Girl takes revenge and injects acid into her attacker's eyes.

Red_Keys said:
Worked what way? What are you talking about?

jal90 said:

Prove me wrong.

geniobastardo said:


Oh nice. I don't even want to sound corny but, ''the burden of proof is on the believer''.

jal90 said:


If you have something against what I say then elaborate. I'm not going to blindly cover whatever issue you have with my comment, just in case I hit the right spot of our disagreement by mere luck. I can't even say I have a burden of proof here because there's nothing to hold against.

Red_Keys said:
So are you telling me injecting acid into somebody's eyes is not an act of violence?

What on earth are you talking about. I never said anything about chaos.

Red_Keys said:
I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

Red_Keys said:
So are you telling me injecting acid into somebody's eyes is not an act of violence?

What on earth are you talking about. I never said anything about chaos.

Dawkins said:
It's a country that thinks it's perfectly normal behaviour to throw acid and stones at people.

Granting the victim in society revenge can bring good change in this rare circumstance.

Red_Keys said:
So in order to stop acid-throwing, we need to throw more acid.

And in order to stop the idea that it's an ok thing to do, we need to encourage that it is an ok thing to do.

geniobastardo said:


This being institutionalized and put in practice by a court is incredibly sick and really dangerous if it sets a precedent.

How is it 'dangerous'?

jal90 said:

It forces victims to commit despicable acts and/or revive them. It compromises the element of objetivity in a justice system by adding and appealing to a romanticized approach, being something closer to poetic/karmic than actual and practical justice. It creates a double standard in which the difference between crime and punishment is just who does it and when it's done. It encourages people to seek revenge by basically equaling it to justice and assuming that the punishment should be an equivalent exchange of suffering.

Then again if you don't have moral issues with the "eye for eye" concept and how it would result on the society then I guess you'll never call it dangerous, just convenient.

geniobastardo said:
And funny thing is, it actually did stop; In this case and a bazillion others.

Red_Keys said:
Either start making sense, or please stop posting. What the fuck are you talking about

geniobastardo said:


Theoretics and theoretics and more of it. I wanted you to explain how it's 'dangerous' to the society's well-being. If I wanted to solicit your views on morality or justice I could have made a new thread.

geniobastardo said:
You know, I'm not talking rocket-science.

Red_Keys said:
So in order to stop acid-throwing, we need to throw more acid.

And in order to stop the idea that it's an ok thing to do, we need to encourage that it is an ok thing to do.

Agafin said:
I have no respect for this girl. She must have gone through hell and I'm sure I can't picture how much she suffered even if I tried... but I still find what she did very disguting and it's a total joke that she was even legally allowed to go through with it, what a messed up country.

That asshole deserved at least 20 years in prison. Perhaps a beating too, dunno, but not this level of barbaric.

jal90 said:

It's dangerous because it romanticizes revenge killing, rape or acid injection on the basis that it's justified because it's revenge. Which leads to some sort of moral relativization of acts that otherwise everybody would agree that they are sick and despicable, and it creates a situation in which the only justification the legal system finds to label something as a crime or punishment is an arbitrary law of cause-effect by demonizing the cause and applauding the effect even though they are essentially the same action made by different performers.

And I think there's been enough "burden of proof" thing already for something that doesn't even have a clear contrary stance beyond vague "prove this" or "explain yourself".

Red_Keys said:
No, just nonsense.

Dawkins said:
It's Iran, a country with what they think is a good idea of sharia law.

If everyone in America had a sudden change of heart and thought stoning openly gay people was a good idea you'd be going mental right now. You could turn the other cheek for years but everyone would agree that stoning gays is acceptable.

Again this is Iran. People have grown up around barbaric punishments. If she had acid thrown in her face for drinking alcohol or something like that could you honestly say you'd have faith that the police there would arrest the culprit and exact justice? I'd be nervous the suspect would be protected by the public.

geniobastardo said:


First of all, contextually, this 'eye for an eye' doesn't go for all crimes. Especially not 'rape'.

geniobastardo said:
Secondly, it has been one of the oldest systems in place and hitherto, no moral dereliction can be attributed to it.

geniobastardo said:
Thirdly, it's again all in 'theory' that this system is conducive to promulgating 'violence' and reality is far too different from that theory.

geniobastardo said:
Fourthly, I respect your voicing your opinion but your opinion needs a little amendment.

geniobastardo said:


This has nothing to do with anyone's mentality or a cultural context.

All it has to do is with balancing the scales. You can have your own way of balancing the scale that might be more or less tedious. But, in the end, the result is the same.

jal90 said:
Fine then, we are talking about an arbitrary "eye for an eye" system. I guess I was wrong assuming that justice would be uniformized to fit the same standards in every case.

jal90 said:
It's indeed an old system, but if no moral dereliction can be attributed to it currently it's simply because it was left and replaced with other, more standarized ways of legal punishment, in most societies. So it's hardly something measurable at this point. That's why my stance can only be theorethical, by the way.

jal90 said:
Prove this. Show me data of justice systems that rely on an "eye for eye" mindset. How crime rates evolved, how the social perception of what constitutes a crime developed, etc.

Dawkins said:


Peoples mentality should be the same with all things that are considered undesireable though, and when the stakes are playing with peoples lives I wouldn't feel confident.

What I mean is if what you say is true and that peoples mentality towards people who throw acid is negative, then it should also be the same for things like drinking and fornication. If society basically thinks you get what's coming to you when attacked nothing will get better.

On the other hand no one wants barbarism. She turned down the offer to blind the man perhaps to follow the prophets forgiveness. She was however disfigured completely in a mindless attack, whereas this would have been a precise punishment. If more and more people despise these acid attacks, for the very reason that a woman should have the right to marry who she wants, and do what she wants then you should see improvements all round.

geniobastardo said:


Agreed. But again, your problem is not with the system of 'an eye for an eye' even though your previous sounded like you had a problem with it.

bolby said:
How could she see to inject the acid into her attackers eyes if she is blind? Obviously she didn't think this through.

Red_Keys said:
The only thing reinforcing the notion that it is ok to use violence against people you don't like does, is cause more violence. This helped literally nobody on the planet. Sucks what happened to her, but I'm sure her story will help inspire somebody else in the future to act violently toward somebody they think wronged them.

Criminal justice should be about removing dangerous people from everybody else, and rehabilitating non-violent offenders. This revenge-fantasy bullshit is like looking at the chimp exhibit at a zoo.

The only thing worse than violence, is socially acceptable and encouraged violence.

hoopla123 said:
The man should also have acid thrown all over his body (not killing him of course).

Disgusting how some people can do this.

traed said:
Once you throw someone in prison they will be available to be victims of violence and that would be without any control over it.

mayukachan said:

Iraq

ReaperCreeper said:
I don't feel sympathy for the guy, but I always feel pretty mixed on this kind of eye for an eye thing.

geniobastardo said:


Oh nice. I don't even want to sound corny but, ''the burden of proof is on the believer''.

_Ghost_ said:


Oh, as I was actually about to post something related to this. I might give the easiest example of why it's bad. Someone kills your child, and you ask to kill their child. Just like this situation it would be justified, but obviously wrong.

As the women decided not to take her revenge I can only applaud her, but that a court decided this was a just decision, and the development later on is just a shame, and more so a reason why I think governments should be secular.

Zexth said:
i just want to know. Is their anything wrong with personal fulfillment via "an eye for an eye"?

ThrashMatto said:
An eye for an eye.

Red_Keys said:
?

Why?

traed said:
Have you not seen prison documentaries before? Inmates get attacked or killed fairly reliably. I was just pointing out that its a little more complicated when you take into account that imprisonment is an indirect form of violence. Of course it doesnt get publicized as much as a legal prosecution would but you should get what I man by this. Just that there is a little more implications.

caws said:


Because it makes the whole world blind. He should be punished. But like mentioned before, some punishments cannot work under the eye for an eye because it does not just affect two people.

If you get too person in justice, it becomes revenge. Which is no longer justice.