I always like to know who’s been bought »« Rrrrooooooaaaarrrggghhh

That’s some mistake

Boys will be boys, I guess. Here’s a comment in the Indian press reflecting that statement.

Last month, the head of Uttar Pradesh’s governing party told an election rally that the party was opposed to the law calling for gang rapists to be executed. "Boys will be boys," Mulayam Singh Yadav said. "They make mistakes."

The mistake: two young girls, 14 and 15 years old, were abducted from their farm, gang-raped, strangled, and their bodies hung from a tree.

I’m against the death penalty, but if that’s how boys are expected to behave, I’m all for walling them up once they hit puberty and not letting them out until they renounce all violence.

Comments

  1. borax says

    Rape and murder? Spend the rest of your life in jail. I think that’s fair

  2. karmacat says

    WTF. Making a mistake is tripping someone by mistake. Raping, torturing and killing is an action not a mistake

  3. karmacat says

    So if punch Mulayam Singh Yadav in the face, I can say it was just a mistake. Somehow my fist just got away from me. Is that how it goes?

  4. voidhawk says

    Karmacat@3: “I’m just going to start punching my fists like this… if your face happens to get in my way it’s your own fault.”

  5. hexidecima says

    it eludes me on how this is supposed to reflect well on males. “Boys will be boys”? So they are just stupid animals that are less coherent than a tiger?

    Any male who thinks that they are something more than that should be very loud in decrying such ignorant and lazy claims.

  6. What a Maroon, el papa ateo says

    Boys? According to the article in the OP, three men have been arrested so far, including two police officers. Also, the police chief has been suspended for not responding to the father’s complaint that the girls were missing.

    These men need to be locked up for a very long time, and the village needs an entirely new police force, ideally with women in prominent positions.

  7. latsot says

    Oh hexidecima, you haven’t been paying attention.

    Boys are only stupid animals when there are pudenda about the place. Otherwise they’re totally rational and in charge.

  8. Bernard Bumner says

    How about, no-one is killed, or raped – because boys learn to not be boys, but instead to be decent individuals who are expected by society to behave well and are properly, humanely punished when they do not.

    And if that constitutes wishful thinking, then it seems that my wishes really shouldn’t be too much to ask for.

  9. says

    Despite being an atheist, I think I can join Linkara in saying that expression, “Boys will be boys,” can go to hell. I’d be more understanding if it was used in relation to small, relatively harmless acts that are nevertheless punished, but these days it comes up to excuse bullying and rape, as well as to dismiss the need to punish. As hexidecima says @6, it reeks of dehumanizing the boys, too, treating them as uncontrolled beasts, rather than human beings who need to learn right from wrong.

  10. says

    Karmacat@3: It depends on how his face was dressed, and if it was in a seedy part of town late at night. Afterall, some faces are just asking for it.

  11. says

    Stealing watermelons from someone’s truck patch, putting firecrackers in Mrs O’Leary’s trash can, kidnapping, raping and killing girls? Pretty much equivalent. Boys will be boys.

  12. says

    After seeing this independently in the news, I now learn that our very own Avicenna was one of the doctors called in to do the autopsies afterwards. Watch his space — he may have more to say later.

  13. says

    I’m not as absolutely against the death penalty as others around here are. (I think it should be a last resort as a punishment but avoided more often than not; I just can’t rule out reserving it for the worst of the worst, and when there is zero doubt as to that person’s guilt…)

    I have a hard time arguing for leniency in a case like this one. If death were an option to a jury, and I were on that jury, I’m not sure I’d be able to vote for a punishment other than death…

  14. blf says

    Stealing watermelons from someone’s truck patch, putting firecrackers in Mrs O’Leary’s trash can, kidnapping, raping and killing girls? Pretty much equivalent

    Absolutely! Watermelons are full of cooties, and Ms O’Leary is just covered in them!

  15. says

    I can think of a worse punishment than death. From their perspective at least.*
    Sex reassignment surgery. Turn them into women and send them back to their community and see how long they last.
    .
    *Being a woman isn’t a punishment but women are punished anyway.

    [There are a fair number of transgender commenters here who are going to consider your use of their status as a bludgeon to punish rapists to be pretty damned unconscionable. You might want to walk this back and apologize, if you plan to continue commenting here. Otherwise, you are not going to find this a friendly environment, to say the least, and I’ll consider any pushback to be righteous. –pzm]

  16. says

    With #YesAllWomen, there have been some picture going viral in response to the claim that men can’t help the,mselves, an attractive woman in sexy clothing is like putting a steak in front of a dog. People put steaks in front of their dogs and then took pictures, explaining that the dogs didn’t touch the steaks because they were told “no”.
    Those people who say that “boys will be boys” effectively say that men have less self-control than dogs. Therefore they should campaign for treating men like out of control dogs.

    Bernard Bummer

    How about, no-one is killed, or raped – because boys learn to not be boys

    How about we change the definition of “boys” from “self-centred entitled assholes without a shred of compassion, decency and civilised behaviour” to “decent people who respect others and treat them with respect and humanity”.
    That would be something

  17. blf says

    If X were an option to a jury, and I were on that jury, I’m not sure I’d be able to vote for a punishment other than X

    In that case, you should not be on the jury! Juries need not an ability to consider the cases based essentially only on the presented cases, but also, if asked to recommend a penalty (in case of a guilty verdict), an ability to decide an appropriate punishment based on the presented winning prosecution case (and arguments for / against some penalty).

    Predeciding the penalty makes you totally INAPPROPRIATE for jury duty.

  18. frankniddy says

    The article mentions that the victims were members of the “untouchable” caste. I’m probably mistaken, but I thought the caste system was on its way out in India? Or is it still very prominent in the rural areas and less so in the urban areas?

    Also, seconding or thirding that I feel insulted with the implication that I can’t help but rape and murder.

  19. Bernard Bumner says

    I have a hard time arguing for leniency in a case like this one. If death were an option to a jury, and I were on that jury, I’m not sure I’d be able to vote for a punishment other than death…

    A society that does not even acknowledge the seriousness of the crime and the toxicity of the culture that enables and encourages such acts of violence certainly should not be killing people in some theatrical show of state-advocated outrage masquerading as justice.

    The death penalty is wrong, and it will do absolutely nothing to bring even-handed justice, to protect the innocent, or to change the attitudes of society.

  20. blf says

    I thought the caste system was on its way out in India? Or is it still very prominent in the rural areas and less so in the urban areas?

    I’m sure some of our Indian colleagues can elucidate, but my understanding is: “Slowly” and “Yes”. That is, efforts to eradicate the system are currently largely stalled, and it is more prominent in far too many areas (mostly, I presume, rural, but don’t really know…).

  21. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    Jim Phynn @ 18

    I just can’t rule out reserving it for the worst of the worst, and when there is zero doubt as to that person’s guilt…

    Many people are capable of being extremely certain about things based on no evidence at all. I don’t think you’ve thought this position through very well.

  22. Bernard Bumner says

    How about we change the definition of “boys” from “self-centred entitled assholes without a shred of compassion, decency and civilised behaviour” to “decent people who respect others and treat them with respect and humanity”.

    I absolutely agree.

    My son, my first born, is due in a couple of weeks. The idea that “boy” is synonymous with the horrendous acts were a told time and again are the result of boys being boys makes me want cry that people are willing to hold the males around them to such low standards.

  23. says

    I don’t believe in punishing, period. What good does it do? Makes the punishers feel better?

    I do believe in separating dangerous people from the general population, whether or not they are guilty of something in the eyes of the law. And I believe in teaching people and giving them the opportunity to do better, when that’s possible.

    As for punishment in child rearing, never used it. And neither did my parents. If a kid is doing something harmful, you stop them from doing it, physically if necessary. And then you explain why. If the kid understands, they won’t do it again.

  24. corporal klinger says

    My apologies for this completely off topic comment but there seems to be no actual Thunderdome and I’m not sure if in such a case I should go back to an older one.
    I keep it brief. I just read this nauseating article in DER SPIEGEL, and I’m so angry that I need to vent somehow. I managed to find a link to the English source and wanted to share it with you. Again, sorry, no derailment intented.
    http://www.thejournal.ie/tuam-mass-grave-babies-1488267-May2014/

  25. dianne says

    The article mentions that the victims were members of the “untouchable” caste.

    I saw that and wondered if there might be an element of…racism? classism? I’m not sure what to call it, but basically did the perpetrators believe they could get away with it because of their caste? Also, I believe the politician in question is from the, for lack of a better term, fundamentalist Hindi party. Perhaps he thought they deserved it for their behavior in a past life?

