4 ms·

It sounds like it "ment" you literally owned your wife and if she didn't enjoy being with you, you were justified in taking your rage out on others... So, kinda

It sounds like it "ment" you literally owned your wife and if she didn't enjoy being with you, you were justified in taking your rage out on others... So, kinda glad people can just get divorced now instead of having random psychopaths propelling around the country murdering with impunity

Johanx64 4y ago
Did he kill his wife or not? No? Then why are you even bringing his wife into it. Some man fucked a married woman, he got killed. At no point does this bring up questions of "ownership" or "random psychopathy". A random psychopath out of nowhere didn't kill you, you got killed by a husband of a married woman you fucked. Action -> Consequence. Very deterministic. There's no randomness in who got killed in this circumstance, in fact it's pretty predictable outcome (like rolling a dice where one face of a dice might kill you). Actions had consequences. Unless the woman hid that she was married, and the man had no way of knowing then that'd be bit different. Additionally, according to the article, they did end up getting divorced, which seems to indicate that a divorce was an available option. I get it, consequence-free, zero responsibility stuff is all the rage now, and thus marriage means jack shit now (and little to no reason to do it really)
- jvanderbot 4y ago
  Since we're playing the action->fatal consequence game, what other perfectly legal (although irritating) things should justify first-degree, premeditated murder?
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    I am sure that if violating any software license attracted such kind of vengeance, HN would be a server of ghosts.
  - splitstud 4y ago
  - Johanx64 4y ago
    It is telling that you're refering to adulterly as this innocent "perfectly legal", but "irritating" (LOL!) thing, given that within the context of the article, the mid 19th century, it was pretty darn far from "perfectly legal" to say the least, and has legal consequences even to this day. Legality is absolutely irrelevant in any conversation about morality, ethics or societal norms and their decline and similar. They are not laws of universe and are malleable, made up and thus completely irrelevant outside of context of seeking legal advice. Legality of thing X, implies absolutely NOTHING about thing X, other than it being legal that is. It's the hidden implicit implication (but "hey, it's perfectly legal", and therefore) which is particularly dishonest and insidious. And in many cases a murder as a consequence of adultery would not necessarily be classified as "premediated first-degree murder" either.
    - jvanderbot 4y ago
      What I'm asking is: By your code of justice, which by your comments above is extra-judicial and instead based on morality, what other acts would justify first degree murder?
      - Johanx64 4y ago
        My comments are not necessarily extrajudicial. They are and can be very much judicial and "legal" depending on time & place. (which is why legality in out of itself is irrelevant, outside of seeking legal advice) You're still using terminology like "first degree murder", any kind of "killing" which could be called "justifiable" can't be without provocation or prior infliction of serious harm from the victim beforehand directly or indirectly. In other words, it's retaliatory and defensive in some sense. >what other acts would justify killing somebody? From top of my head, probably transmission of HIV without disclosing your status might be there (with some exceptions). Legality of this warries from country to country and punishment for it is often times not proportional to the severity of the crime (of bodily harm/transmission). Like what's 5years for ruining somebody's life? Or no punishment at all? But I think you're missing the key point and it isn't justifying "murders", but about actions having serious consequences. Compared to having ...... none basically.

Johanx64 4y ago

Did he kill his wife or not? No? Then why are you even bringing his wife into it. Some man fucked a married woman, he got killed. At no point does this bring up questions of "ownership" or "random psychopathy". A random psychopath out of nowhere didn't kill you, you got killed by a husband of a married woman you fucked. Action -> Consequence. Very deterministic. There's no randomness in who got killed in this circumstance, in fact it's pretty predictable outcome (like rolling a dice where one face of a dice might kill you). Actions had consequences. Unless the woman hid that she was married, and the man had no way of knowing then that'd be bit different. Additionally, according to the article, they did end up getting divorced, which seems to indicate that a divorce was an available option. I get it, consequence-free, zero responsibility stuff is all the rage now, and thus marriage means jack shit now (and little to no reason to do it really)

jvanderbot 4y ago
Since we're playing the action->fatal consequence game, what other perfectly legal (although irritating) things should justify first-degree, premeditated murder?
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  I am sure that if violating any software license attracted such kind of vengeance, HN would be a server of ghosts.
- splitstud 4y ago
- Johanx64 4y ago
  It is telling that you're refering to adulterly as this innocent "perfectly legal", but "irritating" (LOL!) thing, given that within the context of the article, the mid 19th century, it was pretty darn far from "perfectly legal" to say the least, and has legal consequences even to this day. Legality is absolutely irrelevant in any conversation about morality, ethics or societal norms and their decline and similar. They are not laws of universe and are malleable, made up and thus completely irrelevant outside of context of seeking legal advice. Legality of thing X, implies absolutely NOTHING about thing X, other than it being legal that is. It's the hidden implicit implication (but "hey, it's perfectly legal", and therefore) which is particularly dishonest and insidious. And in many cases a murder as a consequence of adultery would not necessarily be classified as "premediated first-degree murder" either.
  - jvanderbot 4y ago
    What I'm asking is: By your code of justice, which by your comments above is extra-judicial and instead based on morality, what other acts would justify first degree murder?
    - Johanx64 4y ago
      My comments are not necessarily extrajudicial. They are and can be very much judicial and "legal" depending on time & place. (which is why legality in out of itself is irrelevant, outside of seeking legal advice) You're still using terminology like "first degree murder", any kind of "killing" which could be called "justifiable" can't be without provocation or prior infliction of serious harm from the victim beforehand directly or indirectly. In other words, it's retaliatory and defensive in some sense. >what other acts would justify killing somebody? From top of my head, probably transmission of HIV without disclosing your status might be there (with some exceptions). Legality of this warries from country to country and punishment for it is often times not proportional to the severity of the crime (of bodily harm/transmission). Like what's 5years for ruining somebody's life? Or no punishment at all? But I think you're missing the key point and it isn't justifying "murders", but about actions having serious consequences. Compared to having ...... none basically.