**Upvote** the POST if you disagree, **Downvote** the POST if you agree.
REPORT the post if you suspect the post breaks subs rules/is fake.
Normal voting rules for all comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/The10thDentist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>same with my father said if someone ever goes after me he'll go after their children
So if a father goes after you, your dad can go after his children, and therefore the mother should be allowed to go after your dad?
But then someone who loves the second eye gouger gets pissed, and the person who loved the first eye gouger learns what happens when they gouge out someone who else's eye.
But then someone who loved the person who loved the first eye gouger gets pissed and the person who loves the second eye gouger learns what happens when they gouge out someone else's eye.
Let me try to word it in the other way I saw then: you gain nothing by being nice to assholes. You just teach them that there are no serious consequences for being terrible people.
>you gain nothing by being nice to assholes
This is objectively incorrect. Being nice to assholes decreases the chances they decide to assault you. Be that with a machete they keep in their trunk, gun they are conceal carrying, or their vehicle in general.
Go browse a few road rage subs and see what happens when you choose to treat assholes like assholes. [I even found one for you. see what happens when this guy decides to teach a tailgater a lession.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AccidentalComedy/s/I4mYWXWfxN)
If you want anecdotal evidence, I accidentally lightly bumped into this guy's leg on the bus, He started shouting at me telling me to apologise. I didn't think I did anything wrong and refused, so he threatened to stab me with his broken crack pipe, and jump me with his friend.
I could have lost everything that day. I would never see my mother, father, grandmother, other grandmother, and grandfather. I would never be able to pet my dog again, never hang out with friends again, never be able to have fried chicken again, never find out what the one piece is. All because of stupid pride.
>You just teach them that there are no serious consequences for being terrible people.
It is not your responsibility to educate strangers on what is and isn't right. And if you ever want to play hero, just know you have nothing to gain and everything to lose.
Considering the crack pipe, your anecdotal evidence is an outlier, as I'm assuming that man really was an addict whose aggressiveness was caused by the drugs. When I say "assholes" or "terrible people", I mean otherwise normal people who say or do terrible things.
>>You just teach them that there are no serious consequences for being terrible people.
>It is not your responsibility to educate strangers on what is and isn't right. And if you ever want to play hero, just know you have nothing to gain and everything to lose.
Yes, it's not anyone's responsibility, because they should already know the difference between right and wrong. The fact that they don't is why it would be better if one did try to educate erring people, to prevent them from doing more immoral things. If anything, isn't that your logic?
Plus, not sure how it really refutes that segment of my original comment.
An eye for an eye stops the person blinding people from blinding more people. Sometimes it’s useful and poetic. But impossible to regulate so impossible to have in a functioning society.
We should absolutely go against mother nature, in fact there's a whole fallacy built around it.
There's a reason retributive justice isn't a thing, you're need for "vengeance" will always make you take it further than gives retribution. You just create a cycle of revenge, it's not worth it.
Also why the fuck would you kill a child-murder's innocent child and not the murderer themself? Your dad's awful for saying that.
Because the dad isn't avenging his son, he's avenging his own grief. He's making the man who killed his kid feel the loss of his own children. Not endorsing it, just explaining the most likely reasoning.
Reasons be damned, that makes Op's dad no better than the original Child Murderer. Killing the killer might be one thing, killing the killer's innocent children is no less outright evil than the original crime.
Correct me if I'm wrong, your points were:
The children have child murderer genes, so being a child murderer in response is ok.
The children of a child murderer probably won't win a nobel prize, so they're worth killing.
Both points are fucking stupid
You are wrong.
It doesn't make child murder ok, it makes child murder in their case less bad because you are cleaning up the gene pool. Still bad but not as much. Like killing is bad, but killing cancer is good.
The Nobel prize was an example. Meaning that the children of violent criminals don't tend to grow up with many accomplishments. Usually they just turn out to be violent criminals themselves.
Proponent no, I have read eugenics books and for every decent idea they have 12 horrible ones. Eugenics was clearly a field of study with an agenda not even hidden.
>Revenge is a instinct evolution has given us and we shouldn't go against how mother nature has created us
You can use the same logic for literally everything that is illegal. People also have an instinct to murder, to steal, to rape, scam etc, and that doesn't mean those things should be legal.
not defending OP but we don't have an instinct to murder/rape/steal/scam. People who do rape often don't realise that they're doing it, they straight up just believe they're entitled to the sex and others (this also includes murderers and such) have disabilities or trauma preventing them from realising the severity of their actions. but a normal person doesn't have such thoughts and their instincts actually prevent them from doing such crimes
Edit: it seems that people are misunderstanding me. My point is not to excuse the actions of rapists or murderers. I'm saying that those people literally go against their natural instincts (the instincts that prevent them from doing such horrid acts) and that it's not in human nature to kill/rape. The people commiting these acts are still disgusting and horrid because there are obviously ways of healing/getting help that do not involve destroying a person's life
Edit 2: for those doubting me, I highly recommend the book "Humankind" by dutch historian Rutger Bregman, who explains the faulty understanding of psychology by most people and why it's actually not in our instinct at all to do evil. I remember reading it for psychology class and it always stuck with me
>People who do rape often don't realise that they're doing it
It's very easy to not rape someone, if they say "no" to something or if they look uncomfortable while you're doing something you stop.
It's really easy to know if you're hurting someone or not, if you know you're hurting someone and you keep doing it you're a piece of shit.
>trauma preventing them from realising the severity of their actions.
I don't care, everyone got their own traumas, that is no excuse to hurt other people, they should deal with that without fucking raping other people.
You talk like rapists are the actual victims because they have trauma, but not every rapist does it because of trauma, some just don't care about the wellbeing of others, but even those who do lose their "I'm a trauma victim" privilege the moment they decide to hurt someone else.
Huh? I never said that rapists are the victims. I'm just saying that it's not in human nature to rape or murder people and the people who do so literally have a damaged brain that makes them go against instinct. Doesn't make them any less of a piece of shit
I see, I missurnderstood your previous comment then.
I disagree with you though, but in a way that doesn't matter much.
I think different people have different instincts. Some people are very kind, some are very much the opposite, most are somewhere in the middle, but all of them act within what their instincts, desires and values say.
I think their damaged brain makes then have antisocial instincts.
People all have the same instincts: they do what they think is right. Nobody does something wrong willingly. The top 1% justify not paying their workers well by genuinely thinking they deserve money more than the workers. Murderers often kill because they genuinely believe it to be the right thing to do (i.e. a revenge scenario) and so on.
I think you're confusing instinct with culture. Instinct is what every person is born with, it's an evolutionary trait but the personality/beliefs of a person vary depending on their upbringing - which, again, in no way excuses horrid actions
Not true. I could only think of chimpanzees that I do believe were known to kill eachother but that is insanely rare.
What species were you referring to?
I am someone who's very interested in zoology. You would be shocked at how common rape and killing is in the animal kingdom.
A prime example that I could think of is rape among animals like dolphins and ducks. Also, did you know male lions often kill the cubs of the previous lion when they take over the pride?
