I mentioned torture as a reasonable alternative to unsanctioned, illegal rape.
Separate from the initial line, but I'll let it go to move the conversation.
I see rape as a form of torture to the victim.
I would prefer men like Sandusky be subjected to as many forms of torture as the victims and their parents can imagine. I wish the same of people like the Sandy Hook shooter (had he not killed himself). If the only bad thing that can happen to these terrible people in prison is rape. . .I have a hard time mustering up some sympathy.
A felony and a crime against humanity.
But you don't think it is torture?
You miss the point.
No, my response verifies that I understand the point.
I'm arguing that people (like yourself), do not oppose and sometimes encourage male rape.
I want anything terrible possible to happen to terrible people.
I also did not cry when Jeffrey Dahmer was murdered in prison.
I do not concede that point. I made that point.
Now you are backtracking.
At first you say that people see it as "glorious", and then you concede that people think it is terrible.
Even though you know how terrible rape is, you want it to happen to criminals. Why? Why rape?
Why not rape, if we are talking about terrible human beings? If we have to pay to keep these fricks alive, why shouldn't their every remaining day be filled with torture and misery?
Does it bother you that it's being discussed?
Why would I be engaging this discussion, if I were bothered?