Legally out.
Oh, get off it. A vigilante is someone who is so convinced that their own idea of what consitutes justice shall be dispensed that they dispense it. They act as judge, jury, and executioner. This particular individual you celebrate has decided that a particular offense deserves death, although the law does not agree, and then carried out an unlawful execution.
Civilized persons obey the rule of law. Nor do they take delight in the illegal acts of vigilantes.
To the tune of 198 people within a couple of minutes.
Exactly. Vigilantes are dangerous to everyone.
Ok, we’ve established that you think it is wrong to kill, even in self defense. The question then is, even though you feel it is wrong, would you kill in defense of your life or loved ones, if capable, knowing you or loved ones will absolutley die? Or do you lay down and take it?
So are automobiles. Get off this women’s case and go spread your concern for my safety and the public’s by banning automobiles.
No, I wouldn’t
Fallacy of the false dichotomy.
That should be this thread’s subtitle.
By the way, MrDibble, whilst I probably wouldn’t go as far as you, I find your stance admirable in many ways.
Certain automobiles are banned from the road, such as those that fail safety inspections, and those who wish to operate an automobile are examined and licensed by the government. Care to guess how this applies to the issue under discussion at the moment?
MrDibble’s pacifist stance is far from unique. A number of people and groups have submitted to violence, even to the point of dying at the hands of their attackers, instead of reacting with violence in self-defense.
So you are saying the reason rape is not as bad as a beating is because attitudes about rape have changed and the victim is no longer considered responsible for what happened? In order for this to make sense, then beatings would have to create the same ‘‘blame the victim’’ issue. I don’t know about you, but my first thought when hearing someone was beaten is not, ‘‘they probably deserved it.’’ On the other hand, I can think of countless examples in which rape victims were blamed for their circumstances or stupid actions, and countless examples where innocent children were held responsible for sexual abuse. To say that blaming the victim is no longer an issue in our society is to say that racism is no longer an issue. Systemically, things are better. Societally, things are better… but the problem has not vanished altogether, and thousands of people, every day, are still hurt by ignorance.
Your subjective feelings on the matter are entirely understandable and you have my greatest sympathy for having endured not one, but two kinds of interpersonal trauma. However, it’s not unlikely that your own experience in this case is causing you to overgeneralize. There could be many reasons why your beating was worse than your rape. I think a reasonable position to take would be that a particular individual’s damage given a rape vs. a beating is going to vary widely depending on who that person is, the person’s overall life schema prior to the trauma, the duration of the trauma and whether it was repeated, and also, very importantly, who the perpetrator is in both cases. This is a more consistent position with regard to the understanding of trauma in general.
Saying a person contributed to their own victim status is not the same as saying they deserved it!
And I thought I was a doormat. Holy shit. Thanks for answering honestly, but I cannot fathom knowing I can kill my potential killer, and not doing so because I think it’s wrong. That may be, but he’s doubly wrong for killing you.
I hope you conveyed this to your SO or kids if you have them. They should know you won’t be helping them should their lives be at certain risk, with your certain capability to kill a person to prevent yours, or their deaths. Seriously. It should be an E-Harmony question.
Oh, for pity’s sake. :rolleyes:
Just how often do you really think that anyone will be in the situation where the only way to prevent harm to their loved ones is to kill their assailant?
FTM, I’d like to point out that come the moment a lot of people who are bloodthirsty in theory will find it’s a Hell of a lot harder to actually put their proud boasts here into action. For most people deliberately killing someone isn’t easy, nor simple.
Disagree with Mr. Dibble’s stance if you like - but don’t get on your high horse. Far too many people, IMNSHO, make sweeping generalizations about what they’d do in a dangerous scenario, without having any clue how they’d really react.
The mother was in the wrong. Her actions should be handled within the context of her apparent mental illness, but I disagree that there should be no consequences for her murder of another human being. I’ll even go one step further and say she may have been selfishly motivated. What may seem like a sweeping act of loving vigilantism can just as easily be objectification and possessiveness. If you punch someone in the face for insulting me, I don’t interpret that as love, I interpret it as your inability to see me as anything other than an extension of yourself.
