. . . ?
Why stop there, why shouldn’t we kill our next door neighbors…? Thieving bastards are raping the planet and stealing my air.
We should put a gun in the hands of the victim and give him/her the option to pull the trigger. Give them the opportunity to really forgive.
Nah for one, I belive killing is a very poor punishment. The guilty get off light and the falsely convicted innocent get a raw deal. Secondly the punisment does not fit the crime. It should be based on natural concequnces for their actions if we are to punish in such a fashion. Eg feeding poachers to lions and castrating rapists, but again that conflicts with my first principle and the one I stick by. I just think the second idea is interesting food for thought.
Yeah, what if right before they die they accept Jesus as their personal savior and ask God for forgiveness? That wouldn’t be punishment at all. They’d get to spend eternity in heaven. We should put them 4 at a time in an 8x8 cell with one cold cheese pizza a week to share until they starve to death. People are always arguing that deterrence isn’t the best way to decrease recidivism rates, but I think that’s just because they’re not REALLY trying to deter. Just my 2 cents.
Should we not kill?
If you get to kill rapists by the same right they should be able to kill you in return.
Let’s just do away with moral idealism and kill each other where all our problems of society becomes sorted out by natural selection.
( Gives this thread a four star rating.) =D>
Should we kill people who think poorly or are bad philosophers? hmm… what about women who say they are “raped” as an excuse when they came home with a guy and she initiated the sex and because he was, rich or something she thought she could get a free ride?
If we’re going after rapists, we should kill those who cry wolf as well, and have permanent surveillance on all men and women, so we can accurately judge.
Why should a truly innocent woman have to die because some guy just felt like having his way with her, and she couldn’t defend herself? Wouldn’t that principle imply that it would be better for us to kill anyone who cries out “I’m a victim”, just to be sure?
On the global scale this is happening all the time. Morality is never intended to be universal. Morals as presented by government censored sources only intendes to effect individuals within groups. Ingroups and outgroups are defined by moral lines. The contest between this facilitates a climate for them to control the affirs of them all on the international scale. Once this happens, the “haves” or the entire world start exploiting conflicts amonst the “have nots” on an even higher level, making more efficient use of the “have nots” to instrument their perpetuating this climate without end by whatever means necessary. This is because by possessing the power to define the rules, they are most aware of how to get around them to their advantage. Morality for the powerful is different than is is for those who aren’t. For one it’s a tool used to create for their group heaven on earth. For the other it’s a promise that heaven will come later as long as they work themselves into the grave and generate the revenue necessary to buy, sell and remain civilized as the powerful want and need them to.
I don’t think it’s the rapists out there in the streets victimizing one woman at a time that we should be worried about. We need to understand the rapists that exploit and whore our very souls for their greed and gluttony.
Sorry to moderators, I should have posted it where it is now, rather than philosophy.
I’m glad you liked it, Joker.
Mind you I suppose the goal of the thread was less of a genuine question and more a play on witless bumbling of using questions to poorly disguise a plain agenda. On that note.
Subjecting you to capital punishment is premature.
Kill those mudu fukuz, and purify the blood of the race!
Meat grinders and metal pipes.
Crow bars and rifles.
Gutty rapist bastards ready for the meat packing plant.
Ooooh the violence <3
But passivism is evil! It allows all the worst shit to happen.
Can we stop with the drama? your emphasis on “innocent”, shows that this is an emotional issue for you. My point was to weed out the mischievous men and women who play stupid games with peoples lives.
A man today has to be VERY careful about not being viewed as a sexual “predator”. An Adult woman teacher who fucks her young 13 year old student is not a “predator” but a man who does the same thing is the most evil person on earth? This is the kind of crap we see today in our stupid backward, non-philosophical culture.
Now, there is real rape (i.e. sex because of threat to ones life) and then there is women’s mischief when she gets involved or leads on a man either on purpose or because her naivete and lack of social understanding and ends up sleeping with someone she doesn’t like (yet does not REMOVE HERSELF nor simply leave. (i.e. a woman who REFUSES to take responsibility for her actions). I have great compassion for the former, I have none for the latter.
What a person feels or perceives incorrect isn’t reality, and many of both sexes don’t live long enough to relieve themselves of their misconceptions about each other depending on their life experiences.
