You setup the rules. You said that Godwin doesn’t apply if someone is building concentration camps. So by your own criteria, Godwin DOES apply.
Godwin doesn’t ‘win’ an argument. Godwin implies that the argument is so corrupted it is not worth continuing.
Generally I feel that you rarely have an argument that is not Godwined because of the implication that anyone with religious leanings at all is a hateful Nazi. So discussing anything with you is a recognition that mutual understanding is a futility and a recognition that you deeply and truely hate me.
No, Godwin doesn’t win an argument, it just shows that the argument has degenerated to the point of logical fallacy and name calling.
According to you. As far as I can tell, you are just in a mood to pick at me and decided to start nitpicking my argument without bothering to read anything else, including what it was a response to. How is it so out of bounds to call a desire to execute people for profit Nazilike ?
Some are honest fools. Some are liars but not psychopaths. Some are ignorant. Some are just insane. I don’t regard them as all the same. Nor do i normally compare them to Nazis. Nor are “most of my arguments” about calling religious people anything. You are simply indulging in the standard Christian persecution fantasy.
The answer however, is that your distinction loses meaning because so many groups before the Nazis executed people for profit. Why are you not calling him a Roman, a Hashishin, a Hussar, or an Israelite? What is uniquely Nazilike about killing people for a profit?
Somehow this has failed to convince me that you don’t paint all religious people with the same brush. I wonder why. :rolleyes:
As you have again demonstrated, you obviously haven’t even read the thread. One of the posters - the one who’s position I was complaining about - said we should.
Did I say there was ? They were simply the obvious choice, being recent.
Religious people are all in the same category; that of “religious people”. Therefore, they all share certain characteristics. Since religion is probably the stupidest idea every created, mental deficiencies or dishonesty of one sort or another are inevitably one of those shared characteristics.
It is a very tough problem. I guess they can not help themselves . I do not think a persons nature can be cured. It is like curing homosexuals.
You can not allow them to exploit kids. But killing them is also wrong. There are no easy answers. If they are rich they can go to 3rd world countries to get themselves off.
Actually, and thankfully, that’s less true now than before. “Prime” destination countries are more than happy to arrest, try, and incarcerate foreigners who avail themselves of that option.
Don’t you see, if we make the whole process as agonizing as possible for the accused, then killing them will be a welcome respite! Everyone wins regardless of the truth!
I’m joking of course, but he isn’t which is pretty frightening.
True, but IMHO molestation and sexual assault are unique for several reasons. One, unlike theft or even physical assault, they cannot be done for sympathetic reasons (e.g. poverty, self defense). Secondly, both take something that can ostensibly bring the greatest amount of pleasure to a human – physical affection, sex – and twist it into something that the victim will associate with pain and shame.
What do you do with a guy who confesses that he likes little boys but has never acted upon it. ? If he says it is a drive and hard to control .what do you do with him? Same for a guy who admits he likes underage girls. What if he has not acted upon it. They are by our standards sick and perhaps dangerous. Suppose he confesses the desire to a shrink?
Well, I suppose he could be committed if what he said shows he was a danger to himself or others, though it would be contingent upon your ability to convince a court of that. I’m no expert on the process, but I would guess that he would have to profess an intention to act on these feelings though. Beyond that, I don’t think you can do anything. We don’t punish people for their thoughts in the absence of
action.
As awful as pedophilia is, I think not punishing thoughts is a good policy to have, and we can’t go abandoning that whole principle no matter how vile those thoughts are.
(see above) Even better! This gives the therapist a good idea of one of the goals of the person’s therapy.
One of the major uses of therapy is behavior modification. When someone is consumed by thoughts (which they may or may not have acted upon), that interfere with their ability to function in their everyday life, then something needs to be done to keep those thoughts in check. Therapy helps in these situations, because the therapist can help a person to better identify these problematic thoughts/behaviors, and work to correct them.
Prison is not the solution in such a case (especially considering that we’re talking about thoughts, and not actions).
gonzomax, it’s obvious you’re trying to create an equivalence between pedophilia as an orientation and homosexuality as an orientation, and to the extent that we can increase compassion with that idea, I agree with you.
But where that falls down in this discussion is in the harm suffered by one of the partners. Homosexuals engaging in homosexual sex (with consenting homosexuals, one assumes) are not hurting anyone. Pedophiles, in our current social structure and political climate, ARE hurting their sexual partners if they act on their impulses, and they’re probably hurting themselves, as well. So if I was a homosexual, I would think, “well, fuck it, I’m not hurting anyone, let’s go have some gay sex!” If I was a pedophile, I would think, “This is absolutely unacceptable and I must never act on these urges because to do so would hurt people.”
For a good proportion of pedophilic orientees, this might work, and they never touch a kid and no harm, no foul. For some, it might not. They might benefit from therapeutic techniques like behavioral conditioning or aversion therapy. That still might not work for some, and they might go on to molest kids. And they should be punished - not because of their orientation, but because they harmed people.
We don’t let people with Turretts stay in the theater if they’re yelling during a performance, we don’t let people in wheelchairs go down the stairs, and we don’t allow pedophiles to molest children. It doesn’t matter if you’re born with the urge, or you’re born with the disability - it’s your actions that count. If your actions will cause harm, either you don’t do it, or you are removed from the situation.
Since I’m of the mind that homosexuality is ultimately not a behavior choice, no, I don’t think therapy can cure gayness anymore than it can cure blue-eyeness.
In my post, I was talking about using therapy (specifically behavior modification techniques) to change a person’s behavior. I guess you could say that I think behavior modification is capable of making a homosexual person averse to the idea of a same-sex relationship - but that wouldn’t make them suddenly straight.
Besides, a homosexual person’s behavior (i.e., being in a same-sex relationship) doesn’t harm anyone, nor does it impair their ability to live their everyday life. In contrast, a criminal’s behavior is what lands him (or her) in jail. Therapy could help the criminal in avoiding the behavior(s) that would get him in trouble.
Since I’m of the mind that homosexuality is ultimately not a behavior choice, no, I don’t think therapy can cure gayness anymore than it can cure blue-eyeness.