But let’s suppose that this woman really was so aggrieved at the suffering her daughter was caused that she sought revenge. The purpose of the law, in my opinion, is to maintain standards of rationality when human rationality fails. For example (and somewhat ironically given my previous statement) I am vehemently opposed to state-sanctioned execution. Would I feel differently if the victim were my child, or my spouse? Most likely. But that wouldn’t make me right. Emotions don’t nullify moral standards. They make immoral actions more understandable, but they don’t lift the perpetrator into some lofty realm of blamelessness.
Actually I was making a joke/pop culture reference. I do that WAY too much.
I think you may be misunderstanding what I meant by saying I would probably, given the chance, kill someone who killed my wife. I certainly didn’t mean to boast, nor to imply that I think that would be the right thing to do. I think it would almost certainly be the wrong thing to do (though I can conceive of circumstances in which I’d be justified in doing so). I was appraising my character, and I’d say that this is a character flaw of mine. It’s not right of me to so attach my–I’m not sure how to put it–my being civilized to my wife. But I do. I love her more than I love anyone else, and I don’t think I’d care about right & wrong anymore if she were taken from me in such a fashion.
Bear in mnid that I said “in least one way.” Consider the possibilities:
- My wife is murdered. I am so filled with rage that, when I chance to see her murderer on the street, all other considerations leave my mind, and I kill that person without thinking about the danger to others.
- My wife is murdered. When I chance to see her murderer walking free, I deliberately wait until he is away from all others so that I do not chance harm to him, and then kill him.
It’s arguable that in the latter case, my rage resulted in me being less able to control myself, and thus somewhat less responsible, than in the second case, in which I have sufficient self-control to consider the nature of my act.
That is idiotic. It is a moral system that bears no relation to anything in the real world. It is an entirely useless system, because it has no potential to do anything that makes the world better or its adherents better people. No, it’s WORSE than useless, because it actively makes things better for the evil. It’s exactly the sort of system that evil people would like good people to all adopt.
The problem with your argument, Mr. Dibble, is one that many religious arguments share. You are asserting, without a scintilla of evidence, that there is some intangible “spiritual” element to existence, and that this spiritual element for whatever reason is more important, more valid, more essential, more valuable than the real, physical world in which we live in. This is the same sort of complacent idiocy that leads to Antonin Scalia, for instance, saying that, since Christ averred that there will be poor always, it is not necessary or even right for the wealthy to take compassion on the ones in the real world.
Maybe there’s such a thing as the soul. Maybe there’s such a thing as the afterlife. I don’t know for certain, but I strongly doubt it in either case. But even if I stipulate that either one exists, I see no reason why either should be granted priority over the physical world. Can you give me one?
Are you aware of how blisteringly stupid, how incredibly stupid the bolded section is? You are, by those words, equating the actions of soldiders who foguht and died to save Jews & others from concentration camps. How in the name of anything reasonable do you do that?
Just out of idle curiosity, what is your religious background?
I’ve given this some more thought, and I’ll retract my blanket statement. It is definitely an opinion based on my own experience as well as reports from others who have experienced both types of assault, but I suppose deeply ingrained ideas about sex could make it worse for them than any degree of physical violence could.
Not to answer for Mr. Dibble, but I don’t see how you can assume that there’s necessarily a spiritual element to his stand on this. In my opinion, by taking a life, you are adding to the bigger problem of hate and violence in the world, regardless of your desire to make less violence by removing a violent person. You’ve still added violence to the equation. A person that doesn’t wish to burden himself with that crime under any circumstances can still do a lot to lessen the bad in the world without crossing his self-imposed line. It makes perfect sense to me.
Admittedly he’s not explicit, but I inferred it from this sentence:
I missed that the first time around, but I still see where a person could feel this way without any religious component. I admire his conviction. I don’t think “how” he arrived at his decision is important, other than just a curiosity thing. It really doesn’t matter. He is who he is and the logic makes sense.