Rapist With The Dragon Tattoo
- Thread starter zelda2fanboy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
here's the thing about her you get on her bad side and she'll fuck your life up she has no tolerance for men who abuser to women and rapist (which apparently every guy is an ass) the being was to give the rapist a taste of his own medicine and to make sure that he won't do anything to her (or anybody else) again extreme? yes but it's the way she is also in the book it was pretty long itself and can't say for american version but I don't like the swedish version (that everyone says is better) it just moves things around for continuity wisezelda2fanboy said:
someone hasn't read the book/watched the movies there was a taser involved she also doesn't fight fair so having a woman over power you is easy unless you can shrug off 100,000 volts going through your bodyTippy said:
He's just as screwed up as the people who sympathise with a girl who assaults and anally rapes a dude and vandalizes his body.Hoplon said:
Rape is rape.
Here's a question for you: If she raped him first, would it be so much better if rape became his revenge?
I'll send someone over to your house later with a taser and see what you say about it then, OK?Tippy said:
I mean, you know what tasers DO, right? They aren't things you shrug off, they're devices that turn your limbs to jelly, pull your muscles incredibly tight, overload your nervous system and even stop your heart if you have heart troubles. You get hit with a taser, you fall down. That's just what happens. Then you're stunned for several seconds, and the assailant can do whatever.
Unless you're magically immune to this, but quite frankly, I'd like to see you taser yourself before I'll believe that.
I'm assuming that, if the same events happened, but in reverse order, you'd be cheering for the guy, yes?glchicks said:
If you wouldn't (and you likely wouldn't), then that's his point. Double standards. Alternatively, he wants to know why there were two rapes in the first place.
1) The plot wasn't confusing at all. I had never seen the other movie, and I had never read the books. It really wasn't that difficult to follow.
2) OP apparently doesn't understand characterization. Not everything always 100% furthers the plot. Some thing are there to explain a character to you. You can not like that character, but you can't ***** at the writers for simply trying to explain the character to you.
2) OP apparently doesn't understand characterization. Not everything always 100% furthers the plot. Some thing are there to explain a character to you. You can not like that character, but you can't ***** at the writers for simply trying to explain the character to you.
I saw the movie up until the first rape scene where I decided I don't want to watch some stupidly bland detective movie that just throws some rape out of nowhere. However I don't get the problem here. He rapes, he gets rammed by a glass dildo. If he wanted the civilized justice he'd call the cops.
It's pretty much okay. Someone can go ahead and shame her and say it was wrong and two wrongs dont make a blah blah blah, but many people would see good reason to be lenient in their judgement of her.
If "cruel and unusual punishment" wasn't forbidden in the constitution, some would even call it proper justice if administered by the state. LARGE painful glass dildo treatment up the ass would be a hell of a lot cheaper than paying some years worth of taxpayer money for prison boarding.
It's pretty much okay. Someone can go ahead and shame her and say it was wrong and two wrongs dont make a blah blah blah, but many people would see good reason to be lenient in their judgement of her.
If "cruel and unusual punishment" wasn't forbidden in the constitution, some would even call it proper justice if administered by the state. LARGE painful glass dildo treatment up the ass would be a hell of a lot cheaper than paying some years worth of taxpayer money for prison boarding.
No, Justice would be a trial by jury and a jail sentence. What you're suggesting isn't Justice, it's iron age barbarism. I get you're going for this "I'm a tough guy thing" and fine that's up to you but don't try and twist your lynch mob mentality into Justice.glchicks said:
I don't see why it would be impossible to deserve being tortured, or how the definition of 'rape' would play into that.zelda2fanboy said:
I think it's very possible, and I think that what was in the movie was definitely justifiable.
Legally justifiable? Sure, of course not. But morally? I see absolutely no problem with what Lisbeth did in the movie.
Not to mention how incredibly important those scenes were for character development and to give you an idea of just what this girl is like.
As far as your understanding of the movie as a whole, it sucks that you don't like mysteries (or at least can't follow along during them), because I found it to be one of the best movies I've ever seen, and this movie had my intention the entire time.
Edit: Note that I'm equating torture and rape, because they are functionally equivalent, especially when the movie's context is taken into account. Both characters were tortured by the other, with some form of sexual penetration as the device by which they were tortured.
yes, Id love to see how you work your way out of being tazered to the point of unconciousness...tied up, beaten....and then have a metal plug shoved up your assTippy said:
since your aparently not "pathetic and weak" I'm sure you'd handle it just fine...
I thought the issue was breaking the law isn't justifiable under the law, so raping a rapist isn't justifiable. The issue isn't defending the rapist, the issue is punishing the rapist legally and raping them isn't legal... that said im not sure how much id trust a blind girl with a sword anywayglchicks said:
Absolutely.lacktheknack said:
I believe there actually was an episode of Law and Order: SVU that dealt with this topic, and I remember telling myself "yeah, I don't blame this guy. I'd do the same in his position."
A really good movie that deals with this is Law-Abiding Citizen, and in that movie, pretty much everyone in the movie agrees that (spoiler ahead)
what the main character did to the person that raped/murdered his daughter in front of him was completely justified, and that his arrest was only because they HAD to, not because they wanted to. And the average (sane) person would be rooting for this guy, too, given the circumstances.
Rape by woman is less serious unless she's ugly or does it to your ass where you can't get some payment for your trouble, 'nomsayin?
Or if she's trying to get a kid from you to rob you of child support. That would be bad.
Edit: if you're gay though, you'd understandably want that less though, so there's also that.
Or if she's trying to get a kid from you to rob you of child support. That would be bad.
Edit: if you're gay though, you'd understandably want that less though, so there's also that.
Vault101 said:
lacktheknack said:
I think it's pretty obvious that this guy didn't even see the movie. He clearly has no idea that a tazer was involved. Just point out that there WAS a tazer and that his argument doesn't hold water for this movie for that reason, and then let it go. Eesh. Alternately, just call him sexist and leave it at that. Don't combine the two: It makes you look bad, like responding to a kid asking about Santa with a slap to the face, comparatively-speaking.Buretsu said:
This is going to end up being semantics, because what is legally justifiable isn't necessarily what is morally justifiable. It just ends up being an argument about what "justice" and "justified" means.Fluffythepoo said:
If my daughter was killed, I would consider it morally justifiable to kill the murderer, even if it would be against the law and not legally justifiable. I imagine that's what the other poster thinks, too.
In this new fuck the law system is looting okay as long as you only loot from rich people?glchicks said: