Poll: rape worse than murder?

[Luminous_Umbra]

I have a theory about those that consider rape worst than murder. While this likely doesn't apply to all of them, I wouldn't be surprised if at least a decent percentage believe in some form of afterlife.

Why? It makes sense. If you believed that there was something after death, you'd probably see murder as not as bad compared to those that don't believe in an afterlife,as they would likely see murder as one of the worst possible things to do.

As for me, murder is worst, easily. Mostly because, even if there is an afterlife, murdering someone steals away their chance to experience life. Imagine all that one would miss, depending on when one was murdered. Sure, you miss out on the bad too, but I'd think that's hardly a comforting thought.

 

[Lightknight]

Don't care how you will twist my words i think rape is more morally reprehensible. The rapist is usually worse. Murder can be justified but rape never can.

Murder, by definition, is unjustified killing. Killing is what may be justified. You can kill in self defense. You cannot murder in self defense or it'd just be killing rather than murder.

Such an interesting term. A term crafted specifically to imply the bad kind of killing.

OK one more time... Stop sidestepping the issues presented... Of course murder has no merit, something horrific cannot have merit, maybe in the rest of your world but not mine... Look closer at what a murder is. Look deeper at what's been said. Why is it OK for one person to kill and not another?

Horrific is exciting, terrifying even, not meritorious.

Merit is something outside of yourself, greater than yourself.

The only thing between merit and horror is bravery.

Listen very carefully here. The "merits of a case" or the "merits of a thing" when used in a discussion about how bad something is, is referring to the facts of the matter. In that context, "merits" does not inherently mean "good things". I've already cited three different definitions for you from three different dictionaries. I'm sorry if this word HAS to mean what you want it to but it doesn't. A lot of words have multiple meanings.

In this case, merit comes from meritus which means "to deserve". In a court of law, the merits of the case are the components that express a deserving of reward or punishment. One can earn and deserve punishment just as they can earn or deserve praise.

Sorry, but you are clinging on to your own singular definition of the term when there are other uses for it. If English is not your first language then perhaps merits translates into a term in your primary language that ONLY means good rather than being able to mean the elements deserving praise or punishment.

 

[Lightknight]

I have a theory about those that consider rape worst than murder. While this likely doesn't apply to all of them, I wouldn't be surprised if at least a decent percentage believe in some form of afterlife.

Why? It makes sense. If you believed that there was something after death, you'd probably see murder as not as bad compared to those that don't believe in an afterlife,as they would likely see murder as one of the worst possible things to do.

As for me, murder is worst, easily. Mostly because, even if there is an afterlife, murdering someone steals away their chance to experience life. Imagine all that one would miss, depending on when one was murdered. Sure, you miss out on the bad too, but I'd think that's hardly a comforting thought.

I actually assume it's because of American sensibilities surrounding sex as a taboo topic. I do wonder what non-Americans are saying in this thread compared to Americans.

 

[chuckman1]

Don't care how you will twist my words i think rape is more morally reprehensible. The rapist is usually worse. Murder can be justified but rape never can.

Murder, by definition, is unjustified killing. Killing is what may be justified. You can kill in self defense. You cannot murder in self defense or it'd just be killing rather than murder.

Such an interesting term. A term crafted specifically to imply the bad kind of killing.

OK one more time... Stop sidestepping the issues presented... Of course murder has no merit, something horrific cannot have merit, maybe in the rest of your world but not mine... Look closer at what a murder is. Look deeper at what's been said. Why is it OK for one person to kill and not another?

Horrific is exciting, terrifying even, not meritorious.

Merit is something outside of yourself, greater than yourself.

The only thing between merit and horror is bravery.

Listen very carefully here. The "merits of a case" or the "merits of a thing" when used in a discussion about how bad something is, is referring to the facts of the matter. In that context, "merits" does not inherently mean "good things". I've already cited three different definitions for you from three different dictionaries. I'm sorry if this word HAS to mean what you want it to but it doesn't. A lot of words have multiple meanings.

In this case, merit comes from meritus which means "to deserve". In a court of law, the merits of the case are the components that express a deserving of reward or punishment. One can earn and deserve punishment just as they can earn or deserve praise.

