-->
@Lemming
Most man don't think sexual predators should receive a death penalty. Probably because 8 out of 10 times females and children are victims.
Most people dont know how badly the pedophiles are treated in prison
Posts
Total:
277
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Regardless of the death penalty,
Criminals in prison should not be the ones making that judgement or carrying out it's execution.
-->
@Best.Korea
Fraud is included in greater consent argument.With the presence of a fraud, consent is diminished.
But not the lack of fraud.
If no one defrauds me as the buyer, I can still come to regret buying the house. Therefore my "greater consent" was violated because with greater knowledge I would not have consented.
My consent in that case cannot be erased or ignored. I cannot (morally) go randomly suing people just because they were as ignorant as me.
The example with children being left in house is a violation of consent unless children agreed to it and no harm comes to them.
Lets make the child 2 years old. The problem with the house is severe radon buildup (unlikely a scenario as it is).
I cannot explain a radon buildup to a two year old.
Your "greater consent" conception would assert that consent to stay in the house is not real consent because later the individual would come to believe the radiation which caused cancer was not in their best interests.
Now let's say you have a dog, who like the two year old did not understand radiation build up; but unlike the toddler will never understand it.
There would never be a "greater consent" for the dog because the dog will never make the connection between the painful cancer and staying in the house.
So that's two failures for "greater consent" theory. It does not imply a moral problem for irradiating a dog when a moral problem exists, and it implies a moral problem with universally unforeseen defects (also known as "acts of god").
Now contrast this with the straightforward mechanics of two morally relevant concepts (Consent & Responsibility) co-existing:
The dog and the child consent to entering the house. They do not consent to what they do not understand, neither consent to being irradiated despite consenting to entering the house. The dog will never consent to being irradiated. The toddler may one day grow to be someone who voluntarily sacrifices themselves shutting down a reactor or something.
Their consent to enter the house is morally irrelevant to someone who has the power to stop them and who knows the house will irradiate them. If they could understand someday but do not today, it doesn't matter; the responsibility of the person who knows harm will come remains with the enlightened. If they can never understand the danger, it doesn't matter; the responsibility of the person who knows harm will come remains with the enlightened.
If someone understands radiation they can consent to be irradiated. A 14 year old can be fully aware of the horrible suffering that would result, and thus they can consent to being irradiated without anyone being less than honest and forthcoming. That consent could not be cancelled from the future. However the implicit social contract of parenthood means that a minor's consent is not sufficient to allow a behavior as it is for an adult.
What exactly constitutes objective harm, where the prerogative of a parent ends, etc... are complicated questions which I do not have the answers to. I certainly know that whatever the answers, finding them will require coherent and consistent concepts. Not tangled excuses.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"But not the lack of fraud."
In case of a lack of fraud, the greater consent was violated. But not by any individual. And no individual was able to prevent it. So no individual would be at fault. So no individual would carry a responsibility for violating consent.
"Lets make the child 2 years old. The problem with the house is severe radon buildup"
"I cannot explain a radon buildup to a two year old."
"Your "greater consent" conception would assert that consent to stay in the house is not real consent because later the individual would come to believe the radiation which caused cancer was not in their best interests."
Yes.
"Now let's say you have a dog, who like the two year old did not understand radiation build up; but unlike the toddler will never understand it."
The consent is consistent of goals. Dog has goals. Even if dog never understands radiation build up, dogs goals would still be violated. Hence, dogs greater consent would be violated.
"There would never be a "greater consent" for the dog because the dog will never make the connection between the painful cancer and staying in the house."
Dogs goal is to live a happy life. Dog doesnt consent to the painful cancer. Since that is greater consent, we must save the dog to uphold such consent.
