Fawxy said:
Bloodstain said:
Hell yeah, it's incredibly unjust if people don't get beaten to near-death in prison!
Wait...no, it's not, because prison is about resocialisation, and not about some sort of revenge so those complying with society's norms can feel better about themselves. My bad.
Jumping to conclusions gets you nowhere fast.
I don't want him to be beaten by inmates. I'd like the death penalty, but that's out of the question since this happend in Britain. I want him to serve an
actual sentence, and be forced into hard therapy for a LONG time. If he doesn't pass therapy, he doesn't get back in to society.
Generally demanding a "long" sentence is unnecessary. You cannot generalise time, different people need different amounts of time to change. Put him into therapy until he conforms with our norms (I won't say that our norms are right or wrong, there is no answer to that) and then release him, granting him every right that other people have as well. That is all I say.
Well, you at least said it is unjust for the prison to protect him from other inmates.
Quote:
He'll be coddled, protected, and isolated from the rest of the prisoners.
Like I said, there's no fucking justice in the world.
If you want to reeducate the offender by having him offered to other inmates as a punching bag, let me tell you: It's an incomplete system. That way, he will only refrain from doing such things because he doesn't want to be beaten up again. However, we must strive for something far greater: He must stop doing such tings on his own accord. Give him therapy (while treating him with the respect he deserves as a human being), give him back his freedom when he shows that he understands. I take it we agree that if he doesn't pass, he shouldn't be granted all of his freedoms (however, I think you should allow him to leave the country as long as another country permits him to stay there...but that's a wholly different story).
In my opinion, we should go even farther: We must shape society (and thus people) in a way that undesirable traits vanish. I don't think that human nature is inherently bad, or inherently anything ? I regard people as tabulæ rasæ. People are shaped by their surroundings, it's the behaviouran mindset. Change the surroundings to change a human being. But that is a different discussion as well. Besides, people tend to portray me as a villain striving to construct his own panopticon when I say that there should be more centralised control of culture, society and conventions.
If I somehow understood your quote above in a wrong way, then please, feel free to correct my mistake.
Besides, I don't really understand what you consider to be "hard" therapy. Please elaborate.
Fawxy said:
Also, your belief here:
Bloodstain said:
And no, not every sex had with a child is rape.
Is flat-out wrong. Any time an adult has sex with a child it is rape. No, I'm not talking about the loose legal definition of "minors", I'm talking about children around the age of the girl in this story. IT'S RAPE.
First of all, labeling beliefs "wrong" is a very questionable thing to do.
Secondly, I submit it is a question of definition: "Rape" in the sense of "having sex with someone against their will" or in a legal sense? In a legal sense, you are right, sex with minors is always considered rape.
Regarding the other definition, I don't agree. Of course, there is no doubt that most of the time, sex with children is a case of rape. However, I don't think that
every such incident was without consent. Is it really that hard to believe that no one, not a singlue human being in history, has
ever had sex with someone as a child without regretting it? If a child agrees to it, still considers it okay during the act and still doesn't regret it afterwards, I fail to see how that could be called 'rape'. If it regrets if afterwards, it's a more difficult question: After all, adults can regret sex as well without it being rape. But please, let's stop this sub-topic. I don't want to involve myself in a "Can children give
real consent to sex?", because what follows are discussions on what is 'real consent', and whether such things as 'love' are clearly defined or just subjective (if love is subjective, then a child can feel 'love' to strangers as well, and no one could ever say the child is wrong)....and there we are, locked in an ever-increasing amount of discussions without clear answers. I am too tired for those today.
Fawxy said:
Though, I suppose I shouldn't expect any better from someone with your avatar.
...because of what? Because people who watch anime are paedophiles? Because people who enjoy Lucky Star and its humour are paedophiles? (Feel free to replace 'paedophile' with 'people who are okay with raping children' or whatever negative description you feel best describes your view)
It's not very friendly to reduce people to a single hobby of theirs ? especially if I wonder whether one could still call it a 'hobby' of mine. I enjoyed anime in the past, and still I would enjoy it...however, I have more important things to do, I don't really have the time or strong desire to watch anime. In my opinion, it theoretically still qualifies as being called a 'hobby', but then again, I know people who
really regard anime as a hobby of theirs...compared with them, my own liking pales in insignificance.
I am far away from what people call 'otaku' or even just 'anime fan'. I must ask you to judge me based on my posts instead of my avatar.
Fawxy said:
EDIT: Also, I re-read your post. DO YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE RAPING 9-11 YEAR OLDS DOESN'T COUNT AS PEDOPHILIA? That's fucking sick. They are pre-pubescent kids, and I don't care HOW much anime you've watched, there is NO justification for believing 9-11 year olds are capable of consent. NONE.
That is not what I meant. Now, who is the one jumping to conclusions here?
I am unsure whether it qualifies as paedophilia because this may already be considered hebephilia. It is once again a question of definition. Besides, even if it were rape ? it still probably isn't paedophilia, statistically guessing. Most incidents of child rape aren't. Most child rapists are just sexually frustrated relatives or family friends who take advantage of the child's defencelessness. Paedophilia is more than having sex with children, paedophilia is regarding children as one's primary centre of sexual attraction. We don't know if that man is such a person (but he is a family friend, so chances are he took advantage of the situation to live out his urges with someone who can'defend himself).
Still, I must say I don't like the implications included in your last paragraph, of which there are several:
(1) By saying it may not be paedophilia, I am saying that she gave consent, and thus that it's okay for him to have had sex with her
Considering that she filmed it and showed it to her mother, I think it is safe to say that she was having sex against her will, i.e., that she was raped.
(2) Because of enjoying anime, I am fine with raping children
Well, it actually may surprise you to learn that I am not fine with raping children. In fact, I am
unfine with raping children.
Ah, internet arguments. Making me write novel-length posts.