It makes me feel good and doesn’t hurt anyone else, is a yardstick. As long as they don’t violate a child, it’s NO ONE’s goddamn business!
2 Likes
Good response.
For the most part.
doesn’t cut it with me (drugs and all kinds of harmful behavior hurt others); BUT
DOES cut it with me.
I can’t argue with that!
Nicely done!
For the very reasons you stated, I don’t support a ban. I never said that I did.
“I discourage their use” is not the same as “I condemn their use”.
Not necessarily. It’s possible to engage in such practices without harming anyone else. Most of the harms are caused from society’s puritanical attitude towards pharmaceutical use outside of “approved” guidelines. If they were not illegal, most of the ancillary crimes would vanish as well. In any event, as long as someone hurts no one else, society should stay out of that person’s choice.
"Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other ‘sins’ are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful – just stupid.)” Robert A. Heinlein
This is the core basis of libertarian philosophy.
2 Likes
Oh, FFS. Reach a point of agreement and we STILL have to find something to argue about.
Ok. Here we go.
Tell that to Denmark, who closed Needle Park, due to concerns of rising crime.
I guess you missed the failed experiment of Oregon in decriminalization.
Here in my town, about 7 years ago, a little girl got out of the house and was attacked and killed by a dangerous neighborhood dog. The two adults in the house weren’t watching her. One was in the garage, stoned; and the mother was blitzed out on the couch.
A guy here, in the last year, literally let one of his children die of neglect while the other 3 siblings suffered. He told his children that “Daddy was sleeping”; he was stoned out of his head.
Yeah, history shows us that where there is drug abuse, there is human suffering and casualties – that harms the people affected (not limited to the user).
When it comes to drugs, i don’t “discourage their use”; I “condemn their use” because its completely obvious, to anyone paying attention, that they cause harm to others besides the user.
Once again you use your own experiences and chosen incidents to make a point. Just like those who ban dolls, because a couple of bad eggs had them as well.
Portugal allows the consumption of EVERY drug. When caught they offer HELP, not prison. It has one of the LOWEST drug abuse rates in the world.
3 Likes
They don’t just let them go, either. They’re taken to a treatment center if the weight is below a certain amount. They don’t just let them go and go about their business. Their drug abuse rates has steadily climbed since 2000 and 75% of those polled indicate they see drug abuse as a problem in their country. Overdose death rates are currently at a 12 year high. In some areas of Portugal, its doubled in the past 2 years. The difference between Portugal drug addiction rate and US drug addiction rate is about 4%. (I know, I know, shut up, because facts are a bitch). Portugal’s system is better, but it’s not the Holy Grail or a shining beacon of the benefits of decriminalization.
Why are you lying? Do you love talking out of your ass when someone points your hipocrisy and stupidity out?
Portugal now has the lowest drug-related death rate in Western Europe, with a mortality rate a tenth of Britain’s and a fiftieth of the United States’.
2 Likes
You are missing an essential point. I am talking about responsible adults, not idiots and children. Lots of people drink. They do it responsibly by not driving or getting drunk in public, etc. Just because a few bad apples can’t be careful, does not mean you punish everyone else. People need to take responsibility for their actions, not use the excuse, it was alcohol, drugs, whatever. Those things did not enter their bodies magically; they took them carelessly, recklessly and without consideration for the rest of us, and should held to account for the harm they cause. Similar to the worn phrase, guns don’t kill, people do; drugs don’t kill, drink doesn’t kill, the drink/drug did not jump into them by some miraculous act, some person had to consciously consume them and became the reason for the trouble that happens. That is not anyone else’s fault. The devil made me do it doesn’t fly these days.
1 Like
@FinnishHim
Stop trying to bait me into debates. Our skill at doing so is too unequal.
Their drug abuse rates has steadily climbed since 2000 – Your chart does not disprove this claim. Your chart does not exceed 2001; to prove this claim wrong, you must provide me with stats from 2000 to the present. This chart doesn’t do that.
75% of those polled indicate they see drug abuse as a problem in their country. – Your chart does not disprove this claim. Your chart does not address public opinion in Portugal, let alone recent public opinion.
Overdose death rates are currently at a 12 year high. – Your chart does not show deaths in 2024, and does not break down overdose deaths for the 11 years prior; so your chart does not show the claim that it’s currently at a 12 year high as false.
In some areas of Portugal, its doubled in the past 2 years. – Your chart does not break deaths down by area and does not cover the past 2 years, so your chart does not disprove this claim.
The difference between Portugal drug addiction rate and US drug addiction rate is about 4%. – You provide no contradicting evidence in regards to current addiction rates that show different results.
The only thing your chart may confirm is this: Portugal’s system is better – which is something I’ve already capitulated to. But I’ve also addressed that Portugal doesn’t just weigh their drugs then send them on their merry way. They are taken into custody.
Posting a chart that does not address my claims has all the value in this debate as posting a picture of Mickey Mouse.
I expect a drug user to take them carelessly, recklessly and without consideration for the rest of us. Those who can take hard drugs “responsibly” – if they even exist – are a rarity among the drug using population.
guns don’t kill, people do – which is a phrase I consider “spin doctoring”. Knife attacks are rife in England right now; and China has had a scourge of school stabbings for decades, now. Replace those knives with guns, then tell me again how “guns don’t kill people”.
Look, we’re way off topic.
“Doll Ban Increases Risk of Offending” is a ridiculous claim. This study looks at the effects of a current doll user being suddenly deprived of that doll; then compares their emotional reactions to the forensic evidence of offenders being in negative mindsets during offense – then draws a conclusion which I feel is erroneous. I believe it is erroneous for 2 reasons:
- It does not address non-offending OR offending pedophiles who never had a doll. There are plenty of pedophiles who have had dolls, and who have NOT had dolls, who have offended; and who have not. Without the control groups of non-users of dolls, and without the control groups of current doll users who never had them taken away, the study is incomplete or downright flawed.