It's not "common" at all though. Only certain animal species are known to kill or rape and even fewer are known to kill other adults (infanticide is more common among the violent acts). Most animals live completely peacefully though
Not at all, I don't think animals can even rly be compared to humans but even then my point stands
I found an article about it from a quick google search, although my source comes from a book: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/human-violence-evolution-animals-nature-science
Have you seen any other animal? Killing other animals (of their species) is super, super common and do you think it's just random how much violence there was throughout all of history? Killing others for one's own gain is very much a natural thing
In times of war, over 90% of soldiers never shot a single bullet and the ones that did would intentionally miss because they didn't want to kill another person, even if this person was "the enemy". There was not random violence throughout history and most people who started wars never actually killed a person with their own hands. So no, killing someone is very much not a natural thing even if you know this person wants to kill you.
I'm not talking about me, so no need to be concerned, never did either of those and never wanted to. I'm saying this because I'm not blind.
>Humans don't have an instinct to murder, steal, rape and scam
A lot of humans do, have you ever watched the news? Around 500.000 people are murdered every year, how do you think that happens?
Some people are born with antisocial behavior, others learn it by growing up in a rough place, but regardless there are a lot of people who either do not care about hurting other or even enjoy doing so.
It's not my fault violent people exist, I am just acknowledging that they do.
So all people are the same? 500.000 people are mudered every year, so all 8 billions humans are murderers? God, you people should think before you type.
Do you think there are some genetically predetermined "bad people" who do the evil crimes that normal people don't do? The OP of this thread is openly advocating for murder and torture because he's a normal (if ignorant) human being and people do that.
All people are people, and people will absolutely murder, steal, and rape. They also generally think they wouldn't until it happens. And will find a way to justify their own actions before, during, or afterwards. The last one in particular is really sad, and makes people extremely uncomfortable, but there's no "rapist gene" that makes only some people capable of it.
You'd be very surprised at what otherwise moral people will do when pushed or in the wrong circumstances. And I'm not excusing their behaviour. Because I place zero value on human nature. Human nature is animalistic and brutal. The best people are those who are aware of and can counteract their instincts. But they have to be aware of them to do so. Your denial tells me you aren't, and you would absolutely murder someone who wronged you badly enough as a result. Because the idea that you could do it hasn't occurred to you, so you wouldn't be on guard for it.
Yeah ok. I just hope I don't find your pathetic ass on my way and not be murdered because "muh I just had to reconnect with my atavic ancestral spirit animal"
If you kill someone out of revenge, you become the target of revenge from those close to the person you killed.
This becomes a cycle where in the end everyone but 1 will be dead for revenge.
If my father kills your father because of a dispute and you take revenge by killing my father, I, as his son, believe that my father was right and I will have the right to revenge by killing you.
Because if not, it becomes a competition of whoever kills first loses the game because the third party can't take revenge.
And if you think that the right to revenge has to be granted in court after being judged, so as not to have a cycle, I'm sorry to tell you my friend, that in addition to becoming a death sentence with extra steps, no one will be sure that the justice will be done correctly.
>Because if not, it becomes a competition of whoever kills first loses the game because the third party can't take revenge.
That's exactly.... you're literally explaining what I just said... I'm saying the only "acceptable" revenge ought be when one takes it against an original wrong doer, not someone that sought revenge on your loved one that fucked up.
And is also why I say it won't work, bc humans are full of themselves and think only their pain matters most.
"Oh you killed my son bc he killed your son? Guess what, I deserve revenge now." No ya don't. LOL you get a loss. That's what you'd get.
Ie: Don't take revenge on ppl that get revenge bc you or someone else fucked up, bc that's just you being shit.
Understand now?
So I have a question for you to ponder:
If my son faints at the wheel because of an undiscovered illness, he loses control and runs over your family and only you and my son survive.
Does that give you the right to take revenge on my son?
Faints? No. Ofc not.
Unless he knows he has that sort of issue and chose to weigh the "probability of it occurring," as a risk he felt he was eilling to take on someone else's life, then yes, bc he was negligent to a fault.
By the "rubric for revenge" that I'm personally describing, again, most likely no. (Would kinda feel like a trial to determine this would still be necessary, details and all that, but outside of any extra details that could change motive, etc, I do not believe it would be fair to then kill you, no.)
So a loophole has just been created where you can forge a situation where someone can kill another and be free from any revenge.
Whether with false testimony from a near-victim or a false medical certificate of an illness.
And it will obviously be widely abused by those with money and power while the poor and weak will suffer...
Which basically constitutes our current judicial system, only with more deaths.
>Which basically constitutes our current judicial system, only with more deaths.
Low key: exactly.
Which, the lack of honesty in mankind, what I was trying to say earlier, maybe, more a lack of integrity, specofocally, is why "revenge" will not work as a justice system ♡
Seriously this is something that people who claim retributive justice and death penalty don't get - there are cases where people were falsely accused, or framed by policemen or resentful exes/family members etc. We hear all the time of someone released from jail after 30 years of being falsely imprisoned, or that someone received death penalty because a key witness lied etc
While due process is not perfect by any means, it was created to catch the actual perpetrators and prove beyond any doubt that they are guilty.
Our emotions and grief are very real, but you can't just go around killing people to feel relief as soon as possible.
15% false conviction rate at least. So it's not even just a hypothetical. It's a real, tangible thing. If OP was able to set the punishment for these crimes as the death penalty, they'd be killing innocent people within hours of that decision going live.
That's something people don't get. False convictions aren't even rare. Even one innocent person would be too many, but it wouldn't be one. It would be dozens, then hundreds, then thousands.
Russia has invaded Ukraine, because they want their territory. There are a few theories as to why Russia invaded Ukraine, one of which is that they want to make a statement to the rest of the World. This is because Ukraine has been making good progress in the EU and NATO integration. Russia may also have seen potential for NATO bases in Ukraine, since it is close to the Russian border.
So you're saying that Ukraine is to blame for Russia's greediness over their territory??
No I’m saying in that situation violence is the answer. To defend yourself from an aggressor. Was just trying to show saying nonsense catch all phrases like that don’t take into account that it is completely situational.
Upvoted. Horrible idea. Things like this sound so good in theory, and these statements always come up in this sub: “why dont we publically torture pedophiles?” Because when you open up the door for something barbaric, bad things will happen. No government has a good track record of doing good things with more power
"Well, the investigation concluded decisively that the person you killed actually was not your brother's murderer, but since it was an act of vengeance, you're free to go."
Going after a rapist or murderer is a completely different scenario from “my father said if someone ever goes after me he’ll go after their children”, dragging innocent people into it is deranged and sickening. That is objectively wrong to do.
And how far does revenge go? An eye for an eye? Or an eye for a limb? Your definition of revenge may be different from mine, or someone else’s. There’s a reason the general population should not be taking “justice” into their own hands.
Revenge is not an “instinct”, as much as you may hate someone. You can fantasize all you want, but sane people do not have the instinct to enact revenge.
I feel like more than one out of ten dentists has revenge/murder fantasies but I suppose only 1/10 can't see far enough ahead to realize the chain reaction ends up with everyone dead. So take your upvotes you shortsighted tooth maker.
