A person on another forum was mean to me!

[Shell B]

WHY the father did what, Brian? He didn't murder the guy. I get this when confronted with a revenge scenario. That is definitely murder according to the law. Beating a man to stop an assault and having it result in death is not, in this case. From what I read, the man hit him a few times about the head and neck. In most cases, a few whacks isn't going to end in death. I'm sure rage contributed, but that doesn't mean the man killed him in a rage. The point is, he stopped beating him and called an ambulance. He did not murder the guy. His defense of his daughter resulted in the man's death. There is a very distinct difference.

[Annik]

Holy shit. Are you serious? Link the part of my post where I seemed even remotely gleeful about a girl getting raped and a guy dying (not being murdered). Fucking gleeful. I like you, Annik, but I never, ever stand for someone misrepresenting my position in order to further emotionalize their own for effect.

Think of my post with more generality than that. You're letting your emotions get the best of you.

I can agree with that. However, there was only a death, not a murder.

Well, ultimately, it was the death at the hands of another man. The court system would deem it manslaughter.

According to the law, plenty of people have a right to take another's life. You are taking an extremist position that does not allow for countless scenarios. If a man comes into my house and threatens the life of everyone in it and my only recourse in stopping him is killing, I fucking sure as hell do have a right to take his life and the law will agree with me. Whether extremist types agree is irrelevant. The law, the only thing that gives us rights and takes them away, agrees.

By that logic, gays have no right to marry because the law doesn't give it to them. There was something in the Declaration that always stuck out to me: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Throwing all of that out the window, my rights don't come from a piece of paper.

I don't know who is "happy." However, the man did do the right thing. He protected his daughter. He didn't intend to kill the man, so I don't count that as part of his actions, but rather an unfortunate result. Fortunately, randoms on the internet don't get to choose whether what he did was right for him. I'm sure he is not thrilled with the outcome, but given the option again would do the same thing. That was his fucking daughter.

That doesn't make it right. Just because you can justify it doesn't automatically make it correct. I think given the same course of action, he would've stopped or hit him in a way that didn't kill the rapist. It doesn't make it right just because the child being raped was his daughter. As a test, would you advocate the victims/parents of victims to go out and murder their attackers? I should hope not. I would hope you'd tell them to calm down. Now, when a person does murder their attacker, we understand, we empathize, we even say "what a relief!, ect", but that doesn't make it right.

I understand that you're justifying this by saying that the man was protecting his daughter. I'm not sure if I wouldn't do something dissimilar. However, it would not have been the right thing to take the man's life (even if it's an accident, you're still responsible). I would've been in the wrong, had I been in the father's position.

I really think you're missing the point I'm trying to make.

[Welsh cake]

@Tempus, I no longer care to continue. Its pointless.

I'm sorry you deserve a debate but I've made one fucking error and stupid fucking assertion after another without bothering to check the facts in this debate. It makes no difference to me if I had done the research. I have to confess I've not got the mindset today to apply any critical thinking whatsoever. Just raw anger.

FUCKING USELESS ILLITERATE AND INNUMERATE BRAIN OF MINE!

FUCK MY JOKE OF A LIFE! AND FUCK IT HARD!

[Brian37]

WHY the father did what, Brian? He didn't murder the guy. I get this when confronted with a revenge scenario. That is definitely murder according to the law. Beating a man to stop an assault and having it result in death is not, in this case. From what I read, the man hit him a few times about the head and neck. In most cases, a few whacks isn't going to end in death. I'm sure rage contributed, but that doesn't mean the man killed him in a rage. The point is, he stopped beating him and called an ambulance. He did not murder the guy. His defense of his daughter resulted in the man's death. There is a very distinct difference.

Don't play semantic games with me. I already said SANE PEOPLE WILL UNDERSTAND WHAT HE DID.

Where I do get upset is a societal and media response to such events. The RIGHTFUL understanding of why he did what he did, often allows the person responding to the action make blanket statements LONG TERM whenever the issue comes up.

"Murder vs kill" is a semantics game AND EVERY DECENT PERSON understands why he "murdered or killed" in SELF DEFENSE.

You keep, like others here mixing topics. I am talking about the meme of a society like a weather pattern long term, NOT ONE PERSON OR ONE CASE.

People can and do let their emotions rule them. I am simply advising people to look at every case as a case by case thing. Lies can and do hurt people even if it does not put them in prison and people can be quite vindictive with no good reason. THAT was my point.

It was not a matter of understanding WHY he did what he did. It was a warning not to make blanket judgements as a solution long term as a society.

[Shell B]

Think of my post with more generality than that. You're letting your emotions get the best of you.

So, when you said that I was gleeful about a man's murder with absolutely nothing to lead you to that conclusion, which part was I supposed to take "with generality?" I didn't misunderstand you. You are backtracking and then trying to demean my reaction because you had no recourse to make the comment in the first place. The appropriate thing for you to do here is to admit that there was simply nothing in my post to indicate that I was happy about a man dying. I assure you, I'm not being emotional about it all. I'm being precise and trying to follow a conversation that keeps going off on "But, but the RIGHTS! THE HUMAN RIGHTS!" arguments.

Well, ultimately, it was the death at the hands of another man. The court system would deem it manslaughter.

Actually, he wasn't charged with anything, according to that article. He was investigated and let go. A court deemed it self defense. Gosh, I suppose you should have read that before saying that.

By that logic, gays have no right to marry because the law doesn't give it to them.

Actually, that is true. Gay people do not have a right to marry in areas where it is illegal. Should they have that right? Sure. Do they? By definition, no.

There was something in the Declaration that always stuck out to me: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And yet, the founding fathers upheld the laws of execution of the time. Besides, the Declaration of Independence is not an outline of the rights of the people of the United States. It was nothing more than a declaration to the king and parliament outlining why the people had chosen to rebel. The document you are looking for that, you know, has people's rights actually outlined as according to U.S. law, is the Constitution.

Throwing all of that out the window, my rights don't come from a piece of paper.

Certainly not that piece of paper.

That doesn't make it right. Just because you can justify it doesn't automatically make it correct. I think given the same course of action, he would've stopped or hit him in a way that didn't kill the rapist. It doesn't make it right just because the child being raped was his daughter. As a test, would you advocate the victims/parents of victims to go out and murder their attackers? I should hope not. I would hope you'd tell them to calm down. Now, when a person does murder their attacker, we understand, we empathize, we even say "what a relief!, ect", but that doesn't make it right.

Not if you're so judgmental as to analyze the acts of a person defending his child from an attack with no intent of murder. No, it doesn't make it right. I mean, how could people elevate themselves above this poor man if they didn't have so many convoluted ideas about rights to ponder. Fuck this man's right to defend himself. He was wrong. *yawn*

I really think you're missing the point I'm trying to make.

Well, judging by the fact that I was directed to take a comment directed at me with "generality," I would hardly be surprised if that were the case. It's kind of easy to miss a point that's got an odd angle and is sharp at the wrong end.

---

WHY the father did what, Brian? He didn't murder the guy. I get this when confronted with a revenge scenario. That is definitely murder according to the law. Beating a man to stop an assault and having it result in death is not, in this case. From what I read, the man hit him a few times about the head and neck. In most cases, a few whacks isn't going to end in death. I'm sure rage contributed, but that doesn't mean the man killed him in a rage. The point is, he stopped beating him and called an ambulance. He did not murder the guy. His defense of his daughter resulted in the man's death. There is a very distinct difference.

Don't play semantic games with me. I already said SANE PEOPLE WILL UNDERSTAND WHAT HE DID.

Oh, for fuck's sake. I probably should have known better than to speak up in this thread. The word rape or murder comes up and it becomes a slanging match between the "we're all born with rights" and the "kill 'em if you get the chance" crowds. Come anywhere in the middle and you get labeled as the opposition and people start shouting at you in all caps and taking innocuous questions regarding what the man actually fucking did as "semantics games," which is funny coming from the dude who went on a tangent about the word respect not a week ago. I'm going to start avoiding threads with certain keywords, as they seem to unlock the asylum doors whenever those keywords pop up on AF.

[Tempus]

@Tempus, I no longer care to continue. Its pointless.

'tis cool.

FUCK MY JOKE OF A LIFE! AND FUCK IT HARD!

'Life', like 'love', is an abstract concept, and while I'd love to fuck 'life', it lacks the necessary physiology for that to be possible. Basically what I'm getting at here is... 'life' doesn't have a vagina (or, indeed, any orifices!).

It's kind of easy to miss a point that's got an odd angle and is sharp at the wrong end.

That's what the ladies keep telling me...

[Brian37]

Oh, for fuck's sake. I probably should have known better than to speak up in this thread. The word rape or murder comes up and it becomes a slanging match between the "we're all born with rights" and the "kill 'em if you get the chance" crowds. Come anywhere in the middle and you get labeled as the opposition and people start shouting at you in all caps and taking innocuous questions regarding what the man actually fucking did as "semantics games," which is funny coming from the dude who went on a tangent about the word respect not a week ago. I'm going to start avoiding threads with certain keywords, as they seem to unlock the asylum doors whenever those keywords pop up on AF.

You want me to admit to my own word preferences? Fine, where did I ever deny that?

But that does not change that in this instance the advocates for "GOOD he deserved it" crowd, miss the long term picture.

If there were a dispute about the nature of the charge, you'd have a case. If someone tried to argue "hey what's wrong with raping a kid", then you'd have a case.

The only difference between the disagreements here are NOT that what the perp did was good. No sane peserson, not you not me, thinks what happened was good. But long term how we as a society react when people even MERELY GET ACCUSED.

Maybe you are pissed because I didn't burn the accused upon hearing it?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

What I think we are trying to help you understand is that it is not justifiable for any reason to kill another human being.

Please don't patronise Nappy, there's a good chap. THAT is your moral value,not a universal truth. (also an ad hominem)


A moral relativist,I can think of many occasions in which it's perfectly OK to kill another human being;catching one raping your five year old daughter for example. Another would be an armed person breaking into my home to kill me.

I suggest that you have a little think before asserting fatuous moral absolutes.

[Epimethean]

Just so, Pad, and Shell pointed this out in another example above. If someone threatens you or your family with serious injury, you do have the justified right to end his life if that is what it takes to neutralize the threat. Certainly, the police and the courts will have to determine whether you were justified in your actions, but they do so (as in this case) every day. Suggesting that people in the absolute heat of the moment are not justified in protecting the lives and well-being of themselves or their family is missing the forest for the trees.

[Shell B]

But that does not change that in this instance the advocates for "GOOD he deserved it" crowd, miss the long term picture.

If there were a dispute about the nature of the charge, you'd have a case. If someone tried to argue "hey what's wrong with raping a kid", then you'd have a case.

The only difference between the disagreements here are NOT that what the perp did was good. No sane peserson, not you not me, thinks what happened was good. But long term how we as a society react when people even MERELY GET ACCUSED.

Maybe you are pissed because I didn't burn the accused upon hearing it?

Firstly, I have to edit your post, so you are not quoting parts that have nothing to do with your reply. Don't worry. I'm just shortening the part you quoted and changing nothing else.

Secondly, I never said "good, he deserved it." Welcome to the strawman club.

I'm not pissed at anybody. I merely asked you what you think he did wrong in your opinion and stated that it was not murder, by the law's definition or mine. That is all. Where did I say I wanted you to burn the accused upon hearing "it?" Which makes fuckall for sense, by the way.