By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Women gets to drip acid into a mans eyes by court rule

highwaystar101 said:
vlad321 said:
highwaystar101 said:

*flip flop* I agree the latter intent is not worse, but it doesn't need to be, because killing people we deem dangerous to society is still pretty bad.

So then it is not worse, just pretty bad. I will try to refute that some more. Why is it still pretty bad if the people dangerous to society, the ones who have already harmed it and not the ones with potential to do so, are simply removed entirely, and are not left to cause other forms of burden on said society?

Because it is hypocritical that our hypothetical justice system has deemed murder punishable by death. We must demonstrate that we can be civil with our justice system.

But see, now you are looking at just the consequences again and not the purpose of the action. Killing a killer in a premeditated case has a completely different intent, and therefore the action is entirely different and no hypocrisy exists.

Edit: A little off topic but, I wonder if we had different words for it (one would be murder if there was premeditation and the other one with the court order would be an entirely different word) if that would change the minds of some people. Knowing how fickle and dumb the populations are in general I wouldn't doubt it.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Around the Network
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 document yourself more on this matter, I will no longer bother 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.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

vlad321 said:
Rath said:
vlad321 said:
 


So then here is my question. That handful of people, why do you keep them in jail? They end up being paid for by the taxpayers, the people they damaged  live with knowing the criminal is still alive, and a whole bunch of other problems that would be simplified if the heinous criminal was just killed right off the bat.


Without trials and appeals you mean?

That would just demean the entire system.

 

With trials and appeals it works out to be cheaper to keep them in prison.

So wait, are you claiming people that are sentence to life don't go through trials and appeals?

Thought I'd replied to this, must have forgot. In America the extensive process of the death penalty makes it more expensive than life in prison on average.



There is nothing about this situation that isn't totally screwed up.



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.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Around the Network
Rath said:
vlad321 said:
Rath said:
vlad321 said:
 


So then here is my question. That handful of people, why do you keep them in jail? They end up being paid for by the taxpayers, the people they damaged  live with knowing the criminal is still alive, and a whole bunch of other problems that would be simplified if the heinous criminal was just killed right off the bat.


Without trials and appeals you mean?

That would just demean the entire system.

 

With trials and appeals it works out to be cheaper to keep them in prison.

So wait, are you claiming people that are sentence to life don't go through trials and appeals?

Thought I'd replied to this, must have forgot. In America the extensive process of the death penalty makes it more expensive than life in prison on average.

Huh, that's actually a pretty bad discrepancy. Either the life sentence criminals aren't given the attention they deserve, or the death row criminals are getting more attention than needed.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

highwaystar101 said:

Because it is hypocritical that our hypothetical justice system has deemed murder punishable by death. We must demonstrate that we can be civil with our justice system.

Completely agree with this. The one who is the judge should always be above the criminal for him to have that kind of power.



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.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

vlad321 said:
highwaystar101 said:

Because it is hypocritical that our hypothetical justice system has deemed murder punishable by death. We must demonstrate that we can be civil with our justice system.

But see, now you are looking at just the consequences again and not the purpose of the action. Killing a killer in a premeditated case has a completely different intent, and therefore the action is entirely different and no hypocrisy exists.

Edit: A little off topic but, I wonder if we had different words for it (one would be murder if there was premeditation and the other one with the court order would be an entirely different word) if that would change the minds of some people. Knowing how fickle and dumb the populations are in general I wouldn't doubt it.


They do have different names. One's called execution, the other is called murder. Those terms imply the intentions too.

Anyway. I'm looking at the intention, but I don't think the intention is enough to justify the deaths.



Pretty scary story, plenty of crazy people out there

@the court rule: Seems fair - he deserves it imo