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

[sapphi_snake]

vlad321 said:

sapphi_snake said:

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.

1. I corrected my sentence. Keyboard trouble. Won't bother with the rest.

2. You obviously don't know much about rape, or about insanity for that matter. I think you need to document yourself on that too. You can search for books on the topic yourself.  And why call me a hypocrite? A baseless statement. Guess what: if I were raped, I'd have to get over it. Because there's nothing that anyone could do to erase my rape. Spo my only choices would be to find the strenght to get over it, or to kill myself. Killing the person who raped me wouldn't erase my trauma. As long as he was stopped from hurting others I'd be ok (and that doesn't mean he should be killed).

"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."

The it can reffer to the "go to the woman who was raped and tell her..." part OR to the "you... get beaten ot stabbed" part. Taking into consideration your twisted views, it's only natural that I considered the latter to be the antecedent.

3. One of the things that was abolished when people got "rule of law" and "due process" is ridiculous forms of punishment, like torture. That's because at that time people also came up with concepts like "human rights", something which the people who used torture and killing as methods of punishment didn't believe in. Actually, the entire point of "rule of law" and "due process" is to protect people's rights, and to make sure that those in power don't walk all over human rights.

You're not realistic, or logical. You don't even bother to present any evidence to prove that your solution would actually work. And I'm sure most psychologists or psychiatrists would disagree with you. Then again, you should be talking to a specialist for totally different reasons.