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

[vlad321]

sapphi_snake said:

vlad321 said:

1. I find it laughable you think I am American. I nearly majored in history, so I am fairly interested in history. Furthermore when I researched that book, it doesnt seem like it will back up your claim of "most people have seen executions in those days instead of hearing of them by word of mouth," but onnly goes into the gruesome detials of the executions, which funnily enough, is word of mouth, or book in this case. 

2. Go to a woman who was raped and tell her "it's ok, he was just crazy and unstable" and if you don't get beaten ot stabbed, come talk to me. The thought of it entertains me even more than I expected actually.

3. Ok, I don't know how you didn't see this (you aren't exactly the best representative of non-Americans). It didn't work because there was no consistency, unless you can point me to several monarchs/nobles who were executed publicly for actual crimes. Even Lous XVI wasn't executed for any given crime other than "our lives fucking suck dick" and his wife for even less. In modern days there is far more consistency for such punishment to actually send a clear messagf of "if A,B,or C then this" instead of "if A, B, C, and maybe D E F G, and you aren't someone of importance as deemd by person X, then this."

1. The book describes PUBLIC executions (emphasis on the word public). Grousome events that served as entertainment for the masses. If you search for other books on the topic, you'll know that it was a favorite passtime of many to witness such things (there were very few forms of entertainment, and if you do a historical analysis you'll see that the limited the variety of passtimes, the more popular the existing passtimes are). You yourself mentioned that the populations of cities were small, therefore it was quite easy for everyone to come and see the execution. Of course you'll just ignore this, not look up anything for yourself, and keep throwing personal insults.

2. You're basing your argument on the histerical reaction of an emotional woman. And the bolded part only proves my point that you fetishize violence. You should really see a psychiatrist.

3. It's quite irrelevant who was punished. That should probably discourage most from commiting crimes, as I doubt many people would genuenly think that if a king's never been punished, there was a chance they wouldn't. The king was seen as divine and untouchable, and no one would ever think they'd ever benefit the privileges of kings. You may see a king as just a regular person, but back Medieval man didn't think like this (actually, up 'till close to the French Revolution people didn't think like this at all).

When punishments like this were the norm, and they were carried out in public, people were more or less desentisezed of violence. Even that shows that your ideea is doomed to fail.

Your arguments are base soley on emotion, insults, and irrationality. Not to mention that you clearly fetishize violence and torture, so you're probably a psychopath in the making. Not sure I should waste anymore time with this.

1. You provided me with a book that deals with public executions, and? How does this prove your point that just about everyone in the olden days was present at executions and din't know about them through word of mouth? Furthermore, the villages are small, how many heinous crimes of the magnitute I talk about do you think occured in them? There are 300 million people in the US, and those crimes aren't even that common with such a large population. If you use your brain a little you will notice that there was not nearly as many horrendous acts of crime back then than there are now. Unless you want to somehow prove to me that people in the olden days were ,proportionally speaking, more prone to committing heinous crimes than they are now.

2. Yes, I am basing my evaluation on the person who has been damaged. What exactly is your point, we shouldn't ? I want you to notice that there are some cases where murder makes sense (the weird scenario of you using a fat man to stop a train to save 5 workers), but I chose rape specifically bcause there are no reasons other than "black." There is 0 justificatoin for it. Your bolded part also shows me how terrible you are at reading comprehension, since I was laughing at the thought of you trying to justify the rapist to the victim by calling him crazy.

3. No it is very much not irrelevant. You had many more innocent people suffer back then, than you do now with a proper justice system. You had many people being unjustly punshied to terrors for crimes that didn't deserve them. Then few that were rightly punished lost alltheir meaning due to the inconsistency in the law. If you don't see this, then I really don't know how else to explain it to you so you can understand.

That's fine with me, your reading comprehension seems to be getting in the way of us having a proper argument anyhow.