Push a Button--Make Child Molesters Disappear?

In reply to Bobzilla:

I'm not referencing you but thinking of myself when I say this... How bad would it suck if you pushed the "no more stupid people" button and instantly you disappeared? I'd be really bummed out.

I guess that depends on the definition of stupid. I've done plenty of stupid things that would probably warrant my vanishing by the press of that button.... but I consider myself overall fairly intelligent. If everyone who isn't at least that smart is gone too, who's left? Stephen Hawking?

I would see if I could rewire it to be employed in my bid to repress all of mankind. I mean... the threat of being banished into nothing is terrifying, right?

It should be good enough to make me Emperor of Earth. I have some exciting theme show music already prepared for the occasion.

I've also done my fair share of tremendously stupid things but on the other hand, I also consider myself fairly intelligent. That's why I'd be really bummed.

mndsm wrote: This makes me wonder, where DOES that urge come from? We've all but determined that being homosexual is biological, and not a "choice". I have to wonder if pedophilia is a similar thing.

I was friends a really brilliant guy in high school who turned out to be a pedo. In a very high-school-drama sort of way, I wound up exchanging a lot of email with him about his attraction to a young looking male friend of mine, then about his fantasies about little kids, dreams, etc. Eventually, when I found out he was going to school for a teaching degree, I contacted the FBI and forwarded along all this old email I'd saved, but they couldn't do anything.

We lost touch but years later he was named before Congress as the guy who had sex with Justin Berry and set him up so he could strip on camera for older guys. It was seriously berkeleyed up and I've still got some guilt over not doing more. Not that I have any idea what I could have done,

In Ken's case, I don't think he had much choice about what he was feeling. He was tortured by it and had weighed on him since he was an adolescent. He had a choice about his actions, for sure, but I wouldn't wish that kind of choice on anyone. Think of all the devout Christian guys who give in to gay sex in spite of the fact they think it'll send them to hell! Sex is powerful.

The weirdest thing I took out of it was that, in his mind, kids were always flirting with him. He wrote a lot about how 5 year old kids seemed like they were pursuing him sexually. I dunno if that was him rationalizing his desires or if he genuinely couldn't tell an interest in playing from an interest in sex.

The whole thing sucked. It wasn't a case of some purely evil predator raping children. He was a good guy with a really berkeleyed up head. If any of us were as sick as he was, I don't know as we'd be able to resist those temptations any better. If anything, it just makes me sad that there's no surefire way to fix people like that, 'cause even as a parent of two kids, I wouldn't put someone like that to death or even lock them up in jail for life.

Stupid People: People that have the ability to do smart things but CHOOSE to be stupid. Mentally challenged people are not stupid as they do not have the choice to be "smart".

Here's your problem right here:

Define: Child Molester

(kind of like)

Define: Terrorist

JThw8 wrote: Who makes the definition and determination? Pedophilia is a terrible thing, and if it was my daughter at stake I wouldnt need a big red button to remove the SOB from the face of the earth. But the societal norms which define pedophilia are not constant through time or location. Heck, everyone loves Elvis and doesnt seem to mind the fact that he was 23 when he met the furture Mrs Presley who was 14.

Puberty is the line between sick and not IMO. While there are several years between puberty and legal, biologically post-pubescent makes sense. Pre-pubescent is just messed up.

oldsaw wrote:

friedgreencorrado wrote:

rebelgtp wrote: However what if an innocent loves one of those that would disappear because you pushed the button and I imagine that there would be many. How many of these child molesters have children of their own that love them? Would not making these people go away emotionally harm these innocent children? I am sure that there are those that are reformed from such activities that are now productive members of society that have families that love them. And while you are at it why stop at child molesters? Why not include murderers, drug dealers, the list could go on and on until you hit jay walkers and people that ride your bumper in traffic I'm sure there are plenty of people out there willing to anonymously make any sort of group you could think of "disappear"

This. Personally, if the "red button" eliminated Christians & Muslims, I'd spend several *very* difficult nights discussing morality with m'self. I hope I'd be strong enough to toss the wretched thing out the window..

Would your nights be more "difficult" if atheists were on the elimination list, too?

That's actually kind of the point I was trying to make. Everybody has a group like that in their mind. Where would it stop?

oldsaw wrote: Anyone willing to push the button on any singular group should consider the consequences when the button is controlled by someone else. Sleep tight.

Thank you.

SVreX wrote: I'll start with the unpopular position. I don't believe in an unforgivable sin, and I do believe people can reform. I know- statistically it is rough (nearly impossible) for sex abusers to reform. And while I think child molestation is despicable and heinous beyond measure, I am no fan of a society that does not believe in the ability for someone to reform, and I know what payment I deserve for my own sins. So, I would not personally push the button. I would want the miraculous dose of grace it would take for me to offer forgiveness. However, I also believe in societal consequences. I have no problem with the death penalty for certain prescribed crimes, as a consequence chosen by society. I could support extreme societal responses to extreme crimes, when administered in a just and swift manner (not like the system we've got). There. That ought to get a few folks riled up.

