Trans woman beaten

[Ana the Ist]

“How would people who are so afflicted find the support to get the help that they need if they’re likely to be classified in with actual criminal predators?”, I believe is the question.

They can already find that help. It's called Dr-patient confidentiality. Thoughts aren't a crime (yet anyway) and Drs would not be able to report such things without serious financial and professional consequences.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Perhaps. But self-control can be powerful.

There are psychopathic people out there who get violent urges to harm people too, and yet many of them are able to suppress them.

It's a mental disorder and they need help. But it doesn't make them a criminal if they haven't done anything wrong.

I don't know if psychopathy is considered a disorder. It's more like a cluster of unlikely personality traits that resulted from our evolution from tribal hominids.

 

[Strathos]

Are you talking about the guy that raped children or the guy who physically abused his family?

Does it matter? That's not how the justice system should ever work.

Yeah...I don't know if virtuous is the right word.

I didn't come up with it.

Pedophile is about the worst thing you can be in our society. It's not much of a virtue if you abstain from it. I'd wager we both have abstained from it our entire lives....without even thinking of it.

Because we don't have those kinds of urges. Our brains aren't wired that way.

It's a bit like saying that thinking about mass murder but not doing it is virtuous.

Well if your brain was wired in a way to make it an appealing act to you...

They're literally trying to rebrand themselves as MAPS and hop on the LGBTQ+ train to normalization. I would wager that their success is going to be based on how much they can shame people into abandoning their values. I don't think pedophobe will work well as a slur...but I've been wrong about these things in the past.

The people doing that are the ones who want to normalize and legalize pedophilia, aka the ones that everyone (I hope) agrees are wrong. That's not the same as those who have those attractions, but know it's wrong and refuse to ever act on it.

 

[Strathos]

I don't know if psychopathy is considered a disorder. It's more like a cluster of unlikely personality traits that resulted from our evolution from tribal hominids.

Psychopathy - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

 

[Ana the Ist]

There's a big difference between 'backing' him, and believing that he should have been given a fair trial and not executed by a vigilante.

You're misusing the term vigilante.

It implies that Kyle was there with the intent of harming criminals. I don't think there's any way he could have known the criminal history of the people he shot.

When the only crime you're preventing is your own murder or serious injury...it's self defense.

We're talking about vigilante justice here.

No. We aren't. Some are...but definitely not we.

If someone is convicted of child molestation, then by all means, send them to prison. That's what prisons and the the justice system are for. Don't rely on vigilantes to shoot them in the street.

Agreed.

And I don't approve of it either. But you seem to be saying that it's okay for a vigilante to go around killing criminals, and anyone who criticizes him for that must be in favor of letting all criminals free with no punishment, which is ridiculous.

Was this argument made by someone?

And what I'm saying is that there are people who have those feelings, but know it is wrong, and refuse to ever act on them. Thus they are not actually harming any children.

Right. Thoughts aren't crimes. I actually prefer when the pedophiles tell us who they are.

I'm not familiar with the details of the case, as I'm not a judge or a lawyer. Perhaps you're right and his 10 year sentence was too light. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that a judge made a bad ruling. But that hardly justifies a civilian just killing him.

It doesn't justify killing him...but it's a pretty good justification for not sympathizing with him as a victim. He's a pedophile who attacked a guy who shot him dead.

When it was declared justified self defense...it's justice for the attempt to murder Kyle, not the pedophile stuff.

What if a hypothetical person also has feelings towards adults and wants to marry another adult and have a family?

They can do that. It's not really a hypothetical if we don't have to imagine it...happens all the time.

I'm talking about just a fit of annoyance, like thinking non-seriously 'wow, I'm going to kill that guy'. That's still a sin. As long as you don't act on it and ask God for forgiveness, you're okay.

Same god who seems to have a fondness for sacrificing innocent lives for his forgiveness?

 

[Nithavela]

But certain people are arguing that he deserved to be killed because of his criminal record, hence suggesting that vigilante justice was appropriate.

Once child molestation enters the picture of any debate, all reason, moderation and common decency vanish into thin air.

 

[Nithavela]

Right. Thoughts aren't crimes. I actually prefer when the pedophiles tell us who they are.

Current society is not conductive to that.

 

[Strathos]

You're misusing the term vigilante.

It implies that Kyle was there with the intent of harming criminals. I don't think there's any way he could have known the criminal history of the people he shot.

When the only crime you're preventing is your own murder or serious injury...it's self defense.

I'm not really talking about what his motives were, but rather the people who are saying that he should be praised because a person he shot was a criminal. That is basically supporting the idea of vigilante justice - it's okay for civilians to go around shooting people if they are criminals.

