Sociopath Community

QuietBeef said: 

Kestrel said: 

QuietBeef said: 

Kestrel said:

As I always say, once the foot is in the door, the door only opens wider.

 This used to be a common argument against gay marriage. And women's rights. And rights for minorities.

 It's a very general phrase that doesn't have a specific positive or negative connotation. The door on civil rights, womens rights and gay marriage deserved to be opened. The doors for the ridiculousness appearing in 2019, not so much.
 

 The ridiculousness appearing in 2019 is a product of the degeneracy before it. Degeneracy is a fluid concept, it's whatever current society is slowly realizing it likes but isn't ready to admit to yet. The sentiment you expressed in the way you expressed it, is what's been said to every new wave of social expectation that we eventually come to terms with. Society progresses and as it does, it's idea of progression progresses. Fearing the change has never stopped it. You're wasting your energy trying to hold culture in its time and place, it can't be done. Relax and ride the wave of the future. l0l

 I disagree with that. The issues addressed in the past were done so for a considerable part of the population and were needed for society to function smoothly. That can not be said for Clown World politics. There's two entirely different mentalities and people between the two movements. 

The phrase I used was very general and can be used for literally anything. But that doesn't mean every situation is the right application for it. Burn this strawman

Kestrel said: 

QuietBeef said: 

Kestrel said: 

QuietBeef said: 

Kestrel said:

As I always say, once the foot is in the door, the door only opens wider.

 This used to be a common argument against gay marriage. And women's rights. And rights for minorities.

 It's a very general phrase that doesn't have a specific positive or negative connotation. The door on civil rights, womens rights and gay marriage deserved to be opened. The doors for the ridiculousness appearing in 2019, not so much.

 The ridiculousness appearing in 2019 is a product of the degeneracy before it. Degeneracy is a fluid concept, it's whatever current society is slowly realizing it likes but isn't ready to admit to yet. The sentiment you expressed in the way you expressed it, is what's been said to every new wave of social expectation that we eventually come to terms with. Society progresses and as it does, it's idea of progression progresses. Fearing the change has never stopped it. You're wasting your energy trying to hold culture in its time and place, it can't be done. Relax and ride the wave of the future. l0l

I disagree with that. The issues addressed in the past were done so for a considerable part of the population and were needed for society to function smoothly.

What's the difference here, that it hasn't snowballed far enough yet? 

That can not be said for Clown World politics. There's two entirely different mentalities and people between the two movements. 

How so? 

Turncoat said: 

Kestrel said: 

QuietBeef said: 

Kestrel said: 

QuietBeef said: 

Kestrel said:

As I always say, once the foot is in the door, the door only opens wider.

 This used to be a common argument against gay marriage. And women's rights. And rights for minorities.

 It's a very general phrase that doesn't have a specific positive or negative connotation. The door on civil rights, womens rights and gay marriage deserved to be opened. The doors for the ridiculousness appearing in 2019, not so much.

 The ridiculousness appearing in 2019 is a product of the degeneracy before it. Degeneracy is a fluid concept, it's whatever current society is slowly realizing it likes but isn't ready to admit to yet. The sentiment you expressed in the way you expressed it, is what's been said to every new wave of social expectation that we eventually come to terms with. Society progresses and as it does, it's idea of progression progresses. Fearing the change has never stopped it. You're wasting your energy trying to hold culture in its time and place, it can't be done. Relax and ride the wave of the future. l0l

I disagree with that. The issues addressed in the past were done so for a considerable part of the population and were needed for society to function smoothly.

What's the difference here, that it hasn't snowballed far enough yet? 

America was forced to address previous progressive movements because they were actual concerns for a large part of the population. Now it's arguing for less than 5% of the US and maybe only half of them at best to whom it concerns. You cant compare people demanding 56 genders to be recognized to real progressive movements.

That can not be said for Clown World politics. There's two entirely different mentalities and people between the two movements. 

How so? 

 the response above should do for this as well.

What are your thoughts on Chemical Castration in relation to reported pedophiles Syst?

Wikipedia said:

On Men: 

When used on men, these drugs can reduce sex drive, compulsive sexual fantasies, and capacity for sexual arousal. Life-threatening side effects are rare, but some users show increases in body fat and reduced bone density, which increase long-term risk of cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis. They may also experience gynecomastia (development of larger-than-normal mammary glands in males) as seen in Alan Turing's case.


On Women: 

When used on women, the effects are similar, though there is little research about chemically lowering women's sex drive or female-specific anaphrodisiacs, since most research focuses on the opposite, but anti-androgenic hormone regimens would lower testosterone in women which can impact sex drive or sexual response. These drugs also deflate the breast glands and expand the size of the nipple. Also seen is a sudden shrink in bone mass and discoloration of the lips, reduced body hair, and muscle mass.

"Chemical castration is often seen as an easier alternative to life imprisonment or the death penalty because it allows the release of sex offenders while reducing or eliminating the chance that they reoffend."

Turncoat said: 

What are your thoughts on Chemical Castration in relation to reported pedophiles Syst?

Wikipedia said:

On Men: 

When used on men, these drugs can reduce sex drive, compulsive sexual fantasies, and capacity for sexual arousal. Life-threatening side effects are rare, but some users show increases in body fat and reduced bone density, which increase long-term risk of cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis. They may also experience gynecomastia (development of larger-than-normal mammary glands in males) as seen in Alan Turing's case.


On Women: 

When used on women, the effects are similar, though there is little research about chemically lowering women's sex drive or female-specific anaphrodisiacs, since most research focuses on the opposite, but anti-androgenic hormone regimens would lower testosterone in women which can impact sex drive or sexual response. These drugs also deflate the breast glands and expand the size of the nipple. Also seen is a sudden shrink in bone mass and discoloration of the lips, reduced body hair, and muscle mass.

"Chemical castration is often seen as an easier alternative to life imprisonment or the death penalty because it allows the release of sex offenders while reducing or eliminating the chance that they reoffend."

 I think chemical castration should be elective at most. I think it's a decent choice but I would never stand for the state enforcing it.

Kestrel said: 

Turncoat said: 

What are your thoughts on Chemical Castration in relation to reported pedophiles Syst?

Wikipedia said:

On Men: 

When used on men, these drugs can reduce sex drive, compulsive sexual fantasies, and capacity for sexual arousal. Life-threatening side effects are rare, but some users show increases in body fat and reduced bone density, which increase long-term risk of cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis. They may also experience gynecomastia (development of larger-than-normal mammary glands in males) as seen in Alan Turing's case.


On Women: 

When used on women, the effects are similar, though there is little research about chemically lowering women's sex drive or female-specific anaphrodisiacs, since most research focuses on the opposite, but anti-androgenic hormone regimens would lower testosterone in women which can impact sex drive or sexual response. These drugs also deflate the breast glands and expand the size of the nipple. Also seen is a sudden shrink in bone mass and discoloration of the lips, reduced body hair, and muscle mass.

"Chemical castration is often seen as an easier alternative to life imprisonment or the death penalty because it allows the release of sex offenders while reducing or eliminating the chance that they reoffend."

I think chemical castration should be elective at most. I think it's a decent choice but I would never stand for the state enforcing it.

Not even against pedophiles? Worried about a mistrial or something? 

What should be done about the ones who refuse the treatment? 

Turncoat said: 

Kestrel said: 

Turncoat said: 

What are your thoughts on Chemical Castration in relation to reported pedophiles Syst?

Wikipedia said:

On Men: 

When used on men, these drugs can reduce sex drive, compulsive sexual fantasies, and capacity for sexual arousal. Life-threatening side effects are rare, but some users show increases in body fat and reduced bone density, which increase long-term risk of cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis. They may also experience gynecomastia (development of larger-than-normal mammary glands in males) as seen in Alan Turing's case.


On Women: 

When used on women, the effects are similar, though there is little research about chemically lowering women's sex drive or female-specific anaphrodisiacs, since most research focuses on the opposite, but anti-androgenic hormone regimens would lower testosterone in women which can impact sex drive or sexual response. These drugs also deflate the breast glands and expand the size of the nipple. Also seen is a sudden shrink in bone mass and discoloration of the lips, reduced body hair, and muscle mass.

"Chemical castration is often seen as an easier alternative to life imprisonment or the death penalty because it allows the release of sex offenders while reducing or eliminating the chance that they reoffend."

I think chemical castration should be elective at most. I think it's a decent choice but I would never stand for the state enforcing it.

Not even against pedophiles? Worried about a mistrial or something? 

What should be done about the ones who refuse the treatment? 

 No one deserves to have someone force an change like that. It's a scary precedent and my whole door phrase comes to mind. Because there are people who commit statutory with say a 16-17 year old that do have to register as sex offenders. The punishment on them is too severe imo and there needs to be more of a distinction. I can't imagine the state forcing someone to take pills because they got drunk and didnt ask for a girls ID

Ideally, I see pedophiles that have exploited say 12 year olds and under, having the option of their prison sentence being lightened if they take chemical castration after their sentence is up.

Penis probation essentially

Kestrel said: 

Turncoat said: 

Kestrel said: 

Turncoat said: 

What are your thoughts on Chemical Castration in relation to reported pedophiles Syst?

Wikipedia said:

On Men:

When used on men, these drugs can reduce sex drive, compulsive sexual fantasies, and capacity for sexual arousal. Life-threatening side effects are rare, but some users show increases in body fat and reduced bone density, which increase long-term risk of cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis. They may also experience gynecomastia (development of larger-than-normal mammary glands in males) as seen in Alan Turing's case.