Spot_the_berkeley_on. IMHO. There's not even a debate in my mind.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

JThw8 wrote: Who makes the definition and determination? Pedophilia is a terrible thing, and if it was my daughter at stake I wouldnt need a big red button to remove the SOB from the face of the earth. But the societal norms which define pedophilia are not constant through time or location. Heck, everyone loves Elvis and doesnt seem to mind the fact that he was 23 when he met the furture Mrs Presley who was 14.

Puberty is the line between sick and not IMO. While there are several years between puberty and legal, biologically post-pubescent makes sense. Pre-pubescent is just messed up.

I wasn't actually looking for a definition, although I certainly agree with you that pre-pubescence is a good baseline from which to start.

Merely pointing out the fact that the definition varies throughout time and throughout cultures and geographic locations. There is no black and white or clear cut answer and therefore could not be a "magic button" to eliminate that which cannot be clearly defined.

Fuel for the fire or food for thought, what about post-pubescence but mentally retarded? Is it pedophilia or just some other sickness?

Or maybe its just like the old saying "I know it when I see it"

Hm. Mental retardation does bring up an interesting point, and one I've always been curious about- for a reason. My wife does a lot of work with MR adults and whatnot, and she's a big advocate for human rights for all, regardless of mental capacity. I've always wondered, moreso than the age of consent, is there/should there be a "level" of consent? I mean, lets say you have a 15 year old honors student that wants to throw down with her BF. BF is 18.... that's statutory in pretty much every place I know, at least in the US. Obviously she'd demonstrated the mental capacity to be able to make intelligent choices (remember, honors student) and has the mental capacity to know what's right and wrong. But- because she's 15, the BF is hosed.

On the other hand, you have a pair of adults. One does fall below the line of MR, and has the functioning capacity of say- a 12 year old. Other adult, falls into the "average" category with no remarkable mental dysfunctions that anyone is aware of. MR adult has likely not demonstrated the mental capacity to make adult level decisions that an intimate relationship may imply, but DOES consent to intercourse with the "average" adult. Would that really be considered pedophilia by definition? I mean, realistically, once over the age of 18, one is granted human rights, including the ability to diddle whomever they feel like, as long as the other person is consenting and also of age.

Interesting food for thought.

mndsm wrote: This makes me wonder, where DOES that urge come from? We've all but determined that being homosexual is biological, and not a "choice". I have to wonder if pedophilia is a similar thing. I can't honestly say I know any, personally, to be able to ask them in an objective manner, and not come off like some high preaching douchebag. It's not an activity I condone for ANY reason, but I do wonder what makes children more attractive than adults.

Self-terminating, recessive genetic trait. Truly, some people's "wires are just crossed."

triumph5 wrote: The can of worms just exploded.

No it doesn't. Has somebody been molested? Only if they feel violated. Of course, there is an age of consent as well. I'd peg it at 14 or older (for consent). So, if no consent is given over the age of 14, or they are younger, then you are a twisted berkleyer.

On that type of person? I'd push the button in a heartbeat. Same for all murderer's.

I laugh at the guy who thinks everyone can change. They can't. They won't. And lots of times, they have no choice. So lock 'em up for good (or push the button).

HiTempguy wrote: On that type of person? I'd push the button in a heartbeat. Same for all murderer's.

Fortunately, no one has ever been falsely accused or convicted of either, right?

This sort of hyperbole (kill them all) sounds great in theory, but in practice, it is a bit more complicated then it sounds.

HiTempguy wrote: On that type of person? I'd push the button in a heartbeat. Same for all murderer's.

So you would kill every soldier that has ever taken up arms for their country and killed and enemy combatant? Then again if you are pushing a button to effectively kill all murderers as well I guess you would be gone as well considering you would have just killed people yourself right?

Don't try the soldiers aren't murderers because to someone out there any particular soldier could be a murderer depending what side of the conflict they are on.

Still want to push that button?

rebelgtp wrote:

HiTempguy wrote: On that type of person? I'd push the button in a heartbeat. Same for all murderer's.

So you would kill every soldier that has ever taken up arms for their country and killed and enemy combatant? Then again if you are pushing a button to effectively kill all murderers as well I guess you would be gone as well considering you would have just killed people yourself right? Don't try the soldiers aren't murderers because to someone out there any particular soldier could be a murderer depending what side of the conflict they are on. Still want to push that button?

All comes back to my original argument, everything depends on the definition of the "accused"

And side of the conflict has never determined status as a murderer. Enemy combatants are not considered murderers.

