MAMEWorld Forums - Welcome to the War Room

> Pacifism. I get it. Sure. That is also a freewill choice of anyone that wants to
> li... er, die that way.
>
> So. You're saying that since the very concept of pacifism exists, that no single
> free-willed entity should be allowed the opportunity of self preservation? What
> grants YOU the moral authority to make that claim?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that you're making assertions that rights are "natural" and "God-given" without giving any backing for it besides the assertion. Others would claim that God grants no such right.

> If you're a 105 lb (48 kilos) female, and a 280 lb rapist has you backed into a
> corner, I'm not sure asking nicely is going to persuade the rapist to leave you
> alone.
>
> A gun allows a victim the chance of survival. Would she need to use it? Of course
> not. The threat of injury or death to the rapist (again, another example of self
> preservation) is a deterrent. So therefor, in this particular circumstance, having a
> gun is justified. I can't understand why anyone would think it wouldn't be.

You're making up a situation that's very rare. People like to imagine these scary rapists out there stalking vulnerable women, but it doesn't work like that. Most victims know their rapists. Often they're friends or family members. The situations where rape happens aren't for the most part situations where you can pull a gun.

In the comparatively rare case of the scary rapist stalking his victims, if he's in a society where guns are pervasive like the US, he'll more than likely be carrying a gun himself. He'll pick an isolated victim and get his gun trained on her before she has a chance to reach for her weapon. If she reaches for her weapon, he just shoots her - he's already in deep with this, there's not much to lose. He's not going to do attempt the crime in a situation where there are other people around who could do something because he's a coward.

Now in a culture where guns aren't pervasive, the scary rapist doesn't bother to carry a gun - it's a liability most of the time. Once again, he'll choose a situation where his intended victim is unlikely to get help. But the woman doesn't have a gun pulled on her, and has some chance of getting away or screaming for help without getting shot.

> > Most religions, including Christianity and orthodox Judaism, frown on vindictiveness.
> > "An eye for an eye" is about proportional punishment, as in you don't kill someone
> > for just blinding you in one eye. This is completely lost in politicians' "tough on
> > crime" rhetoric.
>
> If you're going to go the Biblical route here, then do you think that Jesus wouldn't
> have allowed anyone to defend themselves?
>
> Take the time Jesus was going to be arrested (before he was to be crucified). His
> disciples did carry weapons with them. Swords, as I'm sure you're aware.... Even back
> then, there were mortal threats. To not be armed for protection would be foolish.
>
> I know it's not like that today... At least, not in a lot of places. That's not to
> say there aren't dangerous areas.... (I could say more here, but it'd just be
> rambling)

Well, Jesus was a pacifist - look at the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5). It's the meek, merciful, peacemakers, and those who are poor in spirit who get the cred. Also, in verses 11-12: "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." The other line occurs in verses 38-39: "You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." He's pretty explicit - there's no space for vindictiveness there.

The Old Testament also prophesies a non-violent future, e.g. Isaiah 2:3-4: "And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."

Yes, the world is fallen, and we can't actually achieve this ideal. Biblically, it's the original sin that lurks in the hearts of all sons/daughters of Adam. But trying to argue that the Bible advocates a society where you have to proverbially carry a big stick doesn't hold water..

> There's also the concept of Justice. If nobody should face the consequences of their
> actions, then those exercising their "free-will" to hurt others can get away with it,
> scot-free. Following a non-interventionist/pacifist philosophy would suck some
> serious Equus ferus caballus fallace. But, I guess that's okay if that's what anyone
> chooses to do. It's not MY funeral.

There's a difference between justice and vindictiveness. The Old Testament law emphasises proportionality of punishments. Also, if just Jesus' opinion isn't enough for you, you can find St Paul's admonition against vindictiveness in Romans 12:17-21:

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

The citations in the passage come from Deuteronomy 32:35 and Proverbs 25:21-22. There's definitely a strong element of leaving people to suffer divine retribution there. This isn't unique to Christianity - some forms of Buddhism teach that enough negative actions lead to you being demoted to a lower, hell-like realm on reincarnation.

There's a reason we don't support "mob justice" - we don't recognise it as actual justice. There's definitely an argument for keeping unreformed violent criminals out of society for the safety of everyone else, but ultimately, what does vindictiveness achieve? Whatever you do to a murderer doesn't bring back the murder victim. And considering the number of death row inmates who have their sentences overturned, it seems modern legal systems are more wired for producing convictions than getting the right person.

> > The reported rape rate is apparently 5% higher
> > than the US (be aware that non-consensual oral or digital penetration is considered
> > rape in Australia, while in the US it's not included in rape statistics, as it's
> > defined as sexual assault).
>
> Digital Penetration?

Do I really have to spell it out to you? Fingering someone in the pussy/arsehole without their consent. Arserape is also defined as rape in Australia. In the US, only penis-in-vagina rape is defined as rape )in the US, as a man, by definition you can't be raped, you should feel privileged). This means that the Australian total per capita rate of vaginal rape, arserape, digital rape is 5% higher than the US per capita rate of penis-in-vagina rape alone.

> > When you expect
> > others to have guns, you start carrying guns, and when there are guns everywhere,
> > volatile situations escalate into gunfights.
>
> Not necessarily... I'll have to disagree. Again, I refer you back to the idea of self
> preservation. Things would have to get highly volatile before reaching the level to
> warrant use of a firearm. That's more likely to happen in criminal elements, such as
> gangs or drug dealers. You're more likely to find the criminal elements in the very
> same areas where there are high rates of crimes (they're also gun-free zones...
> coincidence? Not at all). ....Not in circles where law-abiding citizens are the
> majority.

Well the proof's in the pudding. The US has a far higher homicide rate than Australia. The Philippines, another place where people carry handguns everywhere, regularly has bar fights escalating into gunfights in major cities. It's all very well for you to talk about it in the abstract like this, but you haven't given a single data point that actually supports your position.