Killer, Rapist to Be Thrown Off Cliff in Sack

[Guest MrRant]

What we should do to rapists.

 

This is a good way to handle rapists.

[Guest bob_barron]

That's awesome!

[Guest LesnarLunatic]

and.. if he doesn't die, he'll be hung.

[Guest GenerationNever]

I don't agree with killing rapists, unless they kill their victim.

[Guest J*ingus]

On the other hand, he also would've been executed for committing adultery or having consensual sex with a guy, too... careful what you wish for.

[Guest EricMM]

"Fly, rapist, fly." //Saturn Commercial

 

Rapists are as bad as murders. I'd rather have someone commit treason than rape

[Guest Mr. Slim Citrus]

A sex crime is more serious than compromising the security of our country? Not to belittle the severity of rape, but are you out of your fucking mind?!

[Guest DrTom]

"I'd rather have someone commit treason than rape"

 

That's a completely contemptible view, but I can't say I'm surprised by it.

[Guest Shaved Bear]

rapists should die, Hammurabi's code says it best, but he should hen be spent in a prison cell for 2weeks first

[Guest Cancer Marney]

"I'd rather have someone commit treason than rape"

 

That's a completely contemptible view, but I can't say I'm surprised by it.

Not to advocate treason or anything, but that's actually a defensible view. There can be honourable reasons to commit treason against one's country (note, I'm not referring specifically to the United States). There can never be an honourable reason to sadistically torture another human being.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Isn't Hammurabi the guy who came up with an eye for an eye? Wouldn't that mean a rapist would get raped, that's bound to happen in prison.

[Guest DrTom]

"There can be honourable reasons to commit treason against one's country (note, I'm not referring specifically to the United States). There can never be an honourable reason to sadistically torture another human being."

 

True, but treason is most commonly committed for personal financial gain. What I was getting at is that an act of treason potentially has millions of victims, while an act of rape has only one.

 

And before anyone says it, no, I'm not trying to diminish rape as a terrible crime.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Most commonly, sure. I was talking about the hypothetical. There is an honourable hypothetical for treason. None for rape.

[Guest GenerationNever]

Most commonly, sure. I was talking about the hypothetical. There is an honourable hypothetical for treason. None for rape.

What about rapists being raped?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Nope. The act itself is the sadistic infliction of pain and as such it is inherently evil.

[Guest GenerationNever]

Good point.

[Guest Shaved Bear]

Isn't Hammurabi the guy who came up with an eye for an eye? Wouldn't that mean a rapist would get raped, that's bound to happen in prison.

yea, i said thy should go to prison, and if they killed, they go to prison than get killed after 2 weeks in the cell

[Guest GenerationNever]

An eye for an eye leaves us with a poor sense of depth perception.

[Guest Mr. Slim Citrus]

Not to advocate treason or anything, but that's actually a defensible view. There can be honourable reasons to commit treason against one's country...

Such as?

[Guest EricMM]

Maybe I see treason as less um personal or damaging. What, if some man commits treason at worst... well a lot of things could actually happen. But if someone rapes me or a friend, or a loved one, or a potential loved one, thats some serious damage. Whereas treason probably wouldn't affect me personally. Unless it was really serious serious like giving enemies of the state ICBMs. But rape is directly worse. All IMO. Contemptable or not.

[Guest DrTom]

"Whereas treason probably wouldn't affect me personally. Unless it was really serious serious like giving enemies of the state ICBMs."

 

And a few other things, but yes, it's not inconceivable for an acto of treason to have many millions of victims. Rape has only one. It is the far more personal crime, but I maintain that treason is more devastating.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Such as?

The Count von Stauffenberg planned to assassinate Hitler. Brutus, Caesar. Hamlet, Laertes. The Confederacy. Treason against the state. Honourable.

 

Don't ask stupid questions.

[Guest Mr. Slim Citrus]

As opposed to making stupid statements?

 

Von Stauffenberg's part in the conspiracy to assassinate Hitler can't really be considered honorable, and the fact that it would have had the residual effect of helping the Allies doesn't change that. Sure, it's a great idea... unless you're a German. That plot would have turned out great for us, but it's still treason to the Reich. I've got no love whatsoever for Nazi Germany, but that doesn't diminish my capacity to understand that treason can have a disastrous effect on millions of people, and there's no honor in that.

