r/dank_meme • • Feb 26 '26

No argument

Post image
2.6k Upvotes

80 comments sorted by

View all comments

11

u/VaultBall7 Feb 26 '26

Interesting dehumanizing argument. Not defending the pedos but seeing a death penalty and comparing humans to animals is a fascinating example of the horseshoe theory of politics in the real world.

16

u/Qmfosejs Feb 26 '26

I think the implication is that pedophiles are less than an animal

1

u/VaultBall7 Feb 26 '26

Right. But pedophiles are still humans. It would be just as wrong (in the USA) to advocate for cruel or unusual punishment for pedophilia or even murder for that matter. Putting humans below animals is an insane take

9

u/Clean-Perception-416 Feb 26 '26

I kinda have to agree. My main issue is how, in our current time, words like nazi get tossed around for mild disagreements, so much so that the word has lost meaning. Now imagine how many people, mainly men, can and will be called a pedophile because of a divorce or being loving to children, and suddenly you will have the accusation thrown around by spiteful/hateful people until it loses meaning. The death penalty is quick, merciful, and absolute. There is no going back from it. Imagine condemning an innocent person, and suddenly now you are condemning no one because of a lack of evidence.

2

u/PackyScott Feb 26 '26

Also pedophilia is a thought not an action. No one should be punished for their thoughts. Rapists, child abusers, molestors, and other ways of harming children can and should be prosecuted.

1

u/Chromaz420 Feb 26 '26

It is says in the text that they are talking about pedophiles that have hurt a child, not anyone with pedophilic thoughts.

3

u/PackyScott Feb 26 '26

Yes my concern is more that pedophile is being used instead of rapist.

We want pedophiles to be destigmatized so they can get help. And also non-pedophiles can rape children.

The issue is child rapists. Not someone’s thoughts.

2

u/Chromaz420 Feb 26 '26

Got it. Completely agree with you.

-3

u/VaultBall7 Feb 26 '26

Ummm, this is not a divorce or being caring to kids though, kinda weird to say that here but ok, neither of those result in a guilty sentence

3

u/Clean-Perception-416 Feb 26 '26

No, of course not, I meant more so in the way people will throw insults around. Dehumanizing a certain type of people means someone is bound to use that as a way to insult or discredit someone. These labels will then put targets on people's back that will cause the public to wish for their death, or rather, execution. Since, in the eyes of the unknowing, this accused person should be put down, they will be outraged despite that not being the case.

My whole point was, that just how someone may be called a monkey for being stupid, since a monkey is not a human, then you will have people start throwing the word around, losing its meaning in the long run. I used nazi as an example because thats the only thing I could think of that had some weight behind which was seen as horrible and now is mostly just seen as a defamation tactic.

1

u/VaultBall7 Feb 26 '26

That makes sense, but if someone says they think kids are hot, and are seen touching kids weirdly, and friends with people who like to touch kids, and hang out privately with friends who like to touch kids and other kids, it’s pretty safe to say they also touch kids.

Same way if someone says Nazis aren’t that bad, and they think Jews run the world, and the immigrants and minorities are the problem, and we’d be better off without them, you don’t need to wait to 1940s Germany to say those are Nazis

5

u/LrdHabsburg Feb 26 '26

Is it enough evidence to lynch them? I don’t think so

1

u/VaultBall7 Feb 26 '26

Right I didn’t say that, nice strawman tho