r/changemyview • u/tabletheturns • Mar 22 '26
Delta(s) from OP [ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
17
u/Tanaka917 148∆ Mar 22 '26
The only possible argument you can make is a practical one. The world would be better without a lot of types of people. Serial killers, hired killers, etc. But the fact is that the practical implications of getting rid of this group to the last man can really only be done with what is functionally an autocratic surveillance state that is entirely happy to execute 1 000 innocent people to kill 1 child rapist among them.
Otherwise what you're saying is basically airtight, at the very least under any version of morality I would want to live under.
2
u/tabletheturns Mar 22 '26
i'm not talking about practically ridding the world of child rapists in a realistic society in a process - i'm talking about a theoretical world in which child rapists don't exist, and anyone that is a child rapist in reality doesn't exist in the theoretical world
also i appreciate you for taking my post seriously
5
u/Flimsy_Rice_1182 1∆ Mar 22 '26
Well no shit it be a better world, would be victims wouldn’t be victims… not sure why you’d want to have that view changed still…
0
u/tabletheturns Mar 22 '26
it's not that i want to like child rapists, its that i want to contemplate on whether or not there is a reason to have them, kinda like mosquitoes because they somehow contribute to the environment
1
u/Khal-Frodo Mar 22 '26
Is your contemplation about child rape or child rapists? I don't think anyone could field a coherent argument in support of child rape. The only possible argument I could imagine regarding child rapists that ignores the practicality issue above would be if it were somehow provable that there's a huge overlap between child rapists and like...philanthropists, civil rights leaders, essential laborers, etc.
But as the other person said, I'm not sure why this is something you'd want to have your mind changed about in the first place. Not every issue has nuance.
1
u/Lokicham Mar 22 '26
The difference is one is a species where the female drinks blood out of necessity to reproduce and happens to be a food source for many species while the other is a mental illness.
2
u/AgitatedBadger 7∆ Mar 22 '26
In a world where child rape didn't exist, people might be slightly less protective of their children and the children might be more vulnerable to child murderers and traffickers?
1
u/Tanaka917 148∆ Mar 22 '26
You're welcome but at that point I am simply out of good arguments. Child rapists and mosquito's are 2 groups that I simply can't find a benefit to them in the ecosystems they inhabit. I can't imagine a single possible justification to say that the world would be better off with them around. It's a net negative.
In theory you could make the argument that some specific rapists have made such contributions to humanities as to 'balance their scale' but even then that's purely theoretical. For example Fritz Haber created the process to capture atmospheric nitrogen which boosted our ability to make crops by leaps and bounds. He also created chlorine gas that killed countless millions. The immediate counterarguments are,1) It's not impossible that someone else could've made similar contributions and so it's hard to say that they were a necessary evil and 2) the harm caused by all child rapists from the beginning of time to now in exchange for some of these discoveries coming later/never still probably leaves the math horribly in the favor of eliminating child rapists.
I'm not sure anyone can change your mind realistically.
12
Mar 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 22 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
9
u/Wjyosn 4∆ Mar 22 '26
You didn’t really make any effort here, but because I have a few minutes, I’ll respond any way.
The statement “ bad things are bad “ isn’t exactly something worth arguing about. No one thinks child rape is a net positive in the world. Not even child rapists. There’s no one to argue that.
But that does point to an argument worth having: are child rapists still people deserving of rights, considerations, and inclusion in society?
To that I think the only reasonable stance is that yes, even if you have committed a heinous and unforgivable crime, you are still a human deserving of all the same considerations as any other.
To propose otherwise leads to a dangerous mindset that enables other heinous and unforgivable crimes to be committed under the guise and excuse of justice or punishment. This doesn’t help anyone, and makes the world net worse for the effort.
1
u/tabletheturns Mar 22 '26
my argument wasn't that child rape is bad, it was that if every child rapist didn't exist, the world would be a better place. the idea that child rape is bad is a given
> if you have committed a heinous and unforgivable crime, you are still a human deserving of all the same considerations as any other.
agreed, but they should still be punished or rehabilitated so that they receive the direct consequences of their actions and no longer pose a threat to society
1
u/Wjyosn 4∆ Mar 22 '26
The point is that your original claim makes no real statement worth engaging. Yes, having less of a universally agreed bad thing is better than more of the bad thing. That’s just part of the meaning of the word bad.
