Controversial - the place to discuss controversial topics

434 readers

1 users here now

Controversial - the community to discuss controversial topics.

Challenge others opinions and be challenged on your own.

This is not a safe space nor an echo-chamber, you come here to discuss in a civilized way, no flaming, no insults!

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, "trust me bro" is not a valid argument.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Hastur

-46

Pedophiles don't deserve rights (lemmy.world)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/controversial

47 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Not all humans inherently deserve rights just because they are human. Think of people like Hiter, Jeffrey Dahmer, and the dozens of other evil people. No one would reasonably think they deserve sympathy, because of what they chose to do.

If your evil enough to commit such a heinous act as child rape, I don't see any legitimate reason why that person should deserve any sort of sympathy.

Subconsciously everyone agrees on this to some extent. Look at prisons, (depending on the crime) they remove your right to vote, own a gun, even walk outside, and have certain jobs.

The reason I believed my take is controversial is because of how I think those pedos would lose their rights. I believe people as evil as them aren't people at all. They are simply containers of flesh with a human face, and should be seen as such. I have no issue with the idea they should be used as slaves and test subjects. Arguably this would actually benefit humanity (especially in terms of medicine) because now instead of risking the lives of innocent people like doctors or everyday Joe's, we could use them to see if the experimental drug has any side effects. Honestly, what are they going to do? Revoke consent? I wonder of the child they raped got that same privilege...

I'm sure this goes without saying but the person would have to be caught red-handed with undeniable proof to be subjected to this

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Rights are innate, a property of being born, not something granted, or conferred, by government or anyone else. Anything granted by someone else is a privilege, not a right.

Whether one's rights are constrained via due process is a different question: criminal's rights are curtailed when they're jailed after being convicted by a jury of their peers (a right established in US criminal law, to be tried by one's peers, not just some magistrate, or some land owner).

Methinks you should revisit civics 101.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 5 months ago

Rights are innate, a property of being born, not something granted, or conferred, by government or anyone else. Anything granted by someone else is a privilege, not a right

This would make everything a privilege. The only reason rights exist is because governments allow it, so if tomorrow they said we don't have rights, then what are we going to do about it?

Even the American Bill of Rights has been edited, added to, and have had things removed over time

The fact is rights are a human construct that only exist because of us. The universe or God doesn't give us rights, government leaders do.

Whether one's rights are constrained via due process is a different question

The concept of constrained or curtailed rights is a contradiction. If rights are inherent by birth and can not be taken away, then that also means you can not reduce, shorten, or edit them in any way. As that would be a violation of rights that seemingly can not be taken away