Sorry, but you are clinging on to your own singular definition of the term when there are other uses for it. If English is not your first language then perhaps merits translates into a term in your primary language that ONLY means good rather than being able to mean the elements deserving praise or punishment.

It's murder if I kill you two days after you killed my sister. But somewhat justifiable.
It's murder if I kill someone two weeks after they raped my child. But it's justified. I'm not talking about the law, self defense. I'm talking about street justice.

I bet it's not even justified to do a driveby on the rival gang because they said they'll kill you tomorrow.
But can it be rationally justified? Probably.

Not every murderer is a Dahmer style serial killer.

 

[Lightknight]

It's murder if I kill you two days after you killed my sister. But somewhat justifiable.
It's murder if I kill someone two weeks after they raped my child. But it's justified. I'm not talking about the law, self defense. I'm talking about street justice.

I bet it's not even justified to do a driveby on the rival gang because they said they'll kill you tomorrow.
But can it be rationally justified? Probably.

Your point is well made. Though the rival gang bit could be considered self defense in a lot of ways.

I think the context of the question here though is general ol' wanton murder rather than revenge in particular. Still, we can apply the same question to revenge. Is it worse to murder or to rape someone in revenge for something they've done?

 

[chuckman1]

It's murder if I kill you two days after you killed my sister. But somewhat justifiable.
It's murder if I kill someone two weeks after they raped my child. But it's justified. I'm not talking about the law, self defense. I'm talking about street justice.

I bet it's not even justified to do a driveby on the rival gang because they said they'll kill you tomorrow.
But can it be rationally justified? Probably.

Your point is well made. Though the rival gang bit could be considered self defense in a lot of ways.

I think the context of the question here though is general ol' wanton murder rather than revenge in particular. Still, we can apply the same question to revenge. Is it worse to murder or to rape someone in revenge for something they've done?

Let's look at these two.
Justified murder, Hitler's right hand man shoots him in the back.
"Justified" rape, Hitler is raped by Soviet Soldiers. Not as satisfying or comfortable is it? I prefer my Hitler dead than raped and almost sympathetic.

Simply, the most justifiable murder can seem morally good to me (could have stopped over 10 million murders), but the most "justified" rape is still evil and not acceptable ever.

In my opinion of course.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Depends on circumstances and the individual involved. For some, the reality of being raped is a shattering experience. They do not recover. They live out their days in a PTSD wasteland and their body/mind becomes a prison in which they cannot stop reliving their trauma. I'd like to think these are relatively isolated cases, however.

For others, they're able to put it behind them and lead productive/healthy lives, albeit with varying degrees of damage. Kind of difficult to do that after a murder.

On the flip side, you can morally justify murder in some circumstances. Some countries have state sanctioned murder. Would you blame a man who, say, murdered the person who molested their child? How much leeway would you give them? Probably a lot. Hard to conceptualize circumstances of morally justifiable rape.

Of course, this kind of "it's confusing" and "it depends" and "apples to oranges" rhetoric is about the best you can expect from this sort of comparison.

 

[rasta111]

I'm not sure what you're still babbling about but my only point was semantics. Better is not worse. Worse can never be better. If you want to continue the horrific discussion though that's your business. Ciao.

 

[happyninja42]

It's murder if I kill you two days after you killed my sister. But somewhat justifiable.
It's murder if I kill someone two weeks after they raped my child. But it's justified. I'm not talking about the law, self defense. I'm talking about street justice.

I bet it's not even justified to do a driveby on the rival gang because they said they'll kill you tomorrow.
But can it be rationally justified? Probably.

Your point is well made. Though the rival gang bit could be considered self defense in a lot of ways.

I think the context of the question here though is general ol' wanton murder rather than revenge in particular. Still, we can apply the same question to revenge. Is it worse to murder or to rape someone in revenge for something they've done?

Let's look at these two.
Justified murder, Hitler's right hand man shoots him in the back.
"Justified" rape, Hitler is raped by Soviet Soldiers. Not as satisfying or comfortable is it? I prefer my Hitler dead than raped and almost sympathetic.

Simply, the most justifiable murder can seem morally good to me (could have stopped over 10 million murders), but the most "justified" rape is still evil and not acceptable ever.

In my opinion of course.

Interesting you mentioned the raped Hitler, since in that Adam Sandler movie where he's the son of the devil, that's exactly what they do to Hitler, and everyone seemed to love it and thought it was a just punishment for him in hell.

 

[Lightknight]

I'm not sure what you're still babbling about but my only point was semantics. Better is not worse. Worse can never be better. If you want to continue the horrific discussion though that's your business. Ciao.

If you can't be obliged to accept that words can have more than one definition and use then I simply cannot spend any more time in discussion with you. Some day, if you are ever a juror in a trial and some lawyer starts talking about the merits of the case you can bring your grievances against them instead.

Interesting you mentioned the raped Hitler, since in that Adam Sandler movie where he's the son of the devil, that's exactly what they do to Hitler, and everyone seemed to love it and thought it was a just punishment for him in hell.

I'm not sure if stuffing a pineapple up the ass qualifies but yeah, that did cross my mind.

Let's look at these two.
Justified murder, Hitler's right hand man shoots him in the back.
"Justified" rape, Hitler is raped by Soviet Soldiers. Not as satisfying or comfortable is it? I prefer my Hitler dead than raped and almost sympathetic.

Except, that wouldn't be considered murder. That would be considered killing someone to prevent further devastation to mankind.

I don't think the context of this discussion is regarding retributive murder or rape though. I think it's regarding the actions of a criminal against an innocent. The "in general" side of things to deal with a bigger picture. In general, which is worse?

Also, wrong, you should prefer your Hitler raped then dead.

 

[rasta111]

I'm not sure what you're still babbling about but my only point was semantics. Better is not worse. Worse can never be better. If you want to continue the horrific discussion though that's your business. Ciao.

If you can't be obliged to accept that words can have more than one definition and use then I simply cannot spend any more time in discussion with you. Some day, if you are ever a juror in a trial and some lawyer starts talking about the merits of the case you can bring your grievances against them instead.

Wow... Obliged to accept what? That my words don't mean what I say they mean? Or that they can only mean what you say they mean? Tight rope you're treading there sir and who said anything about my grievances except you for that matter? Look down and you might find it's not there... Again, ciao.

Maybe you could talk about the merits of discussing horrific things but I stand by what I said.

 

[happyninja42]

Interesting you mentioned the raped Hitler, since in that Adam Sandler movie where he's the son of the devil, that's exactly what they do to Hitler, and everyone seemed to love it and thought it was a just punishment for him in hell.

I'm not sure if stuffing a pineapple up the ass qualifies but yeah, that did cross my mind.

I'm pretty sure shoving foreign objects into one of the orifices of a person against their will is considered rape. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the real world examples of people doing those things were charged with counts of rape. Like those cops who shoved a broomstick up a suspects butt. Maybe it would be sodomy? *shrugs* I dunno, to me it's rape though. You violated and penetrated my body against my wishes, whether it was a part of your body, or some other object, to me seems irrelevant. But of course, legal definitions it could be relevant.

 

[rasta111]

Interesting you mentioned the raped Hitler, since in that Adam Sandler movie where he's the son of the devil, that's exactly what they do to Hitler, and everyone seemed to love it and thought it was a just punishment for him in hell.

I'm not sure if stuffing a pineapple up the ass qualifies but yeah, that did cross my mind.

I'm pretty sure shoving foreign objects into one of the orifices of a person against their will is considered rape. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the real world examples of people doing those things were charged with counts of rape. Like those cops who shoved a broomstick up a suspects butt. Maybe it would be sodomy? *shrugs* I dunno, to me it's rape though. You violated and penetrated my body against my wishes, whether it was a part of your body, or some other object, to me seems irrelevant. But of course, legal definitions it could be relevant.

The word is sodomy yes... Why that's relevant to anyone here is beyond me though... Let alone why anyone who it was relevant to would want to hear about any of that... Buuut knock yourselves out if you wish. Ooor you could pause for 5 minutes and think about what it is you're actually doing... I give up.

 

[Lightknight]

I'm not sure what you're still babbling about but my only point was semantics. Better is not worse. Worse can never be better. If you want to continue the horrific discussion though that's your business. Ciao.

If you can't be obliged to accept that words can have more than one definition and use then I simply cannot spend any more time in discussion with you. Some day, if you are ever a juror in a trial and some lawyer starts talking about the merits of the case you can bring your grievances against them instead.

