Why men won't marry you

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
We're not attempting to mirror his actions. In fact, unlike the victim of a kidnapper, the offender knows his term and possesses some measure of right.

then you'd be fine with seeing a rapist sentenced to being raped as long as he knew for how long and retained some measure of right?

or, you'd be against incarcerating a kidnapper as long as the kidnap victim had been held humanely and knew they were going to be released at some specific time?



gotcha, you goofy retard :chuckle:

right in your stupid face! :banana:
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
That would, again, be mirroring his actions. So you might want to reread my answer to Trad.

i read it - it was poorly reasoned - like i've noticed in the past, when you don't have a leg to stand on you don the pompous blowhard robes and bloviate forth
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
i read it - it was poorly reasoned
No, it wasn't, but it's like you to say so without support. Funny though, how you went through two complaints that completely missed a point made plainly enough in my answer to Trad.

I omit the rest of your response, it being more of an emotional farting sound than any semblance of reasoning.
 

Traditio

BANNED
Banned
I was answering on the secular challenge. It begins with the founding principle. Otherwise you aren't really asking anything more than can a social order found itself on rational principles at odds with our own. Of course, because it can then define its own terms.

This is flat out moral relativism. This is the problem when you deny that there is, in fact, such a thing as natural law. You end up being forced to say that the laws of a given society only may be evaluated in terms of their coherence with its founding principles, with the will of the people, or with some other like principle, but you end up making the laws of different societies completely incommensurate to each other.

You can have absolutely no argument, e.g., against so called "honor killings" being legal in the Middle East (presupposing that they are legal) or against forced abortions in China.

You might, of course, express typical liberal pseudo-moral outrage. But ultimately, what argument could you possibly bring against these things? We have our principles, and they have theirs, and there's no "third thing," so to speak, according to which we can evaluate both in common.

Most rules have at least the appearance of an exception while remaining what they are. Some jurisdictions allow for and other's deny the death penalty. The larger compact permits it within strict boundaries. Those boundaries are that the administration cannot be cruel and unusual, meaning the punishment cannot permit torture and/or deliberately degrading punishment.

Your claim was that the State only should use "the least severe infringement on right." Generally speaking, a judge can issue a life sentence for a criminal convicted of a capital crime which otherwise could carry the death penalty (presupposing that the jury fails to vote for the death penalty).

On this supposition, life imprisonment and death are both "acceptable" punishments, and death is more severe than life; therefore, according to your argument, the death penalty must be abolished.

In point of fact, however...

Among the arguments from necessity that make for the DP exception is that someone who has taken from another that foundational right to be cannot be entrusted with his own life for fear of compounding the act. Or, in essence, an extension of the argument for self-defense as extrapolated to include others.

How about "he deserves to die"?

It is absent your ability to disable with sufficient certainty of protecting your life. And that's a hard call for anyone to make without an inordinate skill level in administering violence, even with calm and time, neither of which tend to be present in the act and moment.

I fully agree with this. In concreto, the distinction doesn't make a difference. Psychologically speaking, in an emergency, life or death situation, in which you must make a split second decision, the tendency is just automatically to fire at center mass.

That's why bullet proof vests work. It doesn't cover everywhere...but people generally don't shoot everywhere.

Nonetheless, if someone is sufficiently trained, skilled, etc., and, being a private citizen, and not an agent of the State...? He may use potentially lethal force to defend himself, but he may not specifically shoot to kill.

I'd say, without even approaching the penalty, that it would be an easy thing to argue against, making a party to an action, essentially, a judge in the matter. Most professions recognize the problem of even positive emotional entanglements and their impact on performance and judgment.

I don't really see the problem in this case. Does the emotional entanglement distort the spouse's ability to determine the matter of fact, i.e., that his adulterous spouse has moved, or even has proposed to move, her lover into his household?

No? In fact, it is precisely this point which has made him so enraged?

Then the rest of your point seems pretty irrelevant to me.

For what it's worth, I'd like further to point out, TH, in support of what I am saying, that, at least historically, the West has recognized so called "crimes of passion," and that things like catching one's wife in adultery constitutes sufficient provocation either seriously to mitigate, if not entirely absolve from, the legal responsibility of the spouse who has committed the so called "crime of passion."

Why? Because it is entirely reasonable for a spouse who has been offended in this way to be angry, and it's entirely understandable that his anger would rise to the level of violence, perhaps even of the lethal variety.

This is enshrined in Western law, TH. :p

What I'm saying isn't really too far of a jump from what the law already recognizes.

It's just that I quietly enjoy my property and person without unlawful interference. It's just that someone who attempts to abrogate my right be punished. But equating a fiscal or emotional harm with the physical is inherently subjective and arbitrary. It invites disparity and injustice.

Justice is that virtue whereby each is given according to his due. It may also be defined as proportionate equality. In the case of crime, what is just is arithmetical quality, i.e., that the offended parties be "made whole," so to speak by the punishment inflicted on the criminal.

If someone steals 5 dollars from me, the criminal owes:

1. 5 dollars to me (which is materially what I lost)
2. Punishment for the violation against me (thereby transgressing my "right").
3. Punishment for violating the law (thereby transgressing the "right" of the State).

I'm not obliged to judge a man who lived in a time without any number of advantages we enjoy today that could have afforded him a greater freedom in choosing. It's not fair to him and it's not relevant to me.

To my ears, that's just a cop-out way to say: "In point of fact, my principles are completely at variance with what Moses prescribed, but I can't admit it, because I have 'Christian' under my screen name and avatar."

And while we're on this topic of "least severe infringement on right," do explain to me why, according to the Law of Moses, witches (i.e., drug dealers) were to be burned to death rather than stoned.

But no, I am not living under the Mosaic compact. Consider this my answer on part two, omitted.

Was the Mosaic Law just? Yes or no?

The problem with proportional is that it can't be objectively arrived at outside of the literal.

I simply disagree. It may be difficult to arrive at (this is a work of prudence, which is a virtue), but it's not impossible at least to approximate proportional equality (which is the very notion or description of justice).

Yes. The easiest illustration would be found in ordering the rape of a rapist.

Not analogous. Rape is intrinsically evil. Beating somebody is not. Even you will admit this. One may, e.g., strike someone in self defense. One most certainly may not rape someone in self defense. Again, a soldier at war may strike an enemy combatant, but he most certainly may not rape him.

If we find an action so vile that we make it a violation of law then to return the injury with a likened action is to reduce the state, however we justify it, to the same part as the violator.

I disagree with this. The State has a right of violence or a right of vengeance/punishment/retribution, whereas the private citizen does not. Your whole argument presupposes a "moral equality," so to speak between State and private citizen.

Rather, the marital relationship opens both parties to responsibilities which they may or may not choose to fulfill and which, depending on the nature and weight of those choices, may lead to the abrogation of the contract.

Again, this is a modern notion. It's not consistent with Christianity. It's not consistent with ancient philosophy. It's not consistent with ancient and medieval legal practice.

Even as late as Kant, we find him writing that the right of a husband to his wife is like that of a right which one has over a thing, i.e., a piece of property, that one may rightly say of his wife "she is mine; she belongs to me." Nor is this misogynistic; the wife can claim likewise over her husband.

I wouldn't, perhaps, speak in those terms, but the modern description of marriage simply seems too weak to me.

You've stepped into the moral realm, into the real of conscience and my answer is that she deserves what anyone does absent grace. My answer to her would be Christ's answer when those who accused her had fled the field. The rest, the legal portion, I've spoken to in my last.

As always, your words are a constant testimony to legal positivism. :nono:
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
No, it wasn't, but it's like you to say so without support. Funny though, how you went through two complaints that completely missed a point made plainly enough in my answer to Trad.

I omit the rest of your response, it being more of an emotional farting sound than any semblance of reasoning.

