Taboo Topics (Heavily moderated)

[John Craft]

Plasma, I kinda agree with you, even though... if a child is raped, he can very easily turn into a rapist himself, which is harder with an adult.
But you are right when you say that raping, with grown-ups like with kids, remains something absolutely painful for both.

[Karilyn]

The difference between an everyday rapist... and an everyday rapist is a person who was too aggressive with their girlfriend, or a statutory rapist... and someone who would drug and pray upon a child...

Is a similar difference between someone who murdered another person in the heat of anger, and a serial killer who ritualistically dismembers his victims, piece by piece, prolonging their agony because it is fun for him.

Plasma, you seriously need to develop the skill of discerning.

All 4 crimes, are horrible things. But child rapist, or the sadist serial killer, are far far far far far worse than the more common variety. And they absolutely cannot be allowed to continue to live among society. In fact, I'd consider the child rapist worse than the sadist serial killer.

It really depends on a person's spiritual religion, which is why you can't really debate it.

Sure it can. "You have an imaginary friend who is telling you to let serial murders and child rapists to run around, because they don't deserve punishment? Okay, good to know. I'll be calling the men with the white little coats."

WHY THE UNHOLY FUCK WOULD WE GIVE A CRAP ABOUT SOMEONE WHO BELIEVES THEIR IMAGINARY FRIEND IS REAL?

[John Craft]

Once again, I am... quite saying it over and over, I know, that's stupid, but...
Because those people are human beings, mabi ?
Look, indeed, discerning things is necessary, but... what you don't see is that killing is bad, whatever the way. After this, it becomes an opinion, a way to see things, HOW you feel about the murder. Because if someone kills only one person but in the most atrocious way, you'll be more horrified by that than by a serial-killer who murdered "simply" 30 people but with a single shot through the head : painless. But other people might find the 30 deaths worse because there are more people who died, even though the other death was absolutely horrible.
The thing, the MERE thing -rape, murder, whatever- is wrong, and we could just stop here and say : "that was wrong you mustn't do that again". But after, how can we make the person stop ? There, it turns personal again : "I think the 30 deaths deserve a worse punishment than the only one", or the other way around. "I think the one who killed with pain once must be kept and cured, when the other one simply needs to stay in jail for 20 years".
Look out : both are terrible and wrong, again. But whatever the way the crime was comitted, it remains the same crime in its essence.
You think too much with fear and hate, Karilyn. Killing the rapist won't cure anyone. It will make you feel better about yourself, because your way of life was insulted by that man, and now he's dead; then your way of life is necessarily better than his, right ? Right, but normally you're not supposed to need hid head on a plate to discover that a life without child-rape is better than one with child-rape.
I... don't really know what to add and I don't really want to add anything for I'm kinda bored -sorry ^^"-, so I'll just stop there. I had other things to explain, but... meh, sorry, I'm not really in the mood... ^^"
And don't say we forgive their crimes !

[Karilyn]

Because those people are human beings.

As far as I'm concerned, they have crossed the line. Stomped on the line. rustled on the line. Killed the line's girlfriend. Kicked the line's dog, before raping it, and then killing it like they killed the line's girlfriend.

They have gone so far beyond the line, that they have completely sacrificed even the tiniest sliver of their humanity, and burned the remains.

So no, I don't think they consider being treated like human beings, because by their actions, they have willfully given up their humanity twenty times over.

Killing the rapist won't cure anyone.

Of course it won't cure anyone, where the hell would you get that idea? It sure as well will prevent there from being more victims. I am sure as hell more concerned about the child rapist's future victims, than I am about the child rapist.

WHY THE UNHOLY HELL SHOULD WE CARE MORE ABOUT A CHILD RAPIST, THAN ABOUT THE CHILDREN HE IS RUNNING AROUND RAPING?

Because that is seriously what you are arguing. You are saying it's okay for someone to run around raping children, because he deserves his right to live.

