Rapist With The Dragon Tattoo

[LookAtYouHacker]

You mean like expecting a rape victim to act rationally? -_-

Hence the last sentence in my post. As I said, she is clearly not a mentally sound individual, which is why I do not attack her behavior in the movie. I'm sure the scene was meant to be disturbing and show the mental state she's in, which is why the entire ordeal is only a problem if the movie depicts her to be a person with excellent morality and great mental health.

It's the people here on the escapist who believe that rape can be a justifiable act that rub me the wrong way.

We harness culturally originated perceptions of morality, but morality is stochastically objective; my perceptions of morality probably differ from yours.

Obviously rape is never justifiable, but only from an objective perspective. Objectivity and accountability obviously have no constitution within actions of transcendent, hate-fuelled revenge.

She was numerously raped (something which users seem to provokingly omit by the way), therefore the ultimate act of revenge would be duplicating and exponentially surpassing her rapist's actions.

The people who also provoke me are the ones who?re more critical of a rape victim's understandable hatred, as opposed to the actual rapists (of whom's actions weren't even motivated by revenge and indirectly responsible for all of this in the first place.)

 

[LookAtYouHacker]

It's a revenge flick (sort of, mixed with a mystery, but there is a heavy focus on revenge even at the end)... They get made all the time, Kill Bill for example, and usually they just murder the person. Do you not have a problem with those films?

The creator isn't saying that you should go out and do that, but he is saying he wouldn't blame you.

I, personally, with my desensitized outlook on films (it's fake, and as such you can always logic out that no one is getting raped really), found the scene where she rapes him to be quite satisfying, enjoyable even (not in a sexual way, mind you).

However I found the scene where he rapes her TERRIBLY uncomfortable and fucked up... (though again, I was easily able to disconnect since, again, it's a movie. Plus how distractingly hot the actress was @_@) Yet I don't hear you mention how it was fucked up...

So, yeah, it's not that fucked up, I've seen worse, and that you find her raping him to be so appalling is really strange...

Killing a rapist serves a purpose: they can't rape any more. Because they are dead. Castration doesn't, rape comes from the psyche via the genitals. Castrated rapist have gone on raping by other means. Lisbeth used a dildo.

Rape does not serve that purpose. Tattooing him doesn't serve that purpose. The purpose was (also) to extort money out of him as it was revenge.

The death sentence was the punishment in early civilisations simply because imprisonment for life was impractical. Especially for how political instability can easily lead to people being freed far too soon but death is permanent. It is somewhat justified to kill rapists if they cannot be guaranteed to be imprisoned and stopped from hurting anyone else again.

Death Penalty is not "necessary" in this modern world where there aren't mass-breakouts from prisons by rogue military leaders. It's entirely practical to lock people up for their entire natural life. Death is an excess. Targeted killing by drones seems to be for where the suspected terrorists cannot practically be captured.

"The creator isn't saying that you should go out and do that, but he is saying he wouldn't blame you."

That's still excusing an inexcusable crime. Not an endorsement of rape but condoning of rape as justifiable, ever, is despicable.

That's the problem, it's one thing to have rape in a work of fiction if it makes the character irredeemably evil, but Salander is still depicted as a heroic character who is hypocritically defined as an antagonist against rapists. Which is an unbearable hypocrisy.

I've never believed in the "no better than the criminal" conclusion. Yes, Salander raped her rapist, but then only from an unadulterated, objective perspective is she ?no better.? Motivations and unintentional mental implications (in my mind) cause the actions to differ, based on several factors.

The rapist's motivations were not a result of desired revenge, they were "purely" pre-ordained; act?s guided by inconclusive, selfish desires to take advantage of and ?use? an innocent woman.

Elisabeth (despite her actions) was originally innocent and untouched; she didn?t ask to be raped.

In my mind, Salander's actions are only a reprehensible extension of her rapist.

 

[Treblaine]

I honestly can't believe that some people here believe that rape is in any way justifiable. I understand people having questionable morality when it comes to justice (Such as confusing it with revenge), but I never expected so many escapist users to come up with such vile shit as they're doing now.

You mean like expecting a rape victim to act rationally? -_-

If you expect rape victims to be irrational to the extent of thinking rape is okay, then that is an expectation of insanity, that all rape victims should be imprisoned in case they irrationally try to hurt someone.

No. The fact is that while rape is extremely traumatic with lasting severe effects it doesn't make women incapable of making rational decisions on issues like "is it right to anally rape his person or not". Remember, we are talking about rationally deciding if right or wrong, not deciding whether to do it or not do it.

If anything rape would make people LESS likely to rape as they realise how horrible it is they wouldn't wish it on anyone, not even their worst enemies. Everyone reacts and copes differently, but the affect is almost always extremely negative.

This idea that rape makes victims irrational enough to rape is just wrong.

I believe you've either misunderstood my statement, or you're malforming my statement into an alternative interpretation in order to augment it's approachability. I didn't specifically state rape victims inevitably raped others, obviously. I stated it was wrong to prophesize utterly rational decisions when discussing the behaviour of a rape victim.

Rape recovery is individualistic; subsequent effects may differ. To establish "proportions" of vengeful actions or how much an individual may be effected is extremely problematic.

"I didn't specifically state rape victims inevitably raped others"

Neither did I, nor state that you stated that. But that it could happen.

"I stated it was wrong to prophesize"

I don't think you did. And that's an odd use of the term "prophecy".

"Utterly rational" that's not what you said before. You excused irrationality to the extent of right and wrong even the wrongness of rape, that's more than falling slightly short of the most ration mind, that's throwing human rational thought out of the window.

Vengeance is not a matter of rationality, that's a matter of doing something bad that they comprehend is bad but doing it anyway. Excuse on grounds of rationality would be UNABLE to comprehend (rationally) that raping someone is wrong, which is a huge mental dysfunction. Spacebat was talking about justifiability and vileness, your counter to this was the rationality of rape victims (in general).

Rape is so wrong on every level. It's so bad that rape even in revenge for rape is utterly unjustifiable, it's such wanton cruelty, the worst kind of torture, excessive in every sense and out of any proportion.

If this Lisbeth character did this for mental dysfunction unable to comprehend right from wrong, then saying it was because of her being raped is defamatory of rape victims. If it was irrationality rather than evilness then don't hang it on being from rape.

I mean what kind of jury would forgive a man of rape if he said in defence the man he raped had raped him before?

 

[Treblaine]

[snip]

I've never believed in the "no better than the criminal" conclusion. Yes, Salander raped her rapist, but then only from an unadulterated, objective perspective is she "no better." Motivations and unintentional mental implications (in my mind) cause the actions to differ, based on several factors.

The rapist's motivations were not a result of desired revenge, they were "purely" pre-ordained; act?s guided by inconclusive, selfish desires to take advantage of and ?use? an innocent woman.

Elisabeth (despite her actions) was originally innocent and untouched; she didn?t ask to be raped.

In my mind, Salander's actions are only a reprehensible extension of her rapist.

I never said "no better than the criminal". I was careful to make no equivalence with who raped her, I talked of her hypocrisy in defining her crusade (I mean that term in the best sense) as a crusade against rapists even though she is a rapist herself. It's as hypocritical as the allies after WWII rounding up "Aryan" Germans into gas chambers to murder them by the millions.

Wrath is not an acceptable excuse for rape or any crime, you know that. Everyone knows that. It wouldn't even be a mitigating factor. Both rapes were premeditated and Lisbeth is depicted as mentally sound and rational in all other contexts. There are no excuses in motivation and mentality.

"was originally innocent"

I don't like what you are implying... some kind of outdated and oppressive honour idea foisted on women that they somehow lose their innocence if SOMEONE ELSE forces themselves on them. There is NO GUILT AT ALL on rape victims, they are completely innocent. It's disgustingly common how much rape victims are shamed and made to feel guilty for what they - by definition - had no control over.

"she didn't ask to be raped."

