How do they objectify women? Maybe if you call one a cunt, but even then, what happens if you call a man a cunt? Calling a man a dick isn't objectifying a man, is it? No? Why not? Don't be brainless. It depends on what they mean. If you tell someone "You're a piece of shit" or "You're nothing but a cunt to be used" or "You're nothing but a dick for cunts" THEN you're objectifying someone.
A lot of Americans say the word cunt... you are on the outside looking in, my friend. I've heard all kinds of hilarious generalizations about Americans from outside sources. "Cunt" is only nasty to some because it means vagina. Except, it sounds even nastier. Somehow. Some people just think it sounds nasty. Kinda like how I think the word "tit" for boobs makes it sound nasty.
There's an error there. You don't have to force someone to do it. You simply do it in secret. Although, I guess, some people who would have simply propositioned them privately end up just taking it anyway. BUT, most of them who forced kids to do things would probably do it by force whether it was legal or not if the kid doesn't want to.
People do dumb shit because of what they believe, which is religion. Your point that they do dumb shit because they aren't perfect stands too... the reason religion exists is because humans aren't perfect, after all. They are the inventors of religion.
It's just a matter of semantics. It's like saying that faulty security systems don't cause people to escape. Well yeah, the people are the ones doing the escaping, but come on, don't get smart and or be difficult over words.
The way I see it, religion has. Religion exists within the people. It doesn't exist by itself. If no one believes in the things listed under religions and it's not talked about, it's nothing but an idea. (for example, I write about the belief that pill bottles can eat and call it pillbotism, it doesn't really exist as a religion though). When people say religion doesn't cause it, they usually are trying to back a stance that people can still believe in religion and it doesn't kill people. Sure, it depends on the religion though. If a religion involves killing, their same stance doesn't stand.
Not really. It's not easy to be proven as insane to a prosecution. Fat chances that it would be allowed. Maniacs? That's the POINT. They're maniacs. It is more often that people are injustly imprisoned (totally innocent) or too mentally ill to be held responsible go to jail. You are kidding yourself... it's easier to lose than it is to win when you are a suspect.
Um... children aren't obligated to a lot of things. Does that mean wrongs should be done to them? I don't think that's why they should be eaten. It isn't their fault if they must eat other animals to survive. It's sure as hell less of a big deal than someone whose life is as complex as a human being killed and eaten, though. By that logic, we should be able to do whatever we want to psychopaths because they don't have the ability to empathize and cannot understand why us other people have "morals" or think anything is "wrong" (true story bro, deny it if you want, it doesn't change anything).
I don't think they have the exact same rights as humans but there is no way anyone can argue that animals shouldn't have any rights at all. Animals suffer just like humans do. Why should humans be delivered from suffering and animals shouldn't? However, a human life is made of more things than an animal's life, which is why I said that they shouldn't have the exact same rights.
Life sentence is better in the long run, causes less pain, wastes less time, less chance of the person getting away (due to the case being thrown out), wastes WAYYYY less money, and there is no chance of innocent people being slaughtered because innocent people are imprisoned more often than I or anyone else knows. I have seen some downright outrageous cases.
It makes no sense to abolish insanity as a legal defense. If you're insane, you didn't have control over what you did. Some people can't even pay to get into institutes. It's like saying you should get rid of "accident" as a reason not to punish someone as if they did something deliberately. Not that insane and accident are even equal... Accident is sometimes more criminal than insane, besides in cases where it could hardly be their fault.
it depends.. if the mother doesn't want to see him, then no... that may be too traumatic for the mother. a child can still know that her future man is not the father though. Same for when a female rapes a man and has a child with him, if the father doesn't want to see the mom, oh well for her. As for custody they should have to pay, if the parent will accept even that, that is. When the child grows up they can be welcome to see the parent. If you want to be in your child's life don't rape to get one...
This isn't about parents. No, I'm not old enough to be diagnosed as a pedophile and I'm not a pedophile anyway. Anyway, one doesn't have to contort anything. One shouldn't make someone think that you can only have relationships with your parent. As for a boyfriend coming home... then they're cheating, if they are in a relationship with their parent. If not, then it's like having an ex-boyfriend be in charge with you and trying to take over who you bring home. Which, I guess, is also bad.
Sure, why not? I know younger who date, and they can be such cute little couples. If they don't date, they'll still have crushes on each other, and many times I can't tell the difference between little children who have crushes on each other and those who say they're dating. So why not? It'll be the same anyway.
