world and continue raping little kids, or rot for the rest of their lives in a cement box? 

Dunno, the last too options don't sound any less savage to me.


----------



## Shay Feral (Oct 23, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> @Shay
> 
> Read up on atomic clocks. They use the emission of microwaves from cesium atoms to set their time.
> 
> ...



Okay, first I think I should say I don't believe in time dilation... Because I don't believe in time as something that exists... My little brain just can not wrap it's self around that concept...


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Oct 23, 2009)

Personally, this would be my solution for molesters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re-education_through_labor

And for repeat offenders, or actual rapists: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f9/Nguyen.jpg


----------



## Shay Feral (Oct 23, 2009)

jesusfish2007 said:


> Personally, this would be my solution for molesters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re-education_through_labor
> 
> And for repeat offenders, or actual rapists: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f9/Nguyen.jpg



I propose we rape the rapists!

Put them in cell block B with a condom pinned to their collar and lube in their pocket and wish them the best of luck lol


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Oct 23, 2009)

How would you all like it if the government said that all homosexuals have to be chemically castrated becuase they can't control their sex drive and inturn causes the HIV virus to mutate and spread faster, which, in the end, slows down the possibility of a vaccine. See where I'm getting at when I say the word "steppingstone"?


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 23, 2009)

That same argument can be applied to any strait couple that has consensual sex and contracts an std...


----------



## Duality Jack (Oct 23, 2009)

OP: Adda poll for "yes" "no" and "undecided"  if the support the proposal


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Oct 23, 2009)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> How would you all like it if the government said that all homosexuals have to be chemically castrated becuase they can't control their sex drive and inturn causes the HIV virus to mutate and spread faster, which, in the end, slows down the possibility of a vaccine. See where I'm getting at when I say the word "steppingstone"?


Going from "you can't have sex because there is a well-founded fear that your sex-drive will cause you to re-offend" to "you can't have sex because your sexual orientation is stereotyped as a carrier of the HIV virus (even though you yourself are probably clean and/or monogamous)" is a pretty big stretch. 

Not much of a "steppingstone". Try again.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 23, 2009)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> How would you all like it if the government said that all homosexuals have to be chemically castrated becuase they can't control their sex drive and inturn causes the HIV virus to mutate and spread faster, which, in the end, slows down the possibility of a vaccine. See where I'm getting at when I say the word "steppingstone"?



There's a difference between having a preference of a certain gender, and raping people. Being gay isn't a crime. Now, if a gay man raped men for the sake of giving them the HIV virus, then that would be a crime.

Laws =/= A future where laws have mutated into terrible monsters and condemn you for being born.


----------



## Shay Feral (Oct 23, 2009)

Nargle said:


> There's a difference between having a preference of a certain gender, and raping people. Being gay isn't a crime. Now, if a gay man raped men for the sake of giving them the HIV virus, then that would be a crime.



That would be considered an act of terrorism... or at least could be


----------



## Jude Prudence (Oct 23, 2009)

...


This is the most retarded fucking shit.


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 23, 2009)

It is an actual crime for having sex when you know you have an std. I forget the specifics of it but depending on the severity you can be tried for attempted murder.


----------



## Doug (Oct 23, 2009)

Poland's doing the right thing...

    Seriously. Child fuckers. Where to start...

  Well, for one, you can't just lock them up when they fuck a poor, defenseless kid. They won't learn their lesson, because they suffer from a mental disorder. 

My personal opinion: Anyone who can't control their urges to the point where they violate an innocent child deserves what they get in Poland. If it was your child who was sexually traumatized at a young age, what would you want the government to do with the sick fuck who did it? Throw them in prison for a few years? (American prison is NOT an environment for rehabilitation for sexual predators, given the amount of rape that goes on in prison). 

  inb4 defending of pedophiles by putting homosexuality on the same level as pedophilia.


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Oct 23, 2009)

Nargle said:


> Now, if a gay man raped men for the sake of giving them the HIV virus, then that would be a crime.


Or just to expand on that, if the gay man knew he had the virus, but lied and told his sex partner he didn't, that would be a crime as well.



CommodoreKitty said:


> It is an actual crime for having sex when you know you have an std.


Uh yeah that.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Oct 23, 2009)

Easog said:


> Going from "you can't have sex because there is a well-founded fear that your sex-drive will cause you to re-offend" to "you can't have sex because your sexual orientation is stereotyped as a carrier of the HIV virus (even though you yourself are probably clean and/or monogamous)" is a pretty big stretch.
> 
> Not much of a "steppingstone". Try again.


 


Nargle said:


> There's a difference between having a preference of a certain gender, and raping people. Being gay isn't a crime. Now, if a gay man raped men for the sake of giving them the HIV virus, then that would be a crime.
> 
> Laws =/= A future where laws have mutated into terrible monsters and condemn you for being born.


 
You two are miss the point I'm was trying to make. It's not about comparing the two, it's about how that law can lead to other things, hence the word "steppingstone."


----------



## Doug (Oct 23, 2009)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> You two are miss the point I'm was trying to make. It's not about comparing the two, it's about how that law can lead to other things, hence the word "steppingstone."


I get the point perfectly bro.

Your putting homosexuality and pedophilia on the same level to justify the sick minds that end up fucking children.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Oct 23, 2009)

Doug said:


> Poland's doing the right thing...
> 
> Seriously. Child fuckers. Where to start...
> 
> ...


 

Another furfag that missed my point. I'm not defending pedos, I'm talking about how laws can lead to other stuff. And my example is not that far fetched since Muslims seem to be getting their way in Europe. Go ahead and advocate those laws when Islam is on your heels.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Oct 24, 2009)

Doug said:


> I get the point perfectly bro.
> 
> Your putting homosexuality and pedophilia on the same level to justify the sick minds that end up fucking children.


 

Then tell me, bro, what is my point?


----------



## Nargle (Oct 24, 2009)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> You two are miss the point I'm was trying to make. It's not about comparing the two, it's about how that law can lead to other things, hence the word "steppingstone."



I got your point, too. I just think that saying making rape illegal will eventually make homosexuality illegal is a pretty damn big stretch. Especially since gays are getting more and more rights/acceptance. Blaming homosexuals for HIV is a REALLY outdated way of thinking, and if we're talking about forward moving time, I honestly can't imagine we'd make that kind of jump.


----------



## Shay Feral (Oct 24, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> It is an actual crime for having *unprotected* sex when you know you have an std, *and without informing your partner*. I forget the specifics of it but depending on the severity you can be tried for attempted murder.



I added some details you left out, I think if you knowingly have unprotected sex with anyone without telling them about your STD it becomes a crime...


----------



## Jude Prudence (Oct 24, 2009)

Doug said:


> Poland's doing the right thing...
> 
> Seriously. Child fuckers. Where to start...
> 
> ...




You don't get the fact that Goofs and other rapists are the very most bottom of the food chain, do you?


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Oct 24, 2009)

Nargle said:


> I got your point, too. *I just think that saying making rape illegal will eventually make homosexuality illegal is a pretty damn big stretch.* Especially since gays are getting more and more rights/acceptance. Blaming homosexuals for HIV is a REALLY outdated way of thinking, and if we're talking about forward moving time, I honestly can't imagine we'd make that kind of jump.


 
OMG. Do you people not understand the word example?


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Oct 24, 2009)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> You two are miss the point I'm was trying to make. It's not about comparing the two, it's about how that law can lead to other things, hence the word "steppingstone."


Maybe you should use better analogies bro. 

Suggesting that a law calling for castration of child molesters after they've serves a prison sentence could lead to a law reccomending castration of homosexuals is like suggesting life sentences for murderers could lead to life sentences for assault.

I'm not really seeing your logic here.



Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> OMG. Do you people not understand the word example?


I think Nargle and I both understand the word example. What we don't see is the logic you're using.


----------



## twelvestring (Oct 24, 2009)

Doug said:


> I get the point perfectly bro.
> 
> Your putting homosexuality and pedophilia on the same level to justify the sick minds that end up fucking children.


You missed the point buddy. Stepping stones that give too much power to a gov can lead to holocaustic out comes. The homo control theory is not a far stretch.


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Oct 24, 2009)

twelvestring said:


> The homo control theory is not a far stretch.


Actually, yeah. Yeah it is.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Oct 24, 2009)

Easog said:


> Maybe you should use better analogies bro.
> 
> Suggesting that a law calling for castration of child molesters after they've serves a prison sentence could lead to a law reccomending castration of homosexuals is like suggesting life sentences for murderers could lead to life sentences for assault.
> 
> I'm not really seeing your logic here.


 
Don't dodge. What was my point?


----------



## Doug (Oct 24, 2009)

twelvestring said:


> You missed the point buddy. Stepping stones that give too much power to a gov can lead to holocaustic out comes. The homo control theory is not a far stretch.


Your right bro.

Let's not do anything about the sick fucks who have a documented mental disorder that pose a threat to our children just to keep our world "fair for everyone."