-->
@Best.Korea
--> @ADreamOfLiberty"But not the lack of fraud."In case of a lack of fraud, the greater consent was violated. But not by any individual. And no individual was able to prevent it. So no individual would be at fault. So no individual would carry a responsibility for violating consent."Lets make the child 2 years old. The problem with the house is severe radon buildup""I cannot explain a radon buildup to a two year old.""Your "greater consent" conception would assert that consent to stay in the house is not real consent because later the individual would come to believe the radiation which caused cancer was not in their best interests."Yes."Now let's say you have a dog, who like the two year old did not understand radiation build up; but unlike the toddler will never understand it."The consent is consistent of goals. Dog has goals. Even if dog never understands radiation build up, dogs goals would still be violated. Hence, dogs greater consent would be violated."There would never be a "greater consent" for the dog because the dog will never make the connection between the painful cancer and staying in the house."Dogs goal is to live a happy life. Dog doesnt consent to the painful cancer. Since that is greater consent, we must save the dog to uphold such consent.
When you are dealing with or deciding for a child or a dog, you are held responsible for the outcome. Should any harm fall on the child or dog you will be held responsible.
-->
@Best.Korea
I guess you didn’t notice, but I wasn’t attempting to explain “why”. I have no interest in explaining these widely accepted truths to someone who, if really a pedophile acting on their impulses, won’t assign any value to them. If you want to be a selfish narcissist and subject innocent children to your horrible perversions and cause them demonstrable harm, that’s your choice - be aware that this means you’ll be arrested and sent to prison again though.
Sometimes, we can all do things that cause people harm...and there is no point in denying that we do. You can be a totally evil person and still admit that your actions cause harm, lol.
It’s whether you’re willing to consider that harm as being more significant than your own gratification. If you aren’t, this means you think your needs and wants are more important than other people’s. You aren’t special, so why should you get to do what you want?
That’s always the most fundamental problem with people like you.
I mean really, here you are whining like an entitled ego-tripper because you can’t accept that most people are going to hate you when you abuse children.
Pathetic.
Sometimes, we can all do things that cause people harm...and there is no point in denying that we do. You can be a totally evil person and still admit that your actions cause harm, lol.
It’s whether you’re willing to consider that harm as being more significant than your own gratification. If you aren’t, this means you think your needs and wants are more important than other people’s. You aren’t special, so why should you get to do what you want?
That’s always the most fundamental problem with people like you.
I mean really, here you are whining like an entitled ego-tripper because you can’t accept that most people are going to hate you when you abuse children.
Pathetic.
-->
@Shila
Yes, but people should always ask themselves "what does child really want?".
This is the simple way in which one can understand consent.
I am not claiming to be some parenting guide expert.
However, the current system of raising children is very questionable.
-->
@ahiyah
"I wasn’t attempting to explain"
"I have no interest in explaining"
So you have come here just to insult me?
How very nice of you.
-->
@Best.Korea
--> @ShilaYes, but people should always ask themselves "what does child really want?".This is the simple way in which one can understand consent.I am not claiming to be some parenting guide expert.However, the current system of raising children is very questionable.
A child is consider a minor and cannot give consent for most things until it reaches age 18.
Eg drinking age 21, driving age 16, age of consent for sex is 16, voting age 17.
-->
@Lemming
But if you meant the torture and death they at times receive from other prisoners being justified, I'd disagree.
I wouldn’t torture or murder any myself if I was in prison, but I can understand why other people would. I certainly do think that general mistreatment and social exclusion is justified.
I would say that if there is a pedophile who is going to be let free and is likely to commit harmful acts on children again, it would probably be better for someone like that to not exist.
Them getting murdered by other inmates would be less problematic to me than the possibility of another child being subject to harm because they can’t control themselves.
-->
@Best.Korea
lol, you’re deluded if you think that openly saying you’re a pedophile is going to invite positive responses.
-->
@ahiyah
--> @LemmingBut if you meant the torture and death they at times receive from other prisoners being justified, I'd disagree.I wouldn’t torture or murder any myself if I was in prison, but I can understand why other people would. I certainly do think that general mistreatment and social exclusion is justified.I would say that if there is a pedophile who is going to be let free and is likely to commit harmful acts on children again, it would probably be better for someone like that to not exist.Them getting murdered by other inmates would be less problematic to me than the possibility of another child being subject to harm because they can’t control themselves.
The jail sentencing is up to 10 years for a pedophile for every child abused. That is enough time in prison to get treated for his perversion.
