9 ms·

This is stomach turing. Sorry, had to inject a little humor because this is actually making me sad. The way he was treated by the authorities (seriously, chemic

by Produce 14y ago

This is stomach turing. Sorry, had to inject a little humor because this is actually making me sad. The way he was treated by the authorities (seriously, chemical castration!?) is beyond hellish. I'm ashamed that I live in the country which perpetrated this. And it all happened just a lifetime ago.

vladd 14y ago
Today most US states deny the right of marrying the person you love. Which makes me wondering why are we feeling so strongly, as a human race, to regulate what other people are able to do (even in cases where it doesn't affect us) and to inflict punishment on those that break the social norms. It's probably a combination of evolutionary traits, fear of unknown, desire for protection of self at the expense of others, and the desire to be in groups with similar characteristics of our own. Only lately it appears that we embraced 'diversity', where we respect the right of others to be, behave and think differently than our own ways, without feeling threatened by them or feeling the need to prosecute them. Why is this happening only now and how can we make sure that we don't revert to the old ways? Part of it is history, I think - we're more aware now of the mistakes of the past, the world-wide wars, and the poverty effects of oppressive regimes. We also improved agriculture and technology to the point where most of us can have a decent living without stealing from others, conducting wars with our neighbors or by practicing slavery / communism. It might very well be the case of the famous saying, "you cannot do democracy on an empty stomach". I only hope the trend will accelerate and that we'll be able to reap up the benefits of mutual respect and decency for human rights sooner rather than later. And never return to the past.
adimitrov 14y ago
Well, chemical castration is still used to "combat" paedophilia. I'm pretty sure the Ancient Greeks and Romans would find that repulsive. Now, I'm a child of my time, so I think homosexuality is OK, and I think paedophilia is a crime. But were I a child of, say, the thirties or forties, where in my youth fascist regimes burned homosexuals by the thousands, what would I say? Would I have the empathy, or the courage to understand and express against the strong sentiment of society my understanding for the gay cause? I also want to note that "chemical castration" is a harsh term, and I find the treatment to be an interesting, indeed even acceptable, alternative to just straight incarceration. In the face of a force society considers dangerous to itself, it is a good thing that we can use medication to combat it — and we still do when applicable, for example also with psychopaths and other severe mental illnesses. That homosexuality was viewed as dangerous to society back then is certainly sad, even terrible. But how will people fifty years hence look onto our debates about whether to allow people to marry? How will they look onto our treatment of socially not accepted sexual deviants. Social ousting, sex offenders list, incarceration, the eroding of free speech in the name of reducing just the chances of sexually "deviant" activity? People back then did what they did because they thought it right. It is not what they did that we should find repulsive, because their methods are by and large the same we employ today when faced with similar value judgements. It is the why. Homosexuality is not a mental illness. We have finally learned this, and I hope it won't take more than the dying out of the current generation of politicians for society at large to accept this. (I'm sorry to have drawn a parallel between homosexuality and paedophilia — I'm not meaning to suggest any similarity between the two on a biological or indeed conceptual level. I wanted to explain my view that the concept of homosexuality in the society of the 50s was indeed a similar one to the concept of paedophilia today.)
- slowpoke 14y ago
  >Now, I'm a child of my time, so I think homosexuality is OK, and I think paedophilia is a crime. Except paedophilia isn't a crime, child abuse (and rape) is. Assering a sexual preference (which paedophilia boils down to) is criminal is steering into thoughtcrime teritory. You can think it's wrong all you want, but that doesn't make it a crime. It is, therefore, equally as abhorrent and repulsive to use these methods against paedophiles as it was using them against homosexuals in the 50s. It is, indeed, abhorrent and repulsive to ever use them on a human being, regardless of the reason. But how will people fifty years hence look onto our debates about whether to allow people to marry? How will they look onto our treatment of socially not accepted sexual deviants. Social ousting, sex offenders list, incarceration, the eroding of free speech in the name of reducing just the chances of sexually "deviant" activity? They will be equally as disgusted at this nonsense as we are right now at the heinous things perpetrated in the 50s. In fact, I am disgusted at it right now.
  - vladd 14y ago
    > Except paedophilia isn't a crime, child abuse (and rape) is. The reasoning is similar with the reason why we ban even entry-level drugs: it's insurance, preventing weak people to become criminals about more powerful stuff. The line of thought is that it's ok to deny people freedoms that might lead the poor-minded folks into more damaging behavior. And be it either: (1): homosexuals that might escalate to raping other men, (2): people with weird fetishes that might end up doing child abuse, (3): or LSD people that might end up as heroin addicts, we've seen thought the history of time that it's ok to punish otherwise-acceptable behavior as long as it acts as an insurance in order to prevent more harmful acts. For me, (1) and (2) are the most dangerous as they prohibit the thoughts and sexual desires of human beings just because they might have the potential to turn into something dangerous. It's a form of punishment just because statistically there were specific criminals in the past that escalated them into harmful acts. And as our society progresses, we'll have to decide if it's ok to do that for the greater good: if it's ok to snoop credit card bills for fast food purchases in order to charge a higher medical insurance fee each month. I sure hope that the answer will be no, or at least that nobody will go to jail just as an insurance for his potential future criminal behavior.