[John Craft]

(I know I was supposed to stop, but hey, what she said made me interested again; Yeah I know I'm weird leave me alone !)
I see... so the real point where we disagree is the idea that there might be a "line" where human beings can stop be human beings... ? I understand.
But THIS question, alas... I don't see how I could make you change your mind.
I just find this way of thinking dangerous, because... where is this line ? Could someone actually say "he stole my keys, for me stealing is the line, that's enough he already doesn't deserve to be considered a human anymore" ? Some babies could born without this very humanity, just because "he's the son of this monster/this rapist/this dictator"... but is it the kid's fault if he's the kid of this or that person, and will he be like his parents ? And anyway, living is by itself worth absolutely everything, and every person born a human deserves to live, right ?
That's the real danger with a "human line" : anyone could put it anywhere...

[Karilyn]

I understand what you are saying John Craft, I really do.

But that is ultimately where the skill of discretion comes into play.

I am not saying that the world is black and white. There are so many shades of grey in the world. But somewhere, we have to draw the line, and make decisions. We can't be afraid of making judgements, or wicked people will take advantage of it.

A simple example would be, if a person comes up to you, that you've never met before, and says "Hey, here is a check for $1200, if you give me $1000, I'll let you keep the change." It is very important to discern that the guy is trying to scam you, that the check is a fake, and he is trying to steal $1000 from you, without getting into a conflict.

I use that example, because there isn't any moral ambiguity to it. But we shouldn't stop being afraid to make judgements, to discern between right and wrong, just because moral ambiguity comes into play. Wicked people will take advantage of your hesitation to discern a person's motives and your unwillingness to make decisions. It is crucially important for your own safety. You can't let yourself be afraid of making difficult differentiations.

Going to one extreme (which you are doing; AKA "Don't do anything") is every bit as bad as going to the other extreme that you describe in your post.

[John Craft]

Yeah, I understand, but...
Making judgements is importants, I agree, but that's still important to... I don't know, keep important things alive ?
What I mean is... there are things that don't need any judgement in life. Some things are BAD or GOOD -I'm not sure for the good, but hey, I am for the bad so I guess there must some always good things ?
Killing someone is a bad thing, whatever context, whatever happened. Anytime. Raping is bad. Lying is bad. And once again, that can be in absolutely any context, the ESSENCE, the nature of these acts is wrong, is bad. The judgement in all this is : "HOW bad is it ?"
But I agree : we need to judge some things. We have to say "this is worse than that". Nuance is extremely important. But there are different nuances of bad and good; some things still remain ONLY bad or ONLY good.
(I hate it when I use caps, I always think people will mock me, when I find so effective to show what you mean)

For your example... why not take the check ? Trust the person ? If he was lying, well, shame on him; if he wasn't, hey, great !
Trusting him is still possible, even though it remains entirely hard and dangerous. But you still gave your trust to someone; isn't that one of the "always good" things ? I think it is, ebut is it being trustful (is that how you say ?) or naive.
But anyway, I don't even have 1000$. \o/
No, in fact, indeed it's not a good idea to take the check, that's for sure. It would be being naive. But maybe because it is something too obvious ? Argh, I can't make myself clear in english, how could I put it...
(seriously, it's been ten minutes since I'm trying to stop the fog in my head ^^")
(Argh, I feel like I lost the argument, even though I still disagree somehow with you XD sorry)
Here what I meant, I guess.
Yes, it's not a good idea to take the check; it is obvious. That's where I disagree : with what you mean by "judgement". It's an opinion. Saying "that is good because, and that is worse because" is an opinion. But some things are black and white. It's dangerous to say so, because people could CHOOSE what is right and wrong, but there are.
I'm really sorry, I can't find the proper way to explain myself...
What I think is... arg, what was I saying ?
Yes, so, this "human line"... it is a judgement, indeed, and you have to take some. Yes, yes....
Right, but... actually I think that the reason why I'm so confused is because I don't even think it relates to your idea "there is a human line"... Yes, that's right !
Why would the fact of thinking that human are always human be exempt of any kind of judgement ?

Look, in fact I just lost this argument, totally, because I can't make myself clear. So I'll try to explain what I mean in a very brief way, and I'm sorry for being a frenchfag...
Is there a human line ? Is there a line where people wouldn't be human anymore ? I don't think so; I believe there isn't. Somehow it was as much a judgement as yours : "there is one" ! But mine is safer, and cares more about every human being. You see humans in a more... "group" way, when I see the humanity with absolutely every one of them : if ONE is hurt by something, even though every other person wouldn't be, then it's not good. You see human like, sometimes, expandable creatures : when they cross this line. I think it's just a way of excusing your wish to see them dead, because if they were humans, killing them would still be a murder. It's just like a murderer : he hides himself the fact that the person he kills is a human being; otherwise that'd be too painful for him, because that is wrong.
Listen, I'll stop there, 'cause I really don't think I won this argument, even though I keep on thinking I am right. And I'm just repeating myself, so that's not that very useful, right ?
Sorry... ^^"
Oh, yes, just a last thing : even though I disagree a lot with you, you still managed to give a sense to what you thought, and you managed to construct something about your idea. So I respect what you think, even though I find it absolutely ludicrous. ^^

EDIT : oops, you changed your message while I wrote mine, and what you said was... :3 Nope. Nope nope nope.
I don't do "nothing". I'm protecting the very fact of being a human; I still act and think.
And I'm scared like anyone else; but I think, actually, that your thinking is more determined by fear than mine, because forgetting the humanity of someone is just a way to get rid of them without losing your own humanity : "He killed a human so he's not a human anymore, so WE can kill him and still be humans".

[Karilyn]

Killing someone is a bad thing, whatever context.

I disagree.

See: Self-Defense

There is no black and white. You want it to be black and white, but it isn't.

EDIT: In a way, my comment on the death penalty for child rapists is an extension of self-defense. It is one of the duties of society, to protect people who are genuinely incapable of protecting themselves. In this case, the children. Children cannot protect themselves, and thus society must protect them. I feel it is the obligation of a civilized society to end the lives of child rapists, in order to defend children. A collective type of self-defense.

[John Craft]

(I hoped you would say that \o/)
Even with self-defense, the FACT of killing is bad. You HAD for your own life to kill the other person, but you still killed the person, and the essence of this act is wrong.
But you judge the thing like good in that case ! That's right ! You THINK that killing by self-defense may be good, and you can be right, but it remains an opinion; the nature, once again... when you kill someone, you kill someone.
But that's where judgement is important : because it lets you FORGIVE someone who did something wrong. The person who killed when he was about to be killed did a bad thing; but you say "I forgive you because you had no other choice/wanted to live/whatever reason good enough for you".

[Karilyn]

I disagree. Actions have consequences. Cause-Effect.

You jump out of a plane without a parachute, you go splat. You spend hours every week suntanning, you get skin cancer. You eat McDonalds every day, you weigh 300 pounds. Etc.

When you make these decisions, there are consequences to those decisions. You try to kill someone, one of the consequences is, that the person is going to attempt self-defense.

You try to stab a bear with a knife, the bear is going to try and maul you.

When someone dies due to self-defense, the burden is not on the bear, it's on the person who was trying to stab the bear with a knife. You are putting the burden on the wrong person John Craft. As far as I'm concerned, death due to self-defense, is for all intensive purposes, a suicide of the attacker. (Yada yada, shades of grey, defender could have used excessive force, not talking about that)

[Plasma]

Guys, you should be comparing "prison for life" with "death penalty"! Not a ridiculous "all forgiven" with "death penalty"!

The difference between an everyday rapist... and an everyday rapist is a person who was too aggressive with their girlfriend, or a statutory rapist... and someone who would drug and pray upon a child...
Is a similar difference between someone who murdered another person in the heat of anger, and a serial killer who ritualistically dismembers his victims, piece by piece, prolonging their agony because it is fun for him.
Plasma, you seriously need to develop the skill of discerning.

First, make it fairer then: a date rapist. IE: someone who drugs and rapes their target. That's what I had in mind when I said 'rapist', since that was what we were talking about this whole time.
Second, And your anology is... downright insulting, frankly, because it is so very imbalanced. Firstly, drugging someone before raping them is the equivalent of knocking them out first before killing them, which is to say it's more humane (although also more greedy, depending on what way you look at it). Secondly, comparing a once-off killer with a serial killer?
And third, and most importantly, you still aren't actually explaining why child rapists can't change their minds about children (or realise laws)! Severely unbalanced anologies do not work for that!



And as a side note:

In fact, I'd consider the child rapist worse than the sadist serial killer.

Did... you just say that a person who rapes one child is worse than a person who regularly kills people?

It really depends on a person's spiritual religion, which is why you can't really debate it.

Sure it can. "You have an imaginary friend who is telling you to let serial murders and child rapists to run around, because they don't deserve punishment? Okay, good to know. I'll be calling the men with the white little coats."
WHY THE UNHOLY FUCK WOULD WE GIVE A CRAP ABOUT SOMEONE WHO BELIEVES THEIR IMAGINARY FRIEND IS REAL?

I meant in the difference between killing them and prison fore life, again. But congrats on demonising the people you were trying to convince though, real smart move.

[Karilyn]

Guys, you should be comparing "prison for life" with "death penalty"!

I thought I made my argument on death penalty vs prison life.

1. The purpose of the prison system is not "We should put a person in there because they will suffer more than if they are killed"
2. At least the way the system is set up now, a life sentence isn't really for life, and too many people get parole or whatever.

Even if we could make it so they person would spend their entire life in jail, with absolutely no chance of ever, under any circumstance, re-entering society, and guaranteeing that they die inside prison... Why aren't we just giving them the death penalty? It is fundamentally the exact same thing. You are just giving them a death penalty that ends after an indeterminate period of jail-time. Yes, the criminal suffers more that way, but why are we trying to torture these people instead of just end their life humanely?

Child rapists should never under any circumstance be allowed among society again. We should not be trying to imprison them until they die, instead, we should just giving them the death penalty. I'd rather see a child rapist dead now, than see them "tortured" until they die. I believe that the high road that a civilized society should take.

That's why I think child rapists should have the death penalty.

First, make it fairer then: a date rapist. IE: someone who drugs and rapes their target. That's what I had in mind when I said 'rapist', since that was what we were talking about this whole time.

Yes, I consider that to deserve the death penalty too.

It comes down to this. Should the person EVER re-enter society under any circumstance? The answer is no. Thus, the more humane civilized answer is to end their life, rather than jail them until they die.

[Plasma]

Child rapists should never under any circumstance be allowed among society again.

You STILL aren't actually explaining why child rapists can't change their minds about children (or realise laws)!

[Karilyn]

Child rapists should never under any circumstance be allowed among society again.

You STILL aren't actually explaining why child rapists can't change their minds about children (or realise laws)!

Okay, I'm pretty sure everybody is daisies well aware that it is against the law to drug a person and rape them. That's just a ridiculous argument.

As for the first half of your argument... The point is that it is ultimately a crime against humanity. It's "The line" again. It is so far utterly across the line. In doing so, you have devalued other humans to the point that they are nothing other than an object for your personal pleasure, and if you must take away their free will in order to do so, you have no qualms about it.

At the point where a person has reduced humanity in their mind to nothing more than a fleshlight; there is no turning back for them. They should NEVER be allowed among society again.

This is what a violent rapist sees when they look at another human being.

[Plasma]

Right... now we're at a standpoint. To put simply: I disagree with everything you just said, but know well that there's no way I can convince you, or that you can convince me. So I think its best we end the debate here.



Cut along the dotted line.