I will admit that maybe castration is taking things a bit too far, but what else can be done? There is no rehabilitation or drug that "cures" people of pedophilia. If they fuck a kid, they should be in prison for the rest of their lives.

If you think you can justify someone doing something so sick to a child, you have some issues yourself.


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Oct 24, 2009)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:
			
		

> Don't dodge. What was my point?


Unless I am mistaken you are trying to argue that this law could set a preccedent for punishing other crimes. 

I'm not the one who's dodging here. 

You're saying that a law like this could be used as a stepping stone, but you are not explaining how. Stop hiding behind "just an example lol" and tell me exactly how you think this law could be used as a stepping stone to more serious things. If you're going to make claims like that, be prepared to back them up.


----------



## twelvestring (Oct 24, 2009)

Doug said:


> Your right bro.
> 
> *Let's not do anything about the sick fucks who have a documented mental disorder that pose a threat to our children just to keep our world "fair for everyone.*"
> 
> ...


I never said that at all but you just showed everyone here how stepping stones get out of control, thank you.

They are punished and pretty much collared and tract the rest of their lives. Pedos do not want to go to prison as the other inmates beat the holly shit out of them. They have a kinda code against pedos in there.
And don't forget making such a horrific punishment is going to lead to the murder of the victim.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 24, 2009)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Finally something you and I can agree on. Where and when do we draw the line?



I don't think there should be a line that could righteously allow those (capital; death, castration, etc) punishments, however I have nothing against keeping the criminals in jail for longer intervals up to life if they repeat their crimes.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Oct 24, 2009)

Easog said:


> Unless I am mistaken you are trying to argue that this law could set a preccedent for punishing other crimes.
> 
> I'm not the one who's dodging here.


 
You were the one who refused to directly answer my question. So yeah, you did dodge.



> You're saying that a law like this could be used as a stepping stone, but you are not explaining how.


 
Oh my. You really need me to explain that one to you? Here's one: There are nut jobs out there that can gain power. Here is another one: Islam is gaining momentum where they probably will get parliament seats. You're telling me that there is no way in hell that this law can be abused? 



> Stop hiding behind "just an example lol" and tell me exactly how you think this law could be used as a stepping stone to more serious things. If you're going to make claims like that, be prepared to back them up.


 
I stand by that example. I was making an example on how that law can be abused.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 24, 2009)

Easog said:


> Go and find me one case in the last coupole decades or so where someone was wrongly convicted of child molestation or a related crime.


Uh, so you want me to find an example of something that has occurred but probably not caught out in the light, if the cops did realize their mistake it doesn't always make news. THink about when the priests were all being fined and locked up, how many of those do you think were wrongly accused when a child simply yelled wolf during those times? I know of two priests here that some little fuck-kid I knew charged for molesting him and he never even went to church. I know he wasn't molested, he wanted the money and boy did he ever get a lot.




> Losing your sex drive is not the same as losing a limb.


Some people would think a limb is better, this may be a fact for you but the world doesn't have the same opinions on things as you do. And how about I change it from cutting off your hands/feet with injecting you with Novocain instead. That way you're chemically de-limbing yourself. Sound better?


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Oct 24, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I don't think there should be a line that could be righteously allow those punishments, however I have nothing against keeping the criminals in jail for longer intervals up to life if they repeat their crimes.


 
I believe in life terms, also.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 24, 2009)

Nargle said:


> If someone's sex drive causes them to hurt people, doesn't it make sense to remove the sex drive so that they can live normal lives? What would you rather them do? Either go back out into the world and continue raping little kids, or rot for the rest of their lives in a cement box?
> 
> Dunno, the last too options don't sound any less savage to me.



Uh, lots of rapists didn't do it to get off, they did it to feel power. You take their balls and they'll probably be pissed off. 

They did their time, which was their given and set punishment...yet you wish to punish them more? The entire idea of a sex offenders list is outrageous to me. This is punishment after being punished. Jail is their punishment, they sit in a shit-hole with shit-food for many months to many years with nothing to really do among other horrible occurrences. Then when they're free of that hell you make it so they have issues getting a job, finding a home, or living the rest of their life.

You think every offender goes back to doing crime again? Only a very small amount of ex-rapists go back to raping. You're punishing a whole group of people for what a few did, extending their punishment to life.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Oct 24, 2009)

Anyone notice that all treatments to cure pedophilia are the exact same ones used to cure homosexuality?  Or that they are both about as equally effective.

...Well, there is one difference.  Administering electro convulsive therapy, chemical castration and instilling the fear of god and all peace officers while rendering them a social outcast by all of society to a pedophile is legal *and* fun.


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Oct 24, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Uh, so you want me to find an example of something that has occurred but probably not caught out in the light, if the cops did realize their mistake it doesn't always make news. THink about when the priests were all being fined and locked up, how many of those do you think were wrongly accused when a child simply yelled wolf during those times? I know of two priests here that some little fuck-kid I knew charged for molesting him and he never even went to church. I know he wasn't molested, he wanted the money and boy did he ever get a lot.


If a case like this went to court, there would be a demand for some sort of evidence to suggest the boy in question was raped. The example you provided assumes there was not a single honest, decent person in the church congregation who could testify that the boy never attended, and of course the boy's parents would have to be in on it too. And what money? Since when are Canadian offenders required to pay monetary compensation for acts like this?

It might be unrealistic to call for a source on this, but your story reeks of logical fallacies.



			
				NewfDraggie said:
			
		

> Some people would think a limb is better


Who?



			
				NewfDraggie said:
			
		

> And how about I change it from cutting off your hands/feet with injecting you with Novocain instead. That way you're chemically de-limbing yourself. Sound better?


All those who would rather lose the ability to walk/preform the most basic of everyday tasks than lose their desire to have sex, raise your hands.


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Oct 24, 2009)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> You were the one who refused to directly answer my question.


Which question did I directly refuse to answer?



> Oh my. You really need me to explain that one to you?


No, but I'll humour you.



> Here's one: There are nut jobs out there that can gain power.


So?



> Here is another one: Islam is gaining momentum where they probably will get parliament seats. You're telling me that there is no way in hell that this law can be abused?


 I feel a bit like I'm pounding my head on a wall here. Can the law be abused? Possibly. Is it likely? Not by a long shot.



> I stand by that example. I was making an example on how that law can be abused.


It was a pretty awful example.


----------



## Shay Feral (Oct 24, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Uh, lots of rapists didn't do it to get off, they did it to feel power. You take their balls and they'll probably be pissed off.
> 
> They did their time, which was their given and set punishment...yet you wish to punish them more? The entire idea of a sex offenders list is outrageous to me. This is punishment after being punished. Jail is their punishment, they sit in a shit-hole with shit-food for many months to many years with nothing to really do among other horrible occurrences. Then when they're free of that hell you make it so they have issues getting a job, finding a home, or living the rest of their life.
> 
> You think every offender goes back to doing crime again? Only a very small amount of ex-rapists go back to raping. You're punishing a whole group of people for what a few did, extending their punishment to life.



As a sex offender they can take away rights as well, a friend of my dad's served 12 years for allegedly raping a young girl (shitty attourny if you ask me) and he's not allowed to own a weapon, not allowed on the internet and has to report to the court house every so often.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 24, 2009)

Easog said:


> If a case like this went to court, there would be a demand for some sort of evidence to suggest the boy in question was raped. The example you provided assumes there was not a single honest, decent person in the church congregation who could testify that the boy never attended, and of course the boy's parents would have to be in on it too. And what money? Since when are Canadian offenders required to pay monetary compensation for acts like this?
> 
> It might be unrealistic to call for a source on this, but your story reeks of logical fallacies.


You have no idea what a logical fallacy is, do you? Even if what you said was all true it would not be a logical fallacy, please don't use terms you don't understand. Thanks. And yes what I said did occur and yes the parents where in on it, that was why he sued the church...because his parents wanted the money. They took it all and spent it on booze.


> Who?


This is a stupid question. There's seven billion people on earth, everybody is different. Unless you truly believe everybody is like yourself.


Shay Feral said:


> As a sex offender they can take away rights as well, a friend of my dad's served 12 years for allegedly raping a young girl (shitty attourny if you ask me) and he's not allowed to own a weapon, not allowed on the internet and has to report to the court house every so often.



That's what I'm getting at here.


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Oct 24, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:
			
		

> You have no idea what a logical fallacy is, do you?


I understand perfectly well what a logical fallacy is. You should really read the links you post.



			
				NewfDraggie said:
			
		

> Even if what you said was all true it would not be a logical fallacy, please don't use terms you don't understand.


I think you are the one who doesn't understand the term, and what's more is you are trying to weasel out of clarifying yourself by pulling the "u just dont no wat ur talkin bout lolol" card. But, that's beside the point.



			
				NewfDraggie said:
			
		

> And yes what I said did occur and yes the parents where in on it, that was why he sued the church


Children can't sue so I'll assume you meant the parents sued on his behalf. But again, that's beside the point.

[/quote]because his parents wanted the money. They took it all and spent it on booze.[/quote]
Forgive me when I say I have a hrad time believing any of this at all. 