-->
@ahiyah
Dont get me wrong, I am not complaining. I actually like it when people insult me, since it helps my case.
-->
@Best.Korea
Now let's say you have a dog, who like the two year old did not understand radiation build up; but unlike the toddler will never understand it."The consent is consistent of goals. Dog has goals. Even if dog never understands radiation build up, dogs goals would still be violated. Hence, dogs greater consent would be violated.There would never be a "greater consent" for the dog because the dog will never make the connection between the painful cancer and staying in the house.Dogs goal is to live a happy life. Dog doesnt consent to the painful cancer. Since that is greater consent, we must save the dog to uphold such consent.
Ok so you thereby retrofit "greater consent" to include a hypothetical fully aware version of an individual mind.
The problem is that after three retrofits from the original explanation it doesn't really have anything to do with consent. It's a word that means "best interests" and if you probed it "best interests according to god" for whom else is all knowing?
This concept is divorced from actual consent in the same way it is divorced from actual minds. I could talk about the "greater consent" of a tree with equal coherence.
It is a bad word choice, and if it's meant to subvert the concept of actual consent (you know, agreement from a mind which knows what it's agreeing to) it's deceptive.
-->
@ahiyah
@#100
I can understand it as well, when people commit acts we find outrageous, murderous desire wells up at times,
But it's not 'good to harm or kill people,
Even people who commit acts we find horrible, (From my point of view)
Well, as you say, maybe it 'is better to kill people, if they're going to 'keep committing horrible acts,
But I 'think rehabilitation is better, or permanent separation from main society, if possible.
Still, if they 'are to be killed, it's better that the justice system does so in an official execution,
It's not good for prisoners rehabilitation to ignore the law,
Not good for prisoners rehabilitation to commit murder,
Well, what little rehabilitation one could claim happens in prison.
There's also the problem of innocent people convicted, people in gray area convicted.
. . .
For example,
Theoretically if one of my family members raped or killed one of my other family members, even myself,
I don't 'think I'd want them tortured or killed,
So it's just an extension of that consideration, to people 'not my family.
Though again, theoretical, maybe if such an event occurred or enough time passed, and I changed
Might be I'd have different opinion.
-->
@ahiyah
--> @Best.Korealol, you’re deluded if you think that openly saying you’re a pedophile is going to invite positive responses.
At least he is being honest. Hear him out.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
This is you confusing your unnatural desire with logic and morality, if you think you can justify it here and then act on it, then you weren't treated badly enough in prison.I think you're confusing torture with logic and morality.There is no connection between being raped in prison and being morally wrong.No, I'm saying the crime of pedophilaa is morally wrong, the connection be that by acting on that impulse that he's trying to justify, is what puts you in prison.What lands you in prison or not has nothing to do with the validity of an argument. What gets you tortured in prison or not has nothing to do with the validity of an argument. That was appeal to force, nothing more.
No shit, of course this is a non-sequitor, my point was that engaging in pedophilia is illegal and it will land him on prison again if he does it.
Trying to justify it on a debate board does not change that fact..
Before I posted this you made it even more explicit:"Legally unable" is not an argument.If you want to stay out of prison, you better accept that as a valid argument.
Yes, he says "legally unable" is not an argument, it is in fact a valid argument under the law, and staying out of prison is a matter of accepting that.
Prison is supposed to be a deterrent, he had a very bad experience in prison, but nevertheless, he's still here justifying the crime, saying it should be OK. But it's not OK, he needs to understand that or suffer the consequences.When people who advertise their willingness to be rational by signing up to a debate site fling logic out the window and openly use well known fallacies in fits of anger and disgust it sends one message: You're right, we haven't a clue why it is wrong.
LOL, nice try, if comprehending the law is over your head, then it's over your head, but I'd advise that if you find yourself accused in a court of law, you probably shouldn't babble about how the law isn't a valid argument, I assure you that it won't be seen as a valid defense.
If you want to know why he/she might be able to look in the mirror and feel justified look no further than your own lack of control over your emotions, at your own shallow contemplation.
LOL, my my, aren't we the angry little dreamer, but hey, if you can't cope with a simple statement of fact about the law, thats fine with me, whatever floats your boat. But maybe you should relax, there's no reason to get so worked up about it, try counting to ten or something, breathe 123, breathe 123, breathe 123...
-->
@ahiyah
I guess you didn’t notice, but I wasn’t attempting to explain “why”. I have no interest in explaining these widely accepted truths to someone who, if really a pedophile acting on their impulses, won’t assign any value to them.
Yea why would you justify your assertions on a debate site? That would be weak right?
Sometimes, we can all do things that cause people harm...and there is no point in denying that we do. You can be a totally evil person and still admit that your actions cause harm, lol.It’s whether you’re willing to consider that harm as being more significant than your own gratification. If you aren’t, this means you think your needs and wants are more important than other people’s. You aren’t special, so why should you get to do what you want?
Begging the question, Korea is not claiming gratification outweighs harm, he/she is claiming there is no harm. Saying you have no interest in explaining and then going on to explain something that is not even at issue gives the impression you're afraid or unable to explain.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"Ok so you thereby retrofit "greater consent" to include a hypothetical fully aware version of an individual mind."
My claim from the start was that there is difference between consent and greater consent.
"The problem is that after three retrofits from the original explanation it doesn't really have anything to do with consent."
It is based on individuals greater consent, not consent of simply saying yes without analyzing the goals.
"It's a word that means "best interests" and if you probed it "best interests according to god" for whom else is all knowing?"
Interests = goals = consents
You dont have to be all knowing. If you dont have all knowledge, then use the one that you have.
"This concept is divorced from actual consent in the same way it is divorced from actual minds."
So are you saying that the most important goals of an individual are not from his actual mind? Despite that his mind produces them?
"I could talk about the "greater consent" of a tree with equal coherence."
So?
"It is a bad word choice, and if it's meant to subvert the concept of actual consent"
Greater consent is the best consent because it represents individuals goals and desires and uphelds them.
-->
@Sidewalker
No shit, of course this is a non-sequitor, my point was that engaging in pedophilia is illegal and it will land him on prison again if he does it.Trying to justify it on a debate board does not change that fact..
Forgive me for thinking you were trying to make a point.
Yes, he says "legally unable" is not an argument, it is in fact a valid argument under the law
Yet not an argument. You cannot justify a law by saying it is law. You cannot establish truth by saying it has been written in a law. If you aren't justifying a law or inferring a fact about reality you're acting as an unsolicited legal librarian.
It's unlikely you were simply compelled to start pointing out the blindingly obvious and uncontested fact that adult/child sex is illegal almost everywhere. It's far more likely you were angry and gave into the temptation to make threats by proxy.
-->
@Best.Korea
Dont get me wrong, I am not complaining
This entire post is you complaining. Most people just serve their sentence and move on, but you’re just boring us all with your woes at not being liked by other inmates.
since it helps my case
Ok, you’re definitely deluded.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
rofl
-->
@Best.Korea
You dont have to be all knowing. If you dont have all knowledge, then use the one that you have.
If you aren't all knowing, then there could be an even greater "consent" than "greater consent".
All knowing => greatest "consent"
I could talk about the "greater consent" of a tree with equal coherence.So?
So it's a concept divorced from reality. Trees don't have minds. They have values and interests that we perceive, but it is not something they perceive.
Much like "informed consent" this concept has nothing to do with the constituent words and is thus deceptive, confusing, and in the resulting confusion often leads to equivocation errors.
-->
@Shila
The jail sentencing is up to 10 years for a pedophile for every child abused. That is enough time in prison to get treated for his perversion.
That’s *if* they get treated.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No shit, of course this is a non-sequitor, my point was that engaging in pedophilia is illegal and it will land him on prison again if he does it.Trying to justify it on a debate board does not change that fact..Forgive me for thinking you were trying to make a point.
No problem, forgive me for thinking you could grasp that "engaging in pedophilia is illegal" is a point.
Yes, he says "legally unable" is not an argument, it is in fact a valid argument under the lawYet not an argument. You cannot justify a law by saying it is law. You cannot establish truth by saying it has been written in a law. If you aren't justifying a law or inferring a fact about that is not a valid defense in a court of law.you're acting as an unsolicited legal librarian.