Uh oh....looks like someone is ready to blow. :shocked:
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
my rebuttals made hash of your crap and i shoved it down your throat

how'd it taste, nancyboy? :banana:
Well, at least you think so, sadly.

To explain what sod was grasping at. I wrote, in answering Trad, that the law doesn't and shouldn't, in administering punishment, seek to mirror the actions of the offender. In response to his idea of beating someone who committed a battery I noted the less comfortable parallel of raping the rapist as an illustration of the problem with the principle as a principle of state action.

So Sod chimed in with what he evidently thought was a gotcha moment.
so you would be against the incarceration of a kidnapper?
This was akin to Trad's attempt at confusing the exception of Capital Punishment with the rule and principle at law.

But the punishment for kidnapping was for some time death. It was reduced to life imprisonment in part because the law inadvertently encouraged kidnappers to murder their victims. Of course, it's neither the state's intent nor does it actually resemble the worst violation of the crime, which is that the victim cannot know his or her fate in terms or disposition and is fully deprived of all sense of right. So only the appearance of parallel. And, in fact, you can hold someone against their will without that impairment constituting kidnapping, provided you have the right by virtue of circumstance, as when a thief attempts to elude capture.

And now Sod is just waving that flag he carries in his pocket and glory is rushing in, as is her want. :plain:
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
... nor does it actually resemble the worst violation of the crime, which is that the victim cannot know his or her fate in terms or disposition

a kidnapper knows his fate when he's imprisoned?

so nothing unexpected ever happens in a prison?
and is fully deprived of all sense of right.

well, no

the kidnap victim is not fully deprived of all sense of right

if they were, then they'd be a murder victim


eat it nancyboy! :banana:
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
I fully agree. If it's not an act of justice, then I'm wrong. If it is an act of justice, then I'm right. :idunno:
After reading that exchange I want to revise my response. It's still true that the justice of the situation is in question, however there is still no forcing his hand. He could choose to have mercy. And I believe that's what he should do.

Regarding whether or not it's just, :idunno: Leaving the Mosaic Law aside for a moment, what's proportional? What is someone due? I've been reading your exchange with TH in the last few pages of this thread and I have some of the same thoughts/questions. Some examples are easy. You steal, justice is paying back what you stole. An eye for an eye can make sense. I'm not saying the US should institute that policy but it at least makes sense if you're going for proportional punishment (you kill, be killed. You beat, you get beaten). But there are certain situations that you can't do that with. If you rape, what's proportional? You talked about making the offended 'whole'. But what could possibly make someone who is raped whole? At least through punishment of the offender? What could make a victim of adultery whole? Being made whole through someone's punishment smacks of vengeance and that's not a desire Christians should have. Especially if you're talking about the victim doing it themselves.

This is why I think talk of justice can be such a murky subject and oftentimes when talking about punishment I focus on correction/rehabilitation and/or deterrence rather than 'justice'. I'm aware of some difficulties in doing that though.

Ok. So you grant the disjunction. Either:

1. She deserves it and the husband has the authority.
2. She deserves it, but the husband does not have the authority.
3. She doesn't deserve it.

I assert 1. You deny 1 and 2, leaving 3.

Let's look at her desert from different angles.

One reason she might not deserve it is because the crime itself is not proportionate to the penalty. Unfortunately, you can't claim this, since you have "Christian" under your screen name and avatar. Moses says that the crime itself is indeed proportionate to the penalty. In fact, this is true a forteriori since Moses prescribes death for all adulterers, whereas this woman has all sorts of attendant aggravating circumstances in addition to the mere commission of adultery.

{snipped part of the original out}

I'm sure you can see where I am going with this. Turn the matter over any way you want. Why doesn't she deserve it? What could possibly diminish her merit for punishment?

And again, I'll ask you:

Does she not deserve to die at all?
Does she not deserve to die by beating?
Does she not deserve to die by her husband's hand?

