Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Turkey Proposes Castration of Sex Offenders


Nova Terra

Recommended Posts

Source, please

there is loads of evidence out there...from the same left wing sources who wet their pants when it was the US who finally done for saddam...3 years earlier they were demonstrating against his regime.

I am very aware the ORB figures are viewed with suspicion, and the IBC figures are much lower. A survey made in association with WHO suggests the IBC figures are low, and the real casualty figures are more than double those officially recorded.

did the US kill them? did the US set out to kill them?

where is your condemnation of the jihadis?

Now, would you please care to provide your reasoning behind why your source for the accusations against Saddam, is more credible than my source for the number of casualties of the conflict?

are you seriously trying to put forth the case that saddam was some sort of benign ruler?

n*gga please.

i'm not about to get into some infantile tit for tat posting frenzy...you can 'prove' anything online.

the fact is that saddam WAS a monster. the baathists WERE national socialists. and jihadis WERE responsible for far more deaths than the US in iraq post saddam.

if you could see past your starting position of anti-americanism you's be able to see that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • dekker87

    17

  • Cradle of Fish

    12

  • ~TheBigK~

    10

  • Knight Of Shadows

    9

there is loads of evidence out there...from the same left wing sources who wet their pants when it was the US who finally done for saddam...3 years earlier they were demonstrating against his regime.

did the US kill them? did the US set out to kill them?

where is your condemnation of the jihadis?

are you seriously trying to put forth the case that saddam was some sort of benign ruler?

n*gga please.

i'm not about to get into some infantile tit for tat posting frenzy...you can 'prove' anything online.

the fact is that saddam WAS a monster. the baathists WERE national socialists. and jihadis WERE responsible for far more deaths than the US in iraq post saddam.

if you could see past your starting position of anti-americanism you's be able to see that.

So, you have no basis for your claims, or at least none that you are prepared to post as verification, yet you accuse me of not examining the evidence?

You simply validate my previous post that your opinion is based entirely on what best fits what you want to believe, rather than any examination of what might be true. Thank you for proving my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, you have no basis for your claims, or at least none that you are prepared to post as verification, yet you accuse me of not examining the evidence?

you mistake the internet for some sort of bastion of truth. ANYTHING can be 'proven' online. where is the verification of the iraq body count? they are simply numbers in cyberspace. nothing more.

perhaps you were not interested in Iraq prior to the US invasion when it became the latest cause celebre of those who hate america but i'm different. i hate fascism...be that of the nazi type, the muslim type or the baathist variety. so i knew the nature of the man and the party long before the invasion. therefore i feel no need whatsoever to pander to your shout of 'sources!!'

the nature of the beast was self-evident to anyone who an unbiased opinion.

if i told you the earth was round would you ask for 'sources'?

You simply validate my previous post that your opinion is based entirely on what best fits what you want to believe, rather than any examination of what might be true.

it matters naught to me how you analyse my motives...i know that saddam was a bad man and that he deserved to go.

are you arguing against that or not?

because if you aren't then all you are doing is engaging in infantile pedantry.

Thank you for proving my point.

pompous as well as pretentious! bravo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you mistake the internet for some sort of bastion of truth. ANYTHING can be 'proven' online. where is the verification of the iraq body count? they are simply numbers in cyberspace. nothing more.

perhaps you were not interested in Iraq prior to the US invasion when it became the latest cause celebre of those who hate america but i'm different. i hate fascism...be that of the nazi type, the muslim type or the baathist variety. so i knew the nature of the man and the party long before the invasion. therefore i feel no need whatsoever to pander to your shout of 'sources!!'

the nature of the beast was self-evident to anyone who an unbiased opinion.

if i told you the earth was round would you ask for 'sources'?

it matters naught to me how you analyse my motives...i know that saddam was a bad man and that he deserved to go.

are you arguing against that or not?

because if you aren't then all you are doing is engaging in infantile pedantry.

pompous as well as pretentious! bravo!

Why you regarded Americans as heros, are you to afraid to at least make some critizem or that you feel hard that you are on the internet. Or because the only thing you care about is yourself? Why you do you hate Islam nations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you fiddle with anything sexual; the human sex drive in particular - you are one step closer to a Dystopia.

In Aldous Huxley's 1932 novel Brave New World, by introducing adolescents to sex at ages from nine to eleven, the totalitarian government reduces the taboo of recreational sex. In contemporary Western countries we do have sex for recreation. However, not nearly to the extent of the massive orgies broken out in the novel. They use the human sexual drive - prominently alongside a hallucinogenic drink called Soma - to handicap the population.

This reference might seem odd, but by deeming it appropriate to mess with a persons reproductive rights - especially genitalia, you are really consuming any personal liberty a person has. Sure, they might deserve it. I do not sympathize with rapists at all. My life has been afflicted by them greatly. Insomuch that there is much I have to cope with, in terms of my family. However, you cannot cross this line.

It is inherently wrong.

You can argue, discern the morality - but you know it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'authoritarians'

:w00t:

i'm a libertarian...i've no desire to tell anyone what to do about anything unless their behaviour restricts other peoples freedoms.

ergo paedophiles should, in cases where there is no question of guilt, be executed immediately because their behaviour destroys innocent childrens lives.

No wonder you're clueless. So you're ok with the Government having power to use corporal punishment on people? How do you reconcile that with your obviously well thought out libertarian beliefs?

No, Bundy's victims did not deserve what they got. In the cases you are describing, Bundy took advantage of compassion, Madoff took advantage of ignorance. Madoff got what a white collar crime gets, life sentencing, Bundy got what some states deem is punishment for what he did, death. Again, you are arguing $$$ vs life. In each case, the punishment did fit the crime, or, should fraud be punishable by death? Is 150 years not enough for Madoff?

No. I never was arguing money versus life. I was arguing that the punishment should fit the crime. 150 years is fine, but nobody called for the death penalty for him because apparently ruining hundreds of peoples lives is OK so long as it's over money, not sex. I'm just highlighting the hypocrisy.

I still fail to see how fraud should be priority over rape and death?

Nobody in this thread has ever been poor have they? When your kids starve to death before your eyes because somebody on wall street thought it was ok to siphon your life savings, then try to tell me money is meaningless. But the point is moot. We have a justice system, not a vengeance system. Madoff serving 150 years is fine by me. But if you're going to go back to barbaric punishments, start with the people who ruin thousands or millions of lives. Are those victims not worthy of the same kind of vengeance the supporters of this proposition suggest?

As far as Bush...I really could care less because the Iraq war was a sham and charges will never be brought against him.

That's exactly the problem. Pedophilia is nine tenths moral panic. It's not common at all. It's used by the news as something for us to get angry at so we don't get angry at the crap that we should be angry at. There was a time when we'd just shun sick people from society and continue on, we can do that now with prisons.

No, they should not be the first priority. Their crimes don't affect people immediately, whereas a pedophile or rapist goes out and as soon as they commit a crime, someone's life is messed up forever, that is assuming they survive the assault. I very highly doubt a victim of economic problems caused by Bernie Madoff will be as traumatized (mentally and absolutely not physically) as a victim of rape. Money crimes don't cause physical injury, unwanted pregnancies, etc. There's no comparison between the two. None.

So you don't think the pain of hundreds or thousands of fraud victims add up to the pain of one sexual abuse victim? Again, have you ever been poverty stricken? Let's not forget, if sexual abuse is your only concern, it has happened as a result of decisions made by the President;

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3977702&page=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras

People are calling for the heads of pedophiles because they physically hurt and violate people, especially children. As I said before, your body is yours and no one else has the right to tell you what to do with it. Politicians may be corrupt and occasionally scumbags, but they don't go out and lay their hands on children. And if they did, they would go to jail. There's an argument for the support of war that it's a necessary evil, you sure as hell would never here anyone say that about pedophilia.

Again. Poverty is of no concern to you? Drop the moral outrage, all of you. Get angry at something meaningful for once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And a lot of bashing of Islam has occured here, why are you so quick to forget that this is a religion which, in it's extreme form(which is actually quite common) stones women who are the victim of rape?

And why is nobody calling for Pope Ratzinger's head on a platter? Surely, if sexual abuse is the absolute worst thing that can happen to a person, then covering it up is even worse, right?

We live in liberal democracies where in the eyes of the law everyone is equal. You cannot make exceptions for crimes which anger you. If it is the will of the people to have capital and corporal punishment then it applies to everyone. Justice is blind, remember? Am I the only person in the world who isn't OK with the government having that power over us?

And the fact that people are jumping on board with this idea, even though it hasn't even been shown to be effective shows that you aren't thinking rationally about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To address the original post....

Chemical castration won't really achieve anything but keeping future victims from experiencing penile penetration (sorry guys, using the male version of offender here for example). It's a fact that people who do these things repeatedly and resist rehabilitation escalate in their behavior over time. Having a penis does not change these urges. Someone earlier on mentioned that these cases aren't so much about sex as about control and domination. This is true across the board. There are many other ways to terrorize a victim than forced traditional intercourse.

This is why chemical castration is considered to be cruel and unusual punishment.

Now, for these types of people, I don't personally resist any cruel and unusual punishment. However, it does NOT solve the problem. What drives them isn't libido or really anything else sexual. Removing all sexual organs, and supposedly removing sexual impulses as well, will not stop them.

Just my two cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was arguing that the punishment should fit the crime. 150 years is fine, but nobody called for the death penalty for him because apparently ruining hundreds of peoples lives is OK so long as it's over money, not sex. I'm just highlighting the hypocrisy.

Nobody in this thread has ever been poor have they? When your kids starve to death before your eyes because somebody on wall street thought it was ok to siphon your life savings, then try to tell me money is meaningless. But the point is moot. We have a justice system, not a vengeance system. Madoff serving 150 years is fine by me. But if you're going to go back to barbaric punishments, start with the people who ruin thousands or millions of lives. Are those victims not worthy of the same kind of vengeance the supporters of this proposition suggest?

That's exactly the problem. Pedophilia is nine tenths moral panic. It's not common at all. It's used by the news as something for us to get angry at so we don't get angry at the crap that we should be angry at. There was a time when we'd just shun sick people from society and continue on, we can do that now with prisons.

So you don't think the pain of hundreds or thousands of fraud victims add up to the pain of one sexual abuse victim? Again, have you ever been poverty stricken? Let's not forget, if sexual abuse is your only concern, it has happened as a result of decisions made by the President;

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3977702&page=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras

Again. Poverty is of no concern to you? Drop the moral outrage, all of you. Get angry at something meaningful for once.

Putting someone who commits fraud in jail is a punishment that does fit the crime in my opinion. They never physically harmed someone while a rapist/pedophile does. I don't think Charles Manson should have been sentenced to life in prison, life in a mental institution yes, but jail? No, he didn't harm anyone by his own doing. So the argument about punishment fitting the crime won't work for me here. I don't expect everyone to agree, but it's just my opinion.

No, I have not been poverty stricken. I take it you haven't either but you seem very upset by it, just as I'm upset by sexual abuse even though I've never been a victim.

No one ever said money was meaningless, nor is anyone downplaying the consequences crimes involving it can have on people. I think politicians do get away with murder occasionally and I don't support that at all, especially when there are cover-ups involved, it's disgusting. I don't support every aspect of the government and if they commit crimes, they should be punished. I also never said poverty was of no concern to me. It's a horrible thing that shouldn't exist. I could also reply to that accusation by saying is sexual abuse of no concern to you? Here's a site with some stats. Even if it isn't common, 1.8 million is nothing to make light of...

"In the United States one out of three females and one out of five males have been victims of sexual abuse before the age of 18 years. Sexual abuse occurs across all ethnic/racial, socioeconomic, and religious groups. Unfortunately, sexual abuse is considered a relatively common experience in the lives of children. A report released by the National Institute of Justice in 1997 revealed that of the 22.3 million children between the ages of 12 and 17 years in the United States, 1.8 million were victims of a serious sexual assault/abuse. There are gender differences with regard to sexual abuse incidents; specifically, girls are at twice the risk than boys for sexual victimization throughout childhood and at eight times the risk during adolescence. Because significant physical, emotional, social, cognitive and behavioral problems are related to childhood trauma, the need to more effectively address the issue has become paramount."

So you're telling me that's not something meaningful to get angry at?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This reference might seem odd, but by deeming it appropriate to mess with a persons reproductive rights - especially genitalia, you are really consuming any personal liberty a person has.

