[ SECRET POST #2757 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2757 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 062 secrets from Secret Submission Post #394.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

... because murdering (and eating, and feeding the corpses to other people) is okay as long as they're not babies?

[(Anonymous)]

Kind of? It's like Al Capone and Charles Manson. One guy was a mobster who killed other mobsters, the other had someone's baby cut out of their stomach. Liking one is not the same as liking another.

[(Anonymous)]

... they're both murderers. Al Capone's murders probably affected entire families too.

[esteefee]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand how murdering babies is appreciably worse than murdering (let alone eating) people who have had whole lives develop, who might have children of their own depending on them, who have hoards of memories shared with so many people. Just because they're babies doesn't make them more precious as humans.

[(Anonymous)]

There's a reason why in prison the people who hurt children get beaten to a pulp by the rest of the prisoners.

[(Anonymous)]

Because everyone wants to feel morally superior to someone.

[(Anonymous)]

Anyone who doesn't murder children is morally superior to those who do.

[(Anonymous)]

Damn straight.

[(Anonymous)]

Yep. Whether or not they're correct to feel morally superior is a whole other issue.

[esteefee]

Do you have any statistics on that? Anyway, I'm just saying the reason isn't very humane. And I was talking about babies, not children.

[(Anonymous)]

Don't know about statistics but just google it. It happens frequently. Often pedophiles and whatnot have to be segregated from the rest of the general population because they'd get killed otherwise.

[esteefee]

Yeah, but the reason I asked for stats is because the general population also has a tendency to beat on each other. There aren't, however, enough pedophiles to form into protective units.

[comma_chameleon]

I don't have any statistics on hand but it does seem to be pretty common for child-molesters/killers to have 'accidents' in prison, because there's the caveat that even criminals have kids too.

[esteefee]

Right, but how many child molesters/killers die in comparison to other inmates annually, is the question? And you might have missed my point about there not being enough child molesters to form protective packs. This is why statistics are important: they affect why things are the way they are and the assumptions we make. Much better than relying on hearsay.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

That's actually a really good point that I hadn't thought of.

[(Anonymous)]

No stats to offer, but I work in Corrections and this is one of the truest things you can say about the prison population in general. As soon as a prisoner transfers to a prison, they're asked for their 'papers'. If they don't produce them, the other inmates assume his crime is one against babies/children and they're targeted. If they produce them and their crime is against babies/children, they're targeted.

Even rapists and murderers and gangbangers have their standards. I sleep better at night knowing that.

[(Anonymous)]

It's because it's in our genetic make up to be (very) protective of (our own) children. We wouldn't have survived as a species if we weren't.

Look, I agree with you in that I don't have that whole kind of wanting to protect babies (and children) at all cost, so I don't feel it like most people do when they say/think/believe/feel babies are more precious than other human beings.

The only way I can make sense of it is to look at it in an evolutionary way, babies are the next generation, they are our lifeline, they will continue the race and so on. Thus, babies are more precious.

(Look at what ants do when their nest floods. Everything they do is aimed at saving the colony. Not themselves, the colony. So, babies and queen first.)

[kribban]

There's also the fact that adults can, theoretically, fight back, but children can't. Babies can't even try to run away.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

Yeah, and that.

Same reason why violence against animals also gets quite violent (no pun intended) reaction from the general public. They're in a situation where they have no control over what is happening to them.

[esteefee]

I smell you, Fred. But it kills me, because we aren't ants. We are supposedly rational creatures with the ability to discuss this logically. We are not in danger of losing our future from a mass murderer. Our population growth is just super. We are in danger from scary stuff like climate change that is on a massive scale and will affect everyone. The nest is already flooding. :) But people are only focused on the babies for some reason.

It's enough to make a girl tear her hair, I'll tell you that.

[(Anonymous)]

Just because they're babies doesn't make them more precious as humans.

Yes, it fucking does.

There is no one more innocent and helpless and precious as a baby or a child. Nothing more worth protecting at any cost. If you fundamentally do not feel this way, I hope you're never entrusted with the safety of one.

[esteefee]

Whoa. Tamp down the hostility there, buddy. Just because I consider adult humans precious doesn't mean I consider babies *less* than precious. You have a problem with reading comprehension.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm curious as to the exact age one stops being "precious".

[(Anonymous)]

But not everyone's a mobster or criminal. If Hannibal only kills other murderers, that would fit your argument, but at least some of the people he kills are innocent, right? Also, nobody said anything about "liking" one or both. It's about NOT excusing a killer because he only kills adults instead of babies.

[(Anonymous)]

Sharon Tate's baby was never 'cut out of her'. Manson wanted that, but there wasn't time for those animals to get to it.

Not the point of your point, but what happened to Manson's victims was bad enough without misinformation going around.