Was this argument made by someone?

Some were arguing that since people were saying that the shooting was unjustified, that means that they supported everything the victim did, and were 'backing a child molester'. The implication there is that if someone is a child molester, then the law should fly out the window and it's okay to kill that person by any means necessary.

It doesn't justify killing him...but it's a pretty good justification for not sympathizing with him as a victim. He's a pedophile who attacked a guy who shot him dead.

When it was declared justified self defense...it's justice for the attempt to murder Kyle, not the pedophile stuff.

The point being discussed before you arrived was that it was good that he was killed because he was a pedophile. I was pointing out that the law doesn't work that way and saying that kind of thing sets a dangerous precedent.

Same god who seems to have a fondness for sacrificing innocent lives for his forgiveness?

He sacrificed Himself.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm not really talking about what his motives were, but rather the people who are saying that he should be praised because a person he shot was a criminal. That is basically supporting the idea of vigilante justice - it's okay for civilians to go around shooting people if they are criminals.

Well in certain instances it is ok to shoot criminals.

You can't use the word vigilante or describe this as vigilantism without implying motive. If you want to call it that....ok. I don't think going into a dangerous situation to protect others or property is exactly the same thing but I won't haggle...it's close. Let's call it vigilantism.

Some were arguing that since people were saying that the shooting was unjustified, that means that they supported everything the victim did, and were 'backing a child molester'. The implication there is that if someone is a child molester, then the law should fly out the window and it's okay to kill that person by any means necessary.

Let's come back to this at the bottom of the post.

The point being discussed before you arrived was that it was good that he was killed because he was a pedophile.

Good is a moral statement.

I was pointing out that the law doesn't work that way and saying that kind of thing sets a dangerous precedent.

This is a legal statement.

He sacrificed Himself.

What did Abel sacrifice? How about Abraham?

Let's try considering the situation from a different perspective.

You see the murder of Floyd and think the cop should be tried for murder. He is charged in 3 days. Riots ensued. People first justify the riots but as the weeks roll on...they downplay them. Story after story of horrible destruction and death follow...yet one group seems largely sympathetic of those doing the destruction. Police are condemned for using tear gas, or mere force...compared to fascistic police states. Violence against police is downplayed. Businesses already struggling are ruined.

Whenever you point these things out to supporters...they say things like....

"I don't condone violence and destruction, but it's just a few bad actors, these are mostly peaceful."

If you were hearing that sort of thing as a reaction to what you saw as mindless indulgent violence, you probably disagreed...but it's an understandable position even if you disagree with it.

One might even imagine these bad actors as violent criminals using the protests as an excuse to engage in wanton destruction.

Anyway, let's call this position A. A lot of people took this position. A lot of people justified bailing out rioters and dropping charges against them because of this position.

It's even easy to see how if these people who took position A, and still trusted their media was unbiased, would believe that perhaps Kyle Rittenhouse was some evil white supremacist gun loving kid with intentions of mass murder for political or racial reasons....

Now that we know none of that is true, it's hard to understand why people are at this new position.

Let's call it "position B".

It's where they are whining and complaining about a completely justified use of self defense against the exact same bad actors who were the problem in "position A".

One might think that even if they weren't happy those bad actors were killed....at least they would be relieved they can no longer give BLM a bad name. There's no sense of gratitude or contentment that justice was done. They're still whining and complaining about it. They still treat Kyle like he's guilty.

To try and reconcile these two positions....one inevitably comes to some ugly conclusions. Are these people completely deluded and detached from reality? Do they understand that they are the ones to blame for acts of vigilantism when they don't want police to intervene in riots and leave people to defend themselves against mobs? Are they completely devoid of any identifiable morals or values that they hold regardless of whether they serve a political agenda or not? Are they just astonishingly ignorant and living in some sort of confirmation bias bubble?

Tough questions but they're increasingly unavoidable.

I would suggest that they stop defending the bad actors they so recently swore were giving their movement a bad name.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Current society is not conductive to that.

Some aren't. I'd say that it used to be one of the big advantages of a free speech society. Speaking about these things isn't a crime and so the relative anonymity of the internet gave them a place to express themselves, of course, without any incriminating at least.

We are aware of them and if needed, we can find them.

In this current age of social censorship or "cancel culture"...these people and others are rebranding their awful beliefs and ideas in attempt to squeeze them into the realm of legitimacy and normalcy.

This always happened to some extent but I've really never seen it so successful before.

You always kinda knew when someone's racist, or bigoted, or otherwise personally disgusting views were influencing their words.

