India Rapist Burned Alive by Victim

[Eddie Teach]

In what sense does calling Raz an idiot "work"? Makes you feel better? I mean, it sure doesn't seem to faze him.

Exactly.  That's why it is best just to not respond to him at all.

Oh I enjoy talking to Raz, just not gonna get into any drawn out argument.

[merithyn]

im still ok with her act even were it both motivated to be toruture and a revenge killing

some people just need killing

if we believe her version of events, (which i accept for the sake of argument) this dude needed killing

perhaps not a great legal argument but it remains the cornerstone of all jury nullifications

[grumbler]

im still ok with her act even were it both motivated to be toruture and a revenge killing

some people just need killing

if we believe her version of events, (which i accept for the sake of argument) this dude needed killing

perhaps not a great legal argument but it remains the cornerstone of all jury nullifications

Pretty much every non-contract-killer murder (and some of those) that are not accidental are justified by the fact that the murdered person needed to die.

Yours is a great argument for the strong, but not so much for the weak.  It's the equivalent, in my mind, to the "she deserved/wanted to be raped" argument by some rapists.  Perhaps not a great legal argument but it remains the cornerstone of all jury nullifications

[Rasputin]

im still ok with her act even were it both motivated to be toruture and a revenge killing

some people just need killing

if we believe her version of events, (which i accept for the sake of argument) this dude needed killing

perhaps not a great legal argument but it remains the cornerstone of all jury nullifications

Pretty much every non-contract-killer murder (and some of those) that are not accidental are justified by the fact that the murdered person needed to die.

Yours is a great argument for the strong, but not so much for the weak.  It's the equivalent, in my mind, to the "she deserved/wanted to be raped" argument by some rapists.  Perhaps not a great legal argument but it remains the cornerstone of all jury nullifications

your first premise is wrong unless measured from a purely subjective standpoint...measured objectively its a false premise

your second premise is also false...my argument empowers the weak to not remain a victim...our justice system often leaves the victim in a state of victimhood for life as the state goes to great lengths to protect (as it must) the rights of the accused

your conclusion (despite being built upon two false premises) is a non sequitor even if we assume the premises are true...given the false premises however it makes even less sense

while i understand that you are trying to make a blame the victim analogy there is no equivalence, moral or logical, between how a women dresses and whether she should be raped as a result (clearly an abhorrent argument) on the one hand and whether a rape victim is justified in killing her rapist in the heat of the moment, on the other hand

I support the later and reject the former and both positions are consistent.

[dps]

It's hard to prove rape because she killed him and burned down the house and I don't think providing a motive is required for a conviction.

What the hell are you even talking about? Of course motive is required for conviction - motive is often central to determining whether a crime occured or not, and even if not, it is relevant for determining what kind of crime occurred.

Not always.  Some guy walks into his wife's workplace, pulls a gun, and shoots his wife in the head in front of a room full of witnesses, he's almost certainly going to be convicted of murder even if no on knows why he did it and he refuses to say why, since in this scenario it obviously didn't happen in the heat of the moment and it wasn't self-defense.

[Eddie Teach]

Remind me not to hire Martinus as my defense attorney if I'm ever accused of a crime in Poland. 

[Rasputin]

It's hard to prove rape because she killed him and burned down the house and I don't think providing a motive is required for a conviction.

What the hell are you even talking about? Of course motive is required for conviction - motive is often central to determining whether a crime occured or not, and even if not, it is relevant for determining what kind of crime occurred.

Not always.  Some guy walks into his wife's workplace, pulls a gun, and shoots his wife in the head in front of a room full of witnesses, he's almost certainly going to be convicted of murder even if no on knows why he did it and he refuses to say why, since in this scenario it obviously didn't happen in the heat of the moment and it wasn't self-defense.

you've established mens rea / intent with these facts

while motive and intent  differ, I believe that in context marty was using the word motive as a synonym for legal intent

Of course i could just be giving marty more credit than he deserves 

[Razgovory]

In what sense does calling Raz an idiot "work"? Makes you feel better? I mean, it sure doesn't seem to faze him.

Exactly.  That's why it is best just to not respond to him at all.

Also, you are bitter you lost an argument to me a year ago.

[fhdz]

*shrug*

You made a mistake of trying to make a reasoned argument with Raz, rather than calling him an idiot a priori. It just doesn't work.

In what sense does calling Raz an idiot "work"? Makes you feel better? I mean, it sure doesn't seem to faze him.

For what it's worth, I don't think Raz is an idiot. I just think he has little facility to deal with or understand differing points of view.

[Razgovory]

You never gave me a point a view.

[fhdz]

You never gave me a point a view.

The problem, Raz, is that you equate "having a point of view" with "choosing one of two sides and taking it".

They aren't equivalent, and it's your apparent inability to understand that which causes most of the conversational problems you have on Languish.

[Sheilbh]

I agree with Meri and derspiess. Hell just froze over.

Yep. I'm in the axis of improbable too.

[Razgovory]

You never gave me a point a view.

The problem, Raz, is that you equate "having a point of view" with "choosing one of two sides and taking it".

They aren't equivalent, and it's your apparent inability to understand that which causes most of the conversational problems you have on Languish.

No my problems derive from the fact I'm a jerk.  Perhaps you should look to yourself for some of the problems here.

[Ed Anger]

 

[garbon]

You never gave me a point a view.

The problem, Raz, is that you equate "having a point of view" with "choosing one of two sides and taking it".

They aren't equivalent, and it's your apparent inability to understand that which causes most of the conversational problems you have on Languish.

No my problems derive from the fact I'm a jerk.  Perhaps you should look to yourself for some of the problems here.

You're going to have to try a bit harder if you want to get categorized as a jerk around these parts.