quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Again, it's not revenge but protection. By killing him, I would be protecting his future victims, I would be protecting myself from being raped by him again (how many acquaintence rapists repeatedly rape the same victim), and if I were in a situation where I was vulnerable to other rapists, I would make the probability that I would be raped again by someone else negligible (because they would know what happened to the last guy).
So now you're judge, jury, executioner AND fortune teller?
And I highly doubt if you murder a man, that you'll see another man (that isn't a guard) for a long, long time. And by that point, they won't even know who you are to the point where your previous warning to all mankind about the good idea/bad idea of raping you wouldn't matter at all.
And your earlier words said nothing about protection. You said that justice for rape should be in your hands alone, meaning it's your job to issue his sentence for the crime he commmitted, and that isn't about the future protection of others, that's about your own personal vengeance. You keep changing or adding on details and reasonings into the scenario to try and make it more palatable as this discussion goes on and they don't all mesh together.
I'm curious to hear you answer the earlier asked question of how this jives with your religious beliefs. Not to mention where you get off punishing someone for crimes they haven't even considered committing yet.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Jim-Me: "That's far from categorically true... for one, without the intervention of due authority, the civil rights movement would likely have ended the way Martin Luther King jr. did."
And if they had waited for the authorities to bring about justice, we would all still be waiting.
This is the point where I confess that, were such a thing possible, I would totally have Tatiana's babies.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
jeniwren, the situation for many people, and for myself at an earlier time in my life, might be ambiguous as you describe. I understand that introduces a lot of complications to the scenario.
However, I know that sort of ambiguity would not be the case for me now. I have rather strong views now and am not easily abused or exploited anymore. I would definitely be in full-out self-defense mode, unless taken completely by surprise and instantly totally incapacitated. Either way it would be a definite, unambiguous, and quite violent attack that would be required to succeed.
quote:From the civil rights movement, to kids being beaten up in school, to domestic abuse, to stalker ex-bfs, to child abuse, to child molestation, heck, even to multinational corporations' abuse and exploitation of third world workers, the authorities nearly always react in the same way, to protect the aggressors and maintain the power structure status quo.
"Nearly always"?
Then how do you explain the authorities' use of military force to integrate a university in Alabama (based on a decision made by the authority of the Supreme Court)? How do you explain the use of federal authority to attack state indifference to assaults and murder of civil rights activists?
How do you explain the thousands of convictions for domestic assault, stalking, child abuse, and child molestation each year?
quote:it does seem rather crazy to people who have not been exposed to violent harsh environments for long periods of time.
You are making unwarranted assumptions.
quote:Jim-Me: "That's far from categorically true... for one, without the intervention of due authority, the civil rights movement would likely have ended the way Martin Luther King jr. did."
And if they had waited for the authorities to bring about justice, we would all still be waiting.
MLK violated and advocated violating unjust laws. You advocate violating a just law. And make no mistake, the law criminalizing murder of ones assailants is just.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, the federal authorities quite reluctantly, and very tardily, stepped in to enforce federal law only AFTER the state authorities had time and again acted contrary to the law in order to maintain the unjust status quo, and only AFTER the activists had precipitated a national crisis by their actions refusing to allow themselves to continue to be victimized. The authorities at all levels urged the activists to wait, to slow down, to hold on, and not to press things. "Give us time" they said, while countless lynchings, bombings, and terrorist attacks were carried out (unprosecuted) against innocent citizens of our country.
Also, the federal law that they finally stepped in to enforce came about only after the activists finally won some key court cases through intense and prolonged effort and expense to bring them before the courts. And even then, they would never have been enforced without the activists' concerted efforts to precipitate situations in which they either had to be enforced, or else very publicly repudiated.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dagonee, the federal authorities quite reluctantly, and very tardily, stepped in to enforce federal law only AFTER the state authorities had time and again acted contrary to the law in order to maintain the unjust status quo, and only AFTER the activists had precipitated a national crisis by their actions refusing to allow themselves to continue to be victimized. The authorities at all levels urged the activists to wait, to slow down, to hold on, and not to press things. "Give us time" they said, while countless lynchings, bombings, and terrorist attacks were carried out (unprosecuted) against innocent citizens of our country.
That doesn't support your "nearly always" language. Further, the successful activists (as in, the activists who actually effected systemic change) did not advocate murder nor claim the right to commit it.
There is nothing in your philosophy to condemn the murder of abortion doctors - you specifically use protection of others from future actions of the person to be murdered in your justification, and there's no difficulty about knowing whether or not the person commits the acts.
quote:Also, the federal law that they finally stepped in to enforce came about only after the activists finally won some key court cases through intense and prolonged effort and expense to bring them before the courts. And even then, they would never have been enforced without the activists' concerted efforts to precipitate situations in which they either had to be enforced, or else very publicly repudiated.
How, exactly, is this like your murdering someone else without giving them a fair trial first?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is refusing to hear the authorities' insistence that you should take no action yourself, but wait for them to see justice done on your behalf, and prevent future attacks on you.
Why do you keep trying to twist my view to make it seem that I say things I do not say? I don't believe in murdering abortion doctors.
The key to effecting change is to have both a violent and non-violent response available. As the civil rights movement played out, the authorities responded to the militancy of blacks who did not advocate non-violence (something that actually frightened them and make them take notice) by actually dealing in good faith for the first time with those who did advocate non-violence.
In other words, you can deal with Martin and SNCC and the SCLC, who are civilized, or you can refuse, and be left with Malcolm X and the Black Panthers and the Watts riots. It's your choice.
Similarly, a potential attacker/rapist can act civilized, choose not to attack, and be treated with restraint and civilization by me, or they can choose to attack me and invoke deadly force. There is no repudiation of civilization on my part, only a willingness to return violence appropriately, and a refusal to put the attackers' rights and safety above my own, or that of his future victims.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why do you keep trying to twist my view to make it seem that I say things I do not say? I don't believe in murdering abortion doctors.
I assumed that you don't believe in murdering abortion doctors. But your philosophy - that it ismorally correct for private persons to use lethal force to protect innocent people from future (non-imminent) crimes - can easily be used to justify it.
quote:Similarly, a potential attacker/rapist can act civilized, choose not to attack, and be treated with restraint and civilization by me, or they can choose to attack me and invoke deadly force. There is no repudiation of civilization on my part, only a willingness to return violence appropriately, and a refusal to put the attackers' rights and safety above my own, or that of his future victims.
You are absolutely repudiating civilization. You are claiming the right to be police officer, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner for yourself. You are essentially creating a short-term mini-tyrany based on your capability to deliver lethal force.
That's not civilization.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, you're a smart person, but you are always trying to win. You like arguing because you find it fun. That's a great trait for an attorney to have, but I don't enjoy arguing because it's fun. I'm trying to give and receive information, and to understand other people's points of view, and hopefully to allow them to understand mine.
I don't have any stake in winning, here. I'm just explaining what I would do in a certain situation. It isn't necessary for me to convince anyone of anything.
I think it's very good that you have so much faith in authority, and I do support and sustain the authorities, when they act in accordance with what is right. I don't see them as being able to fix everything, and don't ask them to. It's a shame that they so often act to impede what's right instead of upholding it, but they are imperfect human systems, and so will always be lurching uncertainly toward some ideal, rather than actually attaining it. I do believe in the ideal that they are reaching for, but I also know pragmatically that it's often a struggle to keep them pointed in the right direction. I feel it is our responsibility as citizens to keep trying and not give up on them, and I will continue to do so.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You ascribe to me some philosophy of your own making. I only state what I would do in a certain situation.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, you're a smart person, but you are always trying to win. You like arguing because you find it fun. That's a great trait for an attorney to have, but I don't enjoy arguing because it's fun. I'm trying to give and receive information, and to understand other people's points of view, and hopefully to allow them to understand mine.
You have quite freely addressed points I have made and disagreed with those points. You have also made positive assertions that many people here disagree with. Somehow that's different than what I've been doing?
