How stupid do you have to be?...

[Esquilax]

what do you think happens today? when a man rapes a woman he goes to trial, do you think this was free? there is a cost associated with a trial, upon conviction the guy is sentenced to 50 to 10 on a first offence, do you think this is free?

My problem wasn't with the concept of punishment, nor with the idea that it costs something. My problem was with a: the fact that the punishment for rape was a fine, and b: that this was sale price for the woman he raped, not a punishment in the sense that it was recompense for the crime.

It says an awful lot about your mental state that we're talking about this and the only objection you think I have is about the money.

In that day there were no jails, there was slavery via hard labor. What this law does is provide the woman the money to use at her descression, that we would use to put a rapist on trial and house feed cloth the rapist for 10 years.

Except that it doesn't say that the woman gets the money, it specifically states that the rapist pays her father.

Again please provide some sort of arguement that seperates what they did given their social ecconomic structure and our own.

In essence a butt load of money still exchanges hands when a woman is raped, except now the state keeps it, so again please explain how this in more 'moral.'

Once again, you keep phrasing this shekels deal like it's a punishment. It's not. It's a transaction.

Now keep thinking. If you knew this would happen to you, then it kinda take some of the desire out of the nature of sponteanious sex that rape provides.

Perhaps this is news to you, but I think slavery is immoral regardless of the context. I think most people here agree... well, not most christians. You guys seem to be leaping to the defense of this shit a lot these days.

And you keep saying this is a deterrent anyway: in this scenario it's more akin to working off a debt. And again, at the end of it, the man gets to keep the woman he raped.

Do you just instinctively know that the core issue I'm having here isn't one you can defend? Is that why you keep deflecting with all these pathetic side issues?

Which none of this applies if the man has any reasoning ablity at all. As all of these things act as a deturrant to a Rape. In essence it is a life sentence.

Can we just... holy shit. Can we... I don't... I can't even...

Can we just take a moment to acknowledge the fact that not only is Drich okay with selling a woman, not only is he okay with selling her to her rapist, not only is he okay with the fact that the kind of person this woman would then be shackled to is most likely dangerously violent or mentally unstable, but that he thinks this is still a negative prospect for the rapist.

Drich, let me ask you a really simple question that might clear some things up, and frankly I feel it's a disturbing look into your views here that you haven't already thought of it: in this scenario, why are you only thinking about how the rapist would feel?

Again the term 'morality' is subjective, to the time, generation and a given soceity. Are you so foolishly prideful that you truly think all that this current soceity deems as 'moral' will not be looked upon by furture soceities as being nazi level immoral, just like you have judged those who lived under this law?

Are you so foolishly head over heels with your fucking bible that you'd actually think there's a context in which rape and the sale of human beings is morally acceptable?

Can you even produce a context where you would be okay with it?

The word/term 'morality' is a joke as any type of real standard. for what was moral to our fathers is laughed at today, and on and on it goes till God puts an end to our reign.

God's standard is Righteousness, you do not recognise Righteousness as a standard because by defination 'morality' has taken you far from it.

If your god's righteousness is accepting of rape, and slavery, and all this other shit, then I'm very happy indeed to be taken far away from it.