Florida passes bill allowing death penalty for child sexual abusers

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

I always go the altruistic route.

Altruism doesn't really exist in humans, in bees, yes, but humans nope. Altruism only exists for people whose life is easy. Once SHTF it goes out the window real quick, so people are just faking themselves out to suggest they are a good person. Reminds me of the rich and famous that have their 400-dollar lunch patting each other on the back for how good they are to mankind as they ignore the homeless guy out in front of the restaurant.

I have no delusions to how humans work... You use the "I'm not religious" as a crutch to accept any belief you want in suggesting you can never be a hypocrite unlike those Christians and of course those pedophile priests you commonly refer to. Maybe it's my 40 years of playing in every war or contingency America has been in that has made me somewhat cynical, but it has also opened my eye to what exactly humans are.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: Sookiechacha


OK, OK, OK....

Let's compromise and just make it "Physical" castration, hell we can even use one of the "gender clinics" to cut them off. Death penalty takes too long. Do this ASAP when there is zero doubt of innocence.

Castration! That is a good start.

Save the death penalty for a repeat as it takes far to long to off them. Castration can be done right after sentencing, within a day or two. That should be the bill, not to exceed 7 days after sentencing for example.

Castration.....


Wait, Why would the transgender community and their allies be worried?

a rusty coffee can lid would suffice.

what if an object was used instead of a real penis?

maybe use them for crash test dummies?

like in a 747.

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Point out where I'm incorrect.

Every single word of it.

please be specific. I don't think you can. I thik you are using feelings and not facts. Share your facts our be quiet.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Altruism doesn't really exist in humans, in bees, yes, but humans nope.

Nonsense!

Once SHTF it goes out the window real quick, so people are just faking themselves out to suggest they are a good person.

And yet, when the Titanic was sinking, it was women and children who were first in the lifeboats.

You use the "I'm not religious" as a crutch to accept any belief you want in suggesting you can never be a hypocrite unlike those Christians and of course those pedophile priests you commonly refer to.

You don't have to be religious to have a set of morals. or agree with some religious morals and not others.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Nonsense!

I said that people play the game when life is easy....

And yet, when the Titanic was sinking, it was women and children who were first in the lifeboats.

That is a cultural construct that was a learned response. Altruism would be a life long response.

You don't have to be religious to have a set of morals. or agree with some religious morals and not others.

I didn't suggest you didn't have morals, I said you use your lack of religion as an excuse to do or say anything you want and not be hypocritical all the while slamming religion as hypocritical if they do not fall within your view of it.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I said that people play the game when life is easy....

People, and society, naturally evolve toward altruism when they are thriving, because at that time of prosperity people, and society as a whole, have the luxury of accessing their empathy, to create and enjoy artistic pleasure and yes, play games.

That is a cultural construct that was a learned response. Altruism would be a life long response.

Saving loved ones in danger, even at the risk of one's own life, is a natural knee jerk animal reaction that speaks to our "survival of the species" urges.

I said you use your lack of religion as an excuse to do or say anything you want and not be hypocritical all the while slamming religion as hypocritical if they do not fall within your view of it.

When you are not religious, you can freely disagree or agree with any religious tenets. When you are religious you cannot. That makes for lots of hypocritical religious people, trying to reconcile what they really believe and what their religion actually teaches them to believe.

a reply to: KTemplar

Okay, I'm back and ready to answer.

Let me preface my response by saying that I've had jobs that included the most intimate details of childrens' abuse. I've seen things that were a literal shock to my conscience. And the worst part is what their own parents have done (or not done) to/for their own babies. Some parents are very very sick... some people are very very weak... and such people will ALWAYS be part of the gene pool. So our first priority should always be protecting our children and providing any and all possible safeguards.