  26. busterggi says

    Perhaps this is just a religio-cultural thing?

    Guru: Oh Thugs lift up your faces to the light that shines from Kali’s throne.

    Thuggees: Kali.

    Guru: Oh brothers of Thuggee we are defenders of this earth. An immense hand is against us. We have been kicked, spat upon and driven to the hills like wild pigs. My father was a thug and he was hanged. His father was blown from the cannon’s mouth. And what of your kinsmen, your fathers and their fathers and their father’s fathers before them? Oh my brothers a new day is at hand. I have read the omens and they are good. Three nights ago a jackal screamed up on the left, another answered from the right at once.

    Thuggees: Kali.

    Guru: What does that mean my brothers? It means that mother Kali with all her arms outstretched hugs us to her bosom. Welcoming us back as Thugs, Thugs awakened from a sleep of 50 years. Let the neophytes and their teachers draw near. Where are the stranglers?

    Thuggees: [Thuggees respond in Hindi]

    Guru: Give them their strangling cloths.

    Thuggees: Kali.

    Guru: Give them their burial picks.

    Thuggees: Kali.

    Guru: Swear by our mother Kali to be thrice faithful to her and to me and to our order and to all of us.
    Thuggees: [Thuggees pray in Hindi]

    Guru: Rise, our new-made brothers. Rise and kill. Kill, lest you be killed yourselves. Kill for the love of killing. Kill for the love of Kali. Kill! Kill! Kill!

    Thuggees: [Thuggees cheer]

  27. twas brillig (stevem) says

    Death is NOT a “punishment”! Punishment requires the punished to be able to respond to the punishment by changing their future behavior to avoid the behavior that resulted in the punishment. Death does not qualify as punishment, therefore. Death penalty is just a method of permanently removing a dangerous person from potentially damaging others.
    Sorry to be so definition-istic.
    Death penalty is the simplistic reaction to horrific crimes (such as that described in the OP). These “boys” need education and reformation to actively _cooperate_ in society. That, is a much more humane response to such “bad behavior”. Teach those boys “proper behavior”. To excuse the behavior with that phrase “B.w.b.B.” is simply denial that ‘boys’ need to learn how to behave in society and not just be tooth-and-claw primitives.

  28. says

    I can think of a worse punishment than death. From their perspective at least.*
    Sex reassignment surgery. Turn them into women and send them back to their community and see how long they last.

    Gee, thanks for the extreme transphobic turd dropped into my day, Kevin Alexander. That’s spiffing.

    Gosh, my fellow commenters think “Living Cait’s life is a punishment worse than death, to be used to threaten rapists,” isn’t even worth a comment to say, “hey, that’s fucked up, dude.”

    Thanks ever-so.

  29. chigau (違う) says

    corporal klinger #29
    There is a link to the Thunderdome in the sidebar just above PZ’s photo.

  30. chigau (違う) says

    Kevin Alexander
    I missed your comment on my earlier read-through but now I’d like to say Bless Your Heart.

  31. blf says

    CatieCat, Aren’t you being rather unfair to Kevin Alexander, who included this point (which you rather pointedly did not include in yer quote (albeit you did forget to edit out the referencing *)):

    *Being a woman isn’t a punishment but women are punished anyway.

  32. Thomathy, Do Not Upset Me Ahead of World Pride says

    illyriamxo @ #8

    Execute them all.

    So, the answer to awful things is to do another awful thing.

    18
    Jim Phynn @ #18

    I’m not as absolutely against the death penalty as others around here are. (I think it should be a last resort as a punishment but avoided more often than not; I just can’t rule out reserving it for the worst of the worst, and when there is zero doubt as to that person’s guilt…)

    So, you not only want to be responsible for murder, you want everyone, regardless of their moral position, to also be responsible for it?

    You might rethink your position.

    Kevin Alexander @ #20

    I can think of a worse punishment than death. From their perspective at least.*
    Sex reassignment surgery. Turn them into women and send them back to their community and see how long they last.
    .
    *Being a woman isn’t a punishment but women are punished anyway.

    Holy Fuck, what the fuck is wrong with you?

  33. says

    blf, no, I don’t think I’m being unfair in the slightest. Saying “I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being $CHARACTERISTIC” doesn’t change “…but man I’d like to punish some people by turning them into this other person i know who has that characteristic, that’d be worse than DEATH” into something that isn’t bigoted, and in this case, bigoted means transphobic.

    And because this shit always happens: please note my very specific usage here. I said nothing about who Kevin Alexander is or isn’t; I spoke about the behaviour of dropping such a turd here, and that such a turd is a transphobic one.

    Any more silly defences? Perhaps tell me how he lets trans people use his bathroom? FFS.

  34. Thomathy, Do Not Upset Me Ahead of World Pride says

    blf @ #38

    CatieCat, Aren’t you being rather unfair to Kevin Alexander, who included this point (which you rather pointedly did not include in yer quote (albeit you did forget to edit out the referencing *)):

    *Being a woman isn’t a punishment but women are punished anyway.

    What the fuck is wrong with you, too? The mere fact that in a discussion about an atrocity being excused explicitly by toxic masculinity someone decided to write an extremely offensive transphobic comment and actually even thought that the content of their content could remotely be considered acceptable is bad enough without someone rushing in to defend them.

    There is so fucking much wrong with the comment it nearly boggles the mind. It beggars belief that it could even be necessary to count up everything wrong with it.

    Fuck off.

  35. wondering says

    @blf #38

    CatieCat, Aren’t you being rather unfair to Kevin Alexander, who included this point (which you rather pointedly did not include in yer quote (albeit you did forget to edit out the referencing *)):

    I can think of a worse punishment than death. From their perspective at least.*
    Sex reassignment surgery. Turn them into women and send them back to their community and see how long they last.
    .
    *Being a woman isn’t a punishment but women are punished anyway.

    No, blf, CaitieCat isn’t being hard enough on Kevin Alexander. Saying that “being a woman isn’t punishment” in no way makes up for suggesting that forcing a sex change is a punishment worth considering.

    SMH at both of you.

  36. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    Kevin Alexander @ 20

    I can think of a worse punishment than death. From their perspective at least.*
    Sex reassignment surgery. Turn them into women and send them back to their community and see how long they last.
    .
    *Being a woman isn’t a punishment but women are punished anyway.

    This is so many kinds of fucked up I don’t even know where to start unpacking it. Let’s respond to one heinous crime by committing another gross violation of someone’s bodily autonomy and then actively encourage men to commit the same damn crime against them. I just…wow…

  37. says

    blf, I didn’t see this before, but Fuck You.

    which you rather pointedly did not include

    I didn’t ‘pointedly not include it’, asshole, I left it out the way I’d leave out “I’m not a racist, but…” It’s fucking irrelevant, and a bullshit marker that should be a clear red flag that someone’s about to say something fucked up.

    So fuck you for your fucking insinuation, and your rush to defend this transphobic bullshit.

  38. blf says

    What was “transphobic” in general about Kevin’s comment? As I read and still currently read the comment, Kevin was suggesting— that if the alleged rapists (and/or the idiot making the “boys…” comment) could be persuaded to transition to female — they very possibly would see things differently.

    What is the misunderstanding here ?

    “Fuck off” is not an answer, as I am sure you know, but clearly do not always implement.

  39. Thomathy, Do Not Upset Me Ahead of World Pride says

    Is this for real happening?

    blf, you need to stop.

  40. rq says

    It has been said but I’ll say it again, Kevin Alexander – your comment @20 is just… horrifying and completely dismissive, not to mention insulting and demeaning to the core. To trans*folk, to men, to women.

    I just…wow…

    Yeah, that’s where I’m at now, too.

  41. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    @ blf

    CatieCat, Aren’t you being rather unfair to Kevin Alexander, who included this point (which you rather pointedly did not include in yer quote (albeit you did forget to edit out the referencing *)):

    *Being a woman isn’t a punishment but women are punished anyway.

    Actually, I rather think it makes it worse in the same way that “I’m not racist but…” makes whatever follows worse. It shows you’ve spotted how fucked up the idea is and decided to say it anyway.

  42. says

    No, he said it should be used as punishment, for rapists.

    Do you want YOUR life described as punishment for rapists? Because that’s what he did. He said living MY life should be used as a punishment for rapists.

    Let’s not even get, yet, to the fucked-upness of recommending rape as a punishment for rape. Seriously, blf, back the fuck off here, you’re WAY in the hole and you’re digging hard.