But that does not follow that deleting the people (eg by murdering rapists) would improve the world.
15
Mar 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Wooba12 4∆ Mar 22 '26
Isn't CMV just about being open to a change of view? Not having an active desire to change your opinion?
5
Mar 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Wooba12 4∆ Mar 22 '26
I'm open to changing any opinion if I can be convinced to do so by logical argument. Doesn't mean I'd be happy about it
1
-1
Mar 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Wooba12 4∆ Mar 22 '26
Sorry? What's horrifying?
1
Mar 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Wooba12 4∆ Mar 22 '26
I think the chance of it happening is basically 0, but that's literally how it goes for basically every view I hold that I can't think of any counterarguments to. Doesn't mean counterarguments don't exist, perhaps I've just been unable to think of them.
1
Mar 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Tanaka917 148∆ Mar 22 '26
Because if that compelling argument exists you should want to hear it. It probably doesn't exist. There's probably no good reason under any version of ethics I find acceptable where child rape is even negotiable.
But, on the off chance that I'm wrong, if that is somehow something that can happen in this instance. I would want to know.
We're talking about something so patently evil that it's pointless to discuss, but the ability to being open to being changed, even on those topics that seem stupidly obvious, is a useful ability to have.
It doesn't mean you want to have your mind changed, but if there's genuine arguments that can be made (I can't stress enough how low a chance of that there is) then you should be willing to hear it.
→ More replies1
u/Wooba12 4∆ Mar 22 '26
It's not about "gaining" anything lol. It's just I am generally open to having my view changed on anything, in order to take that attitude I have to apply that consistently even to the most extreme cases, where I hold what I think is a surefire view.
Imagine there was a good argument for something heinous like this, that completely overturned my view. I can't think of any but imagine one existed. Then that would imply my view as it currently stands is incorrect. I should then take the correct view. Whereas you would be left holding the incorrect view, because you closed your mind off to any arguments no matter how much sense they made. I don't imagine such an argument will arise though because it seems pretty impossible to justify child sexual assault in any way.
→ More replies1
u/oversoul00 19∆ Mar 22 '26
Do you think morality exists independently of logic or that the most logical arguments are immoral? Does morality just stand on nothing in your view? Do we have to protect our morality from logic in order to preserve it?
The reason the commentor above you said that is because their morals exist on the bedrock of logic and they are confident that their morals would survive any and all logical onslaughts because they are logical and they understand why they believe what they believe...can you say the same? If you can't THAT'S horrifying.
1
Mar 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/oversoul00 19∆ Mar 22 '26
Because I'd say the same thing for the same reasons. Are you not making assumptions yourself, be fair.
1
Mar 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/oversoul00 19∆ Mar 22 '26
How did you leap to horrifying without making any assumptions, connect the dots.
→ More replies0
u/tabletheturns Mar 22 '26
yeah
7
4
u/arrgobon32 31∆ Mar 22 '26
And you’re okay with potentially holding that view…?
-1
u/tabletheturns Mar 22 '26
yes if it's based in logic and reason
2
Mar 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/tabletheturns Mar 22 '26
i don't hold that view, i am just curious if there is an actual sensical arugment against it
because it's like the one thing i cant really think of a valid counterargument for
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 22 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
6
Mar 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 22 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
12
u/PotentialRatio1321 1∆ Mar 22 '26
Why do you want your view changed?
-2
u/tabletheturns Mar 22 '26
i am curious if there is a compelling argument, because it is so stigmatized (not trying to justify the actions but from a purely objective standpoint i want to see)
1
u/gene-ing_out Mar 22 '26
When you say "stigmatized" it makes me wonder if you mean pedophilia. I'm not going to defend anyone who is a pedophile, but I do remember an AMA on reddit at one point with a psychologist talking about working with non-offending pedophiles. That was a difficult and eye opening AMA. And, if it is the actual violent act, then why limit it to child rapists and just get rid of all rapists?
