Can people at least agree Jessie was justified.. (spoiler)
-
bing-57 — 14 years ago(March 31, 2012 11:35 AM)
I don't murder or rape, not because I'm afraid of getting caught, but because my conscience would revolt against it,
That's very easy to say sitting in front of your computer in a nice comfy home, sipping on a Starbucks.
But when you are put under duress, you will murder without hesitation to protect yourself or your family. And you justify it by calling is self-defense or protecting others.
And you have heard the saying that the measure of a person is what they'd do if they knew no one would discover their actions, right?
Correct. And this is why mythical, all-powerful beings like Santa Claus and God were invented. They watch you all the time even when no other humans can see you and keep track of whether you are naughty and nice. So, if you believe in a magical being, you believe that there is never a point when you are not being watched. This keeps you from ever daring to act on your basic impulses.
And thus, you can then tell yourself that you are a good person and would never do any of those things even if no one was watching.
seeing if I do want to get to know her further (and have a relationship that would include sexwhich is important, surebut wouldn't be all about the sex).
So then, your ultimate goal really is sex. But for your own amusement, you just don't want it to be too easy. But you do want it and expect it eventually, just like all men.
Suppose by your third date you really begin to like her but she says, "Just so you know, I have taken a life-long vow of celibacy. But I do enjoy all the dinners and jewelry you've bought me and the time we spend together." Do you see a long-time relationship for you?
Oh and, what exactly did Carlos pay for? Their bus trip (probably amounting to pennies in that part of the world)? Some cheap snack they may have gotten from a street vendor in town?
The bottom line is still that she willingly accepted his invitation to go away with him into the woods for a few hours. Even the dimmest woman should realize what is implied and expected from her. If she had the slightest doubt about the situation she should have said, "No," right at the start.
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)? -
alioth4 — 14 years ago(March 31, 2012 11:07 PM)
">> I don't murder or rape, not because I'm afraid of getting caught, but because my conscience would revolt against it,
">That's very easy to say sitting in front of your computer in a nice comfy home, sipping on a Starbucks.
But when you are put under duress, you will murder without hesitation to protect yourself or your family. And you justify it by calling is self-defense or protecting others."
Killing in self-defense or defense of another isn't
murder
, duh. I said "murder". And most people get that there is a significant moral distinction between self-defensive killing and murder. But yes, people have hesitated even in those situations, or if they did kill in that situation have been haunted by it. War veterans have been haunted by killing in wars, which can sometimes be a muddier situation but is generally not regarded as "murder", and certainly not if the people you kill were shooting at you. Most people don't take the act of killing lightly regardless of the circumstances.
And I don't drink five-bucks-a-cup coffee, so whatever.
">> And you have heard the saying that the measure of a person is what they'd do if they knew no one would discover their actions, right?Correct. And this is why mythical, all-powerful beings like Santa Claus and God were invented. They watch you all the time even when no other humans can see you and keep track of whether you are naughty and nice. So, if you believe in a magical being, you believe that there is never a point when you are not being watched. This keeps you from ever daring to act on your basic impulses."
I believe in God, yes, so thanks for the condescension. But I've known plenty of atheists who have a conscience as well that can trouble them when they do wrong, and who have a strong moral center. The scientific version (which I also believe to be true): The conscience evolved in humans and became part of the species' survival strategyi.e. it made small tribes and later "civilization" possible, through psychologically inhibiting socially-counterproductive acts such as murder, rape, theft, etc. that break down social cohesion. Yes people with consciences sometimes violate them, but they pay a psychological penalty for it even if they don't receive a physical punishment. And sometimes those psychological penalties"feeling horrible" about what you've done, for a long long timecan be worse than punishment from the outsideI've experienced such feeling myself, for far less than murder or rape. Have you ever? But most people never even consider doing the most heinous stuff, such as murder or rape. They don't want to be monsters, they want to sleep well at night, etc. But an estimated 4% of the population are
sociopaths
(which includes the more violent subset, "psychopaths"), one of their psychological characteristics being that they lack a conscience, and thus have no inner inhibition from doing wrongonly an outer one, through laws and punishment (if the wrong is illegal) or social ostracism (although they can be very careful to avoid these, using charm, manipulation, calculation, and stealth in their dealings with others).