 

I've never read any historical text which supports the theory that there was anything honorable in Brutus conspiring to kill Caesar. That was his friend; his friend!!! There's no honor in conspiring to kill your friend! I suppose if you decided that you could do a better job as President of the United States, and conspired to kill George Bush, that you would consider that "honorable." And I'm not even going to dignify your attempt to pass off literature as approbation for treason.

 

And if you consider the Confederate secession as an example of an "honorable" treasonous act, then there's probably no point in continuing this dialogue.

 

Rape, a crime with a single victim, as hideous and deplorable as it is, cannot reasonably be considered a more grievous crime than treason, a crime which can have millions of victims, and threatens the sovereignty and security of an entire nation.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Then we have irreconcilably different definitions of the term "honour." I see no honour in supporting a madman bent on genocide. I see honour in attempting to overthrow his rule. I see honour in doing what one considers right and placing the good of one's country above one's loyalty to an individual rightly or wrongly considered to have aspirations of tyranny. It's not a crime to be deceived. I see honour in fighting for one's land, one's people, and one's cause, despite the injustice of slavery perpetuated by them because one is undertaking to sacrifice one's life in good faith.

 

Contrary to your emotional and willfully deceptive restatement of my assertion, I have never contended that treason is ipso facto more or less honourable than rape. I have contended that treason can be honourable because it consists of a morally neutral action which can be motivated by good or evil impulses, whereas rape is inherently evil.

 

I don't think you're stupid. I just think you're immoral.

[Guest Mr. Slim Citrus]

My restatement of your assertion was not willfully deceptive; it was, in fact, the way I understood what you wrote. And how is betraying a trust morally neutral?

 

I'm not an immoral person; inclement would be a better word to describe me.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Then try to be clement. That is, after all, a moral characteristic.

 

Betraying a trust is morally neutral because keeping a trust can result in great harm. The Nazi Wehrmacht by and large kept their trust and carried out Hitler's orders. How many innocent people died as a result? Keeping a trust in and of itself is neither good nor bad. It is the nature of what you give that trust to that determines its morality.

[Guest Mr. Slim Citrus]

I don't reckon there's much further we can take this dialogue: you've made your point, I understand your point, and I still don't agree.

 

It probably has a lot to do with perspective; as a woman, you surely have a more poignant outlook on rape than I do, just as I, as an active member of the military, clearly have a more poignant outlook on treason. But, I do respect your opinion, and appreciate your taking the time to explain it to me.

 

As far as clemency, I grant it when it suits me; while I agree that it is a moral characteristic, I don't consider it a moral prerequisite.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

If you really respect my opinion, you might wish to refrain from using my gender as an excuse to be condescending. In your job, that would have earned you a summary discharge. I might well have been your instructor.

[Guest Mr. Slim Citrus]

Condescending how? There is nothing inherently condescending about saying that you being female probably has something to do with you thinking that rape is more serious than treason. I think you're just trying to pick a fight with me. Do you disagree with the assessment?

 

FYI: I think you'd probably be appalled by what one can still say in the military without getting discharged. Also, I don't know whether you were speaking in the hypothetical or just being facetious but, for the record, I've never actually had a female instructor.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I was neither being facetious nor speaking hypothetically. Over the past two years I've trained hundreds of military officers from all four branches of the armed forces, as well as people in the intelligence services and several different law enforcement agencies. It's my job.

Thank you, I have a good idea of what is and is not permissible. In the past, at my request, two senior officers have been reprimanded and one junior officer has been discharged for precisely the same attitude you're displaying now. (The others were smarter.) Incidentally, if you'll recall, the charge of treason is an extension of the concept of the chain of command.

 

As such, there are certain orders which are considered illegal and immoral, as America and her Allies took pains to demonstrate at Nuremberg, after the Second World War. The fact that they stated absolutely that it was unlawful for the Wehrmacht and the SS to obey Hitler makes it crystal clear that not only is treason per se morally neutral, sometimes it can be a moral imperative.

 

There is nothing inherently condescending about saying that you being female probably has something to do with you thinking that rape is more serious than treason.

No? Let's make your implications explicit. You're saying that because, purely on the basis of my gender, I'm statistically more likely to get raped than you, I think it's a more serious crime. Essentially you're saying that all my claims about morality are false and that I am speaking out of pure self-interest. That is called an ad hominem attack. It is not an argument. It is merely slander.

And yes, I disagree with your "assessment." It was a cheap shot and a contemptible and underhanded one. Was I picking a fight? At least I didn't try to kick you in the groin when you weren't looking.