I would posit that this rather frightening woman may well have caused her daughter intense psychological suffering. If I were to be raped, I might want the rapist dead, but several years later I’d prefer not to be reminded of his existence and certainly doubt I’d be comforted by the fact that a man had been burned alive because he committed a heinous act to me.
It would cause ambivalence of feeling at best.
That’s not what I said. You can go back and read the post. I’m sure you won’t, but that doesn’t make you right.
Ok, reread what you said… And this
So what’s worse, dying by fire or freezing to death. Ooooh you can’t answer you haven’t experienced them both!
But wait! You say, I burned my finger once and it was terribly painful, freeze please! Sorry, according to Kalhoun you can only answer if you have experienced them both.
Do you see the flaw in your argument yet?
Not at all. I disagreed that ‘beating is usually worse than rape.’ See, I directly quoted you using the word usually.
I think he means that it would be interesting information, and that people who have experienced both might have a different perspective, not that people who haven’t experienced both (or either) aren’t allowed a POV.
FWIW, I’ve been through both, and, if forced to choose, it would depend on the type of rape and the type of beating. If you were talking about rape without being beaten up, you’d have to compare it to being punched a few times, not being beaten to within an inch of your life. Rape could make me pregnant or give me an STD, even AIDS; even if it didn’t, I’d have to wait months to find out. It’s not just psychological trauma that’s an outcome of even non-violent rape.
I qualified it, both from the viewpoint of someone who’s experienced both and from someone who has read about it, attended groups, and personally knows many victims of both assaults. I also never never said that only people who have experienced both can have an opinion. I do think that if you’re going to take a poll, it would be valuable to poll people who actually have experience in both. Otherwise, you know, you’re just talking out of your ass.
Whatever the bug is up your ass, it doesn’t lessen the validity of my argument. So far, your contribution to the thread has been nothing more than argumentative bullshit.
I am curious and intrigued also.
I don’t get it either. If someone were trying to kill me, I would do everything I could to stay alive (and that includes killing the other guy). I seriously doubt I would be debating the issue with myself, as to the legality, the “reasonable lengths” I should to to, or the ethical “problems”. I would not be searching for the “mininal force necessary” either.
I can only guess at how it would happen, but I imagine I’m much like anyone else…
I understand she did get jail time, and was released under some sort of psychiatric or psychological care. Fair enough.
Not everyone reacts with violence. True.
Violence should not be condoned or encouraged. True.
Some violence can be understood, in the context of what/how/why. We can still punish it as needed, but we have to also understand that everyone is capable of extreme violence if (going back to this) some big dummy pushes THAT button.
Agreed on all points. I don’t think any of us truly know how we would react under extreme duress. I would expect that if I went off the beam and committed an atrocious act that I would be punished and I’d hope that the judge and jury would weigh the circumstances before sentencing. However, that, in itself, is a crapshoot.
Hopefully, none of us will EVER have to find out what our “oh shit” trigger is.
I examined my moral sense.
I’ll try.
I believe that the taking of another person’s life is the worst thing anyone could do, morally. I also don’t think anything anyone does, however evil, can make them not human, as is often stated here so vehemently.
I am also aware that there is a natural instinct to self defence, to react violently to immediate threat. However, I think it is possible to subsume my instincts to my moral sense.
I do not rape every woman who gives me a hard-on, for instance.
So, anyway, I have made the choice not to return violence with violence. For both philosophical (game theory, in this case) and religious reasons, I do not believe it accomplishes as much as is lost in the act.
I bolded that bit because it’s the truth, and has been as long as we’ve been civilised.
The world is bound in chains of violence, or the threat of violence, which we mistakenly call Law, and Order. I believe true order comes from within, and it is only when we, as a collective, master our instincts for violence and greed, that we will progress beyond the fetters of imposed order. I do not believe this will happen in the forseeable future, but in addition to “Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”, Gandhi said something that I believe is even more profound - “Be the change that you want to see in the world.” I try to live by this - I try to be a better man than the one that strikes me.
Yes, I know, “only because violent men stand ready to defend me blaah, blaah…”. My only answer is that I didn’t ask them to, and I would practice as I do even if they didn’t do that, and I have in the past, when the violent men were on the other side of the whip. I still have the scars to show for it, too.
And can I politely ask that we leave any hypotheticals about my wife or kid being raped out of any further discussion, if there is any? That always seems to happen when I declare my pacifism here. Ditto for the Holocaust, which, yes, I would not have killed anyone to prevent. Done anything else in my power, but not killed.
Some further info in this Telegraph article.
I would do everything I could, except killing or risking the killing of the assailant.
Neither would I. But that is why I developed my moral framework beforehand, so I wouldn’t have to make those spur of the moment decisions that I would regret later. I already know I won’t meet violence with violence - past experiences have confirmed that I’m capable of sticking to that.
Because the death of 5 million Jews isn’t as bad as you having a guilty conscious. Your moral compass is fucked.
It’s not true at all. A vigilante is dangerous to everyone in the community.
The advantage of Mr Dibble’s viewpoint is that a philosophical trait would seem to have more chance of surviving than a genetic one.
I’ve got to say, this states what I think and feel very well. I’m not sure I’m as certain as you that I could carry it out (and have never been tested), but I would hope that I could put my morals before my emotions every time. Very nicely put. Thank you.
My “prime goal” would be to survive. There is nothing immoral in trying to stay alive. There is nothing immoral about that. So according to you, it would be wrong to fight and maybe kill soemone, even if that someone could/would go on to kill more people? To simply lay down and let things happen when you could have stopped it, is the immoral thing to do.
And to be clear here, I am not talking about deliberately murdering an assailant or threat (that has already been subdued or ran away), I am talking about the basic biological imperative of survival.
Their deaths wouldn’t be on my conscience. I’m not the one doing the killing.
:rolleyes:
As would mine - up to a point.
Not in itself, but I believe “The ends justify the means” is morally abhorrent.
Yes
I said nothing about laying down and letting things happen. I have yet to experience a situation where deadly violence was the only possible solution to a problem.
Well, I guess my sense of self matters more to me than brute survival. I not only want to live, but I want to live with myself, too.
I’m not saying I won’t automatically react my hand if struck, by the way. But at any point where thought enters into it (as it must, in the example of the woman in the OP, as well as my real-life experience), I would choose nonviolence.
Why is that, exactly? She killed a man that she personally knew, with 100% certainty, was a convicted child-rapist who was out despite not having completed his sentence. That does not mean that she’s going to flip out and kill everyone who isn’t a convicted child-rapist.
Grumman, are you really going to argue that arson is a controlled process, because I disagree vehemently. Based on the sparse details I remember, she threw an accelerant on her victim, and lit him on fire, as he was leaving a bar.
The potential for that sort fire to get out of hand, and quickly, is huge.
Anyone who uses fire in that manner is a danger to everyone around them.