Wow... Obliged to accept what? That my words don't mean what I say they mean? Or that they can only mean what you say they mean? Tight rope you're treading there sir and who said anything about my grievances except you for that matter? Look down and you might find it's not there... Again, ciao.

Maybe you could talk about the merits of discussing horrific things but I stand by what I said.

*sigh* No, I did not say that the word can't mean what you said it means. What I did say is that some words have more than one use and that you are failing to accept that. The merits of the case are not the good things of the case. They are merely the facts of the case. Saying that something has merit, however, means what you said it did.

Both definitions are appropriate in the correct context. If you are unwilling to recognize that then I simply don't know what else to tell you. The English language is a difficult language to fully grasp. I'm not saying that sarcastically at all. It can be very difficult so I do understand why you might attack the use of the term so vociferously despite me presenting and citing actual dictionaries that disagree with you if you really do have some kind of strong impenetrable definition of merits only ever meaning your one definition and not any of the others that apply to it.

If you still don't agree, then sorry, take it up with dictionaries, not me. I'm merely informing you of the reality of it.

Interesting you mentioned the raped Hitler, since in that Adam Sandler movie where he's the son of the devil, that's exactly what they do to Hitler, and everyone seemed to love it and thought it was a just punishment for him in hell.

I'm not sure if stuffing a pineapple up the ass qualifies but yeah, that did cross my mind.

I'm pretty sure shoving foreign objects into one of the orifices of a person against their will is considered rape. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the real world examples of people doing those things were charged with counts of rape. Like those cops who shoved a broomstick up a suspects butt. Maybe it would be sodomy? *shrugs* I dunno, to me it's rape though. You violated and penetrated my body against my wishes, whether it was a part of your body, or some other object, to me seems irrelevant. But of course, legal definitions it could be relevant.

The word is sodomy yes... Why that's relevant to anyone here is beyond me though... Let alone why anyone who it was relevant to would want to hear about any of that... Buuut knock yourselves out if you wish. Ooor you could pause for 5 minutes and think about what it is you're actually doing... I give up.

Sodomy is merely anal sex. Force is not implied.

 

[rasta111]

Yeah you've got it all backwards mate. No one cares what you think you mean clearly. Semantics again. All that matters is what they interpret from your babbling... That's the reason discussions exist friend, not to attempt to force potentially false opinions onto others, unless you actually do believe everything you say is utterly infallible... Although I can see none of this interests you, another key factor, so I will leave you to continue whatever it is you think you're doing.

 

[McElroy]

Interesting you mentioned the raped Hitler, since in that Adam Sandler movie where he's the son of the devil, that's exactly what they do to Hitler, and everyone seemed to love it and thought it was a just punishment for him in hell.

I'm not sure if stuffing a pineapple up the ass qualifies but yeah, that did cross my mind.

I'm pretty sure shoving foreign objects into one of the orifices of a person against their will is considered rape. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the real world examples of people doing those things were charged with counts of rape. Like those cops who shoved a broomstick up a suspects butt. Maybe it would be sodomy? *shrugs* I dunno, to me it's rape though. You violated and penetrated my body against my wishes, whether it was a part of your body, or some other object, to me seems irrelevant. But of course, legal definitions it could be relevant.

The word is sodomy yes... Why that's relevant to anyone here is beyond me though... Let alone why anyone who it was relevant to would want to hear about any of that... Buuut knock yourselves out if you wish. Ooor you could pause for 5 minutes and think about what it is you're actually doing... I give up.

How did it get so bad that the mere discussion of horrific things gets one uppity about the fact that some people are having this discussion?

OT: I have a fun analogy (the subject matter isn't fun though): Murder is Game Over and rape is Involuntary Hardmode. Some people can overcome this tougher living, but for others it's even harder or possibly just hard enough in the wrong ways to pretty much ruin the whole thing. However, as you can't insert more credits into the Grand Game of Life, I'd say murder is worse than rape.

 

[rasta111]

Interesting you mentioned the raped Hitler, since in that Adam Sandler movie where he's the son of the devil, that's exactly what they do to Hitler, and everyone seemed to love it and thought it was a just punishment for him in hell.

I'm not sure if stuffing a pineapple up the ass qualifies but yeah, that did cross my mind.

