Poll: rape worse than murder?

[rasta111]

Spoiler: The Butterfly Effect

In chaos theory, the butterfly effect is the sensitive dependence on initial conditions in which a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state.

Consider the consequences of each action, each word, each deed on a larger scale and then consider why I might object to the things happening all over this forum. Try speaking outside your own echo chambers for a change?

 

[Lightknight]

Spoiler: The Butterfly Effect

In chaos theory, the butterfly effect is the sensitive dependence on initial conditions in which a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state.

Consider the consequences of each action, each word, each deed on a larger scale and then consider why I might object to the things happening all over this forum. Try speaking outside your own echo chambers for a change?

What I mean by asking what you object to is: What do you think I mean by what I said?

And yes, I know what the butterfly effect is.

What I'm trying to convey to you is that you may have misinterpreted a term I used due to it having more than one definition.

 

[the December King]

I don't fear it. It's going to happen someday. But were it impending I would move to avoid it.

Did you just says 'merits of them both as being horrific...' Yeah, I'm definitely not listening to you anymore...

How can you say that murder is not horrific? The taking of another life... are you objecting to the term 'merit'?

I seem to recall you being quite upset when others were dismissing your Creationist points of view out of hand, instead of engaging in dialogue. It's a shame that you seem to dismiss the ideas of others just as quickly, just because they don't share your point of view.

... Who are you and why are you stating the obvious obliviously?... I'm not the one who wants to discuss 'the merits' of 'being horrific'... I'd appreciate it if you all stop labeling me as things you clearly don't understand also.

What does it matter who I am? Asking for clarification shouldn't be met with such disdain...

However, and I mean this: I'm sorry you think someone has labeled you.

I don't think you understand the things you're saying... I asked you who you think you are because you're disdainfully butting in and labeling me at the same time... I'm now being disdainful as you're acting like you said nothing at all... I say again... Oblivious.

Oblivious would be to allow you to continue to write without asking for clarification.

I suppose I should state this before you get more upset, and I'll use your own font: I didn't label you. You did express opinions recently that could be interpreted as parallel with 7th Day Adventists beliefs. If you aren't one, then I would totally suggest looking into it.

But back to the topic: To think that the hereafter is waiting for you to 'see through the illusion' is all fine and dandy, but since this life, as we know it, and cannot see beyond, ends with such a horrible act, in my mind murder is the worse of the two.

 

[rasta111]

Wow... Merit means merit and horrific means horrific. These two words cannot be used together as they form a contradiction that you are spreading hence me bringing up the butterfly effect which you'd also realise relates to everything else you've said along with a lot of other things happening all around if you stepped outside your own echo chamber for long enough to realise the deepest implications... But I'm about done explaining myself when all you're going to do is sidestep relevance to others and simply bask in the sound of your own voice.

captcha: all growns up... No captcha... Just no

 

[Lightknight]

Wow... Merit means merit and horrific means horrific. These two words cannot be used together as they form a contradiction that you are spreading hence me bringing up the butterfly effect which you'd also realise also relates to everything else you've said along with a lot of other things happening all around if you stepped outside your own echo chamber for long enough to realise the deepest implications... But I'm about done explaining myself when all you're going to do is sidestep relevance to others and simply bask in the sound of your own voice.

captcha: all growns up... No captcha... Just no

The person who is in an echo chamber has their own preconceived notions and nothing to challenge them. Here, we see you insisting that a definition can only mean what you mean when to the rest of the world, especially in a legal setting, the term means exactly what I said it means within this particular context.

Dictionary defition linked and cited below:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/merit
"merits, the inherent rights and wrongs of a matter, as a lawsuit, unobscured by procedural details, technicalities, personal feelings, etc.: "

Even consider the verb "merits". "He is found guilty based on the merits of his actions." That is a totally legitimate use of the term since the term merit is all about the state of "deserving" and what is deserved can be punishment too.

The "merits" of something are merely the qualities that are deserving of praise or punishment. In this case, I think we can all agree that the merits of murder are all negative an deserving of punishment.

Now, the specific use I was employing is along the legal sides. The "merits" of a case. These are the facts of the matter.

 

[rasta111]

OK one more time... Stop sidestepping the issues presented... Of course murder has no merit, something horrific cannot have merit, maybe in the rest of your world but not mine... Look closer at what a murder is. Look deeper at what's been said. Why is it OK for one person to kill and not another?

Horrific is exciting, terrifying even, not meritorious.

Merit is something outside of yourself, greater than yourself.

The only thing between merit and horror is bravery.

 

[chuckman1]

Don't care how you will twist my words i think rape is more morally reprehensible. The rapist is usually worse. Murder can be justified but rape never can.

 

[the December King]

Don't care how you will twist my words i think rape is more morally reprehensible. The rapist is usually worse. Murder can be justified but rape never can.

I certainly can't tell you you're wrong, nor would I- it certainly does seem more reprehensible, and I can't think of a way it could ever be seen as justified, at least by others, at least in a civil or modern society.

I've never been raped, nor raped anyone. Nor have I been murdered, nor did the murdering. In my opinion, though, murder is the more horrific, because it is a definitive line that cannot be coped with by the victim- rape takes away the victim's freedom and agency, and yes, the act is deplorable. But murder takes away that agency permanently. Again, that's just how I see it, and I certainly don't mean to offend those that have had to deal with rape, directly or otherwise, or murder indirectly. Just an opinion.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Don't care how you will twist my words i think rape is more morally reprehensible. The rapist is usually worse. Murder can be justified but rape never can.

Well we can mean more than one thing when we say one is worse than the other.

From the perspective of how much it harmed the victim, no one recovers from murder. In that way you can say murder is worse.

On the other hand we can look at it in terms of judging the perpetrator. In that case rape may seem worse since it cannot be excused in any way by the motives of the rapist, while it is possible for one to be a murderer whose motives can justify it somewhat.

So does it not depend on what we mean by worse as one can be worse than the other in certain aspects but not others?

 

[chuckman1]

Don't care how you will twist my words i think rape is more morally reprehensible. The rapist is usually worse. Murder can be justified but rape never can.

Well we can mean more than one thing when we say one is worse than the other.

From the perspective of how much it harmed the victim, no one recovers from murder. In that way you can say murder is worse.

On the other hand we can look at it in terms of judging the perpetrator. In that case rape may seem worse since it cannot be excused in any way by the motives of the rapist, while it is possible for one to be a murderer whose motives can justify it somewhat.

So does it not depend on what we mean by worse as one can be worse than the other in certain aspects but not others?

Of course. I believe most things are in the eye of the beholder. I meant in personal opinion what is worse, to me that meant more heinous. Many people interpreted it differently. Everyone is entitle to their opinion.

But the people who acted like rape isn't such a big deal, or that the victims are "exaggerating" yeah I think those people are ignorant. And it made them sound douchey "not you"

 

[Timeless Lavender]

Both of these crimes are very bad. Trying to make one of the crimes worse than other is really not a good idea to begin with. We should just accept the fact that these crimes damage the victims in different ways.

 

[Luminous_Umbra]

I have a theory about those that consider rape worst than murder. While this likely doesn't apply to all of them, I wouldn't be surprised if at least a decent percentage believe in some form of afterlife.

Why? It makes sense. If you believed that there was something after death, you'd probably see murder as not as bad compared to those that don't believe in an afterlife,as they would likely see murder as one of the worst possible things to do.

As for me, murder is worst, easily. Mostly because, even if there is an afterlife, murdering someone steals away their chance to experience life. Imagine all that one would miss, depending on when one was murdered. Sure, you miss out on the bad too, but I'd think that's hardly a comforting thought.

 

[Lightknight]

Don't care how you will twist my words i think rape is more morally reprehensible. The rapist is usually worse. Murder can be justified but rape never can.

Murder, by definition, is unjustified killing. Killing is what may be justified. You can kill in self defense. You cannot murder in self defense or it'd just be killing rather than murder.

Such an interesting term. A term crafted specifically to imply the bad kind of killing.

OK one more time... Stop sidestepping the issues presented... Of course murder has no merit, something horrific cannot have merit, maybe in the rest of your world but not mine... Look closer at what a murder is. Look deeper at what's been said. Why is it OK for one person to kill and not another?

Horrific is exciting, terrifying even, not meritorious.

Merit is something outside of yourself, greater than yourself.

The only thing between merit and horror is bravery.

Listen very carefully here. The "merits of a case" or the "merits of a thing" when used in a discussion about how bad something is, is referring to the facts of the matter. In that context, "merits" does not inherently mean "good things". I've already cited three different definitions for you from three different dictionaries. I'm sorry if this word HAS to mean what you want it to but it doesn't. A lot of words have multiple meanings.

In this case, merit comes from meritus which means "to deserve". In a court of law, the merits of the case are the components that express a deserving of reward or punishment. One can earn and deserve punishment just as they can earn or deserve praise.

Sorry, but you are clinging on to your own singular definition of the term when there are other uses for it. If English is not your first language then perhaps merits translates into a term in your primary language that ONLY means good rather than being able to mean the elements deserving praise or punishment.

 

[Lightknight]

I have a theory about those that consider rape worst than murder. While this likely doesn't apply to all of them, I wouldn't be surprised if at least a decent percentage believe in some form of afterlife.

Why? It makes sense. If you believed that there was something after death, you'd probably see murder as not as bad compared to those that don't believe in an afterlife,as they would likely see murder as one of the worst possible things to do.

As for me, murder is worst, easily. Mostly because, even if there is an afterlife, murdering someone steals away their chance to experience life. Imagine all that one would miss, depending on when one was murdered. Sure, you miss out on the bad too, but I'd think that's hardly a comforting thought.

I actually assume it's because of American sensibilities surrounding sex as a taboo topic. I do wonder what non-Americans are saying in this thread compared to Americans.

 

[chuckman1]

Don't care how you will twist my words i think rape is more morally reprehensible. The rapist is usually worse. Murder can be justified but rape never can.

Murder, by definition, is unjustified killing. Killing is what may be justified. You can kill in self defense. You cannot murder in self defense or it'd just be killing rather than murder.

Such an interesting term. A term crafted specifically to imply the bad kind of killing.

OK one more time... Stop sidestepping the issues presented... Of course murder has no merit, something horrific cannot have merit, maybe in the rest of your world but not mine... Look closer at what a murder is. Look deeper at what's been said. Why is it OK for one person to kill and not another?

Horrific is exciting, terrifying even, not meritorious.

Merit is something outside of yourself, greater than yourself.

The only thing between merit and horror is bravery.

Listen very carefully here. The "merits of a case" or the "merits of a thing" when used in a discussion about how bad something is, is referring to the facts of the matter. In that context, "merits" does not inherently mean "good things". I've already cited three different definitions for you from three different dictionaries. I'm sorry if this word HAS to mean what you want it to but it doesn't. A lot of words have multiple meanings.

In this case, merit comes from meritus which means "to deserve". In a court of law, the merits of the case are the components that express a deserving of reward or punishment. One can earn and deserve punishment just as they can earn or deserve praise.

Sorry, but you are clinging on to your own singular definition of the term when there are other uses for it. If English is not your first language then perhaps merits translates into a term in your primary language that ONLY means good rather than being able to mean the elements deserving praise or punishment.

It's murder if I kill you two days after you killed my sister. But somewhat justifiable.
It's murder if I kill someone two weeks after they raped my child. But it's justified. I'm not talking about the law, self defense. I'm talking about street justice.

I bet it's not even justified to do a driveby on the rival gang because they said they'll kill you tomorrow.
But can it be rationally justified? Probably.

Not every murderer is a Dahmer style serial killer.

 

[Lightknight]

It's murder if I kill you two days after you killed my sister. But somewhat justifiable.
It's murder if I kill someone two weeks after they raped my child. But it's justified. I'm not talking about the law, self defense. I'm talking about street justice.

I bet it's not even justified to do a driveby on the rival gang because they said they'll kill you tomorrow.
But can it be rationally justified? Probably.

Your point is well made. Though the rival gang bit could be considered self defense in a lot of ways.

I think the context of the question here though is general ol' wanton murder rather than revenge in particular. Still, we can apply the same question to revenge. Is it worse to murder or to rape someone in revenge for something they've done?

 

[chuckman1]

It's murder if I kill you two days after you killed my sister. But somewhat justifiable.
It's murder if I kill someone two weeks after they raped my child. But it's justified. I'm not talking about the law, self defense. I'm talking about street justice.

I bet it's not even justified to do a driveby on the rival gang because they said they'll kill you tomorrow.
But can it be rationally justified? Probably.

Your point is well made. Though the rival gang bit could be considered self defense in a lot of ways.

I think the context of the question here though is general ol' wanton murder rather than revenge in particular. Still, we can apply the same question to revenge. Is it worse to murder or to rape someone in revenge for something they've done?

Let's look at these two.
Justified murder, Hitler's right hand man shoots him in the back.
"Justified" rape, Hitler is raped by Soviet Soldiers. Not as satisfying or comfortable is it? I prefer my Hitler dead than raped and almost sympathetic.

Simply, the most justifiable murder can seem morally good to me (could have stopped over 10 million murders), but the most "justified" rape is still evil and not acceptable ever.

In my opinion of course.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Depends on circumstances and the individual involved. For some, the reality of being raped is a shattering experience. They do not recover. They live out their days in a PTSD wasteland and their body/mind becomes a prison in which they cannot stop reliving their trauma. I'd like to think these are relatively isolated cases, however.

For others, they're able to put it behind them and lead productive/healthy lives, albeit with varying degrees of damage. Kind of difficult to do that after a murder.

On the flip side, you can morally justify murder in some circumstances. Some countries have state sanctioned murder. Would you blame a man who, say, murdered the person who molested their child? How much leeway would you give them? Probably a lot. Hard to conceptualize circumstances of morally justifiable rape.

Of course, this kind of "it's confusing" and "it depends" and "apples to oranges" rhetoric is about the best you can expect from this sort of comparison.

 

[rasta111]

I'm not sure what you're still babbling about but my only point was semantics. Better is not worse. Worse can never be better. If you want to continue the horrific discussion though that's your business. Ciao.

 

[happyninja42]

It's murder if I kill you two days after you killed my sister. But somewhat justifiable.
It's murder if I kill someone two weeks after they raped my child. But it's justified. I'm not talking about the law, self defense. I'm talking about street justice.

I bet it's not even justified to do a driveby on the rival gang because they said they'll kill you tomorrow.
But can it be rationally justified? Probably.

Your point is well made. Though the rival gang bit could be considered self defense in a lot of ways.

I think the context of the question here though is general ol' wanton murder rather than revenge in particular. Still, we can apply the same question to revenge. Is it worse to murder or to rape someone in revenge for something they've done?

Let's look at these two.
Justified murder, Hitler's right hand man shoots him in the back.
"Justified" rape, Hitler is raped by Soviet Soldiers. Not as satisfying or comfortable is it? I prefer my Hitler dead than raped and almost sympathetic.

Simply, the most justifiable murder can seem morally good to me (could have stopped over 10 million murders), but the most "justified" rape is still evil and not acceptable ever.

In my opinion of course.

Interesting you mentioned the raped Hitler, since in that Adam Sandler movie where he's the son of the devil, that's exactly what they do to Hitler, and everyone seemed to love it and thought it was a just punishment for him in hell.