I'm responding because I find your position to be extraordinarily dangerous - both to society and to individuals. Sacrificing the natural state of freely available force is one of the central tenets of civilization. You have stated that you are retaining the right to use lethal force without even giving the authorities a chance to convict the rapist. Therefore I find you to be dangerous, and not just to rapists.
This isn't the first time you've advocated using what I consider to be disproportionate force, although last time it was only a kick in the crotch, not premeditated murder.
quote:I think it's very good that you have so much faith in authority, and I do support and sustain the authorities, when they act in accordance with what is right.
In your scenario, you aren't even giving them a chance to do what's right.
quote:I feel it is our responsibility as citizens to keep trying and not give up on them, and I will continue to do so.
And murder to avoid the suffering caused by a trial is not a viable way to try to keep "authorities" from "impeding" what's right.
quote:You ascribe to me some philosophy of your own making. I only state what I would do in a certain situation.
Actually, you also assert that it would be "the right thing." That's not a statement of what you would do, that's a statement of moral philosophy.
Points you have used to justify your use of lethal force:
Avoiding "the additional trauma of a police investigation, jury trial, etc."
That "the guilt of the party is not in question."
That "the correct venue for justice for this crime (acquaintance rape) isn't a public one in this situation."
That "he forfeits his right to be judged by anyone but me by raping me."
That "it's not revenge but protection."
That "there would be no doubt about the matter."
Unless for some reason this is limited just to rape, you've left a lot of situations open to personal choice with regards to capital punishment of offenders.
You've done far more than simply state what you will do in certain situations.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Dag, you're a smart person, but you are always trying to win...
No, he's asking that you not redefine what is clearly "personal vengence" as "justice".
quote: I think it's very good that you have so much faith in authority, and I do support and sustain the authorities, when they act in accordance with what is right.
Except that in your example you are clearly giving them no respect, no support, and no chance to act whatsoever.
In my experience with this, which is not negligible, the authorities have always been ready to prosecute. It has been the parents of the abused or the abused themselves, who have interfered with and prevented the authorities from doing their job. Are you prepared to dismiss parenthood as readily as you have dismissed the legitimate policing power of governments?
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Dag, you're a smart person, but you are always trying to win. You like arguing because you find it fun. That's a great trait for an attorney to have, but I don't enjoy arguing because it's fun. I'm trying to give and receive information, and to understand other people's points of view, and hopefully to allow them to understand mine.
I agree, let's not start bullying each other over it.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it very, very ironic that you're referencing Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as an endorsement of your stance on "what a woman should do if she's raped".
Of the Civil Rights movement, your approach has only refusal to be victimized in common with Dr. M.L.K. Jr. Everything else is more in common with Malcolm X, for instance. And there are times when I admire Malcolm X more than Dr. M.L.K. Jr., just so you know. All I'm saying is, don't equate your approach with peaceful nonviolent resistence-which although there were other elements, was what really made the movement so successful-to evil, because that's definitely not what it is.
Furthermore I think your little talking-down lecture to Dagonee is pretty...inaccurate. For one thing, whether or not he enjoys arguing for fun has nothing to do with whether or not he's arguing now for fun, nor is it relevant. The way you state it, it also comes off as a criticism. You also insinuate that while Dagonee is just having some laughs, you're doing the worthwhile and beneficial thing.
I can't speak to whether or not that was your intent. But it certainly read that way.
quote:Similarly, a potential attacker/rapist can act civilized, choose not to attack, and be treated with restraint and civilization by me, or they can choose to attack me and invoke deadly force. There is no repudiation of civilization on my part, only a willingness to return violence appropriately, and a refusal to put the attackers' rights and safety above my own, or that of his future victims.
When did it become a certainty that a man who rapes once, will rape again? Or a woman, for that matter? Furthermore in what way is killing a man after the fact an appropriate return of violence? Rape does not equal death. The rape victim is still alive. They can go on to hopefully recover from the terrible ordeal and its many consquences, long- and short-term, and lead a joyous, productive, worthy life. A dead person has nothing left in this life.
The difference between your approach and that of the American Civil Rights movement is one of degree. Yes, they weren't willing to wait, you're not willing to wait. But while they were willing to keep forcing the issue, demanding change, getting in authority's face and not permitting them to forget them...you just murder the criminal, and that's that.
quote:As the civil rights movement played out, the authorities responded to the militancy of blacks who did not advocate non-violence (something that actually frightened them and make them take notice) by actually dealing in good faith for the first time with those who did advocate non-violence.
This is a matter of interpretation, one which does not coincide very well with the views of authority at the time. Authority despised blacks, viewed them as sub-class citizens and treated them as such. And authority had all the guns. In this situation, were their concern over the potential violence of blacks their primary motivation, they would likely have become more oppressive, not less.
No, it was guilt over seeing good and honorable and peaceful human beings in the newspapers and on the TV, in diners and on the streets, murdered along with their comrades in some of the most hatefully racist places and the resulting shame, that had most to do with the movement's success.
You can examine India if you like, for another nation in which an oppressed minority successfully changed the status quo without violence. Except in India, they had tried violence, and didn't succeed.
I'm actually pretty annoyed. Here I am, defending rapists. It's upsetting.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Dag, you're a smart person, but you are always trying to win. You like arguing because you find it fun. That's a great trait for an attorney to have, but I don't enjoy arguing because it's fun. I'm trying to give and receive information, and to understand other people's points of view, and hopefully to allow them to understand mine.
I agree, let's not start bullying each other over it.
::scratches head::
You think Dagonee is being a bully??
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I could just chime in here - Tatiana is absolutely right. I, myself, would gladly kill any number of theists on the grounds that they might be a danger in the future. I am restrained only by their ability to deliver effective retaliation, since they do rather outnumber me.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tell the truth, KoM: you rather enjoy your ability to sink a given side of an argument through agreeing with them, don't you? Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is totally different to say, "This is what I will do in this situation, if these events occur, and here are the reasons I would choose to do it" than to say, "I think all women in this situation should do this because my personal moral decision is absolutely valid in all situations."
I think Tatiana is saying the first thing and you guys are hearing the second.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well everybody is assuming the second because nobody can argue effectively against the first one, since its personal Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I just think the correct venue for justice for this crime (acquaintance rape) isn't a public one in this situation.
quote: What would be wrong is for them to be given stewardship over the justice for the rape, because that justice is mine.
quote: I feel he forfeits his right to be judged by anyone but me by raping me.
quote: What I'm saying is that the natural stewardship for justice for rape by someone well-known to the victim (so that there is no danger of mistaken identity) doesn't rightfully belong to the courts, but instead to the victim.
quote: the authorities nearly always react in the same way, to protect the aggressors and maintain the power structure status quo.
I agree that eternal victimhood is a low quality response. That's why I don't recommend that path, but rather, prefer a strong determined refusal to be made a victim of. Such a refusal always angers the authorites. However, that's to be expected and accepted as part of it.
quote: The key to effecting change is to have both a violent and non-violent response available.
I don't think so, Olivet.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Other than the usual rebuttal of 'you couldn't possibly know what you'd really do until you go in that situation'. Which is the one I ascribe to, with rape or abuse. Who ever thinks it's going to happen to them really? People who say 'I'd kill the guy' are just blowing smoke if they've never been there, never been really close to that kind of a situation.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icky, I can see all of those statements as her stating her reasons for deciding that that is what she would do, and explaining her reasons for it. She has reasons, historical and personal, to distust authority, and has explained some of them. You are assuming she is suggesting universals or absolutes, but I simply am not reading that in what she says. I could be wrong.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
She quite specifically says that the stewardship for justice for acquaintance rape belongs to "the victim"--a generic. I don't understand where the confusion it. She is not saying all women should do this, but, as far as I can see, she is saying she believes that any woman that did would be morally justified.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is what she believes. It is the victim's decision whether to prosecute, in most cases. She's just saying she sees athird option, one she would personally take. I think she also realizes that anyone taking that option would be tried for murder. Doesn't mean it isn't an option, just because most people would agree it isn't the best option.
