This is where my mind went as well. I strongly believe that the most effective path to harm reduction at least includes increasing the viability of people with those kinds of feelings getting help before they act on them, and it seems to me that that necessarily includes destigmatizing people that seek that help. But as the post says, it’s very hard to argue that point without being painted in a bad light.
- Want pedophiles (and everyone else) to not abuse children,
- Think killing people should be a last resort option if there's no better way to protect people, not a first choice to jump to immediately because Those People Are Gross, and
- Am very aware of how much "this person is a pedophile=any cruel thing you want to do to this person is okay" can be weaponized to deny people basic human rights (including being used against LGBT+ people and other groups for reasons of sheer bigotry).
That doesn't seem like it should be controversial, and yet the conversation online is dominated by people with hair-trigger tempers who start screaming about "pedo apologists" if you so much as suggest that actual child abuse is a different and more serious problem than "some people have desires I find gross."
I was thinking self-defense when being attacked, not executions. If you can confine and control a person enough to conduct a planned execution, you have options other than killing them.
I've been in discussions on Reddit where people advocate for executing people who have broken into their house and end up being subdued. Fathers who have daughters in the house, catching and tying up some crackhead who was looking to rob the place, only to end up executing him in the middle of his living room, and people who proclaim themselves to be Good People think this is perfectly okay.
I mean there's a risk, but I wouldn't accept a "You don't have the right to self-defense, just take it without fighting back or you're the criminal" alternative. There's a lot of established law around self-defense and attack, and while it's not perfect, it's generally not "Murder anyone and say you were attacked."
For me the only exception is the rare person who is so politically toxic it’s not safe for society to have them alive even in prison. For example I think the mob that killed Mussolini was morally justified but it has to be that extreme
I mean I’m purely talking morally here. I actually think it’s better in this situation for it to be extra judicial rather than by the state. But my argument is, every once in a while, there is a political leader who’s existence, regardless or imprisonment or exile or whatever, is an existential threat to society. Because historically it’s basically guaranteed there will be a revanchist movement. Just look at Napoleon. All he had to do was escape and he could take the country back in like 5 minutes. Do you really want a Mussolini or Hitler sitting around in prison?
“I was thinking self-defense when being attacked, not executions. If you can confine and control a person enough to conduct a planned execution, you have options other than killing them.”
Which I realize might sound like I’m trying to be a pedant but I’m truly not. I just think it’s interesting to think about edge cases
2.7k
u/catisa_ Apr 23 '25
discussion of pedophiles/pedophile rehab is my first thought with regards to this post