"Baby Raped To Death" or "What The Fucking Shit?"

[Seil]

Source (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/02/man-who-raped-6-month-old-baby-to-death-wants-mercy/)
Other source (http://www.inquisitr.com/599991/baby-raped-to-death-execution/)
Third source (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2302823/Steven-Smith-case-Dont-execute-Condemned-Ohio-man-sexually-assaulted-baby-died-says-didnt-intend-kill-6-month-old-girl--just-rape-her.html)

I'm not even going to quote the story because god-fucking-damn, it's pretty bad. There's this guy named Steven Smith killed a six month old girl named Autumn Carter in 1998. He asks that you take pity on him, and turn a murder charge into a lesser sentence. That might actually happen, because apparently Ohio law requires intent to kill for a death penalty verdict, when he only wanted to rape the baby.

I think the discussion would be better if instead of just calling this guy a douchebag, we look at the mental deficiencies or personal troubles that would have originated in order for him to do something like this. Because why the fuck would you do something like this? Rape is awful by itself. Pedophilia is awful. What triggers are there that allow someone to do this?

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u59/Poetisch/stevensmith_zpsed032bb1.jpg

Fuck you, douchebag.

[Marc v4.0]

Goddammit.

[Sifright]

*vomit*

[Bells]

what`s the alternate sentence?

Cause right now it still looks like he is going to get the needle for it. Which is fine. i honestly can`t object to that.

On the other hand, life without parole is also fine by me... to some degrees i would actually prefer it. Let him rot, live with the knowledge of what he did and paying everyday for it... killing is just giving him a way out. Maybe that`s a more cruel thought process... but just killing him is also just revenge killing that doesn`t undo the harm he did.

Either way, the article says that the guy drinks a LOT and had sexual performance issues with his then girlfriend (mother of the baby). So, if you wanna talk about triggers... you can start with a "Alpha Male" douchebag's Ego Hurting.

[Tev]

On the other hand, life without parole is also fine by me... to some degrees i would actually prefer it. Let him rot, live with the knowledge of what he did and paying everyday for it... killing is just giving him a way out.Actually, with how our prison culture works here in the US, a life sentence for him would be rather short. Unless of course he manages to get into protective high risk solitary confinement.

[Bells]

Either way, would we care?

[Red Mage Black]

Just throw him into the prison's general population. According to what I've heard, child molesters/rapers/killers are the lowest common denominator. Considered the lowest scum of the prison system. He wouldn't last too long. The words "prison justice" come to mind, despite being an oxymoron.

[RobinStarwing]

Just throw him into the prison's general population. According to what I've heard, child molesters/rapers/killers are the lowest common denominator. Considered the lowest scum of the prison system. He wouldn't last too long. The words "prison justice" come to mind, despite being an oxymoron.

I agree with this sentiment very much. Just throw him into the general population if they have to put him on a Life Sentence without Parole. It will be a very short life and save the Taxpayers having to pay for his medical care for any length of time.

That may sound cruel but...was it any less cruel TO RAPE A 6 MONTH OLD BABY GIRL TO DEATH JUST TO GET YOUR ROCKS OFF YOU SICK MOTHERFUCKER!

I do not apologize...I got no sympathy for this inhuman monster.

[Magus]

Some people actually are just sick fucks. I don't think there's any mental treatment for them because there is something physically wrong with their brain. I'm sure attempts can be made but the success rate is going to be next to nothing because some few people are just not fixable.

[Shyria Dracnoir]

There are times when I wish the US prison system was more focused on rehabilitation than punishment.

And then there's this.

[RobinStarwing]

There are times when I wish the US prison system was more focused on rehabilitation than punishment.

And then there's this.

So, safe to say we all agree that this thing which does not deserve even the ability to have a name must be killed brutally and in the most violent possible method?

(I know the last part may seem extreme but this is one of those times I buy into the Threefold and Sevenfold Laws of Karma. One is Wiccan and the other is Christian.)

[Amake]

I've been thinking about a case last century when four teenagers set a fire in a discotheque and killed 64 other teenagers. They were too morally underdeveloped to understand why setting fire to a building is bad, and too ignorant to realize that a burning building might hurt people who are in it. Like our Mr Smith apparently didn't get that raping babies is bad or that they could die from it.

Should any of these killers die for their mistakes? I don't think so. I think they need to be educated. We might not be able to educate Mr Smith enough to trust him not to rape any more babies, and so we might not have any way to safely deal with him, and I guess that's what prisons are supposed to be for. But that's a problem with our society, not with him, and if we're going to kill anyone over it we might as well kill everyone, because that's what we deserve if we can't think of any better way to deal with our problems.

[Red Mage Black]

I've been thinking about a case last century when four teenagers set a fire in a discotheque and killed 64 other teenagers. They were too morally underdeveloped to understand why setting fire to a building is bad, and too ignorant to realize that a burning building might hurt people who are in it. Like our Mr Smith apparently didn't get that raping babies is bad or that they could die from it.

Should any of these killers die for their mistakes? I don't think so. I think they need to be educated. We might not be able to educate Mr Smith enough to trust him not to rape any more babies, and so we might not have any way to safely deal with him, and I guess that's what prisons are supposed to be for. But that's a problem with our society, not with him, and if we're going to kill anyone over it we might as well kill everyone, because that's what we deserve if we can't think of any better way to deal with our problems.

Yeah, but here's the problem. Your examples don't match up whatsoever. Smith was an adult man, who knew the effects of alcohol, was an alcoholic and his inebriated state doesn't excuse what he did. Similar to a drunk driver hitting a pedestrian. They aren't excused because all their mental faculties weren't in full control.

He knew enough what he was doing. Feeling bad now doesn't absolve him of guilt. I know I didn't say 'kill him immediately', what I basically said was 'throw him to the wolves' by putting him in the general population.

Remember, some people are just broken and keeping them around and attempting to reprogram them isn't going to do anything but waste time and money. I truly believe some people can be saved, but once you've stepped over the threshold of taking another life, it's all over. There is nothing you can do past that point that would justify releasing them back into society nor a way to keep them around without others trying to seek 'due justice' on said person.

What I'm trying to say is, there is no reason for Smith to go on past this point. You could always say, "He'll live with that guilt for the rest of his life," but yeah, so what? As I reiterate, feeling bad does not excuse the fact you did it in the first place. Nor does it mean he didn't know what he was doing. He dug his own grave by drinking and raping a 6-month old girl, now he can lay in it as far as I'm concerned. I can see no reason to give him mercy.

[Amake]

The reason we should not kill him is because he's a human being. Popular opinion to the contrary.

I'm not saying anything about keeping him alive to make sure he suffers. I'm in favor of not killing him because I think it is beneath us, as adult humans who know what we're doing, to kill anyone, no matter how convenient it would be.

[RobinStarwing]

The reason we should not kill him is because he's a human being. Popular opinion to the contrary.

I'm not saying anything about keeping him alive to make sure he suffers. I'm in favor of not killing him because I think it is beneath us, as adult humans who know what we're doing, to kill anyone, no matter how convenient it would be.

Did you miss the part where it raped a six-month old baby girl to death to get himself off? At that point, killing it immediately would be giving him mercy for his crime. It is beyond salvation. Beyond any hope of being a functional part of society in my opinion.

In other words, it stopped being a Human Being that minute it did that horrid act to defenseless infant human being.

EDIT: I know this will not be a popular opinion with some of you but despite how I speak sometimes...I hold the life of a child at a very high value. This thing that did this act stopped having any right to be refered to as a human being.

[Amake]

Both you and Steven Smith are human beings to me, Robin. But maybe you can change my opinion if you keep talking.

[Grandmaster_Skweeb]

Comparing a baby raping pile of disgusting shit to a group of arsonists is a pretty weak fucking argument. The leagues in difference is so great I can't even comprehend how you use that as an argument with a straight face.

But since we're at it let's try this thought exercise on for size, shall we? What happened in old yeller when the dog gets rabies? It is put down for the safety and benefit of the farm's inhabitants. Even though Yeller was a beloved member of the family and harmed noone up to that point it was still the best option.

When a person enacts infanticide for the sake of personal instant gratification, in this case a fully grown adult who knows full well what the ramifications of their actions are, is best put down. Now in this case, the shitbag is a shitbag. The provided court evidence dictated the attack lasted up to about 30 minutes. Comprised of beating, choking, and injuries pretty much all around consistent with homicide. In addition, he made his actions known to his girlfriend when he placed the deceased infant next to the girlfriend in bed. He knew what he was doing and hid behind the sickening defense of "i was drunk."

So while you're entitled to believe that, Amake, it doesn't change the fact that this..thing deserves even less sympathy than a fictional rabies ridden dog.

[Amake]

No, let's skip the metaphors.

When you decide that person A is subhuman you give up the right to not have person B decide you are subhuman and thus you actively contribute to the normalization of violence and prejudice that keeps the world from getting better.

People have known this since about World War 2. It's not exactly some radical hippie logic. It's the second step of earning the basic human respect that I'm generously giving you for no fucking reason beyond my belief in humanity.

We don't kill each other. We don't justify killing each other by pretending we're different from those other people. If you can't understand that much, it's you who have no place on this planet. Do you think I should believe in your ability to learn to respect your fellow humans, or should I give up on you just as you have given up on Smith?

[Magus]

I don't even say put him in general population with the expectation he'll be killed. That's no way to run a prison. They have for years misused isolation cells, but this guy is perfect for one. He pretty clearly can't be rehabilitated (though they can try, not sure what standard a person could set for somebody so clearly evil), and it'd be for his own protection besides.

[Grandmaster_Skweeb]

Basic human respect has no place for baby raping murderers. Simple as that. Furthermore, if that mindset is wrong I'll head to mars as soon as I get the money and the means is possible, even if it is one-way, because fuck this planet.

[RobinStarwing]

Basic human respect has no place for baby raping murderers. Simple as that. Furthermore, if that mindset is wrong I'll head to mars as soon as I get the money and the means is possible, even if it is one-way, because fuck this planet.

I couldn't agree more.

If this man was drunk enough to not know right from wrong...he would of been too drunk to even get it up.

[Amake]

You'll be missed, gents. I might ask where exactly you draw the line for human beings and what exactly keeps your exception from being expanded to include people you do think are human, but I already know the answer. I hope you figure it out too.

[Red Mage Black]

You'll be missed, gents. I might ask where exactly you draw the line for human beings and what exactly keeps your exception from being expanded to include people you do think are human, but I already know the answer. I hope you figure it out too.

I know I personally draw the line at killing another sentient being. Especially the rape and homicide of a helpless baby. Hell, I even hate the people that kill domesticated animals for kicks, but that's another topic all together. I don't classify Smith as human because of his actions. No rational human being has a few to drink and then thinks it's a good idea to rape a child. Maybe he thought like one when he did what he did, but he's a completely different species all together. I don't think animal even fits the description, it's monster.

In fact, the fact he even considered raping the child knocks him out of the human category. The second it even crossed his mind was the second he lost any respect as a human being.

Now he begs for mercy, much like a puppy that ruins your good shoes. Only with this sorry excuse, you wouldn't feel sorry for punishing the bastard. You can only take human sympathy so far, then as soon as you take a life, any chance at it is gone.

[Amake]

So Smith is not a sentient being, and therefore killing him doesn't make you nonhuman?

[Marc v4.0]

No see this is different because I say it is in order to attempt to win this argument while advocating inhumanity as a counter to inhumanity. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/4549162/Emotes/v.png


It is understandable to be angry, shocked, and disgusted by this. It is understandable that we'd want some sort of vengeance upon this man for the horrid acts he committed. These sorts of feelings are deep, natural, primal even. We are also above such urges, we should be controlling the desire for bloody revenge and retribution instead of feeding it. I want this man to suffer, and suffer horribly, and the fact that I feel that way upsets me because I know that a visitation of savagery does no good, it makes nothing right and serves only to slate an animal lust to lash out at things like this. I freely admit I feel that way, and we should all admit we feel that way.

What I don't do is pretend that this person isn't a person, that they are subhuman. That serves no logical purpose other than to absolve you of the same feeling of guilt that comes with wishing violence or death upon another person. It is you pretending it is OK to carry out those nasty feelings instead of confronting them and admitting that we should be above continuing cycles of violence and savagery.

This man IS a Human and Humans commit terrible acts upon other Humans.

[Kim]

Every time I even see this thread title I get so sick I almost can't even visit the forum, but I don't agree with murder as revenge.

No excuses. Murder is wrong.

He should be locked up so that he can never hurt another human being.

It's easy to say horrible people aren't human, because it makes us sick to realize that there is anything in common between us and them, even if it's something as basic as "being human." He is a disgusting, awful, monster of a human being, but that doesn't justify murder.

The response to evil should not be to return evil upon them. It should be to prevent more evil from occurring. Framing people like this man as inhuman actively prevents our ability to do that, because we end the argument there. "They were just inhuman."

If they were "just inhuman", we don't have to analyze anything about our society that may have fed that behavior. We don't have to think about how to prevent similar things from being done by others in the future. We don't have to think about it at all. That doesn't help.

[RobinStarwing]

Every time I even see this thread title I get so sick I almost can't even visit the forum, but I don't agree with murder as revenge.

No excuses. Murder is wrong.

He should be locked up so that he can never hurt another human being.

It's easy to say horrible people aren't human, because it makes us sick to realize that there is anything in common between us and them, even if it's something as basic as "being human." He is a disgusting, awful, monster of a human being, but that doesn't justify murder.

The response to evil should not be to return evil upon them. It should be to prevent more evil from occurring. Framing people like this man as inhuman actively prevents our ability to do that, because we end the argument there. "They were just inhuman."

If they were "just inhuman", we don't have to analyze anything about our society that may have fed that behavior. We don't have to think about how to prevent similar things from being done by others in the future. We don't have to think about it at all. That doesn't help.


And there are some people who are just evil and broken. Who have no remorse and think such acts as this are not just normal, but fun. Society has nothing to do with it.

[Kim]

And there are some people who are just evil and broken. Who have no remorse and think such acts as this are not just normal, but fun. Society has nothing to do with it.

And thus conversation reaches a halt.

Nothing is changed. Nothing is addressed. Nothing is fixed.

These incidents will repeat themselves, and you will have contributed to that, all while saying, "There's nothing that could be done," without ever having tried.

[Amake]

Why yes. There was a few days when I thought the most therapeutic option for everyone would be to have Smith used by a herd of he-elephants in heat. We've all got those inborn instincts toward barbarism. But it would probably have looked pretty silly if I'd posted that and then changed my mind when my powers of higher reasoning kicked in. I might even have felt forced to defend my stated, faulty opinion out of fear of looking stupid once I learned better.

Good thing we're all still alive and capable of learning, huh?

Also good that we have some members capable of both careful, compassionate thought and of expressing their thoughts clearly for people to understand. Thanks Marc and Kim!

[Shyria Dracnoir]

Amake makes a good point. I made a previous post largely based on my gut reaction when, on reflection, I agree more with Marc and Kim.

[Sifright]

And there are some people who are just evil and broken. Who have no remorse and think such acts as this are not just normal, but fun. Society has nothing to do with it.

Sorry Robin, you are patently wrong society is what programs people to do these acts they don't happen in isolation.

---------- Post added at 07:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:00 AM ----------

And thus conversation reaches a halt.

Nothing is changed. Nothing is addressed. Nothing is fixed.

These incidents will repeat themselves, and you will have contributed to that, all while saying, "There's nothing that could be done," without ever having tried.

Also quoting this because this is part of what I was trying to get at in the Donner thread.

*totally bitter!*

[synkr0nized]

Sorry Robin, you are patently wrong society is what programs people to do these acts they don't happen in isolation.

Please help me understand how society supports the idea of raping and killing children.

This is not me trying to troll you. I honestly want to know, as I don't see it.

[Sifright]

Please help me understand how society supports the idea of raping and killing children.

This is not me trying to troll you. I honestly want to know, as I don't see it.

This is a pretty long topic to get into and I will, but I'm off to work in a few minutes. later tonight I'll start trawling books and journals and try and put together a proper explanation.

[Kim]

Please help me understand how society supports the idea of raping and killing children.

This is not me trying to troll you. I honestly want to know, as I don't see it.

Our media sexualizes children.

Our culture gives men extreme authority.

Rape culture teaches that men who abuse that authority will be defended, excused, and their victims will be blamed, and this is only in the rare cases where they're found out.

Men are trained to repress most emotions other than anger and lust.

No, we don't have giant fucking billboards telling men to rape.

We do have a culture that encourages men to rape, tells them they will get away with it, and gives them unquestioned authority that allows them to do just that. AND THEN IT SEXUALIZES KIDS

There are probably other factors. Other major factors. Like the fact that many abusers have a history as victims themselves, and shit like that.

It's complicated as fuck, and there's no easy solution, but we don't come any closer to a solution by killing the few we catch.

THIS IS IMPORTANT: THE ONES WE HEAR ABOUT, THE ONES WE CATCH, ARE A MINORITY OF THOSE WHO DO THESE THINGS

Writing off the ones we catch as inhuman monsters, killing them, and then moving on as though the problem is solved helps no one and allows this shit to continue.

[Osterbaum]

People do not develop or function in isolation. Labeling someone as inherently 'evil' is problematic, because it absolves society and everyone else of all responsability over many of the horrible things that happen in our society. Labeling anyone subhuman is problematic because it creates a precedent about seperating people in to humans and 'non-humans' who we do not only have to feel any remorse for treating how they 'deserve' but we are again absolved of all responsability as humans and members of society.

[Sifright]

at work so i don't have time to write up a proper post but much of my argument hinges on the basic framework of Osterbaums and Kims posts.

I was and still will if any one is interested write up a post explaining how these things interact in human conscious.

The key points of my argument will be related to cognitive shortcuts/Heuristics, cultural assimilation and sociological effects.

As Kim asserted its not any one particular factor on its own that leads to these outcomes but a complex codependency of factors which all feed into the problem.

[Bells]

Sorry, but the way i see it, he is dead either way...

raping a baby? won't survive long in jail. If he does, he will stay in there forever... good as dead, just being feed by taxpayer money. Some may object to that, other will say its the price we pay to keep our humanity.

If life in prison is not the option, then he will be executed by the state. Dead anyway.

Nothing done to this point will fix the harm he did. Either choice will get him killed. Not a matter of "if", but of "when". It is just the reality of the situation. If there is any silver lining it just might be that the kid is still so young that she might actually grow up to live a normal life even after this. Her mother won't though.

So, if you ask me? If you ask me to put a bullet in his head? I wouldn't. Doesn't matter. Would gladly leave him locked in a 2x2 cell for life though... if he dies in there? As he is likely to do? I can honestly tell you i won't loose sleep over it.

[Sifright]

Sorry, but the way i see it, he is dead either way...

raping a baby? won't survive long in jail. If he does, he will stay in there forever... good as dead, just being feed by taxpayer money. Some may object to that, other will say its the price we pay to keep our humanity.

If life in prison is not the option, then he will be executed by the state. Dead anyway.

Nothing done to this point will fix the harm he did. Either choice will get him killed. Not a matter of it, but of when. It is just the reality of the situation. If there is any silver lining it just might be that the kid is still so young that she might actually grow up to live a normal life even after this. Her mother won't though.

So, if you ask me? If you ask me to put a bullet in his head? I wouldn't. Doesn't matter. Would gladly leave him locked in a 2x2 cell for life though... if he dies in there? As he is likely to do? I can honestly tell you i won't loose sleep over it.

The baby died bells...

