Topic: One of the biggest political lie is revenge... I don't understand this concept;) (Read 772 times)

I think you don't want to understand me. Why? I will try to explain to you a basic concept. you are right in saying that for now and the close future it's impossible to prevent all first time rapist from coming to existence, however you fail to anticipate the progress of individual and collective defense solutions. But actually, now, it's possible, without difficulties to eliminate all those that have chosen to become a rapist, i.e. one or more than one proved act, makes you fit the definition of a rapist. The simple fact that there exist multirecidivists, that have raped again after jail prove how delusional you are.

If you think that by wiping out rapists from existence mankind lose something, we are definitely in conflict. The level of risk you want my children to carry is incompatible with my risk assessment, and what I consider a safe realist environment. Furthermore you rise an interesting argument, look you said your self in your argument that someone with a high risk profile didn't sin, as such he didn't sin what ever the machine says (which is non-rapist, in preemptive the definition of the threshold is always the interesting discussion  ), and as such how could you force someone to be reeducated? I feel safer to clean once the mess happen than remove every "temptations"... it effectively cost in risk but the reward is that everyone is free to walk toward the Path consciously and not forcibly, giving hope, and Mankind a chance. What I don't like is those that want to abuse mercy by exploiting it. you rape, you die. simple, clear, clean, understandable, applicable, and just. There is no revenge, but an act (rape), that lead to consequences (death), like a protocol. No Emotions. No perceptions, but a chain of events.

revenge is people's nature.

Your perfect hedging would require the destruction of mankind to prevent all future rapes.

You assume that a freak occurrence at time X, "the rape", would help you forecast future occurrences of other rapes. Are you an economist by any chance? There might be real-life trends, such as a disproportionately high number of serial rapists in the statistics, which suggest that there are additional factors involved, but you're only able to identify those trends by analysing what was. In the scenario you've given, there's no information to suggest that one rape changes the likelihood of the same person committing future rapes.

Analysis of multiple rape crimes might reveal some more trends. But it could also reveal that various other people who are statistically "at risk" never commit such crimes, or that some actual rapists would have been considered "low risk".

Although there often seems to be an element of prevention, and people may say "this person is very dangerous, so he should be locked up for a long time", pure prevention is not sufficient to describe the practical reality of justice. Due to the existence of those "other factors", the earlier assumption is unsound.

So that just leaves a few other options like rehabilitation and restorative justice.
Rehabilitation might include something like education to reduce those other factors. I think revenge is also a factor that fits here. For example, prison might be unpleasant and generally designed to make the prisoner feel some of the pain that their victim felt -- and that could be educational.

There is also an emotional element. The public at large is represented by the state, and they also want to feel safe, even if they're irrational or not very smart. And the rest of the public also wants to feel safe, hoping that they won't get caught in the cross-fire if the irrational group is disappointed.

Absolutely not, sadly, you just confirm that it has no meaning what so ever. There is a risk (a rapist) that committed a crime (a rape) it makes the elimination of the reoccurrence (a second rape) only possible if said risk is hedged perfectly which is only 100% guaranteed, no pay back, no kick back, no what ever escape by death. I don't see any justice or revenge in what I wrote. So justice and revenge are linked together in your interpretation, which is quite interesting. However I don't agree. If there was justice, there would be no rape in the first place. But if you see justice as the application of a set of law, I hope that a concept as inefficient as revenge isn't taking part in your consideration, but attempting a reparation of said damages seem more just to me, there is value in death, it's a living^tm...


0 contribution, pure trolling, maintaining the moral high ground, double attack, I love it, it's troll art. Thank you for sharing such troll proficiency . Wannabe troll like me have a great chance to read such talent in motion:).

@blablahblah I would disagree with soviet war crimes as being the reason leading to the creation of NATO, but more importantly, notice his "Skilling my trolling - Nothing serious" personal message. He has created half a dozen threads like this, and many more such posts. Just ignore the troll wannabe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes

Revenge would be a desire to inflict pain on an oppressor or their descendants (for example: Soviet = oppressor; modern Russian = a trained descendant of a pair of sexually aroused Soviets), so that the recipient of the revenge is taught empathy.

How does it teach empathy? The revenge attack would be a blunt form of communication that informs the original oppressor of the quality of the victim's pain.

However, some oppressors are just slow learners, or they're too stupid to see the connection between their earlier actions (for example: Soviet war crimes) and the reaction (for example: the creation of NATO). And in the case of "individuals" (people), society usually tries to offer a wiser alternative called justice, so that they don't destroy themselves with endless tit-for-tat fighting. It also acknowledges the existence of a 'commons', but you'd already know all about that.


By the way:


In case you didn't notice, I got annoyed at you for that comment. You seem pretty arrogant. Why ask for assistance if you've already made up your mind that you know better, and that your readers are intellectually inferior?

Was I able to assist you with understanding revenge?

I only understand "exposure", risk suppression, mitigation or what ever term you may use.

Ex:
When I say kill the rapist...
You say that I want to "revenge"... It's wrong, it's your mental conception that leads you to this concept.
I just want to risk suppress. Rapist dead = no more rape. Rape suppression successful.

I don't see revenge, could you help me better understand your conceptual fallacies?  Which can be translated by providing them a "second chance"... wtf once is enough. why don't you agree? what are your mental justification?