  43. The Mellow Monkey says

    Kevin Alexander @20

    I can think of a worse punishment than death. From their perspective at least.*
    Sex reassignment surgery. Turn them into women and send them back to their community and see how long they last.
    .
    *Being a woman isn’t a punishment but women are punished anyway.

    Is this purposefully playing on transphobia, or is that just a bonus? Is this purposefully alluding to the “I hope they get raped!” trope, or is that just a bonus? While intent is not magic, there is literally no possible intent I could interpret here that makes this comment in any way better.

    Please don’t use other people’s identities as weapons.

  44. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    As I read and still currently read the comment, Kevin was suggesting— that if the alleged rapists (and/or the idiot making the “boys…” comment) could be persuaded to transition to female — they very possibly would see things differently

    Oh for fuck’s fucking sake.

    1) Kevin didn’t suggest gently persuading people to transition.
    2) How the ever loving fuck would that be any more excusable?

    Seriously. Let’s create a trans person against their will and throw them to the wolves! And you can’t spot the transphobia?! My brain is leaking out my ears right now.

  45. rq says

    blf
    It’s not an okay comment or suggestion to make. “could be persuaded to transition to female” – seriously? You think it would be at all possible? Considering their culture and their crime and the general attitude exhibited by their society?
    It’s not even relevant to the fact that, as women, there is the very strong implication that they should be raped/abused/assaulted in turn for them to Truly Learn Their Lesson, and that is not okay, at all, anywhere, ever.
    Please stop.

  46. carlie says

    fter seeing this independently in the news, I now learn that our very own Avicenna was one of the doctors called in to do the autopsies afterwards.

    How horrific. I can’t even imagine how difficult that must have been for him.

  47. Bernard Bumner says

    These threads always seem to generate toxic responses and splash damage from people angrily hitting out. Outrage is understandable, but trampling all over others in your rush to condemn and to contrive some Dantean punishment is just selfish.

    Collateral damage is a common effect of a lust for vengeance.

    @Giliell,

    Prepare for a tough ride. Gender-conscious feminist parenting is hard.

    I’m sure. Particularly when I still spend so much time trying to address my own internalised prejudice.

    (I’ve tried to at least prepare the ground by loudly complaining to everyone who will listen about gender-specific toys, and the like. I am starting to realise just how starkly the commercial world is divided into two colour schemes and related characters/themes. I mistakenly presumed that, as a not intelligent and fairly wealthy consumer I would be easily able to access other choices.)

  48. says

    Kevin Alexander:

    I can think of a worse punishment than death. From their perspective at least.*
    Sex reassignment surgery. Turn them into women and send them back to their community and see how long they last.
    .
    *Being a woman isn’t a punishment but women are punished anyway.

    I’m glad to see other commenters raking you over the grills for this.
    What the ever loving hell is wrong with you?
    Your closing comment may state that being a woman isn’t a punishment, but your idea involves punishing men by forcing them to undergo SRS!
    Being a woman-trans* or cis-gendered-is NOT a punishment.
    No.
    Full Stop. No!
    You need to fucking apologize for that right now.

    You also need to recognize that in addition to the transphobia, your “punishment” also advocates violating bodily autonomy.

    ****
    blf:
    I’m disappointed that you fail to see the transphobic nature of Kevin’s comments *and* that you’re continuing to dig. Stop.
    CaitieCat laid out the problem @40:

    blf, no, I don’t think I’m being unfair in the slightest. Saying “I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being $CHARACTERISTIC” doesn’t change “…but man I’d like to punish some people by turning them into this other person i know who has that characteristic, that’d be worse than DEATH” into something that isn’t bigoted, and in this case, bigoted means transphobic.

  49. says

    Kevin Alexander
    WTF?
    Cut that shit!

    blf

    What was “transphobic” in general about Kevin’s comment?

    Auf die Gefahr das zu wiederholen…
    Postulating that being trans is a punishment worse than death fucking is. Using the existence of trans* people as a tool for “witty comentary” is.
    Also, that hole you’re in, you might want to stop digging.

  50. says

    MM @50:

    Is this purposefully alluding to the “I hope they get raped!” trope, or is that just a bonus?

    I missed this on the first reading of Kevin’s comment. That’s one more thing xe needs to apologize for.

  51. says

    blf
    If you’re not seeing the transphobia inherent in suggesting that forcible SRS is appropriate as a punishment for rapists (or at any time, really), I am seriously not sure how to make it more clear to you.

    Kevin Alexander
    Fucking hell, man! What the fuck?

    Bronze Dog#14

    but these days it comes up to excuse bullying and rape, as well as to dismiss the need to punish.

    That’s not even a little bit new.

  52. Amphiox says

    In addition to the transphobia, the suggestion that forcibly violating anyone’s bodily autonomy to that degree is a “just” punishment for pretty much anything is disturbing in its own right. It’s no different from suggesting that child abusers should be castrated, or that passage in the bible where it says that a married woman guilty of adultery should be forced into an abortion and rendered sterile, or, for that matter, capital punishment.

  53. Jackie the wacky says

    My son, my first born, is due in a couple of weeks. The idea that “boy” is synonymous with the horrendous acts were a told time and again are the result of boys being boys makes me want cry that people are willing to hold the males around them to such low standards.

    Yep. Nothing about sexism makes parenting fun.

  54. says

    I can think of a worse punishment than death. From their perspective at least.*
    Sex reassignment surgery. Turn them into women and send them back to their community and see how long they last.

    This a version of the law of retaliation: an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth. Abuse the abusers, rape the rapists, kill the killers, and so on. The punishment corresponds in kind and degree to the offense.

    It’s the law of retaliation with a little twist, rather than just raping and killing the rapist-murderers, they would be turned into women so that they would then get raped and maybe murdered too, in any case, they would discover for themselves what it feels like to be victimized as a woman and that would serve them right.

    Turning the rapists into women as a punishment may be very objectionable but I think it’s only accidentally transphobic.

  55. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    Turning the rapists into women as a punishment may be very objectionable but I think it’s only accidentally transphobic.

    Dat intent. So magical.

  56. says

    chimera, really, just don’t. Read all the comments. Think about what you’re trying to defend here. Seriously. Accidental, even if it was, doesn’t change that it was seriously transphobic. Accidentally hitting on one of the themes constantly used to attack trans women doesn’t make it less transphobic, or less hurtful.

    It’s also misogynist, and disrespectful of bodily autonomy, but please don’t try to suggest that calling SRS a suitable punishment for rapists isn’t transphobic. Please just don’t.

  57. says

    Two, actually:

    one, that SRS is a fate worse than death, and of how fucked-up and crazy we must be to choose such an awful fate (imagine someone saying it about using a cane or a service dog or having a kidney transplant, for instance; we’re talking about a medical procedure);

    two, that trans women and rapists are a reasonably linkable group and it’s good to associate us in people’s minds, which is used for all sorts of nefarious purposes, like banning us from using the bathrooms that we should be using, and keeping us out of women-only spaces and so on. And no, that the rapists are being turned into us does not make it okay or better, as it opens the door for the old joke (ha ha) that since we’re all rapists anyway, we wouldn’t even notice.

    Seriously. We’re talking watermelon and fried chicken, hairdressers and effeminate speech, sharia and terrorism – level basics of bigot associations here.

    And now that I’m triggered beyond hell and gone, I’m going to bow out for a while. May come back later, may not, but I find having to explain this stuff reminds me very viscerally of some of the times these tropes have been used to excuse physically assaulting me.

    Hope y’all get better days than I’m having.

  58. wondering says

    Chimera, please, just stop digging. It’s not CaitieCat’s job to educate you on something that affects her so much. You can get Transgender 101 all over the Internet.

  59. wondering says

    And while I was typing, she kindly did anyway. CaitieCat, here’s hoping your day gets better.

  60. jrfdeux, mode d'emploi says

    Sex reassignment surgery. Turn them into women and send them back to their community and see how long they last.

    ** Speechless **

  61. mirrorfield says

    @16: I do hope that this was sarcastic. Hint: In internet you can never be sure that someone won’t mistakenly take your sarcasm seriously.

    @20: No. There are good reasons why US Constitution (which doesn’t apply in India, but nevertheless…) prohibits “cruel and unusual” punishments. However, unlike our host I do think that the crimes in question deserve the penalty of traditional hanging.

    @32: I disagree. Death takes away everything one is and could ever be. This is a heavy punishment, heaviest that civilized people can levy. However, you are correct that it is also the ultimate way to exclude someone from society permanently. This is also part of the punishment.

  62. Thomathy, Do Not Upset Me Ahead of World Pride says

    mirrorfield, can we not have the conversation here about the merits of making everyone in society a murderer in order to fulfill retributive fantasies?

