I haven't heard anyone mention this IRL. It's just an arena for foids and incels to repeat the same dumb shit they've been repeating since Tumblr and Somethingawful. I resent every bit of information about this that's been foisted on me.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5897571&forum_id=2.#50094995)

It's just an illustration of women being incompatible with technological society. Even if we magically took away all of women's rights, they'd still be getting constantly brainwashed by stuff like this 24/7 just from being exposed to the matrix. Not a solvable problem

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5897571&forum_id=2.#50095010)

The only CR to this shit is avoiding it and if some woman brings it up you treat it the same you'd treat reality TV or office drama they'd be yapping about otherwise: "Wow that's crazy babe haha."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5897571&forum_id=2.#50095025)

As usual, men are actually not misogynistic ***enough***

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5897571&forum_id=2.#50095056)

It's an IQ test but I think the CR is not caring at all. Responding to this hysteria exacerbates it because you're saying it's legitimate enough to merit a response. It's no different than a kid throwing a tantrum. You don't hate them for acting like a child and you don't engage with them like a man.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5897571&forum_id=2.#50095069)

The Online Right is just embarrassing themselves by denying the validity of any insanity plea. It's easy to beat your chest all the time and that's how you end up in the Iran War.

Conversely Lindsay's supporters at the courthouse dressed in pink cheered when Lindsay's van came through. This was considered so offensive that the event organizer had to apologize and say she told them not to do it.

So yeah it's Ls all around. Only winners imo are actual criminal trial attorneys that are following the case intently and have provided the public with unbiased opinions. Everyone else looks gay af.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5897571&forum_id=2.#50095057)

If someone is truly "insane" enough to, for example, commit a triple murder of their own children, it is *more* of a reason to remove them from society via criminal sentencing

Someone who merely chose to murder their own children for personal gain or revenge could conceivably be reformed or contribute to society in some way (it's a stretch, but it's conceivably possible). But someone who is a complete and utter lunatic to the extent that they would commit that sort of crime without "knowing" or "understanding" what they were doing is irredeemable. They're just intrinsically worthless and should be eliminated from society permanently

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5897571&forum_id=2.#50095096)

Also, if your concern is removing them from society, are you ambivalent about whether they're executed or in lifelong psych care (without considering the financial cost, just whether theres a difference to you in isolation)?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5897571&forum_id=2.#50095133)

They should be executed ofc. If "insanity" was properly an aggravating factor for sentencing, rather than a mitigating factor, criminals and their lawyers would do all they could to avoid being placed in that category. The only people in "mental hospitals" would be the legit vegetables who can't function on their own in society. Those people should probably be killed too but that's a separate issue that I don't want to conflate with this one

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5897571&forum_id=2.#50095140)

I'm not trying to trap you with some real world example of temporary mental illness dude. I'm just trying to understand your reasoning.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5897571&forum_id=2.#50095142)

For example, your position seems to be that that exclusive consideration of punishment is what effect that has on society. But many feel that it's immoral to punish someone that can't understand the wrongness of what they've done, among many other considerations.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5897571&forum_id=2.#50095181)

i am not a Liberal. for me, the law is a means to the end of the common good of society. for Liberals, the law is a means to the end of the good of the individual. Liberals are very mistaken about a great many things, this thing included

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5897571&forum_id=2.#50095213)

Just engage instead of evading. I swear to God I'm not trying to Socratize you into some gotcha, as if anyone would care.

During a squanching session SPjr rips Spaceporns balls off, xompleteing the job God started and rendering him incapable of squanching and no squanching desire. Spaceporn doesn't consider his acts wrong, he "owns" Spjr and can do as he pleases, but he'll never do it again. Spaceporns reasoning is bizarre to all, so there will be no deterrent effect from punishing him. He is 100% rehabiliated, has no social contagion, and doesnt understand what he did is wrong.

Should he be punished?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5897571&forum_id=2.#50095276)

like i said in the other post, there's no consistent way to treat this kind of hypo, because it can't occur in the real world. it's impossible. humans don't work this way. it's like asking, "how should the law treat a man who is a psychopathic criminal but then an angel from heaven comes down and magically turns him into a saint?" the law can't carve out coherent and consistent prescriptions for this kind of stuff because it's impossible. i could make individual determinations for each situation according to my own best judgment, but that's not "the law" that's me acting as a sovereign

fwiw i'd probably have the spaceporn in this particular hypo executed because he has proven himself to be a menace to society outside of the squanching of his adopted "son"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5897571&forum_id=2.#50095309)

I think you're continuing to evade because you sense that it's just for someone to be punished it that hypo, even if there are zero social consequences, but that doesn't align with a purely social consideration. Thus you must believe that punishment at least has some element of moral justice.

If I adjusted it so that punishing spaceporn would have a negative effect on society, you'd still feel he deserves punishment. Let's say he volunteers to pick up litter once a month. If hypothetically we are certain he will never commit another crime, and we will suffer a net social cost for punishing him, do you believe he should not be punished for anally raping son for years? SPjr doesn't deserve justice for past crimes against him?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5897571&forum_id=2.#50095365)

no, this is incorrect. if spaceporn was a 300 IQ genius saint who singlehandedly brought all kinds of benefits to society at large, but he just happened to rape his adopted kid, then somehow magically stopped wanting to rape his adopted kid and also magically was no longer able to do so like in your hypo, i wouldn't want him executed, because he'd still be a useful member of society

i don't know what punishment i'd dole out for him. it would have to be something or else there'd be public outcry. but it certainly wouldn't be execution

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5897571&forum_id=2.#50095379)

Ok, would you punish if:

Punishing is socially neutral

Punishing has a marginal social cost (he won't be around to pick up litter once a month)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5897571&forum_id=2.#50095401)

part of criminal punishment is to satiate the victim's/society's desire for vengeance, as well as to deter other potential future criminals, in addition to the benefit to society from removing an undesirable criminal who is likely to commit further anti social acts

even if the criminal is literally magically modified by God so that he will commit no further criminal acts, such as in the hypo you're giving here, you'd still want to punish them for these reasons

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5897571&forum_id=2.#50095421)

Anyway I'll stop trying to tease out your logical framework here. But to be clear, I also think impact on society is the primary consideration. I just don't have a black and white view that it's the only one. Justice and morality do exist, even if it can't be precisely pinned down. That's why there would be a social outcry if he was unpunished: people know that it's just to punish a child rapist outside of all other considerations, even if it's a net social negative sometimes. People know that punishment should be based on moral culpability, and that a sliding scale based on social impact is unfair. Teasing out exactly why and how they innately reach these conclusions is interesting, but they exist even if our rationale is elusive.

Now I'm going to create a endless GOY PEDOSTAR SAYS CHILD RAPISTS SHOULD JUST GET COMMUNITY SERVICE threads and not read a single reply of yours.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5897571&forum_id=2.#50095489)

i guess you are not appreciating how big of a deal it is for a hypo to be impossible, or something. if humans could magically have their intrinsic properties modified, the human experience would be entirely different, and our legal system would be entirely different. everything would be way different in ways that are honestly impossible for us to even comprehend because it's outside of our current human experience

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5897571&forum_id=2.#50095521)