4 ms·

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 it

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
    Oh, I'm not crying about anything. I'm just watching this go further and further off the rails. It's clear we have such different opinions of the women in our lives that I think we irreconcilable.
    - Johanx64 4y ago
      Fair enough. I don't think I've strayed from the original remark: which is that marriage as an institution was a semantically meaningful and adultery had serious consequences. Which has nothing to do with "women in our lives" whatsover, since it easily could have been a wife who gunned down the mistress and/or husband for adultery. Everyone seemed to haphazardly latch onto "womans rights and agency", which I find particularly odd since when zero consequences for actions is some sort of fundamental (woman?) right or something to that effect. The only way I can interpret is that they desire and quite enjoy the "zero consequences" pure indulgence, hedonistic culture and are too cowardly to own up to it, instead hide behind all sorts of other excuses("but what about them women agency") which makes no sense whatsover given the context. Ie. they want to be able to fuck somebodys wife with the legal protection on their side, thus somewhat reducing the risk of their face getting mashed in with a steel pipe. The crucial part of the discussion is whether: (a) marriage as an institution should be serious and have serious consequences (b) or should it be abolished and/or remain an empty meaningless husk of it's former self, a pure old fashioned tradition/sentimentality without any real substance behind it That's all there is to it.

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
  Oh, I'm not crying about anything. I'm just watching this go further and further off the rails. It's clear we have such different opinions of the women in our lives that I think we irreconcilable.
  - Johanx64 4y ago
    Fair enough. I don't think I've strayed from the original remark: which is that marriage as an institution was a semantically meaningful and adultery had serious consequences. Which has nothing to do with "women in our lives" whatsover, since it easily could have been a wife who gunned down the mistress and/or husband for adultery. Everyone seemed to haphazardly latch onto "womans rights and agency", which I find particularly odd since when zero consequences for actions is some sort of fundamental (woman?) right or something to that effect. The only way I can interpret is that they desire and quite enjoy the "zero consequences" pure indulgence, hedonistic culture and are too cowardly to own up to it, instead hide behind all sorts of other excuses("but what about them women agency") which makes no sense whatsover given the context. Ie. they want to be able to fuck somebodys wife with the legal protection on their side, thus somewhat reducing the risk of their face getting mashed in with a steel pipe. The crucial part of the discussion is whether: (a) marriage as an institution should be serious and have serious consequences (b) or should it be abolished and/or remain an empty meaningless husk of it's former self, a pure old fashioned tradition/sentimentality without any real substance behind it That's all there is to it.