Peeping Tom gets owned! 47 replies

Please wait...

technerd89

Problem Solver

50 XP

16th November 2004

0 Uploads

75 Posts

0 Threads

#31 16 years ago
Biggus DickusI wonder if I could stands the same statement about a pedophile who would have raped my son. Actually, I think a tree branch would be still too soft for him.[/quote]Well see there you go again letting rage get the best of you. This guy never raped anyone did he? He looked at a 5 year old with his pants down. Last time I checked, stalking did not = Rape...and the last time I checked, stalkers usually didn't deserve to be raped and murdered... I think that statement COULD apply just as much in a situation where your son was raped. He broke the law (In a way more serious way then the guy in this situation broke the law), and rape is a felony offense, and so he will spend upwards of 30 years in jail (attempting to be rehabilitated)...Now if you want to raise the issue of whether or not rehabilitation in jail works and is worth putting faith in, then that is a different debate. But just because of a perceived lack of success in our prison systems rehabilitation doesn't give you the right to take violent "Punishment as justice" into your own hands. Our society can only survive if you place some level of faith in the law. If not, then what makes you any better than the rapist in the first place? After all, you are a rapist too. You are willing to shove a tree branch up his ass because of what he did. And in no way could raping someone with a tree branch be explained away as self-defense. That just doesn't happen. no one rapes in self-defense. You would deserve to be punished just as much. [quote=biggus dickus]How can you compare a girl and a pedophile? Pedophile is a disease? No shit. It's a perversion. In my country, most of the time, the pedophile who are getting out of jail are doing exactly the same thing as before. They can't change. It's easy to defend them when you are not involved. And I sincerely hope for you that you never will be involved.

We're talking about the logic that you have employed to demonize this asshole who broke the law. You have made the argument that what he has done in the past excuses actions that others take upon him. That what he did by looking at a little girl justifies 6 people taking the law into their own hands, raping him themselves, and beating him to death... My argument about the girl is that this same logic could be used to say that any girl who has been sexually assaulted, but has been known to dress scantily clad obviously asked for it...thus she wasn't raped because her previous action prior to saying "NO, i will not have sex with you" somehow justifies the rapist in raping her. I'm showing that your logic does not hold when applied different contexts...and thus is not right. Are you honestly saying that crimes of passion are justified, merely because they are crimes of passion?




Ghost

Teh peach party 0wnz j00 n00bs

50 XP

2nd June 2004

0 Uploads

1,335 Posts

0 Threads

#32 16 years ago

to tell you the truth, I would have made sure he was dead.




Gale_Force14

Addicted to GF

50 XP

4th July 2004

0 Uploads

263 Posts

0 Threads

#33 16 years ago

I'm surprised the Police didn't join in. FIgures, citizens go and beat the shit out of the guy beating off to a kid and the Police step in to take his side.




Fissure

Keeper of the Gloom

50 XP

16th August 2004

0 Uploads

786 Posts

0 Threads

#34 16 years ago

well that guy definaly needs to go to a metal home for sickos. I dont think the parents were right to beat him up to the point they did but a good KO woulda done fine.




technerd89

Problem Solver

50 XP

16th November 2004

0 Uploads

75 Posts

0 Threads

#35 16 years ago
Ghostto tell you the truth, I would have made sure he was dead.

And I would make sure you went to Jail. Murder with intent to kill is going for about 35-40 years these days...I'm glad its worth that to you.




Biggus Dickus Advanced Member

I would die without my life.

195,640 XP

19th January 2004

0 Uploads

18,764 Posts

0 Threads

#36 16 years ago

GumbypantsWell see there you go again letting rage get the best of you. This guy never raped anyone did he? He looked at a 5 year old with his pants down. [/QUOTE] How do you know he didn't raped anyone before? It's not written in the new. And even if, in this context, it's like saying: "the dog didn't eat the chicken. It was just looking at it with its mouth open and dribble to the lips." You don't know if he was about to rape her or not. We just know that he has been prevented to do it.

GumbypantsLast time I checked, stalking did not = Rape...and the last time I checked, stalkers usually didn't deserve to be raped and murdered... I think that statement COULD apply just as much in a situation where your son was raped. He broke the law (In a way more serious way then the guy in this situation broke the law), and rape is a felony offense, and so he will spend upwards of 30 years in jail (attempting to be rehabilitated)...Now if you want to raise the issue of whether or not rehabilitation in jail works and is worth putting faith in, then that is a different debate. But just because of a perceived lack of success in our prison systems rehabilitation doesn't give you the right to take violent "Punishment as justice" into your own hands. Our society can only survive if you place some level of faith in the law. If not, then what makes you any better than the rapist in the first place? After all, you are a rapist too. You are willing to shove a tree branch up his ass because of what he did. And in no way could raping someone with a tree branch be explained away as self-defense. That just doesn't happen. no one rapes in self-defense. You would deserve to be punished just as much. We're talking about the logic that you have employed to demonize this asshole who broke the law. You have made the argument that what he has done in the past excuses actions that others take upon him. That what he did by looking at a little girl justifies 6 people taking the law into their own hands, raping him themselves, and beating him to death... My argument about the girl is that this same logic could be used to say that any girl who has been sexually assaulted, but has been known to dress scantily clad obviously asked for it...thus she wasn't raped because her previous action prior to saying "NO, i will not have sex with you" somehow justifies the rapist in raping her. I'm showing that your logic does not hold when applied different contexts...and thus is not right.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Biggus Dickus]It's easy to defend them when you are not involved.
[QUOTE=Gumbypants]Are you honestly saying that crimes of passion are justified, merely because they are crimes of passion?

Justified, no. Understandable, yes.




MiKe_89

The Internet ends at GF

50 XP

13th August 2004

0 Uploads

126 Posts

0 Threads

#37 16 years ago

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by Ghost to tell you the truth, I would have made sure he was dead.[QUOTE]

i agree. But dead not raped.i think raping a guy with a tree branch is just as bad(maybe less) than peeping on a 5 year old.




technerd89

Problem Solver

50 XP

16th November 2004

0 Uploads

75 Posts

0 Threads

#38 16 years ago
Biggus DickusHow do you know he didn't raped anyone before? It's not written in the new. And even if, in this context, it's like saying: "the dog didn't eat the chicken. It was just looking at it with its mouth open and dribble to the lips." You don't know if he was about to rape her or not. We just know that he has been prevented to do it.[/quote] You aren't morally justified in making this calculation for that individual. You don't have the right to murder someone in preventive action when that action could have been prevented in a non-lethal way. Shoving a tree branch up his ass is not the only way to get the dog to stop salivating over the chicken. In fact, there is no logic AT ALL that implies this is the case. How do you know he DID rape anyone before? All I'm trying to articulate is that both have the same possibility level...and YOU don't have the right to decide which is more likely. If you are uncomfortable about a situation, call the police. Do you really think you can so blindly defend the violent actions of a group of people strung out on drugs and alcohol, probably using a lot of violence this offender didn't deserve. You still haven't answered the argument that the punishment has to fit the crime. looking at a little girl while masturbating does not deserve rape and beating as a punishment. It's that simple. Most people know this, and the only ones who would do something like that are acting out of passion...which I agree is Understandable, but not justified. [QUOTE=Biggus Dickus]Justified, no. Understandable, yes.

Reading the responses on this forum though gives you a VERY different perception of what people think is morally right. This group of assholes has been praised by most of the people in this thread for doing the right thing. Just because we can understand why someone might have done something does not make that something morally right. All of you who said things like, "personally I would have made sure he was dead," and "The F*ckin perv got what he deserved," are just as bad if not worse than the guy in question. You believe violence is an approriate solution to any situation where something bad may be happening, and that is a BAD way to interpret our world...That is what causes a lot of violence in our society...look at Iraq for instance. Murder is not the only way to prevent someone from doing something. Their actions were unjustified and abhorrant. Although I may be able to rationally understand their motive and thier passion, their actions are despicable. and they deserve to be punished. You will not see me saying that they should be raped in prison, although according to all of you they should... I mean really, they raped someone, and rape is an abhorrant crime...and those who rape deserve to be raped...So in essence you are defending the fact that one of these 6 jerks deserves to be raped...... That doesn't make any sense. And any rational person knows that. Oh yeah, and if I am ever in a situation like this, Calling the police would be my first priority. I actually believe that these 6 people are at fault for what has happened. More so than I did 5 minutes ago. If those people hadn't been doing illegal drugs, maybe they would have been more willing to call the police instead of taking matters into their own hands. It was their decision to consume illegal drugs that prevented them from seeking the appropriate authorities. Therefore, they are responsible for not taking better action to stop what was happening at the time. I mean, they only saw the guy outside their house with his pants down. There are a multitude of options they could have taken to stop it...but they were forced into making one particular decision because of the state they had chosen to put themselves in. They are not absolved of any responsibility and deserve to be punished.




technerd89

Problem Solver

50 XP

16th November 2004

0 Uploads

75 Posts

0 Threads

#39 16 years ago

[QUOTE=MiKe_89]

Originally Posted by Ghost to tell you the truth, I would have made sure he was dead.[QUOTE] i agree. But dead not raped.i think raping a guy with a tree branch is just as bad(maybe less) than peeping on a 5 year old.

Oh? And ending a human life is such a small insignificant event? Grow up.




Ghost

Teh peach party 0wnz j00 n00bs

50 XP

2nd June 2004

0 Uploads

1,335 Posts

0 Threads

#40 16 years ago
GumbypantsOh? And ending a human life is such a small insignificant event? Grow up.

stfu, go masturbate to your kiddie porn you perv.