Child Bride Kills Husband and his 3 buddies

[Noomz]

If you have been victimized than I have sympahty for you and am truly sorry, and I think understandably it has jaded your view. I agree with punishment, but I cannot find the grounds for death to be that punishment other than pure vengeance, which is not a principle a civilized society should be based on in my view.

No, not me personally. But 3 close friends. I've also had to support a female friend in an abortion after a rape.
No, you don't understand anything about it. Jaded? No. It's added an experience which you lack; the view of the victim.

Yes, it is vengeance. Completely justified vengeance.
I do understand what you mean with that. A justice system cannot be based on vengeance, because a justice system isn't infallible. I still think all rapists should die a horrible, slow death. You have thrown away all chance of redemption when you do something like that. There are no second chances for you past that point.

[THE Bigzoman]

Forcing your child to eat vegetables is forcefeeding. No matter how you put it, there's no other way to force him/her to eat vegetables.

You didn't have to broaden your view on all things that force an individual to do something against their will are evil.

So why are you?

[Slothanator]

Poor thing though. They'll hang her for that, or worse.
I want to say very colorful things about the African continent and their complete lack of morals and ethics, but I'll refrain from it because there are a lot of people out there that love to be offended.

Not my morals and ethics=Complete lack of morals and ethics.

I'm not saying its right to force a 14 year old to marry a 35 year old but that is their law that its allowed. You know the law that tells us its illegal to have sex with 14 year olds here thus making those our morals and ethics. It's easy to judge some other culture from the internet but what everyone fails to understand is you don't live there and things are much different. I didn't say right but who really defines right,it's just what you deem correct based on what your laws allow you to do and your own judgement. Always entertaining to see the badasses come out and "F*** YEAH GUY GOT HIS KARMA JUSTICE" keep on keepin on internet.

[ShimmerSwirl]

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Is that good enough for you? Or will you, hillariously, dismiss and brush aside human rights?

Well to be perfectly frank, a first page Google search result that has the phrase 'human rights' in it is not good enough for me. You yourself already violated the first Article of Human Rights by "not having a spirit of brotherhood" toward child rapists. Which serves to illustrate the point of there being no concrete definition for what 'human rights' are. You believe child rapist have no human rights, I believe they do. How do we figure out who is right?

[TirielWoW]

Eloquently put.

I might acknowledge the barbaric custums of some cultures, but it doesn't mean I have to respect them.

Cultural Relativism is every bit as dangerous as Ethnocentrism. The statement, "That's their way" or "That's their culture" is not enough for you to turn off your brain and ignore the situation. Some things are simply wrong, regardless of the cultural beliefs or practices regarding them. It's also a "cultural moral" for little girls to be circumcised and have their labias and clitorises cut off, and the rest sewn up. That's still wrong, no matter how much of a cultural norm it is.

(Not directed at you, tony, just in general.)

[mizeri]

she needs to go ahead and kill her own parents also, since you know they are the ones that sold her off

[TirielWoW]

Well to be perfectly frank, a first page Google search result that has the phrase 'human rights' in it is not good enough for me. You yourself already violated the first Article of Human Rights by "not having a spirit of brotherhood" toward child rapists. Which serves to illustrate the point of there being no concrete definition for what 'human rights' are. You believe child rapist have no human rights, I believe they do. How do we figure out who is right?

I'm confused.

Are you seriously arguing that we should have a spirit of brotherhood with people who fuck children? o_O

[Gungtah]

I'm confused.

Are you seriously arguing that we should have a spirit of brotherhood with people who fuck children? o_O

I had sex with a kid once.

I was a kid too, but apparently "children fucking" is just bad regardless. You do know Queen Victoria is dead and doesn't care if you're naughty, right?

[Deleted]

I had sex with a kid once.

I was a kid too, but apparently "children fucking" is just bad regardless. You do know Queen Victoria is dead and doesn't care if you're naughty, right?

There's quite the difference between two people close to eachother in age, in puberty, having sex and a full-grown man having sex with someone whos just pretty much entered puberty.

[ShimmerSwirl]

I'm confused.

Are you seriously arguing that we should have a spirit of brotherhood with people who fuck children? o_O

Well according to the "Human Rights" model that noomz believes in, we should.

[Ragnarohk]

Killing someone who had every intention of raping a young teenager is a good thing, in my book. Fuck your moral relativism.

So lets just go to every jail and kill everybody. Murderers, rapists, thieves!
No. It does not work like that.
Although I'm against such "traditions" I don't think it justifies murder.

[THE Bigzoman]

Arranged marriages increase the success rate of marriages and strengthen bonds between families.
Successful marriages are good.
Strengthening bonds between families is good.
Ergo, arranged marriages are good.

Your argument is going to have some real problems if you think logic is going to prove that arranged marriages are impermissible. Their practice may very well not be particularly rational, but you'd be a fool if you think all of yours are.

1.Define Successful marriage.

2. Not all arranged marriages increase the success rate.. . Nor do they always "strengthen family bonds" In defiance of the people forcefully marrying her, this girl probably destroyed several family bonds in an unlimited number of ways.