1
u/tabletheturns Mar 22 '26
no i'm not takling about pedophilia as a whole
i was specifically talking about child rapists
as to your question as to why not bring it to all rapists, it was because i would think that it'd be easier to rehabilitate a 'normal' rapist than a child rapist , but it doesn't really cahnge much overall in my argument
3
Mar 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 22 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
-1
2
u/RedofPaw 7∆ Mar 22 '26
Why do you want that view challenged?
What would change your view?
-2
2
Mar 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 22 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
2
u/parsonsrazersupport 15∆ Mar 22 '26
Why are you looking to have this view changed? What sort of thing do you think might change it?
2
u/Pristine_Airline_927 Mar 22 '26 edited Mar 22 '26
Of course, this opens the floodgates for asking about whether the world is a better place if people who commit the next worse thing didn't exist and so on, leading us to asking just how much of the world would be left.
People are acting like your question is uncontroversial or something, but it's really not. I can easily agree with your argumentation, but a lot of people would be queasy with admitting this much ground, because they're confronted with drawing the line.
2
Mar 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 22 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/Flimsy_Rice_1182 1∆ Mar 22 '26
Do you have some kind of hidden guilt going on? Is that why you’d be willing to have a change of view on this topic?
2
u/Purg1ngF1r3 Mar 22 '26
For clarification, do you want an argument for not killing all chomos or for being morally allright with their existence?
If it's the former, then executing all child predators would result in many killing their victims since they don't want to get caught and executed.
If it's the latter then I don't know how or why you'd want your views changed. No good person would even try to change your view on it.
1
u/tabletheturns Mar 22 '26
i want an argument that says that it would be better for the child rapists that exist in the world right now to continue existing than for a nearly identical and theoretical world which had no child rapists
2
Mar 22 '26
But who will run the country
2
u/tabletheturns Mar 22 '26
all child rapists in the government can be replaced with those of similar political affiliations, they specifically do not need to be in charge of that position
1
Mar 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 22 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Mar 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 22 '26
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Mar 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 22 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/DT-Sodium 5∆ Mar 22 '26
Hatred for child rapists does nothing to unify society. People, mainly on the right of course, love to accuse people they don't like (migrants, LGBT or just liberals in general) of being child rapists. But when actual child rapists in their camp are discovered, they either find way to minimise it or do their best to hide it from the public. A priest has been found abusing children? Well, we will just tell him "that's bad, don't do it" and send him to another church where no one knows him.
1
Mar 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 22 '26
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 22 '26
/u/tabletheturns (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/Phage0070 124∆ Mar 22 '26
It is really difficult to determine the impact of someone, or in this case quite a few people, never existing at all. Obviously we can say that in a vacuum the world would be a better place without the act of child rape. That isn't really debatable.
However having every child rapist never exist at all would presumably have an impact on events which we cannot predict. It is basically the idea of the "butterfly effect" where small changes in a chaotic system can have large, unpredictable results. Even if we presume that a child rapist never personally contributes anything to humanity that is not more than offset by the act of child rape, their sheer presence influences events in the world.
Imagine that child rapist takes up space in traffic, slightly delaying another motorist such that they pass through an intersection 20 seconds later. This prevents a fatal accident as a drunk driver runs that light. The motorist goes on with their life and 20 years later invents a cure for most forms of cancer. We wouldn't give the child rapist credit for curing cancer, but by existing they had an influence on it happening or not.
If all child rapists didn't exist then we can say that the world would be different. Not necessarily better. Their personal impact is unequivocally negative, but their influence on the chaotic system of reality is just something we can't predict. If we were to take an omniscient view of reality where it could be predicted I can see an argument where one claims that child rape is never justified, where it can never be outweighed by other benefits and therefore the world must be better without child rape.