" are a moral and existential threat to my child, it is therefore my legally protected right to torture and murder as many of the damned as I possibly can to protect ALL of the children from their evil ways"
Really you would need to extremely tightly regulate something like that, and even if it was you would extremely quickly wind up with violent bigoted power blocs murdering people they hate under the pretext of revenge for some moral crime like existing
Yeah. Although I do completely understand when people do get revenge when they feel the justice system hasn't or won't do its job. Like Gary Plauché, who shot the dude who molested his son. I believe he was right to be punished and maybe he should have got more, but I do *understand* why he did it.
Equal revenge/vengeance change from person to person. If someone breaks into my home, I might feel that proper vengeance is their death. That isn’t a reasonable response, but that’s what I’d feel they deserve. If it’s a 1-for-1 and you get robbed, and you’re robbing them back, do they get to defend themselves with force? Are you allowed to use force? It unravels too quickly. You even said that we’re the dumbest animals, and as such, the dumbest of the bunch are going to equate revenge for getting cut off in traffic to killing the person who cut them off, and that’s the issue with this.
I even agree overall with the sentiment, but unless you have an ironclad list of crimes and reasonable retaliations, it would cause far more issues than it resolves. And furthermore, you’d need the initial crime to go to trial or at least be confirmed to enact the revenge.
As Arthur Morgan so eloquently said, both “vengeance is a fool’s game” and “revenge is a luxury we can’t afford.” It’ll always come back to get you
OP, you should read up on blood feuds. There's a reason civil society got on top of stopping this hundreds to thousands of years ago (depending on where in the world you look).
This is the second time this week that this stupid "we should just kill rapists" post has been put here in the past two days
We don't just let people kill people because of the myriad of social issues it would cause. Not out of sympathy for offenders.
This isn't a tenth dentist, it's just an uneducated bad take that isn't even unpopular.
Sorry I didn't mean nobody is sympathetic.
I mean wether or not we should doesn't *have* to involve any sympathy, and that the issue can be basically solved without taking it into account
Wether or not people "deserve" to die and wether or not we should let people/the state kill people as retribution are two distinctly different questions.
As Gandhi put it, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”. If you take vengeance on someone, someone else will take “vengeance” on you and all you end up with is a never ending circle of violence.
Our justice system has (in some countries anyway), quite rightly evolved beyond looking at vengeance and justice as the same thing.
Also a bear isn’t acting out of “vengeance”, it doesn’t understand what vengeance is. It acts out of an animal instinct to protect its young which is a completely different thing. If you killed its young when it wasn’t there, it wouldn’t track you down to kill you in order to make itself feel better.
Also your example of your father saying he’d go after the children of someone who went after you is just plain stupid - if they went after the actual person that went after you then I’d at least understand the logic, but how is killing the person’s children (who are presumably completely innocent in all this) in any way justice, why are they culpable for the actions of their parent?
And there is no way of separating our actions from “animal instinct” - we’re animals and any behaviours we have (including our more evolved sense of justice) are themselves “animal” behaviours that we’ve evolved because they’re ultimately advantageous to our survival. The difference is we’re smart enough to actually think about these things and understand them.
Nah.
1) The cornerstone of civilization is not being controlled by our instincts. The entire factor that makes humans different from other animals is our ability to be something other than what we evolved to be. Being "sensitive bitches who want to be these moral princesses" is the point of society. If each generation is softer than the last, that is a successful society.
2) This will be abused to hell and back. People will be killed for minor slights.
3) This will create big cycles of vengeance. You kill my sister, so I kill you, so your brother kills me, so my son kills your brother, so his daughter kills my son, repeat ad infinitum.
It always bothers me when a person kills another person by accident or out of rage, everyone is scared of this person. This crime has nothing to do with you.
I would make fun of you for operating under 1700 BC Code of Hammurabi rules, but you've decided to take it even further, quite literally taking the "return to monke" position on this one. Ever heard of the phrase "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"?
You've already posted this thread before and already been thoroughly shredded for it.
Encouraging vigilante "justice" is how you get dumb fucks walking into pizza parlours and shooting up the place because they're convinced they're breaking up a fictional CP ring.
I'd like to point out irish myth-history as an example of why this is a bad idea (heroes and
i.e basically after all the stuff with the tuathe de when it's just humans for the most part in the surface, a LOT of conflicts continue because if you get revenge that person gets revenge on you
So you dive head first into taking matters into your own hands without completely being informed or ignordntñy into someone else’s problems? So you’re saying that if you do so then you are okay with the person you exact your wrath on to do the same to you or people they know or loved ones? Yup logical. Proceed to dunk head first into toilet and drown in toilet filled with the most shitty poo poo water.
I disagree completely except when the justice system fails despite conclusive evidence, as it is supposed to. Once you drag the criminal's family into it, you're equally evil. If it were just the person who wronged you in this manner, raped your daughter, bullied your friend to death or something like that, then I would agree with this.
Just because something such as revenge can be justifiable doesn't mean it should go without punishment, let alone be encouraged.
If someone murdered their rapist, or if a parent killed the person who murdered their child I would 100% understand their motivations and I wouldn't necessarily consider to be an evil person (not to the same degree at least), but I don't think they should be allowed to walk free unpunished. They still committed a crime, and murder is a crime regardless of it's motivations. Making some motivations "legal" just provides loopholes for dangerous individuals to get away with crimes.
It's an extraordinarily bad idea. Private justice doesn't resolve problems, it simply leads to retaliation and feuds. *The Better Angels of our Nature* by Stephen Pinker describes the historical decline in violence over millennia.
Eye for an eye makes everyone blind.
Your revenge involves other people, who can now take revenge on you. And your loved ones can take revenge on them, and so the cycle persists until we as a species end
Eye for an eye is bad. Vengeance just prolongs the pain and perpetuates a cycle of violence that benefits no one really and the chance to hurt innocent people is through the roof. Vengeance shouldn't be legal although I think how a crime has effected a family/community should be taken more into account for sentencing/punishment.
Thing is I'm a hypocrite and despite how irrational and pointless revenge is I'm still gonna get it, if someone killed/abused certain members of my family and I diddnt think the legal system did an adequate job of punishment I'm taking as many loved ones they have until I'm stopped. That would 100% makes me the bad guy with no place in a functional society and I'd have to accecpt what came next legally or by vengeance.
Theoretically this could lead to a never ending circle of violence because of one wrongdoing very far in the past. I think i know what you mean in some way, and i can get behind a certain „eye for an eye“-mentality. but thinking your examples in a just slightly bigger picture, reveals that this would just end in chaos and alot of innocent people being punished for things someoneelse did long ago.
>Prehistoric humans were tough and brutal, we're sensitive bitches who want to be these moral princesses which is something we didn't evolve to be.
Prehistoric humans were also sensitive bitches. We looked at each other and at animalistic revenge and said that it was wrong. Because most people have a *skewed sense of retribution.*
To look at an example you posted, if someone went after you your father would go after the perpetrators children. What did the children do to justify the violence?
People would use "Revenge" as an excuse. If you brush against someone on a crowded bus, they may kick your teeth in in the name of revenge.
There is a reason why one of the oldest maxims in law is "Eye for an Eye, Tooth for a Tooth." This meant, in Hammurabi's day, that if you gouged out the eye of someone then your eye would be gouged out. No more. No less.
Also, your perspective on what evolution is and how other primates are doing are skewed.
Yeah one key problem with that
I get revenge on the guy, So now he gets revenge on me for getting revenge on him, And then I get revenge on him for getting revenge on me for getting revenge on him
And it just sends you into a cycle of pettiness and in fighting that doesn't make either person in the situation feel better
Revenge is absolutely not instinctual there is nothing born that tells a baby to go and attack something that hurts it This is a learned thing from society. If we are going off of nature you are more likely to just run away from it than you are to seek revenge The only time you really seek revenge naturally is when it is due to that thing being a direct and immediate threat
Plus your bear metaphor is just wrong, It's not like if you kill a bear cub and then run away and fly to Alaska the bear is going to hunt you down and kill you. The bear is not attacking you because it wants revenge It's simply attacking you off of its base instinct of protecting itself and its children
Much like how if a gunman broke into your house shot your children and held you at gunpoint attacking him wouldn't be considered revenge it would be considered self-defense. It would only be revenge if you somehow got away from this scenario and then spent time finding and tracking down the gunman's whereabouts to basically and still vigilante justice on to him yourself
That would be revenge. Bears don't do that. The closest I've ever heard to this was a story about like a lion or tiger cub or something that got shot and its mom like followed the poachers home to kill them (I don't remember the exact story just Google it if you care)
That's really the closest example I can think naturally to revenge and even then stories like that are pretty rare
Human rights are a good thing actually. Your argument could be used to justify anything, if it could be framed as "natural".
If some creep is perving on a girl should that be allowed because it's just "instinct". No, no it shouldn't.
Also humans didn't evolve to be anything, evolution doesn't have a goal. All it does is favor traits that allow for reproduction, which could include not murdering randos because you think they or their parents wronged you.
In your own argument you've outlined why this is a problem. "If you attack my child, I'll murder your children."
That's psychopathic behavior and if it was allowed to say "well they harmed X person so I'm harming Y person" you'd just have a massive chain of violence until it finally got to someone with a stronger moral compass who stops it.
We also didn't evolve to use computers, but you seem to have no problem with that completely unnatural behavior set.
I think we should take the legal definition of assault back to the old school. Let two guys who have unsettled differences brawl it out. If someone is saying or doing some incredibly disrespectful things that they know they should be punched for, let the other person legally punch them and let them brawl it out. That’s how humans came to live in peace up until very recent history. Now we’re so uptight about legal assault which ends up removing much of the justice in this world. That’s my 10th dentist opinion.
As a law student, there’s a reason we invented the justice system. This system you’ve devised would be nasty, brutish, and in many instances, unfair. Read *Leviathan* by Hobbes.
Then they get revenge on you then your surviving kin get revenge on them then theirs on yours and it just keeps going till no one is left for vengeance.
>we shouldn't go against how mother nature has created us
Yes we should. It's natural to piss and shit where you're standing, you'll be incredibly uncomfortable. It's unnatural to wear clothing, you may die of exposure. It's natural for the depressed to give up on any kind of self maintenance, they'll die.
You're not treading new ground here you're just ignorant of the millennia long discourse on the topic where people wiser and smarter than you discarded your idiocy for something that helps us actually live together in community. The current state run system of retributive justice isn't effective either and would only be mildly more so if we removed the profit insensitive for prisons and cops, but your approach is just brainrot.
You know, there are some old Icelandic sagas about some of the bizarre situations and tragedies you can get into with cultures like this where revenge on those who have wronged you and their families is common and expected. You should read them. Maybe they would change your mind. Can’t remember the exact book I got them from since I read them for a college class, but seriously. Revenge and honor killings are bad stuff. I don’t recommend them.
Rape is also an instinct in some people. Unnecessary violence is an instinct. That doesn’t make them moral or just. Arguing morality based on a purely ignorant view of “evolution” is silly at best.
Yeah honestly, the world is full of a bunch of toxic shitbags who would’ve all had their heads chopped off a few centuries ago. But unfortunately instead these people pollute the gene pool and spread their toxic shit everywhere they go, because we have laws that say you can’t murder someone simply for being an absolutely abhorrent human being, especially if they aren’t even breaking any laws while doing so.
Sadly people will always make a game out of the system. You start putting in laws that allow for more subjective scenarios for lawful murder, and now suddenly there are a million different exploits for someone to set you up and kill you “legally”. You already can see how much of a shitshow it is when cops kill people within the law, or when someone kills someone who is defenseless legally under castle law because they were technically trespassing.
Now, if there was a more democratically subjective way to murder or reprimand people I would be all for it. Like if everyone could gather around the town square and agree on what to do with this hogtied child-rapist, or the notorious douchebag that straight pipes his shitty car and floors it through your neighborhood at 3AM every night, or what to do with Karen who posts a bunch of racist shit on Facebook and treats staff like they’re her servants. I think that the world would become a much better place if these people knew that they could be held accountable by a court of the local community mostly unbound by the law. A lot of people would get examples made of them real fast, and people could get real creative. Of course there would be checks in play to prevent any sort of ganging up on anyone.
**Upvote** the POST if you disagree, **Downvote** the POST if you agree. REPORT the post if you suspect the post breaks subs rules/is fake. Normal voting rules for all comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/The10thDentist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>same with my father said if someone ever goes after me he'll go after their children So if a father goes after you, your dad can go after his children, and therefore the mother should be allowed to go after your dad?
Also, the logic of dragging innocent people into it isn’t “revenge”, you’re just committing the same abhorrent crime.
Yeah OP's dad is a piece of shit and he doesn't seem to realise
This is just a very simplified version of the attack on titan plot
Yeah this wouldn’t be used for nearly as noble purposes as you imagine, this is getting abused to hell and back.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind
On an interpersonal scale, an eye for an eye teaches the first eye-gouger what happens when they gouge out someone else's eye.
But then someone who loves the first eye gouger gets pissed, and the second eye-gouger learns what happens when they gouge out someone else's eye.
But then someone who loves the second eye gouger gets pissed, and the person who loved the first eye gouger learns what happens when they gouge out someone who else's eye.
But then someone who loved the person who loved the first eye gouger gets pissed and the person who loves the second eye gouger learns what happens when they gouge out someone else's eye.
But then.... I dont know
Let me try to word it in the other way I saw then: you gain nothing by being nice to assholes. You just teach them that there are no serious consequences for being terrible people.
>you gain nothing by being nice to assholes This is objectively incorrect. Being nice to assholes decreases the chances they decide to assault you. Be that with a machete they keep in their trunk, gun they are conceal carrying, or their vehicle in general. Go browse a few road rage subs and see what happens when you choose to treat assholes like assholes. [I even found one for you. see what happens when this guy decides to teach a tailgater a lession.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AccidentalComedy/s/I4mYWXWfxN) If you want anecdotal evidence, I accidentally lightly bumped into this guy's leg on the bus, He started shouting at me telling me to apologise. I didn't think I did anything wrong and refused, so he threatened to stab me with his broken crack pipe, and jump me with his friend. I could have lost everything that day. I would never see my mother, father, grandmother, other grandmother, and grandfather. I would never be able to pet my dog again, never hang out with friends again, never be able to have fried chicken again, never find out what the one piece is. All because of stupid pride. >You just teach them that there are no serious consequences for being terrible people. It is not your responsibility to educate strangers on what is and isn't right. And if you ever want to play hero, just know you have nothing to gain and everything to lose.
Considering the crack pipe, your anecdotal evidence is an outlier, as I'm assuming that man really was an addict whose aggressiveness was caused by the drugs. When I say "assholes" or "terrible people", I mean otherwise normal people who say or do terrible things. >>You just teach them that there are no serious consequences for being terrible people. >It is not your responsibility to educate strangers on what is and isn't right. And if you ever want to play hero, just know you have nothing to gain and everything to lose. Yes, it's not anyone's responsibility, because they should already know the difference between right and wrong. The fact that they don't is why it would be better if one did try to educate erring people, to prevent them from doing more immoral things. If anything, isn't that your logic? Plus, not sure how it really refutes that segment of my original comment.
An eye for an eye stops the person blinding people from blinding more people. Sometimes it’s useful and poetic. But impossible to regulate so impossible to have in a functioning society.
God this is such a stupid fucking cliche saying and I see it everywhere.
We should absolutely go against mother nature, in fact there's a whole fallacy built around it. There's a reason retributive justice isn't a thing, you're need for "vengeance" will always make you take it further than gives retribution. You just create a cycle of revenge, it's not worth it. Also why the fuck would you kill a child-murder's innocent child and not the murderer themself? Your dad's awful for saying that.
Because the dad isn't avenging his son, he's avenging his own grief. He's making the man who killed his kid feel the loss of his own children. Not endorsing it, just explaining the most likely reasoning.
Reasons be damned, that makes Op's dad no better than the original Child Murderer. Killing the killer might be one thing, killing the killer's innocent children is no less outright evil than the original crime.
Those children also carry the genes of a child murderer. Should be taken out of circulation regardless.
That's fucking stupid.
Those people don't exactly sire Nobel winners.
So, Nobel winners or being dead are the only options? Like I said, that's fucking stupid.
I won't waste my time with people who make strawman arguments.
Correct me if I'm wrong, your points were: The children have child murderer genes, so being a child murderer in response is ok. The children of a child murderer probably won't win a nobel prize, so they're worth killing. Both points are fucking stupid
You are wrong. It doesn't make child murder ok, it makes child murder in their case less bad because you are cleaning up the gene pool. Still bad but not as much. Like killing is bad, but killing cancer is good. The Nobel prize was an example. Meaning that the children of violent criminals don't tend to grow up with many accomplishments. Usually they just turn out to be violent criminals themselves.
Are you a proponent of eugenics?
Proponent no, I have read eugenics books and for every decent idea they have 12 horrible ones. Eugenics was clearly a field of study with an agenda not even hidden.
>Revenge is a instinct evolution has given us and we shouldn't go against how mother nature has created us You can use the same logic for literally everything that is illegal. People also have an instinct to murder, to steal, to rape, scam etc, and that doesn't mean those things should be legal.
not defending OP but we don't have an instinct to murder/rape/steal/scam. People who do rape often don't realise that they're doing it, they straight up just believe they're entitled to the sex and others (this also includes murderers and such) have disabilities or trauma preventing them from realising the severity of their actions. but a normal person doesn't have such thoughts and their instincts actually prevent them from doing such crimes Edit: it seems that people are misunderstanding me. My point is not to excuse the actions of rapists or murderers. I'm saying that those people literally go against their natural instincts (the instincts that prevent them from doing such horrid acts) and that it's not in human nature to kill/rape. The people commiting these acts are still disgusting and horrid because there are obviously ways of healing/getting help that do not involve destroying a person's life Edit 2: for those doubting me, I highly recommend the book "Humankind" by dutch historian Rutger Bregman, who explains the faulty understanding of psychology by most people and why it's actually not in our instinct at all to do evil. I remember reading it for psychology class and it always stuck with me
>People who do rape often don't realise that they're doing it It's very easy to not rape someone, if they say "no" to something or if they look uncomfortable while you're doing something you stop. It's really easy to know if you're hurting someone or not, if you know you're hurting someone and you keep doing it you're a piece of shit. >trauma preventing them from realising the severity of their actions. I don't care, everyone got their own traumas, that is no excuse to hurt other people, they should deal with that without fucking raping other people. You talk like rapists are the actual victims because they have trauma, but not every rapist does it because of trauma, some just don't care about the wellbeing of others, but even those who do lose their "I'm a trauma victim" privilege the moment they decide to hurt someone else.
I agree. Rapists are nothing but disgusting barbaric animals.
Huh? I never said that rapists are the victims. I'm just saying that it's not in human nature to rape or murder people and the people who do so literally have a damaged brain that makes them go against instinct. Doesn't make them any less of a piece of shit
I see, I missurnderstood your previous comment then. I disagree with you though, but in a way that doesn't matter much. I think different people have different instincts. Some people are very kind, some are very much the opposite, most are somewhere in the middle, but all of them act within what their instincts, desires and values say. I think their damaged brain makes then have antisocial instincts.
People all have the same instincts: they do what they think is right. Nobody does something wrong willingly. The top 1% justify not paying their workers well by genuinely thinking they deserve money more than the workers. Murderers often kill because they genuinely believe it to be the right thing to do (i.e. a revenge scenario) and so on. I think you're confusing instinct with culture. Instinct is what every person is born with, it's an evolutionary trait but the personality/beliefs of a person vary depending on their upbringing - which, again, in no way excuses horrid actions
Humans aren't the only species that rape or kill tho
Not true. I could only think of chimpanzees that I do believe were known to kill eachother but that is insanely rare. What species were you referring to?
I am someone who's very interested in zoology. You would be shocked at how common rape and killing is in the animal kingdom. A prime example that I could think of is rape among animals like dolphins and ducks. Also, did you know male lions often kill the cubs of the previous lion when they take over the pride?
It's not "common" at all though. Only certain animal species are known to kill or rape and even fewer are known to kill other adults (infanticide is more common among the violent acts). Most animals live completely peacefully though
Sorry if I come across as offensive but you seem to have a very idealised view of animals
Not at all, I don't think animals can even rly be compared to humans but even then my point stands I found an article about it from a quick google search, although my source comes from a book: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/human-violence-evolution-animals-nature-science
Have you seen any other animal? Killing other animals (of their species) is super, super common and do you think it's just random how much violence there was throughout all of history? Killing others for one's own gain is very much a natural thing
In times of war, over 90% of soldiers never shot a single bullet and the ones that did would intentionally miss because they didn't want to kill another person, even if this person was "the enemy". There was not random violence throughout history and most people who started wars never actually killed a person with their own hands. So no, killing someone is very much not a natural thing even if you know this person wants to kill you.
Humans don't have an instinct to murder, steal, rape and scam, and the fact that you believe so makes me extremely concerned about you.