3. Apart from hinting that I believe marriage should be a decision made in an individuals free will, I didn't preach any alternatives. Nor did I say that all of my cultural practices were perfect.

[Hellravager]

there are objectively shitty parts of every culture, arraigned marriages are near the top of that list.

- - - Updated - - -



what the fuck are you on about? you can't seriously sit there and agree with this practice.

I can sit here and agree ass hole people deserve to die especially if they treat others like shit. These fucks treated her like a toy they deserved to die

[Deleted]

Arranged marriages increase the success rate of marriages and strengthen bonds between families.
Successful marriages are good.
Strengthening bonds between families is good.
Ergo, arranged marriages are good.

Your argument is going to have some real problems if you think logic is going to prove that arranged marriages are impermissible. Their practice may very well not be particularly rational, but you'd be a fool if you think all of yours are. As far as I know, all ethical arguments regress to a premise that must either be accepted or rejected without further being reasoned for. If you reject that premise, there's nothing that can be done to force you to accept the argument or subsequent arguments derived from that as sound.

Arranged marriages are not the same as forced marriages though. In arranged marriages they're presented to eachother beforehand and are given a choice whether they want to marry or not, if they don't, they're presented to someone else. There's no forcing in many arranged marriages.

[Crissi]

So lets just go to every jail and kill everybody. Murderers, rapists, thieves!
No. It does not work like that.
Although I'm against such "traditions" I don't think it justifies murder.

Well if your body is immediate danger, I could justify the murder. However, i cant argue that this wasnt premeditated and she wasn't in danger at that moment. Doesnt mean Im sorry to see him dead though.

[THE Bigzoman]

I had sex with a kid once.

I was a kid too, but apparently "children fucking" is just bad regardless. You do know Queen Victoria is dead and doesn't care if you're naughty, right?

Tell me. Was the psychological development to the point to where you were able to mentally outwit and manipulate your partner?

Given that you were also a "kid", I doubt it.

[Noomz]

Well to be perfectly frank, a first page Google search result that has the phrase 'human rights' in it is not good enough for me. You yourself already violated the first Article of Human Rights by "not having a spirit of brotherhood" toward child rapists. Which serves to illustrate the point of there being no concrete definition for what 'human rights' are. You believe child rapist have no human rights, I believe they do. How do we figure out who is right?

You are so sickengly twisting and misinterpreting things just to fit it into your completely illogical "reasoning" that I'm lost for words as how to respond to you, because actual reason and logic may not work in response to something so ludicrous as what you just wrote.

It's not a google search, it's the UN.ORG homepage. What the UN has written isn't good enough for you?
I belive that anyone out to harm or injure innocents like children, forfeit all rights. If you want to be part of the rights, you don't violate them. If you violate them, you aren't part of them. Child rapists violate more than one human right.

I'm quite sure that it's still WRONG to be a child rapist... Quite sure...

[Mormolyce]

By what standard? Yours? Not enough, i'm sorry.

I think if you have a moral system of any kind, forced marriage is one of the first things you'd put down in the evil column.

[Deleted]

Who creates the definition of "Common Sense"? I mean... Common Sense means many things in many areas. In a culture where arranged marriage is acceptable... Common Sense would dictate that Arranged Marriage is okay.

That said... Arranged Marriage isn't my cup of tea. Neither is killing a person/people over it. Personally, I hope this girl is punished for her actions. In this situation... killing someone isn't the answer.

Don't call it arranged marriage. It's forced marriage, not arranged. There's quite some vital differences between the two.

[cncrules45]

Wouldn't that work in the reverse as well? Is this really what humans are reduced to? Is this seriously as good as humans get, just because they can't go to school? That's mindblowingly tragic.

Saying that their values are different implies that their "values" have merit and should for some reason be respected or not questioned. I hope that's not what you mean, because that would upset me.
I will judge them and I will condemn them, because what they are and what they do, goes against what I consider basic human dignity. Something I sincerely hope that we still have, even if we live in the poorest place.

I agree with your values. I think most people on here agree that rape is wrong, that forced marriage and the slavery that ensues is wrong, that pedophilia is wrong and a whole laundry list of other things are wrong.

I don't agree, however, that what I consider (or what you consider or really what anyone considers) basic human dignity should carry any weight. In cases where we agree on what that means, it means nothing because we both agree and thus have the same ethics. In cases where we disagree, it obviously isn't basic or fundamental if we disagree on that level. Who is to say who is more right?

I absolutely think their values have merit. They have merit for them. It defines their lives and their livelihoods. I'm not going to tell them they are wrong, because I don't have a clue. I absolutely think their values are wrong and for my life, they don't hold the same merit, but that isn't the same thing.

You brought up a slavery hypothetical earlier. You seemed to hint that slavery justified a slave murdering a master. Your logic was that is wrong, we know that, and that the ends justify the means. Let's fast-forward 200 years. We live in a world ravaged by global warming and billions have died off because of it. The population is a fraction of what it is today. Had we not engaged used as many fossil fuels now, we would have prevented that. Would it be justifiable for us now, given that in the future the "correct" ethics will accept our actions, to murder particularly egregious carbon-polluters?