"Morally justified" is her opinion, which is distinct from "legal". I don't get "where the confusion it" either. She is saying she would choose to act outside the accepted authority because she doesn't trust that authority for whatever reason.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
She has also said that she would vote to aquit, were she on a jury panel for a woman in this situation, and seemed to expect that the majority of other people would, too, when she posed the question. So again, while she has never said she believes this should be the regular response, she certainly sees it as okay for women other than herself.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
She has not said it would be legal, and nobody has said that she has said this, as far as I can tell. What people have said is that it is wrong. She thinks it's not. Hence the disagreement. I don't think people are hearing anything other than what she has said.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, people don't make decisions that they think are "morally justified" without thinking that others might agree with them.
People choose to have premarital sex (always have, even when it was a legally punishable offense) and probably expect some others would choose similarly. I don't think that means that she expects that choice to be the norm.
I have overstepped my bounds in speaking for her, perhaps. She has said that the she would ignore authority in that circumstance and face whatever consequences.
Which is still a far cry from, "This is how I think the world should work."
Luckily for us, no single individual gets to make those decisions for everyone in our society, so I don't see why everyone is so upset that an individual would choose to break a law, and justify it in their own mind to their satisfaction.
Maybe everyone would feel better if she said, "I would do this, but I know it's wrong." It would be dishonest of her to say that, though, if that is not what she believes.
I continue to be baffled by the shock this seems to cause. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Which is still a far cry from, "This is how I think the world should work."
I've been taking it as a given that this is what she believes, since she's thought about it so thoroughly and defended it in such a non-...heat-of-the-moment kind of way.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
She didn't seem to be saying that to me, though I admit my perceptions may be off at the moment.
I just don't fully understand the shock and outrage. It almost never shocks me to learn that someone has different moral sensibilities than I do.
Irami once told me that a friend of his was dating a 13 year old, and I remember being surprised that he was totally cool with it. Perhaps it shouldn't have been a surprise, when you consider that some cultures would have considered me marriagable before my age was in the double-digits.
I'm a little put off by the exisitence of, say, the Man/Boy Society (or whatever you call it). What they advocate is illegal (and rightly so, to my way of thinking) but to argue with someone about their (somewhat unique) deeply-held beliefs (especially ones wrapped in so many layers of hypotheticals) seems pointless to me.
Tatiana has a atypical belief, arrived by her experiences (and to some extent created or rationalized by those experiences) that she claims would dictate her actions in a very narrow set of circumstances (I think it is unlikely that a rapist would perservere through the kind of fight she likely to put up, but what do I know).
She's fairly certain what she would do, but hopefully it will never come to that. If it does and this thread is still around, she'll probably fry.
I have, in this thread, hypothetically "advocated" maiming someone who raped me and it didn't upset anyone, which amuses me.
quote:I've been taking it as a given that this is what she believes, since she's thought about it so thoroughly and defended it in such a non-...heat-of-the-moment kind of way.
A lot of people have also taken that as a given -- I'm only saying that she hasn't sctually articulated this. She may intend you to infer it, I don't know. Textually, it's a leap, if a small one.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Olivet, I am neither shocked nor outraged by Tatiana's attitude. I disagree with her. I specifically and emphatically disagree that her proposed scenario *justifies* her proposed action and with her statement "the natural stewardship for justice for rape by someone well-known to the victim (so that there is no danger of mistaken identity) doesn't rightfully belong to the courts, but instead to the victim."
Do I see her hypothetical situation as mitigating circumstances? Yes.
But she certainly appears to be making the case, with the quoted statement, that she has a *right* to take her proposed course of action and, more than that, that she would be *in the right* and *entirely justified* in doing so.
I can't dispute whether she may be able to do so with a clear conscience-- if she says so I have to take her word for it-- but in the abstract moral case I can and do maintain that she isn't correct.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What Jim-Me said. I am also not shocked or outraged, and I can certainly see wanting to do the same. And you know what? I can't say I wouldn't. But I would do it with the full knowledge that it is wrong, and is harmful to society. Sometimes I make the choice to do what is necessary for me even when it's wrong for society. But I do it with the full knowledge that I am doing wrong.
