4 ms·

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 u

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.
      - jvanderbot 4y ago
        I see. I think some of the pushback you may receive is because shooting someone who slept with your wife ignores the agency your wife demonstrated when she broke her vows. The third party was probably an opportunist. The wife made as much the decision as not. To believe that a wife must be guarded and lethal consequences kept as a reserve just seems a little old fashioned and pretends that women have no say in the latter. Would the loss of home, potentially children, definitely household income, life partner, probably some respect from peers, etc, not be enough punishment for an unfaithful wife?
        Johanx64 4y ago
        At which point her agency is ignored? Her actions clearly had serious consequences. Or are you crying that it's unfair that she didn't get her head blown off too? Fair enough, these cases do occasionally end up with both perpetrators getting their head blown off. However in this case, that wouldn't be advised since she already had a child (and not even necessarily his!) >Would the loss of home, potentially children, definitely household income, life partner, probably some respect from peers, etc, not be enough punishment for an unfaithful wife? You surely can't be serious. This would have happened regardless is she just had a divorce first, and that would have been the proper procedure for her in this case anyway if she "wants to be with somebody else" (I like how casual this sounds LOL). Especially taking into account how these things are settled nowadays? Fuck, it's anything but a punishment. And the man would just..... walk it off? Of course wifes/woman have to be guarded. Can they defend themselves in an attack? No? However in this case, what's defended is the institution of marriage. Without adultery having serious conseqence, marriage is utterly and absolutely meaningless procedure, without any benefit or consequence.

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.
    - jvanderbot 4y ago
      I see. I think some of the pushback you may receive is because shooting someone who slept with your wife ignores the agency your wife demonstrated when she broke her vows. The third party was probably an opportunist. The wife made as much the decision as not. To believe that a wife must be guarded and lethal consequences kept as a reserve just seems a little old fashioned and pretends that women have no say in the latter. Would the loss of home, potentially children, definitely household income, life partner, probably some respect from peers, etc, not be enough punishment for an unfaithful wife?
      - Johanx64 4y ago
        At which point her agency is ignored? Her actions clearly had serious consequences. Or are you crying that it's unfair that she didn't get her head blown off too? Fair enough, these cases do occasionally end up with both perpetrators getting their head blown off. However in this case, that wouldn't be advised since she already had a child (and not even necessarily his!) >Would the loss of home, potentially children, definitely household income, life partner, probably some respect from peers, etc, not be enough punishment for an unfaithful wife? You surely can't be serious. This would have happened regardless is she just had a divorce first, and that would have been the proper procedure for her in this case anyway if she "wants to be with somebody else" (I like how casual this sounds LOL). Especially taking into account how these things are settled nowadays? Fuck, it's anything but a punishment. And the man would just..... walk it off? Of course wifes/woman have to be guarded. Can they defend themselves in an attack? No? However in this case, what's defended is the institution of marriage. Without adultery having serious conseqence, marriage is utterly and absolutely meaningless procedure, without any benefit or consequence.