There are genuine neurological conditions out there that make men socially blind. Aspergers and autism spectrum disorders for instance: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspergers
Hence these boys/men when they try to enter the dating world may be accused of “stalking” women or being “Creepy” when they can’t read body language or “get hints” you have to tell them in the spoken word directly what you mean and not “hint” at it.
Now these people aren’t rapists of course, but women might misunderstand their behavior as someone who is “creepy” or that of a “rapist”, when these people just don’t understand what you are communicating.
Many problems with today comes from women’s and men’s own ignorance and cultural indoctrination, also because our state of scientific understanding is not that good and we’re loaded down with busy work, we don’t have the free time to become very wise, wisdom usually only comes with one’s dedication and effort to understand the truth, and that means going against your own feelings and ignoring them to find the truth.
Don’t you think killing both parties is a bit too much?
The truth of the matter is, our judgments are not very accurate. If we could scientifically predict if a rapist would rape again, and we had some kind of personality reconditioning (i.e. mind or neuron altering technology) we could “fix” or heal these people.
I wasn’t being serious, I was trying to take the logic ALL the way through to the extremes, if we’re going to kill somebody we better have all the damn facts at hand - thats my opinion on the issue. Not that I endorse violence/capital punishment specifically against all rapists or criminals everywhere.
If you (society) kills the “rapist”, you better not be driven emotionally in your judgment by such a stigmatized and loaded word like “Rape” (which just means held hostage for sex). So you need to be possessed by a collected rationality, no matter how horrible the situation so you don’t lose your head.
Peoples emotions spread like wildfire, they are like a disease. They can be used for good or bad, hence it’s always necessary to remain calm and collected when discussing serious matters so we see the truth, as all real philosophers should!
Anyone who considers himself or herself a philosopher better be able to reject his or her emotional feelings on all matters outright and carefully examine everything with as much time and care as necessary, as not to deceive our selves.
You know that much of our society is based on myths, lies and half truths (i.e. people live under them, spread them, and believe them). That is partly why the world is filled with so much evil.
False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil. --Socrates
I took your view seriously, and I stood up for the innocent party. I can see that the rape charge can be misused, but your proposal is, in my eyes, unacceptable. If you kill both parties every time then there is a 100% chance that an innocent person will be killed. If you drag the case through a trial, then there is at least a chance that the prosecution will not be able to convict the falsely-accused.
Who should kill the rapists? Why not allow vengeance murders by families of raped girls. It’s a matter of honor in some countries. And I think in Genesis, two of the sons of Jacob killed in subterfuge the whole clan of a rapist of one of their sisters. (Genesis: Chapter 34)
All this is predicated on the instance that the girl in question was a virgin.
We should send all violent criminals to what ever war zone is the hottest and turn them loose to face our enemy, if they beat the enemy soldiers they get freedom, if they turn on us, they get napalmed. If they do nothing well, shock collors comes to mind.
that works…
or we could could have them run through a war zone and televise it…
oh wait…
-Imp
It’s obvious that you DIDN’T read it. A girl who falsely accuses a man of rape should be a crime, and I told you I was being absurd (taking the logic to the extremes). If you think you are justified in killing a rapist, then why not kill the ones who falsely cry rape?
Say we have the rape death penalty, in our permanently observed society. So any man who rapes another woman will be put to death, now why shouldn’t a woman who falsely accuses a man of rape not be put to death? A false accuser is just as bad as the rapist himself, especially in circumstances without perfect knowledge of what’s going on inside her little distorted world.
The rapist violates a persons identity (ego)
The false accuser looks to subversively harm (put to death) the rapist by her false accusation because she wishes the man dead.
The reason why Cho of Virginia tech massacre is often seen in a bad light is because everything that happened to that kid was hidden from our view, he talked about being beaten and having had garbage shoved down his throat, etc. Obviously a wounded animal will lash out if people keep violently teasing or attacking it like hyena’s.
I’m certain many of the people who victimized and bully’d cho deserved some form of severe punishment, but he took it upon himself to judge them, but he did so too harshly. He didn’t grasp that:
- People are locked in their own world, not all people mature at the same rate, even university students and so called “adults”.
- That what other people did to him all his life in small doses (i.e. different people acting mean over the course of his life) is not a justification for killing others, no matter how hard it is to take.
Since each new person has no clue what you’ve been through right?
Or we could strap bombs to their chests then detonate them when they get close to the enemy. Or we could just leave it to the legal system to handle it the way the Constitution says. I’ll take the latter.