You're babbling again, trust me, that is not a valid defense in a court of law.
It's unlikely you were simply compelled to start pointing out the blindingly obvious and uncontested fact that adult/child sex is illegal almost everywhere. It's far more likely you were angry and gave into the temptation to make threats by proxy.
Nope, I see him trying to justify an illegal action and perhaps he needs to be reminded that his argument in favor of it just doesn't matter, it is still illegal, and he needs to understand that there are consequences.
I just don't think all your babbling about how the law isn't justified, and it isn't truth, or whatever the hell all that pablum coming out of you is supposed to be about, isn't going to help keep him out of prison.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"If you aren't all knowing, then there could be an even greater "consent" than "greater consent"."
"All knowing => greatest "consent""
Could be, but remember that we dont know about it. So we cant consider it. So its irrelevant.
We can only do what we are able with the knowledge that we have.
"So it's a concept divorced from reality. Trees don't have minds. They have values and interests that we perceive, but it is not something they perceive."
So they dont have will? In that case, they cant consent. Simple.
I am not an expert on trees, so I will just assume.
Since trees are important for us, it goes to say we must protect them. That is our greater goal.
"Much like "informed consent" this concept has nothing to do with the constituent words and is thus deceptive, confusing, and in the resulting confusion often leads to equivocation errors"
Its not really confusing. Just ask yourself: what does the child really want? This is the best way to upheld their consent.
-->
@Sidewalker
Nope, I see him trying to justify an illegal action and perhaps he needs to be reminded that his argument in favor of it just doesn't matter, it is still illegal, and he needs to understand that there are consequences.
You thought you needed to explain that he/she would be sent to prison when he/she claimed to have been sent to prison? I don't believe that.
In fact, if you want him/her to be prevented from pedophilic acts and genuinely believed he/she was unaware of the danger of prison why would you warn him/her? Why are you trying to keep pedophiles free?
-->
@Best.Korea
So it's a concept divorced from reality. Trees don't have minds. They have values and interests that we perceive, but it is not something they perceive.So they dont have will? In that case, they cant consent. Simple.
Yes it would be simple, until someone comes along and claims that even if they haven't, don't, and never will consent they have an aura of "greater consent".
I am not an expert on trees, so I will just assume.
Oh well, I wouldn't want you to comment on trees if you're not a botanist. Have you ever considered a career in the supreme court? I hear they like people who answer like that.
Much like "informed consent" this concept has nothing to do with the constituent words and is thus deceptive, confusing, and in the resulting confusion often leads to equivocation errorsIts not really confusing. Just ask yourself: what does the child really want? This is the best way to upheld their consent.
I have a better way to find out what someone really wants, ask them; not yourself.
-->
@Best.Korea
I feel ur pain man the capitalist scum police once searched the basement of the church were I work as a priest and they found the kids and I went to jail and the other prisoners didnt take kindly to pedofile priests so i took it in the booty. Wasn't fun man. 2/10. Would not recommend to other pedofiles. North Korea is a better place to live as a proud pedofile.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Nope, I see him trying to justify an illegal action and perhaps he needs to be reminded that his argument in favor of it just doesn't matter, it is still illegal, and he needs to understand that there are consequences.You thought you needed to explain that he/she would be sent to prison when he/she claimed to have been sent to prison? I don't believe that.
Oh no, I'm crushed, I really wanted you to comprehend a simple comment, it really is all about you, crap, now I probably won't ne able to sleep tonight.
In fact, if you want him/her to be prevented from pedophilic acts and genuinely believed he/she was unaware of the danger of prison why would you warn him/her? Why are you trying to keep pedophiles free?
Maybe if you go back and read it again, real slow for comprehension, you will get it, did you try the breathing thing, count to ten?
I suppose you could see trying to keep a pedophile from acting on his impulse as trying to keep him free, and I have no idea why that's a problem for you, but then again, I don't really understand your alternative logic.
I really do think that if you can calm yourself down, count to ten and breathe, it will probably all make a lot more sense to you.