• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

How bad is murdering someone?

Rape isn't that bad,
Pls leave.
So I hope this clears the misconception. It is due to emancipation that rape is considered so bad because women became much more than they were 2,000 years ago :)

There is no misonception. You seem to be psychotic or at least highly misogynistic & don't seem to realise men are liable to being raped.
 
They didn't summarily execute Pablo. He was trying to flee and was firing back, wasn't he?
 
Rape isn't that bad, it became bad due to emancipation of women but 2,000 years ago it was ok, as it is mentioned in the Bible, in Deuteronomy, Chapter number 22, verses 28 to 29 which says:

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

The rapist isn't even punished for it, he is rewarded the woman he raped as wife! So I hope this clears the misconception. It is due to emancipation that rape is considered so bad because women became much more than they were 2,000 years ago :)

I don't think there was any misconception around rape being a horrible crime, so I'm not sure why you feel the need to equivocate about it.
 
I don't think there was any misconception around rape being a horrible crime, so I'm not sure why you feel the need to equivocate about it.

Imagine skateboarding on the streets, it's not a crime today. But in the far future, if sidewalks are made of shining light spots so you clearly see your path at night, skateboarding over those expensive pieces of equipment and damaging them is a horrible crime! What I'm saying is, rape is the same 2,000 years ago as it is today, it's the same act, but the material on which the act is performed has changed, thus making it a much bigger crime. I have scriptures to backup the fact that rape 2,000 years ago was considered a small crime, I have quoted those clearly enough :)

I am not advocating rape. I have to state this clearly in case people misunderstand my posts, as I well know, can be misleading at times.
 
Pls leave.

There is no misonception. You seem to be psychotic or at least highly misogynistic & don't seem to realise men are liable to being raped.

Brother, you ever taken a history class? When your history teacher quoted verses from Mein Kampf, did you jump him and say he's a natzi? What I did was tell history and quoting verses word for word. If you don't like how history was written here on Earth go to another planet. Was that part of history shameful? Yes. Do I take the blame? No. Did the Bible author come ask me before writing that verse? Why do you blame me? I'm just telling history.

its generally not enjoyable on the receiving end though

I get that.
 
I was wondering if I was the only one who could smell what the misogynist was cooking.

I am misogynist because I quote the Bible? Well, since in Islam, rape is punished by death according to Sharia, then you must be a Muslim sister! Let's make assumptions about one another see where this goes.

Was I a misogynist when I posted this:

...or am I beating a long dead horse
Anyways.
shed been fucking an ex for months.
I kick her out on the spot.
she got Into a horrible motorcycle wreck and almost died. I thought this would change her.
Anyways.
She still parties. Hangs w the same crew. No job. No license. No ged. Lives w her mom.
She says she can't work cuz she still has road rash. Bullshit.
She doesn't DO anything.
It's link she's setting herself up to be a housewife.
She's not gonna change and it hurts so bad.
She's too immature to believe it.

Shame on you for talking like this about a woman. It's despicable. Anyways.

Sister truth is truth. The way you operate is, if the truth pleases you, it's the truth, if you hate it, it is misogyny. Are you kidding me?
 
Killing someone else (or more than one person) is a natural function. Its an instinctual survival mechanism that is replicated in nature. Animals kill other animals.
Territorial wars. Wars over food, resources. If you think of the 2001 scene where the primates are fighting over the water in the desert....

Where "wrongness" comes into play is only when a social group deems that the killing of a person is not the correct action. It takes a +1 group dynamic to decide if that action was wrong or right.

But we have a preordained, socially infused set of moral rules that govern us. So much so that the primitive function of killing is repressed or more appropriately, socially defined. Its very thinly veiled if you look at the ability of a person to carry a concealed handgun. I think if you look at how people can develop themselves or tools that kill without actually committing the act it would seem we haven't really lost that natural desire. We are very much allowing ourselves to relish in it.
 
Killing someone else (or more than one person) is a natural function.

I don't think that's really true of humans. The vast majority of people in the world have never killed and are in fact averse to killing.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=536561

There is a substantial body of evidence demonstrating humans' seemingly natural aversion to killing. Much of the research in this area has been conducted by the military; analysts have found that soldiers tend to intentionally fire over the enemy's head, or not to fire at all.

Studies of combat activity during the Napoleonic and Civil Wars revealed striking statistics. Given the ability of the men, their proximity to the enemy, and the capacity of their weapons, the number of enemy soldiers hit should have been well over 50 percent, resulting in a killing rate of hundreds per minute. Instead, however, the hit rate was only one o two per minute. And a similar phenomenon occurred during World War I: according to British Lieutenant George Roupell, the only way he could get his men to stop firing into the air was by drawing his sword, walking down the trench, "beating [them] on the backside and ... telling them to fire low".1 World War II fire rates were also remarkably low: historian and US Army Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall reported that, during battle, the firing rate was a mere 15 to 20 percent; in other words, out of every hundred men engaged in a firefight, only fifteen to twenty actually used their weapons. And in Vietnam, for every enemy soldiers killed, more than fifty thousand bullets were fired.2

What these studies have taught the military is that in order to get soldiers to shoot to kill, to actively participate in violence, the soldiers must be sufficiently desensitized to the act of killing. In other words, they have to learn not to feel -- and not to feel responsible -- for their actions. They must be taught to override their own conscience. yet these studies also demonstrate that even in the face of immediate danger, in situations of extreme violence, most people are averse to killing. In other words, as Marshall concludes, "the vast majority of combatants throughout history, at the moment of truth when they could and should kill the enemy, have found themselves to be 'conscientious objectors'".3

1: Dave Grossman, On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in war and Society. New York: Back Bay Books, 1996, 12.
2: Grossman, Martha Stout, The Sociopath Next Door. New York: Broadway Books, 2005.
3: Grossman, 15.
 
^^ Well, you didn't really read what I said. Socialization is such a powerful force that it overrides any sort of natural, primitive function. Developmentally, the nurture effect physically changes a person. It can go either way depending on circumstances, does the tribe need warriors or farmers to tend the field?

I think its more tied into a person's defense system that there are situations ("kill or be killed", as opposed to a higher function of "live and let live") that become largely physical as opposed to, again, higher functions such as decision making or say diplomacy. I'm not really well versed in human biology to give a more concrete answer, so maybe its something I should look into.

I will say that I've experienced situations that were of a "threat" nature and did very little and other situations where I've exceeded what would normally be considered an appropriate response.

I agree, ultimately humanity is a very passive species. Progressively so. We've never really had much competition in an evolutionary sense for resources. There is very little need, or when need exceeds supply vast people simply give up. Again, is it socialized failure? or is it evolutionary weakness? Not everyone can succeed.

-------

If you read further in the forum link its a big debate, Marshall it seems has received a fair share of criticism.
 
^^ Well, you didn't really read what I said. Socialization is such a powerful force that it overrides any sort of natural, primitive function

Again, is it socialized failure? or is it evolutionary weakness?

The answer to that question is socialized failure. There is no other explanation.

What jpgrdnr is saying goes along the lines of what I said about rape. He says that the gravity of murdering someone is largely affected by civilization and social conditioning. He is saying that humans are born as killing machines programmed to survive and then society softens them into becoming law abiding citizens. That is correct but you're not answering the question. The question is how bad is it?

Socially? It's bad, it has always been bad. Religiously? Even worst. I can give you 100s of religious quotations that are against murder, most coming from Islam.

Your problem is, you try to dig deeper. You try to know if murdering someone is really really really that bad? With the word really repeated 3 times. That's what you're asking? Nobody can answer that question, you're wasting your time, you won't find out within your lifetime. We need to understand more about what this world really is in order to answer that question. There's 3 scenarios that can come up:

1) In the future, it becomes scientifically proven that life on Earth is wrong and that ending it will send everyone to a better place. In this case, murdering someone is doing him the highest favor you could. Buying him 3 houses and a Mercedes would not top it, and saving his life is the worst crime you could commit.

2) In the future, it becomes scientifically proven that life on Earth is a miracle, it is unique, nothing else proceeds it or follows it. In this case, murdering someone is the highest crime.

3) In the future, it becomes scientifically proven that life on Earth is not unique, but it is the average standard of life we observe in the entire existence and that life will never cease, if you die, all that awaits you is more life. There is no way to interrupt life no matter what you do, it is not in your power. Then murder would become somewhat less bad then it is now, but not by much.

There is no answer to the 3x really question because no one knows. All that we know is that every human that set foot on this Earth ended up dead, weather he was murdered or not. This tells us that life on Earth is very primitive and unsustainable. That's why it dies.
 
Last edited:
As some of us have read from articles and news, Pablo Escobar was one of the most cruel drug lords of all time, kind of like "El Chapo" in the present times. He has ordered to kill a vast number of people who went up against him or who he thought was betraying him:

http://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/crime-files/pablo-escobar/crime.html

Retribution was justified due to the number of crimes he has committed and this was made possible by the combined efforts of Joint Special Operations Command, Central Spike and Los Pepes to kill Escobar.

My point is if the government did not take action, it will still be like the Mexican government where even government people are so afraid of these drug cartels and instead of trying to capture and punish them, they are silenced by bribery and fear.
 
Retribution was justified due to the number of crimes he has committed and this was made possible by the combined efforts of Joint Special Operations Command, Central Spike and Los Pepes to kill Escobar.

Well, if we believe in retribution, it makes sense that the more heinous the crime or its underlying intent, the stronger the retribution to be called for. However, in a general sense, what makes retribution a worthwhile enterprise in the first place?

My point is if the government did not take action, it will still be like the Mexican government where even government people are so afraid of these drug cartels and instead of trying to capture and punish them, they are silenced by bribery and fear.

Ah...here, you appear to be talking about the capacity of punishment to incapacitate criminals and deter people from engaging in crime. However, these functions of punishment are distinct from its function as retribution in a strict sense. By "retribution", I mean application of harm to an individual who previously (unethically) harmed others, this response held as valid for reasons above and beyond its effects on future behavior. Very often, retribution is thought of as "evening the score". . ."an eye for an eye" and all that.

But what justifies retribution as such?

ebola
 
But what justifies retribution as such?ebola

Retribution is directed only at wrongs, has inherent limits, is not personal, involves no pleasure at the suffering of others. (For Common Good)

Like my given example above, the situation is a manner of what has been happening to the country (Colombia), Pablo Escobar's reign of terror has been causing injustices all over the country and the death rate and criminal rate was higher.
 
pablo's a poor example since he was not executed. they went to arrest him, he fired back and was killed in the process. there was no retribution in that example.
 
Top