Olivet, your hypothetical advocation of maiming was very clearly hypothetical, and did not look to me like you were seriously saying you'd do it. So no, hyperbole doesn't upset me. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that "the natural stewardship for justice for rape by someone well-known to the victim (so that there is no danger of mistaken identity) doesn't rightfully belong to the courts, but instead to the victim."
After all, the victim gets to make the decision whether to prosecute or not. If the courts prosecuted rapes without the victim's consent that would be another can of worms.
She believes she has the "right" to do something she has decided she would do, which doesn't seem strange to me. People have reasons and justifications for all kinds of weird shite.
I don't believe that killing your attacker is morally right - in fact, I believe it will do more harm than good to the victim.
But it is so utterly pointless to argue about it. She understands the disagreement and won't change her mind. She's free to think what she wants, and hand-wringing from internet people isn't going to change that.
Please, continue to *strenuously* maintain that she's wrong, as is your perogative. I believe she will not change her mind.
It's a waste of energy, but it amuses me to post. (I confess my arguments in this thread have been mostly for my own entertainment, as I enjoy putting on the hyper-literalist hat occassionally.)
There are lots of things in the world that people believe that I believe are wrong, but arguing about them on the internet seems the definition of pointless.
I think I've justtalked myself right out of this thread. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:After all, the victim gets to make the decision whether to prosecute or not. If the courts prosecuted rapes without the victim's consent that would be another can of worms.
Prosecutors do prosecute rapists without the victim's consent. Not often, and there are evidentiary problems when they do so, but it is NOT the victim's decision.
quote:But it is so utterly pointless to argue about it. She understands the disagreement and won't change her mind. She's free to think what she wants, and hand-wringing from internet people isn't going to change that.
Sure she is. And I don't think I will change her mind. That's not the point.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*grin* I think you did, too. But you can stay anyway, no one will mind.
I know that Tatiana will not change her mind based on anything posted here. I feel it is important to voice my disagreements with her justifications anyway.
First, that's how society works. When someone expresses a belief and intent to do an action in a certain circumstances that is so clearly morally wrong by the standards of society, it is necessary for the community to condem it. If for no other reason than because the person needs to know that they will not be supported, should they ever be in the situation and chose to follow through. Tatiana seemed, at the beginning of this conversation, to believe that no one would vote to convict her if she ever had to do this. It's better for her to go into it knowing that most people don't believe the same as her, and that she'd quite likely be facing real prison time in this scenario.
Second, if we are quiet, other people who may be reading and not participating may see Tatiana's stance, not see anyone object to it, and decide it must be okay, and adopt it for their own. Also detrimental to society. The more people feel this way, the more likely one is to end up in the situation and follow through, and have to deal with the trauma of a murder trial and prison sentence along with the trauma of the rape.
Plus, you know, it's a discussion board. We're here to discuss things. She's posting things I think are wrong. I'm disagreeing with her. It's what we do here. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In practice, it IS the victim's call whether the police even get involved. Don't be naive.
This is why society sucks. This is why I don't like Hatrack anymore. The point of arguing is to argue. Discussion boards are pointless.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I continue to be baffled by the shock this seems to cause.
Really, Olivia? ak is advocating the murder of another human being, and if I'm reading it right she says it's okay to do so because the authorities won't do their job right.
That's an insult to the large number of cops and firefighters and prosecutors like Dag will be one day who work very hard for justice on the part of the victims of rape and other crimes.
To her original question about whether I'd convict her if I were on her jury - in a heartbeat.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mmmm, I think I phrased that last part poorly. I'm not trying to say I'm arguing just to argue. But I don't think I can rephrase without being unacceptably insulting to other members of this conversation.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, I am almost never shocked when someone claims to be morally justified when advocating something I find morally wrong. I won't say nothing shocks me, but no, I do not find it all startling that a person with Tatiana's experiences would say they would kill someone in cold blood under those circumstances, and I do not find it shocking that she has managed a rather tight little rationalization to justify it. Especially when you consider that she seems a person who needs a moral reason for any of her actions.