Then I'll tell you:

Moses commanded that adulterers be put to death.

Moses commanded that they be put to death by stoning. What great difference is there between stoning and beating?

Moses commanded that they be stoned by the entire community. Was the husband exempted from the privilege?

And again, I'll appeal to the custom of the Romans and the Greeks. What great difference is there between beating a woman to death for adultery, on the one hand, and sacrificing her on the family altar to the household gods, on the other hand, for the same crime?

But again, you'll insist that it's not charitable for a husband to do this. And again, I'll ask you: Were the precepts of Moses contrary to charity?
Earlier I said I wasn't sure how the Mosaic Law fits in here and I will have to repeat that here. Because of that perhaps I should refrain from categorically denying that beating for adultery is just. But didn't you say you wanted to avoid theological arguments?

You've laid out why you think what this woman did is a capital crime, but have you explained why you think the husband should be delegated the duty of doing it?

Was the husband exempt from the administration of the penalty?
I don't know for sure but my guess is the husband wouldn't be exempt. However, see the next section. Even if it would be strictly just for him to beat his wife to death as punishment I don't think he should.

And if you insist that Christians are bound by charity to love their wives, then I'll insist in return that all Christians are bound by the same charity to love their neighbors as themselves. How can a Christian engage in a just war, administer any civic penalties, etc.?
To start, I will say that I think it would be very difficult for a Christian to be many of those positions and stay true to their values. However, I think you are still missing a distinction I'm making. The distinction between the State's right to maintian order and punish criminals and how you should act toward your offender. In a just war, you're (I think) acting for the defense of others. If you are a state official administering punishment then you are acting on behalf of the state and the state has the right to do so. I don't think that's incompatible with my saying that, personally, Christians should show mercy rather than punish and forgive rather than hold offenses against the offender. Christians are called to forgive, but they can't force others to do it.

Let me ask you this. Acts 7 has a passage about Stephen's stoning. Right before he died he prayed to God to not hold their sin against them. Do you think, had someone suddenly intervened right before his death, he would have been willing to participate in stoning those who just tried to kill him?

It's not. It intensifies my point. St. Thomas Aquinas tells us that the State issues laws which are accompanied by the threat of punishment in order that those who are particularly and abnormally wicked might restrain themselves, having been educated by the law, and leave everyone else in peace, or else...

...If they won't do this? Well, I'll leave the rest for you to consider.

The woman's actions displayed a vicious and incurably wicked character. It's not particularly surprising that she murdered her husband. What do you expect from such a person?
It's irrelevant because if she murdered her husband then determining punishment wouldn't be based on adultery only and if she didn't then you can't determine punishment based on what someone might do afterwards.

As I said: what good could possibly come from letting her live?
She could repent.

It involves an error in the principles of practical reason. If you and I share the same principles, but disagree about a conclusion, I can persuade you based on our shared principles. But vicious people are so morally deranged in their character that even their principles are wrong, that they literally cannot be persuaded.

That's what makes them dangerous and naturally incapable of changing.
How do you think they got that way?
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
Christianity is about transformational pacifism. Over the course of history, God has been refining us. We are supposed to move from swords to plowshares. The rules aren't static until some day when suddenly everyone thinks, "Gee! Let's all get rid of these swords today." Governments can show mercy, and they must if they are agents of God per Romans 13:1-7.

Where do you see mercy in that passage?
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Where do you see mercy in that passage?

must be this part:


he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.




apparently elo thinks that the avenger executes wrath on those who practice evil by being merciful :dizzy:
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
a kidnapper knows his fate when he's imprisoned?
Yes. He knows the length of his sentence and what his rights are and that he has them.

so nothing unexpected ever happens in a prison?
How is that remotely relevant? Unexpected things happen everywhere.

well, no
the kidnap victim is not fully deprived of all sense of right
Sure they are. For all they know they're going to be raped or murdered. Their lives are hanging on the will of someone who violated them. That's psychological torture.

eat it nancyboy! :banana:
:plain:
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Yes. He knows the length of his sentence and what his rights are and that he has them.


