Sanding our assholes with 150 grit.

what would move you to kill someone

1.  they molest your child
2.  they kill your pet
3.  they kick your ass

?
Permalink Send private email sharkfish 
July 31st, 2007 11:52pm
You first.
Permalink Michael B 
July 31st, 2007 11:53pm
Me, nothing.  I don't really have anything worth killing for. Except maybe if somebody chops my penis.  I like that sucker.
And by the way, I wouldnt do it, dumb ass with a gun.  I would do it planned over several years, with electronics and potions.  You piss me off (chop off the penis), you are fucked.

Good question.
Permalink Bot Berlin 
July 31st, 2007 11:55pm
1.  they molest your child

Yes, kill.

2.  they kill your pet

No.

3.  they kick your ass

No.

3.  they rape your wife

Yes.
Permalink Genius Anarchist 
August 1st, 2007 12:04am
Another question.  Lets say, someone sleeps with your wife.  Is that grounds for offing.
Permalink Bot Berlin 
August 1st, 2007 12:06am
Ill let you know when it happens.

hmm.

or maybe I wont.


lets wait and see.
Permalink pondBacterium 
August 1st, 2007 12:10am
Molest your child, yes.

Not sure what else would move me to kill someone, but I did have the misfortune to know a true psychopath/sociopath (the distinction, if any, doesn't matter for this).  This kid had no conscience, was a coward (would beat other kids up, but only in an unfair fight), would steal, commit arson, damage anything or anyone.  Later, after he dropped out of school and moved away from the neighborhood (or, more likely, got sent to a juvenile facility), I'd read about him in the newspaper - burglary, vandalism, whatever.  I've always figured that if he was up for execution, I could pull the lever, or be on his firing squad, or whatever.  I'm sure he's irredeemably evil.
Permalink Send private email Ward 
August 1st, 2007 12:15am
"Molest your child, yes. "

I dont know.  I knew someone to whom that had happened and, well, they didn't.

Things get complicated.  they had 3 kids, one was molested.


I dont think it is as obvious as it appears, and I instinctively distrust people who pretend that decisions like that are going to be made a certain way.
Permalink pondBacterium 
August 1st, 2007 12:24am
"Things get complicated.  they had 3 kids, one was molested."

Yea, I dont think it happens that much, eg parents killing child molesters.

I think there is a degree of molesting. Also, does anybody think the issue is way over hyped?  Eg, how often does it occur.

But, I dont have kids, wouldnt know.
Permalink Bot Berlin 
August 1st, 2007 12:30am
Well, there's the whole "how to do it" issue, not to mention the "get caught, go to a PMITA prison" problem, but I'm confident I'd feel like killing someone at the time I found out they molested my kid.
Permalink Send private email Ward 
August 1st, 2007 12:31am
Wow.  You guys don't feel absolute rage above and beyond rational reason?  In the middle of your anger, you would stop to think about PMITA prison issues?

I have experienced what I know to be blind rage.  Where I can't see anything but relieving my anger.  I have outgrown it, I think, but I sense that some things can trigger it.
Permalink Send private email sharkfish 
August 1st, 2007 12:34am
I think that people who experience the level of anger I speak of know each other when they see each other.

There is something bonding about being in touch with the thing that makes us lose control.  To where we could kill someone.
Permalink Send private email sharkfish 
August 1st, 2007 12:36am
"Lets say, someone sleeps with your wife.  Is that grounds for offing."

I have been through this before, so I'll say no, from experience.

I did plan to kill the guy, but I came to my senses and divorced her instead. Had a revelation that she wasn't worth my time any more, certainly not worth going to prison for.

However, based on my experience, if I was ever on a jury where a guy killed someone for sleeping with the wife, I would acquit him without even needing to know that much about the case since I know the primal rage that comes forth from that situation, and that if the other guy didn't want to get shot or strangled he should have stayed away from married women.
Permalink Genius Anarchist 
August 1st, 2007 12:44am
"Wow.  You guys don't feel absolute rage above and beyond rational reason? "

oh, yes, I am just smart enough to make damn sure I dont do anything about it.

it would depend on the circumstances, but when given the choice between slaughtering the person who abused my child or continuing to live with my children for the next 10-20 years I would _definitely_ think carefully.


