Anonymous #1 6w

More than the government letting dangerous people run free?

-2

Anonymous OP 6w

If they're dangerous they shouldn't be let out

11

Anonymous #1 6w

i agree. i think the same as OP in theory. but i think that in practice once the precedent is set itll go too far. and then, most likely itll affect women and female genitalia mutilation like the do in other countries in africa and latin america will be permissible. i get the sentiment and agree w it, i actually think they should all 💀 but even w that. its a veryyyy slippery slope when it comes to the law

5

Anonymous #2 6w

We already normalize circumcision this is way less invasive than that

-2

Anonymous #3 6w

Do you think the women raped don’t feel tortured?

5

Anonymous #1 6w

Chemical castration is really not big of a deal bruh it removes their urges and that’s exactly what we need

-1

Anonymous OP 6w

i actually dont like the GOVERNMENT just slowly torturing people

2

Anonymous #3 6w

Then what should be done with them then

1

Anonymous OP 6w

um…its actually worse. like they cut off womens labias clitoral hoods and clitoris under little anesthesia for religious reasons, to make it more attractive to men, etc. look into FGM theres a lot of info on it and it is 1000 times worse than circumcision

6

Anonymous OP 6w

well since im a genie that knows everything including an exact answer and formula for world peace and im just withholding it until someone asks... i dont know man. i just think the one thing youre saying is bad.

1

Anonymous #2 6w

nvm i get what u mean but still. its not that i disagree w the idea. its that if its codified it sets precedent and theres no telling how far it can be taken. its not that we shouldn’t out of concern for their comfort, its that we cant bc itll trickle down if that makes sense

1

Anonymous #4 6w

thats not true. sex offenders often and regularly are let out or get slaps on the wrist despite the recidivism rate being almost 25%. 1 in 4. so clearly, the justice system is not handling it correctly, and i personally think that they are deserving of the same sort of physical violence they inflict on their victims. i get ur point. and i also get OPs. something has to be done, but i genuinely don’t know what that wont be torture to the ICC or put others in danger down the line

1

Anonymous #2 6w

Idk just execute them. Also the justice system isn’t based on an-eye-for-an-eye.

1

Anonymous #5 6w

yes! it is!!!!

1

Anonymous _orangutan 6w

u said what i thought but more eloquently and w another VERY valid example, thank you😭

1

Anonymous _orangutan 6w

The state literally has a monopoly on violence

1

Anonymous #5 6w

i dont think the idea is eugenics. i can see how its interpreted that way, and to my point could be utilized that way, i.e., the “super predator” narrative with black men. the point is removing their ability to physically get pleasure from others BUT to my point again, thats why i think its a valid thought..that cannot be employed legislatively. bc to some “sexual predator” is minority men, LGBTQ ppl, drag queens..its too subjective to enforce fairly

1

Anonymous #2 6w

if the concept was eugenics, it would focus on the resulting pregnancies/children. the focus, OP correct me if im wrong, is punishment for severe wrongdoing. many pdfs and rapists have children that go on to live successful lives (not saying they should procreate with or without consent). but the argument is about fair punishment. not their value in the reproductive pool.

1

Anonymous #2 6w

AND im not saying they have value in said pool. just that the conversation wasn’t about stopping them from reproducing. it was about stopping them from reoffending. if that makes sense?

1

Anonymous #4 6w

right, and increasing the capacity of the state to have legal precedence to act on said action hurts those who are brutalized by said monopoly. also not necessarily true, starvation is violence and homelessness is violence. your boss can fire you given any reasonable excuse and your landlord can evict you even without one. the state wields a monopoly on legal violence, which is why the state should legally not possess the capacity to kill or impair one’s body

1

Anonymous _orangutan 6w

said violence*, not action

1