How is that remotely relevant? Unexpected things happen everywhere.

i would suspect with greater frequency and severity than outside prison


Sure they are. For all they know they're going to be raped or murdered. Their lives are hanging on the will of someone who violated them. That's psychological torture.

no different from being thrown in a prison with murderers and rapists :idunno:




once again, you fail! :banana:

:plain:
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
i would suspect with greater frequency and severity than outside prison
Likely. Has nothing to do with his sentence or his rights though.

no different from being thrown in a prison with murderers and rapists :idunno:
Much different. The increased chance of harm may add an element of emotional punishment to the restriction of liberty, but it's far different from the certain abrogation of any real control over your fate, which is where the kidnap victim finds himself. A chance against a more reasonable certainty that you haven't been kidnapped to be given a haircut. But the increase in danger for someone convicted of a crime literally doesn't impact my point, so...
 

Traditio

BANNED
Banned
After reading that exchange I want to revise my response. It's still true that the justice of the situation is in question, however there is still no forcing his hand. He could choose to have mercy. And I believe that's what he should do.

For the moment, let it simply suffice for me to say that I've noted your opinion. I have no other relevant comments at this point.

Regarding whether or not it's just, :idunno:

I don't entirely remember the entirety of this discussion, but I do think that this represents a shift in your views with respect to what you previously said, as, I believe, you yourself note later on.

Earlier, it probably seemed to you (as it indeed it seems to AnnaBenedetti, Arthur Brain, and the rest of the liberal crowd) that it is categorically and universally unjust for a man to beat his wife, regardless of the circumstances, and I believe that you were in basic agreement with them, no?

But the point that I initially wanted to make, before I even started on this particular line of thought, was basically this: "never" is a strong word. Not even a single woman has ever deserved a beating from her husband? Not even one? There are no circumstances which might justify this, no matter how rare, grave or unusual?

That's a strong claim, and I think that you yourself are at this point prepared to admit its falsity. In effect, Kmoney, whether or not you disagree with me on the particulars of my point, you at this point are in complete rupture with the views of AnnaBenedetti et al. ;)

Leaving the Mosaic Law aside for a moment, what's proportional? What is someone due? I've been reading your exchange with TH in the last few pages of this thread and I have some of the same thoughts/questions. Some examples are easy. You steal, justice is paying back what you stole.

I disagree with this. Justice is not simply paying back what you stole. It's paying back what you stole and facing either corporal punishment, paying an additional fine or going to prison or some like thing.

The way Aristotle describes it is this way: the victim suffers defect because of the crime, whereas the criminal enjoys excess because of his crime. Justice "evens things out," so to speak. It makes the victim whole again and puts the criminal back in his place.

But there are certain situations that you can't do that with. If you rape, what's proportional?

Death. Some goods are equivalent to life, and the rapist violates one such good in a sufficiently grave way (i.e., bodily integrity) to merit his death.

Lesser punishments, of course, could be acceptable (e.g., life imprisonment). Death certainly isn't out of the question, though.

You talked about making the offended 'whole'. But what could possibly make someone who is raped whole?

The blood of the assailant, as well as the confiscation of his property sufficient to pay for significant psychological counseling, medical treatment, etc. His suffering (especially of the intense and exceedingly painful variety) also works no small satisfaction.

What could make a victim of adultery whole? Being made whole through someone's punishment smacks of vengeance and that's not a desire Christians should have. Especially if you're talking about the victim doing it themselves.

Christian or not, that's justice. :idunno:

This is why I think talk of justice can be such a murky subject and oftentimes when talking about punishment I focus on correction/rehabilitation and/or deterrence rather than 'justice'. I'm aware of some difficulties in doing that though.

The business of the State is justice. Private citizens can correct, rehabilitate, deter, etc. in all sorts of ways. The State, however, has a right of violence or retribution, and this right is ordered to the administration of justice.