Bottom line? While I do have
faith
(which is not the same as certaintythat's the opposite of faith) in God, I
know
of one person who is always "watching" meand that's
myself
.
I
see what I do, and it matters to
me
that I be a good person and not do horrible things. I want to always be able to like myself, and live with myself and my actions. There is always at least one person watching you: yourself. If you can't grasp this concept and what it means, then there's really nothing further to say.
">So then, your ultimate goal really is sex. But for your own amusement, you just don't want it to be too easy. But you do want it and expect it eventually, just like all men."
Wanting
and
expecting
are two different things, except to those who feel entitled to all they want (and usually those folks are never satisfied with life, because as Mick Jagger said, "you can't always get what you want"). That's a life lesson I learned pretty early, as a child in fact.
And sex is
a
goal, sure. But not the only one.
Suppose by your third date you really begin to like her but she says, "Just so you know, I have taken a life-long vow of celibacy. But I do enjoy all the dinners and jewelry you've bought me and the time we spend together." Do you see a long-time relationship for you?"
Well, no (although if we still enjoy each others' company, she can be a friend and we can still talk and do things together as such). Just as I wouldn't if it turned out her personality didn't jive well with mine. Just as I wouldn't if I found out she was an alcoholic (and was still drinking) or had another type of drug addiction. Just as I wouldn't if I sensed we would never also have a true friendship, and that I couldn't stand her company outside the bedroom. There are many factors,
many
, that go into whether a relationship is workable for me, besides sex or the quality thereof. Se -
bing-57 — 14 years ago(April 01, 2012 01:58 PM)
Killing in self-defense or defense of another isn't murder, duh.
Murder is defined as one human killing another human. Period. Stop. That doesn't change no matter how much that you wish and hope that it does.
Now, what does change is whether or not your religion or your society will try to punish you for committing that murder. Society has long ago established certain conditions under which murder is justified and acceptable. Your example of self defense is one such acceptable circumstance. A soldier killing an enemy combatant is another example. The executioner that pulls the switch for the condemned man is also exempted from prosecution.
But murder is still murder and each case of murder comes down to the priest, the District Attorney, and the judge deciding whether the killing was justified or not.
Note that different societies have different levels of justification. In ancient Mayan society, a priest was justified in performing human sacrifices but in modern US society, that would not be justified.
most people get that there is a significant moral distinction between self-defensive killing and murder.
The only difference is whether you can justify the killing or not. And you know what the funny thing is? Just a few messages ago you said that only psychopaths try to justify murder and now here you are doing it. What can we conclude from that?
But I've known plenty of atheists who have a conscience as well that can trouble them when they do wrong, and who have a strong moral center.
Agreed. But not everyone is like that and that's why religion was invented. That keeps the people in line who might be tempted to give in to their basic impulses. With a magical being watching you all the time and condemning you to Hell if you do anything bad, people tend to behave themselves.
Religion is not for the good people who always do the right thing anyway; that's why your moral friend is an atheist. And religion is not for the bad people who always do the wrong thing.
Religion is for those people in those middle who aren't strong enough to always do good things and who would do bad things if they thought they could get away with them. Imploring them to go to church every week and constantly recite the basic commandments reminds them to not do the bad things they naturally want to do.
And sometimes those psychological penalties"feeling horrible" about what you've done, for a long long timecan be worse than punishment from the outsideI've experienced such feeling myself, for far less than murder or rape. Have you ever?
Sure. All the time. I'm probably more moral than most people. But I am also a scientist and a practical person. I see what people do and then, instead of ignoring them, I attempt to figure out why these people do them. Then I try to have effective and honest discussions about it. I am not the kind of person that just wishes and hopes and prays that the world's problems will go away.
So, in this movie, for example, the guy was looking for a little sex on the side and asked a good-looking woman to go away with him. She accepted his invitation. He then became angry when she changed her mind and changed the agreement.
I have never said that he was justified in doing that or that he was moral. I have always simply explained why he did that and said that that's the way the world works.
I also explained that the women is very much to blame for this situation for agreeing to go with him and then suddenly changing her mind and expecting that there would be no consequences. It's as if she seriously expected him to say, "Oh. You changed your mind? That's okay. Let me pay for your trip back to the train station."
That's like jumping off a cliff and then changing your mind halfway down. Sorry, but it's way too late for that. The time for changing your mind was a long, long time ago.
Well, no
Exactly. So, the only difference between you and Carlos is time. Carlos took the girl out on a quick date and wanted sex in return right then. You take a woman on many dates and want sex in return after a while. Carlos is willing to take sex if it is not offered while you would simply break off the relationship if sex is not offered.
Yes, it is implied in the movie that she was tempted at the prospect of sex with him. But she was also a married woman, and in the end she decided to do the right thing and not cheat on her husband,
Alas, many things in life cannot be stopped once you initiate them, like pulling a trigger or jumping off a building or signing a contract or agreeing to take your friend to the airport. If you try to stop these things there will be consequences to pay.
Jessie tried to stop her agreement with Carlos and there were consequences to pay.
Have you ever been tempted to do a bad thing, have been about to go through with it, and then at the last minute decided not to?
Sure. All the time. But, depending on how far along I am, I know that there will be consequences to pay even if I stop.
Why are yo -
alioth4 — 14 years ago(April 02, 2012 12:47 AM)
">Murder is defined as one human killing another human. Period. Stop. That doesn't change no matter how much that you wish and hope that it does."
Maybe you want to check the dictionary before smugly spouting off things you don't know. According to Merriam-Webster's (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder
'mur-der (noun)- : the crime of
unlawfully
killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2a : something very difficult or dangerous
b : something outrageous or blameworthy
(emphasis mine)
The first definition is what I was using, and neither of these definitions is how you defined it above. Language has the purpose of conveying specific meanings that are generally agreed upon by the speakers of that language. I.e. you don't get to make up any meaning you choose for a word, and substitute that for the actual established meaning of a wordthat is intellectually dishonest, and you just wasted a bit of my time having to look up and cite something that you probably should have looked up yourself before attempting your argument.
">The only difference is whether you can justify the killing or not. And you know what the funny thing is? Just a few messages ago you said that only psychopaths try to justify murder and now here you are doing it. What can we conclude from that?"
Oh you think you're just too clever by half, don't you. Please cite the quote that conveys the meaning that
only psychopaths try to justify murder
. This may be the quote you were thinking of (http://www.imdb.com/board/10800241/board/thread/134743692?d=196986551&p=2#196986551
"Yep, sociopaths do tend to think that everyone has their tendenciesor at least they tell themselves that to "justify" themselves. Nothing new to see here."
I.e. I specifically was referring to what is commonly called "projection": ascribing flaws or undesireable traits you know you have onto others, in attempt to justify those traits in yourself. Note that this isn't referring to
all
types of self-justification, just that one. Nor did I say that
only
sociopaths/psychopaths use even this one type of self-justification, but it can be one marker of them, among other markers. I don't think you are a sociopath (just bitter about your past experiences, and much more cynical than even I can be) after seeing more of your posts and discussing this more with you, but I'll admit I did wonder before with the "all men are rapists, deep inside" comment (along with some other comments that seem to indicate you think of women, or their bodies, as property to be bought). Basically with that, you admitted you were a "rapist, deep inside"a concept that is entirely foreign to me, but again you can only speak for yourself, and I presume you were there
.
The justification for self-defense comes from the inalienable right (referred to in the US Declaration of Independence, but also fairly self-evident and I believe, universal whether recognized by governments or not) to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Especially "life" in this case (but also recognized for other dangerous threats to liberty, such as attempted rape, or abduction/kidnapping). If one's life is threatened, it is one's right to remove that threat with the required amount of force, even up to deadly force if needed (or the only means available). It is the initiator of the force, i.e. the attacker, that has broken the social contract where we mutually recognize each others' right to lifeand as you've said here often, breaking contracts carries consequences.
">Agreed. But not everyone is like that and that's why religion was invented. That keeps the people in line who might be tempted to give in to their basic impulses. With a magical being watching you all the time and condemning you to Hell if you do anything bad, people tend to behave themselves.