Where the hell are you going with this? Are you making the insulting suggestion that rape victims can be "asking for it"????!?!?!

"Salander's actions are only a reprehensible extension of her rapist."

This is nothing but victim blaming.

These are awful arguments that you wouldn't accept with anyone else.

 

[Treblaine]

You mean like expecting a rape victim to act rationally? -_-

Hence the last sentence in my post. As I said, she is clearly not a mentally sound individual, which is why I do not attack her behavior in the movie. I'm sure the scene was meant to be disturbing and show the mental state she's in, which is why the entire ordeal is only a problem if the movie depicts her to be a person with excellent morality and great mental health.

It's the people here on the escapist who believe that rape can be a justifiable act that rub me the wrong way.

We harness culturally originated perceptions of morality, but morality is stochastically objective; my perceptions of morality probably differ from yours.

Obviously rape is never justifiable, but only from an objective perspective. Objectivity and accountability obviously have no constitution within actions of transcendent, hate-fuelled revenge.

She was numerously raped (something which users seem to provokingly omit by the way), therefore the ultimate act of revenge would be duplicating and exponentially surpassing her rapist's actions.

The people who also provoke me are the ones who?re more critical of a rape victim's understandable hatred, as opposed to the actual rapists (of whom's actions weren't even motivated by revenge and indirectly responsible for all of this in the first place.)

We don't have a problem with the hate in itself, we have a problem with the hate's hypocritical manifestation in her committing a crime that she abhors and is motivated by her opposition of.

Revenge is as poor an excuse as lust.

"She was numerously raped (something which users seem to provokingly omit by the way)"

The OP mentioned it, it has been repeatedly mentioned. And why are you coming up with excuses for rapists? you'd never accept the lawyer rapist giving excuses like "well, she was really hot lookin' and I was really turned on".

Rape is inexcusable. What part of this don't you get?

"as opposed to the actual rapists "

More of these odd comments from you... "actual rapist"??!?! The way you phrase it it sounds like you consider rape can not "actually" be rape...

Care to explain all this? Because it's coming across really creepy.

 

[LookAtYouHacker]

[snip]

I've never believed in the "no better than the criminal" conclusion. Yes, Salander raped her rapist, but then only from an unadulterated, objective perspective is she "no better." Motivations and unintentional mental implications (in my mind) cause the actions to differ, based on several factors.

The rapist's motivations were not a result of desired revenge, they were "purely" pre-ordained; act?s guided by inconclusive, selfish desires to take advantage of and ?use? an innocent woman.

Elisabeth (despite her actions) was originally innocent and untouched; she didn?t ask to be raped.

In my mind, Salander's actions are only a reprehensible extension of her rapist.

I never said "no better than the criminal". I was careful to make no equivalence with who raped her, I talked of her hypocrisy in defining her crusade (I mean that term in the best sense) as a crusade against rapists even though she is a rapist herself. It's as hypocritical as the allies after WWII rounding up "Aryan" Germans into gas chambers to murder them by the millions.

Wrath is not an acceptable excuse for rape or any crime, you know that. Everyone knows that. It wouldn't even be a mitigating factor. Both rapes were premeditated and Lisbeth is depicted as mentally sound and rational in all other contexts. There are no excuses in motivation and mentality.

"was originally innocent"

I don't like what you are implying... some kind of outdated and oppressive honour idea foisted on women that they somehow lose their innocence if SOMEONE ELSE forces themselves on them. There is NO GUILT AT ALL on rape victims, they are completely innocent. It's disgustingly common how much rape victims are shamed and made to feel guilty for what they - by definition - had no control over.

"she didn't ask to be raped."

Where the hell are you going with this? Are you making the insulting suggestion that rape victims can be "asking for it"????!?!?!

"Salander's actions are only a reprehensible extension of her rapist."

This is nothing but victim blaming.

These are awful arguments that you wouldn't accept with anyone else.

I hope this doesn?t come across as melodramatic, but I need you to salvage this with the utmost sincerity. I don't think I've ever been so angered by a comment. These judgements are so nauseatingly false that I'm emotionally incapable of responding to them individually.

