NationStates Jolt Archive

not necessarily just any rapist but what if someone really close to you like your family or friends was raped. would you kill him especially if it was just after the fact.

I think if I knew the person raped, I would definitely want to kill the rapist, but probably wouldn't.
However, if I caught a rapist in the act raping anybody and started beating them off of the person or attacked them with any sort of weapon to get them to stop, and then they died afterwords ::shrug:: I don't think I'd have too much remorse.

Yeah, I don't think i'd kill him...
Beat the total crap out of him, sure, but I wouldn't kill him unless I had to.

I think they should bring back the death penalty for rapists. If it was someone I cared about who got raped, yeah I would kill them.

Yes, they are all bad

well, i'd castrate the bastard with a rusty spoon and no anesthetic.. :p

then he'd probably kill himself :D

How can anyone delight in killing a rapist, no matter who he raped?...Mere killing would not satisfy me in the slightest if the victim was a good friend of mine or family...I would prefer to subject him to prologned, tortorous pain...

well, i'd castrate the bastard with a rusty spoon and no anesthetic.. :p

then he'd probably kill himself :D

saddly, that makes sense.

To many varibles... Yes I would under some circumstances. No for others. :headbang:

well, i'd castrate the bastard with a rusty spoon and no anesthetic.. :p

then he'd probably kill himself :D

What if the castration were done with a rottweiler, and you used a little iodine for, um, "healing".

This poll isn't slanted at all.

"No, I'm scared.
No, I don't care about people."

Clearly murdering another human being is the ultimate sign of caring. In any event.

The only circumstances in which I would kill a rapist was to save a man/woman from being raped - and I don't mean some time in the distant future, I mean in the actual here and now - and even then, only if there was no other way to stop the rapist.

No , I don't believe in murder

not necessarily just any rapist but what if someone really close to you like your family or friends was raped. would you kill him especially if it was just after the fact.
Murder is not justifiable in any circumstance.

Murder is not justifiable in any circumstance.

if a lion kills somebody the lion is killed. if someone decides to rape a person like a horny animal, he is no different than the lion to me

Murder is not justifiable in any circumstance.
Even if he was a suicidal terrorist who had bombs strapped to him and was about to blow up hundreds of people if you didn't shoot to kill to stop him?

Verital frowns at your idealogy.

Verital beleives that if an ally was raped, they would suffer. Verital does not beleive in kindess to rapists of allies, and thus would not consider death an option for the fiend. Verital would leave "vengeance" of a non-ally up to the allies of said party.

if a lion kills somebody the lion is killed. if someone decides to rape a person like a horny animal, he is no different than the lion to me
A lion is killed for killing a human.

A...human is raped for raping a human?
Or killed for raping a human?
What if a lion raped a human, he would be killed, yes? Verital does not understand New Spartacus's logic.

Does New Spartacus suggest that rape is as horrible a crime as murder, and should be treated with little difference in punishment?

Rapists don't deserve to die, simply be castrated. The only people that deserve to die are ones that intentionally killed or tried to kill another. A punishment should reflect the severity of the crime.

Even if he was a suicidal terrorist who had bombs strapped to him and was about to blow up hundreds of people if you didn't shoot to kill to stop him?

Verital frowns at your idealogy.

Verital beleives that if an ally was raped, they would suffer. Verital does not beleive in kindess to rapists of allies, and thus would not consider death an option for the fiend. Verital would leave "vengeance" of a non-ally up to the allies of said party.
I said MURDER, not self defence, there is a huge difference.

I couldn't kill anyone, but in the heat of that type of moment, I could do just about anything, I'm convinced.

A lion is killed for killing a human.

A...human is raped for raping a human?
Or killed for raping a human?
What if a lion raped a human, he would be killed, yes? Verital does not understand New Spartacus's logic.

Does New Spartacus suggest that rape is as horrible a crime as murder, and should be treated with little difference in punishment?

yes rape is as bad as murder. a lion has more self-control than a rapist

I said MURDER, not self defence, there is a huge difference.
CanuckHeaven suggests that murder in self defense is still not murder?


It seems as if CanuckHeaven is suggesting that murder for revenge or out of spite is never justified, as such the case is here, but to suggest that murder is NEVER justified, suggests that murder in defense of others (Verital may have shot said terrorist with a sniper and not have been in danger of the bombing).

CanuckHeaven must draw the line at immediate defense of others and future defense of others as well to determine the justification of murder in all cases.

Verital does not find killing rapists moral, but would find much pleasure in returning the pain that was given to its ally to its enemy.

well, i'd castrate the bastard with a rusty spoon and no anesthetic.. :p

then he'd probably kill himself :D

Heh heh heh... saw an SVU tonight where thye cleared a suspect because when he went to jail before some other prisoners burnt off his sack with sulferic acid. :) Works for me ;)

if a lion kills somebody the lion is killed. if someone decides to rape a person like a horny animal, he is no different than the lion to me
Let me put it this way...If a Lion was raping you...i would kill him...just to save your ass.

I'm Partially Sociopathic, so he would most definitely be screaming for anyone to help him when i was finished. I would have no remorse for my actions. Human life that is used like that is worth nothing to me. I see them as less than human, which makes me worse than any of them.

Let me put it this way...If a Lion was raping you...i would kill him...just to save your ass.
Verital does not deem killing the animal necessary, but would rather tranquilize him and push him to the side, to sell to a circus and make some money in the process of saving said ass.

CanuckHeaven suggests that murder in self defense is still not murder?


It seems as if CanuckHeaven is suggesting that murder for revenge or out of spite is never justified, as such the case is here, but to suggest that murder is NEVER justified, suggests that murder in defense of others (Verital may have shot said terrorist with a sniper and not have been in danger of the bombing).

CanuckHeaven must draw the line at immediate defense of others and future defense of others as well to determine the justification of murder in all cases.

Verital does not find killing rapists moral, but would find much pleasure in returning the pain that was given to its ally to its enemy.
Killing someone in self defence is NOT murder.

Killing someone in self defence is NOT murder.

Verital requests a definition of murder as CanuckHeaven sees it.

Verital also requests that CanuckHeaven clarify if killing someone in defense of another equal to killing in self defense, or merely to be seen as murder.

Verital requests a definition of murder as CanuckHeaven sees it.

Verital also requests that CanuckHeaven clarify if killing someone in defense of another equal to killing in self defense, or merely to be seen as murder.
I like Encarta's definition:

LAW crime of killing somebody: the crime of killing another person deliberately and not in self-defense or with any other extenuating circumstance recognized by law

BTW, you are straying from your topic. No I would not kill a rapist and rape should not be punishable by death. If a rapist dies by the hand of their victim during the commission of the crime, I would still expect that there would be a full investigation.

Several of you say that you would kill the rapist if they raped someone you knew, but what if the rapist was someone you knew, a good friend perhaps?

Quack Quack Emu SOund

I like Encarta's definition:

LAW crime of killing somebody: the crime of killing another person deliberately and not in self-defense or with any other extenuating circumstance recognized by law

CanuckHeaven suggests that because something is law or unlawful it is moral?

Does CanuckHeaven also suggest that 15 year olds working at a restruant one must be 16 to lawfully work at immoral because it is unlawful?

Or does CanuckHeaven have a definition of murder outside of law and one that deals with morals?

Several of you say that you would kill the rapist if they raped someone you knew, but what if the rapist was someone you knew, a good friend perhaps?

Verital would immediately drop said alliance with the rapist as Verital would do with any back stabber.

There is no lower form of subhuman creature than a rapist. All these peace and love people make me sick. They are the reason that we "rehabilitate" rapists and send them back onto the streets after a few years. I think every rapist should be killed as soon as the DNA tests prove them guilty. And no girly lethal injection either, I'm talking electrocution. With a dry sponge!

with a spoon :headbang: :headbang:

Generally I have no desire to kill any one. Not to say that on the spur of the moment that desire couldn't suddenly arise. And I suspect that if a loved one were raped and told me about it, ay that might be one of those moments I might want to go out and kill. :(

There is no lower form of subhuman creature than a rapist. All these peace and love people make me sick. They are the reason that we "rehabilitate" rapists and send them back onto the streets after a few years. I think every rapist should be killed as soon as the DNA tests prove them guilty. And no girly lethal injection either, I'm talking electrocution. With a dry sponge!

You call them subhuman, and yet then you suggest killing them - which is immoral and subhuman in itself, making you as subhuman as they are. A nice little catch-22 indeed. Vengeance has never solved anything, and it never will.

If they raped someone I cared about, I'd probably kill them given the chance.

If I didn't care about the person, probably not.

You call them subhuman, and yet then you suggest killing them - which is immoral and subhuman in itself, making you as subhuman as they are. A nice little catch-22 indeed. Vengeance has never solved anything, and it never will.
Well stated.

Vengeance has never solved anything, and it never will.

I disagree. Vengeance can give a victim a sense of justice having been served, which can emotionally be very rewarding. Not to mention how it can aid the victim's recovery process.

Anybody can say what they will do and it doesn't always happen when the situation happens.

For me:

Somebody I didn't know; the rapist would get a good and proper beating.

If it was my little girl or my wife, I would most likely go beserk and beat him to death.

Somebody I know; a good sound beating.

That's the way it is.

So can somebody explain to me this concern of the criminal over the victum? I am always curious about such logic.

I disagree. Vengeance can give a victim a sense of justice having been served, which can emotionally be very rewarding. Not to mention how it can aid the victim's recovery process.

So I can kill people who have wronged me so I feel better? That's brilliant. No, it doesn't really solve anything. It's just a false pretence, a guise; in the end killing them doesn't change your situation at all. You're still left just as miserable, just as hurt, only now you've become what you hated.