Religion is not for the good people who always do the right thing anyway; that's why your moral friend is an atheist. And religion is not for the bad people who always do the wrong thing.
Religion is for those people in those middle who aren't strong enough to always do good things and who would do bad things if they thought they could get away with them. Imploring them to go to church every week and constantly recite the basic commandments reminds them to not do the bad things they naturally want to do."
There are indeed some religious people whose practice is centered around precisely what you speak of: fear of hell. To me that's missing the point of a spiritual relationship with God though. For me, it is what helped me put my life, and who I am, in perspective (hard to explain for those who haven't gone through the process, but essentially that's what it's been for me).
I was an atheist once myself (or probably more accurately, agnostic, but didn't care much about the God question either way), but still had sharp reservations against doing wrong to others that had nothing to do with fear of external punishments like "hell" or the law. I actually don - : the crime of
-
bing-57 — 14 years ago(April 02, 2012 09:26 AM)
The first definition is what I was using, and neither of these definitions is how you defined it above.
You may recall that I did go on to say that any murder had to be judged by a priest or judge to determine whether it was allowed under whatever laws govern the situation.
Oh you think you're just too clever by half, don't you.
Yes. Because you are spending a lot of time justifying killing another human while condemning others who justify their own killings. I mean, c'mon, you just wrote another twenty paragraphs on your justifications.
I have an acute sense of empathyI hate to see others suffer, and I certainly do not want to be the cause of that suffering.
So then it seems that you have not become religious for yourself, since you seem comfortable with your own character, but rather you have joined religion to teach other people to be empathetic. And where better to find people who need that kind of help but a church?
So basically you're saying that once Jessie caused Carlos to get a hard-on with the possibility of sex, it can't be turned off and he must go through with it.
No. I am saying that if she leads him on and then slams on the brakes, there will be consequences to pay, just as we saw in the movie. One of the ways out of her predicament is to relent to having sex with him. That should be quick and easy and might be fun.
Or she could opt for the hard consequences, which she actually did. That would involve a lot of screaming and fighting and bloodshed.
She seemed to hope that she could get out of her agreement with no consequence at all. That may work sometimes in America but it certainly won't work with a random stranger out in the middle of nowhere in a lawless country.
I lived with itdidn't like it, but I certainly wasn't going to force the issue.
But at some level I'm sure that you considered it.
I really do think most guys wouldn't rape in that situation
In America, in a nice civilized town, that's quite true. But this wasn't America; this was a country where everyone lived and survived by taking whatever they wanted by force.
which is why there was genuine surprise and horror on Jessie's face when it dawned on her that Carlos was about to try.
Right. Up until that point in her life Jessie had been told that everybody is equal and that everybody must respect other people just because they exist. She was living in a fantasy world where everyone automatically had empathy for everyone else and she never had to face someone who didn't think that way.
Up to that point, I think Jessie thought he was an average, somewhat decent guy, if a bit on the wild side
More specifically, she thought that he was just like all the soft American guys that she's met in her life and she could completely control the situation by using the magic word, "No." As you even note, many girls do lead a guy to think they will be having sex and then slam on the brakes at the last moment and simply expect that the guy will just walk away.
he was charming enough, and even the smartest among us can be fooled by the charms of a sociopath (which I think Carlos was).
But he wasn't a sociopath, at least for the area of the world he lived in. Everyone used force or charm to get whatever they wanted or needed. Those that didn't, died.
But you're focusing all your energy on condemning Jessie here, as if what she did (prior to killing him) was worse.
Well, she was the trigger to this whole situation. Carlos was just a letch looking to hit on a woman. Had Jessie said, "No," at the train station, he would have moved on to the next hot babe and this would have been a very short movie. But she lead him on, apparently confidently thinking that she could stop things at any time without consequence. It never occurred to her that once Carlos had invested a little time in her that he'd want something in return.
Unless you think Jessie's weakness in coming to a correct decision in a timely manner, really is a worse wrong than Carlos' attempted rape.
In a way, yes. If you dangle meat in front of a hungry tiger and then you get your hand bitten off, I'm going to blame you for being stupid. I'm not going to blame the tiger for doing what tigers do.
But while Jessie bears responsibility for her mistake, so does Carlos for his subsequent actions. And I'd say the latter trumps the former, in terms of magnitude.
Yes and no. While Carlos seems reprehensible to us while we sit in our comfy homes in America, for the part of the world he lived in, he was par for the course. You wouldn't go to a native tribe in South America and expect them to act like (United States) Americans.
And the bottom line is that everyone is responsible for their own safety. Jessie disregarded her safety and went off on an adventure with a strange man.
Huh? Carlos' girlfriend Abby is the one who recovered the money
Sorry. It's been a long time since I've seen the movie.
So you'd rather a good man like her husband, who had nothing to do with what happened -
alioth4 — 14 years ago(March 31, 2012 04:26 AM)
"> You say that it is a FACT that if a woman goes out into the wilderness with a strange man and agrees to sex but backs out of it with the man that she will be raped. Um no that is not a fact you idiot!
Have you actually put your charmingly innocent hypothesis to the test? Do you not read the papers and see that women do get raped all the time when they knowingly put themselves in compromising situations (usually with alcohol)?"
Well
duh
, there are people out there who do things that are morally wrong, like rape. Your posts seem to be defending such people though. Jessie may not have been the sharpest tool in the shed, but that certainly doesn't justify her getting raped, now does it. One person's stupidity or bad judgment doesn't justify another's wrong action, or taking advantage of that stupidity or bad judgment to do a wrong to that person. (As for what she did in response though, I do agree with many here that the last blows, after he was down, were over the top. Self-defense merely means stopping an attack, and ideally should go no further than that.)
And yes, plenty of men will take "no" for an answer, even in those situations. I would and have. It's not like sex is something I'd die for lack of, like water. And it's not like sex with a person barely coherent (i.e. drunked up) would even be fun for me, but I suppose your mileage may vary. I like sex with women who are fully aware of what they're doing, and
want
it, myself. (I like 'em better on top, actually!) The word "no" (especially cried emphatically, as Jessie did),
anywhere
in the chain of events, really does kill the mood for me. I get off on the woman
wanting
it as much as I do, and being able to satisfy that want effectively. -
grrrdevin — 13 years ago(March 01, 2013 02:15 AM)
Comparing a rape to lunch in a restaurant.can't say I've heard that one before.
Comparing unwanted advances due to an understandable miscommunication to RAPE can't say I've heard that one before. Just kidding, I have, and it trivializes actual rape.
"I've been living on toxic waste for years, and I'm
fine.
Just ask my other heads!" -
Rorsach — 16 years ago(December 24, 2009 08:10 AM)
What's kinda sick is that you put rape on the same moral plain as buying a house or a car. As in, both are just agreements, and that if a woman decides to change her mind, you're doing the "right" and "just" thing raping her? Just as someone who broke a contract should be sued?
Also, she never told him "I'm going to sleep with you today". She said she would have if she wasn't involved, she rejected all his advances, and only gave in at the church. Even going to the church she kept trying to leave and go back, and he pestered on.
You make it sound like she went up to him as soon as they met, told him to have sex with her, and then at the last minute decided not to.
And you know what, even then she should be allowed to. It would be bitchy, but rape?! Really?! You're actually justifying rape?
And equating it to buying a house?! -
bing-57 — 16 years ago(December 24, 2009 10:54 AM)
Fine. Let's compare apples to apples. Let's say you pay a prostitute $100 for sex. And then when she gets to the back of your car, she becomes bitchy, as you say, and decides not to have sex with you and walks away.
You, of course, would say that she has the right to do that and the guy is just screwed (or not screwed, as it were).
You seem to want to give all of the power and decision-making to the woman. You seem to want the man to beg and beg for sex and then, if the woman feels like it, he can have it.
I think the phrase we are looking for here is "whipped."
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)? -
Rorsach — 16 years ago(December 25, 2009 06:18 PM)
A prostitute is a business woman, selling sex. Even then, raping her would be ridiculous. I mean, why don't you just murder her and get your money back, you can equate that to a refund.
If a prostitute stole your money, she's a thief. Even then, you don't have the right to rape her.
I want to give the woman to right to choose who she has sex with. If that's "whipped" to you, I feel bad for the women you are dating.
