SteveXVII @ SteveXVII @pawb.social

Posts

21

Comments

127

Joined

2 yr. ago

Tx :3

Let's gooo

Tx

In Austria🇦🇹In Austria🇦🇹

EDIT: Sorry, I misread the comment, it was taken on august 2023

Just my phone.

:3

I don't know if ypu're still interested, I was busy and kinda lost interest in this conversation.

I am glad that I now understand a bit better where you're coming from, my assumption that the pedophile you were talking about was non-offending was a mistake on my part. The reference to drag queens was not about the actual danger they present (which is as far as I know not significant) but about the perceived danger, which is unfortunately quite there, but it was based on a wrong assumption, at least in this case.

Now I am still not sure about your initial statement, I don't know which country you are from so that makes it a bit difficult to know what the justice system is there. Or acces to therapy for that matter.

(In my country (the Netherlands) you'd end up in prison if you actually do that, and to be fair, I wouldn't blame my country's justice system for doing that.)

I might be wrong, but are you suggesting killing the pedo yourself? And another question, is the pedo in particular offending (meaning that they have commited crimes related to pedophilia, such as watching, or making CSAM, groping, molesting, etc.) or non-offending? In all my replies, including this one I assumed the latter, which I just realized might not be the case.

Maybe the bullet works from an american perspective: with easy acces to guns and a garbage justice system, maybe this is the source of our misunderstanding since I am European and the justice system in my country isn't shit and guns aren't easily accesible.

Even if this is the case I still disagree with your opinion. First of al because using the bullet sets a precedent that causes pedo's to hide the fact that they are even more, the next time you encounter one you might not even notice.

And to give them the benefit of the doubt, maybe they don't trust therapists. Maybe the pedo who confessed to you only did so because they trusted you, but that's just an assumption. And even if that wasn't the case in this anecdote, it might be true for many pedo's. It is a big secret after all. And considering how crazy people can go because of drag queens, because of the fear that they MIGHT do something to children, I can imagine that they rather keep their secret. It is not unreasonable to think some fear for their lives.

Can you maybe point out where my stubbornnes to put words in your mouth is? I don't think I have done so.

And I want to add a more nitpicky argument, stating that it is significantly more likely that a pedo doesn't seek help on the basis of 1 person is just plain wrong. Since the margin of error spans from basically 0% to 100%.

I want to make one thing clear about the intentions of my comments: all I was trying to do was disqualifying what you said, and the reason for that is simple: you drew a serious conclusion (arguing for the bullet) supported by weak evidence (anecdotal evidence), and I can't stand that.

The conclusion that you assumed in article 2 is not true, I wasn't asserting that, so I don't need evidence for that. My 'proper argument' was that yours was weak.

About article 3: Your conclusion appears to be quite different from the comment you made earlier. First you said that you tried to get a pedo to seek help, that your attempt failed and that therefore the bullet is the answer. Now you say that that is the solution when locking them up doesn't work (or get them to seek help.) Wouldn't that be a better solution in the first place? Why did you argue for the bullet straight away? Heck you even started arguing for the bullet without considering imprisonment one article further.

First things first: the only thing I did was disqualifying what you said, and since you used anecdotal evidence, I think it is more than fair that I did just that. How can I have pulled anything out of my arse if that is the only thing I did?

Anecdotal evidence being better than the supposed shit I said (I didn't find any, maybe you can point it out?) doesn't mean that your argument is any good, and wouldn't it be reasonable to expect good arguments if you are arguing for the bullet?

And I didn't need to do any research so far because just thinking for myself is sufficient at the moment, and before you ask me to do research, I'll recommend doing some yourself.

Is anecdotal evidence accurate? This guy says yes.

:3

I don't think OP said or meant that.

:(

Don't

Hell yeah

Good bot

18

Uncorrupt is impossible, maybe it is better to advocate for low levrls of corruption. Less corruption --> less damage.

That just sounds like a higher price with extra steps.