Vengeance degrades human life. It degrades the person it is inflicted upon, and it degrades the person who seeks it. Much like hatred it's little more than a poison. The only true resolution comes when you let go. Everything else is just a crutch.

Okaaay, I'm subhuman for ending the pathetic life of an animal. Whatever makes your rose-colored day go by easier guys. I don't put much value on the life of a person who beats another person into submission and then has forced sex with them. If killing makes you subhuman then what are combat soldiers? They kill for a living. I will be a soldier in 13 days and I have no problem with killing another human. This doesn't mean that I want to kill, I just don't care about it. I wouldn't kill a rapist for selfish vengeance, that would only fuel a killing spree. I would kill the scum to prevent them from hurting anyone else ever again. I see myself as the protector of the innocent, if killing the person trying to hurt the innocent is what it takes, I'm cool with it.

Torture, but not kill. Scum don't deserve the mercy of death.

I'm just wondering, how many of you have been raped, or are close to someone who has been.

i love the way people on this site are so anti-death penalty, but when a question like this is posed the people seem to be all about killing someone who is guilty of a horrible crime.

I'm just wondering, how many of you have been raped, or are close to someone who has been.

Know somebody very close. She told me the person was a born-again "Christian" Go figure.

He tried to contact her as to having "corrected" his ways. But she didn't belive him....

Okaaay, I'm subhuman for ending the pathetic life of an animal. Whatever makes your rose-colored day go by easier guys. I don't put much value on the life of a person who beats another person into submission and then has forced sex with them. If killing makes you subhuman then what are combat soldiers? They kill for a living. I will be a soldier in 13 days and I have no problem with killing another human. This doesn't mean that I want to kill, I just don't care about it. I wouldn't kill a rapist for selfish vengeance, that would only fuel a killing spree. I would kill the scum to prevent them from hurting anyone else ever again. I see myself as the protector of the innocent, if killing the person trying to hurt the innocent is what it takes, I'm cool with it.

By demeaning another human life and thinking of it as an animal, yes, you're demeaning yourself to subhuman. Let's take examples of people who put other human beings on a lower scale than themselves to justify their actions: murderers. Rapists. The KKK. Hitler. If you're comfortable in sharing their mindset, then by all means, go right ahead.

As for soldiers, they are the same as everyone else who kills. People who kill in self defence, people who kill for money, for love, for hate, for property, for justice - they're all the same. They all have reasons, each feel they are justified in taking the life of another because their reasons are good.

There is no 'good' killing. But one who kills for vengeance doesn't just demean the person they have killed. They demean themselves.

But hey, that's just my opinion. You're free to live your life as you please, so long as you are aware of exactly what company you share in your choices.

If killing makes you subhuman then what are combat soldiers? They kill for a living. I will be a soldier in 13 days and I have no problem with killing another human. This doesn't mean that I want to kill, I just don't care about it.
1. NEVER compare someone seeking vengance to the armed forces.

2. You will not be a soldier in 13 days, you will enter basic training in 13 days. there is a huge differance. After basic training and your AIT you can call yourself a soldier.

3. You have never had to point a weapon a someone and pull the trigger, so do not assume you "don't have a problem killing another human."

I wouldn't kill him. That's letting him off easy. I would use the justice system and presecute him as far as I possibly could. I don't believe in killing. Not even the death penalty. So I could never like...go into the military, much less kill any one for revenge. And yes I'm aware there is a big difference from soldiers and murderers.

Yeah,... i would put a bullet thru his head...

or beat the crap out of him with a steel pipe...

I don't know about a rapist, but I would probably kill a murderer, given the opportunity. A girl I knew was viciously murdered my her ex-boyfriend earlier this year and I have seen the devastation that hit has wrought on her family, including one of my close friends. I don't particularly want him to suffer, because I doubt he would ever understand what he had done to deserve it, but I would kill him to rid the Earth of scum like him.

I know it's horrible and normally killing anyone would go against my own philosophical beliefs, but the suffering this guy has caused blows my mind. It's different when it's someone you know.

*streaks through thread*

3. You have never had to point a weapon a someone and pull the trigger, so do not assume you "don't have a problem killing another human."

That's an understatement. I remember the bayonet courses in basic. The only reason they made us go through the bayonet course is to steel our minds against instinct. They did everything they could to dehumanize the enemy - things are easier to kill if they're not human.

You must make up your mind beforehand, and decide when to shoot. Don't think about it when the time comes. Just squeeze that trigger. Because if you hesitate, which is the normal instinctive reaction, it could cost you your life. That's what they taught me.

Fortunately I never had to put another human being in my gunsights. Hopefully I never will. But I am prepared already - I've decided already when to pull the trigger if I have to use lethal force to defend myself or someone else. Still, you can never tell. I occasionally ask myself if I could, realistically, kill somebody even if it was in justified defense. I really don't know. To defend my family I know for certain I would, but for myself, I tend to doubt it.

I'm not a woman, but I completely think a woman has EVERY right to shoot a rapist. Gun control advocates would rather see an abused woman instead of a dead rapist - I disagree. The only thing a rapist deserves are well-aimed bullets.

I never had to put another human being in my gunsights.

since you never have, do not assume you can pull the trigger.

South Africa is the rape capital of the world!! At least 1 in 2 woman WILL BE RAPED in their life times. I have at least 10 woman family members....... acording to statistics 5 of them will be raped........... So yes!!!! I will take great joy in killing a rapist SLOWLY!!!!!! :mp5:

So I can kill people who have wronged me so I feel better? That's brilliant. No, it doesn't really solve anything. It's just a false pretence, a guise; in the end killing them doesn't change your situation at all. You're still left just as miserable, just as hurt, only now you've become what you hated.

You are obviously not talking from experience. Otherwise you'd know that a well deserved punishment for the guilty can be very beneficial for the victim, and I do consider friends and family of the victim just as much a victim as the one who was raped. I won't say that killing is the only just punishment, far from it, but there are crimes that do deserve death.

Vengeance degrades human life. It degrades the person it is inflicted upon, and it degrades the person who seeks it. Much like hatred it's little more than a poison. The only true resolution comes when you let go. Everything else is just a crutch.

I don't think you have evidence of this, right? Nice pet theory though.

Let me assure you that what degrades human life is not vengeance, but trying to treat monsters in human disguise as humans does degrade human life.

I'm just wondering, how many of you have been raped, or are close to someone who has been.

A woman with who I was close was gang raped by three guys.

i love the way people on this site are so anti-death penalty, but when a question like this is posed the people seem to be all about killing someone who is guilty of a horrible crime.

Being against the death penalty on the one hand and saying that a rapist deserves death on the other, doesn't necessarily contradict each other. It all depends on why a person opposes the DP.

Personally I oppose the DP for the simple fact that it will eventually result in the execution of an innocent man / woman. Not something that I find acceptable in any way whatsoever. So, my objection to the DP has never been "because it's wrong to kill". As far as I'm concerned there are many monsters that more than deserve the death penalty.

:sniper: RIGHT IN THE BALLS AND WATCH THIER FACE GO :eek:

Murder is not justifiable in any circumstance.

I just want to be able I am not misreading or misquoting you..you said..not under any circumstance right....just to be clear.

1. NEVER compare someone seeking vengance to the armed forces.
That's right. They kill for OIL, not anything as vulgar as vengeance :)
[/QUOTE]

That's right. They kill for OIL, not anything as vulgar as vengeance :)
[/QUOTE]

So soldiers only kill for oil eh?..is that what I'm hearing...just to be clear.

Kill a rapist? Hmmm. I wouldn't have a problem with it if I was 100% sure he was guilty. I do however have a problem with being jailed for vigilanteism. Depends on the circumstances, really.

So soldiers only kill for oil eh?..is that what I'm hearing...just to be clear.
Oil, land, empire, glory, profit, fun and very occasionally defence of their country. Barring the Falklands war my govt hasn't warred for defensive purposes for centuries.

Oil, land, empire, glory, profit, fun and very occasionally defence of their country. Barring the Falklands war my govt hasn't warred for defensive purposes for centuries.

You're forgetting "for your buddies (mates for you Canuck, English, Aussie, and Kiwi crowd)"..and a big one Honor..

Hmm......

No i wouldn't kill him. I'd try to find a way in which the rapist would have to go through the pain and horror of his victim over and over again. And that as long as he lives. That means it wouldn't be physical 'torture', but somehow you'd have to stimulate those pains in his brains. And if they get used to it, you just feed up the pain stimulation. I think this would be 'the's olution because people won;t ever do it again (because they go trough that pain every day) and secondly it will act as a deterrent.

Vengeance is not equal to justice.
Killing is not equal to murder.

There are no crimes where murder is justified.

You're forgetting "for your buddies (mates for you Canuck, English, Aussie, and Kiwi crowd)"..and a big one Honor..
I also forgot "because they were forced to" (conscription). Why are your buddies fighting anyway? Oil, profit, land, fun, ........

I don't think honour is a good reason to kill either. Was Alexander the Great "honourable", or was a megalomaniac mass murderer?

I also forgot "because they were forced to" (conscription). Why are your buddies fighting anyway? Oil, profit, land, fun, ........

I don't think honour is a good reason to kill either. Was Alexander the Great "honourable", or was a megalomaniac mass murderer?

tsk..tsk...forget you not your Henry V, "the fewer of us, the greater share of honor"....and "those men abed now in England..will hold their manhoods cheap whilst ANY one of us speaks who fought with us on St. Crispian's Day"

I'm sure someone's already pointed this out ... but ....

According to this poll, if I wouldn't kill a rapist, it is because I am either scared or don't care about people.

How very odd.

:rolleyes:

Whenever I hear about another rape/murder or other heinious crime on the news, I think it is awful. I'd do all I can to stop it from happening at the time, including beating the would be rapist or murderer hard enough to possibly kill. But stopping the attack would be the reason, not vengeance.

If the victim was a family member or friend and justice hadn't been done through law, then maybe I'd go out with the intention of killing the guy, as vengeance for the victim, and to prevent him from doing it again. Its never happened to me, so I can't be 100% sure. If the victim was a child, then I'd have no qualms about killing them, quickly or slowly. Someone who uses his God-given life to commit such awful crimes has NO RIGHT to carry on living.

If it was up to me, criminals would have no protection under law (except for crimes 'worse' than the one they committed) from the time of committing the crime to the time of being placed under arrest by the authorities. And I'd put rape on the same level as murder, as both are taking something that you aren't entitled to that you can't give back.

As for gun control proponents, I'd rather see a rapist with a bullet in him than an abused child/woman.

not necessarily just any rapist but what if someone really close to you like your family or friends was raped. would you kill him especially if it was just after the fact.

if i was certain of his or her guilt, yes, without a doubt or qualm. but first i would pour a corrosive substance on his nether regions and hand him a knife; when the pain became too intense for him to bear i would have the pleasure of watching him cut the offending parts from his own body. after that, a bullet to the brain would be satisfactory.

By demeaning another human life and thinking of it as an animal, yes, you're demeaning yourself to subhuman. Let's take examples of people who put other human beings on a lower scale than themselves to justify their actions: murderers. Rapists. The KKK. Hitler. If you're comfortable in sharing their mindset, then by all means, go right ahead.

You cannot possibly be implying that we should treat a rapist as an equal. A man who commits such a heinous crime has already established himself as the animal; there is no reason to believe that he is still human. A wolf in sheep's clothing is a wolf nonetheless, and should be treated as such. You must remember that it was he who set himself up for this treatment, not us. To even think that he should be treated as an equal is unjust to every innocent human being out there, especially the victim.

As for soldiers, they are the same as everyone else who kills. People who kill in self defence, people who kill for money, for love, for hate, for property, for justice - they're all the same. They all have reasons, each feel they are justified in taking the life of another because their reasons are good.

There is no 'good' killing. But one who kills for vengeance doesn't just demean the person they have killed. They demean themselves.

You seem to hold murder on the same grounds regardless of circumstance. This, to be blunt and brutally honest, is an ignorant viewpoint. Circumstance and context are everything when it comes to the taking of another human life; it is the reason behind the murder that sets it apart from any other. Consider this:

Bob walks out of his front door and waves to Susan, his next door neighbor. She gives a friendly smile and steps into her car, prepared to go to work. As she's pulling out of the driveway, Bob walks to her car and rapps on the window. "Susan?" "Yes, Bob?" She rolls down the window. Bob removes a .22 from behind him and splatters her brains across the window, for no real reason other than that he is offended by the color of her skirt.

Mike walks into a bank on a bright, sunny afternoon, and sees that this was not the best day to walk into the bank: An armed man is brandishing a machine gun, threatening the employees and waving sacks around. Obviously frustrated and quite enraged, the man whirls around and points toward two very frightened children with his gun. "Give me the money," he demands, "or I'll blast them to fucking kingdom come!" Mike sees that the teller has no money and doesn't know what to do. The man cocks the gun and prepares to pull the trigger. Mike, producing a weapon of his own, shoots him and saves the children.

Now, Sydenia, do you hope to establish that Mike's murder and Bob's murder were exactly the same? Simply put, this is very wrong. The morality of murder is always, and always will be, defined by the circumstance. I notice that you make no mention of the Allied Forces when you referenced Hitler.

On the topic at hand: If the victim was a virgin, the rapist has taken something that can never be restored, and it is something that is often one of the victim's most prized possessions. In this case, he should be severely punished. Depending on the severity of the rape, this could mean death. If the victim was not a virgin, then it is recoverable, and the rapist should not be killed, although he should still receive quite a severe punishment.

How about castration?

Preferably using a flamethrower. :sniper:

Well, I'm iffy on castration. Really, sexuality is why we exist, although I'm sure that it'd be no detriment to the species on the whole if we lost one member of the race. We lose enough every day and seem to scrape by with vastly overpopulated countries.

Anyway, I suppose it'd depend on the severity of the rape. If it was a brutal thing that left the victim horrendously injured, then yeah, although I do not know if castration would stop him from doing it again. Just because he can't enjoy it doesn't mean he wouldn't try to hurt someone.

I'd feel better if he were simply jailed, prevented from harming another individual.

since rape is all about power. It´s nothing sexuall rely it´s an power trip for the rapist. I would teatsh the person in question all about power and pain.
Yes i would sertanly kill the person soner or later but not rigth on, first the guy would have an cupple of werry waluable lessons to learn that would have keept him alive under diferent circumstances

If you would kill the person, you should do it immediately. You'd waste time, effort, and resources trying to "teach him a lesson" if he were going to die by your hands soon anyway.

Not rely it´s all about the place. there´s manny places here were no one lives and were no one ever go. I would have all the time in the world to toy whit him.

Uhhh ... what I mean is, it'd be pointless if he's going to die anyway.

Death should be an reliver not an punishment the guy should be happy that i decided to kill him finaly. That´s the lesson he have to learn and there´s only one way to teatsh it.

That's not really the way it works.

You: "OMFG RAPIST. I TORTURE YOU."
Rapist: "wtf! I can't take pain!"
You: -tortures some-
Rapist: "O GOD KILL ME NOW"
You: "Huh? Oh. Yeah, I'm going to kill you when this is through, don't worry."
Rapist: "You are? Oh, okay." -stops complaining-

It'd be pointless. Not only that, but teaching a lesson generally implies that the person lives to learn from it and lives to change because of it. You can't teach a lesson to someone by killing them; it's contradictory.

That's not really the way it works.

You: "OMFG RAPIST. I TORTURE YOU."
Rapist: "wtf! I can't take pain!"
You: -tortures some-
Rapist: "O GOD KILL ME NOW"
You: "Huh? Oh. Yeah, I'm going to kill you when this is through, don't worry."
Rapist: "You are? Oh, okay." -stops complaining-

It'd be pointless. Not only that, but teaching a lesson generally implies that the person lives to learn from it and lives to change because of it. You can't teach a lesson to someone by killing them; it's contradictory.

Now...this is where I have to chime in and say...I don't want to teach a rapist a lesson, I don't want him to learn from his mistake...he committed the actions of an animal..and I would put him down like an animal...simple..no remorse..no regret..and I will still go to sleep well that nite.

If he dossent understand that he´s life is all in my hands and that i can do what ever i want to him there havent bine an lesson have there? He haid used the same power towards some one close to me. there´s an nessesarity that i return the favour and show real power. There´s no need for him to survive it. It´s about pain and suffering. He caused an lot and he will get 10times more back and the he dies.

Harno, you're missing the point. If you kill a man, any "lesson" that he's learned becomes moot. It's completely pointless to try and get something across to someone you're going to kill.

What makes me laugh, is how people say that vengence shows that we are sub-human. In fact it is a very human. If someone had raped a loved one of mine and I was given a choice by law on their punishment they would be castated. Or have the words rapists burned into their forehead.

To the moral pukes out there who feel that such things are too harsh and we should rehabilitate. Those are your views but let us hope you are never in the position to change your views. Because I don't think you would think the same if a loved one is raped.

sorry about the poor spelling

Would I kill a rapist?

No. I would beat him some + hire an amazing prosecution lawyer to have put away for many life sentences in Woodward Scrubs.

On the subject of the justification of murder, killing someone who is about to kill many people ia juatifiable. It might be hard to bring yourself to do it but its essential.

Would you kill a hijacker on your plane? yes


Another thing is sacrifice - could you shot down an airliner full of people to prevent it being used in a 9/11 style attack?

Of course he wouldent have any benefit of the lesson since he´s going to die. But that´s trely unessesary. He did an terrible thing and started to speak the laguage of power. Then i have to bring him down the same way that includes torturing him what he did were nothing less of brutal torture. I have to bring the same thing back and then he have to die. If nothing else so that i can tell the one that were affected by him that he wont come back and that he cant do it again to any one ever!

If an animal attacks me or some one close i would get my rifle and shot it. If an human dose the same it´s an totaly differnt thing animals see dinner humans see plessure, some one wired that way have to be brought down the only way the understand.

"Another thing is sacrifice - could you shot down an airliner full of people to prevent it being used in a 9/11 style attack?"

Heck i would drive that plane. That attack were same thing that US forces do to civilians all ower the globe every day! It´s the language of violence and for the first time ever US got some of the shit back that they send to other ppl. Dossent mather that moustly inocents got killed for the first time since ww2 US as an nation felt feer that´s what mathers.

Harno, I'm going to stop talking to you, because in all honesty, I don't think you're going to get what I'm trying to say.

Anarchy: An interesting question, that. I think, for me, if the plane was filled with strangers and the city below it was filled with strangers, it'd come down to how many people in the plane vs. how many people in the city.

Although, in all honesty, if a plane's headed toward a building 9/11 style, it's going to explode and kill everyone on board anyway. If you can shoot it down and stop it from killing more people than necessary, you probably should.

By demeaning another human life and thinking of it as an animal, yes, you're demeaning yourself to subhuman. Let's take examples of people who put other human beings on a lower scale than themselves to justify their actions: murderers. Rapists. The KKK. Hitler. If you're comfortable in sharing their mindset, then by all means, go right ahead.

But hey, that's just my opinion. You're free to live your life as you please, so long as you are aware of exactly what company you share in your choices.

Interesting. But have you realised that you share the mindset of the people that allowed hitler to do what he did, as well as all the other monsters of this century. Saying you think rapists should be executed those not make out to be a xenophobic monster. Also maybe if people had a bit more backbone in these situation, maybe they would be less likely to happen.

Wait. Wait, wait, wait.


Heck i would drive that plane. That attack were same thing that US forces do to civilians all ower the globe every day! It´s the language of violence and for the first time ever US got some of the shit back that they send to other ppl. Dossent mather that moustly inocents got killed for the first time since ww2 US as an nation felt feer that´s what mathers.

WHAT!? Tell me you're fucking out of your mind. Were you one of those Iraqis dancing in the streets on 9/11 or something? The innocent people who died had NOTHING to do with WW2, or with the violence going on in other countries! They were just going about their business, doing their jobs, and some crackpots killed them. You're saying that's OKAY? What if it had happened to YOUR country, huh? What if YOUR family had died in that crash, in those buildings? Would it be okay then?

"Another thing is sacrifice - could you shot down an airliner full of people to prevent it being used in a 9/11 style attack?"

Heck i would drive that plane. That attack were same thing that US forces do to civilians all ower the globe every day! It´s the language of violence and for the first time ever US got some of the shit back that they send to other ppl. Dossent mather that moustly inocents got killed for the first time since ww2 US as an nation felt feer that´s what mathers.

Harno i'm only got one thing to say really. Your a F*"+ing idiot. The death of so many innocent people is a terrible thing no matter the religion or race or nationality. And compared to the history of other superpowers throughout history the US has been quite gentle.

You sicken me.

And its the same with all you freaks who say "yeah i'd f---in blow his brains out" or in this case fly a plane into a building...YOU WOULDN'T! YOU WOULD BE SITTING IN YOUR PLANE SEAT CRYING AND SH*TTING YOURSELF!

Hell! I know I would be!

And everything that The Stryfe said

Oh. And by the way? I don't know what kind of crazy US you're thinking of, but the USA that I live in doesn't make a habit of killing civilians. It happens sometimes, but it's not like we, you know, fly planes into buildings.

WHAT!? Tell me you're fucking out of your mind. Were you one of those Iraqis dancing in the streets on 9/11 or something? The innocent people who died had NOTHING to do with WW2, or with the violence going on in other countries! They were just going about their business, doing their jobs, and some crackpots killed them. You're saying that's OKAY? What if it had happened to YOUR country, huh? What if YOUR family had died in that crash, in those buildings? Would it be okay then?

What did the Irakies do to get tortured in american concentraion camps (No dose camps your country keeps are not prissons and they arent millitary baces either Prissons have judged convicts and millitary camps keep millitarys, concentraion camps keep people that havent haid an trial) there only crime is that they fought against an ocupation. the same thing that the people of vietnamn did. The fact is that your country is responceble of the murder of milions of ppl! That your country for the first time in god only knows how long got some back aint terrorism it´s justice!

Stryfe, hate to argue, but what about Hiroshima?

Harno that is true. The americans have made some very bad mistakes. But they even they realise there mistakes most of the time. The iraqies and such show pride in torturing and killing. I mean, come on, going on TV a beheading someone!

At first i thought about killing someone but if you think logically we should send them to jail where they'd feel what its like to be raped over and over and over.

Harno i'm only got one thing to say really. Your a F*"+ing idiot. The death of so many innocent people is a terrible thing no matter the religion or race or nationality. And compared to the history of other superpowers throughout history the US has been quite gentle.

No you havent. Fact is that US have killed way more civilian ppl true modern history than Natzie germany. That´s not being gentle. You have bomed more countries than any body else. you have instaled dictators in countries and massacred 100.000s just because ppl demanded food for the day and democrasy take Chile as an example! Or why not Cuba your country have tryed on manny ocations to take ower that country for that they did the terrible thing of kicking out an dictator and giving the ppl food for the day and decent medical care.

"Another thing is sacrifice - could you shot down an airliner full of people to prevent it being used in a 9/11 style attack?"

Heck i would drive that plane. That attack were same thing that US forces do to civilians all ower the globe every day! It´s the language of violence and for the first time ever US got some of the shit back that they send to other ppl. Dossent mather that moustly inocents got killed for the first time since ww2 US as an nation felt feer that´s what mathers.
You are a monster.

I hope you burn in Hell.

Harno: You cannot judge an entire country based on the actions of a few bad apples (namely, those stupid soldiers). The entire Iraqi situation is a mess right now, and you can blame that on the idiot that a lot more idiots put up for President. That will change when he doesn't get re-elected.

Daroth: That was a complicated case. I'm not going to defend it, because I think there were alternatives, but consider the situation of the time. Japan's kamikaze fighters were slaughtering people at tremendous rates, and Japan's leader wasn't going to step down, even when we said, "Hey, look, we can talk this out." They were under the leadership of a crazy dictator, and drastic measures had to be taken.

Now, this is not to say that the measures taken were the right ones. In fact, when the President dropped the bombs, he did so not only without the awareness of the American public, but also under protest by everyone who had developed the bomb in the first place. On the day of the launch, there was a petition signed by the team of Project Manhattan that basically said, "Dude, don't go through with this." Truman didn't see that petition until the second bomb had been dropped because the military was stalling it.

In other words, the bombs that were dropped weren't necessarily done so in cold blood; it was a desperate measure that could have been avoided, and would have, if it weren't for a few individuals. The US shouldn't be viewed as a monster because of it, especially as most people now regret doing it. I'm positive that if we had simply said, "Hey! Japan! Look over here!" and dropped the bombs on some deserted island, the Emperor would've backed down.

Send em to jail so they can feel what it's like to be raped over and over and over. Or just kill them all the ba$t3rds.

No you havent. Fact is that US have killed way more civilian ppl true modern history than Natzie germany. That´s not being gentle. You have bomed more countries than any body else. you have instaled dictators in countries and massacred 100.000s just because ppl demanded food for the day and democrasy take Chile as an example! Or why not Cuba your country have tryed on manny ocations to take ower that country for that they did the terrible thing of kicking out an dictator and giving the ppl food for the day and decent medical care.

WHAT?! Hitler killed millions of people just for being a different religion! We've never done something as monstrous as that -- in fact, we fought against him! And we haven't installed dictators anywhere; we're violently OPPOSED to dictatorship! You say we tried to take over Cuba? Have you ever heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis? Or perhaps your biased history books just painted that as a "OMFG THE US IS MINDING SOMEONE ELSES BUSINESS AGAIN WTF", despite the fact that it was the USA that Cuba was threatening. Have you not heard of Castro? Come on! He was a horrible leader, and a horrible man!

Your claims have no evidence, and some of them are simply outlandish. Get an education before you try to insult the US of A.

don't make the assumption that I am american. As i am not and do not want to be. Because of the nazies over 20 million people died in 6 years. Stalin raked up a number just as high in 30 years.
Yes the US government has placed dictators in power, I would not be suprised. But this is a standard tactic to stay in power. Every country does it. They always want the option that is best for themselves.
The US is blatently the most powerful country in the world. I might not like it but i'd rather it be them than say....Iran or China or Libya

While killing the guy would be the only sure way to stop him from doing any more harm, I don't think I could do it. Definately beating him within an inch of his life is the best option! Cutting off their privates would only stop them from raping people though, seeing as without the chance of any sexual outlet the testosterone and aggression usually rises in people like that and they end up making a habit out of torturing/maiming those they would normally rape, so it wouldn't really help. But yeah, if I lost control and killed the guy I probably wouldn't care too much!

"Yes, the US has placed dictators in power."
Uh .. when? As I recall, we despise dictatorships, and we aren't the only country that does. Britain and France, for example, hate dictatorships just as much as we do.

Stryfe i'm not going to argue with you over the the Japan situation. Historicaly what you said is slightly incorrect, but you message is true.

But I hate to say it, the US government has helped install several dictators around the world. Helped them with political/economic/military assistance.

But that was during the cold war. Better the devil you know......

Hiroshima [And Nagasaki] desicions rested upon the shoulders of one man: Truman. For all of us, especially 60 years later, to be held responsible for such a travesty is ridiculous.

eh, if my information was incorrect, then kindly correct me so I don't make the same mistake again. I won't be insulted. :)

When did we help out dictatorships? I don't recall us ever saying "Hey, you there, dictator. Keep up the good work!" Unless he actually was doing good work, in which case, I suppose it's not all bad.

But, take WWII, for example; most, if not all, of the Axis powers were dictatorships, and it was that very aspect of them that made them so susceptible to Hitler's corruption. I'm not saying that all dictatorships are bad, just that, in general, we've only tried to beat down those that would detriment the world.

And I'm not sure that keeping dictators in power would necessarily keep us in power. We're moderately self-sufficient as it is.

I hold no-one responsible. I did not wish to imply that. The same way that I would not hold a japanese/russian/german person guilty for what the governments have done in the past.

But we were talking about the US government killing innocents. And unfortunately they did. But so have 99% of governments.

Now, this is not to say that the measures taken were the right ones. In fact, when the President dropped the bombs, he did so not only without the awareness of the American public, but also under protest by everyone who had developed the bomb in the first place. On the day of the launch, there was a petition signed by the team of Project Manhattan that basically said, "Dude, don't go through with this." Truman didn't see that petition until the second bomb had been dropped because the military was stalling it.

In other words, the bombs that were dropped weren't necessarily done so in cold blood; it was a desperate measure that could have been avoided, and would have, if it weren't for a few individuals. The US shouldn't be viewed as a monster because of it, especially as most people now regret doing it. I'm positive that if we had simply said, "Hey! Japan! Look over here!" and dropped the bombs on some deserted island, the Emperor would've backed down.If we didn't drop the bombs, then 10,000,000 (of just our people!) would have died.

It sounds kind of sick, but we saved millions at the cost of thousands.