"I have experienced what I know to be blind rage."

so have I.  but I dont have the right to allow it in any more, I have people who depend on me and I will be _damned_ before I sacrifice them just to satisfy my own urges, whatever they might be.

I think maybe whatever I did would not be in the heat and passion of the moment, but in the cold forever that would follow.

it would have to be considered _very_ carefully, because if anything was to be done there would have to be _no_ risk of being taken from my children.  or vice versa.
Permalink pondBacterium 
August 1st, 2007 12:46am
>>> In the middle of your anger, you would stop to think about PMITA prison issues?

No, I'm thinking about it now...  In the event, I think I'd be trying to rip the molester's throat out with my teeth.
Permalink Send private email Ward 
August 1st, 2007 12:49am
"In the middle of your anger, you would stop to think about PMITA prison issues?"

Sometimes, yes. If I walked in on someone molesting my kid, I would just kill the guy right there in a spur of the moment reaction. If I instead found out about it and it happened some time ago, then I have more time to think. It depends on what happened, who he was. Copping a feel or inappropriate behavior is one thing. 13 yr old boy out with the 40 yr old teacher romantically or vice versa would upset me a lot and I'd seek jail time, but not death penalty. But when you say molestation, I am thinking of the adult who sexually penetrates pre-pubescent children. For that, the person is not human, they are an animal, they are a predator, and they need to die. So you wait for the trial and see what happens. If he goes to prison, fine that is a death sentence for molesters. If he is acquitted on a technicality, then to protect society, it is worth it to go to jail to kill the person.
Permalink Genius Anarchist 
August 1st, 2007 12:50am
Strangely, I am comforted knowing others experience rage.
<no sarcasm>
Permalink Send private email sharkfish 
August 1st, 2007 12:51am
I understand about this thread. I thought I was a vegetarian pacifist and all against violence until a guy slept with my (now ex) wife. Finding out about this just triggered something in me and I was obsessed with desire to kill him, and even stalked him and bought a gun. But during this planning, I also intellectually analyzed it and realized that logically it did not make sense, logically this is exactly what divorce is for - to prevent these sorts of killings. But I knew that I was not really a pacifist, that I could kill. I knew that if I had encountered them together and there was a gun nearby things would have happened differently because I know that uncontrollable rage exists in which the intellect does not have a chance to stop and reason things out.
Permalink Genius Anarchist 
August 1st, 2007 1:00am
Recently I was watching a werewolf movie and I realized that the original idea of werewolf movies was about the Animal self within, that acts on instinct to protect its territory and family. This animal within is also addressed in much literature, particularly quite a bit of the 19th century authors. There is an animal within. Like Vulcans, we try to pretend it does not exist or we are in control of it, but the reality is that it can be triggered and we can revert from our domesticated state to our wild one.
Permalink Genius Anarchist 
August 1st, 2007 1:05am
Read Mindbridge - excellent book.  by Joe Haldeman.
Permalink Send private email Ward 
August 1st, 2007 1:14am
I envy people that are able to really lose it. In anger, joy, ecstacy or grief. I truly cannot remember the last time I just let my emotions go rampant without my reason keeping things in check. 
Of course, blind rage is a scary thing and can lead to regrettable actions but the complete loss of reason and social conditioning, just actiong on instinct and emotion, has a very seductive element to it.
Permalink Send private email Locutus of Borg 
August 1st, 2007 3:01am
"Lets say, someone sleeps with your wife."

Does your wife bear no responsibility here?

If they RAPED your wife, that's one thing.  But if she willingly slept with someone else, it's not worth killing over.

Monogamy is nice, but a breach is grounds for discussion, negotiation, and only possibly divorce, but not violence.  It's just sex, people.

