The eunuch maker
Discussion
Somewhatfoolish said:
Gecko1978 said:
22 years
Not just 22 years, but life with a minimum term of 22 years. That's insane - get less for a "bog standard" murder. Why is it illegal to cut someone's balls off if they have BID, but legal if they have GID?
I appreciate in this case there are unsavoury aspects as well (child porn, surgery without a licence etc) so absolutely should be going to prison... but the "core offence" strikes me as people should be allowed to do to themselves for the same reason we allow and even encourage it for trans women.
Edited by Somewhatfoolish on Thursday 9th May 13:07
Gecko1978 said:
Somewhatfoolish said:
Gecko1978 said:
22 years
Not just 22 years, but life with a minimum term of 22 years. That's insane - get less for a "bog standard" murder. Why is it illegal to cut someone's balls off if they have BID, but legal if they have GID?
I appreciate in this case there are unsavoury aspects as well (child porn, surgery without a licence etc) so absolutely should be going to prison... but the "core offence" strikes me as people should be allowed to do to themselves for the same reason we allow and even encourage it for trans women.
Edited by Somewhatfoolish on Thursday 9th May 13:07
I'm also still really confused as to when cutting yer balls off is harm. If it's a legitimate treatment for gender dysmorphia, why isn't it a legitimate treatment for body dismorphia?
I also don't understand how 22 years minimum in prison fits the crime when you can kill people for less.
As I said there's other stuff in this case which is bad so I don't want this guy getting a knighthood or anything - clearly he needs some prison - but sitting back at a distance and looking at the entire situation it's crazy to me.
Gecko1978 said:
Law doesn't allow you to consent to harm.
In some circumstances it does tolerate it.Adults consenting to boxing.
Babies whose parents have decided on their behalf to mutilate their genitals (though even then there is a further distinction on okay / not okay depending on the gender and religion) etc
pork911 said:
Babies whose parents have decided on their behalf to mutilate their genitals (though even then there is a further distinction on okay / not okay depending on the gender and religion) etc
And this is honestly far worse to me than consenting adults cutting off their balls. I love my foreskin. It brings me so much pleasure. I massively pity men without one.But we'll never see male circumcision of children banned in this country in my lifetime. Not a chance. Thank goodness the female child form, which is usually (but not always - there's some kinda "symbolic" type aiui) even worse, is.
Society is totally illogical.
Edited by Somewhatfoolish on Thursday 9th May 22:56
Somewhatfoolish said:
Gecko1978 said:
Somewhatfoolish said:
Gecko1978 said:
22 years
Not just 22 years, but life with a minimum term of 22 years. That's insane - get less for a "bog standard" murder. Why is it illegal to cut someone's balls off if they have BID, but legal if they have GID?
I appreciate in this case there are unsavoury aspects as well (child porn, surgery without a licence etc) so absolutely should be going to prison... but the "core offence" strikes me as people should be allowed to do to themselves for the same reason we allow and even encourage it for trans women.
Edited by Somewhatfoolish on Thursday 9th May 13:07
“He consented to me punching him in the face”.
“No I didn’t”.
“Yes you did”.
Fun times for criminal law. Even better for domestic abuse.
MrBogSmith said:
Somewhatfoolish said:
Gecko1978 said:
Somewhatfoolish said:
Gecko1978 said:
22 years
Not just 22 years, but life with a minimum term of 22 years. That's insane - get less for a "bog standard" murder. Why is it illegal to cut someone's balls off if they have BID, but legal if they have GID?
I appreciate in this case there are unsavoury aspects as well (child porn, surgery without a licence etc) so absolutely should be going to prison... but the "core offence" strikes me as people should be allowed to do to themselves for the same reason we allow and even encourage it for trans women.
Edited by Somewhatfoolish on Thursday 9th May 13:07
“He consented to me punching him in the face”.
“No I didn’t”.
“Yes you did”.
Fun times for criminal law. Even better for domestic abuse.
When it comes to domestic abuse, 99.99% of the population do not want their face smashing in.
And so on.
It is my understanding (and I haven't looked at the details) that in this case that everyone wanted them chopping off (at the time anyway) and that's not disputed.
Somewhatfoolish said:
MrBogSmith said:
Somewhatfoolish said:
Gecko1978 said:
Somewhatfoolish said:
Gecko1978 said:
22 years
Not just 22 years, but life with a minimum term of 22 years. That's insane - get less for a "bog standard" murder. Why is it illegal to cut someone's balls off if they have BID, but legal if they have GID?
I appreciate in this case there are unsavoury aspects as well (child porn, surgery without a licence etc) so absolutely should be going to prison... but the "core offence" strikes me as people should be allowed to do to themselves for the same reason we allow and even encourage it for trans women.
Edited by Somewhatfoolish on Thursday 9th May 13:07
“He consented to me punching him in the face”.
“No I didn’t”.
“Yes you did”.
Fun times for criminal law. Even better for domestic abuse.
When it comes to domestic abuse, 99.99% of the population do not want their face smashing in.
And so on.
It is my understanding (and I haven't looked at the details) that in this case that everyone wanted them chopping off (at the time anyway) and that's not disputed.
You’re talking about making harm a consent matter and therefore any assault would need a lack of consent proving beyond reasonable doubt.
Inverse the burden (which would be an unprecedented shift) and you face similar problems with people able to misuse it and set people up.
Vulnerability / capacity cases would be fun where the victim ‘consents’ but can’t really consent.
Clearly not workable in the real world.
MrBogSmith said:
Doesn’t matter.
You’re talking about making harm a consent matter and therefore any assault would need a lack of consent proving beyond reasonable doubt.
Inverse the burden (which would be an unprecedented shift) and you face similar problems with people able to misuse it and set people up.
Vulnerability / capacity cases would be fun where the victim ‘consents’ but can’t really consent.
Clearly not workable in the real world.
This (the bolded bit) is a really interesting point actually that I hadn't considered. You’re talking about making harm a consent matter and therefore any assault would need a lack of consent proving beyond reasonable doubt.
Inverse the burden (which would be an unprecedented shift) and you face similar problems with people able to misuse it and set people up.
Vulnerability / capacity cases would be fun where the victim ‘consents’ but can’t really consent.
Clearly not workable in the real world.
Could it not be "inverted" like other defences though where the burden of establishing it came for the defence? I know there's lots of affirmative defences where the defence has to prove it on the balance of probabilities, but are there any where they need to prove on higher thresholds?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff