What happens when someone accuses you of doing that? How do you prove that someone does or does not fantasize about something?
Yeah, this is a bad idea to base any law off of.
People who fantasize often have a lot of material on their servers and I would approach it that way, find the evidence first, persecute second but the evidence must always been ironclad.. But I'll concede the point that a mere accusation should never be enough, especially with how accusations are weaponized..Metoo being a great example. I do believe that calumny laws should carry with them prison time..Make an accusation like this tantamount to an attempted murder beef if it can be proven that they're conspiring to maliciously fabricate shit to destroy someone's life.
Or just bring back dueling.
]Secondly, there is the problem that a law that is disproportionally punishing is in fact counterproductive in its own goals, as it corners even people guilty of slight offenses into a position where they have nothing to lose, so they may aswell go all the way, as illustrated in this example from Ancient China, in short form:
-What's the penalty for being late?
-Death.
-What's the penalty for rebellion?
-Death.
-Well -- we're late.
Except that pedophiles always offend..eventually.
No matter what you do.
In practice, to keep pedophiles from victimizing anyone is technically easier than with some other kinds of mental illnesses. They aren't out to victimize just about anyone, like it is the case with come crazy murderers or absolute nutjobs, only children. Hence, the main goal here should be to physically isolate them from access to any children. Various ways to do that, prison being the most obvious, but full reliance on that option has some downsides - most notably, being reliant on legal procedure getting them there, and quite motivating for all of them to avoid outing themselves in the first place, and if they can't avoid that, well, they may think that they could aswell go all the way - abuse a child and\or eliminate witnesses.
Most "CSA" happens in communities that are designated protected classes any way, IE the legal scrutiny is non existent. I can't tell you how many LGBT friends of mine have said they were told from a very young age "its totally healthy and normal for older LGBT adults to come onto you..stop internalizing -insertphobia here- this is how you find yourself and feel comfortable in your own skin!" merely bringing this reality up is enough to lose your job now a days.
And then you have Twitter and a few other social media sites pushing pedoacceptance and allowing "MAPS" to organize. I'm not certain the law is capable of addressing this issue anymore without a total overhaul of our criminal justice system returning it to an era where criminal justice was about deterrence rather than rehabilitation.
As such, i think the most reasonable position would be to create more of a proportional system, with the primary objective of encouraging pedophiles, especially the not (yet) child rapists, to out themselves to the authorities. Nothing makes it impossible, it's just a matter of politically and legally setting up the right compromise. The basis of it would be to limit their freedoms in some way, making them live in some sort of house arrest, mandatory, somewhat controlled housing location, or limiting and assisting them with getting into jobs in which by their very nature they would restrict them from access to children - after all, no children on an oil rig, cargo freighter, or a lumber yard in deep Siberian tundra.
I mean..we tried this as a society, well the first part..not the preemptive quarantining but the "come out into the light"
our tolerance of their existence got us the pedo acceptance movement.
What does the society get out of this? Less pedophiles playing cat and mouse with the legal and mental health systems, less expenses feeding and protecting them in prison, or alternatively catching and legally sentencing people who know that they will be killed if caught, in fact pedophiles can still work and pay taxes.
What do the pedophiles get out of this? Safety from execution or imprisonment for something they can't change or fully control, and yet still far more freedom and comfort than they would get in prison.
Wouldn't that be a fair deal for everyone?
On paper it sounds..acceptable, in practice..well...
Actually, I am saying the same standards that you apply to their case, could be applied to your case. That the same standard could be used against you without much of a stretch. You know what, maybe the logic only makes sense to me, because it is something that stems from an internal train of logic in my mind- or more than one. I'll get back to you when I am less tired. Or maybe someone will ease me of the burden of explaining my own argument, if I am lucky. Because, it seems that other people might have apprehended my meaning.
No, I get what you're saying, it makes logical sense in a world where things work as they should it would be an entirely legitimate slippery slope argument.
Problem is we've fallen off the slope so hard in that direction already we're half way down the mountain.
Maybe. But I'd rather not fantasize about it, or take pleasure from the idea. If some people deserve a bullet, then so be it.]
It certainly isn't healthy to sit around fantasizing about butchering people all day, no. Buuut "I'd love to rip this animals guts out" in response to Jeffrey Epsteins existence..or really the corrupt District attorneys who allowed him to be murdered to cover for their friends...is sort of a natural guttural response.
Dwelling on it for months after the fact though..Better uses of mental energy.
I'd rather not bay for blood, but be calm and rational about it. And plus, I'd rather give them a proper trial, to ensure order is preserved and that injustice is not being committed. Let me, explain something about my personal views, that I am the type of person to support corporal punishment in certain cases, for the reason of seeing it as being less brutal than imprisonment, and more effective to boot.
Again I certainly wasn't advocating for vigilantism in any of the stances I've taken in regards to any group I've mentioned here. Change the law first...execute second.
No, he isn't at all. And I don't think what he is arguing is at all advocacy. Though, I can understand, I think, why you see it that way. Calling him regressive left is actually quite laughable really.
The argument is a defense for these people on grounds that they deserve or are entitled to human rights and compassion...And then he talks about it being a fetish and other things.
That's fairly social justice cultish.
Last edited: