QuoteIndia Rapist Allegedly Burned Alive By Victim In Bihar
Posted: 04/04/2013 10:56 am EDT
A woman in India is being investigated for murder after her alleged rapist died in a house fire, Al Jazeera reported on Wednesday.
The unnamed woman, a widow, claims she was asleep when the alleged assailant, Bhola Thakur, entered her house early Tuesday morning and raped her. A police officer told the Hindustan Times that the man was "so drunk he [fell] asleep in her house after committing the crime."
The Indian Express reports that the woman contemplated committing suicide out of shame, but changed her mind and instead poured kerosene on her slumbering attacker before fleeing the house.
Thakur died in the fire. Police told the Hindustan Times he had been previously accused in dozens of cases of "eve-teasing" -- a euphemism used in India for public sexual assault. Additionally, neighbors reported that Thakur had been harassing the woman for a few months, the Times of India notes.
In her police report, the woman admitted to lighting her assailant on fire. "I have no regret that I burned Bhola alive," she said, via TOI. "I put kerosene on him before he raped me, which I could not stop, and burned him out of revenge."
The woman was arrested by the police on Tuesday, according to the Hindustan Times. Thakur's widow has reportedly filed a report against the woman, and police are investigating the alleged rape and murder cases.
The decision to handle this case as one of murder rather than rape has caused some controversy in India, as many feel the police should have been more sympathetic to a woman who apparently acted out of self-defense. TOI points out that private defense is protected under the law even in the case of the attacker's death.
India is under increased pressure to improve women's rights after a brutal gang rape of a young woman last year provoked mass protests around the country.
In what is seen as an encouraging move, India's Parliament passed an expansive new law to protect women against sexual violence in March.
"It's a significant moment. We have taken many steps forward," said a women's rights activist quoted by the Associated Press. "Much, much more needs to be done."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/04/india-rapist-burned-alive-bihar_n_3009831.html
Well, good on her.
That'll learn him.
Death by means of torture as an acceptable punishment?
She put kerosene on him before he raped her, then he raped her, and then she set him on fire? I think I'd get the kerosene off of me before continuing the rape, but then I wouldn't be raping someone in the first place, so clearly I don't understand the mindset of rapists.
Quote from: dps on April 04, 2013, 11:25:28 AM
She put kerosene on him before he raped her, then he raped her, and then she set him on fire? I think I'd get the kerosene off of me before continuing the rape, but then I wouldn't be raping someone in the first place, so clearly I don't understand the mindset of rapists.
Is it wrong of me that this brings to mind a certain song by the Doors? :hmm:
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2013, 11:19:27 AM
Death by means of torture as an acceptable punishment?
Her case is certain to spark a debate.
Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2013, 11:19:07 AM
That'll learn him.
If it doesn't, next life he can be reborn as a male praying mantis.
Quote from: Legbiter on April 04, 2013, 11:41:14 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2013, 11:19:27 AM
Death by means of torture as an acceptable punishment?
Her case is certain to spark a debate.
Murderous Misandry is fashionable again.
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2013, 12:20:36 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on April 04, 2013, 11:41:14 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2013, 11:19:27 AM
Death by means of torture as an acceptable punishment?
Her case is certain to spark a debate.
Murderous Misandry is fashionable again.
Aww. Poor rapist. :rolleyes:
Quote from: fahdiz on April 04, 2013, 12:25:57 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2013, 12:20:36 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on April 04, 2013, 11:41:14 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2013, 11:19:27 AM
Death by means of torture as an acceptable punishment?
Her case is certain to spark a debate.
Murderous Misandry is fashionable again.
Aww. Poor rapist. :rolleyes:
Yes, she doused a sleeping man in kerosene and set him on fire.
I find that reactions of the kind "good on her" and "you go girl" are disgusting and immoral. People who are rapists as well as people who are not rapists should not be purposefully immolated for whatever reason in peacetime.
Meh, it's the third world, Vike. Let it go.
Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2013, 12:37:28 PM
Meh, it's the third world, Vike. Let it go.
meh, it's not like they are real people down there, is it?
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2013, 11:19:27 AM
Death by means of torture as an acceptable punishment?
Yes. :mellow:
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2013, 12:31:42 PM
Yes, she doused a sleeping man in kerosene and set him on fire.
I find that reactions of the kind "good on her" and "you go girl" are disgusting and immoral. People who are rapists as well as people who are not rapists should not be purposefully immolated for whatever reason in peacetime.
I disagree. Given the culture that she's in - where the "honorable" and "moral" thing would be for her to commit suicide - I'm rather happy to see that she decided on a better course of action. So, "good on her" and "you go girl".
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2013, 12:41:33 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2013, 12:37:28 PM
Meh, it's the third world, Vike. Let it go.
meh, it's not like they are real people down there, is it?
I didn't say that. You're just expecting too much of less-advanced cultures.
I'm inclined to agree with Puff. If the state punished the perp by setting him on fire we would condemn that. Shouldn't be any different for the victim.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2013, 01:52:17 PM
I'm inclined to agree with Puff. If the state punished the perp by setting him on fire we would condemn that. Shouldn't be any different for the victim.
Given that the state is doing next to nothing to protect women in that country, I think it's perfectly reasonable for women to do whatever they feel is necessary to protect themselves. They feel completely at the will of men, and if it takes a few immolations to make the men take a step back, well... so be it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2013, 01:52:17 PM
I'm inclined to agree with Puff. If the state punished the perp by setting him on fire we would condemn that. Shouldn't be any different for the victim.
Sure it's different, the state is a rational actor that hasn't just been raped.
I wouldn't condone her actions, but the rape is pretty strong mitigation.
Quote from: merithyn on April 04, 2013, 01:56:53 PM
Given that the state is doing next to nothing to protect women in that country, I think it's perfectly reasonable for women to do whatever they feel is necessary to protect themselves. They feel completely at the will of men, and if it takes a few immolations to make the men take a step back, well... so be it.
If she had gouged out his eyes, tied him up and kept him alive for a week while torturing him that could have some deterrent value too. Would you condone that as well?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2013, 01:59:20 PM
Quote from: merithyn on April 04, 2013, 01:56:53 PM
Given that the state is doing next to nothing to protect women in that country, I think it's perfectly reasonable for women to do whatever they feel is necessary to protect themselves. They feel completely at the will of men, and if it takes a few immolations to make the men take a step back, well... so be it.
If she had gouged out his eyes, tied him up and kept him alive for a week while torturing him that could have some deterrent value too. Would you condone that as well?
Nope. That's not a "heat of the moment" kind of thing. What she did, however, was.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 04, 2013, 01:57:15 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2013, 01:52:17 PM
I'm inclined to agree with Puff. If the state punished the perp by setting him on fire we would condemn that. Shouldn't be any different for the victim.
Sure it's different, the state is a rational actor that hasn't just been raped.
I wouldn't condone her actions, but the rape is pretty strong mitigation.
Add to that the fact that the result of her reporting him would be shame for her, probably nothing for him, and the risk that it would happen again. What incentive is there for her to allow him to live?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 04, 2013, 01:57:15 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2013, 01:52:17 PM
I'm inclined to agree with Puff. If the state punished the perp by setting him on fire we would condemn that. Shouldn't be any different for the victim.
Sure it's different, the state is a rational actor that hasn't just been raped.
I wouldn't condone her actions, but the rape is pretty strong mitigation.
I can agree with that. The fact that she had just been raped should be considered a mitigating factor when sentencing.
On a more serious note, Norway is dealing with a similar issue today. An epidemic of India style assault rapes which are going unpunished due to low motivation from the police to investigate related to the inability to punish due to prison overcrowding as well as a perception by the "immigrant community" that prison isn't harsh combined with an inability to expel violent offenders due to political/diplomatic reasons. Vigilantism isn't the response. <insert Slargos style rant>.
Quote from: merithyn on April 04, 2013, 02:03:23 PM
Nope. That's not a "heat of the moment" kind of thing. What she did, however, was.
Considering deterrent value is not a heat of the moment thing either.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2013, 02:06:23 PM
Quote from: merithyn on April 04, 2013, 02:03:23 PM
Nope. That's not a "heat of the moment" kind of thing. What she did, however, was.
Considering deterrent value is not a heat of the moment thing either.
She wants him to never rape her again. The only way that's going to happen in India is for him to die. So, she makes that happen.
That doesn't require rational thought. That requires intimate knowledge of the culture you live in, and a strong desire for self-preservation.
Quote from: merithyn on April 04, 2013, 02:03:23 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2013, 01:59:20 PM
Quote from: merithyn on April 04, 2013, 01:56:53 PM
Given that the state is doing next to nothing to protect women in that country, I think it's perfectly reasonable for women to do whatever they feel is necessary to protect themselves. They feel completely at the will of men, and if it takes a few immolations to make the men take a step back, well... so be it.
If she had gouged out his eyes, tied him up and kept him alive for a week while torturing him that could have some deterrent value too. Would you condone that as well?
Nope. That's not a "heat of the moment" kind of thing. What she did, however, was.
:huh: going to find a can of kerosene dousing the man and lighting it is "heat of the moment"?
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2013, 02:08:36 PM
:huh: going to find a can of kerosene dousing the man and lighting it is "heat of the moment"?
:)
Quote from: merithyn on April 04, 2013, 02:07:59 PM
She wants him to never rape her again. The only way that's going to happen in India is for him to die. So, she makes that happen.
That doesn't require rational thought. That requires intimate knowledge of the culture you live in, and a strong desire for self-preservation.
Quote from: merithyn on April 04, 2013, 02:09:32 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2013, 02:08:36 PM
:huh: going to find a can of kerosene dousing the man and lighting it is "heat of the moment"?
:)
Quote from: merithyn on April 04, 2013, 02:07:59 PM
She wants him to never rape her again. The only way that's going to happen in India is for him to die. So, she makes that happen.
That doesn't require rational thought. That requires intimate knowledge of the culture you live in, and a strong desire for self-preservation.
this is what heat of the moment might look like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_and_Lorena_Bobbitt
:contract:
I don't care how evil this guy was or how incapable the society was of punishing him vigilantism always makes the situation worse.
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2013, 02:12:11 PM
this is what heat of the moment might look like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_and_Lorena_Bobbitt
:contract:
I don't care how evil this guy was or how incapable the society was of punishing him vigilantism always makes the situation worse.
Given that this man was a menace to multiple women in the area according to the article, I'd disagree. It appears to have made this situation far better for a whole lot of people. Just not for him.
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2013, 02:12:11 PM
I don't care how evil this guy was or how incapable the society was of punishing him vigilantism always makes the situation worse.
No, not always. I'm with Meri on this one.
Quote from: merithyn on April 04, 2013, 02:13:38 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2013, 02:12:11 PM
this is what heat of the moment might look like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_and_Lorena_Bobbitt
:contract:
I don't care how evil this guy was or how incapable the society was of punishing him vigilantism always makes the situation worse.
Given that this man was a menace to multiple women in the area according to the article, I'd disagree. It appears to have made this situation far better for a whole lot of people. Just not for him.
merithyn; proud apologist for vigilantism.
Quote from: merithyn on April 04, 2013, 02:13:38 PM
Given that this man was a menace to multiple women in the area according to the article, I'd disagree. It appears to have made this situation far better for a whole lot of people. Just not for him.
Again, this is not heat of the moment thinking. This is cost/benefit.
There's a time and place for vigilantism to step in when the state has failed to protect its citizens. I prefer the "finding a better state" approach, but that's not always an option.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2013, 02:16:33 PM
Quote from: merithyn on April 04, 2013, 02:13:38 PM
Given that this man was a menace to multiple women in the area according to the article, I'd disagree. It appears to have made this situation far better for a whole lot of people. Just not for him.
Again, this is not heat of the moment thinking. This is cost/benefit.
I'm not attributing that thinking to her. :)
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2013, 02:14:36 PM
merithyn; proud apologist for vigilantism.
I don't apologize for it. I'm saying that in the state of India, women have no choice but to take care of themselves. The state obviously isn't doing it. No one should apologize for doing what they need to do to protect themselves when no one else is doing it for them.
No apology necessary.
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2013, 12:31:42 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 04, 2013, 12:25:57 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2013, 12:20:36 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on April 04, 2013, 11:41:14 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2013, 11:19:27 AM
Death by means of torture as an acceptable punishment?
Her case is certain to spark a debate.
Murderous Misandry is fashionable again.
Aww. Poor rapist. :rolleyes:
Yes, she doused a sleeping man in kerosene and set him on fire.
I find that reactions of the kind "good on her" and "you go girl" are disgusting and immoral. People who are rapists as well as people who are not rapists should not be purposefully immolated for whatever reason in peacetime.
this kind of pussy euroweenieism has caused the downfall of western society
I think she was rather kind to him in that he got to keep all his parts.
Quote from: Maximus on April 04, 2013, 02:18:05 PM
I prefer the "finding a better state" approach, but that's not always an option.
Thank God it was for you. :weep:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2013, 01:52:17 PM
I'm inclined to agree with Puff. If the state punished the perp by setting him on fire we would condemn that. Shouldn't be any different for the victim.
who is we?
You have a mouse in your pocket?
Quote from: Rasputin on April 04, 2013, 02:23:13 PM
this kind of pussy euroweenieism has caused the downfall of western society
I think she was rather kind to him in that he got to keep all his parts.
No, the monopoly of violence by the state is a cornerstone of western society. That is what separates us from the savages. If anybody is going to be killed by torture then the torturist can only be the government.
I'm not arguing against the death penalty for rape. I'm against vigilante murder and execution by torture.
Usually I'm on the opposite side from Meyth. But in this case, I gotta agree she has a point.
Killing someone who has just committed such a crime on you would not be justifiable, if there were other reasonable choices available. From what I've read, in many places in India the authorities will do diddly-squat in cases of rape like this.
In a place where there is a functioning system of cops and courts, yeah, the law should discourage vigilantism to the utmost. Where the situation is at least in part a function of the fact that the authorities can't or won't do shit about it, then it seems reasonable for a court asked to judge *her* actions to use the old Texas-style verdict of 'yep, he's a guy that needed a killing' - perhaps call it 'not guilty by reason of momentary insanity' or some such ;) . Assuming of course that the story as stated is true.
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2013, 02:27:23 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on April 04, 2013, 02:23:13 PM
this kind of pussy euroweenieism has caused the downfall of western society
I think she was rather kind to him in that he got to keep all his parts.
No, the monopoly of violence by the state is a cornerstone of western society. That is what separates us from the savages. If anybody is going to be killed by torture then the torturist can only be the government.
I'm not arguing against the death penalty for rape. I'm against vigilante murder and execution by torture.
You would have made a bad cowboy
Quote from: Malthus on April 04, 2013, 02:28:58 PM
Usually I'm on the opposite side from Meyth. But in this case, I gotta agree she has a point.
Killing someone who has just committed such a crime on you would not be justifiable, if there were other reasonable choices available. From what I've read, in many places in India the authorities will do diddly-squat in cases of rape like this.
In a place where there is a functioning system of cops and courts, yeah, the law should discourage vigilantism to the utmost. Where the situation is at least in part a function of the fact that the authorities can't or won't do shit about it, then it seems reasonable for a court asked to judge *her* actions to use the old Texas-style verdict of 'yep, he's a guy that needed a killing' - perhaps call it 'not guilty by reason of momentary insanity' or some such ;) . Assuming of course that the story as stated is true.
Exactly.
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2013, 02:27:23 PM
No, the monopoly of violence by the state is a cornerstone of western society. That is what separates us from the savages. If anybody is going to be killed by torture then the torturist can only be the government.
I'm not arguing against the death penalty for rape. I'm against vigilante murder and execution by torture.
They do not have a system similar to Western Society. They are "the savages". Under those circumstances, she did what she had to do. It's not vigilantism if there are no structured laws to protect.
Force is always justified in self-defense. The question is whether that qualified as self-defense or not.
I'm going with the "justified" bandwagon here. When the government fails to protect its population, the population is justified in taking (usually abnormally) aggressive action to protect itself.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 04, 2013, 02:33:51 PM
Force is always justified in self-defense. The question is whether that qualified as self-defense or not.
Yes. Even if the state prosecuted him for rape, it'd be a slap on the wrist with no further action to protect the victim. That kind of lack of protection stretches this out from a single incident of rape to a very possible constant danger of it happening again.
Quote from: Malthus on April 04, 2013, 02:28:58 PM
Usually I'm on the opposite side from Meyth. But in this case, I gotta agree she has a point.
Killing someone who has just committed such a crime on you would not be justifiable, if there were other reasonable choices available. From what I've read, in many places in India the authorities will do diddly-squat in cases of rape like this.
In a place where there is a functioning system of cops and courts, yeah, the law should discourage vigilantism to the utmost. Where the situation is at least in part a function of the fact that the authorities can't or won't do shit about it, then it seems reasonable for a court asked to judge *her* actions to use the old Texas-style verdict of 'yep, he's a guy that needed a killing' - perhaps call it 'not guilty by reason of momentary insanity' or some such ;) . Assuming of course that the story as stated is true.
Compared to Norway (http://www.klassekampen.no/30778/article/item/null/norge-oppklarer-farrest-voldtekter) has a conviction rate for rape of about 19% while India (http://news.oneindia.in/2013/02/27/decline-in-rape-conviction-cases-govt-1159916.html) has a conviction rate of 26%. The US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_United_States) has a similar (arrest) rate of 25%. While there are some apples/oranges issues. The conviction rate in India is reasonable at least compared to Norway.
I don't think the "he won't be punished" argument here holds any water.
so that its clear; i would not have been troubled by this in chicago either
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2013, 02:14:36 PM
Quote from: merithyn on April 04, 2013, 02:13:38 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2013, 02:12:11 PM
this is what heat of the moment might look like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_and_Lorena_Bobbitt
:contract:
I don't care how evil this guy was or how incapable the society was of punishing him vigilantism always makes the situation worse.
Given that this man was a menace to multiple women in the area according to the article, I'd disagree. It appears to have made this situation far better for a whole lot of people. Just not for him.
merithyn; proud apologist for vigilantism.
Only if the victims are women. I doubt she approves to the idea of lighting this woman on fire due to the a fact she is now a threat to people in the area.
Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2013, 02:14:08 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2013, 02:12:11 PM
I don't care how evil this guy was or how incapable the society was of punishing him vigilantism always makes the situation worse.
No, not always. I'm with Meri on this one.
I agree with Meri and derspiess. Hell just froze over.
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2013, 02:39:03 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 04, 2013, 02:28:58 PM
Usually I'm on the opposite side from Meyth. But in this case, I gotta agree she has a point.
Killing someone who has just committed such a crime on you would not be justifiable, if there were other reasonable choices available. From what I've read, in many places in India the authorities will do diddly-squat in cases of rape like this.
In a place where there is a functioning system of cops and courts, yeah, the law should discourage vigilantism to the utmost. Where the situation is at least in part a function of the fact that the authorities can't or won't do shit about it, then it seems reasonable for a court asked to judge *her* actions to use the old Texas-style verdict of 'yep, he's a guy that needed a killing' - perhaps call it 'not guilty by reason of momentary insanity' or some such ;) . Assuming of course that the story as stated is true.
Compared to Norway (http://www.klassekampen.no/30778/article/item/null/norge-oppklarer-farrest-voldtekter) has a conviction rate for rape of about 19% while India (http://news.oneindia.in/2013/02/27/decline-in-rape-conviction-cases-govt-1159916.html) has a conviction rate of 26%. The US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_United_States) has a similar (arrest) rate of 25%. While there are some apples/oranges issues. The conviction rate in India is reasonable at least compared to Norway.
I don't think the "he won't be punished" argument here holds any water.
I completely agree; its a patronizing argument that presumes the indians are savages -- those that have made this argument are racists
nonetheless self help is occasionally a good thing and keeps us all from becoming sheep
Quote from: Rasputin on April 04, 2013, 02:39:07 PM
so that its clear; i would not have been troubled by this in chicago either
I thought you were a lawyer.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2013, 02:40:31 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2013, 02:14:36 PM
Quote from: merithyn on April 04, 2013, 02:13:38 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2013, 02:12:11 PM
this is what heat of the moment might look like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_and_Lorena_Bobbitt
:contract:
I don't care how evil this guy was or how incapable the society was of punishing him vigilantism always makes the situation worse.
Given that this man was a menace to multiple women in the area according to the article, I'd disagree. It appears to have made this situation far better for a whole lot of people. Just not for him.
merithyn; proud apologist for vigilantism.
Only if the victims are women. I doubt she approves to the idea of lighting this woman on fire due to the a fact she is now a threat to people in the area.
I doubt she approves of her own neighbors lighting meri on fire since meri is in fact a threat to the people in her area.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2013, 02:41:11 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on April 04, 2013, 02:39:07 PM
so that its clear; i would not have been troubled by this in chicago either
I thought you were a lawyer.
I'm a fantastic one if you believe the rating agencies
Quote from: Rasputin on April 04, 2013, 02:42:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2013, 02:41:11 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on April 04, 2013, 02:39:07 PM
so that its clear; i would not have been troubled by this in chicago either
I thought you were a lawyer.
I'm a fantastic one if you believe the rating agencies
I wouldn't.
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2013, 02:39:03 PM
Compared to Norway (http://www.klassekampen.no/30778/article/item/null/norge-oppklarer-farrest-voldtekter) has a conviction rate for rape of about 19% while India (http://news.oneindia.in/2013/02/27/decline-in-rape-conviction-cases-govt-1159916.html) has a conviction rate of 26%. The US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_United_States) has a similar (arrest) rate of 25%. While there are some apples/oranges issues. The conviction rate in India is reasonable at least compared to Norway.
I don't think the "he won't be punished" argument here holds any water.
:hmm:
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,9036.0.html (http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,9036.0.html)
Quote from: Rasputin on April 04, 2013, 02:45:02 PM
:D thats just professional jealousy going back to my harassing you for your making stupid argumernts for ten years now.
:P
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2013, 02:39:03 PM
Compared to Norway (http://www.klassekampen.no/30778/article/item/null/norge-oppklarer-farrest-voldtekter) has a conviction rate for rape of about 19% while India (http://news.oneindia.in/2013/02/27/decline-in-rape-conviction-cases-govt-1159916.html) has a conviction rate of 26%. The US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_United_States) has a similar (arrest) rate of 25%. While there are some apples/oranges issues. The conviction rate in India is reasonable at least compared to Norway.
I don't think the "he won't be punished" argument here holds any water.
That doesn't take into account how infrequently rape is even reported in India because of the shame it brings to the family. It's miniscule compared to western countries. Conviction rate isn't a good approximation for how just the system is.
Quote from: merithyn on April 04, 2013, 02:43:56 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2013, 02:39:03 PM
Compared to Norway (http://www.klassekampen.no/30778/article/item/null/norge-oppklarer-farrest-voldtekter) has a conviction rate for rape of about 19% while India (http://news.oneindia.in/2013/02/27/decline-in-rape-conviction-cases-govt-1159916.html) has a conviction rate of 26%. The US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_United_States) has a similar (arrest) rate of 25%. While there are some apples/oranges issues. The conviction rate in India is reasonable at least compared to Norway.
I don't think the "he won't be punished" argument here holds any water.
:hmm:
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,9036.0.html (http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,9036.0.html)
Horrible rape happens in india, society confronts the attitudes that permit similar events from happening, politicians strengthen anti-rape legislation and tourists lose their shit and jump out of hotel windows fearing rape. How does this support your assertion? If anything with society taking the issue especially seriously right now that weakens your argument.
Quote from: frunk on April 04, 2013, 02:47:46 PM
That doesn't take into account how infrequently rape is even reported in India because of the shame it brings to the family. It's miniscule compared to western countries. Conviction rate isn't a good approximation for how just the system is.
Not reporting a rape based on family shame is not a failure of the system, it's a failure of the family. So the victim in the story should have reported the crime to the police then set fire to her family when they tried to shame her about it.
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2013, 02:51:24 PM
Horrible rape happens in india, society confronts the attitudes that permit similar events from happening, politicians strengthen anti-rape legislation and tourists lose their shit and jump out of hotel windows fearing rape. How does this support your assertion? If anything with society taking the issue especially seriously right now that weakens your argument.
Maybe you should re-read that thread....
Quote from: frunk on April 04, 2013, 02:47:46 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2013, 02:39:03 PM
Compared to Norway (http://www.klassekampen.no/30778/article/item/null/norge-oppklarer-farrest-voldtekter) has a conviction rate for rape of about 19% while India (http://news.oneindia.in/2013/02/27/decline-in-rape-conviction-cases-govt-1159916.html) has a conviction rate of 26%. The US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_United_States) has a similar (arrest) rate of 25%. While there are some apples/oranges issues. The conviction rate in India is reasonable at least compared to Norway.
I don't think the "he won't be punished" argument here holds any water.
That doesn't take into account how infrequently rape is even reported in India because of the shame it brings to the family. It's miniscule compared to western countries. Conviction rate isn't a good approximation for how just the system is.
Yeah, comparisons like that are more or less useless. In an place like Scandinavia, rape is much more likely to be reported and also have more false accusations. It stands to reason that a more conservative place where people are less likely to even report it would have a higher conviction rate.
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2013, 02:39:03 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 04, 2013, 02:28:58 PM
Usually I'm on the opposite side from Meyth. But in this case, I gotta agree she has a point.
Killing someone who has just committed such a crime on you would not be justifiable, if there were other reasonable choices available. From what I've read, in many places in India the authorities will do diddly-squat in cases of rape like this.
In a place where there is a functioning system of cops and courts, yeah, the law should discourage vigilantism to the utmost. Where the situation is at least in part a function of the fact that the authorities can't or won't do shit about it, then it seems reasonable for a court asked to judge *her* actions to use the old Texas-style verdict of 'yep, he's a guy that needed a killing' - perhaps call it 'not guilty by reason of momentary insanity' or some such ;) . Assuming of course that the story as stated is true.
Compared to Norway (http://www.klassekampen.no/30778/article/item/null/norge-oppklarer-farrest-voldtekter) has a conviction rate for rape of about 19% while India (http://news.oneindia.in/2013/02/27/decline-in-rape-conviction-cases-govt-1159916.html) has a conviction rate of 26%. The US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_United_States) has a similar (arrest) rate of 25%. While there are some apples/oranges issues. The conviction rate in India is reasonable at least compared to Norway.
I don't think the "he won't be punished" argument here holds any water.
I don't think the conviction rate tells the story. Before you get convicted, you must be charged. In some societies, that can be a problem; India is alegedly one of them. According to reports, it has a real "culture of rape" where it isn't considered a serious crime by large segments of the population, leading to an artifically low rate of charges and arrests.
The fact that women complaining about rape are, allegedly, sometimes raped by the cops who are "investigating" their cases doesn't help.
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/29/indias_culture_of_rape_is_endemic/
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2013, 02:55:27 PM
Quote from: frunk on April 04, 2013, 02:47:46 PM
That doesn't take into account how infrequently rape is even reported in India because of the shame it brings to the family. It's miniscule compared to western countries. Conviction rate isn't a good approximation for how just the system is.
Not reporting a rape based on family shame is not a failure of the system, it's a failure of the family. So the victim in the story should have reported the crime to the police then set fire to her family when they tried to shame her about it.
Heh, on the one hand she could kill her rapist sleeping it off in her bed - on the other, she could single-handedly change the entire society she happens to live in. Tough choice. :hmm:
His family will now set her on fire and the vigilantly scales of justice will be balanced once more.
Quote from: Malthus on April 04, 2013, 03:02:42 PM
Heh, on the one hand she could kill her rapist sleeping it off in her bed - on the other, she could single-handedly change the entire society she happens to live in. Tough choice. :hmm:
:hmm: What happened to her family? I could have sworn they were mentioned before.
Of course it's entirely possible he didn't rape her, and she brought him into her house for some purpose and chose to light him on fire. You know, when you cast aside due process and engage in vigilantism it's difficult discover who's really guilty.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2013, 03:05:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 04, 2013, 03:02:42 PM
Heh, on the one hand she could kill her rapist sleeping it off in her bed - on the other, she could single-handedly change the entire society she happens to live in. Tough choice. :hmm:
:hmm: What happened to her family? I could have sworn they were mentioned before.
Presumably, if the cops don't take her case seriously, she has to do them in, too. Ditto the courts.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2013, 03:08:03 PM
Of course it's entirely possible he didn't rape her, and she brought him into her house for some purpose and chose to light him on fire. You know, when you cast aside due process and engage in vigilantism it's difficult discover who's really guilty.
How is determining her guilt for murder inherently more difficult that determining his guilt for rape?
Quote from: Malthus on April 04, 2013, 03:11:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2013, 03:08:03 PM
Of course it's entirely possible he didn't rape her, and she brought him into her house for some purpose and chose to light him on fire. You know, when you cast aside due process and engage in vigilantism it's difficult discover who's really guilty.
How is determining her guilt for murder inherently more difficult that determining his guilt for rape?
What?
Quote from: HVC on April 04, 2013, 03:04:38 PM
His family will now set her on fire and the vigilantly scales of justice will be balanced once more.
This will somehow escalate into India setting Pakistan on fire. Mark my words.
Quote from: HVC on April 04, 2013, 03:04:38 PM
His family will now set her on fire and the vigilantly scales of justice will be balanced once more.
you'd at least have made a better cowboy than viking
Or Klansman.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2013, 03:18:39 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 04, 2013, 03:11:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2013, 03:08:03 PM
Of course it's entirely possible he didn't rape her, and she brought him into her house for some purpose and chose to light him on fire. You know, when you cast aside due process and engage in vigilantism it's difficult discover who's really guilty.
How is determining her guilt for murder inherently more difficult that determining his guilt for rape?
What?
Presumably, she will be tried for murder. At such a trial, she will have to demonstrate that her story is true to have a hope of being aquitted - she admits she did it.
If she had not killed him, but rather successfully managed to get him charged with rape, to secure a conviction the state would have to prove that he raped her.
Proving rape is going to be difficult - as will proving her motives for murder.
It isn't "vigilatism" per se that creates the difficulty.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2013, 03:08:03 PM
Of course it's entirely possible he didn't rape her, and she brought him into her house for some purpose and chose to light him on fire. You know, when you cast aside due process and engage in vigilantism it's difficult discover who's really guilty.
Given what's been reported in the story, that would still be karmic justice.
Quote from: Rasputin on April 04, 2013, 03:33:04 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 04, 2013, 03:04:38 PM
His family will now set her on fire and the vigilantly scales of justice will be balanced once more.
you'd at least have made a better cowboy than viking
slowest draw in the west!
And derspiess, there's a 50/50 chance of that happening on any given day lol
Quote from: Malthus on April 04, 2013, 03:41:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2013, 03:18:39 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 04, 2013, 03:11:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2013, 03:08:03 PM
Of course it's entirely possible he didn't rape her, and she brought him into her house for some purpose and chose to light him on fire. You know, when you cast aside due process and engage in vigilantism it's difficult discover who's really guilty.
How is determining her guilt for murder inherently more difficult that determining his guilt for rape?
What?
Presumably, she will be tried for murder. At such a trial, she will have to demonstrate that her story is true to have a hope of being aquitted - she admits she did it.
If she had not killed him, but rather successfully managed to get him charged with rape, to secure a conviction the state would have to prove that he raped her.
Proving rape is going to be difficult - as will proving her motives for murder.
It isn't "vigilatism" per se that creates the difficulty.
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.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 04, 2013, 03:43:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2013, 03:08:03 PM
Of course it's entirely possible he didn't rape her, and she brought him into her house for some purpose and chose to light him on fire. You know, when you cast aside due process and engage in vigilantism it's difficult discover who's really guilty.
Given what's been reported in the story, that would still be karmic justice.
How is it Karmic justice if she burned a man not guilty of rape alive.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2013, 04:20:27 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 04, 2013, 03:43:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2013, 03:08:03 PM
Of course it's entirely possible he didn't rape her, and she brought him into her house for some purpose and chose to light him on fire. You know, when you cast aside due process and engage in vigilantism it's difficult discover who's really guilty.
Given what's been reported in the story, that would still be karmic justice.
How is it Karmic justice if she burned a man not guilty of rape alive.
Quotehakur died in the fire. Police told the Hindustan Times he had been previously accused in dozens of cases of "eve-teasing" -- a euphemism used in India for public sexual assault.
So even if he didn't rape
her, he was still guilty.
Quote from: Malthus on April 04, 2013, 02:28:58 PM
Usually I'm on the opposite side from Meyth. But in this case, I gotta agree she has a point.
Killing someone who has just committed such a crime on you would not be justifiable, if there were other reasonable choices available. From what I've read, in many places in India the authorities will do diddly-squat in cases of rape like this.
In a place where there is a functioning system of cops and courts, yeah, the law should discourage vigilantism to the utmost. Where the situation is at least in part a function of the fact that the authorities can't or won't do shit about it, then it seems reasonable for a court asked to judge *her* actions to use the old Texas-style verdict of 'yep, he's a guy that needed a killing' - perhaps call it 'not guilty by reason of momentary insanity' or some such ;) . Assuming of course that the story as stated is true.
That's my line of reasoning, too.
Viking, you're taking a society in which the rule of law is taken for granted (yours) and trying to impose it on a culture where the rule of law applies unequally.
So extralegal murder is acceptable in a society that doesn't have equal rights? :huh:
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2013, 05:52:29 PM
So extralegal murder is acceptable in a society that doesn't have equal rights? :huh:
Put yourself in her shoes for a minute.
She was stalked for months and then raped. She knows - or at least is relatively sure - that the legal system in her country is unlikely to procure a conviction and is predisposed to believe the rapist. She takes steps to ensure that she will never be stalked and raped by this man again.
Is she right to do so? Maybe, maybe not. But it is at least quite understandable, unless you are one of those people who values theory over reality.