My uncle that's molested 2 of my cousins and HIS OWN DAUGHTER showed up at our house again tonight. My cousins were 11 and 8, his daughter was 4.

My wife and I rent from my mom. My mom is stupidly trying to protect this berkeleytart.

My brother in law and I were out on a test drive, making sure his truck was running like it should after replacing some parts. About 3 minutes into the test drive, my wife calls, and my molester uncle was on my couch. Since we don't own the house, and my uncle is in his 40's, has no job, no car, and nowhere to live, she let him in and let me know. I called my mom, and she was like "couldn't he sleep on the couch tonight," and I said "only if he doesn't wake back up."

Yes, sometimes, especially if that button were selective, I'd be all about pushing it.

BTW, this happened on my 25th birthday. Happy berkeleying birthday, Derick, here's your fail-at-life child molester uncle. WHOOPEEE!

Get him out of your house.

Now.

Oh, he's gone. He wasn't going to be in my house any longer than I could do laundry.

aircooled wrote: Fortunately, no one has ever been falsely accused or convicted of either, right?

You obviously don't know me very well. That is something called "collateral damage" in my mind. I'd expect somebody to do the same thing even if I was the one wrongfully convicted.

Now, IF I was the person to make the choice in real life, lifetime sentence in Siberia or northern Canada. That would be fine by me.

So you would kill every soldier that has ever taken up arms for their country and killed and enemy combatant? Then again if you are pushing a button to effectively kill all murderers as well I guess you would be gone as well considering you would have just killed people yourself right? Don't try the soldiers aren't murderers because to someone out there any particular soldier could be a murderer depending what side of the conflict they are on. Still want to push that button?

L.O.L. That isn't murder, that is war. Even terrorists who kill soldiers are really just guerrilla fighters. As long as they aren't purposefully killing civilians, they aren't causing any harm ;) And, absolutely I would push the button if it included me. I'd prefer to push the button to cure cancer, but getting rid of a lot of lowlifes on the planet would be fine by me.

<I should have clarified--the button does no harm to those that are reformed--hence "people that might not do harm." It only eradicates those that have, are unreformed, and will again.

The age for consent varies greatly from state to state. 14 is legal in certain states. We'll eliminate "the 19 year old boyfriend that has sex with his willing underage girlfriend" and the underage kid who texts a pic of his underage girlfriend to his friends.

The button punishes those that clearly rape or molest against the will of a minor. The line between minor and adult is blurry creating problems defining rape versus molestation but let's say a child is 14 or younger. Rapists should be punished--that's another thread.

rebelgtp said: However what if an innocent loves one of those that would disappear because you pushed the button and I imagine that there would be many. How many of these child molesters have children of their own that love them? Would not making these people go away emotionally harm these innocent children? I am sure that there are those that are reformed from such activities that are now productive members of society that have families that love them.

Why should the loved ones of the child molesters suffer less than those of the molested?

blockquote> Dec. 9, 2010 5:53 a.m. 914Driver

The question comes as a thought and discussion on what is absolutely wrong and what is absolutely right. The closest thing to absolute wrong I could think of is child molestation. We're not talking a gray area here--child molestation is wrong. However, is eradicating them wrong? And if eradicating child molesters is wrong, is it okay to do wrong to create right? Afterall, you would be protecting countless children around the world.

The answer to your question is that you will need to choose a standard by which to measure right from wrong, and live by it.

I don't know if you were kidding about your folks being skin heads, but it sounds like you are searching for some answers that they didn't give you, or that you haven't discovered through your own life experiences.

The problem is that you have discovered a discomfort with right and wrong being relative to situations or circumstances. If right and wrong are relative, then there is no right and wrong.

You need a standard to live by.

Some have chosen the Bible, some the Koran, some the teachings of Karl Marx, Bertrand Russell, or Isaac Asimov. Some choose to follow David Smith, some Star Trek, some themselves.

I have personally followed several over the years, until I examined them and found them to be false.

Absolute right and wrong will not exist unless they are measured against a standard. Even child molestation is not absolutely wrong, as evidenced by the responses here. Some cultures sacrifice their children to the rain gods. I guess that is considered a good thing in those cultures.

I choose Christianity. Not church, not religion. But the more I have studied it, the more convinced I am that it is a true standard on which I can base my life. I understand some people will disagree.

You are looking for philosophical absolutes among a bunch of car guys who never agree with each other on anything. I don't think you will find what you are looking for here.

“Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” John 8

"Judge not, that ye be not judged.

For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." Matthew 7

I've been thinking about this for two days now.

Part of me want's to kill them all and let God sort them out. Part of me remembers the verses above.

If my child was involved, well, lets just say if the courts didn't handle it to my satisfaction I probably wouldn't need a button to make sure at least one of pedo met his maker.

Turn the other cheek only goes so far. Unfortunately I'm not a very good Christian.