Metanet Forums

<RandomDigits> When someone accidentally loses balance, he generally will make a move to counter-balance and keep from falling over. This is because all actions cause equal and opposite reactions. A push makes the pusher and pushed move apart with equal energy. Therefore, if someone does a wrong move, there will inevitably be an equal and opposite move. This is called vengeance. Use it well and to your advantage.

Is this fair when applied to the punishment of a human being? If so, what would be an equal punishment for the rape of a relative?

This is a tough question. On the one hand, people may feel a real desire to return the "favour", but does it solve anything? It would only cause further trauma to more individuals, as well as increase hatred between these two families. In modern western society this would be completely unacceptable. Instead, the offender would likely be tried and jailed, while leaving the family mostly uninvolved. This may leave them with a sense of lack of emotional closure... The offender will be kept from doing further harm but the harm already done will need to take care of itself.

I don't really have any thoughts on the second question.

Inspired wrote:I tried reading the OP but couldn't get my eyes off the signature. /me vomits a little.

I can't quote this enough. Anything posted in the OP is already less concerning than having a gif of a rotting fox (I think) as your sig.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

Youuuuuu commies.
Vengeance is a deterrent for dickheads. If the threat of vengeance isn't present or serious, dickheads will seize the opportunity to act in their nature with no consequences they care about.
I have intimate knowledge of this, as I am a total dickhead.

On the topic of retribution:

SlappyMcGee: I am quitting until women are allowed to be topless at children's parks.
blue_tetris: I think there are laws that prevent women from doing things, because you're allowed to hit men.
blue_tetris: And you're not allowed to hit women, if they do stupid shit.
blue_tetris: Like, the reason I don't engage in certain activities publically is because "that sorta shit'll get your ass beat".
blue_tetris: But for women, we have laws.
blue_tetris: I posit that, without women, we would need no governance.
SlappyMcGee: I want this tatooed right on my ballsack.
blue_tetris: Say hello to the President and Speaker of the House, -my ballsack-.
blue_tetris: Let me read you my two Amendments to the Ballstitution of these United Nuts: "Testicle." and "Testicle."

This reminds me of the difficulty I have with online quizzes that ask "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth: agree or disagree". I never know how to answer—are we talking about the vague concept of justice and retribution, or the specific meaning of monetary compensation, or the specific meaning of violence and corporal punishment?

I think it's dumb. There are two type of criminals. One has a deep-seeded psychological issue that needs to be worked on or, God forbid, medicated, and the other type has an even deeper-seeded psychological issue and needs to be hung publicly.

Utopia, ladies and gents.

I hope you get banned or become paralyzed for life or something as retribution for having that sig.

skiptrace wrote:I hope you get banned or become paralyzed for life or something as retribution for having that sig.

Am I seriously the only one who thinks it's kinda cool? O_o

EDIT: No, my housmates agree with you, and apparently I'm the weird one. :/

DemonzLunchBreak wrote:I've been desensitized by the internet, so I don't care about the OP's sig. I think "an eye for an eye" is a little bit antiquated, but I do believe that there should be deterrents from crime (i.e. punishment) and that it should in some way be proportional to the crime. However, the main priorities of the criminal justice system should be public safety (not releasing people who are at risk to commit more crimes) and rehabilitation.

In my research into the effectiveness of gun control, I've consistently come across the idea that even unreasonably lengthy jail time is not an effective deterrent against crime. I want a would-be criminal to fear immediate consequences if for some reason he's considering me as a victim.
It seems pretty reasonable to me that I've never been targeted by muggers, physically intimidated, bullied, etc., because I'm gigantic. I've certainly been around the sorts of people (particularly bullies) who I'd fully expect to be harassed by were I not as large as I am, so I feel I can say from personal experience that the immediate threat I can pose is the most effective deterrent to targeting me.
In other words, Dave's "that kind of shit will get your ass beat" principle is spot on.

Carry a tazer or some shit like that if you're gonna get mugged. immediate retribution is indeed the best sort. revenge, contrary to popular belief, is not a dish best served cold, once the offender has forgotten the connection between his actions and the punishment. make him see that if he does (A) then you will do (B) to him in return. once that's clear, he won't do (A) if (B) is harsh enough. it's the pre-mugging communication that's important, and while this is usually impossible on an individual basis (you don't know who is going to mug you until they do it), society as a whole can communicate its judgement and ideal punishment for muggers and the like (in this case, by making tazers available to people).

ＭＡＸＸＸＯＮ wrote:"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

Theory and practice are the same in theory, but not in practice -- and eye-for-an-eye works fine in practice.

scythe wrote:
ＭＡＸＸＸＯＮ wrote:"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
Theory and practice are the same in theory, but not in practice -- and eye-for-an-eye works fine in practice.

Indeed. The idea is that when enough people are walking around without eyes, people will learn not to steal eyes (I'm not actually sure what this saying refers to with they eyes) unless they don't care for their own.

Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without police protection is both. It is as cowardly to betray an offender to justice, even though his offences be against yourself, as it is not to avenge an injury by violence. It is dastardly and contemptible in a wounded man to betray the name of his assailant, because if he recovers, he must naturally expect to take vengeance himself.

Mute Monk wrote:Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without police protection is both. It is as cowardly to betray an offender to justice, even though his offences be against yourself, as it is not to avenge an injury by violence. It is dastardly and contemptible in a wounded man to betray the name of his assailant, because if he recovers, he must naturally expect to take vengeance himself.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Omertà. I thought the paragraph seemed pertinent to the topic at hand.

Mute Monk wrote:Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without police protection is both. It is as cowardly to betray an offender to justice, even though his offences be against yourself, as it is not to avenge an injury by violence. It is dastardly and contemptible in a wounded man to betray the name of his assailant, because if he recovers, he must naturally expect to take vengeance himself.

If you're going to act like a pretentious idiot, you might as well go all the way and use 'whomsoever'.

Geez Louise, I was just putting forward a concept that some people follow.

I should have stayed away, obviously.

Mute Monk wrote:Geez Louise, I was just putting forward a concept that some people follow.

I should have stayed away, obviously.

Well, maybe you should have put it forward in a way that wasn't completely retarded.

scythe wrote:
Mute Monk wrote:Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without police protection is both. It is as cowardly to betray an offender to justice, even though his offences be against yourself, as it is not to avenge an injury by violence. It is dastardly and contemptible in a wounded man to betray the name of his assailant, because if he recovers, he must naturally expect to take vengeance himself.
If you're going to act like a pretentious idiot, you might as well go all the way and use 'whomsoever'.

whomsoever shall be found

(and it really took off at)

WITHOUT THE SOUL FOR GETTING DOWN

EDIT: Sorry we are in Debate. I am going to leave this up but I acknowledge that it shouldn't be here this is a serious place. In my defense it's a fucking stupid topic.

=w= wrote:
Mute Monk wrote:Geez Louise, I was just putting forward a concept that some people follow.

I should have stayed away, obviously.

Well, maybe you should have put it forward in a way that wasn't completely retarded.

Then talk to the "retards" over at Wikipedia...I was quoting them.

And yes, I know didn't put it in quotation marks. Oh dear, world-ending mistake.

Mute Monk wrote:
=w= wrote:
Mute Monk wrote:Geez Louise, I was just putting forward a concept that some people follow.

I should have stayed away, obviously.

Well, maybe you should have put it forward in a way that wasn't completely retarded.
Then talk to the "retards" over at Wikipedia...I was quoting them.

And yes, I know didn't put it in quotation marks. Oh dear, world-ending mistake.

Wikipedia is free to edit by anybody. Including, you know, retards...

Mute Monk wrote:
=w= wrote:
Mute Monk wrote:Geez Louise, I was just putting forward a concept that some people follow.

I should have stayed away, obviously.

Well, maybe you should have put it forward in a way that wasn't completely retarded.
Then talk to the "retards" over at Wikipedia...I was quoting them.

And yes, I know didn't put it in quotation marks. Oh dear, world-ending mistake.

When someone tells you that you're digging yourself a hole, why do you choose to make it deeper?

I fully subscribe to this mindset as long as the guilty party was sane (drugs/alcohol count) at the time. If a mother who doesn't want her son anymore drowns him, then I think she should be too as punishment.

(I'm jumping in blindly here having not read the thread)

Metanet Forums

An Eye for an Eye...

An Eye for an Eye...

Re: An Eye for an Eye...

Re: An Eye for an Eye...

Re: An Eye for an Eye...

Re: An Eye for an Eye...

Re: An Eye for an Eye...

Re: An Eye for an Eye...

Re: An Eye for an Eye...

Re: An Eye for an Eye...

Re: An Eye for an Eye...

Re: An Eye for an Eye...

Re: An Eye for an Eye...

Re: An Eye for an Eye...

Re: An Eye for an Eye...

Re: An Eye for an Eye...

Re: An Eye for an Eye...

Re: An Eye for an Eye...

Re: An Eye for an Eye...

Re: An Eye for an Eye...

Re: An Eye for an Eye...

Re: An Eye for an Eye...

Re: An Eye for an Eye...

Re: An Eye for an Eye...

Re: An Eye for an Eye...

Re: An Eye for an Eye...