I won't affront you with insults, but I don't see how I can respond further without maintaining pure objectivity.

You couldn't be more wrong about an individual; your misinterpretations have left me speechless.

 

[Treblaine]

I hope this doesn?t come across as melodramatic, but I need you to salvage this with the utmost sincerity. I don't think I've ever been so angered by a comment. These judgements are so nauseatingly false that I'm emotionally incapable of responding to them individually.

I won't affront you with insults, but I don't see how I can respond further without maintaining pure objectivity.

You couldn't be more wrong about an individual; your misinterpretations have left me speechless.

I have much the same sentiments to YOUR words, but I am quite used to are maintaining my composure and objectivity when mad so can opposing what you say.

 

[LookAtYouHacker]

I hope this doesn?t come across as melodramatic, but I need you to salvage this with the utmost sincerity. I don't think I've ever been so angered by a comment. These judgements are so nauseatingly false that I'm emotionally incapable of responding to them individually.

I won't affront you with insults, but I don't see how I can respond further without maintaining pure objectivity.

You couldn't be more wrong about an individual; your misinterpretations have left me speechless.

I have much the same sentiments to YOUR words, but I am quite used to are maintaining my composure and objectivity when mad so can opposing what you say.

I've sent you a private message.

 

[museofdoom]

snip!

Um have you heard of Daniel Tosh?? He made a rape joke during a standup routine, and when someone got offended, he said "wouldn't it be funny if she got raped by like 5 guys right now?" THAT SHIT IS NOT FUNNY. And you mentioned Duke Nukem, which is another perfect example of rape being taken too lightly. Duke Nukem Forever (if that is the game you are referring to.) was full of misogyny and rape jokes. RAPE JOKES. They're not funny. And yet people in our society think they're hilarious and when a woman get's offended she's told to lighten up.

Lisbeth got revenge on her rapist instead of going to the police, therefor she was avoiding dealing with authority. That was a lack of clarity on my part.

As for Duke Nukem, he is a blatantly misogynistic character who spreads patriarchal ideals of manhood and male empowerment. Literally that characters only two traits are egotism and sex addiction. Duke Nukem forever demeans and objectifies women. That's why there is so much wrong with the rape and other crap in that game.

And don't even bother saying "ohh but Lisbeth demeaned her rapist when she got revenge on him" YES yes she did. And he deserved it. Rapists don't deserve pity. Of course Lisbeth should have gone to the police and whatnot, but I really really hate the fact that so many men in this thread seem to have way more criticism for Lisbeth than her rapist. It's like men are so scared of female empowerment.

In our society if a woman gets raped, it's somehow her fault. But when a woman whips around and gets revenge "OH HOW TERRIBLE OF HER. POOR RAPIST."

 

[Treblaine]

snip!

Um have you heard of Daniel Tosh?? He made a rape joke during a standup routine, and when someone got offended, he said "wouldn't it be funny if she got raped by like 5 guys right now?" THAT SHIT IS NOT FUNNY. And you mentioned Duke Nukem, which is another perfect example of rape being taken too lightly. Duke Nukem Forever (if that is the game you are referring to.) was full of misogyny and rape jokes. RAPE JOKES. They're not funny. And yet people in our society think they're hilarious and when a woman get's offended she's told to lighten up.

Lisbeth got revenge on her rapist instead of going to the police, therefor she was avoiding dealing with authority. That was a lack of clarity on my part.

As for Duke Nukem, he is a blatantly misogynistic character who spreads patriarchal ideals of manhood and male empowerment. Literally that characters only two traits are egotism and sex addiction. Duke Nukem forever demeans and objectifies women. That's why there is so much wrong with the rape and other crap in that game.

And don't even bother saying "ohh but Lisbeth demeaned her rapist when she got revenge on him" YES yes she did. And he deserved it. Rapists don't deserve pity. Of course Lisbeth should have gone to the police and whatnot, but I really really hate the fact that so many men in this thread seem to have way more criticism for Lisbeth than her rapist. It's like men are so scared of female empowerment.