On Women: 

When used on women, the effects are similar, though there is little research about chemically lowering women's sex drive or female-specific anaphrodisiacs, since most research focuses on the opposite, but anti-androgenic hormone regimens would lower testosterone in women which can impact sex drive or sexual response. These drugs also deflate the breast glands and expand the size of the nipple. Also seen is a sudden shrink in bone mass and discoloration of the lips, reduced body hair, and muscle mass.

"Chemical castration is often seen as an easier alternative to life imprisonment or the death penalty because it allows the release of sex offenders while reducing or eliminating the chance that they reoffend."

I think chemical castration should be elective at most. I think it's a decent choice but I would never stand for the state enforcing it.

Not even against pedophiles? Worried about a mistrial or something? 

What should be done about the ones who refuse the treatment? 

No one deserves to have someone force an change like that. It's a scary precedent and my whole door phrase comes to mind.

Not even pedophiles? 

Because there are people who commit statutory with say a 16-17 year old that do have to register as sex offenders.

I mean there should be a line there depending on circumstances, but I can see how stuff gets muddy there. 

Setting an age bar for where chemical castration is the proper response would be the answer then, yeah? What practical purpose is there to keep a man's junk going if they're looking for a buffet of five year olds? 

The punishment on them is too severe imo and there needs to be more of a distinction. I can't imagine the state forcing someone to take pills because they got drunk and didnt ask for a girls ID

I guess it could be like a three strikes policy or something. 

Ideally, I see pedophiles actively charged that have exploited say 12 year olds and under having the option of their prison sentence being lightened if they take chemical castration.

It would likely save the system a lot more money to have solutions where a pedophile doesn't need to be housed and fed to keep them away from the rest of society.

...but what about those who go after children not because of sexual intrigue, but instead over power? Even without genitals working as they'd like them to, they could still find ways to get something out of it. 

Turncoat said: 

Kestrel said: 

Turncoat said: 

Kestrel said: 

Turncoat said: 

What are your thoughts on Chemical Castration in relation to reported pedophiles Syst?

Wikipedia said:

On Men:

When used on men, these drugs can reduce sex drive, compulsive sexual fantasies, and capacity for sexual arousal. Life-threatening side effects are rare, but some users show increases in body fat and reduced bone density, which increase long-term risk of cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis. They may also experience gynecomastia (development of larger-than-normal mammary glands in males) as seen in Alan Turing's case.


On Women: 

When used on women, the effects are similar, though there is little research about chemically lowering women's sex drive or female-specific anaphrodisiacs, since most research focuses on the opposite, but anti-androgenic hormone regimens would lower testosterone in women which can impact sex drive or sexual response. These drugs also deflate the breast glands and expand the size of the nipple. Also seen is a sudden shrink in bone mass and discoloration of the lips, reduced body hair, and muscle mass.

"Chemical castration is often seen as an easier alternative to life imprisonment or the death penalty because it allows the release of sex offenders while reducing or eliminating the chance that they reoffend."

I think chemical castration should be elective at most. I think it's a decent choice but I would never stand for the state enforcing it.

Not even against pedophiles? Worried about a mistrial or something? 

What should be done about the ones who refuse the treatment? 

No one deserves to have someone force an change like that. It's a scary precedent and my whole door phrase comes to mind.

Not even pedophiles? 

Not even pedophiles.

Because there are people who commit statutory with say a 16-17 year old that do have to register as sex offenders.

I mean there should be a line there depending on circumstances, but I can see how stuff gets muddy there. 

Setting an age bar for where chemical castration is the proper response would be the answer then, yeah? What practical purpose is there to keep a man's junk going if they're looking for a buffet of five year olds? 

Do you think the state governing physical aspects of your body is a good direction for society to go?

The punishment on them is too severe imo and there needs to be more of a distinction. I can't imagine the state forcing someone to take pills because they got drunk and didnt ask for a girls ID

I guess it could be like a three strikes policy or something. 

I would not even agree to that. It should always be a choice, there is no need for strikes. Pedophiles are dealt with severely already, across all people they are a hated demographic. 

Ideally, I see pedophiles actively charged that have exploited say 12 year olds and under having the option of their prison sentence being lightened if they take chemical castration.

It would likely save the system a lot more money to have solutions where a pedophile doesn't need to be housed and fed to keep them away from the rest of society.

...but what about those who go after children not because of sexual intrigue, but instead over power? Even without genitals working as they'd like them to, they could still find ways to get something out of it. 

 Yeah but we can't be like insects or robots working off of efficiency. Our world works in almost an opposite manner, principles conveyed are as important as the actions decided on.

On the pedos for power bit, there are no pedophiles abusing the legal system in that way. Very few crimes are dealt with more harshly than pedophilia