Earlier I said I wasn't sure how the Mosaic Law fits in here and I will have to repeat that here. Because of that perhaps I should refrain from categorically denying that beating for adultery is just.

And with that, you have conceded my initial point, i.e., that it cannot categorically be claimed that beating one's wife, to death or otherwise, is necessarily or always wrong.

AnnaBenedetti et al. won't be happy with you. :p

But didn't you say you wanted to avoid theological arguments?

For the most part. I don't want to engage in obscure matters of scriptural interpretation. I appeal to the Law of Moses insofar as it is a just code of law which we know is just.

You've laid out why you think what this woman did is a capital crime, but have you explained why you think the husband should be delegated the duty of doing it?

Perhaps "should" is a strong word. I'm willing to make a minimal claim, i.e., that the State could in principle delegate the authority and/or duty to do so. If the State commands him to do so, then I can assert the stronger claim: he should and must do so.

I do, however, admit what Cabinetmaker said earlier in the thread: the likelihood of this working, practically speaking, in our society is pretty much null. The man in the case I mentioned didn't even bother moving out of the house...it is extremely unlikely that he would have beaten her, even if he could have done so.

I don't know for sure but my guess is the husband wouldn't be exempt. However, see the next section. Even if it would be strictly just for him to beat his wife to death as punishment I don't think he should.

This sounds like a flat contradiction to me. Claims of justice often are expressed as "ought" claims. It sounds like you are telling me that the husband ought not do what he ought to do.

More on this below:

To start, I will say that I think it would be very difficult for a Christian to be many of those positions and stay true to their values. However, I think you are still missing a distinction I'm making. The distinction between the State's right to maintian order and punish criminals and how you should act toward your offender. In a just war, you're (I think) acting for the defense of others. If you are a state official administering punishment then you are acting on behalf of the state and the state has the right to do so. I don't think that's incompatible with my saying that, personally, Christians should show mercy rather than punish and forgive rather than hold offenses against the offender. Christians are called to forgive, but they can't force others to do it.

I basically agree with your basic sentiments, i.e., that whereas the State concerns itself with the administration of justice, private citizens (especially Christians) should display mercy, forgiveness, etc. The husband, qua husband, should not seek or even desire to seek out retribution against his wife. Christianity requires something else.

In what I am describing, however, he is not acting qua husband, but qua deputy of the State.

Furthermore, if we take Christianity out of the picture, it seems like you have no argument as to why he shouldn't want to beat her. He's been offended. She deserves it. He has the right to do it. Why not? :idunno:

Finally, and this just occurred to me, it also seems to me that you've basically admitted/conceded a further point to my arguments, Kmo: you seem to have agreed that, in effect, the adulteress deserves to be beaten to death; you just don't think that this desert should actually be rewarded by the State, and you don't think that the husband should want to do it.

But I think that you are still admitting that she does deserve it.

As I said: the liberal pc crowd won't like this. ;)

Let me ask you this. Acts 7 has a passage about Stephen's stoning. Right before he died he prayed to God to not hold their sin against them. Do you think, had someone suddenly intervened right before his death, he would have been willing to participate in stoning those who just tried to kill him?

That depends on a great many different circumstances upon which I can't really comment.

It's irrelevant because if she murdered her husband then determining punishment wouldn't be based on adultery only and if she didn't then you can't determine punishment based on what someone might do afterwards.

I agree with the bolded, but that's not the point that I am making. The point that I am making is that her actions, i.e., what she actually did do, displayed a vicious and morally depraved character, i.e., the sort of character which, naturally speaking, is probably incurably evil.

I'm not sure what further inferences can be drawn from this, but it is worthy of consideration.

She could repent.

As I said, the State shouldn't concern itself with what God can do, or what might possibly happen in any given number of unlikely scenarios.

How do you think they got that way?

Complicated question. Briefly speaking: habits are inculcated through repeated acts.
 
Last edited:
Top