In our society if a woman gets raped, it's somehow her fault. But when a woman whips around and gets revenge "OH HOW TERRIBLE OF HER. POOR RAPIST."

Tosh's rape "joke" is so infamous because people didn't accept it. Duke Nukem Forever's gameplay wasn't bad enough to deserve it's 54% metascore but the rape jokes would explain why it was so lowly rated. it trully did have repugnant dialogue, it was not so much the content but the game's approach to the subject matter.

"she was avoiding dealing with authority."

Hmm, there is a HUGE GRAND CANYON SIZE GAP between "vigilantism" and "anal rape". This is wrong, you know this. Why are you giving Lisbeth character a free pass? You know rape is wrong, why do you defend it here?

It's not like the only way she could have gotten revenge or retribution was with rape.

I'd say the problem with rape is rape itself, not whether it is done by a jerk (like Duke Nukem) or not. I don't care if it's committed by the paragon of good, rape is WRONG! No excuses. There was absolutely no question that "being a priest" was any kind of mitigating factor in the many Catholic Church Child Abuse cases

And don't even bother saying "ohh but Lisbeth demeaned her rapist when she got revenge on him"

Why would I say that? The lawyer rapist deserves to be punished but rape is totally out of proportion. Rape as a form of punishment is just sick. There is no such thing as "legitimate rape". See my focus in always on helping the victim. I

"Rapists don't deserve pity."

And that attitude doesn't apply to this Lisbeth character... because?!?!? Please explain your double standard here.

"if a woman gets raped, it's somehow her fault."

Not by my standard. Not by any standard espoused in this forum. Not by any opinion of any legislature (that doesn't make them unelectable). Not by any major media organisation, only by a very small minority of the population who have no voice. If you are saying it's "her fault" are you stating this is public opinion or is this just your own opinion? Because you'd be wrong and double-wrong on both counts as a matter of fact it is abosolutely categorically not their fault under law and logic.

"But when a woman whips around and gets revenge"

What part of "rape is NEVER acceptable" don't you understand? It means NEVER, even against other rapists!

Again, it's not like rape was the only form of revenge that was on option? For one rape and tattooing does absolutely nothing to stop him raping again nor does it teach him the lesson that rape is wrong, only reinforces that rape is a way to force people to do things and a way of asserting power.

 

[easternflame]

The title as is printed in Sweden:

"Män som hatar kvinnor"

You can tell right away that there isn't a "Love, inverse of that" in that phrase, this very specifically translates as the positive "hate" emotion not "lack of love emotion".

Every source I can find to translate that phrase puts it as "Men who hate women" with no mention of Love or lack of love.

Well I guess that's that, in Mexico it was translated like that so.

Hmm, did you say the Mexican release was (literally) "Men who don't Love women" in English, or was it in Spanish which translated to english as that?

In either case we are getting into 6-degrees of translation or "chinsese whispers".

No, I mean literally, "men who didn't love women"

 

[ElPatron]

When was it ever a problem for anyone but me? What are you talking about? Did someone else bring it up while I wasn't looking?

You know what? I'm not even going to write an essay about how objectification should not be viewed as inherently wrong because you'd probably forget what we were talking about anyway.

Ke$ha's songs are pathetically harmless and I'm not that interested in them.

 

[JimB]

You know what? I'm not even going to write an essay about how objectification should not be viewed as inherently wrong because you'd probably forget what we were talking about anyway.

And I've lost nothing I'm sorry to be rid of.

 

[ElPatron]

Again, it's not like rape was the only form of revenge that was on option?

There is a difference between the book and the movie. In the movie it explicitly implies that Lisbeth planned the reverse rape, since she had brought a metallic dildo.

In the book, she opened a drawer and saw a butt plug, which she assumed it had been the one used in her rape. It was an act of passion, not something planned with malice. It' wasn't an option, "eye for an eye" is very strong emotion and it's not entirely rational. Victims of any crime want the same done to the perpetrator in their blind rage.

Like I said before, if people told me they wouldn't do exactly what Lisbeth did I wouldn't believe them. Unless they're Gandhi.

For one rape and tattooing does absolutely nothing to stop him raping again nor does it teach him the lesson that rape is wrong, only reinforces that rape is a way to force people to do things and a way of asserting power.

The hell it does. The plot specifically shows that the power Lisbeth has over Bjurman are the evidence of the rape and the control she has over his personal computer. The tattoo obviously prevents Bjurman from ever undressing himself in front of anyone.

The revenge rape does nothing but bringing physical pain to Bjurman.

 

[Treblaine]

Again, it's not like rape was the only form of revenge that was on option?

There is a difference between the book and the movie. In the movie it explicitly implies that Lisbeth planned the reverse rape, since she had brought a metallic dildo.

In the book, she opened a drawer and saw a butt plug, which she assumed it had been the one used in her rape. It was an act of passion, not something planned with malice. It' wasn't an option, "eye for an eye" is very strong emotion and it's not entirely rational. Victims of any crime want the same done to the perpetrator in their blind rage.

Like I said before, if people told me they wouldn't do exactly what Lisbeth did I wouldn't believe them. Unless they're Gandhi.

For one rape and tattooing does absolutely nothing to stop him raping again nor does it teach him the lesson that rape is wrong, only reinforces that rape is a way to force people to do things and a way of asserting power.

The hell it does. The plot specifically shows that the power Lisbeth has over Bjurman are the evidence of the rape and the control she has over his personal computer. The tattoo obviously prevents Bjurman from ever undressing himself in front of anyone.

The revenge rape does nothing but bringing physical pain to Bjurman.

Crime of pre-meditation makes it worse, but it's hardly any exoneration committing such a crime on a whim.

"if people told me they wouldn't do exactly what Lisbeth did I wouldn't believe them"

You wouldn't believe ANYONE wouldn't rape? Really?

"The tattoo obviously prevents Bjurman from ever undressing himself in front of anyone."

That has nothing to do with preventing him from raping anyone. Tattoo removal and modification is readily available and they'll remove any tattoo no questions asked whether it's a swastika tattoo or whatever.

"The revenge rape does nothing but bringing physical pain to Bjurman."

What makes you qualified to say what rape victims go through in only physical pain. Scalding your hand on a kettle in jsutp physical pain.

"Victims of any crime want the same done to the perpetrator in their blind rage."

You don't speak for everyone and you certainly don't speak for me. I always endeavour to take rational control and self restraint over my inclinations that impinge on others.

 

[ElPatron]

You wouldn't believe ANYONE wouldn't rape? Really?

We're considering insertion of objects as rape, so shooting someone full of holes is indeed rape.

That's why I'd prefer to consider it "sexual torture" (doesn't make it any better, cases of sexual torture can grant someone the death penalty in the US, but does make more sense).

"The tattoo obviously prevents Bjurman from ever undressing himself in front of anyone."

That has nothing to do with preventing him from raping anyone. Tattoo removal and modification is readily available and they'll remove any tattoo no questions asked whether it's a swastika tattoo or whatever.

That's exactly what I said. Prevents him from undressing himself, not raping people. It's an instrument of shaming Bjurman. He can't go to the swimming pool, change clothes in a locker room, have consensual sex, etc.

Spoiler alert, Lisbeth Slander does know that Bjurman is searching for tattoo removal on the internet - she keeps track of Bjurman's online activity. The only reason he doesn't do it sooner is because if he does, Lisbeth will release the DVD containing the rape.

"The revenge rape does nothing but bringing physical pain to Bjurman."

What makes you qualified to say what rape victims go through in only physical pain. Scalding your hand on a kettle in jsutp physical pain.

>Bjurman is a rapist that is overpowered by a skinny girl that he had successfully raped
>probably the worst thing an addict to overpowering people can be subjected to
>tied up
>shamed
>humiliated
>dildo shoved up his ass = physical pain
>somehow that means that ALL rape victims in the world are Bjurman, a fictional character

I'd recommend you reading the whole series if you haven't.

