somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> True as the last sentence is, it's not the whole truth. That kind of
> thinking has also ruined guilty people's lives, and lack of that kind of
> thinking has also saved guilty people's lives. Not only that, but that kind
> of thinking on occasion has ruined other innocent people's lives who were
> victimized by a wrongfully acquitted criminal whose identity or risk was not
> revealed to the community he was released into.

  I'm sorry, but it's precisely that kind of "punishing innocent people by
mistake is ok as long as guilty people get also (probably) punished along
the way" witch-hunting thinking that I cannot agree with.

  One of the most basic principles of the modern western judiciary system
is the principle of the burden of proof: People are assumed innocent until
proven guilty. It's better to free a guilty person than jail an innocent
person.

  I'm sorry if I seem like an insensitive jerk, but I do not consider
that children should be in any way more protected than other people in
this regard. Unlike seemingly modern western society, I do not consider
children to be some kind of semi-gods which must be protected at all
costs, even if it means that innocent people are burnt at the stake.
In my opinion the basic principles of the modern judiciary system should
be applied to everybody in the same way. Reverse burden of proof is an
abomination and a complete judiciary farce. It's a step back to burning
witches.

  I also find it completely hypocritical that there's a world-wide witch
hunt against people who abuse children sexually, but no witch-hunt of
any kind against people who abuse them mentally. Is mental abuse of a child
somehow more acceptable? Less of a horrible crime? Seemingly it is.

> That said, I do believe there
> are major biological/hormonal/evolutionary...etc differences between the
> sexes regarding feelings towards children: Put a baby in a stroller in a
> shopping mall, and you'll instantly have a swarm of adoring females. You
> won't see any similar flocking behaviour from men (unless the mom happens to
> have certain prized qualities). If there are men with those women, a blind
> man can read from their faces that they are merely feigning interest not to
> come across as a jerk. Men don't ordinarily relate to children, let alone
> "passionately love them in a completely and absolutely non-sexual way". Are
> there exceptions? Maybe, one in a million. But I don't see a emotionally
> balanced (which I don't think MJ was) grown man prefrerring the company of
> children, over, say, even a dog's, and finding intellectual fulfillment from
> that.

  Or as I said: Men have no right to love children in modern society.
Equal rights go to hell.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message