Let's ignore for a moment that if the parents went public with their accusation (which you alleged they did, by suing) then there would be a criminal investigation, and that's not the kind of thing that would fly under the radar.

If the boy never went to church, the parishoners would have observed this and presumably at least one of them would have testified as such. When a person makes a serious accusation like child molestation, the burden is on them to prove that it happened. If it had not happened, there would be no real evidence by which a judge could convict the priest in question.



> This is a stupid question. There's seven billion people on earth, everybody is different. Unless you truly believe everybody is like yourself.


Huh. I don't recall saying or implying that in any way. Way to take what I said and grossly misconstrue it.

Let me try to put this as simply as I can.

When someone loses their sex drive, they are losing their desire to have sex. That's all it is, they simply don't desire it any more. 

If a person a foot or a leg, they cannot walk normally, and will have to be outfitted with a prosthetic limb. If they lose a hand, they can no longer perform a great majority of the tasks of everyday life. It's possible they would obtain a prosthetic hand, but getting used to it would be a long and arduous process. Even when they do get used to it, they will not be able to perform the most mundane tasks like you or I would ever again. Ever use a can opener? Imagine using one with a prosthetic limb. Sure, there are the hands like that one, but you can't realistically expect an average human being to be able to use one of those.

So think about it. Approximately how many people out of those 7 billion (especially in a world where losing a hand or foot could mean death for a significant percentage of the world's population, who live day to day by what they can do with their hands or feet) do you think would rather lose a hand and foot over their sex drive, given the choice?



AzurePhoenix said:


> You are dumb in so many ways.


Armyboy has summed it up nicely.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 24, 2009)

Easog said:


> I understand perfectly well what a logical fallacy is. You should really read the links you post.


Oh goodie, now point out my logical fallacies please.


> Children can't sue so I'll assume you meant the parents sued on his behalf. But again, that's beside the point.


So you wanted to add text here so you did, even though said text means/add nothing. cool story, bro.


> Forgive me when I say I have a hrad time believing any of this at all.


Why? Why is this an unbelievable story in any possible way, this has occurred more than just once. Do you honestly believe all those priests were molesters and not a single one was falsely accused? Naive~ The investigations weren't very thorough during those times.



> Huh. I don't recall saying or implying that in any way. Way to take what I said and grossly misconstrue it.
> 
> Let me try to put this as simply as I can.
> 
> ...



Basically you're saying "I wouldn't like it so nobody would". Again, not everybody is like you. And again, sexual offenders aren't entirely sex-drive based. And again there's a -very- small minority of sexual offenders that do it for the sexual pleasure -and- do it after being caught. So you're suggesting people can be punished -after- they've served their given punishments. There's no line here, basically the government can now punish people as long as they want for whatever they want, might as well in your world.

You are dumb in so many ways. You don't even understand the term logical fallacy, and you'll believe total retards over somebody with a logical argument. Your beliefs about law enforcement, punishment, and life are twisted to that of a third world countries and you're a despicable, insignificant little boy with little education and no real thought process whatsoever.


----------



## Get-dancing (Oct 24, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> yeah he is homeless he realy cant get a good one
> 
> but yeah i used to be all like chop the murderers heads of and blah blah ect
> 
> ...



If I pressed charges or pleaded a witness to someone being murdered or raped then I'd only feel safe knowing they are being killed, if they are only imprisoned then as soon as they get out their full intentions will be to retaliate against me and have me killed.


----------



## Bambi (Oct 24, 2009)

Okay, first things first:

Pedophilia = preference for pre-pubescent children (meaning a given targets body is not chemically or physically prepared for sex.)

Ephebophilia = preference for teenagers and young adults (14-19 years of age) who've hit puberty and are sexually active.

Ephebophilia =/= Pedophilia

Second of all, after some thought, I don't approve of chemical castration. Third of all? I think that's it. :/


----------



## Jelly (Oct 24, 2009)

I don't approve of it.
I think its a hideous crime, and two crimes don't make justice.
But I don't know.
Im a pinko commie faggo


----------



## Bambi (Oct 24, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> I don't approve of it.
> I think its a hideous crime, and two crimes don't make justice.
> But I don't know.
> Im a pinko commie faggo


I don't approve of it either, but it works in certain instances.

Repeat offenders should have other alternative punishments, but here's to noone wanting to look into other options. :/


----------



## Jelly (Oct 24, 2009)

Bambi said:


> I don't approve of it either, but it works



That's a pretty scary notion.
Yeah, and I'm sure that glassing the entire country of Iraq would completely dissolve our issues with the people of Iraq (by annihilating its people). It certainly doesn't mean that an easy or workable solution is right because of the high ethical cost. :CCCCCCCCCCCCC


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 24, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> If I pressed charges or pleaded a witness to someone being murdered or raped then I'd only feel safe knowing they are being killed, if they are only imprisoned then as soon as they get out their full intentions will be to retaliate against me and have me killed.



then you are the extreme stereotype of the scared American pussy hears to hoping you never get a gun

a guy in the bank sneezes and your ready to gun him down yeah i'll feel safer with a pedo


----------



## Bambi (Oct 24, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> That's a pretty scary notion.
> Yeah, and I'm sure that glassing the entire country of Iraq would completely dissolve our issues with the people of Iraq (by annihilating its people). It certainly doesn't mean that an easy or workable solution is right because of the high ethical cost. :CCCCCCCCCCCCC


 ... you're right about this.

Eh, to be truthfully honest, I never liked the procedure either -- seems kind of medieval and retarded.


----------



## Jelly (Oct 24, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> then you are the extreme stereotype of the scared American pussy hears to hoping you never get a gun



You don't need to be American to suck Nazi cock.


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 24, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> You don't need to be American to suck Nazi cock.



well fine the stereotype of the insecure human being


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 24, 2009)

and i will say one thing a long time ago on a planet called earth there was a group called homosexuals and they wanted to have sex with the same gender after several years of public persecution they finely got the right to be with there lovers  

now i have one more story so listen up children a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away on the planet htrae there was a group of aliens that wanted to mate with the young one's of there race after several years of public persecution they finely got the right to be with there mate's

now let me slow it down just in case you didn't get it there is NO difference am i saying its right no am i saying its wrong no if tthe few kid's who understand how serious sex is and if they want to do it with old guys so be it


----------



## Get-dancing (Oct 24, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> then you are the extreme stereotype of the scared American pussy hears to hoping you never get a gun
> 
> a guy in the bank sneezes and your ready to gun him down yeah i'll feel safer with a pedo



Fun-fact: I'm no American, ENGLISH MOTHERFUCKA'! My location reads that, and in England we haven't had the right to bare arms since the end of our civil war. And people have been just as severly punnished for killing or severly harming criminals even if they came at them first. No I wouldn't feel safer with a pedo tbh, especially if they were say a serial rapist or an organised pimp.



EinTheCorgi said:


> now let me slow it down just in case you didn't get it there is NO difference am i saying its right no am i saying its wrong no if tthe few kid's who understand how serious sex is and if they want to do it with old guys so be it



But at that age there's development issues, the child doesn't gain emotional or psychological understanding of the sincerity of sex up until being as young as 14 or old as 19. (Hence why in many nations a 16 year old and a 14 year old isn't as illegal as a 16 year old and a 13 year old).


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 24, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> Fun-fact: I'm no American, ENGLISH MOTHERFUCKA'! My location reads that, and in England we haven't had the right to bare arms since the end of our civil war.



you win this round but ill be back just like genital warts


----------



## Bun (Oct 24, 2009)

I'd have to say: Poland is awesome. Usually anyone whom is attracted to children and they are adults, can't control this attraction and that really is the only way to go in order to prevent them from hurting more children ect.


----------



## Jelly (Oct 24, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> But at that age there's development issues, the child doesn't gain emotional or psychological understanding of the sincerity of sex up until being as young as 14 or old as 19. (Hence why in many nations a 16 year old and a 14 year old isn't as illegal as a 16 year old and a 13 year old).



If you buy any aspect of biological or cultural development - you'd probably realize that the lack of psychological maturity is supposed to be an initiation of a play-phase. Much like the immaturity in children that don't understand the ramifications of a society they're part of (which is supported by a massive quantity of ethnography). You need that phase, in part, so that you can understand what ramifications sexuality plays in your life and the lives of those around you and also to learn sexual technique (sorry if this grosses John Q. Westerners out) so that you can better reciprocate and show social adaptability.

I think the law has more to do with arbitrary relation to other laws regarding adulthood and the ability of elites to sell their daughters to other high-standing elites without fear of scandal if knocked-up by a lowborn - since you can charge someone who "molests" your child, even if the child admits it was willing with RAPE. Plus, pregnancy takes during the sexual play-phase in cultures that consume massive amounts of calories, not so much in other areas of the world. Sucks to be you, Western girls, because they have amenorrhea with this stage of infertility.


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 24, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> But at that age there's development issues, the child doesn't gain emotional or psychological understanding of the sincerity of sex up until being as young as 14 or old as 19. (Hence why in many nations a 16 year old and a 14 year old isn't as illegal as a 16 year old and a 13 year old).



well idk maybe the kid's in England aren't the little sex fiends we have hear i nearly craped my self when i over heard my neice talking to her friend about quote "what's the deal with anal" seriously a 10 year old should not say that
maybe its just american kids i just dont know any more and people say kid's aren't knowledgeable about sex harhar yeah ok


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 24, 2009)

oh i found this on another forum persons sig ( Love has no gender. 
Love has no age.
Love has no species.
Love just IS. 
You cant help who your heart chooses for you to fall in love with. so dont fight it; you'll just end up hurt.)

what about pedo's who actually love the kid's they (molest)


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 24, 2009)

CaptainCool said:


> in poland it has been decided that convicted pedophiles will be forcibly castrated chemically after they get out of prison. they will have to undergo a treatment that blocks their sex drive completely. i have heard that the same thing counts as well for people who committed crimes involving incest.
> 
> what are your thoughts about this? is this the right thing to do?
> personally i think it is... but executing them would be cheaper
> ...



I like the idea of chemical castration. If you can not control your urges, then you don't deserve a sex drive.



Ricky said:


> Women can't rape people, silly.
> 
> That's a well-known fact.



Thats a wrong fact. Infact they can and they do.


----------



## Toboe Moonclaw (Oct 24, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I don't think there should be a line that could righteously allow those (capital; death, castration, etc) punishments, however I have nothing against keeping the criminals in jail for longer intervals up to life if they repeat their crimes.


I totally agree.


----------



## Jelly (Oct 24, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Thats a wrong fact. Infact they can and they do.



He was being facetious.


----------



## Jude Prudence (Oct 24, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> then you are the extreme stereotype of the scared American pussy hears to hoping you never get a gun
> 
> a guy in the bank sneezes and your ready to gun him down yeah i'll feel safer with a pedo




_*YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO AN OPINION UNTIL YOU LEARN HOW TO SPELL AND END YOUR SENTENCES WITH A PERIOD AND CAPITALIZE YOUR LETTERS AND NOT SOUND LIKE A 6 YEAR OLD EVERY

TIME

YOU

SAY SOMETHING*__*
*_


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 24, 2009)

Jude Prudence said:


> _*YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO AN OPINION UNTIL YOU LEARN HOW TO SPELL AND END YOUR SENTENCES WITH A PERIOD AND CAPITALIZE YOUR LETTERS AND NOT SOUND LIKE A 6 YEAR OLD EVERY
> 
> TIME
> 
> ...



You need to take a leaf out of your own book.


----------



## SnowFox (Oct 24, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> You need to take a leaf out of your own book.



Did you have to quote it full size?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 24, 2009)

SnowFox said:


> Did you have to quote it full size?



Easier when one is eating dinner and only has one hand free.


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 24, 2009)

God forbid you use two hands for the sake of preserving page flow


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 24, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> God forbid you use two hands for the sake of preserving page flow



Yup. food comes first.


----------



## Jelly (Oct 24, 2009)

Jude Prudence said:


> NAFFY TIEM



oh



fuck


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 24, 2009)

pinko commie faggo. <3


----------



## feathery (Oct 24, 2009)

Umm..no even though th deserve such treatment I must detest that i am appalled to here that..that's just horrendous and inhumane in my own opinion however anything to do with castration in any regard im against.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Oct 24, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> oh
> 
> 
> 
> fuck



HAHAHAHHA

STOP



NAFFY TIME


*The Verve plays*


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 24, 2009)

feathery said:


> Umm..no even though th deserve such treatment I must detest that i am appalled to here that..that's just horrendous and inhumane in my own opinion however anything to do with castration in any regard im against.



So you would rather the death sentence instead? Or perhaps to leave those fuckers out to prowl the streets looking for more victims? 

You do realize keeping these sick bastards in jail, not only do they get food, water and exercise, and even a TV in their cell (atleast they do here if they behave in prison) costs the tax payer more money than it would to have them chemically castrated?

This method treats the problem, you can not treat the problem a psychotic serial killer has. I would much rather see those that can not be cured/treated in any way, shape or form behind bars, and those that can be treated and put back into the public released after treatment.


----------



## twelvestring (Oct 24, 2009)

Okay randy I could agree with this if it were the pedos choice to undergo chemical castration in order to get out of jail time. But to give government the right to control human emotion or urges, thats like clockwork orange type gov.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 24, 2009)

twelvestring said:


> Okay randy I could agree with this if it were the pedos choice to undergo chemical castration in order to get out of jail time. But to give government the right to control human emotion or urges, thats like clockwork orange type gov.



But it is ok for a rapist and a pedophile to control their victims is it?


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 24, 2009)

Is it just me or does it seem like this thread is approaching a critical mass of really shitty grammar?


----------



## twelvestring (Oct 24, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> But it is ok for a rapist and a pedophile to control their victims is it?


Oh randy, I never thought of you as that type. Please don't put words in my mouth or make wild assumptions. You are better then that buddy.


----------



## Scarborough (Oct 24, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Is it just me or does it seem like this thread is approaching a critical mass of really shitty grammar?


As Cloud Strife would say, "I'm breaking my limit."


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 24, 2009)

twelvestring said:


> Oh randy, I never thought of you as that type. Please don't put words in my mouth or make wild assumptions. You are better then that buddy.



What I meant was, you said it was not right for the government to control a persons urges, fair enough. But my point is, rapists, and pedophiles strip their victims of dignity, they are in control of their victims throughout the ordeal, and in many cases the victim does not come out of it alive. 

And what happens to these criminals? They get put in jail, they don't even get life here if they just commit the rape, Unsure of the total jail time for rape but I have seen silly sentencing like four years or something for a rapist.


----------



## troy (Oct 24, 2009)

No. How about the convicted who didn't break the law?

The criminal justice system is flawed. I don't like the idea of such a flawed system forcing anything on anyone.

People who put on the pope hat and decide that they are holy enough to force something on another person is wrong.


----------



## twelvestring (Oct 24, 2009)

Fair enough, thought you were just putting words in my mouth. Yes rapists are in control of their victims and are punished for it. I've heard of rapists getting 4 to 5 here too. It depends on the severity of the rape I believe. 
As for the rest of your post. I've said most my views on the subject earlier. No point in posting the same thing twice.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 24, 2009)

My thoughts on this is the same attitude I have towards the death penalty: the punishment is something that cannot be reversed if the accused is later proven to be innocent.  Unlike a jail sentence, which can be monetarily compensated for, permanently harming a convict as punishment should only be done in cases where the evidence for the crime is so strong that there is no chance whatsoever of it being overturned on appeal.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is enough to convict someone of a crime, but IS NOT enough to warrant a death and/or mutilation penalty.  To you that, you need a minimum of 2 eye-witnesses and/or good quality video of the crime AND DNA evidence to prove that the criminal is the defendant (not just someone who merely looks like him.)

Once you can prove beyond ANY doubt that the criminal in question is the defendant, then mete out whatever punishment you want as long as it fits the crime.  Child rape: Crush his balls with a brick?  Sure.  Cut 'em off with a sword?  That works too.  Rip them off with a rusty motorcycle chain hooked up to a Harley?  Even better.  (Just don't fuck up the Harley.)


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 24, 2009)

Telnac said:


> My thoughts on this is the same attitude I have towards the death penalty: the punishment is something that cannot be reversed if the accused is later proven to be innocent.  Unlike a jail sentence, which can be monetarily compensated for, permanently harming a convict as punishment should only be done in cases where the evidence for the crime is so strong that there is no chance whatsoever of it being overturned on appeal.
> 
> Beyond a reasonable doubt is enough to convict someone of a crime, but IS NOT enough to warrant a death and/or mutilation penalty.  To you that, you need a minimum of 2 eye-witnesses and/or good quality video of the crime AND DNA evidence to prove that the criminal is the defendant (not just someone who merely looks like him.)
> 
> Once you can prove beyond ANY doubt that the criminal in question is the defendant, then mete out whatever punishment you want as long as it fits the crime.  Child rape: Crush his balls with a brick?  Sure.  Cut 'em off with a sword?  That works too.  Rip them off with a rusty motorcycle chain hooked up to a Harley?  Even better.  (Just don't fuck up the Harley.)



There is more to forensic evidence than just DNA.


----------



## ADF (Oct 24, 2009)

It's good for the majority of male paedophiles; but will it work for the women ones? There was a report on the BBC not too long ago of a man and *two women* molesting babies at day care centres and taking pictures of it to share with each other, they treated it as a game to see who could produce the most extreme images.

Women can be paedophiles, it's just allot less common.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 24, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> So you would rather the death sentence instead? Or perhaps to leave those fuckers out to prowl the streets looking for more victims?


Lets see if you can find the percentage of convicts that go back to doing the crimes after their set punishment was done.



> You do realize keeping these sick bastards in jail, not only do they get food, water and exercise, and even a TV in their cell (atleast they do here if they behave in prison) costs the tax payer more money than it would to have them chemically castrated?