Now, not so much, you have to keep asking what exactly they are promoting?

 

[coffee4u]

But certain people are arguing that he deserved to be killed because of his criminal record, hence suggesting that vigilante justice was appropriate.

At this point I am starting to wonder if you lack reading comprehension or if this is because you are on the left and so blinded by its feeling ideology that you can't talk impartially.

There's a big difference between 'backing' him, and believing that he should have been given a fair trial and not executed by a vigilante.

We're talking about vigilante justice here.

But you seem to be saying that it's okay for a vigilante to go around killing criminals, and anyone who criticizes him for that must be in favor of letting all criminals free with no punishment, which is ridiculous.

No we are not talking about vigilante justice.
You ignore where I say I am not saying what they did was right or wrong and not talking about your justice system.
As I clearly said twice I am discussing how society has changed in that particular post.
My mistake thinking an adult on the left can have an impartial conversation.

 

[SilverBear]

Academia is the birthplace of leftist narratives.

You certainly don't have to believe it. You probably should consider though...

1. Trans activists have largely convinced a significant number of people on the left that children can consent to life changing medical procedures based on their feelings.

Certain conservatives have tried very hard to convince people that children can and are consenting to life changing medical procedures even though such activities would violate the practice standards all licensed hospitals and care facilities in this country agree to leading to loss of license and opening themselves up to criminal proceedings..

2. They are pushing for young children to explore gender identity and sexuality in early education.

Bull

What exactly is the argument going to be if 5 years from now they say that relationships between adults and children are just a marginalized sexuality that should be accepted?

those supporting discrimination have been using this fear mongering for generations. It's a sad commentary on the integrity of the people who try to use it today.

 

[SilverBear]

They can already find that help. It's called Dr-patient confidentiality. Thoughts aren't a crime (yet anyway) and Drs would not be able to report such things without serious financial and professional consequences.

no they really can't. It is next to impossible for such individuals to find therapeutic assistance if they have not actually engaged is acts with a minor. They can tell a medical doctor but PCP's don't deal with counseling. Mental health agencies generally only deal with such individuals through a court order.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Certain conservatives have tried very hard to convince people that children can and are consenting to life changing medical procedures even though such activities would violate the practice standards all licensed hospitals and care facilities in this country agree to leading to loss of license and opening themselves up to criminal proceedings..

And what am I to believe when medical professionals themselves are saying this?

 

[Ana the Ist]

no they really can't. It is next to impossible for such individuals to find therapeutic assistance if they have not actually engaged is acts with a minor. They can tell a medical doctor but PCP's don't deal with counseling.

They can tell a Dr and that Dr can refer them to a cognitive behavioral psychologist...

Who will also grant them Dr/patient confidiality.

Mental health agencies generally only deal with such individuals through a court order.

According to who?

 

[SilverBear]

And what am I to believe when medical professionals themselves are saying this?

and what exactly are these medical professionals saying?

 

[SilverBear]

They can tell a Dr and that Dr can refer them to a cognitive behavioral psychologist...

yeah right

 

[Ana the Ist]

and what exactly are these medical professionals saying?

AMA to states: Stop interfering in health care of transgender children

You want me to highlight the parts that explicitly show you're wrong?

Or do you now know you are badly misinformed?

 

[Ana the Ist]

yeah right

Yeah.....that's exactly how that scenario works. When you have a problem your Dr can't address, he refers you to a specialist.

 

[SilverBear]

AMA to states: Stop interfering in health care of transgender children

You want me to highlight the parts that explicitly show you're wrong?

If you could do that you would have done so.



Your claim was : "1. Trans activists have largely convinced a significant number of people on the left that children can consent to life changing medical procedures based on their feelings."

This is of course not true and your attempt to insert the AMA here doesn't help you show such.

Here the AMA is saying that legislatures are nto medical professionals and creating laws that stop doctors form providing information about potential treatment options is at best wrong headed and at worst harmful. THe AMA writes:"Decisions about medical care belong within the sanctity of the patient-physician relationship. As with all medical interventions, physicians are guided by their ethical duty to act in the best interest of their patients and must tailor recommendations about specific interventions and the timing of those interventions to each patient’s unique circumstances. Such decisions must be sensitive to the child’s clinical situation, nurture the child’s short and long-term development, and balance the need to preserve the child’s opportunity to make important life choices autonomously in the future."

The AMA mentions the Arkansas Safe Act specifically. Among it's provisions was the section that would have criminalized....Criminalized a doctor just talking to anyone under the age of 18 about a variety of medication including puberty blockers. Not prescribe...just talk.