by Produce 14y ago

vladd 14y ago

Today most US states deny the right of marrying the person you love. Which makes me wondering why are we feeling so strongly, as a human race, to regulate what other people are able to do (even in cases where it doesn't affect us) and to inflict punishment on those that break the social norms. It's probably a combination of evolutionary traits, fear of unknown, desire for protection of self at the expense of others, and the desire to be in groups with similar characteristics of our own. Only lately it appears that we embraced 'diversity', where we respect the right of others to be, behave and think differently than our own ways, without feeling threatened by them or feeling the need to prosecute them. Why is this happening only now and how can we make sure that we don't revert to the old ways? Part of it is history, I think - we're more aware now of the mistakes of the past, the world-wide wars, and the poverty effects of oppressive regimes. We also improved agriculture and technology to the point where most of us can have a decent living without stealing from others, conducting wars with our neighbors or by practicing slavery / communism. It might very well be the case of the famous saying, "you cannot do democracy on an empty stomach". I only hope the trend will accelerate and that we'll be able to reap up the benefits of mutual respect and decency for human rights sooner rather than later. And never return to the past.

adimitrov 14y ago

Well, chemical castration is still used to "combat" paedophilia. I'm pretty sure the Ancient Greeks and Romans would find that repulsive. Now, I'm a child of my time, so I think homosexuality is OK, and I think paedophilia is a crime. But were I a child of, say, the thirties or forties, where in my youth fascist regimes burned homosexuals by the thousands, what would I say? Would I have the empathy, or the courage to understand and express against the strong sentiment of society my understanding for the gay cause? I also want to note that "chemical castration" is a harsh term, and I find the treatment to be an interesting, indeed even acceptable, alternative to just straight incarceration. In the face of a force society considers dangerous to itself, it is a good thing that we can use medication to combat it — and we still do when applicable, for example also with psychopaths and other severe mental illnesses. That homosexuality was viewed as dangerous to society back then is certainly sad, even terrible. But how will people fifty years hence look onto our debates about whether to allow people to marry? How will they look onto our treatment of socially not accepted sexual deviants. Social ousting, sex offenders list, incarceration, the eroding of free speech in the name of reducing just the chances of sexually "deviant" activity? People back then did what they did because they thought it right. It is not what they did that we should find repulsive, because their methods are by and large the same we employ today when faced with similar value judgements. It is the why. Homosexuality is not a mental illness. We have finally learned this, and I hope it won't take more than the dying out of the current generation of politicians for society at large to accept this. (I'm sorry to have drawn a parallel between homosexuality and paedophilia — I'm not meaning to suggest any similarity between the two on a biological or indeed conceptual level. I wanted to explain my view that the concept of homosexuality in the society of the 50s was indeed a similar one to the concept of paedophilia today.)

slowpoke 14y ago
>Now, I'm a child of my time, so I think homosexuality is OK, and I think paedophilia is a crime. Except paedophilia isn't a crime, child abuse (and rape) is. Assering a sexual preference (which paedophilia boils down to) is criminal is steering into thoughtcrime teritory. You can think it's wrong all you want, but that doesn't make it a crime. It is, therefore, equally as abhorrent and repulsive to use these methods against paedophiles as it was using them against homosexuals in the 50s. It is, indeed, abhorrent and repulsive to ever use them on a human being, regardless of the reason. But how will people fifty years hence look onto our debates about whether to allow people to marry? How will they look onto our treatment of socially not accepted sexual deviants. Social ousting, sex offenders list, incarceration, the eroding of free speech in the name of reducing just the chances of sexually "deviant" activity? They will be equally as disgusted at this nonsense as we are right now at the heinous things perpetrated in the 50s. In fact, I am disgusted at it right now.
- vladd 14y ago
  > Except paedophilia isn't a crime, child abuse (and rape) is. The reasoning is similar with the reason why we ban even entry-level drugs: it's insurance, preventing weak people to become criminals about more powerful stuff. The line of thought is that it's ok to deny people freedoms that might lead the poor-minded folks into more damaging behavior. And be it either: (1): homosexuals that might escalate to raping other men, (2): people with weird fetishes that might end up doing child abuse, (3): or LSD people that might end up as heroin addicts, we've seen thought the history of time that it's ok to punish otherwise-acceptable behavior as long as it acts as an insurance in order to prevent more harmful acts. For me, (1) and (2) are the most dangerous as they prohibit the thoughts and sexual desires of human beings just because they might have the potential to turn into something dangerous. It's a form of punishment just because statistically there were specific criminals in the past that escalated them into harmful acts. And as our society progresses, we'll have to decide if it's ok to do that for the greater good: if it's ok to snoop credit card bills for fast food purchases in order to charge a higher medical insurance fee each month. I sure hope that the answer will be no, or at least that nobody will go to jail just as an insurance for his potential future criminal behavior.