Actually it will cost the a -lot- more to castrate them, seeing as they do their jail time then get castrated and like the death penalty I would assume they have a lot of red tape to go through for such a thing, meaning millions of dollars.



> This method treats the problem, you can not treat the problem a psychotic serial killer has. I would much rather see those that can not be cured/treated in any way, shape or form behind bars, and those that can be treated and put back into the public released after treatment.


You're an idiot.


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 24, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Lets see if you can find the percentage of convicts that go back to doing the crimes after their set punishment was done.



http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html

As it pertains to America, of course. But a comparison between two different countries should not be too much of a stretch in this case. 




			
				Newf said:
			
		

> Actually it will cost the a -lot- more to castrate them, seeing as they do their jail time then get castrated and like the death penalty I would assume they have a lot of red tape to go through for such a thing, meaning millions of dollars.


http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/frames/252/spalfram.html

Specifically: 



> [SIZE=-1]The current cost of an MPA 400 mg intramuscular injection is $40.00 per week... However, it is not unreasonable to project the cost at several thousand dollars for each individual ordered to undergo weekly MPA injections.[/SIZE]


Also of interest:



> It appears that the Legislature, in enacting the chemical castration statute, has proceeded on the belief, or perhaps more accurately, *on the hope, that administering a single drug-even involuntarily-can effectively alter abusive behavior in all categories of sexual offenders.* However, given the statute's broad application to the four types of sexual offenders,[58] *each with different underlying causes* for their exhibited criminal behavior, and the omission of the critical element of therapeutic counseling for those forced to undergo the procedure, it is difficult to conclude that the Legislature seriously viewed chemical castration as a form of treatment rather than punishment.



Emphasis is naturally mine. 

It would appear that the _efficacy_ of this treatment is also questionable, as well as the moral implications of using it.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 24, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> You're an idiot.



Name calling is against forum rules, do it again and it will be reported.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 24, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> There is more to forensic evidence than just DNA.


Quite true, but DNA evidence does far more to seal the deal than nearly anything else.  You can tell me the fibers under the fingernails of the victim matches the defendant's car... and that'd go a long way toward convincing me that he dragged her away to do the nefarious deed.  With an abundance of other evidence, I'd likely even vote to convict him as a juror, but that's not enough proof to justify a punishment that does permanent harm, like castration or execution.  

On the other hand, all that prior evidence plus a videotape of him abducting the victim plus his DNA all over her mutilated corpse?  Yeah, case closed.  Fry his ass.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 24, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html
> 
> As it pertains to America, of course. But a comparison between two different countries should not be too much of a stretch in this case.
> 
> ...



Morality? Pedophiles obviously do not have morality, otherwise they would not do what they do. Why should we allow these people to keep their human rights when these people clearly have no concern for other peoples "human rights"

In the UK, I do not know the exact percentage, but it is pretty common that people re offend after being released for prison. Although it is normaly car thieves, drug addicts, shop lifters etc. 

My attitude is, if they can not use there cock properly, then don't use the fucker at all. All I am doing is thinking of the welfare of children, you can not put a price on a childs welfare.


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 24, 2009)

Wait, before I respond; you read my links right?

I just know you did. 

Shit I would be okay if you just glossed over them. Really I would.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 24, 2009)

Sex offenders are among the worst re-offenders of all, if not THE worst re-offenders.  That's why we have things like sex offender registries in the first place, to better track these bastards.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 24, 2009)

Telnac said:


> Quite true, but DNA evidence does far more to seal the deal than nearly anything else.  You can tell me the fibers under the fingernails of the victim matches the defendant's car... and that'd go a long way toward convincing me that he dragged her away to do the nefarious deed.  With an abundance of other evidence, I'd likely even vote to convict him as a juror, but that's not enough proof to justify a punishment that does permanent harm, like castration or execution.
> 
> On the other hand, all that prior evidence plus a videotape of him abducting the victim plus his DNA all over her mutilated corpse?  Yeah, case closed.  Fry his ass.



Unless the abductor is dumb enough to do it in a town center (which are covered by CCTV in the uk) or a gas station forecourt, I very much doubt you will get video evidence. If I was shown enough evidence that he did take her (IE fibres in his car, blood stains in his car, her hair in his car, and his home) That is enough for me to punish him for his act.

If you convict him of the assault based on the forensic evidence and perhaps a couple eye witness accounts, you are saying he is GUILTY of the crime, if he is guilty of the crime he should face what ever punishment the judge sees fit to hand out.


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 24, 2009)

I'll take that as a "no" then.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 24, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> I'll take that as a "no" then.



Who are you talking to? would help if you quoted someone so we knew.


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 24, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Who are you talking to? would help if you quoted someone so we knew.



Most would be able to infer from the fact that I posted right after them when they made a comment towards me that I was indeed talking to them. 

But I guess I need to clarify myself. 

Did you, RandyDarkshade, even so much as gloss over any of the links I posted, both of which were pretty damn informative and relevant to our discussion? I mean, I _myself_ only read sections I thought were important to what I was looking for but I did gloss over a fair bit of it. 

And I would also like to take this opportunity to mention that a "lack of morality" (however you would qualify that, given morals are subjective in the first place) on the part of the criminal _most certainly does not mean_ that the people passing judgment should abandon all the standards of morals they hold because of it.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 24, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html
> 
> As it pertains to America, of course. But a comparison between two different countries should not be too much of a stretch in this case.


Interesting, so it is a minority.




> http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/frames/252/spalfram.html
> 
> Specifically:


Yes it may cost $40 for the chemicals, however it costs $80 for lethal injection chemicals and on average those cost per person hundreds of thousands of dollars, some even costing 6 million dollars. The amount of fees not related to the actual event are high, courtrooms and lawyers to name a few.



> Also of interest:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My thoughts exactly.


RandyDarkshade said:


> Name calling is against forum rules, do it again and it will be reported.


I laugh at your immaturity, kid.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 24, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Interesting, so it is a minority.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am far from a kid thanks. 

Anyway, looking at those prices, it makes me wonder if it is really worth spending the money on some cases to begin with. Perhaps Poland has the money to spend on the chemicals needed for it. Now, looking at those percentages of people who re-offend after release (That was the American stats right?) it is lower than I had thought, which, now I have thought about it, is it financially viable? Is it worth spending the money on chemically castrating pedophiles if the percentage of re offenders is so low? Would it be waste of tax money?

Sorry for coming across grumpy and immature, I am feeling grumpy and pissed off for some reason, will do my best to behave from now on though.


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 24, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Yes it may cost $40 for the chemicals, however it costs $80 for lethal injection chemicals and on average those cost per person hundreds of thousands of dollars, some even costing 6 million dollars. The amount of fees not related to the actual event are high, courtrooms and lawyers to name a few.



While it certainly would be more expensive than just the drug price on average, I doubt it would cost anywhere near as much as appeals made for LI. To the best of my knowledge CC is considered as a treatment and so is classified and handled differently when it comes to appealing it. I was unable to find any specific numbers, but it makes sense to assume that that the total cost for simply drugging a convicted sex offender, even including appeals, would be much less than perhaps even detaining them for however long sex offenders are held for. It probably would be "a lot cheaper" for the state if it worked and was able to stop the recidivism of sex offenders. 

But like the article said, for such a treatment to even have a chance of working you need regular psychotherapy and additional external services which do cost a lot of money. (see: footnote 57 + text) This, and there is reason to believe that it _does not_ consistently provide results. 

So if someone says that it would be "cheaper for the state" it is probably true; but only in the most technical of senses.


----------



## RoqsWolf (Oct 24, 2009)

That's a law to stop the pedos :V

Sounds cruel a bit but they'd deserve it if they were that insane


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 24, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> While it certainly would be more expensive than just the drug price on average, I doubt it would cost anywhere near as much as appeals made for LI. To the best of my knowledge CC is considered as a treatment and so is classified and handled differently when it comes to appealing it. I was unable to find any specific numbers, but it makes sense to assume that that the total cost for simply drugging a convicted sex offender, even including appeals, would be much less than perhaps even detaining them for however long sex offenders are held for. It probably would be "a lot cheaper" for the state if it worked and was able to stop the recidivism of sex offenders.
> 
> But like the article said, for such a treatment to even have a chance of working you need regular psychotherapy and additional external services which do cost a lot of money. (see: footnote 57 + text) This, and there is reason to believe that it _does not_ consistently.
> 
> So if someone says that it would be "cheaper for the state" it is probably true; but only in the most technical of senses.



That is what I meant earlier when I said it would probably be cheaper. But if it doesn't work then of course it wouldn't be worth it.


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 24, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> That is what I meant earlier when I said it would probably be cheaper. But if it doesn't work then of course it wouldn't be worth it.



So what you meant was "It would probably be cheaper if we ignore any associated costs and don't take into account its actual efficacy" then? What is the point of even saying it if that's the case?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 24, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> So what you meant was "It would probably be cheaper if we ignore any associated costs and don't take into account its actual efficacy" then? What is the point of even saying it if that's the case?



