I know I'm a pretty vocal youth rights supporter. I'm also a libertarian. I'm many things, many shallow labels, that are often too easily misunderstood and shrouded in idiotic stereotypes. This is a bit of rant, by the way, so strap the fuck in.
One moment that really stuck in my head was about seven years ago, when people were stunned at how vehemently I defended a relationship between a young man and a geriatric lady - I insisted it wasn't our business, it's nothing for us to judge. If we find it disturbing, then look away. I find it disturbing that people buy celebrity magazines, I don't accost them in the street or criticize them by name on the television. For some reason, people were really shocked by my "tolerance."
After all, let's get this clear: many people hold social or political beliefs without actually comprehending the logic behind them. They don't passionately believe in a set of principles and tenets; they just go along with the crowd and are "tolerant" because that shit is what's cool. Most people are idiot cult members, not free-thinking philosophers. Furries are especially guilty of this shit, by the way.
Not many people accept homosexual relationships because they understand it's not your business, and that we shouldn't judge or harm others just because we find something gross, and that how other people have sex and live their lives is no concern of ours. Not many people actually hold the "live and let live" philosophy, that libertarian code. No.
It's just that it isn't cool to be homophobic anymore - outside of school anyway.
Which is why these people don't react the same way to, say, a relationship between an 18 and 55 year old. No, that's grounds for televised shaming and disgust.
Which is why it's cool on TV for Detective Dipshit from your favorite cookie cutter police drama to be all pro gay rights (heaven forbid a negative review from The New York Times), pontificating that gays never chose to be that way; but they find it less cool to point out that minor-attracted persons didn't choose shit either, discover their sexuality in their early teens/tweens and often feel suicidal throughout their life despite never hurting anyone. So yeah, every time Sergeant Inspector Detective McCoolname spews out lines about how pedos need to wiped off the planet, after episode #328 portraying one as a slobbering molester-beast, that's another few emotionally fragile 14 year olds getting closer to the noose, but we don't actually hold values - we just say what's cool. It's not cool to point out that it's hypocrisy.
So apparently it's wrong for me to insist that the government and even the people should never have any say in a consensual relationship between two adults just because we find it squicky because... I'm "right wing"? Am I?! When did that happen?!
Yeah, I support firearm ownership, small government with limited power over the market and corporations, and that clearly means I need to adhere to a bunch of other unrelated beliefs like tax breaks for the rich and no sex-ed in schools... Eh?!
Note that this is distinct from just being morons: the NYRA (and myself) have supported the lowering of the drinking age in the USA, and encourage parents to promote healthy drinking habits and demystify alcohol in a safe setting for their teenagers. As it stands now, they cannot do that for fear of being arrested and possibly even jailed, so teenagers binge drink because they don't know how to drink safely, nobody's shown them, and in secret away from adult supervision. Nice going, MADD!
But I've seen people claim the NYRA wants to abolish the drinking age so toddlers can get gin and tonics.
Anyway, back on topic. It always seems to be a shock to people when you explain you have a nuanced position on something - certain factors can change your stance on an issue, and if you can explain and defend them, then it's very different from merely clinging to the nearest political barge like a sign-waving barnacle. Sometimes it seems like you're flip-flopping, even when you're not.
For instance. I've been vocal in the past about corporal punishment in schools and at home (or at other facilities) - I'm 100% against it. It doesn't work.
But judicial caning, even for minors, for certain crimes? Absolutely. I believe we should.
There's a massive difference between the two, and I actually think that in some cases it's warranted.
I was just looking at Singapore's regulations concerning judicial caning. As expected, it's not perfect, but it's not as brutal and cruel as many people seem to think. It's certainly not a walk in the park, either. There are rules regarding which offenses can warrant them, to whom they can be administered, how many can be given and so on, so forth.
Many people support the idea of judicial corporal punishment, but hey: test them. How many of them are actually just slobbering at the mouth hoping to see a vicious beating delivered to every teenager they see, but don't even consider that their arse could be on the line too? How many would support it if it meant someone their age being caned? Would they be as rabid about supporting it if it wasn't a teenager about to cop the stick? Trust me, I've tested; the response is much less rabid.
Too bad, because the reality here and in the USA is that adults still commit more and more serious crime. How can we curb it? Clearly we're being too soft on adults these days. Yes, adults these day.
Six of the best should make road-ragers, pub brawlers and general ne'er-do-wells think twice. Aww, what's that, you're an "adult" so it's demeaning and degrading? Well, newsflash, it's no better for a 13 year old. You break the law, you get caned, you get humiliated and degraded just like them. You're a little bitch, so you get caned like one. Ageism cannot have any place here - it's already absurd enough that you cannot strike a dog, and yet people are trying to legally protect striking their children. And that's what makes this such an effective idea for a punishment.