So is throwing them in prison. Some people are giving more rights and protection to rapists and killers than their victims got.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's amusing how any post or topic turn to islam bashing by some people here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried to get em back on the main topic. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Putting someone who commits fraud in jail is a punishment that does fit the crime in my opinion. They never physically harmed someone while a rapist/pedophile does. I don't think Charles Manson should have been sentenced to life in prison, life in a mental institution yes, but jail? No, he didn't harm anyone by his own doing. So the argument about punishment fitting the crime won't work for me here. I don't expect everyone to agree, but it's just my opinion.

The punishment fitting the crime is not the same as an eye for an eye. When we start lowering ourselves to their level we are no better than they are.

No, I have not been poverty stricken. I take it you haven't either but you seem very upset by it, just as I'm upset by sexual abuse even though I've never been a victim.

I'm upset by both. But it doesn't mean I can't take a stand against draconian punishment.

No one ever said money was meaningless, nor is anyone downplaying the consequences crimes involving it can have on people. I think politicians do get away with murder occasionally and I don't support that at all, especially when there are cover-ups involved, it's disgusting. I don't support every aspect of the government and if they commit crimes, they should be punished. I also never said poverty was of no concern to me. It's a horrible thing that shouldn't exist. I could also reply to that accusation by saying is sexual abuse of no concern to you? Here's a site with some stats. Even if it isn't common, 1.8 million is nothing to make light of...

"In the United States one out of three females and one out of five males have been victims of sexual abuse before the age of 18 years. Sexual abuse occurs across all ethnic/racial, socioeconomic, and religious groups. Unfortunately, sexual abuse is considered a relatively common experience in the lives of children. A report released by the National Institute of Justice in 1997 revealed that of the 22.3 million children between the ages of 12 and 17 years in the United States, 1.8 million were victims of a serious sexual assault/abuse. There are gender differences with regard to sexual abuse incidents; specifically, girls are at twice the risk than boys for sexual victimization throughout childhood and at eight times the risk during adolescence. Because significant physical, emotional, social, cognitive and behavioral problems are related to childhood trauma, the need to more effectively address the issue has become paramount."

So you're telling me that's not something meaningful to get angry at?

I never said it wasn't. How angry a crime makes you should have nothing to do with the punishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The punishment fitting the crime is not the same as an eye for an eye. When we start lowering ourselves to their level we are no better than they are.

I'm upset by both. But it doesn't mean I can't take a stand against draconian punishment.

I never said it wasn't. How angry a crime makes you should have nothing to do with the punishment.

I was saying that I don't think we lower ourselves to their level anyway. If we did, we would punish them the same way they hurt their victims. But we don't, we put them in jail for a couple years and send them on their way. I'm not saying we should sink to their level, but I don't think a punishment in the legal world exists that would constitute as being as bad as their level. That being said, I don't think it's draconian punishment. Nobody is being drawn and quartered or thrown into an iron maiden.

You said we should "get angry at something meaningful for a change." Does that not insinuate you were saying that the crimes being discussed in this thread aren't as meaningful as others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was saying that I don't think we lower ourselves to their level anyway. If we did, we would punish them the same way they hurt their victims. But we don't, we put them in jail for a couple years and send them on their way. I'm not saying we should sink to their level, but I don't think a punishment in the legal world exists that would constitute as being as bad as their level. That being said, I don't think it's draconian punishment. Nobody is being drawn and quartered or thrown into an iron maiden.

You said we should "get angry at something meaningful for a change." Does that not insinuate you were saying that the crimes being discussed in this thread aren't as meaningful as others?

Well millions of people are stricken with poverty in the western world. Are there an equal amount of rape victims in the western world? Reforming our laws is a more pressing issue than deciding to just castrate or kill them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well millions of people are stricken with poverty in the western world. Are there an equal amount of rape victims in the western world? Reforming our laws is a more pressing issue than deciding to just castrate or kill them.

I don't think there should have to be an equal amount of rape victims in order for someone to realize how big of an issue it is. As I said previously, 1.8 million children who are victims of sexual abuse is nothing to make light of. I do believe that something should be done about poverty and it should be given just as much attention. But just because something doesn't have as many numbers doesn't mean it should be given any less attention.

I also never said our laws don't need reforming. I would be fine with them not being castrated or killed as long as they stayed in jail, but they very rarely do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.