Because when I first said it I hadn't taken into account all the other costs. And I made the wrong assumption in assuming it worked. I know, I am a bad man.

I take back what I said to Newf earlier, he was right to call me an idiot.


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 24, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I take back what I said to Newf earlier, he was right to call me an idiot.


We know.


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 24, 2009)

Jude Prudence said:


> _*YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO AN OPINION UNTIL YOU LEARN HOW TO SPELL AND END YOUR SENTENCES WITH A PERIOD AND CAPITALIZE YOUR LETTERS AND NOT SOUND LIKE A 6 YEAR OLD EVERY
> 
> TIME
> 
> ...



typing in large texts will never make up for that no one likes you


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 24, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> typing in large texts will never make up for that no one likes you


You're stupid.  Almost everyone likes Jude.  You're the one that no one likes.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Oct 24, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> You're stupid.  Almost everyone likes Jude.  You're the one that no one likes.



Actually I really don't care for NAFFY 


But you know I don't really care for most people here


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 24, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> Actually I really don't care for NAFFY
> 
> 
> But you know I don't really care for most people here



you like me dont you im fluffy


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Oct 24, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> you like me dont you im fluffy



Yeah man I like you


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 24, 2009)

but ok i do believe that this thing has gotten out of hand pedophilia is BAD this thing is about is it right for poland to force them to get castrated 

in my opinion no its just not cool but its the best term of action because until jail go's back to being jail and not the fucking day spa that it is hear its the best thing we can do right now


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 24, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> Yeah man I like you



:3 woot


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 24, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> Actually I really don't care for NAFFY
> 
> 
> But you know I don't really care for most people here


Very true. 


I like NAFFY's rants.  They're usually entertaining.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 24, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Unless the abductor is dumb enough to do it in a town center (which are covered by CCTV in the uk) or a gas station forecourt, I very much doubt you will get video evidence. If I was shown enough evidence that he did take her (IE fibres in his car, blood stains in his car, her hair in his car, and his home) That is enough for me to punish him for his act.
> 
> If you convict him of the assault based on the forensic evidence and perhaps a couple eye witness accounts, you are saying he is GUILTY of the crime, if he is guilty of the crime he should face what ever punishment the judge sees fit to hand out.


I disagree.  If we base our punishment on the same standards as simply establishing guilt, then we should never hand out ultimate punishments (death, mutilation... anything else that does instant & permanent harm) because to do so, we'd have to allow for a never-ending parade of appeals just to satisty those who worry that we may have wrongfully convicted someone.  That's exactly what's so screwed up with the death penalty as it exists now.

I'm not in favor of abolishing ultimate punishments, I'm in favor of having a MUCH more stringent standards on when those ultimate punishments may be applied.  As far as I'm concerned, ALL murderers and ALL violent rapists should have ultimate punishments handed out.  But I'd be OK with unfairly NOT handing those punishments out to some because we don't have enough evidence to eliminate doubt WHATSOEVER rather than to risk ever unfairly handing out that punishment to an innocent man.


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 24, 2009)

Telnac said:


> I disagree.  If we base our punishment on the same standards as simply establishing guilt, then we should never hand out ultimate punishments (death, mutilation... anything else that does instant & permanent harm) because to do so, we'd have to allow for a never-ending parade of appeals just to satisty those who worry that we may have wrongfully convicted someone.  That's exactly what's so screwed up with the death penalty as it exists now.
> 
> I'm not in favor of abolishing ultimate punishments, I'm in favor of having a MUCH more stringent standards on when those ultimate punishments may be applied.  As far as I'm concerned, ALL murderers and ALL violent rapists should have ultimate punishments handed out.  But I'd be OK with unfairly NOT handing those punishments out to some because we don't have enough evidence to eliminate doubt WHATSOEVER rather than to risk ever unfairly handing out that punishment to an innocent man.



so let me get this straight you dont want the death penalty your fine with life sentences just in a not fun jail where you can go outside watch tv ect right


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 24, 2009)

Telnac said:


> I disagree.  If we base our punishment on the same standards as simply establishing guilt, then we should never hand out ultimate punishments (death, mutilation... anything else that does instant & permanent harm) because to do so, we'd have to allow for a never-ending parade of appeals just to satisty those who worry that we may have wrongfully convicted someone.  That's exactly what's so screwed up with the death penalty as it exists now.
> 
> I'm not in favor of abolishing ultimate punishments, I'm in favor of having a MUCH more stringent standards on when those ultimate punishments may be applied.  As far as I'm concerned, ALL murderers and ALL violent rapists should have ultimate punishments handed out.  But I'd be OK with unfairly NOT handing those punishments out to some because we don't have enough evidence to eliminate doubt WHATSOEVER rather than to risk ever unfairly handing out that punishment to an innocent man.



aye, I have to agree with ya here. I would not want to sentence someone to death and later find out that the poor bastard I just sentenced was innocent. I have heard in the past, on the news mainly, where innocent people have been jailed.



EinTheCorgi said:


> but ok i do believe that this thing has gotten out of hand pedophilia is BAD this thing is about is it right for poland to force them to get castrated
> 
> in my opinion no its just not cool but its the best term of action because until jail go's back to being jail and not the fucking day spa that it is hear its the best thing we can do right now



A lot of jails are like a day spa here too. I think a jail should be back as they were originally, completely isolate them from everything. Except for the essentials like food, drink, bed, water, wash facilities. If prisons were more harsh and less like a hotel, people would not want to go back to prison. I know people in person who have been to prison, done time, come back out, and have said they do not care if they go back in. and I have known people to end up back in the clink.


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 24, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> A lot of jails are like a day spa here too. I think a jail should be back as they were originally, completely isolate them from everything. Except for the essentials like food, drink, bed, water, wash facilities. If prisons were more harsh and less like a hotel, people would not want to go back to prison. I know people in person who have been to prison, done time, come back out, and have said they do not care if they go back in. and I have known people to end up back in the clink.


You're missing the point where prison is supposed to be for rehabilitation as well as punishment.  If prison was back like it was in the day, the people coming out would just be worse off for society.


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 24, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> You're missing the point where prison is supposed to be for rehabilitation as well as punishment.  If prison was back like it was in the day, the people coming out would just be worse off for society.



This would imply that people getting out of prisons today are _better_ for society than when they got in, and a lot people would disagree with that. (especially as it relates to gangs)


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 24, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> This would imply that people getting out of prisons today are _better_ for society than when they got in, and a lot people would disagree with that. (especially as it relates to gangs)


Ah, but that's where you're wrong.  It's implying that it's not worse, which could mean it's the same.  You can argue against it still, but at least the prisons are trying to reform their residents


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 24, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> Ah, but that's where you're wrong.  It's implying that it's not worse, which could mean it's the same.  You can argue against it still, but at least the prisons are trying to reform their residents



I was very tempted to go on a paragraph or so diatribe about how you would need "evidence" that rehab reduces recidivism and how tax money shouldn't be spent on something that you can't prove works and so we should stick to punishment oriented prisons and shit like that. I would be sure to word it a bit more elegantly than that in a vein attempt to hide my ultra-right wing bias, but that would have been the gist of it. 

But then I though, _"Jee, maybe I should look for this 'evidence' before I and run my mouth" _and so I did. 

Now I have only been reading this for about thirty minutes, so I have only read about ~20 pages in any detail, and I skipped around a lot, but _holy shit_ this is good stuff. 

http://www.stcloudstate.edu/continu...ments/AssessingCorrectionalRehabilitation.pdf

It has got to be the most interesting essay I have ever read. 

It basically gives a brief overview of the history of correctional treatments in the US, as well as all the major studies about the efficacy of Rehab and the problems with these studies etc. It goes on to list the modern studies and draws conclusions from them. Long story short if you care _at all_ about criminal rehabilitation, read this. 

It concludes that:



> Regardless, we believe that the evidence favors these interpretations because: (1) across all interventions, rehabilitation is more effective in reducing recidivism than alternative criminal justice sanctions; (2) programs that conform to the principles of effective intervention achieve meaningful, and possibly substantial, reductions in recidivism; and (3) numerous individual programsâ€”such as multisystemic therapyâ€”have been notably efficacious and offer the potential to serve as model interventions in other jurisdictions.
> 
> In this context, we will close this essay by focusing on two themes that have informed and that flow from our analysis: the need to pursue â€œevidence-basedâ€ corrections and the wisdom of â€œreaffirming rehabilitation.â€


So I would have been wrong before and I have to say that if you can prove that rehabilitation reduces recidivism (alliterrration!) then it should by all means be implemented. And it would appear that this is the case. 