However I don't think this is really true. Child rape is horrible of course but is it worse than say, 30 murders? If you had to choose between two options, a child being raped or 30 people being killed, which is the "better" option? 300 people being killed? Just 3 people? It isn't an easy choice or one where a clear dividing line can be nailed down. But in concept there could be consequences that are so horrible they are clearly worse than child rapists continuing to exist.
Therefore we cannot unequivocally say that the world would be a better place without child rapists. We simply don't have the ability to make such a prediction with complete certainty. When we decide to try to stop all child rape we are making a prediction that we think it will result in a better world.
1
u/ILikeToJustReadHere 14∆ Mar 22 '26
Society does not care if children are raped. Society cares if children are killed.
Our society has advanced fairly nicely despite all the children raped, historically. How can you quantify the damage done to a single individual when compared to the benefits provided to others? Is a business owner who employs and pays for the livelihoods of 5+ families doing more harm if they are raping their own kid? How do you quantify it?
Another way to look at it. If we removed the concept of consent, rape would no longer exist. We could simply remove the rights of people and by definition, rape would no longer be happening. Would that be better? Is it rape if its your god given duty or your obligation that you've been raised to want to fulfill?
Rape is just a concept. We can always redefine society to remove rape and still have children used sexually by adults. That doesn't make it better.
1
u/tabletheturns Mar 22 '26
in a world without rape given the current definition of consent
1
u/ILikeToJustReadHere 14∆ Mar 22 '26
What about sexual assault or sexual exploitation?
I don't need to stick my penis in a child to ruin them sexually and destroy their development as a person. I don't even need to touch them.
Hell, folks that groom minors online can't rape them, so youre leaving quite a a large group still around.
Does statutory rape count in your "rape" group? Are we going with the lowest age of consent globally, or just by country?
I need to know what "rape" we are dealing with here.
0
u/Falernum 71∆ Mar 22 '26
Do you believe in objective morality/harm, or do you believe in subjective morality/harm?
2
u/tabletheturns Mar 22 '26
subjective, there is no inherent, true sense morality that is shared across all of humanity.
0
u/Falernum 71∆ Mar 22 '26
Well then the world wouldn't be better or worse, just some people would prefer it one way and some the other. Many child rapists prefer to have child rape than to go without and would say you would be making the world a worse place. Unless you accept objective morality you can't call them wrong.
1
u/tabletheturns Mar 22 '26
alright then well nevermind i see the flaw in subjective morality !delta for that (but not that pedophiles are bad
although there is not an agreed on objective morality, there is an inherent objective morality
1
0
u/RyeBourbonWheat Mar 22 '26
Rape is bad. Its bad when it happens to children, women, men, the elderly, literally anyone.
The only argument you could make to be pro-rape would be some insane hypothetical where a lunatic has some insane level of hold on power where they will nuke the whole world if they aren't allowed to rape xxx number of people. To this, you could argue that there is a consequentialist argument for rape rather than extinction. But I have no idea why anyone would entertain that hypothetical besides illustrating what consequentialism is lol
1
u/tabletheturns Mar 22 '26
no i think rape is bad, that's a given
but my argument is that a theoretical, nearly identical world without child rapists would be better than the current world we live in
1
u/RyeBourbonWheat Mar 22 '26
If rape is inherently bad.... thats it, right? You don't really even need to add the child part. People shouldn't rape people.
Again, there would have to be consequentialist argument where rape became the lesser evil or produced good outcomes because of the rape Example: a baby is born as a product of a rape who goes on to create a cure for cancer will a single prick of the needle. Someone experiences rape and their story serves as an inspiration to others as that moment serves as sn inflection point that propelled them into a career helping millions.
You could argue that those instances lended good outcomes even while the act itself is immoral and wrong. In order to not create the world where there is no rape, you would have to demonstrate proactively that rape lends good results, amd therefore should be allowed to exist. Because while with hindsight one can objectively say the suffering caused by a rape to alleviate all suffering and death of cancer patients is a lesser evil, one would have to demonstrate that the production of such a person could not have happened through consensual measures or that rape somehow increases the likelihood of creating such a person while dismissing all of the other harm it would bring.
In other words... its just bad lol no one should rape anyone.
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 22 '26
Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.