Me, I might be tempted to kill or maim the perp (if I was fairly sure I could get away with it and other options had been exhausted - yes, I'd prosecute the mofo) but I would never claim an absolute moral right to do so.
I'd vote to convict her, too (though I think a decent lawyer could still make a case for her being in not the most rational state of mind) but I wouldn't reccommend a heavy sentence. She wouldn't be a threat to anybody who didn't rape her.
Eljay, I overstated my point when I said "Discussion boards are pointless" too. I have gleaned a lot of news and useful information from all sides of many issues from places like this.
I just think this *particular* discussion has become pointless, since it's beginning to repeat itself and go all meta.
(also... my hypothetical of maiming was just as hypothetical as hers of killing. I know how to maim, and I believe, under certain highly improbable but not impossible circumstances, that I would do it, which is really much oogier, if you think about it. The main difference is that my only justification was that it would give them time to think on the error of their ways. I did not claim the moral right to maim anybody after the fact. I believe I have the moral right to maim anyone trying to hurt me or mine at the time of the maiming.)
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:In practice, it IS the victim's call whether the police even get involved. Don't be naive.
This is why society sucks. This is why I don't like Hatrack anymore. The point of arguing is to argue. Discussion boards are pointless.
First, while it is the victim's call as to whether the police get involved, it is still incorrect to say that prosecution doesn't happen without the victim's consent. I'm not being naive, I'm being precise.
Second, I'm a little astounded that you would complain about the "the point of arguing" being "to argue" after calling me naive for being precise. Maybe the only reason you join these discussions is to argue. However, since you were basing your defense/explanation of Tatiana's view on the fact that prosecution requires the victim's consent, my correction was relevant to the discussion.
I'm trying to find a way to look at your posts today in any light other than "I want to have my say about what other people have posted but then bitch about them trying to have their say about what I've posted."
So far I'm having difficulty doing so.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seeing as how Tatiana is advocating the murder of her (or her loved one's) rapist whether or not she knew another victim was in imminent danger of being raped, it's undeniably murder, pH. At least, by my definition which pretty much includes all killing outside the realm of self-defense or defense of an innocent. Neither the self nor the loved one is defended by killing a rapist after the rape is committed. What definition of 'murder' are you using?
quote:Please, continue to *strenuously* maintain that she's wrong, as is your perogative. I believe she will not change her mind.
Why is this standard being maintained in only one direction?
Unfortunately I would have no choice but to convict her, were I serving on a jury and she was on trial for murdering a rapist after the fact, and without imminent threat to herself or another victim. I guess I just don't understand why the rights and responsibilities we owe to society are less worth maintaining, more worth casting aside, than the ones we make to ourselves.
I mean, if you're going to reap the benefits of living in a civilized society, you're implicitly agreeing to live by its rules. You don't get to cherry-pick, and there is no moral acrobatics that makes doing so right and worthwhile if you know you're going to be doing that from the start.
And, you know, there is one thing that hasn't really been mentioned yet. Another reason why it's a poor idea to take the law into your own hands. That reason is that criminals are usually more experienced, willing, and knowledgeable in the application of violence. Brains don't always matter so much when it comes to life-and-death situations like this one.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, random violence in a bar is one thing; but a gun sneaking up from behind is one hell of an equaliser.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: This is why I don't like Hatrack anymore. The point of arguing is to argue. Discussion boards are pointless.
I confess I don't understand at all why it's a bad thing for people to discuss right and wrong abstractly... to say that there's no point in so doing is not only a stretch, but demonstrably wrong.
Olivet, pretty much everyone here has expressed empathy for Tatiana's position. It's not that we don't understand or that we can't see why someone would feel the desire, even the need, to avenge themselves that way. Everyone saying it is wrong is saying it's important to recognize it as wrong precisely because it does feel so right.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
KoM and Icarus! ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
