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

[vlad321]

sapphi_snake said:

vlad321 said:

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.

1. Punishments were much stricter back then. And it lost it's meaning because people were desentisized to violence. It's not as if people could know if the person who was punishedwas guilty or not (if anything, actual guilt is a bigger issue now than it was back then). Untill you documentto yourself more on this matter, I will no longer with this conversation.

2. If a person is crazy, then they are not in control of their actions. If a person is not in control of their actions, they cannot be punished. What the victim wants is irrelevant. That's why we have judges to hand out the punishments, as only an objective party, not involved in the situation, can do it properly and failry. Your ideea of "justice" is Medieval, and I think Iran would be a good country for you to live in. There's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. It's also not my fault that you wrote an ambiguous sentence that could've been interpreted in several ways.

3. You have nothing whatsoever to back up the ideea that people back then thought that punishment wasn't applied correctly. And I doubt you'll find such proof anywhere.

Your ignorance and sadism is the only thing getting in the way of a proper conversation.

1. I thought the topic of this point was just how much murder, and how many people knew of it first hand, occured in the old days, not whether people were desensitized or not. I can also interpret your last sentence several different ways so can you restate it to avoid confusion?

2. Ok I guess I should tell you why you can't win in the case of rape. No matter who it is there is 1 sole intent for rape. Reproductive instinct takes over and overrules the person's inhibitions in his mind that are set up by society. There is literally no other base reason to rape, and it doesn't matter whether the person is crazy or not. Furthermore I need to point out how laughably terrible this whole "don't listen to the victim" bullshit is. You can't even begin to comprehend how terrible the experience is for the victim, yet you with your naiveity and bullshit, idealistic, hypocritical (more on that in a sec) morals will go ahead and tell the victim to suck it up. It is extremely hypocritical because if you were to be raped, you'd be in the exact same situation and I am willing to bet all my belongings you'd want very similar form of justice. I also want to note that my sentence was NOT ambiguos, "it" was refering to the previously mentioned matter which in that case was the scenario of you getting slapped by a rape victim after justifying the rapist. Sense it wasn't ambiguous the fault can only lie with you.

3. I don't? I guess people just wanted rule of law and proper due process just for shits and giggles? That right there is the ultimate proof.

Yes... ignorance and sadism. I like how realistic, logical, people are being labeled nowadays, by someone who can't understand the antecedent of a pronoun nonetheless.