Quote from: Malthus on April 04, 2013, 11:28:00 AM
Quote from: dps on April 04, 2013, 11:25:28 AM
She put kerosene on him before he raped her, then he raped her, and then she set him on fire? I think I'd get the kerosene off of me before continuing the rape, but then I wouldn't be raping someone in the first place, so clearly I don't understand the mindset of rapists.
Is it wrong of me that this brings to mind a certain song by the Doors? :hmm:
What does People are Strange have to do with this?
Quote from: fahdiz on April 04, 2013, 05:57:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2013, 05:52:29 PM
So extralegal murder is acceptable in a society that doesn't have equal rights? :huh:
Put yourself in her shoes for a minute.
She was stalked for months and then raped. She knows - or at least is relatively sure - that the legal system in her country is unlikely to procure a conviction and is predisposed to believe the rapist. She takes steps to ensure that she will never be stalked and raped by this man again.
Is she right to do so? Maybe, maybe not. But it is at least quite understandable, unless you are one of those people who values theory over reality.
It would seem to be somewhat self-defeating. Accepting revenge killings would undermine efforts to have a effective and equitable legal system. By rejecting the theory of impartial judiciary system you are effectively making sure it will never occur in reality.
Who is "accepting" revenge killings? I don't have any authority in India. :mellow:
When you talk about it being "understandable", you appear to be approving of what this woman did, thus accepting it. I fail to see what the point of the second sentence is.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2013, 06:55:25 PM
When you talk about it being "understandable", you appear to be approving of what this woman did, thus accepting it.
When I said I understand it, what I meant was "I understand it".
QuoteI fail to see what the point of the second sentence is.
Clearly:
QuoteAccepting revenge killings would undermine efforts to have a effective and equitable legal system. By rejecting the theory of impartial judiciary system you are effectively making sure it will never occur in reality.
Who is the "you" in this quote, Raz? Is it me? If it is, how does my "accepting" anything have any effect whatsoever on India's legal system? And if it is someone else, like "the Indian people", then why do you care whether I accept it or not?
If you find her behavior unacceptable, then we agree. This board would be quite dull if we only discussed things we actively effect. You brought up their legal system as a mitigating factor, and said, "unless you are one of those people who values theory over reality.", even though I have no effect on anything. The point I made about their legal system was made in the same spirit.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2013, 07:17:30 PM
If you find her behavior unacceptable, then we agree.
I understand her behavior. It may or may not be acceptable, depending on a variety of factors. I don't need to accept a black & white answer in a case as complex as this and certainly won't be pigeonholed into one by you. :mellow:
QuoteThis board would be quite dull if we only discussed things we actively effect. You brought up their legal system as a mitigating factor, and said, "unless you are one of those people who values theory over reality.", even though I have no effect on anything. The point I made about their legal system was made in the same spirit.
No, I said it was
understandable unless you are one of those people who values theory over reality. You were speaking specifically about my acceptance undermining the legal system. My post is right up there. You can read it again if you are having trouble.
Good on her and you go, girl!
Oh, the dreaded pigeonhole! :lol: Presumably then, you are of the opinion that a revenge killing can be acceptable. Or are do you just wish to avoid making a concrete statement? This is absurd Fahdiz. This thing about whether or not I meant that Fahdiz could change the legal system is equally absurd. My point was that taking the law into your (not necessarily Fahdiz's) own hands and killing people because of perceived imperfections in the legal system only serves to exacerbate problems within said legal system. I thought that was fairly clear. This may shock you (Fahdiz), but every time I say the word "you" (not necessarily Fahdiz), I'm not actually talking about you (Fahdiz). For instance if I say, "You (not necessarily Fahdiz) can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, I'm not actually commenting on your (Fahdiz) culinary skills.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2013, 07:46:56 PM
This is absurd Fahdiz.
On this, at least, you are absolutely correct.
I am again (alas, for I seem incapable of learning this lesson) reminded of why conversing with you is frustrating, one-sided, and not at all edifying.
I'm sorry that I can't see what a unique and special snowflake you are. :(
Quote from: Maximus on April 04, 2013, 02:18:05 PM
There's a time and place for vigilantism to step in when the state has failed to protect its citizens. I prefer the "finding a better state" approach, but that's not always an option.
Agree.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2013, 09:46:00 PM
I'm sorry that I can't see what a unique and special snowflake you are. :(
You'll continue to fail to see that in everyone so long as your moral reasoning process stays where it is.
Or maybe people aren't just as unique as would like to think. A moral process that is so sharp that I'm incapable of deciding if killing a person in revenge is acceptable or not does not seem appealing to me.
*shrug*
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2013, 05:52:29 PM
So extralegal murder is acceptable in a society that doesn't have equal rights? :huh:
Yes, I believe we had this conversion already in the John Brown thread.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2013, 04:18:41 PM
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.
Quote from: fahdiz on April 04, 2013, 10:49:56 PM
*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.
Quote from: Viking on April 04, 2013, 02:27:23 PM
No, the monopoly of violence by the state is a cornerstone of western society.
We're not talking about a western society here.
I see nothing immoral in killing a rapist if that's the only defense open to you.
Quote from: Martinus on April 05, 2013, 04:53:31 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 04, 2013, 10:49:56 PM
*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.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 05, 2013, 07:16:05 AM
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.
Quote from: Iormlund on April 05, 2013, 07:10:17 AM
I see nothing immoral in killing a rapist if that's the only defense open to you.
Indeed. That's what makes the case so complex. While some don't comprehend the role of motive in determining guilt (or even relative guilt), I think that most people can see that, if this was a "revenge murder" as some absolutely insist it was, then it is immoral and should be severely punished. If the motive was a reasonable fear that a person who had just proven themselves ready, willing, and able to rape would rape her again, because the police wouldn't stop him, then the killing was not immoral and she should get acquitted. On the charge of torture, it again depends on her motive: if her motive in choosing to burn him to death was to make him feel pain before he died, then she is guilty of torture (even if not of murder). If she chose that method because of a reasonable fear that the other methods available to her were too dangerous, then she is not guilty of torture (even if guilty of murder).
I don't think we have enough facts to make even a reasonable guess as to her motive in either case.
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
Quote from: grumbler on April 05, 2013, 08:13:34 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 05, 2013, 07:16:05 AM
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.
Quote from: Rasputin on April 05, 2013, 08:27:23 AM
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
:yes:
Quote from: Rasputin on April 05, 2013, 08:27:23 AM
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
Quote from: grumbler on April 05, 2013, 09:54:43 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on April 05, 2013, 08:27:23 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on April 05, 2013, 04:50:56 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2013, 04:18:41 PM
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.
Remind me not to hire Martinus as my defense attorney if I'm ever accused of a crime in Poland. :P
Quote from: dps on April 05, 2013, 11:27:49 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 05, 2013, 04:50:56 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2013, 04:18:41 PM
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 :hmm:
Quote from: grumbler on April 05, 2013, 08:13:34 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 05, 2013, 07:16:05 AM
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.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 05, 2013, 07:16:05 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 05, 2013, 04:53:31 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 04, 2013, 10:49:56 PM
*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.
You never gave me a point a view. :mellow:
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2013, 06:13:18 PM
You never gave me a point a view. :mellow:
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.
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2013, 02:40:54 PM
I agree with Meri and derspiess. Hell just froze over.
Yep. I'm in the axis of improbable too.
Quote from: fahdiz on April 05, 2013, 06:15:45 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2013, 06:13:18 PM
You never gave me a point a view. :mellow:
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.
:lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2013, 08:06:55 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 05, 2013, 06:15:45 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2013, 06:13:18 PM
You never gave me a point a view. :mellow:
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.
And we have only one asshole here!
Quote from: katmai on April 05, 2013, 08:24:46 PM
And we have only one asshole here!
Oh, no wonder it is hard for us to take a shit.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2013, 08:06:55 PM
No my problems derive from the fact I'm a jerk. Perhaps you should look to yourself for some of the problems here.
Oh, you try your best to be a jerk. But we know better :hug:
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2013, 08:06:55 PM
Perhaps you should look to yourself for some of the problems here.
I will get a guy right on that.
Quote from: fahdiz on April 05, 2013, 09:37:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2013, 08:06:55 PM
Perhaps you should look to yourself for some of the problems here.
I will get a guy right on that.
Why does it have to be a guy? :angry:
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2013, 09:41:48 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 05, 2013, 09:37:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2013, 08:06:55 PM
Perhaps you should look to yourself for some of the problems here.
I will get a guy right on that.
Why does it have to be a guy? :angry:
My dog isn't a girl.
I think you mean to say that your dog isn't a bitch.
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2013, 09:47:13 PM
I think you mean to say that your dog isn't a bitch.
:D
He's also the only one I'd entrust with a task as clearly important as this one.
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2013, 08:21:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2013, 08:06:55 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 05, 2013, 06:15:45 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2013, 06:13:18 PM
You never gave me a point a view. :mellow:
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.
I have several people who won't even acknowledge I'm here, beat that!
Quote from: fahdiz on April 05, 2013, 09:37:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2013, 08:06:55 PM
Perhaps you should look to yourself for some of the problems here.
I will get a guy right on that.
And thus you will never know. :(
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2013, 10:38:47 PM
I have several people who won't even acknowledge I'm here, beat that!
Really? Because as far as I know they've made pointed avowals that they won't respond to you.
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2013, 10:52:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2013, 10:38:47 PM
I have several people who won't even acknowledge I'm here, beat that!
Really? Because as far as I know they've made pointed avowals that they won't respond to you.
Yeah, whatever. Still, beat that.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2013, 10:56:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2013, 10:52:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2013, 10:38:47 PM
I have several people who won't even acknowledge I'm here, beat that!
Really? Because as far as I know they've made pointed avowals that they won't respond to you.
Yeah, whatever. Still, beat that.
You've admitted to being like a mosquito, something people can tune out. Not very jerky.
I don't see you putting up anything. Besides I'll give you motherfuckers malaria.
Well, now that we've all sorted out our lasting contributions, I think I'll have another drink.
Quote from: Rasputin on April 05, 2013, 08:27:23 AM
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
If nothing else, if she is acquitted, and people bitch that the system sucks that allowed someone to burn someone else alive and be acquitted, then perhaps that will provide the societal pressure necessary to change a system that sees women raped and then expected to kill themselves as a reasonable response to the shame of it.
Ideally, everyone would live in a society where the reasonable response to a crime is to let the authorities handle it. Extra-legal vigilantism is the *inevitable* result of gross injustice is the legal system.
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2013, 12:40:48 PM
Ideally, everyone would live in a society where the reasonable response to a crime is to let the authorities handle it. Extra-legal vigilantism is the *inevitable* result of gross injustice is the legal system.
This.
Nonsense. People didn't engage in Lynching because the odds were stacked in favor of the defendant. Hell, sometimes they lynched people after a conviction.
Vigilante justice being inevitable under a given circumstance says nothing about the quality of justice or the possibility of vigilantism under different circumstances.
Hey guys, Raz isn't going to get it no matter what you say.
Especially when you don't say what "it" is.
You'd know it if you got it.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 08, 2013, 02:36:18 PM
You'd know it if you got it.
We'll never know till Fahdiz starts giving.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2013, 02:45:03 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 08, 2013, 02:36:18 PM
You'd know it if you got it.
We'll never know till Fahdiz starts giving.
I gave you everything you needed to understand my position.
:rolleyes: Okay Fahdiz, whatever you say.