I'm pretty sure shoving foreign objects into one of the orifices of a person against their will is considered rape. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the real world examples of people doing those things were charged with counts of rape. Like those cops who shoved a broomstick up a suspects butt. Maybe it would be sodomy? *shrugs* I dunno, to me it's rape though. You violated and penetrated my body against my wishes, whether it was a part of your body, or some other object, to me seems irrelevant. But of course, legal definitions it could be relevant.

The word is sodomy yes... Why that's relevant to anyone here is beyond me though... Let alone why anyone who it was relevant to would want to hear about any of that... Buuut knock yourselves out if you wish. Ooor you could pause for 5 minutes and think about what it is you're actually doing... I give up.

How did it get so bad that the mere discussion of horrific things gets one uppity about the fact that some people are having this discussion?

OT: I have a fun analogy (the subject matter isn't fun though): Murder is Game Over and rape is Involuntary Hardmode. Some people can overcome this tougher living, but for others it's even harder or possibly just hard enough in the wrong ways to pretty much ruin the whole thing. However, as you can't insert more credits into the Grand Game of Life, I'd say murder is worse than rape.

Wow... This is all meaningless semantics. Have you ever been raped? How about murdered...? Yeah, personally I'm failing to notice a substantial difference in either case really from that point of view, both are horrific... Worse is not better and better is not worse. I still think my original point stands. Better to be stone cold dead. Do you understand what a rape victim goes through. Think of stockholm syndrome for comparison. A murder victim... Well to be frank the murderer is worse off from a psychological standpoint.

 

[Lightknight]

Interesting you mentioned the raped Hitler, since in that Adam Sandler movie where he's the son of the devil, that's exactly what they do to Hitler, and everyone seemed to love it and thought it was a just punishment for him in hell.

I'm not sure if stuffing a pineapple up the ass qualifies but yeah, that did cross my mind.

I'm pretty sure shoving foreign objects into one of the orifices of a person against their will is considered rape. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the real world examples of people doing those things were charged with counts of rape. Like those cops who shoved a broomstick up a suspects butt. Maybe it would be sodomy? *shrugs* I dunno, to me it's rape though. You violated and penetrated my body against my wishes, whether it was a part of your body, or some other object, to me seems irrelevant. But of course, legal definitions it could be relevant.

The word is sodomy yes... Why that's relevant to anyone here is beyond me though... Let alone why anyone who it was relevant to would want to hear about any of that... Buuut knock yourselves out if you wish. Ooor you could pause for 5 minutes and think about what it is you're actually doing... I give up.

How did it get so bad that the mere discussion of horrific things gets one uppity about the fact that some people are having this discussion?

I don't know, I also don't know when citing definitions from legitimate dictionaries became "forcing opinions" on others rather than citing a fact. I think in this scenario I'm better off not responding going forward.

OT: I have a fun analogy (the subject matter isn't fun though): Murder is Game Over and rape is Involuntary Hardmode. Some people can overcome this tougher living, but for others it's even harder or possibly just hard enough in the wrong ways to pretty much ruin the whole thing. However, as you can't insert more credits into the Grand Game of Life, I'd say murder is worse than rape.

The only reason I disagree with this is because it isn't entirely involuntary hardmode. 30% of victims deal with PTSD. 10% have it long term.

I'm cautious here because I don't want rape victims or potential victims to believe that they have a never ending struggle ahead of them. That isn't the norm at all and they are far more likely to go on to live a perfectly healthy life. Now, what is the difference between the 10% and the rest? I don't know.

 

[Lightknight]

Wow... This is all meaningless semantics. Have you ever been raped? How about murdered...? Yeah, personally I'm failing to notice a substantial difference in either case really from that point of view, both are horrific... Worse is not better and better is not worse. I still think my original point stands. Better to be stone cold dead. Do you understand what a rape victim goes through. Think of stockholm syndrome for comparison. A murder victim... Well to be frank the murderer is worse off from a psychological standpoint.

Stockholm syndrome is beginning to sympathize with your captors. I'm not sure that relates to this scenario unless the victim was held over time and even then is a separate issue.

Secondly, no, the murderer is not worse off. The damage they cause in society carries far more gravity than how they feel about what they've done. Their psychological damage is what led them to that point.

Lastly, claiming that it is better to be murdered than to be a rape victim seriously devalues the value of human life in both instances.