If you're fucked up to the point of being a rapist, a victim overpowering you and shaming you is something that the rape won't aggravate in one bit.

"Victims of any crime want the same done to the perpetrator in their blind rage."

You don't speak for everyone and you certainly don't speak for me. I always endeavour to take rational control and self restraint over my inclinations that impinge on others.

Yeah, everyone thinks like that. That's why Second Degree Murder and Involuntary Manslaughter happen all the time. Try to take control and self-restraint after something really bad happens. I won't describe situations because I'm pretty sure they'll come up on your mind.

If you haven't raged and wished for vengeance, you have never lived.

 

[Treblaine]

You wouldn't believe ANYONE wouldn't rape? Really?

We're considering insertion of objects as rape, so shooting someone full of holes is indeed rape.

That's insane. That's not the definition of rape and shooting is not a form of rape. What kind of sick mind concludes that?!?!?

If you haven't raged and wished for vengeance, you have never lived.

I have raged and wished... I am just not petulant enough to think that "because I want it" is a good enough reason to commit despicable unforgivable crimes, so I don't act on such impulses. I'm a rational human being that is civilised and empathetic, not a rabid psychopath who thinks of nothing but self-satisfaction.

What you want is irrelevant to justification of rape... so why are you bringing it up?

You think it's OK for a rapist to rape if they just "really want to do it"?!?!? Get real, try to think of how your own selfish thought processes hurt everyone if others think like you do.

 

[ElPatron]

That's insane. That's not the definition of rape and shooting is not a form of rape. What kind of sick mind concludes that?!?!?

Ask the people who have been raped by machetes. Although it would be hard, since it's not only the natural orifices that are used.

Some people fear it, some deny it. I embrace the phallic connotations of weapons. First time I've seen anyone called insane for being comfortable with something.

I have raged and wished... I am just not petulant enough to think that "because I want it" is a good enough reason to commit despicable unforgivable crimes

It has come full circle. It's not a justification, it is the cause. If people didn't experience fury or rage and then act on it we'd have no crimes of passion in the world.

so I don't act on such impulses

You have. You just didn't understand where your actions were coming from and what could they cause. And someone got pissed at you.

I'm a rational human being that is civilised and empathetic

And in 500 years, people would consider you a savage with no morals. It's not of a good tone to call yourself civilized - it's only purpose is to inflate egos.

What you want is irrelevant to justification of rape... so why are you bringing it up?

>still thinks I'm trying to excuse or legalize rape

For the record, I still think that it's not rape but sexual torture.

You think it's OK for a rapist to rape if they just "really want to do it"?!?!? Get real, try to think of how your own selfish thought processes hurt everyone if others think like you do.

Slippery slope, perhaps Strawman and most definitely an Ad Hominem.

 

[Treblaine]

That's insane. That's not the definition of rape and shooting is not a form of rape. What kind of sick mind concludes that?!?!?

Ask the people who have been raped by machetes. Although it would be hard, since it's not only the natural orifices that are used.

Some people fear it, some deny it. I embrace the phallic connotations of weapons. First time I've seen anyone called insane for being comfortable with something.

I have raged and wished... I am just not petulant enough to think that "because I want it" is a good enough reason to commit despicable unforgivable crimes

It has come full circle. It's not a justification, it is the cause. If people didn't experience fury or rage and then act on it we'd have no crimes of passion in the world.

so I don't act on such impulses

You have. You just didn't understand where your actions were coming from and what could they cause. And someone got pissed at you.

I'm a rational human being that is civilised and empathetic

And in 500 years, people would consider you a savage with no morals. It's not of a good tone to call yourself civilized - it's only purpose is to inflate egos.

What you want is irrelevant to justification of rape... so why are you bringing it up?

>still thinks I'm trying to excuse or legalize rape

For the record, I still think that it's not rape but sexual torture.

You think it's OK for a rapist to rape if they just "really want to do it"?!?!? Get real, try to think of how your own selfish thought processes hurt everyone if others think like you do.