- The idea that offenders are most likely to offend during times of distress is pretty well-established and thus should not be entirely dismissed; HOWEVER, there are many non-offenders who have ALSO endured times of distress, yet came out the other side without molesting a child. Thus, an offender being in distress is not the cause of the offense; it is a contributor. Thus, not only is the methodology of the study flawed or too incomplete to draw such bold conclusions, it also depends on other conclusions which are also incomplete or flawed.
Equally, the claim “Child Sex Dolls Protects Children” is also ludicrous and asinine. Doll users are the minority within the non-offending population, and being the minority, causes the claim to be questionable all by itself; and, there is really no qualitive data or empirical evidence to back that claim.
Okay so let me get this right:
1999: LOW
2000: EXTREMELY LOW
2001-2016: GIGANTIC INCREASE
2017: GIGANTIC DECREASE
How about you actually read the link from the APA? Where are your sources? Speak of a delusional shizo.
2 Likes
If any “gigantic increase” was present while the drugs were decriminalized, then the decrease wasn’t because of the decriminalization, was it? When you put ice in water, it cools the water; it doesn’t cool the water, then heat it up for a bit, then decide to cool it again, right? We see the increase 1/2 of the time, and the other 1/2 of the time, we see the increase.
And I’m not really “reading” the link, because I didn’t come here to discuss decriminalization of, as you call them, “pharmaceuticals”. I came here to discuss “doll ban increases risk of offending”.
And on the points that I presented, you obviously couldn’t refute, because at the end of it, all you had left to say was:
That means: “I’m out of rebuttals and I have no counter to your points, and that pisses me off”. So we switch topics to another argument that you think you can win?
And you don’t seem to be doing a very good job at THAT one, either.
Are you telling me the gun got up on its own and walked over to shoot someone by itself?
No, a person was holding it. Stop blaming inanimate objects for people’s failures.
3 Likes
Nah, he just tells you to shut the fuck up, because all you do is sell your own opinions as facts, or “common sense” while trying to come off as educated.
So yeah, shut the fuck up or back up your statements with empirical evidence. The fact that you even think it is about “winning” tells me a lot about your ego.
4 Likes
Hi, welcome to the conversation.
Yeah, this discussion has gone off the rails, but here:
What I am seeing is this: I have made attempts to separate what is my opinion and what is fact.
Rather than addressing my opinions, I got this:
Now; at what point did I ever even suggest that I think doll users need harmed? Really? WTF!
And, I said things like this:
So in short, I can’t even agree with any part of your claims and/or express empathy without being told I’m the “bad guy”.
So, yeah, I got a little excited.
1 Like
I don’t think you are the bad guy, just misinformed. When people try to kick a habit, e.g. smoking, drinking, etc. they use a substitute to help control the cravings. Chewing gum, exercise, eating, and so forth. This is the substitute to a desire for minors. It is a big sex toy and nothing more.
It is that simple.
Thank you, Larry.
Hey, I can get behind that! Hell, given the choice between a real child and a sex doll, please, go get your sex doll!
I don’t support “banning” or criminalizing, and I don’t condemn doll users.
That does not change my opinion that I don’t believe that they are healthy.
Saying, “I don’t believe this is healthy” is NOT saying, “This should be banned and criminalized, and you all need to be maimed and forced to comply”, FFS.
We live in a time replete where “All or Nothing”, “Black and White” thinking is the norm. I see the world in shades of gray and with nuance. Gets me in heated debates in almost every forum I walk into; because a lot more is read into my statements then what was intended.
Thus, I see the statement, “Doll ban increases risk of offending”, and I think, “Bullshit”. And, I see the statement, “Child sex dolls protect children”, and I think, “Bullshit”. I see the statement, “Child sex dolls increases risk of offending”, and I also think, “Bullshit”. These devices are only a piece of a larger and more complex system.
Thus, ALL of these statements fall under my umbrella of either “This is Total Bullshit” or “This is a Big Problem!”:
- The only thing keeping me from beating my neighbor’s ass is my nicotine.
- The only thing keeping my hands of children is avoidance and my self-imposed house arrest.
- The only thing keeping me calm is my marijuana.
- The only thing keeping my hands of children is my sex doll.
- The only thing keeping my hands off children is my religious beliefs.
- The only thing keeping me from raping someone is my Depo-Provera.
- The only thing keeping me from suicide is my GAF.
- The only thing keeping me from [enter undesirable behavior] is my [enter coping mechanism]
Each one of the devices are better than the undesirable behavior.
So keep your dolls, keep hiding in your house, keep religious beliefs, keep injecting yourself with whatever they’re injecting themselves with whatever you’re injecting yourself with, keep huffing your THC vape – but don’t close your mind to the possibility that you might discover a better way later down the road.
And STOP telling people that I, Incognito, am at an elevated risk of raping a child because I don’t have a child sex doll.
DISCLAIMER: Each and every word in this post is my personal opinion, not necessarily presented of fact, and the opinions I have, I am as entitled to have as the person who holds a contradictory opinion.
I’ll offer an olive branch to you. Dolls have given me a sense of peace and happiness for something I’ll likely never have. If I’m a bad parent, no one gets hurt. The idea of banning a object used in the privacy of one’s home I find overreaching and obtrusive. Of course no one is comfortable with the idea of someone using a doll because of what it represents. It should really be no one’s business. Anyone would rather someone use an inanimate object than harm another person. If that IS what everyone agrees upon, then why not leave it be? In my opinion, just because someone finds it disturbing they shouldn’t be criminalizing them. No one is being harmed.
2 Likes
There’s nothing you said here that I can disagree with.