But society has changed, and is changing, and safeguards are going the way of the dinosaur. We've become a nation of debtors and gamblers, where a two-income household is the norm, and parenting is slubbed off to daycare workers, teachers, summer camp counselors, etc. Where these people of trust are given more power and influence than the parents themselves. Where parents are told that their contribution to the economy and the workplace is more valuable than their contribution to their children's health and well-being so just shut up and let the "experts" make the new rules. Where parents believe them. And parents relinquish their power and control -- some happily, some grudgingly, some who just don't care either way. But the most worrisome ones are those demanding the most control with the worst intentions.

Changing that dynamic is a must. But it won't be easy. We would have to re-create an economy that allows for one parent to stay home with the children. We would have to re-instill the value of being an active and invested parent, teaching and modeling principles and ethics and critical thinking skills. We would have to strengthen existing safeguards and initiate new safeguards, rather than the current weakening and elimination of safeguards.

We would also need to change this hook-up culture that creates children that no one wants, and too often by people who should never ever have children. Children from single mothers are far more likely to suffer abuse than children from intact two-parent homes. Both men and women need to stop making children they don't want and won't parent properly.

We need to do better for married/divorcing/divorced folks as well. But that's harder. No one wants to believe their partner is abusing their kids, and will naturally assume that their child is safe with the other partner. Most abusers are opportunists, and a parent has more opportunity than most. Some spouses will turn a blind eye to evidence to the contrary. Some will be unable to deny it, but ignore it for their own purposes. Some will actually be part of it -- facilitating and enabling the abuse, either for $$ or out of fear or because they're just sick perverted puppies as well. Some will seek help, but not be believed, or they'll be slapped with lawsuits, or be physically threatened/attacked into silence. I'm not sure what the answer is, especially because some especially vengeful and vindictive spouses will falsely accuse the other. Perhaps we could minimize false accusations with 24/7 monitoring of both parents in the case of accusations? Perhaps a PSA blitz educating suspicious parents of how to document and collect evidence of abuse?

I'll stop rambling now. I've said enough for you to know where I'm coming from with it all.

Our priority should be preventing child abuse first and foremost. And that means changing our societal priorities in ways that promote the best interest of children, that protect and safeguard our children -- and their parents, so that their parents can do what's best for their children.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
People, and society, naturally evolve toward altruism when they are thriving, because at that time of prosperity people and society as a whole, have the luxury of accessing their empathy, to create and enjoy artistic pleasure and yes, play games.

Think about it... How much is real and how much is a facade? I would say the vast majority is just putting on a mask

Saving loved ones in danger, even at the risk of one's own life, is a natural knee jerk animal reaction that speaks to our "survival of the species" urges.

But that isn't altruism, that is natural selection based on survival. You keep going back to survival and I'm not sure why when we both know it is not altruism. How many homeless have you invited into your house? Lots of armchair altruistic people on the internet.

When you are not religious, you can freely disagree or agree with any religious tenets. When you are religious you cannot. That makes for lots of hypocritical religious people, trying to reconcile what they really believe and what their religion actually teaches them to believe.

That is your personal view. My point is that if you are not religious then you have no dog in the fight to say anything about them. You are missing a key component of God to actually speak on it.

You also assume you were not taught what you think and that it is different than religious people. Morals are taught, pick your poison as to how...

a reply to: Xtrozero

How much is real and how much is a facade? I would say the vast majority is just putting on a mask

Like religion? Altruism, individually and within society, is as real as empathy is. Even more so, because those who cannot access their empathy can still participate in organized, social altruism, like the charity or church of their choice.

But that isn't altruism, that is natural selection based on survival.

That's not natural selection. Natural selection has to do with procreation and choosing a mate.

Altruism IS a survival mechanism. Of course it is! Why else does it exist, even across species, like with bees.?

originally posted by: Boadicea
Where parents are told that their contribution to the economy and the workplace is more valuable than their contribution to their children's health and well-being so just shut up and let the "experts" make the new rules. Where parents believe them. And parents relinquish their power and control -- some happily, some grudgingly, some who just don't care either way. But the most worrisome ones are those demanding the most control with the worst intentions.

So the left has pushed this idea that a woman working 9 to 5 is a better life than staying at home and taking care of the family. Then these women hit 45 and have nothing but a bank account to show what they have accomplished in life.

to stay home with the children. We would have to re-instill the value of being an active and invested parent, teaching and modeling principles and ethics and critical thinking skills.

Parents in many cases are just lazy and that is reinforced with easy lazy ways out that allows them to be lazy that were not there in the past. It is pretty bad when the parents are worst than the so-called experts.

We would also need to change this hook-up culture

That is a pipe dream... good luck... 70% of Black mothers are single for example... Once again the left is driving much of all this with the cultures they push, so it needs to get so bad that people actually start to push back, kind of like the current wokeness.

We need to do better for married/divorcing/divorced folks as well. But that's harder. No one wants to believe their partner is abusing their kids, and will naturally assume that their child is safe with the other partner. Most abusers are opportunists, and a parent has more opportunity than most.

I don't think this is worst than in the past. It is just more recordable today.

The other big issue is people are not having enough kids today. Either don't have kids or handing them off to others to raise is kind of the model we see today.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

That's not natural selection. Natural selection has to do with procreation and choosing a mate.

So do you think the caveman protected his women because of altruism or because he was protecting his material gains to include the women he screws when the desire comes along?

Altruism IS a survival mechanism. Of course, it is! Why else does it exist, even across species, like with bees.?

I agree it is a fundamental survival mech that we see evolved in species that have colony structures. Humans are pack animals and so do not have a colony structure. This means altruism is not needed and could lead to the worst outcome for humans.

Aitruism is where you focus your life goals to help others, so all your life achievements are directed toward helping others. We see brief glimpses of it, but it is a very rare thing when someone is truly altruistic.

Star Trek... The needs of the many outways the needs of the one, well until Kirk told Spock otherwise.

a reply to: Xtrozero

So the left has pushed this idea that a woman working 9 to 5 is a better life than staying at home and taking care of the family. Then these women hit 45 and have nothing but a bank account to show what they have accomplished in life.

For many, yes. For some, as much as they'd like to be home with their kids, their budget won't allow for it. They need that second income. For others, they could make it on one income, but couldn't afford all the goodies they want -- the new car, big house, designer clothes.

Parents in many cases are just lazy and that is reinforced with easy lazy ways out that allows them to be lazy that were not there in the past. It is pretty bad when the parents are worst than the so-called experts.

It's also ignorance. In the olden days, girls learned to take care of babes and children at their mother's knee, taking care of the younger kids while Mom did other chores. Or, sadly, because Mom died in childbirth and there was no one else to care for the child while Dad was making a living.

I've long thought that we should have daycare centers in every high school, and every student should have to take "child care" as a class. It might go a long way towards showing these youngsters why they don't want to make babies they're not ready to take care of... and it will inform their decision as adults in terms of prep and planning so that they can provide a good home when the time comes. Someone needs to teach the importance and value of good parenting.

That is a pipe dream... good luck... 70% of Black mothers are single for example... Once again the left is driving much of all this with the cultures they push, so it needs to get so bad that people actually start to push back, kind of like the current wokeness.

You're right about all of the above. We do need to push back, and we need to do better than just call the other guy names, which just alienates everyone. Nothing gets accomplished that way.

a reply to: Xtrozero

So do you think the caveman protected his women because of altruism or because he was protecting his material gains to include the women he screws when the desire comes along?

You're conflating altruism with survival of the species, which isn't a conscious decision. It's a knee jerk reaction.

Humans are pack animals and so do not have a colony structure. This means altruism is not needed and could lead to the worst outcome for humans.

Now you're conflating colonization with altruism!

Aitruism is where you focus your life goals to help others, so all your life achievements are directed toward helping others.

No it isn't. Altruism occurs when society is comfortable enough that it can share it's resources with those it would have otherwise killed or abandoned, like a deformed newborn baby or an elderly clan member that can't keep up that the tribe can't afford to feed and care for.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
You're conflating altruism with survival of the species, which isn't a conscious decision. It's a knee jerk reaction.

Actually, that is what you are doing and I'm just pointing it out. Go back and read your posts.

Now you're conflating colonization with altruism!

I'm saying pack animals don't need altruism for survival, such as you suggested.

No it isn't. Altruism occurs when society is comfortable enough that it can share it's resources with those it would have otherwise killed or abandoned, like a deformed newborn baby or an elderly clan member that can't keep up that the tribe can't afford to feed and care for.

Back to my first point... A form of altruism only happens when life is easy and for most, it is a mask they wear to make them look good to others, but really do not have it fundamentally... Thank you for backing up my point.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Actually, that is what you are doing and I'm just pointing it out. Go back and read your posts.

Nope. You misunderstand. A social policy of "women and children first" is an altruistic policy. The immediate urge to protect your genetic progeny or the person responsible for your genetic progeny's life is a "survival of the species" urge. Even the spontaneous urge to push a stranger out of the path of a moving car, a risk to oneself is a "survival of the species" urge, not altruism.

The social agreement to kill those who kill, and not everyone you wish were dead because they hurt you or a loved one, is an altruistic social agreement.

I'm saying pack animals don't need altruism for survival, such as you suggested.

Yes they do. Domesticated dogs are very altruistic animals, but their immediate motive to serve, protect and save their human's life is based in self-preservation, acceptance and stability. The domesticated dog is ensured a certain level of survival of the dog species.

Back to my first point... A form of altruism only happens when life is easy and for most

That's what I've been saying all along; social altruism typically arises from a situation where a society is secure enough in its bare necessities that it can allow those that contribute less and/or are less desirable to continue to live within it. Thanks for backing my point.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Nope. You misunderstand. A social policy of "women and children first" is an altruistic policy.

You are just flipping back and forth like you seem to do a lot...lol

Your words along with others like it.

Saving loved ones in danger, even at the risk of one's own life, is a natural knee jerk animal reaction that speaks to our "survival of the species" urges.

The social agreement to kill those who kill, and not everyone you wish were dead because they hurt you or a loved one, is an altruistic social agreement.

I disagree, it's more of an eye for an eye response.

Yes they do.

It's a pack mentality that they would kill any other dog from another pack. That is not altruistic by nature.

That's what I've been saying all along; social altruism typically arises from a situation where a society is secure enough in its bare necessities that it can allow those that contribute less and/or are less desirable to continue to live within it. Thanks for backing my point.

So why did you say "nonsense" to start this all off in my first post where I said...

Altruism only exists for people whose life is easy.

Altruismin for bees is a requirement for survival, but not in humans. One of the reasons communism fails so miserably.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Altruismin for bees is a requirement for survival, but not in humans.

This ^^^ is the ideology that I reject as nonsense. In fact, you said that real altruism doesn't even exist among humans, which again, is nonsense.

You are just flipping back and forth like you seem to do a lot

Altruism does exist among humans. It arises naturally in individuals and in society. I think you're failing to see the distinction between the two. For the purpose of this thread, I am referring to social altruism and the current agreement we have to, as a society, specifically "to kill those who kill". (On the flip side, you also have altruistic individuals who may in dire need themselves and still give freely. But that's another topic and not what we're talking about here.)

Altruismin for bees is a requirement for survival, but not in humans.

Nonsense.

One of the reasons communism fails so miserably.

Communism is an economic model based on equity, unlike the capitalistic model which is based on a free market. Communism and altruism are not the same things.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Hey, what happened to castrating and offing Pedos?

Thread drift

a reply to: infolurker

Well, my post did include this:

I am referring to social altruism and the current agreement we have to, as a society, specifically "to kill those who kill".

Hey, what happened to castrating and offing Pedos?

Don't they already chemically castrate sex offenders?

As far as offing pedos...see the above quote.

Personally, I don't think we should be executing people that aren't killers. I think life in prison is appropriate, and that we as a altruistic society are obligated to absorb society's ills and woes, as they are our ills and woes.

a reply to: Sookiechacha
sounds like it will target sexual abusers.. if trans people fall into that category, who's fault is that.