Also, (and the nerd in my loled heartily at this) they had this to say about the way rehabilitation is currently handled: 



> At the risk of being accused of hyperbole, we would go so far as to say that much of what is done within the field is a matter of _correctional quackery_â€”practices akin to the â€œtreatmentâ€ of bloodletting once practiced in medicine


_Fucking mauled. _


----------



## Telnac (Oct 24, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> so let me get this straight you dont want the death penalty your fine with life sentences just in a not fun jail where you can go outside watch tv ect right


Close.  I like the death penalty (although we're actually talking about castration, I consider them both to be "ultimate punishments" and worth talking about together.)  What I don't like is the chance we're applying it on innocent people.  

Our standard for finding guilt is "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is better than the extremes of "beyond ANY doubt" (which lets criminals wander the streets, because there's ALWAYS some doubt) or "because we think he's guilty" (which allows witch hunts to lock up innocents by the bucketfuls.)  It's a standard which convicts nearly all the real criminals and allows for very few wrongful convictions.  The wrongfully convicted have the right to appeal, and the bulk of them successfully challenge their conviction.  There is no perfect system that sends all the bad guys to jail & lets all the innocent free.  I wish there were.

Currently, our standard of assigning punishment is the same as the standard for finding guilt.  You're guilty?  Here's your punishment!  But some punishments really need a higher standard of evidence against the accused than the standard for assigning guilt.  Because we don't have that higher standard for ultimate punishments, we very likely have sent wrongfully convicted men to die... many times over.

If we assign that higher standard to ultimate punishments, which I hope we do, then I'd 100% support the death penalty, forced castrations... hell, bring back Medieval torture-- it's all good!

So long as we're not doing any of those nasty things on dudes who don't deserve it.

Until then, yeah, let 'em rot in jail with the rest of 'em.


----------



## Patton89 (Oct 24, 2009)

I oppose the death penalty partly because there is always the chance innocents are killed. But i also oppose it because it in my opinion, it simply is murder. 
They are still humans,albeit sometimes sick and dangerous ones, but murdering them for the sake of satisfying common man's bloodthirst and need for revenge is just unacceptable. Its caving into basic caveman instincts.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Oct 25, 2009)

Lotta sexual frustration in this thread


_Soon there'll be candles and prayers that are sad I know_


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Oct 25, 2009)

Easog said:


> Which question did I directly refuse to answer?
> 
> 
> No, but I'll humour you.
> ...


 

Other people understood where I was getting at. You're the only one here scratching your head at my comments.


----------



## Takun (Oct 25, 2009)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Other people understood where I was getting at. You're the only one here scratching your head at my comments.



We better stop taking away the licenses of people convicted of drunk driving.  Soon they might start taking away the licenses of Asians and Women because they statistically get in more accidents and that's not safe.  :C


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Oct 25, 2009)

Takumi_L said:


> We better stop taking away the licenses of people convicted of drunk driving.  Soon they might start taking away the licenses of Asians and Women because they statistically get in more accidents and that's not safe.  :C



Why don't you just fucking arrest drunk drivers


And stop making snide bullshit liberal arts arguments


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 25, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> Why don't you just fucking arrest drunk drivers
> 
> 
> And stop making snide bullshit liberal arts arguments


I'm confused.  I thought Takumi was being facetious and sarcastic.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Oct 25, 2009)

You're all a bunch of idiots


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 25, 2009)




----------



## twelvestring (Oct 25, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> All I am doing is thinking of the welfare of children, you can not put a price on a childs welfare.


Okay I will repeat myself since it is an important point that people seem to be  forgetting.
If you make the punishment for a lesser crime equal to a punishment for murder, there is going to be allot more killing of the children.
It's harder to get caught for a crime when no one is alive to point you out. And even if they get caught the punishment is no more severe.
You see where I'm coming from? One reason pedophiles and rapists don't usually kill the victim is because murder has a much more severe punishment. This law makes it in the pedophiles best interest to kill the child.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Oct 25, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


>



LOLbertarians


KKKilled With Ka$h


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Oct 25, 2009)

This thread confirms that FAF's intelligence level is pretty darn low.



> This is bullshit.
> 
> Once again the politicians prove they are incompetent ****tards incapable of producing laws that actually help society, instead opting to earn fast popularity points with the least educated and most retarded elements of Poland's social structure.
> 
> ...



Crossposted my post from another discussion.


----------



## Bambi (Oct 25, 2009)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> This thread confirms that FAF's intelligence level is pretty darn low.
> 
> 
> 
> Crossposted my post from another discussion.


Those are some very good points, and it's not at all different from the legal system in the United States (at times.)


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 25, 2009)

AH....What the hell people?!


----------



## Armaetus (Oct 25, 2009)

America should adopt this and apply it to thise most likely to reoffend AND the high risk offenders. I don't mean people who banged a girl/guy 1 year underage and didn't know but those who want to molest and rape 12 year olds.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 25, 2009)

Telnac said:


> Sex offenders are among the worst re-offenders of all, if not THE worst re-offenders.  That's why we have things like sex offender registries in the first place, to better track these bastards.



No. No. And no.



RandyDarkshade said:


> I take back what I said to Newf earlier, he was right to call me an idiot.


We still love you.


----------



## Aurora Borealis (Oct 25, 2009)

So Poland does more then send out stalkers. Awesome!


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 25, 2009)

this place has gone to hell and a hand basket so many contradiction's and ass backwards statements it's enough to drive a corgi to drink


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 25, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> this place has gone to hell and a hand basket so many contradiction's and ass backwards statements it's enough to drive a corgi to drink



If ya popping open a bottle, pour me one and drink one for me!


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 25, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> If ya popping open a bottle, pour me one and drink one for me!



what's your poison i got whiskey scotch and vodka no beer though i don't care for that BLAH


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Oct 25, 2009)

Telnac said:


> Close. I like the death penalty (although we're actually talking about castration, I consider them both to be "ultimate punishments" and worth talking about together.) What I don't like is the chance we're applying it on innocent people.
> 
> Our standard for finding guilt is "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is better than the extremes of "beyond ANY doubt" (which lets criminals wander the streets, because there's ALWAYS some doubt) or "because we think he's guilty" (which allows witch hunts to lock up innocents by the bucketfuls.) It's a standard which convicts nearly all the real criminals and allows for very few wrongful convictions. The wrongfully convicted have the right to appeal, and the bulk of them successfully challenge their conviction. There is no perfect system that sends all the bad guys to jail & lets all the innocent free. I wish there were.
> 
> ...


I would really be willing to change the term "child molestor" to "molestor of those who cannot consent", thus so that it applies to the mentally handicapped, most children, and anyone that isn't responsible enough to pass a few tests about real world situations (we shall, for convenience, call them "consent tests", to imply that individuals below the age of 18 can be considered responsible individuals who are able to consent to legal matters and other life-changing things simply through the virtue of having passed this relatively objective test)

I personally prefer China's time honoured system for first time offenders: Re-Education through labour

Those who are repeat offenders shall get life in prision and shall be worked until they die.

Those who are repeat offenders, though, but had managed to, on more than 2 cases, molest a child (thus making them, in a sense, a serial molestor), shall be lined up and shot on public television to send a message to the rest of the country.
http://media.nowpublic.net/images//7c/c/7cce72711b1cffe9137786d402a0e67a.jpg


Glaice said:


> America should adopt this and apply it to thise most likely to reoffend AND the high risk offenders. I don't mean people who banged a girl/guy 1 year underage and didn't know but those who want to molest and rape 12 year olds.


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 25, 2009)

jesusfish2007 said:


> I would really be willing to change the term "child molestor" to "molestor of those who cannot consent", thus so that it applies to the mentally handicapped, most children, and anyone that isn't responsible enough to pass a few tests about real world situations (we shall, for convenience, call them "consent tests", to imply that individuals below the age of 18 can be considered responsible individuals who are able to consent to legal matters and other life-changing things simply through the virtue of having passed this relatively objective test)
> 
> I personally prefer China's time honoured system for first time offenders: Re-Education through labour
> 
> ...



that would have to be the most intelligent post ive seen all day


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 25, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> that would have to be the most intelligent post ive seen all day



That was indeed an intelligent post.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Oct 25, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> that would have to be the most intelligent post ive seen all day


 


RandyDarkshade said:


> That was indeed an intelligent post.


 
I try my hardest, but it is only for the good of the people's of the Earth that I take action. I am the one Leader for all the people's, on our glorious planet.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 25, 2009)

jesusfish2007 said:


> I try my hardest, but it is only for the good of the people's of the Earth that I take action. I am the one Leader for all the people's, on our glorious planet.



ALL HAIL JESUSFISH!


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Oct 25, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> ALL HAIL JESUSFISH!


 
EIN VOLK, EIN REICH, EIN FURHER.


----------



## Monkeykitten (Oct 25, 2009)

That's one way, but I think the only real way to solve the problem of them raping people is to snip off the business end entirely.


----------



## Hir (Oct 25, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> that would have to be the most intelligent post ive seen all day


I'm surprised someone like you even understood a post like that.


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 25, 2009)

DarkNoctus said:


> I'm surprised someone like you even understood a post like that.


Exactly what I was thinking.

It probably saw words that it didn't understand, like "consent", and assumed that it had to be intelligent.