WHAT?! Hitler killed millions of people just for being a different religion! We've never done something as monstrous as that -- in fact, we fought against him! And we haven't installed dictators anywhere; we're violently OPPOSED to dictatorship! You say we tried to take over Cuba? Have you ever heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis? Or perhaps your biased history books just painted that as a "OMFG THE US IS MINDING SOMEONE ELSES BUSINESS AGAIN WTF", despite the fact that it was the USA that Cuba was threatening. Have you not heard of Castro? Come on! He was a horrible leader, and a horrible man!

Your claims have no evidence, and some of them are simply outlandish. Get an education before you try to insult the US of A.


Yes and US killed em for possesing Oil, Cupper diamonds and so on what the difference btwine that and hittler rely? In my world it´s not rely an diference at all.

and no US havent on an single ocation as to my knowlege acted towards giving ppl freedom or democrasy after ww2. In china you guys violently suported the dictator of the country (Later on you guys helped Mao against sovjet. Not that sovjet were an werry friendly or demoractic place)

About Cuba i have bine there i have even meet there vice precident. I have traveled all around that country spoken to any one i wanted Heck i have even bine at an cuban hospital. And let me tell you this cuba aint ecspecially bad. About the cuban missle crissis that were an reaction towards the medium distance missiles US haid against the boarder of sovjet.

About education i alreddy have one. how about you? I would sugest that you looked at some other news chanel from time to time than fox news!

Not only that, Leth, but that one man was originally opposed to it. He only acted on the advice of his military advisors, who were extremely prejudiced against the Japanese. Had he had the chance to read Szilard's and Einstein's petition (signed by 68 members of the project), I think the bombs never would have been dropped.

Its just that during the cold war there were 2 sides. The soviets supported the left and NATO the right. It did not matter the type of government in place, but you supported the ones that were similar to you.

You know what's ironic? The fact we put Castro and Saddam into power. Saddam became a dicatator, and Castro defected. Great job we did. =\

Yes and US killed em for possesing Oil, Cupper diamonds and so on what the difference btwine that and hittler rely? In my world it´s not rely an diference at all.

About Cuba i have bine there i have even meet there vice precident. I have traveled all around that country spoken to any one i wanted Heck i have even bine at an cuban hospital. And let me tell you this cuba aint ecspecially bad. About the cuban missle crissis that were an reaction towards the medium distance missiles US haid against the boarder of sovjet.


I like how you say its not especially bad. So what, its just bad?

How can anyone delight in killing a rapist, no matter who he raped?...Mere killing would not satisfy me in the slightest if the victim was a good friend of mine or family...I would prefer to subject him to prologned, tortorous pain...

Slow and painful torture. I'd go with that. :gundge:

You claim to have an education, Harmo, yet you cannot communicate in written word any better than a second grader. Hmm.

You claim to have visited Cuba and spoke with the Vice President, yet you believe that the Cuban Missile Crisis was simply a reaction to the US's actions. Hmm.

Yes and US killed em for possesing Oil, Cupper diamonds and so on what the difference btwine that and hittler rely? In my world it´s not rely an diference at all.

The US did not, and would not, kill anyone simply for possessing a material, unless it was something that directly threatened our country, such as nuclear weaponry. The US killed Iraqis because we were at war with them. Iraq punched the US and the US punched back, it's that simple. You dare compare the situation in Iraq to the Holocaust? How can you possibly connect the two? The US retaliated by bombing a country and killing their soldiers; Hitler was going around shooting civilians for practicing Judaism! How can you POSSIBLY say that those two are the same?

and no US havent on an single ocation as to my knowlege acted towards giving ppl freedom or democrasy after ww2.

Uhh, how about giving the Japanese people the freedom of a Constitution? We helped them draft a system of government very similar to our own, and if you'd care to notice, the citizens of this country are very free and very democratic. Japan's no longer under the complete control of one person. Just to name an example.

Not only that, Leth, but that one man was originally opposed to it. He only acted on the advice of his military advisors, who were extremely prejudiced against the Japanese. Had he had the chance to read Szilard's and Einstein's petition (signed by 68 members of the project), I think the bombs never would have been dropped.


I whole-heartedly agree. And I meant no disrespect to Truman. I applaud and respect him breaking the party boundaires and helping the African American minority, and for the sweeping social changes he put into place. I just stated thet it wasn't the people's fault anymore.

Leth: We also took them back down.

I agree with Stryfe.

Although you should not criticize Harno's english (unless its his mother tongue).

Most military conflicts are due to economic circumstances though. It the main motivation for invading another's territory

I was just saying the US isn't perfect, in my honest opinion.


As for killing the rapist [Foru posts in and I havn't even covered the main topic] I would never kill another human being. In my opinion, it is immoral to do so. I would rather them be tortured by staring at the white wall of a prison for the rest of their life, guilt of rape or murder in the back of their head, not mine.

that's the problem with this topic.
It comes down to morality.
And that is relative.

Having been in this situation it is not as easy as most of the votes would indicate. I came pretty close, but I strongly believe things were better this way.

You claim to have an education, Harmo, yet you cannot communicate in written word any better than a second grader. Hmm. [/uote]

Ever heard of ppl havening problems seeing how words spell?

[Quote] You claim to have visited Cuba and spoke with the Vice President, yet you believe that the Cuban Missile Crisis was simply a reaction to the US's actions. Hmm.

Yes i am. And your point might be?

I belive Kenedy were pressident at the time (corect me if im wrong) either way the year before US haid placed medium range missiles at the boarder towards east germany capable of reatshing Moskow in under an hour. So the Sovjets reacted placing there own medium range missiles on cuba. what´s the difficultie of grasping this concept? (Some one do A you do B)


The US did not, and would not, kill anyone simply for possessing a material, unless it was something that directly threatened our country, such as nuclear weaponry.


Hrm Chile, Vietnam, Afganistan the list go on for quite an wile. the fact is that Irak dident even have any nuclears they dident even have the capability of creating em!


The US killed Iraqis because we were at war with them. Iraq punched the US and the US punched back, it's that simple.


Tell me exactly how did Irak push US to an war? Did they treathen to invade US? Did they plan on sending Nuklears whitsh they dident have against you or what did they do exactly?

The first gulf war were an result of that the smal dicature state Quvait started to sell huge amounts of Oil at discount prices whitsh treatened the stability of the intire region. The opec countries haid to interfear. and Irak did so (Quvait were btw an part of Irak until the britts splitt the country after wwII)


You dare compare the situation in Iraq to the Holocaust? How can you possibly connect the two? The US retaliated by bombing a country and killing their soldiers; Hitler was going around shooting civilians for practicing Judaism! How can you POSSIBLY say that those two are the same?


You rely crack me up your world picture is rely amusing. If all US did were killing soldiers i wouldent have anything against it. But your not. Start reading the papers and watsh the news god dammit!

Harnosand, you cannot possibly believe that the Iraqis we've killed so far have been innocent and undeserving. Some, sure -- casualties of war. We'd bitch if our civilians died by random flak; so would they, who cares, it's what happens in war. However, you cannot deny that Iraq has been pushing the US's buttons from the beginning. We attacked them to get at the people who attacked us. Yes, Bush made a mistake with the nuclear weapons, but it's not like he just went in and said "You know what? We don't like you, therefore you die." In fact, the US has NEVER done that before. The US does NOT act without finding damn good reasons first.

And like I said: Don't blame a country on a few bad apples. The Iraqi POWs were mistreated, fine, but blame that on the camps that they're in, not on the country itself.

Cuban Missile Crisis: Kennedy said, "Hey, take those down and we'll be cool about this, okay?" Khrushchev responded with, "Hey, Cuba, nuke those bastards to kingdom come." What do you expect us to do, sit and twiddle our thumbs while they threaten to nuke us? It was a bad situation, and, in fact, Kennedy did nothing more than blockade them. Not ONLY that, but the entire Crisis was sparked simply because Khrushchev was a paranoid weakling. Yes, we had missiles close to them, but it's not like we built them there to point at the Soviets and go "Hey! Look at us and what we can do!" We were just playing it safe; Khrushchev got pissy.

By the way: On Cuba as a whole, we opposed Castro from day one. I'm still slightly confused as to why people say we brought him up in the first place, when we were the ones vouching for his political demise.

Knock him/her out and carve 'RAPIST' on their forehead,where everyone can see it....

Harnosand, you cannot possibly believe that the Iraqis we've killed so far have been innocent and undeserving. Some, sure -- casualties of war. We'd bitch if our civilians died by random flak; so would they, who cares, it's what happens in war. However, you cannot deny that Iraq has been pushing the US's buttons from the beginning. We attacked them to get at the people who attacked us. Yes, Bush made a mistake with the nuclear weapons, but it's not like he just went in and said "You know what? We don't like you, therefore you die." In fact, the US has NEVER done that before. The US does NOT act without finding damn good reasons first.



Eaxctly what did Irak do? The higjackers of 9/11 werent from Irak (It´s strange they seam to have moved an lot depending on what country US wants to war. Next time they are from Germany or maby sweden.)

And no US always declares wars because of an good reson THE CONTROL OWER OIL!!!!!!


Cuban Missile Crisis: Kennedy said, "Hey, take those down and we'll be cool about this, okay?" Khrushchev responded with, "Hey, Cuba, nuke those bastards to kingdom come." What do you expect us to do, sit and twiddle our thumbs while they threaten to nuke us? It was a bad situation, and, in fact, Kennedy did nothing more than blockade them. Not ONLY that, but the entire Crisis was sparked simply because Khrushchev was a paranoid weakling. Yes, we had missiles close to them, but it's not like we built them there to point at the Soviets and go "Hey! Look at us and what we can do!" We were just playing it safe; Khrushchev got pissy.
[/Qoute]

that is total BS! Khrushchev moved em there to get US to remove your missles in germany. the fact is that Khrushchev were quite an resonable man. It were US (As usual) that dident want to tone down the cold war.

[quote]
By the way: On Cuba as a whole, we opposed Castro from day one. I'm still slightly confused as to why people say we brought him up in the first place, when we were the ones vouching for his political demise.


Yepp you guys suported Batista. An 10 times worse precident than Castro have ever bine.

that is total BS! Khrushchev moved em there to get US to remove your missles in germany. the fact is that Khrushchev were quite an resonable man. It were US (As usual) that dident want to tone down the cold war.

BS? Try fact. Look these things up once in a while, unless your books are too biased to tell the truth.

And no US always declares wars because of an good reson THE CONTROL OWER OIL!!!!!!

Do you really want to turn this into an oil debate? Alright, let's start with Iraq's repeated opposition toward the UN; in fact, let's start with most of the Middle East's repeated opposition toward the UN. The fact of the matter is, there are countries that are solely dependent upon that oil, and so, if the country controlling the oil starts getting pissy, they take it as a threat. The US isn't trying to control oil any more than the rest of the world is; it's working with the UN in just trying to make sure that the oil keeps getting sold for reasonable prices.

Batista was supported by the corrupt corporations that wanted money from him. The government didn't care about him because there was no need to: Why bother with a country that wasn't detrimenting us? What Batista did to Cuba was Cuba's business. If the Cubans had called for help, we might've, but eh. They didn't. Tough noogies.

Ower? So, you're from Iraq? Were you one of them dancing in the streets?

Hate to say, but oil did play a part in the conflict.
If that were not the case and the fact that the US was sure to beat the iraqis without breaking a sweat, they would never have invaded.
Using the excuse that Saddam broke UN resolutions is a dodgy argument as Isreal has broken more.
But then again I think invading Iraq was a good idea (as long as the iraqis benefit)

I would kill a rapist... Unless it was family, then I'd let it live, but I would make sure that the "living" would be painful, very painful, downright maddening. What I then would like to leave behind would be a broken creature, wishing to die every moment of it's sorry existance, sitting in the corner of some old fashioned and rundown asylum. Hopefully recieving shock treatment now and then...

been interesting, but I think it's gone of the topic a bit, so good bye and don't argue too much

BS? Try fact. Look these things up once in a while, unless your books are too biased to tell the truth.



I have read plenty about it. The only possible conclution from it is the one i have maide. since you seam to have some kind of devestating evidence towards that teory i sugest you post literature that points to it being any other way.



Do you really want to turn this into an oil debate? Alright, let's start with Iraq's repeated opposition toward the UN; in fact, let's start with most of the Middle East's repeated opposition toward the UN. The fact of the matter is, there are countries that are solely dependent upon that oil, and so, if the country controlling the oil starts getting pissy, they take it as a threat. The US isn't trying to control oil any more than the rest of the world is; it's working with the UN in just trying to make sure that the oil keeps getting sold for reasonable prices.



Interesting that you bring up UN concidering you take it as an evidence that US is making all things good. since when exactly did US do as UN told em to do? US dossent even pay there member fee? (whitsh is btw per capita the lowest in the world)

The fact is that US usualy dont give an damm about UN. (Exept when UN say that Israel is doing something wrong like killing civilians then there´s an damed noice from US tretening to bash anyone that say it´s like that)

And yes US is trying to control the Oil. First we have the afganistan conflict. That more than anything else were about building an pipline true afganistan Whitsh the talibans refuced to alow (You guys obiusly dident have an problem before this so i can only guess that it´s oil piplines this were about)

then we have Irak whitsh is the worlds second biggest oil producer.

About US your country is more dependent on oil than any other country in the world whitsh make it highly likley that you guys want to control as moutsh of it as possible.



Ower? So, you're from Iraq? Were you one of them dancing in the streets?



No im not. since when do Irakies have axess to computers now days? They dont even have jobs rigth to speek or anything. Ohh btw US litle pupped precident down there have threatend to shut down Aljazira yesterday were´s the democrasy in that.

I would rather them be tortured by staring at the white wall of a prison for the rest of their life

Hey Dumbass, what you dont realize is that, IF they go to jail, they get tv and all sorts of shit for free.

I'm sorry, but my friend has caved someones head in with ReBar because he saw the guy slap his girl. My friend broke 7 ribs, broke his lower jaw so bad it wasnt even connected anymore, and left a big ass divot in the guys skull. The guy deserved it. I'm proud to say that I would have done more damage to him than my friend. If I saw anyone being raped, I would pull out my gun and shoot him in the leg. Later on, I would torture him by amputating his limbs, then cauterizing the wounds so that he wouldnt bleed to death. When I had cut off his arms, legs, ripped out his toungue, and knocked his teeth out, I would put a .357 bullet in his forehead. Disposal of body? Simple. Bury him in the graveyard.

Klownz: He did all that because someone slapped his girl? That's just wrong. If someone slapped his girl, he might've slapped the guy back, but not beat him to the fringes of death. Come on. It was a slap. And, by the way? Jail is NOT a playhouse. It's an absolute shithole. There's -nothing- good about life there. Don't even try that one.

Harnosand: You ask me for sources but have yet to post any yourself. I suggest that you do. And my "Are you Iraqi, then?" comment was made in light of your "you're trying to control OUR oil" comment.

Stryfe man, can't you open your hate filled eyes and see the TRUTH?! The US in trying to control the world and fill it with our evil Capitalist ideals. Everything you see and hear is what the right wing conspiracy wants you to believe!

I jest of course, I'm with you 100%. Poor Harnosand has smoked WAY to much weed to see that America will improve the life of the Iraqi people as soon as we can. He sees America as a great evil because we wish to force other people to do something. He refuses to see that we are forcing a group of militant fascists to stop killing people for disagreeing with them. We did not pull random people off the street and put them in our "concentration camps". They were bad people. REALLY bad people.

Just give it up man, you are beating your head agianst a left-leaning wall. He won't change no matter what.

"Notice I'm not speaking to him. That's because I'm hoping if he doesn't hear me he'll go away."

I'm just wondering, how many of you have been raped, or are close to someone who has been.

I am glad you asked. Alot of people posting, I would say most, have never had to be put in this situation. I also wonder how many have ever faced the prospect of taking a life.
As I said before yes I would kill a rapist, especially if the victim was someone I cared about. Yes I know someone who was raped forcibly, the rapist was arrested and incarcerated so I didn't kill him. I prefer to let the justice sstem have a shot first because I do believe in it, most of the time. Yes I consider rape to be as bad if not worse than murder.
To answer another question posted, if I knew the rapist, well I almost killed my own brother for physically abusing his step daughter. And I have no qualms with turning my so called relatives in for committing crimes, I have done it.
Like I said before I think they should bring back the death penalty for rape, child molestation, forcible sodomy etc. And if that makes me subhuman then so be it, I am willing to accept the consequences for my actions, the rapists and murderers are not so willing.

I am glad you asked. Alot of people posting, I would say most, have never had to be put in this situation. I also wonder how many have ever faced the prospect of taking a life.
As I said before yes I would kill a rapist, especially if the victim was someone I cared about. Yes I know someone who was raped forcibly, the rapist was arrested and incarcerated so I didn't kill him. I prefer to let the justice sstem have a shot first because I do believe in it, most of the time. Yes I consider rape to be as bad if not worse than murder.
To answer another question posted, if I knew the rapist, well I almost killed my own brother for physically abusing his step daughter. And I have no qualms with turning my so called relatives in for committing crimes, I have done it.
Like I said before I think they should bring back the death penalty for rape, child molestation, forcible sodomy etc. And if that makes me subhuman then so be it, I am willing to accept the consequences for my actions, the rapists and murderers are not so willing.
Hmm judge , jury and executioner all rolled into one. Did you learn that in the King James version of the Bible?

You are obviously not talking from experience. Otherwise you'd know that a well deserved punishment for the guilty can be very beneficial for the victim, and I do consider friends and family of the victim just as much a victim as the one who was raped. I won't say that killing is the only just punishment, far from it, but there are crimes that do deserve death.

On the contrary. The supposed 'resolution' that comes from vengeance is nothing more than snake oil, or sugar pills. It makes the claim to make you feel better, but in the long run you never will until you let go. It's an illusion.

I don't think you have evidence of this, right? Nice pet theory though.

Let me assure you that what degrades human life is not vengeance, but trying to treat monsters in human disguise as humans does degrade human life.

Funny that someone who questions my lack of evidence fails to provide a scrap of their own. Irregardless, I have seen and known hatred and vengeance. I speak from experience when I say it's an empty and hollow victory.

More to the point, by claiming to be above another human form of life, and treating them as though they weren't human (as a rapist does to their victim), you are on the same level as the rapist. Take that as you will.

You cannot possibly be implying that we should treat a rapist as an equal.

I just want to point out that I had to read exactly that far before I knew there was nothing in your post that would hold any water in my eyes. But let's continue anyways.

A man who commits such a heinous crime has already established himself as the animal; there is no reason to believe that he is still human. A wolf in sheep's clothing is a wolf nonetheless, and should be treated as such. You must remember that it was he who set himself up for this treatment, not us. To even think that he should be treated as an equal is unjust to every innocent human being out there, especially the victim.

Humans have basic rights that cannot be denied by anyone, regardless of how you view their actions. Let me explain what makes a right and a privilege different.

A right is something that isn't given to you. You simply have it as a living creature. Nobody can take it away from you. Human rights are applied in particular, while not to animals - making your wolf analogy meaningless.

A privilege is something granted to you on set circumstances. For example, your parent might offer you allowance if you mow the lawn. Fail to mow the lawn? No allowance. The person in power can take away a privilege at whim.