Regarding minors, if a minor over ten or so commits a violent crime, they shouldn't be exempt from punishment. That's the problem: it isn't that we need longer, stricter punishments, or more of them, or that we need tougher laws, or that "kids these days" or... no, the problem is that the government tends to either be horribly useless and does nothing to genuine delinquents, or they try and royally fuck over kids who need help and support, not incarceration.
Six strokes with a light cane, for offenses such as thefts of over a certain value, deliberate property damage and violent crime, and only for serious legal offenses, by the way, will see many of these delinquents change their mind fucking fast.
See, all throughout my life, I've actually had to deal with juvenile delinquents. I know a few and I know what the deal is. The fact is, very short stays in juvenile detention are inadequate. The offenders get no support, no help with the circumstances that led them to be offenders, no mentoring, no continuing support when they leave, etc. Most importantly, while detention centers vary from place to place, some are awful some are actually quite pleasant, they generally do little to deter young offenders.
Hell, they're used to prison. There's less homework in detention centers though.
Intensive support and therapy has been shown to be just as effective if not far moreso than "harsh penalties" - the cost is offset by changing offenders to contributing members of society. But governments tend to care little, and do little, outside of a few notable cases. It's more politically desirable to be "harsh" and vengeful, as the voters prefer to indulge in spite instead of rehabilitation.
The key thing is, while the study of juvenile delinquency and crime is a study unto its own, many of the same factors also affect adult criminals too. Drunken aggressive dickheads are unacceptable and yet let off lightly, whether they're 35 or 11 - something I see personally all the time in my area. So, as far as I can tell (and as far as Singapore can tell), select, justified use of cane has a great effect on offenders, whether they're teenagers or middle aged.
Now, I'm not someone who gets off on the idea of corporal punishment. But, if we were to consider caning for certain violent and anti-social behaviors, for adults and minors, there's another layer of deterrence. Along with continuing support and rehab efforts, a very brief moment of (extreme) unpleasantness could be the deterrent we need to remind these assholes that their behavior is, in the immediate term, unacceptable, intolerable, and there are consequences for it. While in the long term, we're guiding and encouraging better behavior. If nothing else, the threat of an extra 3 strokes the second time is going to cut down on recidivism.
It is not the same as parental or scholastic corporal punishment. There are key differences between them, not the least of which is transparency and fairness. A judicial caning for specific antisocial actions would be a decision made by a court, judge, jury, social workers and experts, having taken into account specific circumstances viewed through a lens of consistency, with clear paths for recompense if it's administered unjustly.
The differences are huge, but since the majority of people presume that a parental beating is never delivered for unfair reasons, I won't go any further into it than that. If you've ever been hit for being in your dad's way, or being "caught" on the phone to your mum because you were worried where he'd disappeared to at night, then you'll know where I'm coming from. Otherwise, you're in a dream world. Parents abuse their power to hit all the time, and there's no transparency. There are also downsides to personally beating your kids in terms of your relationship. There is just no need for it. Don't, please.
Now, you might think that I'm crazy or hypocritical for saying caning is acceptable for young minors. I'm not. I make a big deal out of keeping my understanding of children & teenagers realistic, not necessarily positive (that's just a coincidence, because the reality is positive), and I have actual experience with the exact kind of people we're talking here. Talked to the police recently about one, in fact.
In short: yeah, no, some of them need an ass-whooping. We're not talking about a hospitalizing beating here. They're still kids, there's a better chance at setting them straight than most adults. But they know what they're doing, they know it is wrong, they know there's no consequences for their actions that they care about. Often, they're more dedicated and deliberate in their offending than adults; lashing out. Just as I argue that most children do nothing wrong, I'll have to remind you that they're not all angels either. And an eleven year old is not some ditzy toddler. Yes. They deserve a caning, and their victims - often other children or teenagers - deserve to know that society is looking out for them.
Don't even get me started on why you can't just punish parents, by the way. No. As my friend says, "we need to reinforce the concept of consequences" for anti-social behavior, and we need to do so to the people who indulge in it. Parents are not 100% of their child's world; they cannot be held responsible, especially not without significant community support if their kid is truly off the rails.
I got into youth rights at age fifteen because of various reasons. People refusing to hold dipshit kids responsible for their own actions and stopping them was one of them. People claiming it was a parents' "right" to hit their kids was another.
But put them together? Little R_____ a few streets down needs an appointment with a rattan cane... and a social worker. He really fucking does...
That is all.
Go back to fapping to furry porn.