What to do with ‘criminals’, when there are so many...

Because extermination tends to end in extinction, and most people would prefer not to be extinct.

If that’s all true, women have been able to exert incredible influence - even to directing men’s behaviour through their mere expectations,.
If women were able to do this, when they were not allowed to vote, own property, hold public office or directorships in business, enter professions, speak in public or have a higher education, for most of the time civilization has existed, while men have been unable to solve most of humanity’s problems, then women must be a thousand times as clever as men.
Why not turn the running of the world over to them?
Not only would they have no more cause for complaint; not only would they be stuck with the mess; not only would it keep them too busy to annoy men, but —
---- they might actually solve the problems!

Amen. We would.

As an American Nation we must end this gender war between genders. Women must stop their hatred and bigotry against men, and men must stop their hatred and bigotry against women, if we are to experience true sexual healing as a nation. Men must once again love women, and women must once again love men.

As President of America I will send all serious criminals to Africa. They can help in humanitarian efforts in helping the economy and civilization of the African Plains.

England, Germany, Belgium, France and Holland did that already, two hundred years ago.

Rehabilitation is key I think, so when people talk about 20-30 year old cases it makes me wonder. If ‘they’ [your brothers, sons, husbands and fathers] haven’t done anything in all that time, the situation has already been sorted, so no use flogging a dead horse there.

Crime has gone down significantly over the last hundred years, rapes down by 70% etc. They used to be much tougher and more authoritative in the past and things were much much worse. If you read the end of my last post, that’s the math that counts. You put more people in jail or otherwise do worse things to them, and you are simply perpetuating the duality. Get worse and it will get worse, its like an engine of evil or something.

Yuk that sounds horrible. They would put how many men inside? Homunculus said around 51% of men have committed violent acts on women, I also noticed a study showed 1/4 men get involuntary instinctive erection when showed child porn. a lady I went with for ten years would punch me straight in the face when I upset her, we used to proper fight, but guess who would have gone to jail.

We’d be living on a prison planet if women ruled us, and frankly I don’t know how women are superior when they are so patently dumb about getting real with what the world really is like and is about. Strong men will hit things that annoy or attack them, they often want that kind of man and then complain when they are what they are like - ridiculous. Without that we wouldn’t be here to complain about anything, cos he who lives by the sword doesn’t get their [and their womans and childrens] face eaten off by lions.

Look, if there were somehow only women, then they would have to be like that too, its just what you have to be like to survive.

So I say no to women ruling us, they aren’t more intelligent than me and mostly talk a load of inane drivel all day long.

They are ruling over us, and increasingly so. Merkel is an example, and look, she ruined Germany, feminism in politics have ruined Europe…let’s see how Marine le pen
handles the french issue

Just destroy the Earth before we get off of it.

Inside of what? Who said the solution to anything is more prisons?

so I said, (as a joke, btw) if that’s true, women must be pretty damn smart and might be able to solve the problems men have not been able to solve.
The odds are very much against women trying the same failed strategies that men have been attempting for so long. Odds are, they would lock nobody up, but organize a society where crime is prevented, rather than incited and then punished — that’s the Abrahamian approach.

Noooooo. Humunculus, responded “sounds like 49%” to the question “What percent of the population do these dumb bitches want to put in prison?”
About 51% of the population is female. I don’t know how many of “these dumb bitches” - whom I have neither seen nor heard - there are, or what percent of all women they represent.
In neither case are they expressing my statistics, convictions or desires.

And they didn’t commit a crime. However, the person showing them child porn is an accessory to the crime of producing child porn.

what the psychologist conducting the experiment?

Yes.
If real child pornography exists, somebody made it. Making it is both immoral and illegal. So is procuring and distributing it.

If the psychologist was able to produce a facsimile of child porn, without the presence of any children at any stage of the production, and it never leaves the laboratory, he’s still contributing to the delinquency - or potential delinquency - of the subjects of the experiment. He has no way of knowing how many of the sample are latent already pedophiles (have not yet acted on it), and how many have the predilection but have not yet discovered it. He has no way of knowing how his research will affect these vulnerable subjects, and how they will later affect the community.

Science and reality are incompatible.

In what way?
Specifically, how does that perceived incompatibility pertain to the subject of sex crime?

humunculus wrote

Science has a way of disparaging better judgement in the name of science contributing to the lack of better judgement in those individuals with predilections of sexual disorders who participate in all sorts of “warped” experiments, thus science is currently incompatible with reality in it’s projected outcomes. Not knowing how his research will affect these vulnerable subjects seems to in reality be not caring about the vulnerable subjects, which should make said scientists criminally responsible for playing with fire.

I don’t actually know about the particular experiment. It does seem to have a degree of irresponsibility or callousness about it, but I couldn’t judge from so little information.

However, that single experiment - or eve if there are dozens, equally ill-conceived - doesn’t represent all of science.
Nor do pedophiles and potential pedophiles represent all of reality.

Let’s say : Some approaches to science are incompatible with social mores.
And then be circumspect in designing our psychological research experiments. Some of them really can go quite horribly wrong.

We can suppose that the research - if genuine and properly documented - might be helpful in early diagnosis and prevention; might be helpful in the education of boys and young men; might even be helpful in the treatment of pedophiles.

But, of course, if we really cared about the children, we’d make a less shitty society.

A less shitty society means less regard for science, more regard for nature and its people.

I don’t think so: science is natural. Science is something people naturally do, in order to understand the world and ourselves.
Remember, it’s the scientists that have changed the treatment of illness from purging and chants to surgery and medication;
it’s the scientists who look for causes other than the wrath of some god;
it’s the scientists who have been warning us about environmental degradation and climate change –
and the religious who have been vehemently denying all evidence.

What we need is less hubris: less certainty about our assumptions, less conclusion-jumping, more thought and care and treading softly.
Balance could be achieved between head and heart - if balance were what we wanted.

Lol. Couldn’t help yourself could you?

Wasn’t in need of help. Truth stands.
In this instance, it’s also relevant: the dominant religions of the last couple of millennia have been hostile to nature,
and way too cozy with the secular powers that are most destructive to nature. They had the obligation to reconcile
man’s ambition with his altruism, and they didn’t settle for failure; they went on to evil.