Slippery slope, perhaps Strawman and most definitely an Ad Hominem.

That's sick. There is a difference between stabbing someone once in the chest with a machete to kill them and "raping them with a machete" and YOU KNOW THAT!!!

"I embrace the phallic connotations of weapons. First time I've seen anyone called insane for being comfortable with something."

Being comfortable with such an equivalence of sex and violence IS INSANE! Being comfortable with setting fire to sweet old ladies is insane. Comfort =/= sanity.

"If people didn't experience fury or rage and then act on it we'd have no crimes of passion in the world."

That's not the issue of "if it does or does not happen" but the morality, ethics and justice of people doing such things.

Me: "so I don't act on such impulses"

You: "You have."

No I haven't. I have not ever stuck anyone in anger. Unless if you include when I was a toddler but of course no toddler has much of a concept of right and wrong then nor nor ability to do much harm.

"And in 500 years, people would consider you a savage with no morals."

So what? Are you saying it therefore doesn't matter if we have the morality of 500 years ago, of medieval torture, mass murder and daily horrors with no care?!?!?

"For the record, I still think that it's not rape but sexual torture."

Yeah, that's a bit like saying "I don't consider that vehicle a car, I consider it and automobile" what's the point?

"Slippery slope, perhaps Strawman and most definitely an Ad Hominem."

Nope, that's nothing but avoidance. You know it is a fallacy to falsely cite fallacies to hide from criticism of your argument.

Why don't you just admit it: rape is never justifiable, permissible or to be excused.

I dare you. Say it and STICK TO IT!

Or

Do you REALLY think it's acceptable to rape? Explain yourself, because you have been EXPLICIT in excusing rape as justifiable.

 

[ElPatron]

That's sick. There is a difference between stabbing someone once in the chest with a machete to kill them and "raping them with a machete" and YOU KNOW THAT!!!

Tell that to the people who died that way.

Being comfortable with setting fire to sweet old ladies is insane. Comfort =/= sanity.

Slippery slope of the highest ABV.

That's not the issue of "if it does or does not happen" but the morality, ethics and justice of people doing such things.

I thought I kept suggesting to actually read the books. If you don't want, wait for the next movie. What you just mentioned are completely irrelevant if you try to apply them to Lisbeth Salander.

No I haven't. I have not ever stuck anyone in anger.

Note: I never mentioned violence, much less physical. Humans share greed, vanity... In broad terms we seek self-gratification and that reflects on our judgment.

Unless if you include when I was a toddler but of course no toddler has much of a concept of right and wrong then nor nor ability to do much harm.

So you helped prove my point (instincts are natural) and I could google a list of child murderers.

So what? Are you saying it therefore doesn't matter if we have the morality of 500 years ago, of medieval torture, mass murder and daily horrors with no care?!?!?

No, I am saying that claiming to be civilized is a lie and a very egotistical thing to day. The Romans were civilized too...

"For the record, I still think that it's not rape but sexual torture."

Yeah, that's a bit like saying "I don't consider that vehicle a car, I consider it and automobile" what's the point?

A car is always an automobile. Your analogy doesn't work.

If there are two legal definitions for something, then they can be separated. I'm not a lawyer, but I know that a "justifiable homicide" can not be a "murder".

Nope, that's nothing but avoidance. You know it is a fallacy to falsely cite fallacies to hide from criticism of your argument.

Avoidance? Call it what you want. The fact is that I won't waste my time elaborating an appropriate response to personal insults and slander campaigns against me.

It would be a fallacy if you had an actual argument in there. In this case you had nothing but logical fallacies in there.

Why don't you just admit it: rape is never justifiable, permissible or to be excused.

I dare you. Say it and STICK TO IT!

"Watch out! We got a badass over here." Was that supposed to make me feel cornered like a villain in a bad film? I'm not even discussing that issue. If your plan is to introduce a whole different scope of arguments to make me contradict myself then give it up.

At most, that is a Red Herring.

because you have been EXPLICIT in excusing rape as justifiable.

No, I haven't. You're lying and you know it.