----------



## Slade (Oct 25, 2009)

Holy fuck.
15 pages in two days.

Only to be expected when you post about pedophilia on FAF. Still, at least it's not about bestiality (yet).


----------



## Disparity (Oct 25, 2009)

I don't think that is right. They have already done their time, and may have learned better. I think maybe therapy or a therapist consult could help too. Maybe if they were a repeat. When it comes to the sex organs, I just have to say no.


----------



## Monkeykitten (Oct 25, 2009)

Disparity said:


> I don't think that is right. They have already done their time, and may have learned better. I think maybe therapy or a therapist consult could help too. Maybe if they were a repeat. When it comes to the sex organs, I just have to say no.



I've never heard of a successful rehabilitation of a pedophile.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 25, 2009)

Disparity said:


> I don't think that is right. They have already done their time, and may have learned better. I think maybe therapy or a therapist consult could help too. Maybe if they were a repeat. When it comes to the sex organs, I just have to say no.



Rehab does not work. I watched a documentary on pedophiles last year. The film crew went to a special prison just for pedophiles (somewhere in the USA) where they tried to rehabilitate convicted pedophiles. There were pedophiles there who could not see what they did was wrong, they thought what they did was absolutely fine, and there was those that were genuinely ashamed of themselves and knew they did wrong.

However, all of teh convicts had to see the shrink, and every now and then the convicts had to sit the lie detector test, if they failed the test, they would not be released. The people who operate the prison said it was extremely rare for an inmate to pass the lie detector test.

So no, I do not believe having them visit a shrink and have the rehabilitated would work.


----------



## Jude Prudence (Oct 25, 2009)

Let me just quote myself, here.



Jude Prudence said:


> A Research Survey in canada awhile back concluded that Pedophiles are far more attracted to the violence and dominance exerted over the victim than the sexual aspect of rape.
> 
> They're going for the trigger, here. Not the underlying source of these acts.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 25, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Rehab does not work.



Science does not agree.


----------



## Ratte (Oct 25, 2009)

Wouldn't they just turn to other means of crime, instead?  I remember seeing this topic once before.


----------



## Jude Prudence (Oct 25, 2009)

Ratte said:


> Wouldn't they just turn to other means of crime, instead?  I remember seeing this topic once before.




...




Jude Prudence said:


> *People are neglecting the fact that there's a black market for Erectile Dysfunction pills, it seems. Like there is for any other medication. Just because it's going to feel weird for the determined types doesn't mean they won't try it.*


----------



## Ratte (Oct 25, 2009)

Jude Prudence said:


> ...



That works.  I don't feel like reading through a fuckton of replies.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Oct 25, 2009)

I can summarize the thread for you: 95% is stupid (unsurprisingly), 4% is willfully ignorant and only about 1% of the posts are actually intelligent in some way.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Oct 25, 2009)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> I can summarize the thread for you: 95% is stupid (unsurprisingly), 4% is willfully ignorant and only about 1% of the posts are actually intelligent in some way.


 
Let us solve the issues in this thread in the traditional, time-honoured manner of your country, Mikael: How about you call the mods, and bring some martial law to this thread?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3399/3585438754_08f4aa4833.jpg

http://carol14.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/martial-law-poland-1981_23.jpg

http://www.videofact.com/english/stanwoj5opt.jpg


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 25, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Science does not agree.



Science isn't always right.

EDIT: Rehab will not work for every pedophile.


----------



## Takun (Oct 25, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> *Science isn't always right.*
> 
> EDIT: Rehab will not work for every pedophile.



That's the point of science B:


----------



## Jude Prudence (Oct 25, 2009)

jesusfish2007 said:


> Let us solve the issues in this thread in the traditional, time-honoured manner of your country, Mikael: How about you call the mods, and bring some martial law to this thread?
> 
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3399/3585438754_08f4aa4833.jpg
> 
> ...




You know what? 

Yeah, Let's do this.

Let's close this thread down so fucking hard it leaves a damned crater in off-topic.

This is some of the most asinine shit I've ever had to read, anyway. Your shitposting, included.


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 25, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Science isn't always right.



After much science, it has been determined that science is, in fact, always right.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 25, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> After much science, it has been determined that science is, in fact, always right.



This.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 25, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> After much science, it has been determined that science is, in fact, always right.



I will find something it was wrong about..... I WILL.........Ah hell with it. I dun care no more. XD


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Oct 25, 2009)

jesusfish2007 said:


> Let us solve the issues in this thread in the traditional, time-honoured manner of your country, Mikael: How about you call the mods, and bring some martial law to this thread?
> 
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3399/3585438754_08f4aa4833.jpg
> 
> ...



That happened once in our nation's history. You should retake Sarcasm 101.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 25, 2009)

I think it is time this thread died and went to hell. I don't think much more can be discussed now.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 25, 2009)

The world must follow their example.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Oct 25, 2009)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> That happened once in our nation's history. You should retake Sarcasm 101.


 
You're right...

I should read "Trolling your country for dummies" by Wojciech Jaruzelski, coauthored by Stanislav Poplavsky.


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Oct 25, 2009)

well yep im done with all these people who cant see the logic but we should do nothing like china 

china sucks fat dead guy butt cheese the one thing they do that i like is the work the criminals till they die but no execution especially public


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 25, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> well yep im done with all these people who cant see the logic but we should do nothing like china
> 
> china sucks fat dead guy butt cheese the one thing they do that i like is the work the criminals till they die but no execution especially public


Fucking sig'd.  

You're so stupid it's funny.


----------



## Jelly (Oct 25, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> Fucking sig'd.
> 
> You're so stupid it's funny.



You're pretty stupid, I think.





Ehh. But you don't make me laugh. :I


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 25, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> You're pretty stupid, I think.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your thought is wrong.  

Can't win 'em all.


----------



## Azure (Oct 25, 2009)

Cut their shriveled dicks off so they can't even fuck a pocket pussy.


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 25, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> well yep im done with all these people who cant see the logic but we should do nothing like china
> 
> china sucks fat dead guy butt cheese the one thing they do that i like is the work the criminals till they die but no execution especially public



_* chuckles heartily

_s'great stuff_
_


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Oct 26, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Cut their shriveled dicks off so they can't even fuck a pocket pussy.


 
Public De-Dickings.

We shall get the guillotines, and refit them for exactly that purpose.


----------



## Takun (Oct 26, 2009)

jesusfish2007 said:


> Public De-Dickings.
> 
> We shall get the guillotines, and refit them for exactly that purpose.




No need to resize mine.  AM I RIGHT FELLAS? Hell yeah.


----------



## GothDragon666 (Oct 26, 2009)

This needs to happen in America, or at least put them on death row, pedophiles serve no purpose in life whatsoever. 
And for you who say I'm cruel and sick:
I have two little sisters. If anyone touches them, they better PRAY the government gets them before I do.


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 26, 2009)

Takumi_L said:


> No need to resize mine.  AM I RIGHT FELLAS? Hell yeah.


To be fair, you're like 6 stories tall, so it's actually small for your size :V


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Oct 26, 2009)

GothDragon666 said:


> This needs to happen in America, or at least put them on death row, pedophiles serve no purpose in life whatsoever.
> And for you who say I'm cruel and sick:
> I have two little sisters. If anyone touches them, they better PRAY the government gets them before I do.



Because clearly, emotion is the best way to make law and enforce it.

You're not cruel or sick, you're just stupid. Sadly, no amount of  anti-psychotics or help will cure you.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 26, 2009)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> Because clearly, emotion is the best way to make law and enforce it.
> 
> You're not cruel or sick, you're just stupid. Sadly, no amount of  anti-psychotics or help will cure you.



All I have seen you do so far is insult people. Check site rules before you get an infraction.


----------



## Elessara (Oct 26, 2009)

Yay! Look at my polish ancestors doing it right! 

Finally something I can be proud of them for! lol


----------



## Azure (Oct 26, 2009)

Hey guys, lets coddle sex offenders because it's so unjust to do what we do to them.  Personally, I don't think these people deserve a second chance at all. People who defend their actions are retarded, and some of you in here should be shot.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 26, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Hey guys, lets coddle sex offenders because it's so unjust to do what we do to them.  Personally, I don't think these people deserve a second chance at all. People who defend their actions are retarded, and some of you in here should be shot.



I agree. If they can not control their actions and they choose to break a law, and strip a child of their dignity and probably scar that child for life. Then I don't have sympathy for those pedophiles. If they can't use their cock in they way it was intended to be used, then they should expect harsh punishment.


----------



## Ricky (Oct 26, 2009)

...and yet another thread breaks down into emotional frenzy because people aren't mature enough for intelligent debate.

It's really funny because this is what the thread has become:

People, all pedophiles should be murdered and burned at the steak
- I don't think peophiles should be murdered and burned at the steak
YOU'RE SUPPORTING PEDOPHILES YOU'RE SICK AND WRONG BECAUSE PEDOPHILIA IS SICK AND WRONG


----------



## Corto (Oct 26, 2009)

Locked for derailment and flamewars and such.


----------