Edit: i realize that doesn't even change anything to do with your argument but it's kind of in the thread title :|

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

To be fair death is a pretty normal part of life.

[Bells]

The baby died bells...

Edit: i realize that doesn't even change anything to do with your argument but it's kind of in the thread title :|

My bad, slip of thought.

[RobinStarwing]

I spent a little time looking it up but so far not finding the studies I remember.

Said studies were into the nature of evil in Humans and asked the Nature vs. Nurture argument. Many of the studies were neurological and found a neurological component that makes some people pre-disposed to do depraved acts (many of which were Serial Killers).

I'll put more effort into the search later when I get home but society is only half the argument.

EDIT: Kim is right but it is only half the full picture. So while I want to label this monster inhuman...fact is he is a member of species Homo Sapien. But he is beyond any form of rehabilitation when he argues he only meant to rape a 6mo baby girl to death and blamed it all on being drunk.

[Sifright]

I spent a little time looking it up but so far not finding the studies I remember.

Said studies were into the nature of evil in Humans and asked the Nature vs. Nurture argument. Many of the studies were neurological and found a neurological component that makes some people pre-disposed to do depraved acts (many of which were Serial Killers).

I'll put more effort into the search later when I get home but society is only half the argument.

EDIT: Kim is right but it is only half the full picture. So while I want to label this monster inhuman...fact is he is a member of species Homo Sapien. But he is beyond any form of rehabilitation when he argues he only meant to rape a 6mo baby girl to death and blamed it all on being drunk.


Yea robin, any study which purports that nature supersedes nurture is a long of repugnant nonsense.

Neuro-sci pretty unequivocally shows that almost all human behavior is learned and not ingrained, as a species humanity doesn't have much in the way of instinctual behavior.

We are the result of environment far more than we are the result of our genetics strictly speaking in terms of differentiation between each human.

[tacticslion]

This topic... the existence of this thing... it's... nearly too much to even imagine that it exists. It's literally one of the most awful things I've ever seen in print, and almost doesn't seem possible in the extent of its awfulness.

To that end, I won't weigh in on the man himself, at least not until I address the kind of secondary argument. Instead, I'm going to talk about the other argument.

First: considering some of the things I've seen a few posters say in this thread v. other threads, I'm glad that they seem to be promoting all human beings as actual human beings with a need to be treated as such. That's... a surprising change of pace from some of the previous arguments I've seen, facetious as they may be, so, you know, that's... really great.

And, frankly, I fully agree. The man is a human being and needs to be treated as one, with the respect and empathy that such a state deserves.

On to the next question.

Is there ever a time to kill a fellow human? Yes. It needs to be avoided as pretty much only a "last resort" but it is something that must be resorted to on occasion.

First Example: War. Rarely does anyone ever want war (or if they do they don't understand the full ramifications of it), but war is something that happens anyway. Large scale or small, a war breaks out when people want or need something badly enough that they can (to their mind) only acquire by killing others. Whether or not starting a war is ever justifiable doesn't matter: even if you, as a people, don't start it, as a people everyone will be involved in war at some point or another and thus must be able to kill fellow humans. It's awful, but it's something that must be done.

Second Example: Self Defense. This basically ties into the above argument, though is different for its own reasons, and is meant on a more personal level. Is someone threatens your life with unreasonable violence and killing them is the only option, than killing them is what needs to happen and is justified. Once again, killing is not the thing you should want to do or the thing you should immediately resort to, but it is a thing that happens and needs to in some cases.

Third Example: Defense of Others. Again, this is basically the above argument only transplanted to a person other than yourself. Otherwise, the argument is the same.

Fourth Example: Prevention of Recurring Violence and Cruelty. In general, this ties into Defense of Others. There is a raging debate as to whether or not this is a justifiable event of killing, as evidenced by this thread. Traditionally, this has been a manner of dealing with "extreme" criminal behavior. The more we've delved into human psychology, however, the more we've questioned whether or not those who engage in such behavior are necessarily "irredeemable", and even if they are have used such terminology as "sick" or "in need of help". And, to a point, this is correct. There are some who are treatable and, in general, that would be the best. There are some who are not (currently) treatable, and there are arguments to be made for seeing if we can.

The question is, however, whether or not the attempt is "worth it". I don't mean in monetary standpoint, though that does have a factor. The question is: "What is the "cost" (in emotionally, sociologically, psychologically, and financially) to society for leaving them alive v. killing them, which one "costs" more, and which brings the most benefits?" The greatest preference is, of course, not killing people.

I come in on the side that while the greatest preference is to avoid death, you cannot avoid death "at all costs" because, frankly, the "all costs" is actually pretty high.

Ultimately, actions have consequences.

I want him to have a better life. I want him to be a better person. I don't want to "take revenge" or "make him suffer" or "destroy him".

The very, very sad thing is, however, this is something that will never just "go away". His life in any sort of a meaningful way is over.

I don't think that this man will ever be able to live anything resembling a life again. Either he's too far gone to allow him to be in society ever again (and thus will spend his life as a either a drain on societal resources and/or a human experiment which has its own moral quandaries*), and/or he'll live with crippling guilt for the rest of his life, and/or he'll be killed by <insert people group he's placed among here> which, frankly, is the worst thing that could happen because instead of minimizing the violence by containing it to officially sanctioned channels, we've allowed "vigilante justice" to prevail, which has its own terrible costs to society. It's one thing to talk about "rising above" such things - and over-all that's something we should aspire to - but, many people have not and will not.

I'm all for hope. I'm all for desiring a person to get better and to have a better life.

I'm also of the opinion that actions have consequences. Not "how I feel" or "what I think about", not even "how I am", but actions, choices, personal decisions to perform acts. These result in consequences.

The man killed a six month old by spend half-an-hour doing things to it that no one should really conceive of doing to another individual, let alone a helpless infant. This will have terrible consequences. It literally does not matter what else happens in his life, this one action will have terrible consequences for the rest of it.

I want him to have a better life. I want him to be a better person. I don't want to "take revenge" or "make him suffer" or "destroy him".

The very, very sad thing is, however, this is something that will never just "go away". His life in any sort of a meaningful way is over.

The Golden Rule is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The vast, vast majority of philosophies and religions more or less agree to that rule. If I had made life choices that resulted in murdering someone else just so I can have an orgasm, I wouldn't want to continue living. If I was at that state, I do, in my current state of mind, desire that someone end my life. I cannot fathom harming someone in such a way, and if I can, in any way, serve humanity by, say, donating organs to in some small way make up for what I did, I'd go for it. Even if, at that stage, I'd not want someone to kill me (because, although many people talk about wanting to die and think about it, few people actually do truly desire to die), over-all, I genuinely don't want to be the person that did those things, and proceeded to waste society's time and resources while living a terrible, uncomfortable, lonely, frustrating life. That is an over-all lose situation for everyone.

I feel terrible for this man. He obviously realizes that what he did was terrible. I don't know if he feels guilty or not (he is begging not to be killed, and arguing for lighter sentence... I... ugh). I can't judge his heart, his mind, or his state of coherence.

However, placing blame for his actions on society and alcohol is a terrible idea.

Does society need to be changed? Oh, yes. Desperately. Society is absolutely terrible in many ways. Personally, though, I've not seen anything like the publicly accepted "sexualization" of minors in anything except, maybe, Twilight, which I've not read. Further, pretty much everyone I know considers rape and pedophilia to be two of the most awful things ever. While the 80s might be filled with action cliches of men who are either angry or lustful, I... don't actually see that claim substantiated by pretty much any media other than pornography (which is itself terrible for many reasons), and even then I've been exposed to enough during High School to see men in such hold a larger amount of emotions/feelings/whatever than just the two.
(A quick sweep of glances around the house provides some examples: Finding Nemo, Spiderman, both of the Trons, Lion King, How to Train Your Dragon, Star Wars, Avatar the Last Airbender (and Legend of Korra), Kung Fu Panda (1 and 2), Mission Impossible 3, the Lord of the Rings trilogy of movies, and the Muppet Christmas Carol. While a number of them contain lust, anger, or other the like, they also contain other powerful emotions, in many cases which are the overriding emotions of the work in general. Books are similar. As for videogames... I dunno, I wouldn't think so, but it would take me longer to look. I don't watch tv, though - everything "recent" I've seen is online or by DVD gifts my family has given, so there's that.)

Does alcohol need to be on a tighter leash? Sure. It's known to loosen inhibitions. This, on the other hand, is substantially more than even that. If alcohol is capable of being blamed for this, than it must become a controlled substance because, ugh, this is possibly the worst thing a person could ever do. It seems ridiculous to hold a commonly available substance responsible without actively proclaiming that such a substance needs to be completely unavailable except for whatever medical benefits it may provide (though we all know how that turned out last time).

But ultimately the man himself made his own decision (influenced or not). He wasn't formed in a vacuum, and everything about society and the substances we take for granted needs to be looked at, but those things didn't force him to take such actions. The fact that there are so very, very many others who are horrified by his actions, who reject the notion of such things as "human" much less "humane" makes the claim that "society and/or substances are to blame" dubious at best.

All that said, I am interested in ideas that specifically help reduce the "rape culture" that exists. What does leaving this man alive specifically do to aid in said goal? That's something I'm very curious about.

* Which ties into dealing with those who are insane. I look at old sanitariums and shudder at how we used to treat the insane. I look at ours and still shudder, but am glad we've made the progress we have, though I think there are far too many problems with our current state. It makes me wonder about what future will hold, and whether or not it will actually get better.

[Sifright]

This topic... the existence of this thing... it's... nearly too much to even imagine that it exists. It's literally one of the most awful things I've ever seen in print, and almost doesn't seem possible in the extent of its awfulness.

To that end, I won't weigh in on the man himself, at least not until I address the kind of secondary argument. Instead, I'm going to talk about the other argument.

First: considering some of the things I've seen a few posters say in this thread v. other threads, I'm glad that they seem to be promoting all human beings as actual human beings with a need to be treated as such. That's... a surprising change of pace from some of the previous arguments I've seen, facetious as they may be, so, you know, that's... really great.

And, frankly, I fully agree. The man is a human being and needs to be treated as one, with the respect and empathy that such a state deserves.

On to the next question.

Is there ever a time to kill a fellow human? Yes. It needs to be avoided as pretty much only a "last resort" but it is something that must be resorted to on occasion.

First Example: War. Rarely does anyone ever want war (or if they do they don't understand the full ramifications of it), but war is something that happens anyway. Large scale or small, a war breaks out when people want or need something badly enough that they can (to their mind) only acquire by killing others. Whether or not starting a war is ever justifiable doesn't matter: even if you, as a people, don't start it, as a people everyone will be involved in war at some point or another and thus must be able to kill fellow humans. It's awful, but it's something that must be done.

Second Example: Self Defense. This basically ties into the above argument, though is different for its own reasons, and is meant on a more personal level. Is someone threatens your life with unreasonable violence and killing them is the only option, than killing them is what needs to happen and is justified. Once again, killing is not the thing you should want to do or the thing you should immediately resort to, but it is a thing that happens and needs to in some cases.

Third Example: Defense of Others. Again, this is basically the above argument only transplanted to a person other than yourself. Otherwise, the argument is the same.

Fourth Example: Prevention of Recurring Violence and Cruelty. In general, this ties into Defense of Others. There is a raging debate as to whether or not this is a justifiable event of killing, as evidenced by this thread. Traditionally, this has been a manner of dealing with "extreme" criminal behavior. The more we've delved into human psychology, however, the more we've questioned whether or not those who engage in such behavior are necessarily "irredeemable", and even if they are have used such terminology as "sick" or "in need of help". And, to a point, this is correct. There are some who are treatable and, in general, that would be the best. There are some who are not (currently) treatable, and there are arguments to be made for seeing if we can.

The question is, however, whether or not the attempt is "worth it". I don't mean in monetary standpoint, though that does have a factor. The question is: "What is the "cost" (in emotionally, sociologically, psychologically, and financially) to society for leaving them alive v. killing them, which one "costs" more, and which brings the most benefits?" The greatest preference is, of course, not killing people.

I come in on the side that while the greatest preference is to avoid death, you cannot avoid death "at all costs" because, frankly, the "all costs" is actually pretty high.

Ultimately, actions have consequences.

I want him to have a better life. I want him to be a better person. I don't want to "take revenge" or "make him suffer" or "destroy him".

The very, very sad thing is, however, this is something that will never just "go away". His life in any sort of a meaningful way is over.

I don't think that this man will ever be able to live anything resembling a life again. Either he's too far gone to allow him to be in society ever again (and thus will spend his life as a either a drain on societal resources and/or a human experiment which has its own moral quandaries*), and/or he'll live with crippling guilt for the rest of his life, and/or he'll be killed by <insert people group he's placed among here> which, frankly, is the worst thing that could happen because instead of minimizing the violence by containing it to officially sanctioned channels, we've allowed "vigilante justice" to prevail, which has its own terrible costs to society. It's one thing to talk about "rising above" such things - and over-all that's something we should aspire to - but, many people have not and will not.

I'm all for hope. I'm all for desiring a person to get better and to have a better life.