Rights are undeniable. Privileges are based on the will of those granting it. Last but not least, you do not have the knowledge, power, nor place to determine what defines a human being, and use that to eliminate rights. Hitler did that, just to give one example. It doesn't work.

You seem to hold murder on the same grounds regardless of circumstance. This, to be blunt and brutally honest, is an ignorant viewpoint. Circumstance and context are everything when it comes to the taking of another human life; it is the reason behind the murder that sets it apart from any other. Consider this:

Bob walks out of his front door and waves to Susan, his next door neighbor.

(Sydenia sez - More stuff here; shortened because this message is already big enough without putting in tons of huge ass quotes)

Let me explain something that you apparently didn't consider. The idea of right and wrong, good and bad, better and worse, are all in your head. They're meaningless. Invisible concepts we drew up based on how we felt. They hold no more scientific or intrinsic value than if I decide the moon is evil. Is the moon actually evil? No, of course not. It's just a lump of rock. It's only evil in my mind.

You try to define that one murder is better than another. But that's just by drawing invisible lines in the sand. Remove all the imaginary lines we create for ourselves, and analyze it from an objective perspective: one person kills another vs. one person kills another. That's reality.

Morals are great, but don't ever make the mistake of thinking they alter reality. There is no good, no evil, no right, no wrong, no better, no worse. These are just ideas in our heads, with no actual existence in reality.

I'll respond to any further comments to my message in a minute, my fingers need a break.

Interesting. But have you realised that you share the mindset of the people that allowed hitler to do what he did, as well as all the other monsters of this century. Saying you think rapists should be executed those not make out to be a xenophobic monster. Also maybe if people had a bit more backbone in these situation, maybe they would be less likely to happen.

I wanted to adress this part: "maybe if people had a bit more backbone in these situation, maybe they would be less likely to happen." particularly, but to answer your question first; yes, I'm aware of how my beliefs coincide with others in some rather unfortunate situations. Thanks for bringing it to my attention though.

Now, as to the part I put in the quotation marks - using the idea that doing something immoral (noting immoral as relative) will prevent something else immoral from happening, doesn't really work very well.

Mainly it doesn't work from a moral perspective, because you've gone from them doing something immoral to you doing something immoral. Something immoral has been done in either case, only now you have blood on your hands instead of them.

And yes, I know people will try to say that one is "lesserly immoral", but try to keep in mind morals are just a figment of our imagination, and that there isn't any actual quantative measurement of morality.

It depends.

not necessarily just any rapist but what if someone really close to you like your family or friends was raped. would you kill him especially if it was just after the fact.

I'd want to but I have more sense than that. Plus that lets the person off to easy. If ANYthing gets my blood boiling its rape. I don't know exactly why.

If I thought I could get away with it I would keep the guy in my basement and mentally torture him (physically a little bit too) and basically drive him insane. But really I would just beat the guy some and then turn him in.

kill the damn rapist, take a short rusty fork to him.

make him die slowly and very painfully

I was at a party once and a girl got raped. Luckily somebody found out about it and the guy didn't escape. If I were the only one their I personally would have beat the livin crap outta him. But instead I got to watch the cops drag him away.

I think I would rather have the victim or their family mete out justice in the case of rape. A fair punishment would be stoning. In the event of an unwilling victim it would fall to the state to enforce the sentence, probably with the assistance of other victims.

Harnosand: You ask me for sources but have yet to post any yourself. I suggest that you do. And my "Are you Iraqi, then?" comment was made in light of your "you're trying to control OUR oil" comment.



should i understand that like you dont want to or cant post sourses to what you have said? I can back up my information but you havent asked about it.

About Iraq i recoment that you read what Aljazera writes. there´s plenty there.

http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage

If you have more specialised questions im happy to post what ever i have in english. Moust of my sources is in swedish do.



I jest of course, I'm with you 100%. Poor Harnosand has smoked WAY to much weed to see that America will improve the life of the Iraqi people as soon as we can. He sees America as a great evil because we wish to force other people to do something. He refuses to see that we are forcing a group of militant fascists to stop killing people for disagreeing with them. We did not pull random people off the street and put them in our "concentration camps". They were bad people. REALLY bad people.



first of all I have newer Smoked an single joint in my life.

And yes you did. If they are so bad why dossent your state give em an trail? Are they to dangerous to the court to hear what they have to say? To make an example what did the swedish prissoner on Guatanamobay do? You guys let him go AFTER 2YEARS OF TORTURE. for what? That he visited some family in afganistan at the same time as US decided to war the country. there have bine absolutly no evidence produced by the US that he have done anything else than being whit he´s family.

About farcist can you place explane to me why the heck US havent stoped the curent development in afganistan then? The Talibans are back and yet the US do nothing why? Can it be because they have alreddy started constructing there pipline so theres rely no use being there anymore. Wile im at it speeking about farcist how about Pinoshete why did your country alowed him to take power? It´s common knowlege that CIA sponcored that cupe so if yor country is anit farcist why did your country do that?

[Quote]

Just give it up man, you are beating your head agianst a left-leaning wall. He won't change no matter what.

[/Qoute]

Not at all. As fast as he can produce reliable sources (Reliable dossent spell Fox news) that what he´s saying is true i will acept that. the problem is that there arent anything that contradicts me.

No, I'd only cut off his dick and shove it down his throat. I would find it quite amusing to watch him suffocate on his own genitals. If he dies because of it...meh...at least I know I gave him his fair share of torture.

Hypothetical and moral stances aside, I'm just curious if anyone in this thread who is boasting the torture and murder they would hand out have considered what happens afterwards. Bodies, particularly mutilated ones (with lots of bleeding and the like) don't exactly just disappear off the face of the earth when you're done. This isn't GTA.

So the crime scene and body will be littered with forensic evidence, and you being closely related to the rape victim is going to make you an instant suspect. You're going to get caught, arrested, sentenced, and probably raped by another man while you rot in jail.

After all, you're killing someone after the fact. There is no self-defence claim you can make. You'll be tried just like any other murderer, and as for torture that wouldn't be acceptable even in self-defence.

I sincerely doubt how many people would be willing to throw away their life, and face raping themselves by convict(s), over the rape of someone they care about.

On the contrary. The supposed 'resolution' that comes from vengeance is nothing more than snake oil, or sugar pills. It makes the claim to make you feel better, but in the long run you never will until you let go. It's an illusion.

And vengeance can help a victim to let go of the feelings of anger, etc. Glad to see you are agreeing with me.


Funny that someone who questions my lack of evidence fails to provide a scrap of their own. Irregardless, I have seen and known hatred and vengeance. I speak from experience when I say it's an empty and hollow victory.

You are right, just as you neglected to provide evidence so did I. And just as your experience taught you that vengeance provides only an empty and hollow victory, so did my own experience teach me the opposite. Which only shows that life teaches different things to different people.

More to the point, by claiming to be above another human form of life, and treating them as though they weren't human (as a rapist does to their victim), you are on the same level as the rapist. Take that as you will.

Here you are wrong.

- I never claimed to be above another human form of life. I did, however, point out the fact that there are individuals whose sub-human behaviour qualifies them to be considered as monsters in human disguise. They are, of course, still just as human as any other human being.

- The rapist attacks an innocent person, whereas the victim seeking vengeance and attacking the rapist attacks a guilty person.

Some might say that the rapist has as much right to being treated as an equal as the victim, but I say that the victim has a lot more rights. Such as the right to get rightful vengeance.

Hmm judge , jury and executioner all rolled into one. Did you learn that in the King James version of the Bible?
No I learned that from caring about people who were raped. From having loved ones being victimized. It is nice to know you give more of a damn about the people who would cause the trauma than the ones who have been traumatized for life. You know them, maybe, they are the victims, the ones who will never have their lives back because of fear of having what is left of their lives stripped away from them.
It is nice to know that you care more about the rapist than the raped. It is nice to know that the person who would cause such life long trauma in someone means more to you than the person who was traumatized.
It is also awesome of you to automatically make assumptions about ME based on stuff you have no clue of. You think you can just discredit my opinions because of the name I use here. That makes you an oh so caring person that I know you never will be. And even after trying to discredit my opinion, which is based on my personal experience without even discussing the topics I mentioned, jyou just out and out discredit me based solely on my name, I still hope YOU NEVER have to know first hand what it is like to be raped or have someone you love raped, trust me it is the worst experience anyone can have. Nice of you to even try to discuss or debate what I said rationally, instead of just making a base comment on my name. But then that might show compassion for others instead of selfish *I am always right even if I don't know what I am tlakign about*.

Hmm judge , jury and executioner all rolled into one. Did you learn that in the King James version of the Bible?
No I learned that from caring about people who were raped. From having loved ones being victimized. It is nice to know you give more of a damn about the people who would cause the trauma than the ones who have been traumatized for life. You know them, maybe, they are the victims, the ones who will never have their lives back because of fear of having what is left of their lives stripped away from them.
It is nice to know that you care more about the rapist than the raped. It is nice to know that the person who would cause such life long trauma in someone means more to you than the person who was traumatized.
It is also awesome of you to automatically make assumptions about ME based on stuff you have no clue of. You think you can just discredit my opinions because of the name I use here. That makes you an oh so caring person that I know you never will be. And even after trying to discredit my opinion, which is based on my personal experience without even discussing the topics I mentioned, jyou just out and out discredit me based solely on my name, I still hope YOU NEVER have to know first hand what it is like to be raped or have someone you love raped, trust me it is the worst experience anyone can have. Nice of you to even try to discuss or debate what I said rationally, instead of just making a base comment on my name. But then that might show compassion for others instead of selfish *I am always right even if I don't know what I am tlakign about*.
People who would do that to others do not deserve to live, period. IF that makes me evil in YOUR eyes then I am proud that I am not like you.