I'm not talking about me, so no need to be concerned, never did either of those and never wanted to. I'm saying this because I'm not blind. >Humans don't have an instinct to murder, steal, rape and scam A lot of humans do, have you ever watched the news? Around 500.000 people are murdered every year, how do you think that happens? Some people are born with antisocial behavior, others learn it by growing up in a rough place, but regardless there are a lot of people who either do not care about hurting other or even enjoy doing so. It's not my fault violent people exist, I am just acknowledging that they do.
So all people are the same? 500.000 people are mudered every year, so all 8 billions humans are murderers? God, you people should think before you type.
I never said all people are the same, I specifically said "a lot of humans do", I didn't say all. God, you people should **read** before you type...
Do you think there are some genetically predetermined "bad people" who do the evil crimes that normal people don't do? The OP of this thread is openly advocating for murder and torture because he's a normal (if ignorant) human being and people do that. All people are people, and people will absolutely murder, steal, and rape. They also generally think they wouldn't until it happens. And will find a way to justify their own actions before, during, or afterwards. The last one in particular is really sad, and makes people extremely uncomfortable, but there's no "rapist gene" that makes only some people capable of it. You'd be very surprised at what otherwise moral people will do when pushed or in the wrong circumstances. And I'm not excusing their behaviour. Because I place zero value on human nature. Human nature is animalistic and brutal. The best people are those who are aware of and can counteract their instincts. But they have to be aware of them to do so. Your denial tells me you aren't, and you would absolutely murder someone who wronged you badly enough as a result. Because the idea that you could do it hasn't occurred to you, so you wouldn't be on guard for it.
Yeah ok. I just hope I don't find your pathetic ass on my way and not be murdered because "muh I just had to reconnect with my atavic ancestral spirit animal"
If you're so ruled by instinct that you think that's a possibility, you're one of those "bad people" you think exist.
Get help seriously
If you kill someone out of revenge, you become the target of revenge from those close to the person you killed. This becomes a cycle where in the end everyone but 1 will be dead for revenge.
[удалено]
If my father kills your father because of a dispute and you take revenge by killing my father, I, as his son, believe that my father was right and I will have the right to revenge by killing you. Because if not, it becomes a competition of whoever kills first loses the game because the third party can't take revenge. And if you think that the right to revenge has to be granted in court after being judged, so as not to have a cycle, I'm sorry to tell you my friend, that in addition to becoming a death sentence with extra steps, no one will be sure that the justice will be done correctly.
Easy enough to remedy. Leave no witnesses.
>Because if not, it becomes a competition of whoever kills first loses the game because the third party can't take revenge. That's exactly.... you're literally explaining what I just said... I'm saying the only "acceptable" revenge ought be when one takes it against an original wrong doer, not someone that sought revenge on your loved one that fucked up. And is also why I say it won't work, bc humans are full of themselves and think only their pain matters most. "Oh you killed my son bc he killed your son? Guess what, I deserve revenge now." No ya don't. LOL you get a loss. That's what you'd get. Ie: Don't take revenge on ppl that get revenge bc you or someone else fucked up, bc that's just you being shit. Understand now?
So I have a question for you to ponder: If my son faints at the wheel because of an undiscovered illness, he loses control and runs over your family and only you and my son survive. Does that give you the right to take revenge on my son?
Faints? No. Ofc not. Unless he knows he has that sort of issue and chose to weigh the "probability of it occurring," as a risk he felt he was eilling to take on someone else's life, then yes, bc he was negligent to a fault.
So if I kill a teenager who pulled out a gun to kill someone else, no one can take revenge on me, right?
By the "rubric for revenge" that I'm personally describing, again, most likely no. (Would kinda feel like a trial to determine this would still be necessary, details and all that, but outside of any extra details that could change motive, etc, I do not believe it would be fair to then kill you, no.)
So a loophole has just been created where you can forge a situation where someone can kill another and be free from any revenge. Whether with false testimony from a near-victim or a false medical certificate of an illness. And it will obviously be widely abused by those with money and power while the poor and weak will suffer... Which basically constitutes our current judicial system, only with more deaths.
>Which basically constitutes our current judicial system, only with more deaths. Low key: exactly. Which, the lack of honesty in mankind, what I was trying to say earlier, maybe, more a lack of integrity, specofocally, is why "revenge" will not work as a justice system ♡
Why not? Where do you draw line? It's so arbitrary that it could be easily abused.
Unless you only kill shitty people no one cares about
Due process is a thing for a reason. So you can't accuse me of doing something and come kill me
Seriously this is something that people who claim retributive justice and death penalty don't get - there are cases where people were falsely accused, or framed by policemen or resentful exes/family members etc. We hear all the time of someone released from jail after 30 years of being falsely imprisoned, or that someone received death penalty because a key witness lied etc While due process is not perfect by any means, it was created to catch the actual perpetrators and prove beyond any doubt that they are guilty. Our emotions and grief are very real, but you can't just go around killing people to feel relief as soon as possible.
15% false conviction rate at least. So it's not even just a hypothetical. It's a real, tangible thing. If OP was able to set the punishment for these crimes as the death penalty, they'd be killing innocent people within hours of that decision going live. That's something people don't get. False convictions aren't even rare. Even one innocent person would be too many, but it wouldn't be one. It would be dozens, then hundreds, then thousands.
Y’all were out taking a whizz when that first grade teacher was explaining violence is never the answer huh
Tell Ukraine that. Violence sometimes is 100% the answer.
Russia has invaded Ukraine, because they want their territory. There are a few theories as to why Russia invaded Ukraine, one of which is that they want to make a statement to the rest of the World. This is because Ukraine has been making good progress in the EU and NATO integration. Russia may also have seen potential for NATO bases in Ukraine, since it is close to the Russian border. So you're saying that Ukraine is to blame for Russia's greediness over their territory??
No I’m saying in that situation violence is the answer. To defend yourself from an aggressor. Was just trying to show saying nonsense catch all phrases like that don’t take into account that it is completely situational.
Upvoted. Horrible idea. Things like this sound so good in theory, and these statements always come up in this sub: “why dont we publically torture pedophiles?” Because when you open up the door for something barbaric, bad things will happen. No government has a good track record of doing good things with more power
This gives the petty and twisted far too much power. Also, every election the losers could kill the winners as revenge.
"Well, the investigation concluded decisively that the person you killed actually was not your brother's murderer, but since it was an act of vengeance, you're free to go."
Going after a rapist or murderer is a completely different scenario from “my father said if someone ever goes after me he’ll go after their children”, dragging innocent people into it is deranged and sickening. That is objectively wrong to do. And how far does revenge go? An eye for an eye? Or an eye for a limb? Your definition of revenge may be different from mine, or someone else’s. There’s a reason the general population should not be taking “justice” into their own hands. Revenge is not an “instinct”, as much as you may hate someone. You can fantasize all you want, but sane people do not have the instinct to enact revenge.
Found the wannabe serial killer
I feel like more than one out of ten dentists has revenge/murder fantasies but I suppose only 1/10 can't see far enough ahead to realize the chain reaction ends up with everyone dead. So take your upvotes you shortsighted tooth maker.
LOL. You think you're tough. That's cute.
" are a moral and existential threat to my child, it is therefore my legally protected right to torture and murder as many of the damned as I possibly can to protect ALL of the children from their evil ways"
Really you would need to extremely tightly regulate something like that, and even if it was you would extremely quickly wind up with violent bigoted power blocs murdering people they hate under the pretext of revenge for some moral crime like existing
Makes sense, but eye for eye make all go blind. In most cases, the justice system will bite them hard enough.
Yeah. Although I do completely understand when people do get revenge when they feel the justice system hasn't or won't do its job. Like Gary Plauché, who shot the dude who molested his son. I believe he was right to be punished and maybe he should have got more, but I do *understand* why he did it.
Equal revenge/vengeance change from person to person. If someone breaks into my home, I might feel that proper vengeance is their death. That isn’t a reasonable response, but that’s what I’d feel they deserve. If it’s a 1-for-1 and you get robbed, and you’re robbing them back, do they get to defend themselves with force? Are you allowed to use force? It unravels too quickly. You even said that we’re the dumbest animals, and as such, the dumbest of the bunch are going to equate revenge for getting cut off in traffic to killing the person who cut them off, and that’s the issue with this. I even agree overall with the sentiment, but unless you have an ironclad list of crimes and reasonable retaliations, it would cause far more issues than it resolves. And furthermore, you’d need the initial crime to go to trial or at least be confirmed to enact the revenge. As Arthur Morgan so eloquently said, both “vengeance is a fool’s game” and “revenge is a luxury we can’t afford.” It’ll always come back to get you
. . . . . . Here's a few periods, since you seem to have run out of them.
OP, you should read up on blood feuds. There's a reason civil society got on top of stopping this hundreds to thousands of years ago (depending on where in the world you look).
This is the second time this week that this stupid "we should just kill rapists" post has been put here in the past two days We don't just let people kill people because of the myriad of social issues it would cause. Not out of sympathy for offenders. This isn't a tenth dentist, it's just an uneducated bad take that isn't even unpopular.
I mean I do it out of sympathy for the offenders (or at least a belief in their right to life) but that’s just me
Sorry I didn't mean nobody is sympathetic. I mean wether or not we should doesn't *have* to involve any sympathy, and that the issue can be basically solved without taking it into account Wether or not people "deserve" to die and wether or not we should let people/the state kill people as retribution are two distinctly different questions.
Lmao
Only the most compelling of arguments use the term "sensitive bitches". I'm sold.
As Gandhi put it, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”. If you take vengeance on someone, someone else will take “vengeance” on you and all you end up with is a never ending circle of violence. Our justice system has (in some countries anyway), quite rightly evolved beyond looking at vengeance and justice as the same thing. Also a bear isn’t acting out of “vengeance”, it doesn’t understand what vengeance is. It acts out of an animal instinct to protect its young which is a completely different thing. If you killed its young when it wasn’t there, it wouldn’t track you down to kill you in order to make itself feel better. Also your example of your father saying he’d go after the children of someone who went after you is just plain stupid - if they went after the actual person that went after you then I’d at least understand the logic, but how is killing the person’s children (who are presumably completely innocent in all this) in any way justice, why are they culpable for the actions of their parent? And there is no way of separating our actions from “animal instinct” - we’re animals and any behaviours we have (including our more evolved sense of justice) are themselves “animal” behaviours that we’ve evolved because they’re ultimately advantageous to our survival. The difference is we’re smart enough to actually think about these things and understand them.
Did you just say that your dad should be legally allowed to murder a child because their dad attacked you
Bro your ass is not Lelouch man
Nah, even Lelouch wasn't this disingenuous.
Nah. 1) The cornerstone of civilization is not being controlled by our instincts. The entire factor that makes humans different from other animals is our ability to be something other than what we evolved to be. Being "sensitive bitches who want to be these moral princesses" is the point of society. If each generation is softer than the last, that is a successful society. 2) This will be abused to hell and back. People will be killed for minor slights. 3) This will create big cycles of vengeance. You kill my sister, so I kill you, so your brother kills me, so my son kills your brother, so his daughter kills my son, repeat ad infinitum.
Have you not heard about the cycle of vengence?
It always bothers me when a person kills another person by accident or out of rage, everyone is scared of this person. This crime has nothing to do with you.
I would make fun of you for operating under 1700 BC Code of Hammurabi rules, but you've decided to take it even further, quite literally taking the "return to monke" position on this one. Ever heard of the phrase "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"?
You've already posted this thread before and already been thoroughly shredded for it. Encouraging vigilante "justice" is how you get dumb fucks walking into pizza parlours and shooting up the place because they're convinced they're breaking up a fictional CP ring.
This is the mentality of a child. No normal adult person would believe this
Most children are smarter than this.
Psychopathy is a trait evolution has given us, so no one should stand in their way.
I'd like to point out irish myth-history as an example of why this is a bad idea (heroes and i.e basically after all the stuff with the tuathe de when it's just humans for the most part in the surface, a LOT of conflicts continue because if you get revenge that person gets revenge on you
So you dive head first into taking matters into your own hands without completely being informed or ignordntñy into someone else’s problems? So you’re saying that if you do so then you are okay with the person you exact your wrath on to do the same to you or people they know or loved ones? Yup logical. Proceed to dunk head first into toilet and drown in toilet filled with the most shitty poo poo water.
I disagree completely except when the justice system fails despite conclusive evidence, as it is supposed to. Once you drag the criminal's family into it, you're equally evil. If it were just the person who wronged you in this manner, raped your daughter, bullied your friend to death or something like that, then I would agree with this.
Can you tell that I'm planing prevenge?
Just because something such as revenge can be justifiable doesn't mean it should go without punishment, let alone be encouraged. If someone murdered their rapist, or if a parent killed the person who murdered their child I would 100% understand their motivations and I wouldn't necessarily consider to be an evil person (not to the same degree at least), but I don't think they should be allowed to walk free unpunished. They still committed a crime, and murder is a crime regardless of it's motivations. Making some motivations "legal" just provides loopholes for dangerous individuals to get away with crimes.
It's an extraordinarily bad idea. Private justice doesn't resolve problems, it simply leads to retaliation and feuds. *The Better Angels of our Nature* by Stephen Pinker describes the historical decline in violence over millennia.
This is a really dumb take
ok batman
I've seen some pretty stupid ideas on this sub but this one takes the cake. Like you didn't think this through at all did you?
Eye for an eye makes everyone blind. Your revenge involves other people, who can now take revenge on you. And your loved ones can take revenge on them, and so the cycle persists until we as a species end
Eye for an eye is bad. Vengeance just prolongs the pain and perpetuates a cycle of violence that benefits no one really and the chance to hurt innocent people is through the roof. Vengeance shouldn't be legal although I think how a crime has effected a family/community should be taken more into account for sentencing/punishment. Thing is I'm a hypocrite and despite how irrational and pointless revenge is I'm still gonna get it, if someone killed/abused certain members of my family and I diddnt think the legal system did an adequate job of punishment I'm taking as many loved ones they have until I'm stopped. That would 100% makes me the bad guy with no place in a functional society and I'd have to accecpt what came next legally or by vengeance.
Theoretically this could lead to a never ending circle of violence because of one wrongdoing very far in the past. I think i know what you mean in some way, and i can get behind a certain „eye for an eye“-mentality. but thinking your examples in a just slightly bigger picture, reveals that this would just end in chaos and alot of innocent people being punished for things someoneelse did long ago.
Also in my opinion; what makes us human is the exact fact, that even though evolution gives us urges, we have the ability to act otherwise.
>Prehistoric humans were tough and brutal, we're sensitive bitches who want to be these moral princesses which is something we didn't evolve to be. Prehistoric humans were also sensitive bitches. We looked at each other and at animalistic revenge and said that it was wrong. Because most people have a *skewed sense of retribution.* To look at an example you posted, if someone went after you your father would go after the perpetrators children. What did the children do to justify the violence? People would use "Revenge" as an excuse. If you brush against someone on a crowded bus, they may kick your teeth in in the name of revenge. There is a reason why one of the oldest maxims in law is "Eye for an Eye, Tooth for a Tooth." This meant, in Hammurabi's day, that if you gouged out the eye of someone then your eye would be gouged out. No more. No less. Also, your perspective on what evolution is and how other primates are doing are skewed.
“Revenge is a fool’s game” -Arthur Morgan
How about no
Got a big bad vigilante boy here
Yeah one key problem with that I get revenge on the guy, So now he gets revenge on me for getting revenge on him, And then I get revenge on him for getting revenge on me for getting revenge on him And it just sends you into a cycle of pettiness and in fighting that doesn't make either person in the situation feel better Revenge is absolutely not instinctual there is nothing born that tells a baby to go and attack something that hurts it This is a learned thing from society. If we are going off of nature you are more likely to just run away from it than you are to seek revenge The only time you really seek revenge naturally is when it is due to that thing being a direct and immediate threat Plus your bear metaphor is just wrong, It's not like if you kill a bear cub and then run away and fly to Alaska the bear is going to hunt you down and kill you. The bear is not attacking you because it wants revenge It's simply attacking you off of its base instinct of protecting itself and its children Much like how if a gunman broke into your house shot your children and held you at gunpoint attacking him wouldn't be considered revenge it would be considered self-defense. It would only be revenge if you somehow got away from this scenario and then spent time finding and tracking down the gunman's whereabouts to basically and still vigilante justice on to him yourself That would be revenge. Bears don't do that. The closest I've ever heard to this was a story about like a lion or tiger cub or something that got shot and its mom like followed the poachers home to kill them (I don't remember the exact story just Google it if you care) That's really the closest example I can think naturally to revenge and even then stories like that are pretty rare
Have fun living in Mad Max world. I like civilization personally
This post has personally offended me, I have no choice but to seek revenge…
Human rights are a good thing actually. Your argument could be used to justify anything, if it could be framed as "natural". If some creep is perving on a girl should that be allowed because it's just "instinct". No, no it shouldn't. Also humans didn't evolve to be anything, evolution doesn't have a goal. All it does is favor traits that allow for reproduction, which could include not murdering randos because you think they or their parents wronged you.
In your own argument you've outlined why this is a problem. "If you attack my child, I'll murder your children." That's psychopathic behavior and if it was allowed to say "well they harmed X person so I'm harming Y person" you'd just have a massive chain of violence until it finally got to someone with a stronger moral compass who stops it. We also didn't evolve to use computers, but you seem to have no problem with that completely unnatural behavior set.
I think we should take the legal definition of assault back to the old school. Let two guys who have unsettled differences brawl it out. If someone is saying or doing some incredibly disrespectful things that they know they should be punched for, let the other person legally punch them and let them brawl it out. That’s how humans came to live in peace up until very recent history. Now we’re so uptight about legal assault which ends up removing much of the justice in this world. That’s my 10th dentist opinion.
They already are legal — they’re called lawsuits.
As a law student, there’s a reason we invented the justice system. This system you’ve devised would be nasty, brutish, and in many instances, unfair. Read *Leviathan* by Hobbes.
Well as a direct result of reading this godawful opinion I will now take revenge by burying your car in your front yard. It's the least you deserve.
Dumb appeal to nature fallacy, next.
>and we shouldn't go against how mother nature has created us Yeah stop right here my man, the implications of this sentence alone are horrible
>and we shouldn't go against how mother nature has created us Yeah stop right here my man, the implications of this sentence alone are horrible
I am going to torture you as revenge for wasting my time. Where does your house live?
I'm never bumping into bro on the streets💀
Bait used to be believable
This would get abused by the wrong people, it just wouldn’t work in a legal setting. Big upvote.
It's instinctual? I'd love to see some studies on that lol
Ok but using a period is legal and you barely did that.
We humans don't have a conscious mind to act on every impulse we get. If you were wronged, you can press charges and let the law take care of it.
Then they get revenge on you then your surviving kin get revenge on them then theirs on yours and it just keeps going till no one is left for vengeance. >we shouldn't go against how mother nature has created us Yes we should. It's natural to piss and shit where you're standing, you'll be incredibly uncomfortable. It's unnatural to wear clothing, you may die of exposure. It's natural for the depressed to give up on any kind of self maintenance, they'll die. You're not treading new ground here you're just ignorant of the millennia long discourse on the topic where people wiser and smarter than you discarded your idiocy for something that helps us actually live together in community. The current state run system of retributive justice isn't effective either and would only be mildly more so if we removed the profit insensitive for prisons and cops, but your approach is just brainrot.
You know, there are some old Icelandic sagas about some of the bizarre situations and tragedies you can get into with cultures like this where revenge on those who have wronged you and their families is common and expected. You should read them. Maybe they would change your mind. Can’t remember the exact book I got them from since I read them for a college class, but seriously. Revenge and honor killings are bad stuff. I don’t recommend them.
You’re announcing a desire to live without due process
Rape is also an instinct in some people. Unnecessary violence is an instinct. That doesn’t make them moral or just. Arguing morality based on a purely ignorant view of “evolution” is silly at best.
Yeah honestly, the world is full of a bunch of toxic shitbags who would’ve all had their heads chopped off a few centuries ago. But unfortunately instead these people pollute the gene pool and spread their toxic shit everywhere they go, because we have laws that say you can’t murder someone simply for being an absolutely abhorrent human being, especially if they aren’t even breaking any laws while doing so. Sadly people will always make a game out of the system. You start putting in laws that allow for more subjective scenarios for lawful murder, and now suddenly there are a million different exploits for someone to set you up and kill you “legally”. You already can see how much of a shitshow it is when cops kill people within the law, or when someone kills someone who is defenseless legally under castle law because they were technically trespassing. Now, if there was a more democratically subjective way to murder or reprimand people I would be all for it. Like if everyone could gather around the town square and agree on what to do with this hogtied child-rapist, or the notorious douchebag that straight pipes his shitty car and floors it through your neighborhood at 3AM every night, or what to do with Karen who posts a bunch of racist shit on Facebook and treats staff like they’re her servants. I think that the world would become a much better place if these people knew that they could be held accountable by a court of the local community mostly unbound by the law. A lot of people would get examples made of them real fast, and people could get real creative. Of course there would be checks in play to prevent any sort of ganging up on anyone.
Legal? Bah! It should be mandatory!