I'm also of the opinion that actions have consequences. Not "how I feel" or "what I think about", not even "how I am", but actions, choices, personal decisions to perform acts. These result in consequences.

The man killed a six month old by spend half-an-hour doing things to it that no one should really conceive of doing to another individual, let alone a helpless infant. This will have terrible consequences. It literally does not matter what else happens in his life, this one action will have terrible consequences for the rest of it.

I want him to have a better life. I want him to be a better person. I don't want to "take revenge" or "make him suffer" or "destroy him".

The very, very sad thing is, however, this is something that will never just "go away". His life in any sort of a meaningful way is over.

The Golden Rule is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The vast, vast majority of philosophies and religions more or less agree to that rule. If I had made life choices that resulted in murdering someone else just so I can have an orgasm, I wouldn't want to continue living. If I was at that state, I do, in my current state of mind, desire that someone end my life. I cannot fathom harming someone in such a way, and if I can, in any way, serve humanity by, say, donating organs to in some small way make up for what I did, I'd go for it. Even if, at that stage, I'd not want someone to kill me (because, although many people talk about wanting to die and think about it, few people actually do truly desire to die), over-all, I genuinely don't want to be the person that did those things, and proceeded to waste society's time and resources while living a terrible, uncomfortable, lonely, frustrating life. That is an over-all lose situation for everyone.

I feel terrible for this man. He obviously realizes that what he did was terrible. I don't know if he feels guilty or not (he is begging not to be killed, and arguing for lighter sentence... I... ugh). I can't judge his heart, his mind, or his state of coherence.

However, placing blame for his actions on society and alcohol is a terrible idea.

Does society need to be changed? Oh, yes. Desperately. Society is absolutely terrible in many ways. Personally, though, I've not seen anything like the publicly accepted "sexualization" of minors in anything except, maybe, Twilight, which I've not read. Further, pretty much everyone I know considers rape and pedophilia to be two of the most awful things ever. While the 80s might be filled with action cliches of men who are either angry or lustful, I... don't actually see that claim substantiated by pretty much any media other than pornography (which is itself terrible for many reasons), and even then I've been exposed to enough during High School to see men in such hold a larger amount of emotions/feelings/whatever than just the two.
(A quick sweep of glances around the house provides some examples: Finding Nemo, Spiderman, both of the Trons, Lion King, How to Train Your Dragon, Star Wars, Avatar the Last Airbender (and Legend of Korra), Kung Fu Panda (1 and 2), Mission Impossible 3, the Lord of the Rings trilogy of movies, and the Muppet Christmas Carol. While a number of them contain lust, anger, or other the like, they also contain other powerful emotions, in many cases which are the overriding emotions of the work in general. Books are similar. As for videogames... I dunno, I wouldn't think so, but it would take me longer to look. I don't watch tv, though - everything "recent" I've seen is online or by DVD gifts my family has given, so there's that.)

Does alcohol need to be on a tighter leash? Sure. It's known to loosen inhibitions. This, on the other hand, is substantially more than even that. If alcohol is capable of being blamed for this, than it must become a controlled substance because, ugh, this is possibly the worst thing a person could ever do. It seems ridiculous to hold a commonly available substance responsible without actively proclaiming that such a substance needs to be completely unavailable except for whatever medical benefits it may provide (though we all know how that turned out last time).

But ultimately the man himself made his own decision (influenced or not). He wasn't formed in a vacuum, and everything about society and the substances we take for granted needs to be looked at, but those things didn't force him to take such actions. The fact that there are so very, very many others who are horrified by his actions, who reject the notion of such things as "human" much less "humane" makes the claim that "society and/or substances are to blame" dubious at best.

All that said, I am interested in ideas that specifically help reduce the "rape culture" that exists. What does leaving this man alive specifically do to aid in said goal? That's something I'm very curious about.

* Which ties into dealing with those who are insane. I look at old sanitariums and shudder at how we used to treat the insane. I look at ours and still shudder, but am glad we've made the progress we have, though I think there are far too many problems with our current state. It makes me wonder about what future will hold, and whether or not it will actually get better.


This is a rather weighty post to dissect so I'm not going to address everything you've said it would take to long whilst i am at work.

The most egregious points however I feel i need to address.

Male children in pretty much every western society are explicitly told showing emotions other than machismo is a bad thing, young boys are told not to cry because it's sissy. There are a million different examples of this kind of cultural and behavioral indoctrination. In general Men are not expected or allowed to show weaknesses of any kind or you will be mocked not everything is this way of course but enough of our entertainment materials reflect this, in your case you are doing an exceptional job of raising your child in a good environment but it's not the norm.

As for sexualization of children, that is something that is rather more unsavory and yet does occur. Modeling careers for aspiring models starts at the prime age of five. I don't wish to explore this to deeply because i find it all rather nauseating but children are sexualised for advertising from this age.

Clothing and fashion companies sexualize children because it sells. Children view sex as a forbidden fruit and a sign of maturity and these companies peddle that image. See victorias secret and any other company that engages in such typical marketing maneuvers.

[RobinStarwing]

Yea robin, any study which purports that nature supersedes nurture is a long of repugnant nonsense.

Neuro-sci pretty unequivocally shows that almost all human behavior is learned and not ingrained, as a species humanity doesn't have much in the way of instinctual behavior.

We are the result of environment far more than we are the result of our genetics strictly speaking in terms of differentiation between each human.

I said in the previous post that Nurture is only half the argument. Nature has a role too and some people are born with their brain's fucked up. Does this alone make them monsters? It is far more complicated than that.

Case in point, let's compare Patton (who had Sociopathic tendencies) to Ed Geen (a Cannibal Serial Killer). Both were Sociopaths if you look closely at them. The difference was how their lives went but at the core, they were the same. Just one had a good life and went on to make good of himself while the other became Wisconsin's most notorious Serial killer cannibal.

So to repeat: Nature and Nurture BOTH have roles to play in how a person ends up functioning. It is not one or the other.

[Kim]

I said in the previous post that Nurture is only half the argument. Nature has a role too and some people are born with their brain's fucked up. Does this alone make them monsters? It is far more complicated than that.

Case in point, let's compare Patton (who had Sociopathic tendencies) to Ed Geen (a Cannibal Serial Killer). Both were Sociopaths if you look closely at them. The difference was how their lives went but at the core, they were the same. Just one had a good life and went on to make good of himself while the other became Wisconsin's most notorious Serial killer cannibal.

So to repeat: Nature and Nurture BOTH have roles to play in how a person ends up functioning. It is not one or the other.

You said it, but pretty much every study that claims nature plays a major role is total bullshit.

Besides, let's consider you're right.

You are literally arguing that some people are born to be subhuman monsters worthy of death. That's what you're arguing about this man after all.

Not only is it abandoning all responsibility, it's a rather fucking twisted viewpoint to look at the world through.

[tacticslion]

Frankly, this topic makes me feel unclean because it exists. It just doesn't seem real, it's so awful. That layer of denial may be one of my defense mechanisms against shutting down and vomiting everywhere. Ugh.

This is a rather weighty post to dissect so I'm not going to address everything you've said it would take to long whilst i am at work.

Fair 'nough. :)

Male children in pretty much every western society are explicitly told showing emotions other than machismo is a bad thing, young boys are told not to cry because it's sissy. There are a million different examples of this kind of cultural and behavioral indoctrination. In general Men are not expected or allowed to show weaknesses of any kind or you will be mocked not everything is this way of course but enough of our entertainment materials reflect this, in your case you are doing an exceptional job of raising your child in a good environment but it's not the norm.

Thanks!

One of the interesting things is that myself and pretty much everyone in my immediate and general extended family, and the vast preponderance of my friends generally have a similar "suite" of preferences, attitudes, and beliefs. Anecdotal evidence is, after all, anecdotal, I must admit... however, the preponderance of experience one has tends to heavily color one's own views of things (though not requiring one to act in a specific way), and thus it's really difficult to see such a hefty amount of entertainment materials that reflect the values you say as being a driving force in anyone's life to the point that it's "to blame" for their decisions (a point, in fact, is that outside of literal mind-control, how could anything be "to blame" for someone else's decisions*?).

Again, I don't have an active television subscription of any sort (nor antenna, though I don't think that works anyway, now? I dunno - it's been a decade since I've had an active one, so, I'm kind of out of said loop), so I can't comment on that form of entertainment (and subtle "educational") media. For most other active media elements, I can point to a rather large array of elements that point out the exact opposite, ranging from comics (at least the ones I read) to video games (though there are strangely fewer of these, it seems, as time passes) to, as noted above, movies and shows. What really sets people apart in this regard is what they choose to consume for themselves and their families. This, then, comes down to personal choice (which is a major part of the point of living in a "capitalist" society, though I don't like that word), and isn't a direct function of culture "forcing" someone's behavior to adapt.

Heck, even if one does consume such nonsensical stuff that's out there, that still doesn't absolve one of your own decisions. I mean, I've watched stupid ultraviolent things before, and I've taken martial arts classes. I've played games in which the main goal is to kill people. I love swords as I think they're "super cool". I've taken gun training to learn how to hold and shoot weapons (though I don't own any).

Violence, murder, and killing are horrible, terrible things that I hope never happens to me, my family, anyone I care about, or anyone on these boards, and pretty much everyone in all of existence. I'm aware of the contradiction in my interests and consumption and in my opinions. But there is no difference in my opinions and my actions - I might have watched porn movies in High School, for example, but I'm never ever going to treat any woman as a tool for my own gratification (or cheat on my wife, because 1) ew, and 2) that's awful and abhorrent). No, I'm going to (try (their opinion of respect and mine might disagree, but usually it's not on purpose)) to treat people with respect and as people regardless. I'm never going so seek out violence when talking will do. And I'm not going to be actively malicious in my actions. That's the difference between consuming something and choosing to make it part of you. A quick perusal of what people watch/read/consume on our media subforum will show you that there's a difference between people's entertainment and their ideology (though rarely will they consistently engage with media that consistently offends their moral and ethical outlooks).

If you mean cultural norms relative to interpersonal interaction: of course there are. But these elements are both inherited and complicatedly interwoven throughout interpersonal communication, and is ultimately a non-controlled and non-controllable (at least by way of government regulation if any sort of personal freedom is to be accepted) elements of society. Human beings hate. We hate passionately and often without reason. Sometimes it's because of personal very bad experience with others (which may be anecdotal on an individual level, but if it makes the majority of experience...), sometimes its because of rhetoric, and sometimes it's "just because". Various groups form around these shared hates and it spreads.

To add to that, "we" (by which I mean people at large) have promoted an ever-more-open form or dialogue heavily against any form of censorship... which makes sense to a certain degree, and which, over-all, I'd agree with. But a lack of censorship comes with inherent dangers of exposing people to various ideas that simply aren't healthy... and then those people latching on to them. But is the problem with the society that allows the ideas to exist (lack of censorship), with the human who makes the choice to cling to said idea (the individual), both, neither, or what?

This is what I meant by society being terrible in many ways. And, despite the fact that my family has long encouraged the sharing of opinions, emotion, and dialogue (instead of empty machismo), I've been plenty exposed to that side, too. I've had friends who were raised in households that virtually worshiped it. That did not force us to make decisions. Did it influence us? Certainly. Absolutely. It had to. But did the society make the decisions or us? Ultimately, we did.

When I taught school, I ran into machismo-ism in general. It was pretty brutal. But I continuously tried to teach those kids that it wasn't all about that kind of thing. In fact, I worked on making sure they understood that. I corrected their language (oh, wow, seriously, online-chat-speak, especially in competitive video games plus sports-trash-talk plus texting... ugh, all filtering into real-life personal interaction), and, you know, I can't say that I made a lasting impact, though I really hope I have.

I worked on explaining why those concepts are terrible and to break them out of said culture.

This tied deeply into the lessons of: respect your authority figures, feel free to show emotions, and don't bully others/don't be cruel. This was a big thing and took up almost as much time as the actual lessons (I spent more time counseling after school...).

So I know those cultural things are real. But if a kid - regardless of what he'd seen on tv, heard said on the internet, or been told by his current "father" (he'd gone through two that year, in one kid's case), if they behaved in a way that was not acceptable (because they knew the rules) there were consequences for those actions. At first, little traction was gained, but soon enough they learned and adjusted (and knowing other kids suffer unpleasant consequences - aka spending most of their Saturday with Mr. <redacted>, and/or one of their parents, and/or another teacher is really unpleasant) really helped out.

As for sexualization of children, that is something that is rather more unsavory and yet does occur. Modeling careers for aspiring models starts at the prime age of five. I don't wish to explore this to deeply because i find it all rather nauseating but children are sexualised for advertising from this age.

Clothing and fashion companies sexualize children because it sells. Children view sex as a forbidden fruit and a sign of maturity and these companies peddle that image. See victorias secret and any other company that engages in such typical marketing maneuvers.

That's pretty much the most awful thing ever.
Reference "forbidden fruit": what, then, is the answer? How would one go about making it not, you know, look forbidden?

In our case, frank, honest (but not explicit) conversations are what we're planning, making sure it's understood, but neither glamorized nor shameful - something that's a good thing within the appropriate boundaries -, but it's kind of a strange thing to even think about, especially since - at current - our son can't even talk.

What is the proposed solution? What would help alleviate this effect?

And again, more on topic: how does this man's continued life benefit the society he's in to the point that it can help us prevent such things from happening again?

To be clear: I'm not absolving authority figures of responsibility to educate their children. However, once those children are grown up and no longer children but adults, they must begin taking responsibility for their own actions, especially since they are adults. Part of being an adult human, and being treated like one, is broadly knowing right from wrong and acting on it, and expecting others to respond appropriately toward your actions.

* ^That last paragraph. I know it could seem like I'm absolving anyone of any responsibility, but that's not true. Responsibility must partially rest with the authority figures that an individual has when they're young. This gets into a whole host of messy arguments, however, which are kind of off-topic, so, you know. Simplification for now.

ALSO: Blarg, I talk too much. Sorry. It's the only way I know how to express my thoughts. :/ I'll work on it.

[RobinStarwing]

You said it, but pretty much every study that claims nature plays a major role is total bullshit.

Besides, let's consider you're right.

You are literally arguing that some people are born to be subhuman monsters worthy of death. That's what you're arguing about this man after all.

Not only is it abandoning all responsibility, it's a rather fucking twisted viewpoint to look at the world through.

I never said Nature plays a major role. Trying to boil something like Human behavior down to one or the other is not taking the whole picture into account.

What I said is that both Society and Nature play a role in our development as people. We do not have all the answers as to what does what and everyone is different.

Let's take a gander at Monoamine oxidase A. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A#Aggression_and_the_.22Warrior_ gene.22)

Does this gene alone make someone an inhuman monster that needs to be put down? No. It just makes them have aggression issues possibly. What happens around the child born with the mutation of this gene is what can shape whether you get someone who channels there aggression towards the positive or negative.

So Kim, I am arguing that this man deserves no mercy. I repeat...THIS MAN and I may decide different with someone else.

[synkr0nized]

Our media sexualizes children.

Six-month old children?

I'd say you'd have an argument for sure with teenagers and even with younger children (e.g. look at beauty pageants). But toddlers and under? I'd like to think I'm not that blind to shit.


Our culture gives men extreme authority.
A lot of societies do. We still have a long way to go here.


Rape culture teaches that men who abuse that authority will be defended, excused, and their victims will be blamed, and this is only in the rare cases where they're found out.
You'd have to be pretty naive/willfully ignoring issues to claim rape culture isn't a thing and isn't quite prevalent.

That said, I'm not convinced that excuses or defends pedophilia in any case. I may just be unaware, but I've not ever heard of, say, victim-blaming work out for someone who rapes children, let alone babies. In the cases I've read about or seen on the news, that's panned out as an issue in the attacker and something to try to cure, if possible, and rehabilitate, or as is much more often just toss them in prison no questions asked.

Young women, adult women, yeah, you hear about them not wanting to come forward or, thanks to the things embedded in our society, even having a sense of guilt.

It seems children often might not come forward if it was a family member or due to an adult being able to project authority and danger. But unlike young adult/adult women if these cases come out I don't see society making excuses.

And, again, even with all of our disagreements and flaws I don't see US culture and society jumping to the defense of anyone who rapes and kills babies.


Men are trained to repress most emotions other than anger and lust.
If you say so. I can often be out of touch with what's all the cool and hip shit about "male culture".


No, we don't have giant fucking billboards telling men to rape.

We do have a culture that encourages men to rape, tells them they will get away with it, and gives them unquestioned authority that allows them to do just that. AND THEN IT SEXUALIZES KIDS
As above, my ":V" at Sif's statement and this one is its validity for children, for victims that aren't even a year old.


There are probably other factors. Other major factors. Like the fact that many abusers have a history as victims themselves, and shit like that.

It's complicated as fuck, and there's no easy solution, but we don't come any closer to a solution by killing the few we catch.

THIS IS IMPORTANT: THE ONES WE HEAR ABOUT, THE ONES WE CATCH, ARE A MINORITY OF THOSE WHO DO THESE THINGS
No doubt, which is unfortunate and a sign that rape is a large issue that we as a society/culture need to work together to try to address.

Writing off the ones we catch as inhuman monsters, killing them, and then moving on as though the problem is solved helps no one and allows this shit to continue.

If this part of your post is addressed at me, I take offense. I have not involved myself in that part of this thread and see no merit in running around trying to make claims that a person is not a person based on whatever human-defined criteria.

[RobinStarwing]

Synk...three words.

Toddlers and Tiaras...it was on TLC.

[Kim]

Six-month old children?

I'd say you'd have an argument for sure with teenagers and even with younger children (e.g. look at beauty pageants). But toddlers and under? I'd like to think I'm not that blind to shit.


Culturally sanctioned pedophilia probably feeds into other forms of pedophilia. It certainly makes a fuck of a lot more sense than these attractions springing fully formed from the head of Zeus.


A lot of societies do. We still have a long way to go here.


Good thing I didn't say this was America specific, then.

You'd have to be pretty naive/willfully ignoring issues to claim rape culture isn't a thing and isn't quite prevalent.

That said, I'm not convinced that excuses or defends pedophilia in any case. I may just be unaware, but I've not ever heard of, say, victim-blaming work out for someone who rapes children, let alone babies. In the cases I've read about or seen on the news, that's panned out as an issue in the attacker and something to try to cure, if possible, and rehabilitate, or as is much more often just toss them in prison no questions asked.

Young women, adult women, yeah, you hear about them not wanting to come forward or, thanks to the things embedded in our society, even having a sense of guilt.

It seems children often might not come forward if it was a family member or due to an adult being able to project authority and danger. But unlike young adult/adult women if these cases come out I don't see society making excuses.

And, again, even with all of our disagreements and flaws I don't see US culture and society jumping to the defense of anyone who rapes and kills babies.


Instances of behavior being endorsed and defended will likely encourage other more extreme behavior.

Besides, if you don't think society can be rape culture disgusting about pedophilia, look up the Penn State shit that happened.

Seeing men get away with awful behavior and be defended committing that behavior makes other awful behavior seem less awful to the perpetrators by comparison. Many rapists think most men are just like them, for example.

[Sithdarth]

But toddlers and under? I'd like to think I'm not that blind to shit.

Seriously this is just really terrible stuff. (https://www.google.com/search?q=toddler+beauty+pageants&hl=en&safe=off&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=LodjUZTOBK7k4AP9goHAAQ&ved=0CEIQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=965)

It's worse than I thought. (http://www.universalroyalty.com/) Man Texas what the hell?