Women gets to drip acid into a mans eyes by court rule

[vlad321]

sapphi_snake said:

vlad321 said:

1. So elt us see, you are claiming that everyone in the olden days had been exposed to public executions? I somehow HIGHLY doubt that. The best case you can make is the French Revolution, however by the end everyone knew people were being killed left and right for no good reason, just look at Lavoisier. Therefore they lost all form of meaning. Furthermore did they have child rapists/urderers in every town for them to see such punishment. Your entire point is just laughably bad, trying to make it out as if there was information proliferation on the scale of the internet/TV/radio way back in the day. Your point is faulty and full of holes, I am sorry.

2. Ok, maybe I gave you too much credit then. There is a nice objective way of determening the differences between a murerer/rapist/etc. and just a person you don't like. If you can't realize that, then I can see how the pisspoor strawman argument makes sense to you.

3. I also don;t see how you think I nejoy torture, I jsut think it's necessary. Pretty big difference between the two, but I am not sure if you are able to tell the difference. I also expected you to come up with some counter argument, seeing as how you didn't I have to assume you couldn't.

1. Modern communication methods help information travel great distances, and at great speed. However, public executions were practiced within every community. It wasn't necessary for people from Village A to see the executions that went on in Village B, as they had their own executions. And as I said, these executions were public events, where all the entire community would gather, and they'deven bring their children. Things likeexecutions are much more private and hidden nowadays, despite the evolution of communication methods. My point isn't at all faulty, but keep saying that, if it makes you feel better.

2. Judging people exclusively by their actions, while ignoring the cause won't keep crimes from happening in the long term. Your methid has historically been proven to fail.

3. What's the point of torture? (especially if you're gonna kille the person in the end anyway) Other than it being unecessarily cruel, or some sort of fetish, I don't see what you hope to accomplish with it.

1. SO every town had a murderer all the time? Every village had nonstop executions? THe population back then was much, much smaller than it is today, and even in big cities we don't get all that many heinous crimes. Your claim is baseless and outright wrong. Furthermore you imply that everyone in the town would go see these, not just the ones who have some interest in them. Great example right here, we're discussing a cae that happened a world away, never woudl have ever known about this thing if it had happened even more than 15 years ago.

2. Maybe you aren't aware that that's why we there are different degrees of murder as sentences that weight the purpose. Also, rape is fairly blakc and white, and involvement of children too, where purpose really doesn't matter one bit other than the fact it's malicious.

3. I made it clear perfect clear before, maybe you didn't catch on. It's a form of "hell" that is not made up. The concept of hell already keeps a huge part of populations in check already. I don't see how a very tangible form of "hell" wouldn't be even more effective.