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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Sifright

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]

Originally Posted by RobinStarwing

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.

Originally Posted by Sifright

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.

Originally Posted by Sifright

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.

Originally Posted by Sifright

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]

Originally Posted by Kim

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Kim

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.

Originally Posted by Kim

Our culture gives men extreme authority.

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

Originally Posted by Kim

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.

Originally Posted by Kim

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".

Originally Posted by Kim

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.

Originally Posted by Kim

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.

Originally Posted by Kim

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.