>>6290335 (lb)

>Do not blame an infinitely all knowing/powerful creator for creating a situation that they'd know would lead to suffering. Of children.

That sounds like a whole lotta okie doke. Do you really know the answer to this question, or are you just going through the motions? God knew then when he created a species that would exercise "free will" to its fullest extent that suffering would be the the end result. If God did not know that, then God isn't all knowing. If God knew that it would, then God is cruel. If God knew it and could have prevented it, then God is a benevolent.

Either God isn't as all powerful as you think. Or, God isn't as all powerful as you think. Or God is cruel.

Which is it?

>>6290707

The system is erroneous. Of the 100% of the population that is "errant" in their behavior, you have a significant percentage that will not "bend the knee" to societal standards. What that percentage is, no one knows. Can you get a "statistical" understanding based on demographics and historical data? Sure. Is it skewed? Yep. Does that make the data invalid? Perhaps, but you can't discount it entirely. Does that make The current system "valid" in terms of rehabilitation? Nope. Is there anything better than simply removing the dregs of society from the general populace? Nope. Is the system in place rehabilitative? Nope.

There's your problem.

>>6290732

>>6290723

You've never fucked (or more accurately been fucked) by a gymnast, I see.