These young people may be the criminals of tomorrow and such actions can only deter possible future deviance.The author is essentially advocating that we should punish children even if they have done nothing wrong in order to deter "future deviance". Obviously this is insane. Even ignoring the moral implications of punishing people for hypothetical future acts, there is the question of exactly how punishing someone for non-deviant acts is going to discourage deviant acts. How, exactly would that work? And even more oddly, my stated reason for opposing the "delicate flower" treatment of children is not to punish them at all but to help them. And nothing in the article suggested anything about punishing the children either. It was nothing more than a dare. It tested the children's courage, and by having them accept the dare and survive, it probably gave them courage.
So what to make of this odd comment? Well, the answer was in the signature. He signs his name "Pastor Lou Stuhlwater". Ah. One of those anti-Christians who goes around pretending to be an insane bible-thumping televangelist, shocking everyone with his calousness and irrationality. A quick jump to his web site confirmed the assumption.
When a "Christian" makes a intentionally offensive comment on a blog, 99% of the time it is a fake. By "intentionally offensive", I mean things like "all you queers will burn in hell" as opposed to "homosexual behavior is morally wrong" which, despite the predictability of giving offense is not intended to give offense --that is, the writer would prefer that he could say it without giving offense.
Most of these intentionally offensive statements are written by someone who actually hates Christians and is acting out his spiteful stereotypes. Which leads one to wonder why some people are so obsessed with acting out spiteful stereotypes. Is it just to bring shame on Christians by doing bad things in their name or is it deeper? Do these people secretly want to be the crazy irrational screaming hate-filled monsters that they play on the net? If they do it in a name that they don't really agree with, then they can get the jollies of being disgusting people while still telling themselves that they aren't really like that --they are just playing a role. But if you do it all the time, well, where is the dividing line between the role and the real person?