And vengeance can help a victim to let go of the feelings of anger, etc. Glad to see you are agreeing with me.

Snake oil. Doesn't help. It's just an illusion, they think it helps, but in the end nothing changes.

Here you are wrong.

- I never claimed to be above another human form of life. I did, however, point out the fact that there are individuals whose sub-human behaviour qualifies them to be considered as monsters

Right there your post lost all value. You've just determined that behaviour you feel is "sub-human", and let it be known you are judging by your morals - which are relative and not absolute - that a person is a monster. Monsters are not human. In fact, my dictionary defines monster as:

"A cruel wicked and inhuman person"

You are using their actions to:

a) Deem them as sub-human, as referenced by your use of "monsters"
b) Attempt to remove rights implicit to human beings, again deeming them as being below you, and below the human standard

Neither will ever be acceptable. A human being, regardless of actions, is entitled to their basic human rights. Always.

Vengeance has never solved anything, and it never will.

It's not vengeance... it's punishment.

It's not vengeance... it's punishment.

hmm...I wonder what that is from...oh wait the Punisher

It's not vengeance... it's punishment.

Punishment is not inherently wrong. Any punishment that strips a human being of their basic rights brings you down to, or below, their level. In the case of a rapist, that makes you as guilty as they are.

Snake oil. Doesn't help. It's just an illusion, they think it helps, but in the end nothing changes.

Right there your post lost all value. You've just determined that what you think carries more weight then what the victim feels after they've had their revenge.


Right there your post lost all value. You've just determined that behaviour you feel is "sub-human", and let it be known you are judging by your morals - which are relative and not absolute - that a person is a monster. Monsters are not human. In fact, my dictionary defines monster as:

"A cruel wicked and inhuman person"

You are using their actions to:

a) Deem them as sub-human, as referenced by your use of "monsters"

And here you lost all credibility by intentionally mutilating an earlier statement I made by only quoting it partially. Hence putting me in a negative light. What you did is also known as "lying". A very weak responce.

This is what I said:

- I never claimed to be above another human form of life. I did, however, point out the fact that there are individuals whose sub-human behaviour qualifies them to be considered as monsters in human disguise. They are, of course, still just as human as any other human being.

As you see, if you paid attention that is, I did NOT use the term "monster" in the sense that you attempted to make it sound like. Nice try at corrupting my words though.

b) Attempt to remove rights implicit to human beings, again deeming them as being below you, and below the human standard

Neither will ever be acceptable. A human being, regardless of actions, is entitled to their basic human rights. Always.

Jeez, you really are the hypocrite, aren't you? Let's throw your own words back at you. :)

The idea of having rights are all in your head. They're meaningless. Invisible concepts we drew up based on how we felt. They hold no more scientific or intrinsic value than if I decide the moon has the right to occasionally eclipse the sun. Does the moon actually have rights? No, of course not. It's just a lump of rock. It's only evil in my mind.

"A cruel wicked and inhuman person"

Hmm, sounds like me...

How can anyone delight in killing a rapist, no matter who he raped?...Mere killing would not satisfy me in the slightest if the victim was a good friend of mine or family...I would prefer to subject him to prologned, tortorous pain...
:D I was wondering how long it would take to read that. Killing them is so simple and easy, they should be put through a prolong slow tortorous death that could take a very long time...

Tsk tsk, some people don't know when to quit. Let me make this clear, I have better things to do with my time than bandy back and forth on philosophical matters with a person on the internet. I have listened to your arguments as I would wish someone to listen to mine, but that does not extend in perpetuity. After a point, I will simply walk away. You're rapidly approaching that point.

And here you lost all credibility by intentionally mutilating an earlier statement I made by only quoting it partially. Hence putting me in a negative light. What you did is also known as "lying". A very weak responce.

Bull. The absolute most you can claim is that you made a paradox. You cannot refer to a human as a monster.

I did, however, point out the fact that there are individuals whose sub-human behaviour qualifies them to be considered as monsters in human disguise

If I disguise myself as a police officer, am I one? If I disguise myself as a dog, am I one? No. A disguise is a facade. You claim it is acceptable to view human beings as monsters pretending to be human beings - meaning they aren't really human, but monsters.

You may have tried to build on that point, referring to them as humans later, but the foundation of your argument is invalid.

I will assume that:

1 + 2 = 4

Therefore:

1 + 2 - 3 = 1.

You see, once we reach the "1 + 2 = 4" point, nothing thereafter matters. If the original argument is flawed, anything built upon it holds no value. There is no need to analyze whether 1 + 2 - 3 equals 1, since we know the argument that 1 + 2 equals 4 is invalid.

Period.

Jeez, you really are the hypocrite, aren't you? Let's throw your own words back at you. :)

The idea of having rights are all in your head. They're meaningless. Invisible concepts we drew up based on how we felt. They hold no more scientific or intrinsic value than if I decide the moon has the right to occasionally eclipse the sun. Does the moon actually have rights? No, of course not. It's just a lump of rock. It's only evil in my mind.

The difference is that humans have agreed as a whole to respect human rights, just as we have agreed to accept borders between countries, language, laws, and everything else that is held as a standard.

Nobody ever agreed that you can dehumanize a human being. In fact, it goes completely against the previous agreement that human rights cannot be forfeited. Once that agreement was made, not only would any individual (a.k.a. you) opinions lose any impact, so would any legal or group decisions that clash with it.

Rights were made inalienable. You can't simply change them now because it doesn't suit you. You really are losing any semblance of a logic at this point, so I suggest if you have some great hidden argument saved, now is the time to use it. Otherwise I'm going to consider this topic done to death, and move on with my life.

Tsk tsk, some people don't know when to quit. Let me make this clear, I have better things to do with my time than bandy back and forth on philosophical matters with a person on the internet. I have listened to your arguments as I would wish someone to listen to mine, but that does not extend in perpetuity. After a point, I will simply walk away. You're rapidly approaching that point.

You just took the words out of my mouth. Instead of wasting my time trying once again to point out your irrational thought, which experience has proven to be a waste of time, I will take my leave from any further dialogue with you.

Have a nice day. :)

You just took the words out of my mouth. Instead of wasting my time trying once again to point out your irrational thought, which experience has proven to be a waste of time, I will take my leave from any further dialogue with you.

Have a nice day. :)

:rolleyes: Yeah, same to you. Sorry we couldn't come to a mutual agreement, but that's life.

Rapists are some of the lowest scum on our globe. personally we would evicerate them, and impail them upon a pike and as they bloat from the summer heat, let the birds of carrion pick thier wretched carcass clean!

p.s. we love cats.

I had posted here before, but the mods deleted my post because it was naughty.

I think all rapists should be castrated, and have their genitals forced into their mouth. Perhaps they will suffocate to death on their own privates. That would truly be amusing.

As for the War In Iraq...no, it wasn't really for a good reason. Not good enough to send our boys over there. Saddam Hussein was in no way shape or form a threat to the United States or any of it's allied nations. The intelligence claims that Iraq had nuclear and chemical weapons were skeptical from the start, and there was no proof of their existence other then shaddy reports.

Aside from the fact that Saddam Hussein was a threat to his people and a dictator, there really was no reason to occupy the region, and as you can see the good we've done has been over-shadowed by the bad. Insurgents have popped up all over, Al-Quida has grown twice it's size before the war, etc, etc, etc.

It's lovely how we go from "What should we do with rapists" to "WAR FOR OIL". Damn.

i would be willing to do it, but only if it was someone i didn't know who had been raped. i would not want to do it in revenge or anger, but i would be willing to carry out a capital judgement given by a court of law.

i think we should kill people comitting real crimes, and i think the age for statutory rape accusations should be lowered so as not to screw over all the guys with slutty girls

i think we should kill people comitting real crimes, and i think the age for statutory rape accusations should be lowered so as not to screw over all the guys with slutty girls

'Cause what guy can refuse a slutty girl, even if she's 15? :rolleyes: That's pretty sexist.

While killing the guy would be the only sure way to stop him from doing any more harm, I don't think I could do it. Definately beating him within an inch of his life is the best option! Cutting off their privates would only stop them from raping people though, seeing as without the chance of any sexual outlet the testosterone and aggression usually rises in people like that and they end up making a habit out of torturing/maiming those they would normally rape, so it wouldn't really help. But yeah, if I lost control and killed the guy I probably wouldn't care too much!

actually if you cut off somebodies testicals then they wouldn't produce anymore testosterone , they'd become more docile , and although i see murder as an obviously wrong and horrendous crime , i probably wouldn't be able to stop myself from killing somebody if i knew they had raped a loved one , although i would regret it later on

"Yes ,I'd put a hole in every vital organ!"

How about a handful of rusty corn-cob holders in every hole?

All right Sydenia:

A challenge. You have only been judging peoples choices.

Now the challeng to you.

What do we do with the rapist?

Let's see if he/she answers! ;)

not necessarily just any rapist but what if someone really close to you like your family or friends was raped. would you kill him especially if it was just after the fact.
Probably. Rape is even worse than murder for the victim, at least it seems that way to me. At least with murder, you're usually dead before you even realize it. With rape, it makes life a living hell. Perhaps it's an extreme view, but that's my take on it.

Probably. Rape is even worse than murder for the victim, at least it seems that way to me. At least with murder, you're usually dead before you even realize it. With rape, it makes life a living hell. Perhaps it's an extreme view, but that's my take on it.

It still bothers the person I know. It happened 20 years ago and she said she is only now starting to enjoy having sex. She said she married a saint(14 years); he put up with a sexually disfunctional wife for so long.

As I asked before; some times I just don't get the concern of the criminal over the victum.

I'm the mockery master...
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=343861
(and this isn't my first crime...)