"Queer" Academic Suggests Pedophilia Be Taught in Schools as an Innate Sexuality - Reduxx 🤡🏳️‍🌈🤡

submitted by Clown_Chan from (reduxx.info)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]LyingSpirit472 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

If the crime is outside of the Romeo and Juliet law age [we shouldn't do it for "the boyfriend is a few months older than their girlfriend, the girlfriend's parents hate him, so they call the cops and get the woodchipper out on his 18th birthday the second they can claim it", of course], but if it's a teenager molesting a child, then yeah. Woodchipper.

[–]NormalPear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

but if it's a teenager molesting a child, then yeah. Woodchipper.

Alright, that is "reasonable." Just a problem, we're still condoning the death of a minor. We don't even know why they ended up like that.

That be like simply condoning the death of Mary Bell without knowing the reason why she ended up like that. She went to jail, got out, and never committed a crime again.

[–]LyingSpirit472 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

But the line is blurrier than you think there. If you say "we're condoning the death of a minor", then not only do you not give them the woodchipper for it- but you can't even put the minor in prison for it [with how inmates hate chomos above all else, even a prison sentence for the minor would be a death penalty for them.] But it's not like we should give the teenager molesting a child a medal, the key to the city. and a billion dollars either.

Some crimes are vicious enough that even if it's a minor doing it, it goes to "if it's a minor who did it, this minor's too fucked up to let walk free."

[–]NormalPear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

I get that, but that's why this needs to a conversation. Because, while yes it's majority of adults who commit the crime, there'll be a minor(s) does it. We have cases of it. Sometimes, not even single perpetrator but gang-rapes.

It doesn't need to be a woodchipper, but it doesn't have to be a medal for it either. Putting in prison would be horrendous, but then what? We can put them in solidarity, rehabilitation, etc. Keep tabs on them. If they commit it again, then okay, throw them in a woodchipper.

But, that can't just be the go-to for every case. When there might be mental issues, especially due to background, going on.

[–]LyingSpirit472 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Minors can commit absolutely chilling acts too. The type of acts that you look at and can objectively say "this person needs to die." Minors can just be evil too.

And some of the things are "that's great, but you still chose to do this, so no sympathy." Saying people's backgrounds forgive them is the same as saying "it's okay the kid raped this child, you don't understand, they were really, really, REALLY horny!", and "I don't give a shit. You made the choice, it's reprehensible." And mental issues- shit, if that's the case throw them in a mental institution [note: If you're institutionalized, you'll probably stay there for the rest of your life, not just a short time.]

[–]NormalPear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Minors can commit horrendous acts, no one's disagreeing. But it's still pretty fucked to be advocating for the murder of children. If they have a mental issue, then it's better for them to be institutionalized.

people's backgrounds forgive them is the same as saying "it's okay the kid raped this child, you don't understand, they were really, really, REALLY horny!",

Not even close. Going into their background isn't justifying it, it would be to see what CAUSED them to be like that. They should still fairly be put on trial and jailed (or institutionalized).

[–]LyingSpirit472 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

And institutionalization is effectively killing the minor as well, since if they're institutionalized, there is no "tried as a minor, rubber stamp, you're 17 years, 364 days old the day you're convicted for raping an infant then you'll only serve one day in jail for it and go free" get out of jail free clause there. They keep you there until they decide you're sane, which will likely be "never." You'll be in the mental institution and be in there for the rest of your life- and it'll be a natural lifespan to boot since the institution will do everything to keep you from ending yourself to get rid of it up to and including feeding you like a baby bird if you choose to stop eating and drinking to starve yourself to death (and the Heimlich if you try to choke on it when they do), effectively giving a minor an even harsher punishment than the woodchipper.

[–]NormalPear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Man, I'm going to be honest with you. This obsession with woodchippers and minors doesn't look good. A minor who commits a crime, is still a minor.

If they're institutionalized, at least they have a chance to get treated. If it doesn't work, at least it could be seen as a step forward (in testing) on how to treat this form of illness. Especially when it starts popping up in other minors. Since you can't just up and kill minors who are pedophiles. They haven't committed the crime. It would be injustice, and oxymoron to say you're for "child safety," when in reality, it's just children you deem "acceptable" to life and human rights.

[–]LyingSpirit472 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Since you can't just up and kill minors who are pedophiles. They haven't committed the crime.

Mask off, if you say they haven't committed the crime, then you are going past "yep, a kid who's 17 years, 364 days old on the day he's convicted for raping an infant should be let free in 24 hours" and going straight to "give a pedophile who's a minor the key to the city."

It would be injustice, and oxymoron to say you're for "child safety," when in reality, it's just children you deem "acceptable" to life and human rights.

Again, some kids can do absolute atrocities. Some kids can be just plain evil. You'd probably let school shooters go free on their 18th birthday with a hug and take them out for frosty chocolate milkshakes too, aww come on, all they did was kill some kids, that's why pencils have erasers, am I right?

[–]NormalPear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Incomparable, hun. A 17 year old pedophile, only minor by law, knows the difference between wrong and right compared to a 14/15 year old pedophile. Both of them, unless committing the crime, haven't committed a crime not could be arrested for anything. Unless you support imprisonment for thoughtcrime.

Acknowledging the ages doesn't equal letting them off "Scott free" lol. By that logic, the laws we use now is letting minors off "free."

Again, some kids can do absolute atrocities. Some kids can be just plain evil. You'd probably let school shooters go free on their 18th birthday with a hug and take them out for frosty chocolate milkshakes too, aww come on, all they did was kill some kids, that's why pencils have erasers, am I right?

Again, obsession ain't looking good. There's a reason why we have the laws today regarding minors, and how to treat them compared to adults. Good thing you're not in charge of it. Wanting to kill minors ain't a healthy mindset, nor would be looked at with approval.