Sick: Man rapes his own mother

[Flip McWho]

It also depends on how you measure the acceptability of a crime. General Ludd excludes the severity of the Assault but I would think that that would go along way towards rendering an assault as better or worse than another.

For example and this is addressed to General Ludd, is it more acceptable that somebody assaults somebody with only two punches to the head rather than five punches and a kick or too when they're down.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Elok
Technically, he said MORE exceptable, which doesn't necessarily imply that either is exceptable as such. For example, "rotten eggs are more pleasant than skunk musk."

He seems to be using on the implication that if something is more acceptable than something else, it must be to some degree acceptable in the absolute. (Which is wrong.)

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Saying that once kind of crime is worse is the same as saying that another kind of crime is more exceptable [sic].

Some crimes are more acceptable than others. As Flip McWho pointed out, there are various sorts of crimes. Jaywalking is alot more acceptable than rape.

For example and this is addressed to General Ludd, is it more acceptable that somebody assaults somebody with only two punches to the head rather than five punches and a kick or too when they're down.

Yes, I think the severity of the assault does matter. What I am arguing is that punching a 12 year old is just as wrong as punching a 20 year old, or an 80 year old. If you punched the 12 year old and beat the 20 year old with a crowbar, the latter would indeed be worse.

It's the assault that determines the severity the action, not the recipient's apparent ability to defend themselves. If the victim really is unable to defend themselves it may lead to a more severe assault, but that is purely determined by the attacker's actions.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Yes, I think the severity of the assault does matter. What I am arguing is that punching a 12 year old is just as wrong as punching a 20 year old, or an 80 year old. If you punched the 12 year old and beat the 20 year old with a crowbar, the latter would indeed be worse.

It's the assault that determines the severity the action, not the recipient's apparent ability to defend themselves. If the victim really is unable to defend themselves it may lead to a more severe assault, but that is purely determined by the attacker's actions.

A 190cm/90kg woman punching another such can of course inflict some damage, but if she hits a 12 year old boy or a 80 year old man she can kill them both. It's the same assault but the danger it brings the victims vary and by that the severity of tyhe crime.

[Flip McWho]

He agrees with that (as far as I can tell). He just says there is no moral difference between assaulting an 80, 12 or 30 year old except for the severity of the assault.

[BlackCat]

There I have to disagree a bit. My moral/ethichs says that you don't harm children nor elders.

I guess that my pov doesn't count much since I'm a firm beliver of the nonexistance of any kind of god, and therefore neither have any moral, neither ethics.

[Flip McWho]

Pragmatically I agree with you, in principle I agree with General Ludd.

Though I'm a pacifist so I see no violence as an absolute principle, and I'm also the second sentence of yours.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Though I'm a pacifist so I see no violence as an absolute principle..

That is without any doubt a worthy principle, unfortunatedly, it doesn't take common human acts into account.

[Flip McWho]

Aye, thats why I recognise the difference between idealism and pragmatism.

[Jerh9e1k5]

I'm sure that Freud would've been happy to hear about this. It supports his theories...