Killing someone because they slept with your wife makes about as much sense as killing those girls in the Middle East because they fell in love with an infidel.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
August 1st, 2007 3:12am
I don't disagree with your statement, which comes from a good moral and intellectual place.

But there is an animal within that can strike out, based on rage and emotion.

It can surface in anyone with the right provocation.

Partly a good thing since it is what fuels the spirit of revolutions.
Permalink Genius Anarchist 
August 1st, 2007 3:24am
I wouldn't kill anybody for any of those reasons but if somebody mallests my children in the future, I could probably serve time after kicking their ass off.  That, if anything though.
Permalink Bounthunter 
August 1st, 2007 5:02am
Don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.
Permalink Bruce 
August 1st, 2007 6:51am
"mallests"?  Is this related to croquet?
Permalink Smartass 
August 1st, 2007 9:17am
I certainly wouldn't kill the child molester.  I would most definitely be in the presence of several unimpeachable witnesses, ideally including a member of the clergy and a video recording, when they met their well-earned demise.

Somebody killed my cat, the police would first need to find a body to prove that it was murder at all.  As far as they'd be able to tell the person left town unexpectedly.
Permalink Send private email Clay Dowling 
August 1st, 2007 10:38am
I think I'm far too malicious to murder.
Permalink Send private email JoC 
August 1st, 2007 10:42am
What is interesting, molest kid was top on everyone's list.  Which is an weird, sick sex crime (depending on how you see it).  I wonder if this is how strong christians feel about homos.
Permalink Bot Berlin 
August 1st, 2007 11:32am
Sadly, conservative christians often connect homosexuality with molesting children.  Which could explain some of their opposition to it.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
August 1st, 2007 11:39am
most kids just aren't manly enough for gay men. now young girls and hetereos .....
Permalink heartsheep 
August 1st, 2007 11:41am
What relationship does homosexuality have to child molestation?
Permalink Send private email sharkfish 
August 1st, 2007 11:47am
Only in their minds, only in their minds.  It's ignorance, pure and simple.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
August 1st, 2007 11:53am
In their minds, if you're "deviant" enough to sleep with a member of the same gender, you'd probably be deviant enough to have sex with a child.

And they call queer people twisted.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
August 1st, 2007 12:13pm
In all fairness, it's male gays they suspect of wanting to molest small boys.

Female gays they suspect of bestiality.

We live in a very twisted world.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
August 1st, 2007 12:42pm
Bestiality?  I know lesbians are known for having lots of cats and dogs, but that's a bit of a stretch.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
August 1st, 2007 12:44pm
It's ALL a stretch, yes.

And I shouldn't have said "world", people who think this way are a minority of the American culture (AFAIK).
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
August 1st, 2007 12:48pm
"What relationship does homosexuality have to child molestation?"

Male adults are more likely to molest young boys than female adults. That's the only correlation really, and it doesn't necessarily mean that gays are more likely to be molestors, but there could be some small increase in likelihood.

Like child molestor heterosexuals, child molestor gays are very different from non-child molestors. They have completely different motivations and patterns than non-molestors.
Permalink Practical Economist 
August 1st, 2007 2:21pm
I would think that child molestors are child molestors regardless of which genders they choose to molest.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
August 1st, 2007 2:24pm
Who's a child molester?

Having sex with 12 years old? 14? 16? 18?
Permalink Rick Zeng 
August 1st, 2007 2:27pm
BTW, you can explain the rates logically like this:

- Males are 100 times more likely to be child molestors than women
- Gays are 10% of the population.
- Gays and heteros are equally as likely to be molestors, there is no correlation whatsoever between gayness and molestyness.

Put this all together, and you have more male gays assaulting young boys than you have female heteros assaulting young boys because of the 100:1 element. But the average person, or even the average college graduate, or even the smart college graduate, has very little capability to understand these sorts of statistical situations. They will note that more male gays assaulting young boys than you have female heteros, and falsely conclude that gays are more likely to be molestors. In reality, the driving two elements of data is that males are more likely to be molestors, and gays are a small minority of the population.

This is the same mathematical situation when you consider drug testing that has a 10% false positive rate and the fact that only 1/100 employees tested really are on drugs. You'll get 1% of tests with a correct positive, and 10% false positive, so if a person tests positive for drugs in any modern workplace or school test, there is really only a 10% chance that they were actually taking drugs. Nevertheless, they will be fired or disciplined or considered to break their probation or whatever with disastrous consequences to the innocent.
Permalink Practical Economist 
August 1st, 2007 2:29pm
I define a child molestor as an adult or older teenager who initiates some sort of sexual contact with a pre-pubescent child.

Once the kid has gone through puberty, it might be inappropriate, and it might be legally a crime, but it's not child molestation.

These cases where the guy is 18 and the girl is 15 are especially not child molestation, and those involved should not be treated as sex offenders.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
August 1st, 2007 2:29pm
Of course, you have more occurances of male moleting young girls.
Permalink Rick Zeng 
August 1st, 2007 2:31pm
A possible scenrio:

1) Homosexual are more likely to have more liberal attitude towards sex.

2) More likely to view haivng sex with 14 - 16 years are ok.

3) More likely to act on this.
Permalink Rick Zeng 
August 1st, 2007 2:35pm
14 - 16 years old are not children.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
August 1st, 2007 2:39pm
Well...

To conservatives, they are. Even if they aren't, it's still imappropriate.

You could turn around to argue that those Catholic clergies having sex with teens didn't do anything wrong.
Permalink Rick Zeng 
August 1st, 2007 2:48pm
I didn't say it wasn't wrong.  It is usually wrong when any authority figure misuses power to obtain sexual favors from a less powerful person.  This is true in a teacher/student or doctor/patient relationship, regardless of the ages of the participants.

But even if these situations involve teenagers, it doesn't necessarily make it child molestation.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
August 1st, 2007 2:51pm
Probably.

But then it's STH who claims conservatives correlates homosexuality with child molestation.
Permalink Rick Zeng 
August 1st, 2007 2:59pm
Why take seriously what the conservatives are saying? They're not dealing with reality.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
August 1st, 2007 3:03pm
Perhaps it's the other way around.

1) Teenage boys are more likely to have sex earlier than teenage girls.

2) Homosexuals are more likely to have sex with younger person.

3) Combining the two facts it seems to (some) conservatives there is a link btw homosexuality and imappropriate behaviours with teenagers.

Actually I think the perceptions that sexual orientation is fixed early in life and that straight person wouldn't feel aroused by the same sex and visa versa cause more demages.
Permalink Rick Zeng 
August 1st, 2007 3:09pm
The reality of whether it's ok to have sex with young people?
Permalink Rick Zeng 
August 1st, 2007 3:10pm
The reality that being gay doesn't make you any more likely to molest children than being straight.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
August 1st, 2007 3:10pm
Oh, I doubt they think that.

Thinking homosexuals are more likely to have sex young teenagers because teenage boys are more sexual and adult women are less? That's an empiral questions that I don't think are out of the realm of possibilities.
Permalink Rick Zeng 
August 1st, 2007 3:15pm
Why do you even bother talking with Rick?  His opinions are so off-the-wall and usually unsupported by evidence that there's no point.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
August 1st, 2007 3:49pm
I was having a very quiet day.  However, as he got ever more incoherent, I kind of lost interest.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
August 1st, 2007 3:54pm
Well, I don't see how I am being incoherent.

I am really being disappointed with you, STH.
Permalink Rick Zeng 
August 1st, 2007 3:59pm
if it's ok for 18 year olds to have sex with 15 year olds, why is not ok for 38 year olds (no extraneous authority involved)?

should we require a max age differential for all? so 58 and 35 are a no-no, also.
Permalink heartsheep 
August 1st, 2007 4:00pm
"should we require a max age differential for all? so 58 and 35 are a no-no, also."

aw c'mon.  That's my last hope for a sugar daddy.
Permalink Send private email sharkfish 
August 1st, 2007 4:09pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: July, 2007 Other topics: July, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics