OT: Insightful (re: Amish shooting)

RonGianti · #1 October 17th, 2006, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Phoenix-D said:
RonGianti: it isn't just women you know. Murders don't make the news unless they're similar to another one or there's something odd about them.

Thats true, but the last 3 big news stories that are jumping out at me are the 8 year old raped for a week, the killing of Amish girls and the guy who took some girls hostage in a school, molested them, then shot one in the back of the head when the police arrived.

I just don't see any... outrage. Or even questioning. But I know more about Paris Hilton and Jennifer Anniston then I could ever care about in a lifetime. Neither one is news on any level, but they get reported on more than rape and murder. Something somewhere is... wrong.

Atrocities · #2 October 17th, 2006, 05:53 PM

I love women.

I think men that hurt women are the lowest forms of gutter trash known to exsist. Men who call the women in their lives "*****es" and "ho's" are without honor and are in fact cowerdly little closet thumb suckers.

While some women are truly evil most, like men, are just getting along. Then you have the few who enjoy perpetuating the negative sterotypes of women like that bumbling self absored spoiled rotten little trollup Paris Hilton. Hell that girl is NO role model yet millions of teenage girls around the world want to be just like her. WTF?

TV not only perpetuates the negative image of women, they are now telling women that in order to be cool you must be blond, dumb, and have a boy friend from another race who calls you ***** all the time as if he owns you.

Then when the news reports the kind of things they enjoy reporting because it gets ratings, people all of a sudden go "oh my God" and then quickly forget all about it. Just in time to turn on Paris Hilton on MTV and watch more "These are my *****es" rap music videos.

Renegade 13 · #3 October 18th, 2006, 04:01 PM

Personally, I'm all for the death penalty and think it should be used a lot more than it is (in the US, we unfortunately don't have it here in Canada...).

Any crime that results in the death of another should be punishable by death. If you're convicted of the crime, it's automatic. I bet violent crime rates would go way way down if that was the case. Something like sexual assault? Well, there's a simple answer to that one; sterilization. Cut off the bastards testicles. Bet you'd see sexual assault rates drop like a rock too.

If society and the justice system showed that there would be no tolerance for crap like that, and the punishment actually befitted the crime, crime wouldn't appear to be such an attractive thing.

Mephisto · #4 October 18th, 2006, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Renegade 13 said:
If society and the justice system showed that there would be no tolerance for crap like that, and the punishment actually befitted the crime, crime wouldn't appear to be such an attractive thing.

Unfortunately every statistic says that this is not the case. And we can easily see this in some Islamic countries as well where the Sharia rules. If you rape a women you will get killed, if you are a thief you will lose a hand. But crime is still rampant in many of these countries.
A deterrent only works if you think rational about a matter, weighting loss and gain. But many crimes are committed in a state where rational thinking is no longer present. And you have to get caught in the first place to have a deterrent work.
Actually, if the risk of getting caught is high even "low" deterrents work very well. Statistics show that blue collar crimes dropped significantly when more pressure was put into detecting such crimes and bring them to court and public. The shame to stand in court and lose your career did have quite an effect.
So, our aim should be to detect and bring to court crimes with a high probability. And this is something that would help many violated women as well. How many women are beaten because the man can do it without fear that it might see the light of public. But how many will beat a women if it is a) brought to public and b) considered a crime by the public and neighbors (if the public doesn't care, then your are completely on your own

).

Renegade 13 · #5 October 19th, 2006, 12:26 AM

Mephisto, I get the impression you might be a defense lawyer

Dmm, I would argue that some of what is in the Bible would be considered to be highly amoral today. The taking of slaves? The castrating of captured men/boys? That kind of argues against human morality being passed down from God, who would most likely have a higher sense of morality than what the Bible contains.

(Note, I'm using the Bible as an example only, since Christianity is the only religion I have any knowledge of, and shouldn't be construed as an attack.)

rdouglass · #6 October 19th, 2006, 04:50 PM

Morality is a purely human concept.

God is sovereign so morality is not relevant.

I know it sounds lame but God doesn't have to explain anything to us humans. There are stories in the Bible where God instructs a leader to kill *all* traces of another people or village. If the leaders did not follow his command, He punished those leaders as well for not following His will.

That would not be moral by any human standard. But that's the point; God is not human but He is sovereign. Putting morality and God together just doesn't work in any explination that would satisfy any logical human. So don't bother trying; it's a stupid arguement. God doesn't have to explain *anything* to us yet we will have to explain *everything* to Him.

We *will* have to explain to Him our reasonings and our belief (or lack of) that we post here on this forum whether you choose to believe that now or not. I know what I want to be able to say....

narf poit chez BOOM · #7 October 19th, 2006, 06:35 PM

Quote:

rdouglass said:
Morality is a purely human concept.

God is sovereign so morality is not relevant.

I know it sounds lame but God doesn't have to explain anything to us humans. There are stories in the Bible where God instructs a leader to kill *all* traces of another people or village. If the leaders did not follow his command, He punished those leaders as well for not following His will.

That would not be moral by any human standard. But that's the point; God is not human but He is sovereign. Putting morality and God together just doesn't work in any explination that would satisfy any logical human. So don't bother trying; it's a stupid arguement. God doesn't have to explain *anything* to us yet we will have to explain *everything* to Him.

We *will* have to explain to Him our reasonings and our belief (or lack of) that we post here on this forum whether you choose to believe that now or not. I know what I want to be able to say....

The only one I remember is the Isrealite invasion of the promised land - And that was explained as due to wickedness.

I don't know about you, but I can easily envision a society so corrupt the only alternative is destruction.

Anyway, this thread was originally about violence against women. Let's shift back, shall we?

Renegade 13 · #8 October 19th, 2006, 08:32 PM

Quote:

rdouglass said:
Morality is a purely human concept.

God is sovereign so morality is not relevant.

I know it sounds lame but God doesn't have to explain anything to us humans. There are stories in the Bible where God instructs a leader to kill *all* traces of another people or village. If the leaders did not follow his command, He punished those leaders as well for not following His will.

That would not be moral by any human standard. But that's the point; God is not human but He is sovereign. Putting morality and God together just doesn't work in any explination that would satisfy any logical human. So don't bother trying; it's a stupid arguement. God doesn't have to explain *anything* to us yet we will have to explain *everything* to Him.

We *will* have to explain to Him our reasonings and our belief (or lack of) that we post here on this forum whether you choose to believe that now or not. I know what I want to be able to say....

I'll just say that I disagree with you on all counts, and leave it there. I don't want to start religious flaming, and know there can be no reasoning with people who think like you obviously do.

Mephisto · #9 October 19th, 2006, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Renegade 13 said:
Mephisto, I get the impression you might be a defense lawyer

Actually ... no. I'm *supposed* doing IT contractual law but in effect do everything the firm is throwing at me.

But the the university courses about criminal laws and the source and nature of crime weren't wasted.

Renegade 13 · #10 October 21st, 2006, 02:24 PM

Back to the general topic of violence, well I don't think it's much more, if at all, more prevalent today than it was 200 or 1000 years ago. After all, back a century ago, people lived in much smaller population centers, and mass media wasn't nearly as prevalent as it is today. So you might not have even heard of a school shooting a couple thousand miles away, or a murder on the other side of the country. With the media as it is today, and the population of the world as large as it is, it's inevitable that you'll hear about more crime than your grandfather did. However, it doesn't mean crime is more prevalent, per capita.