I don't want men to have to beg for sex, but I don't want men to forcibly take sex that they feel is justified.
Anyways, I'd rather be, as you put it, "whipped" than a rapist.
Your moral compass is pretty scary though, I must admit. -
bing-57 — 16 years ago(December 26, 2009 01:10 PM)
I want to give the woman to right to choose who she has sex with. If that's "whipped" to you
It sounds like you think that the man should have no say at all in the matter. The woman has all the rights.
That is whipped, yes.
I feel bad for the women you are dating.
I feel ecstatic for the women you date. It sounds like you foot the bill for everything and then, if you have pleased the woman with your gifts, she will let you have a little bit of nookie. If not, you have to try again next week.
I don't want men to have to beg for sex, but I don't want men to forcibly take sex that they feel is justified.
Okay, let's say that you are in a relationship that you think is a partnership of equals and you share everything 50-50. Great.
But in the evening, the man wants to have sex and the woman doesn't. What do you consider to be the available options at that point?
Approximately what percent of the time should the man get his way and what percent should the woman get her way?
Based on your admitted wippedness, I'm guessing that you think that the woman gets her way 100% of the time and there are no other options. End of story.
Is that fair?
Your moral compass is pretty scary though, I must admit.
Fair enough. I approach relationships as a series of gives and takes. Sometimes you have to do things that you don't like and sometimes the other person does too.
I understand that some men don't go for equality like that and prefer to let the woman rule the roost. That's where your moral compass points and that seems good for you.
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)? -
Rorsach — 16 years ago(December 26, 2009 07:28 PM)
It sounds like you think that the man should have no say at all in the matter. The woman has all the rights.
That is whipped, yes.
You got all that from "I think a woman should have a right to choose who she has sex with?" That's hilarious, so to you, if a woman refuses to have sex with you, she's some form of succubus that has the right to your soul?
I think a man has SAY in the matter. What are saying is the man has the right to get PHYSICAL in the matter.
I feel ecstatic for the women you date. It sounds like you foot the bill for everything and then, if you have pleased the woman with your gifts, she will let you have a little bit of nookie. If not, you have to try again next week.
Thanks a lot! I'm glad you feel good for the woman I date. I'd rather have it that way, you know, than a trail of broken down women in rape council centers.
And as to footing the bill, buying gifts, etc, once in a while, sure, of course, but I don't do it 100% of the time, nor do I do it to get sex. Sex is part of a relationship, it's not something bought or bartered.
But I think that's the part you don't understand. You seem to think sex is a currency, and can be traded or handled as such.
Okay, let's say that you are in a relationship that you think is a partnership of equals and you share everything 50-50. Great.
But in the evening, the man wants to have sex and the woman doesn't. What do you consider to be the available options at that point?
Talking? Suppose it's the other way around, what are the options then?
Approximately what percent of the time should the man get his way and what percent should the woman get her way?
Based on your admitted wippedness, I'm guessing that you think that the woman gets her way 100% of the time and there are no other options. End of story.
Is that fair?
I think when it comes to a woman's body, she gets her say 100% of the time. If that is whipped to you, then you're a psycho.
Also, I notice you related not raping a woman to giving a woman a free pass at everything in life. Things aren't black and white, it's not "be a rapist" or "be whipped" as you seem to put it.
But so you can understand it simply, I'll make it clear. When it comes to if a woman wants sex or not, she has the right to decide, just like a guy does. Both partners have equal right to say no. Regarding ANYTHING else in a relationship, it's irrelevant to this conversation, as one has nothing to do with the other.
And to answer your question, it is totally fair in regard to a woman's body, not to other aspects of a relationship. Sorry.
Fair enough. I approach relationships as a series of gives and takes. Sometimes you have to do things that you don't like and sometimes the other person does too.
I understand that some men don't go for equality like that and prefer to let the woman rule the roost. That's where your moral compass points and that seems good for you.
If you were about equality, you'd agree a woman has the right to decide not to have sex, just like a guy does.
When it comes to sex, I do prefer allowing a woman to choose when she wants to. That is where my moral compass points. If you think a woman refusing sex means she controls every aspect of a man, once again, it's a bit peculiar.