    The perpetrators of horrific crimes are not brought to justice by committing an horrific act against them. There is no punishment in murder.

  63. Bernard Bumner says

    There are good reasons why US Constitution (which doesn’t apply in India, but nevertheless…) prohibits “cruel and unusual” punishments.

    It remains an odd anomaly that it isn’t considered cruel to tell someone they will be killed at some indeterminate future point (upon exhausting the appeals process).

    Death takes away everything one is and could ever be. This is a heavy punishment, heaviest that civilized people can levy.

    “Civilized”? What is that shit all about? Who is civilized?

    The death penalty is used by many righteous societies – creating fear, blood-drenched retribution, and utterly irredeemable miscarriages of justices.

    “Civilized” people have a notorious history of hanging “uncivilized” transgressors.

  64. morgan ?! epitheting a metaphor says

    Caitie Cat, I’m sorry for all the unthinking horror that has been flung at you. I am overjoyed that you are among us here. You are one of the brightest lights on FtB. Please stay.

  65. says

    Just to clarify – since I saw this e-mail as it came in – I don’t mean going going, I mean “out of this thread” where people kept doing transphobic stuff. I dunno if they still are, but since I saw this go by, wanted to clarify. I’m not going away, just sparing myself some spoons today.

    But thank you. May respond to others in between, if there was anything, later or tomorrow, if I’m up to it.

  66. Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :) says

    CatieCat, Aren’t you being rather unfair to Kevin Alexander, who included this point (which you rather pointedly did not include in yer quote (albeit you did forget to edit out the referencing *)):

    *Being a woman isn’t a punishment but women are punished anyway.

    I don’t think she is. It was, generously, an extremely thoughtless comment that erases, trivializes, and dismisses trans women and their experiences (I’d even say “objectifies” in a sense) even if it’s not “phobic” in a literal sense, and while the basic idea that “these men would benefit from having some sense of what it’s like to be a woman around men like them” is sound, there’s no need or excuse for the splash damage in how he chose to articulate it.

    Why are you pushing this?

  67. Amphiox says

    @32: I disagree. Death takes away everything one is and could ever be. This is a heavy punishment, heaviest that civilized people can levy. However, you are correct that it is also the ultimate way to exclude someone from society permanently. This is also part of the punishment.

    That is not punishment. That is revenge. Which was the whole point of @32, in fact.

    Punishment is about modifying future behavior. That which excludes the possibility of future behavioral change is not punishment. It is retribution.

  68. Amphiox says

    In many ways, public justice is a ritual that revolves around the social contract.

    The criminal has broken his or her end of the social contract, and so society must exact a ritual payment for this transgression.

    But society has also broken its end of the social contract, with respect to the victim, (failing to protect the victim from the crime) and so some ritual reparation must be made to the victim.

    Finally, there is a loss of credibility of society to all the bystanders witnessing the crime and it’s aftermath pertaining to society’s ability to keep its end of the social contract to them, pertaining to protection from crime, which must be restored.

    Everything, at its root, is about reestablishing the trust in society of its members, to keep everyone consenting to remain in and contribute to the continued existence of the society.

    Concerns regarding deterrence, retribution, reform, restitution and so forth, are secondary, which is probably why there is so much inconsistency in how these principles are applied, both between societies and within societies, between different types of crime.

  69. says

    Society is not a contract. We are social animals. Society preceeds us as individuals and as a species. We are part of it and it is part of us. Society is no more a contract to us than the air we breathe. We can not bow out, even if we go off and live as a hermit, we take it with us, in us, the society we believe to have left.

    Society as contract is an 18th century construction based on faulty ideas of what human beings are.

    What can be broken and changed and restored are laws, and they are part of politics.

    Amphiox, that story you wrote reads really well, it’s pretty. It also justifies punishment. And it’s fiction.

  70. rq says

    Hey, PZ
    re: your addendum @20

    There are a fair number of transgender commenters here who are going to consider your use of their status as a bludgeon to punish rapists to be pretty damned unconscionable.

    Transgender commenters will be (and are) upset, but I think it’s unfair to expect them to be the only ones to be upset. Many cisgender commenters here are also, quite rightly, upset at this type of punishment suggestion, and should also be more ready to call it out for the (intentional or not) transphobia it reflects (among those commenters, I list myself). It’s unfair to expect those most hurt by that type of comment to always take the initiative on correcting the wrongness.

  71. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    It’s unfair to expect those most hurt by that type of comment to always take the initiative on correcting the wrongness.

    QFT

    I’m sorry for needing to be prodded by a trans person calling that comment @ 20 out before I really tried to parse it and respond to it.

  72. Amphiox says

    Amphiox, that story you wrote reads really well, it’s pretty. It also justifies punishment. And it’s fiction

    I am describing what I think is an “is”, with which everyone is free to disagree. But to say that it “justifies” punishment requires that one accept that “is” is also “ought”.

    Do you?

  73. says

    chimera:

    This a version of the law of retaliation: an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth. Abuse the abusers, rape the rapists, kill the killers, and so on. The punishment corresponds in kind and degree to the offense.

    It’s the law of retaliation with a little twist, rather than just raping and killing the rapist-murderers, they would be turned into women so that they would then get raped and maybe murdered too, in any case, they would discover for themselves what it feels like to be victimized as a woman and that would serve them right.

    Turning the rapists into women as a punishment may be very objectionable but I think it’s only accidentally transphobic

    Are you really supporting that rape enabling, transphobic comment?
    I don’t think your explanation was necessary. Kevin’s comment was well understood.
    ‘Eye for an eye’ is a barbaric mentality that robs people of their bodily autonomy, and amounts to nothing more than revenge. It doesn’t serve to right a wrong.
    Moreover, any ‘punishment’ or ‘revenge’ that uses rape-even the threat of rape-is vile.
    Turning rapists into women is *very* objectionable. It violates their bodily autonomy, which is a right that *all* humans have.
    In addition, it was also transphobic. Whether unintentional or deliberate, transphobia is bigotry and there’s no justifying bigotry.
    The comment *also* treats being a woman as an insult.

    Any *one* of the above issues-alone-would be sufficient to condemn Kevin Alexander’s comment.
    The whole comment is fucked up and indefensible.

  74. says

    CaitieCat:

    And now that I’m triggered beyond hell and gone, I’m going to bow out for a while. May come back later, may not, but I find having to explain this stuff reminds me very viscerally of some of the times these tropes have been used to excuse physically assaulting me.

    I’m so sorry. Please take care of yourself.

  75. says

    blf @ 28:

    CatieCat, Aren’t you being rather unfair to Kevin Alexander

    No, she was not. Kevin Alexander decided to be a very indecent human being for a moment, and CatieCat shouldn’t be chastised or hushed. Christ.

  76. says

    Chimera:

    Turning the rapists into women as a punishment may be very objectionable but I think it’s only accidentally transphobic.

    Oh FFS. For someone who has been hanging out here for the time you have, there’s no excuse. Absolutely fucking none. Educate yourself.

  77. says

    PZ:
    This, from rq applies to me as well:

    Transgender commenters will be (and are) upset, but I think it’s unfair to expect them to be the only ones to be upset. Many cisgender commenters here are also, quite rightly, upset at this type of punishment suggestion, and should also be more ready to call it out for the (intentional or not) transphobia it reflects (among those commenters, I list myself). It’s unfair to expect those most hurt by that type of comment to always take the initiative on correcting the wrongness

  78. dravid says

    I’ve just finished reading Martin Gilbert’s Second World War, now that was a nightmare. 50 Million people dead and a large proportion were tortured in many evil ways. I keep thinking, is this Inhuman? My answer to myself is no, it’s human. It seems that a large proportion of the world’s population spends a lot of time on how they can kill other people. It’s not all bad for the first world we aren’t as exposed to violence as the second and third world. I fear that that may change because of population growth, climate change and other factors.

    Some problems with Capital Punishment as I see it is: 1. Countries or States with Capital Punishment reduce their moral standard to that of murderers. Also as the old saying goes “Dead men tell no tales” does Capital Punishment encourage murder? 2. People just can’t be trusted to get it right. The evidence just from the Innocence Project shows this to be true.

  79. eeyore says

    I am deeply ambivalent about the death penalty. If I were a member of the state legislature, I would probably vote to abolish it. I once witnessed an execution and consider the experience one of the worst of my life; I blogged about it here:

    http://nohbdyimportant.blogspot.com/2014/05/witness-to-death.html

    But I’ve never considered the death penalty to be about punishment, any more than surgically removing a cancerous tumor is about punishing the tumor. It’s about protecting the rest of the body.

    And I’m familiar with the “othering” argument that would take offense at my cancerous tumor analogy. I don’t buy it. For one thing, the cancerous tumor is also a part of the body from which it is being surgically removed; the person whose tumor it is would be correct in saying that the tumor is a part of them. Yet despite not being an “other”, getting rid of it is necessary to protect the rest of the body.

    For a second thing, a group of men who can kidnap, rape, strangle and hang from a tree the bodies of two girls are so broken that I’m not sure they’re fixable. However they got that way, that’s what they are.

  80. says

    eeyore:

    And I’m familiar with the “othering” argument that would take offense at my cancerous tumor analogy. I don’t buy it.

    No, the problem would be you don’t understand it.

  81. ck says

    I have no problem with the phrase “boys will be boys” when it applies to your four year old son who comes home covered in mud after spending the day chasing frogs. Likewise, the corresponding “girls will be girls” is entirely fine after your four year old daughter comes home covered in mud after spending the day doing the same thing. Justifying anything but the most trivial mischief with that phrase is just wrong, though.

    eeyore wrote:

    But I’ve never considered the death penalty to be about punishment, any more than surgically removing a cancerous tumor is about punishing the tumor. It’s about protecting the rest of the body.

    If that were the case, we might have justification to use it to remove someone who was such a serious threat that even behind bars, they were still a dire threat to others. However, aside from Adolph Hitler, I’m not sure we need a rule to handle a case this exceptional.

    However, even if we did all accept that it may be necessary for such an exceptionally malevolent individual, it’s impossible to ignore the way the death penalty is actually used in practice — to punish those with low social status (i.e. minorities). Given how it is currently used in practice, quibbling over how I wish it was used is worse than pointless; it’s actually harmful.

  82. Anri says

    If someone claims they don’t think being a woman is a punishment, why are they suggesting it’s a fate worse than death?

  83. says

    ck:

    Given how it is currently used in practice, quibbling over how I wish it was used is worse than pointless; it’s actually harmful.

    QFT.

  84. caesar says

    @72:

    The perpetrators of horrific crimes are not brought to justice by committing an horrific act against them. There is no punishment in murder.

    If the perp is actually guilty of committing a crime, then it’s not murder.
    @73:

    It remains an odd anomaly that it isn’t considered cruel to tell someone they will be killed at some indeterminate future point (upon exhausting the appeals process).

    Something else I find odd is why it’s not considered cruel to lock someone up in a cell for many years at a time amongst people, some of whom are murderers, thieves, rapists, etc.

  85. mildlymagnificent says

    Getting back to gender-conscious parenting, Bernard@54

    I am starting to realise just how starkly the commercial world is divided into two colour schemes and related characters/themes. I mistakenly presumed that, as a not intelligent and fairly wealthy consumer I would be easily able to access other choices.

    Well, if you do have a bigger budget than most, I’d suggest having a look at educational resources. The place we used to use for school type materials had a fantastic range of robust play equipment for kindergartens and childcare centres. By and large they were gender neutral, primary colours and designs – because these places can’t really afford to double up just because some kids/parents would prefer other colours.

    Some items were merely a bit expensive compared to ordinary supermarket/ department store stock. Others were not really available anywhere else at all. Most importantly, you’d never ever have to worry about something being unsafe for little ones nor broken hearts over broken toys. When I say robust, I mean it.

  86. eeyore says

    Inaji, I’m still waiting for you to explain to me what I don’t understand about othering.

    CK, I was a courthouse reporter for many years. You don’t have to tell me that the justice system is stacked against the poor and people of color; I saw it myself day in and day out. But the problem with the specific argument you’ve made — Given how (the death penalty) is currently used in practice, quibbling over how I wish it was used is worse than pointless; it’s actually harmful — is that the same thing can be said about the entire rest of the justice system. The whole system is wretched, and there’s this huge disconnect between the way the courts are supposed to work and the way they actually do work in practice. So there’s really no reason not to extend your argument and say that it’s actively harmful to talk about how we wish the justice system behaved rather than the way it actually does behave.

    So, I think you can argue one of two things. You can argue that we shouldn’t have a justice system at all until such time as it works the way it’s supposed to. Or you can argue that the death penalty gets analyzed separately from the rest of the justice system. I don’t find either argument persuasive. And I say that as someone who agrees that the justice system we now have is pretty badly broken.

  87. ck says

    eeyore wrote:

    So there’s really no reason not to extend your argument and say that it’s actively harmful to talk about how we wish the justice system behaved rather than the way it actually does behave.

    Actually, there is. We don’t need state sponsored executions, but we do need a criminal justice system of some sort, even if it performs poorly.

    And stop the slippery slope nonsense. I am perfectly capable of using an argument against only one of those two things.

  88. lorn says

    Removal of the testicles would calm those boys right down. You can modify the method of removal to suit your desire for punishment and/or retribution.

  89. Amphiox says

    I don’t get your question.

    Your claim was that my hypothesis about the nature of public justice systems “justified” punishment.

    But a hypothesis pertaining to a fact about the world (in this case how systems of public justice are constructed in the real world and for what purpose, across multiple cultures), even if true, can only “justify” a course of action (in this case punishment) IF one accepts the naturalistic fallacy that what is, ie the nature of the systems as they exist in the real world, justifies what ought to be, ie methods of punishment, in this case.

    So, the question is, do you think the naturalistic fallacy is not a fallacy?

  90. jrfdeux, mode d'emploi says

    eeyore @93:
    What you’re ignoring, and I suggest is much more important than the “punishment v. community safety” argument is that capital punishment gives the State the power to take the lives of its own citizens. Do you not grasp how horrific that is? You, as a voter and taxpayer, would support the State in taking human lives in the name of “justice”, and your life could be taken as well. Why would anyone agree to give their own government that power is completely beyond me.

  91. says

    Your claim was that my hypothesis about the nature of public justice systems “justified” punishment.

    I don’t believe in punishment. Does that clarify anything for you?

    a hypothesis pertaining to a fact about the world … can only “justify” a course of action… IF one accepts the naturalistic fallacy that what is … justifies what ought to be

    I still don’t get this, any way I turn it or cut it.

    For instance, do you mean, “A hypothesis about the construction of public justice can only justify punishment IF one accepts that the nature of public justice systems justifies methods of punishment”??????

    That doesn’t make any more sense.

    Then you seem to be asking me if… I’m not sure really. And you, do you believe tautologies are tautologies?

    Maybe this isn’t all that important.

    I’ll try one more time. Do you mean, “A hypothesis about X can only justify Y IF one accepts that the nature of X justifies methods of Y” ????

  92. says

    lorn:

    Removal of the testicles would calm those boys right down. You can modify the method of removal to suit your desire for punishment and/or retribution.

    Right. Why that would make them as weak and ineffectual as a…woman, right? I wish the fuck people would think. Do you suppose that a penis and testicles are absolutely necessary to rape? Because if you do, you’re sadly mistaken.* Way to go on the transphobia front, too. I’d think a person might bother to read the comments first.
     
    *Anger and/or the desire to inflict pain or punishment on someone is not dependent on testosterone. Castration, whether physical or chemical, just makes some individuals angrier. Plenty of women have died, being raped with an object rather than a penis. Didn’t stop the rape, didn’t stop the murder.

  93. says

    dravid:
    Another problem with the death penalty-it does not deter crime:

    But recent studies that separate capital-eligible homicides – the ones that should be most sensitive to the deterrent effects of execution—from other homicides show no significant changes over time in the rate of capital-eligible homicides in the face of variation in the execution rate. In fact, all but one of the new studies lump all forms of murder together, claiming that all are equally deterrable; the one study that looked at specific categories found that domestic homicides are more deterrable than others, a claim that flies in the face of six decades of theory and research in killings between intimate partners that shows their spontaneity and unpredictability.
    The computations in the statistical models are often flawed. For example, simple corrections for large amounts of missing data produce estimates of the deterrent effect of execution that are no different from chance. Using alternate statistical models—models that account for the strong statistical correlation of murder rates from one year to the next—also produces results that show that changes in homicide rates are statistically unrelated to any measure of capital punishment.
    Others find that any deterrent effects are specific to Texas, a state that is atypical by (until 2005) denying juries the choice between execution and life without parole. The studies also may unreasonably inflate the effects of execution by cutting the analyses in 1998, thereby excluding later years when homicides declined, as did executions. Still others find the evidence of deterrence very fragile and unstable, with estimates of deterrence changing wildly with even the slightest adjustments or modifications either in measurement or statistical methods. Such instability should signal caution in not only causal inference, but in using these data in policy decisions or law when life and death are at stake.
    Finally, the moving parts in the deterrence story are unpersuasive. Execution would have to achieve a marginal cost beyond the threat of lifetime incarceration. There is no evidence that this is the case. Execution would have to occur with sufficient frequency and with widespread knowledge among would-be murderers to create a credible threat considering the types of murders that might be eligible for execution. There is no sign of that, nor does it seem likely. For example, there were 16,137 murders in 2004, according to the FBI, but only 125 death sentences were handed out, and 59 persons—most of whom were convicted a decade earlier—were executed. There are no direct tests of deterrence among murderers, nor are there studies showing their awareness of executions in their own state, much less in faraway states. There is no evidence that if aware of the possibility of execution, a potential murderer would rationally decide to forgo homicide and use less lethal forms of violence. Murder is a complex and multiply determined phenomenon, with cyclical patterns for distinct periods of more than 40 years of increase and decline that are not unlike epidemics of contagious diseases. There is nothing in the new deterrence studies that fits their story into this complex causal framework.

    (from the same article) In addition, it is pricey. Pricier than lifetime incarceration:

    As a public policy choice, execution requires trade-offs of public resources and investments for state legislators and local prosecutors. The costs of administering capital punishment are prohibitive. Even in states where prosecutors infrequently seek the death penalty, the price of obtaining convictions and executions ranges from $2.5 million to $5 million per case (in current dollars), compared to less than $1 million for each killer sentenced to life without parole. These costs create clear public policy choices. If the state is going to spend $5 million on law enforcement over the next few decades, what is the best use of that money? Is it to buy two or three executions or, for example, to fund additional police detectives, prosecutors, and judges to arrest and incarcerate criminals who escape punishment because of insufficient law-enforcement resources?
    Florida, for example, spent between $25 million and $50 million more per year on capital cases than it would have to if all murderers received life without parole. The Indiana Legislative Services Agency estimated that had the state sentenced its death row populations to life without parole, Indiana taxpayers would have been spared approximately $37.1 million

  94. says

    lorn:

    Removal of the testicles would calm those boys right down. You can modify the method of removal to suit your desire for punishment and/or retribution

    Your response to the horrific crimes of these boys is to violate their bodily autonomy (the same thing they did to those poor girls)?!
    Do you think that since they committed such awful crimes, they lose their rights as humans? That’s your idea of justice?! That’s fucking barbaric.

    The problem is not the fact that they are males. They’re raised in a patriarchal society that has normalized rape and treats women as subhuman (the same is true of other countries-including the US). Yes, they ought to be punished, but what you suggest is retributive, not just.
    What is the purpose of your “solution”?
    Does it lead to their rehabilitation?
    Does it somehow undo their actions?
    Does it somehow prevent them from committing the same crimes again*?

    * (in case you don’t know this, a penis and testicles are not needed to rape someone)

  95. Amphiox says

    I don’t believe in punishment. Does that clarify anything for you?

    No it does not. Because what YOU believe is irrelevant. And also because I do not need anything clarified for me.

    It is YOU who is making the confused argument here.

    You made the contention that MY speculation “justifies punishment”.

    But it would do so ONLY IF an “is” is equal to an “ought”. In other words, even if my speculation on the nature of public justice were true, to contend that it justifies punishment is COMMITTING A NATURALISTIC FALLACY.

    In truth my speculation does not justify anything at all. It is simply a personal hypothesis about the nature of public justice, as I have observed, as practiced in reality among the different cultures and systems that I am aware of.

    One can argue about whether or not the hypothesis is likely to be true, which you did. But to claim in addition that it “justifies punishment” as you tried to do, is muddled thinking.

  96. Amphiox says

    I’ll try one more time. Do you mean, “A hypothesis about X can only justify Y IF one accepts that the nature of X justifies methods of Y” ????

    No.

    If X is a hypothesis about a fact claim, and Y is a recommendation for human behavior or public policy in the realm of interpersonal interactions, such as, say, legal systems, then no X of any kind can justify any Y of any kind. To claim so is to commit the naturalistic fallacy.

    And I am done discussing this with you. If you still do not understand what I am saying after this, then you will have to seek explanation elsewhere, as I have no further interest in investing any more of my time in discussing this subject.

  97. lorn says

    If men act as animals they get treated as animals. Aggressive farm animals are commonly castrated. And yes, it work most of the time. The difference in behavior between bull and steer is remarkable and highly consistent. Bulls are highly territorial and they can be quite aggressive assembling and defending their harem. Steers tend to be far less so. Still capable of aggression if riled they tend to be much more mellow and to focus mostly on eating grass and chewing their cud. They tend to be far less energetic and to gain weight.

    While testosterone is not an absolute requirement for sexual aggression less testosterone does track well with less aggression in general. And a less aggressive attitude is indeed a step toward reducing aggression of all types. There is nothing inconsistent with modifying hormone balance to modify behavior. It is pretty well accepted science, albeit it is most well documented being applied to animal species.

    There it precedent for human use. Castration, typically chemical castration (consistent use of testosterone antagonist), is seen as an alternative to life in prison for child molesters. Interviews with men undergoing chemical castration seems to indicate that it modifies their behavior by modifying their thinking.

    You want to modify behavior and you prefer to avoid violence and incarceration. You can modify the society, good luck with that 3500 year battle, or you can modify hormone balances. The result is largely the same. I suggest castration because it would likely work. You could go for chemical castration but you aren’t going to get compliance, we are talking about a country where rumors of the vaccine causing infertility prevents polio vaccination, and funding for tracking and the drugs needed. Removal of the testicles solves both issues.

    Done surgically it is simple and low-risk operation. An experience farmer can castrate a bull in a under a minute and the steer is released immediately. In a couple of hours they show no sign of pain and healing is complete in one to two weeks.

    Of course, the desire to change behavior isn’t limited to one or the other method. A willingness to castrate offenders could be quite a deterrent in a tribal nation that still values a man’s ability to further the family line and would be a sign of just how serious the crime of rape is. Momma and daddy want their grandchildren and knowing that inappropriate use by their son of his penis means no grand kids they may be motivated to raise the boy up differently.

    Besides, it is something close to poetic justice and it puts a completely new and literal spin on “Getting your rocks off”.

    Barbaric? It is a simple operation that would largely eliminate a repeat of the crime by modifying the thinking of an offender. If applied consistently it might go a long way toward modifying the thinking of the society. At which time there would be little or no need. What alternative is there? Jails, long term incarceration is a waste of human potential, don’t change behavior. Being surrounded by the most aggressive within society if a man goes in misogynist he comes out worse. For once out he has real injury to go along with the imagined slights caused by his interactions with women.

    As it is now rapes in Pakistan are largely ignored, go unpunished when reported. Most police don’t see it as a crime. If they do many assume the crime is on the part of the woman. Some seem disappointed because they weren’t invited to a good rape and slut killing. No exaggeration. Pakistan has a long way to go if you want to change society. Particularly if you limit yourself to sweet words and gentle touches.

    While it is fine to want to change behavior without force or violence there is not even a single case I know of where this has worked in any major way. If anything castration would be a fairly minimal use of force and would have a profound behavior effect. Far less brutal than flogging or long term incarceration because once done it need not be repeated.

  98. nyarlathotep says

    lorn @113

    If men act as animals they get treated as animals.

    I stopped reading right here. These men were not acting “as animals.” Rape and the beating (even to death) of women is, as is well observed in modern history, a very human action. I’ve attempted to elaborate further, but I’ve wound up disliking my comments for some reason and will leave elaboration to others or at least until I can calm down and collect my thoughts.

  99. says

    Thank you lorn for your informative post about animal husbandry.
    Thank you also for showing that indeed you’Re just as much a vile misogynist as the guy about whom the OP is.
    Because your argument is, that since they had balls, those men couldn’t control themselves. Really, just like bulls! And whose fault is it if you ignore the warning labels at the door and enter a bull’s pen? Right, not the bulls.
    And of course, the best way to punish them is to make them more like women. Because we all know what “less man” means. Misogynist, transphobic and overall asshole.

  100. says

    Lorn, it need not be repeated, but justice is not perfect. And it cannot be repaired either. Think it through.

  101. chigau (違う) says

    lorn
    Steers are meat.
    No one cares about their behaviour.
    They are going to to killed and eaten.
    That is why they exist.

    How does that fit in your scenario?

  102. Hairhead, whose head is entirely filled with Too Much Stuff says

    Albert Pierrepont, Britain’s executioner for over twenty years, who presided over 680 state murders, said this is his autobiography:

    “It is said to be a deterrent. I cannot agree. There have been murders since the beginning of time, and we shall go on looking for deterrents until the end of time. If death were a deterrent, I might be expected to know. It is I who have faced them last, young men and girls, working men, grandmothers. I have been amazed to see the courage with which they take that walk into the unknown. It did not deter them then, and it had not deterred them when they committed what they were convicted for. All the men and women whom I have faced at that final moment convince me that in what I have done I have not prevented a single murder.”

    I consider him to be an expert, one whose opinion ought to have some weight.

  103. Rowan vet-tech says

    ‘Fun fact’ of animal husbandry for Lorn-

    Neutering an adult male dog that is already showing suspected testosterone related aggression isn’t going to instantly become less aggressive when the testosterone levels drop in a few weeks. This is because behaviour becomes habit. Extensive training is required, and cannot always overcome such aggression.

    Now take a human being who has this thing called ‘sapience’ and ‘memory’ and ‘understanding of correlation’ and well… removing testes isn’t going to make them suddenly forget that they think of women as objects rather than people. Removing testicles will not make them stupid cattle, calmly eating at the dinner table. It will make them FUCKING ANGRY and make them lash out. Anger doesn’t require testosterone, especially ‘righteous’ anger. It can also be a straight up personality trait.

    I can be very ‘aggressive’, much more so that women stereotypically are supposed to be. And my aggression is very primal and tied to a temper that is sometimes very difficult for me to control. There have been many times in my life where I have seriously wanted to hurt people who were hurting me or family/friends. It took nearly 15 years of actively working on not lashing out before I felt I had good control. That was over half my life at that point.

    And yet, I don’t have testicles. And it’s not ovaries making me seethe. It’s a part of my personality that has a very small ‘harmful bullshit’ tolerance pile. Spaying me against my will wouldn’t change that, but it *would* make me angry to a terrifying degree.

  104. opposablethumbs says

    Amazingly enough, lorn and caesar, there are a lot of countries that manage to get by without a death penalty on the books at all. Yes I know they are in a very different socioeconomic situation from that of Pakistan, but as long as we’re talking about what to aim for why the fuck would you want to aim for something as broken and discriminatory as the US system?
    .
    I get it that a lot of us (us) have this initial, unthinking, visceral desire to have murderers and rapists experience the same thing that they inflicted on their victims. But ffs we are supposed to have the capacity to think beyond that blind rage and do better than imitating the rapist or murderer. So, what, there are some special circumstances in which it’s OK, even laudable, to want someone to be raped or killed? In which we say it’s OK to take away someone’s bodily autonomy as long as it’s us who are doing it? No. Revenge is not the same thing as justice, or deterrence, or protecting society. And I want to add my apologies to CaitieCat too.

  105. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    lorn @ 103 & 113

    Jesus fuck, yes, punish criminals by committing crimes against them. Everyone, I give you: civilazation. Enjoy!

    gtfo lorn.

  106. Bernard Bumner says

    @mildlymagnificent #100 – thanks for the very useful suggestion; I hadn’t thought of that.

  107. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @dreikin, #121

    quoting bicarbonate from #28

    I do believe in separating dangerous people from the general population, whether or not they are guilty of something in the eyes of the law.

    Yeah, it’s not like that’s never been abused to get rid of the “undesirables”.

    Is that sarcasm, dreikin? Because it totally works in Saudi Arabia, y’know. The dangerous, dangerous women, with their endless threats to men’s precious, precious bodily fluids souls are, for the convenience and safety of everyone, separated from the “general population” of men.

    They had a good thing going in South Afrika, too, until some colored lawyer moved there 120 years ago thinking he was somehow competent to practice there just because he’d been trained and called at the Empire’s Inner Temple (I kid you not, that’s the name). They finally drove the coolie out after 20 years, but the damage had been done.

    Fortunately, the government was able to take other steps to keep the riffraff out of society.

  108. Bernard Bumner says

    As to those lusting after a violent response: time and again the evidence shows that violent retribution is not a deterrent, is more expensive, does not deliver even-handed justice, and fails to discriminate between guilt and innocence.

    It doesn’t achieve any of the supposed aims of a just punishment – take away all of the excuses and justifications, because those have been shown to be false, abd all that you are left with is unconscionable violence.

  109. says

    Clearly, what lorn means to imply is that men are savage animals who cannot be trusted to be in polite society. So, obviously, we should be leashing and muzzling the lot of them.

    In fact, given we can propagate the species with only a relative handful of men, maybe we should just cull most of the herd, and reduce our difficulties in dealing with them.

    Just call me The Man Whisperer.

    Also, I would like to modestly propose that children would be a good source of meat.

  110. Anri says

    lorn @ 113:

    Aggressive farm animals are commonly castrated

    …all aggressive animals are male? Um, ok, I guess we’ll all just have to bow to your highly superior knowledge of animals, then.

    As far as believing that men are no more sentient, intelligent, or capable of controlling their behavior than barnyard animals, I’m going to assume you’re speaking strictly for yourself. Feel free to demonstrate this by at some point evidencing a desire to do violence to your fellow human beings.
    …oh, wait…

  111. throwaway says

    Oddly enough I see no one making the argument that if the boysmen had had their right to sexual activity enfranchised then none of this would have happened. Or that if only they had gotten laid then there wouldn’t have been a motive to do this. Could it have something to do with longitudinal thinking?

  112. throwaway says

    Oh, but then there is the, as-always, odious lorn to show me that there is a level of depraved nonsense below a bar even I couldn’t fathom. So it’s like opposite ends of quelling-the-natural-lust-and-aggressiveness-of-savage-beasts stick. If they’re not of the other and they are like us, then they need something enjoyable and non-permanent; if they’re of the other then they are animals which do not need to reproduce. Thanks for not disappointing us, lorn!

  113. Amphiox says

    If men act as animals they get treated as animals.

    Rape is known in only a handful of animals, one of which is humans.

    Misogyny is known in only one animal, and that animal is humans.

    These criminals are not acting as animals in any eay whatsoever. They are acting as MEN. And that is the problem.

  114. Thomathy, Do Not Upset Me Ahead of World Pride says

    caesar @ #99

    If the perp is actually guilty of committing a crime, then it’s not murder.

    Um, what? It’s murder. Don’t hurt yourself getting tangled in logic knots trying to justify when killing someone in revenge isn’t murder. Here’s a hint: being guilty of a criminal act is not enough; nothing is.

  115. dianne says

    Re castrating rapists:
    1. What others have already said about it being transphobic and misogynistic. Seriously, you don’t see any problem with the argument: “let’s take the testosterone from men and make them more like women–that’ll teach them”?

    2. There’s no great evidence that chemical castration works. If it works at all, it probably works best–or only–in cases of paraphillias where the patient finds him- (or her-, but more frequently him-) self afflicted with unwanted sexual desires and WANTS to take something that will reduce his/her sex drive and remove these unwanted desires. People who want to use sex to hurt aren’t going to be in the least deterred.

    3. I don’t admire the behavior of rapists. I don’t want my society doing anything like what they do. For example, violating the bodily autonomy of any person in their power. Including rapists. Which is not to say that I don’t understand the desire for revenge. If someone did something like that to my friend or relative, I’d WANT to vivisect them without anesthesia. But that wouldn’t make it right. Individuals can be cruel. When society is cruel, it only makes things worse. See murder rates in death penalty versus non-death penalty states.

  116. caesar says

    @133:

    Um, what? It’s murder. Don’t hurt yourself getting tangled in logic knots trying to justify when killing someone in revenge isn’t murder. Here’s a hint: being guilty of a criminal act is not enough; nothing i

    Murder is unjustified killing. Killing a person who say, raped and hanged 2 girls, seems justified to me. Therefore, it’s not murder. It’s no more revenge than locking some away in a cell amongst murderers, thieves, rapists, etc. Think of it as an occupational hazard of committing rape and murder.

  117. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    caesar:

    Murder is unjustified killing. Killing a person who say, raped and hanged 2 girls, seems justified to me. Therefore, it’s not murder.

    Think on the root of the word “unjustified.” The root is the same as for “Justice.” Murders can be, and are, declared to be justifiable by a court of law — justifiable homicide, in other words, self-defence. It is still wrong to kill someone, but sometimes the courts excuse it. They justify it.

    All executions, for whatever crime, are justified murders. The intentional taking of the life of another human being is murder. The only difference is that it is done through the justice system It is justified. That does not make it right.

    Every excuse for judicial murder fails except one. Claims that the death penalty reduces the crime rate, or the murder rate, does not stand up. Murder rates in states with the death penalty are higher in states with the death penalty then in those without. It does not save money — it costs far more to put someone to death, eventually, than it does to incarcerate them. The only reason that stands up is revenge. Biblical eye-for-an-eye (with appropriate modifiers for age and sex of victim and perpetrator, of course) justice. You killed her, I’m gonna kill you.

    But it is still murder — the intentional taking of the life of another human being.

    And it is irrevocable. There is no going back. Once a person has been murdered by the state, it doesn’t matter how much exculpatory evidence shows up, that person is still dead. Apologizing to the family for the legal and justified murder of an innocent person just doesn’t cut it. Ever.

    As for chemical or physical castration of rapists? No. Just no. It doesn’t change the anger, the hatred, the idea that others exist to please, that others are not fully human. All that stays. And manifests in new ways. Ways that are still damaging to the perpetrator and to others.

    There are other reasons that the idea of turning a man into a women hits too close to home. Is hitting too close.

  118. says

    Killing a person who say, raped and hanged 2 girls probably shot a policeman, seems justified to me

    Killing a person who say, raped and hanged 2 girls slept with somebody who was not her husband, seems justified to me

    Killing a person who say, raped and hanged 2 girls insulted my religion, seems justified to me

    Killing a person who say, raped and hanged 2 girls picked a pocket, seems justified to me

    Killing a person who say, raped and hanged 2 girls is a witch, seems justified to me

    See the problem? People justify an aweful lot of things.
    How about “we don’t kill people except in cases of self-defense”?

  119. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    caesar @ 135

    Murder is unjustified killing. Killing a person who say, raped and hanged 2 girls, seems justified to me. Therefore, it’s not murder. It’s no more revenge than locking some away in a cell amongst murderers, thieves, rapists, etc. Think of it as an occupational hazard of committing rape and murder.

    Argument for capital punishment:

    1) caesar says it’s justified
    2) another form of punishment is also borne of a desire for revenge
    3) QED

  120. ledasmom says

    lorn,
    Even disregarding the cruelty of your suggestions (which I do not do, but others have addressed it), you think that castrating the perpetrators would be an effective means of preventing them from doing again what they did. But they did not come up with the idea to do that out of thin air; should every person whose actions or inactions encouraged them also be castrated? Should the politician quoted above?
    Or we could realize that it is the mind that disregards the humanity of women that is to blame here, not the testicles. Do you want to go rummaging around with a knife there, too? Do you think you can find the rapey bit in there? I should hope the history of psychosurgery would give you pause, but I may be too optimistic.

  121. dreikin says

    #125 Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden:

    Is that sarcasm, dreikin?

    Oh yes. I have been reminded repeatedly over the past week, primarily here on Pharyngula, that I am viewed by a not insubstantial portion of society as one of those undesirables[1], a loser[4], a dangerous menace to society[2] (despite all evidence to the contrary), something to scare parents with[6], an epithet for othering criminals with[2].
    I have been reminded that my problems are really oh-so-easy to deal with if I would only put in the effort.[7]
    I have been reminded that phrases obviously targeted at my class are, when challenged, conveniently redefined to mean something else.[3][5]

    And before this there was Adam Lanza (Newtown Massacre/Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting)[A], and before that James Holmes (Aurora Shooting)[B], and more blaming[C], and more othering[D]..

    Hell, the most publicly visible organization with regard to autism has implicitly endorsed the idea that autistics are better off dead – or at least that our families and society would be better off without us.[E]

    And importantly, as demonstrated in this very thread[8], members of many other classes deal with the same shit[9], which the relatively privileged easily overlook[10], or even seek to excuse because that’s obviously not what was meant[11].

    So someone proposing as a solution[F] locking up the “dangerous” portions of society, without any crime having been committed, is not something I take lightly. Even if they’re not so much proposing it, but rather not objecting to it[G].

    I’m not even going to go into the issue of whether and/or how much some things (like Asperger’s Syndrome) should even be called problems, diseases, mental disturbances, etc. Yes, they may cause social problems and issues – but so does not knowing the local language.

    And so many other issues, and so little time & energy.

    =================================================
    ————————————————-

    And, just because, I’d like to add a big and sincere thank you to Louis for their contributions on the source threads. Also Inaji, and Lars, and occasionally (see [3]) Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden, and others I’m sure I’m forgetting.

    =================================================
    ————————————————-

    I thought of including universalanimosity here, but, well, obvious troll is obvious.

    1: @ freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/05/24/the-perfect-guy-the-supreme-gentleman/

    You know, I think I kind of understand why women wanted nothing to do with this guy.
    It doesn’t help that this severely mentally disturbed individual was feeding on a steady diet of the misogyny pouring out of various so-called “men’s rights” channels and websites.

    PZ Myers, describing Elliot Rodger

    2: @ freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/05/24/the-perfect-guy-the-supreme-gentleman/comment-page-1/#comment-801096

    From Boston.com:

    The man who killed six people in separate drive-by shootings late Friday night near Santa Barbara, Calif., was reportedly under psychiatric care.

    Elliot Rodger, 22, the son of filmmaker Paul Rodger, was “diagnosed with ‘highly functional Asperger’s syndrome’ as a child, BBC reported.

    Usernames are smart, responding to Louis’ criticism of PZ Myers’ word choice in the OP.

    3: @ freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/05/24/the-perfect-guy-the-supreme-gentleman/comment-page-1/#comment-801097

    I hate crazy-blaming as much as the next depression-haver, but “severely mentally disturbed” is not a diagnosis.

    The language isn’t what I’d choose. I think “cognitively” is better, more precise, & more accurate than “mentally,” but “mentally” is miles better than “psychologically”.

    PZ has responded to calls to remove “crazy” from posts where the actual problem is “violent” or “willing to harm others” or “evil”.

    It’s you, here who are equating the two when you say:

    Invoking mental disturbance or madness

    The only thing that might have been a synonym for “mental disturbance” PZ provides is “misogyny”, and the semantic connection between them could easily have been something more cause-and-effect than equation-of-terms.

    I’m on your side in this fight, Louis. I think that your aim is arguably off here.

    Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden, responding to Louis’ criticism of PZ Myers’ word choice in the OP.

    4: @ freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/05/24/the-perfect-guy-the-supreme-gentleman/comment-page-1/#comment-801111

    For such people it’s not that they are “frustrated alphas” it’s that they are “losers in denial”..

    Marcus Ranum, regarding Elliot Rodger’s true position in the fucked-up pack hierarchy view of human relations (and wolf relations, for that matter).

    5: @ freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/05/24/the-perfect-guy-the-supreme-gentleman/comment-page-1/#comment-801250

    “Mentally disturbed” is not a mental illness diagnosis. It’s a description of the the mental state of someone who was clearly very troubled.

    shawnthesheep, badly trying to assert that mentally disturbed does not mean what it means.

    6: @ freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/05/28/i-knew-peta-was-dishonest-but-this/
    Text next to cereal floating in milk in a bowl, arranged in a frowny-face

    Has your child got autism? Learn about the link between autism and dairy products at PETA.org.

    PETA, using a fictitious connection between dairy and autism to scare parents into going vegan.

    7: @ freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/05/26/at-least-some-people-are-having-the-conversation/comment-page-1/#comment-802352

    …but Elliot truly had no friends, as he said in his videos and writings.

    Right, and whose fault is that?

    He could easily have had friends if only he had made the effort to learn how to interact with people without coming off as creepy.

    He could easily have had a relationship, if he’d put in the effort.

    WMDKitty — Survivor, declaring just how easy it is to be social if only a person would put in a little effort.

    8: @ freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/05/29/thats-some-mistake/comment-page-1/#comment-803516

    I can think of a worse punishment than death. From their perspective at least.*
    Sex reassignment surgery. Turn them into women and send them back to their community and see how long they last.
    .
    *Being a woman isn’t a punishment but women are punished anyway.

    Kevin Alexander, throwing women and trans people under the bus in their desire for retaliation.

    9: @ freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/05/29/thats-some-mistake/comment-page-1/#comment-803776

    Removal of the testicles would calm those boys right down. You can modify the method of removal to suit your desire for punishment and/or retribution.

    lorn, at the start of digging his particular hole.

    10: @ freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/05/29/thats-some-mistake/comment-page-1/#comment-803540

    I can think of a worse punishment than death. From their perspective at least.*
    Sex reassignment surgery. Turn them into women and send them back to their community and see how long they last.

    Gee, thanks for the extreme transphobic turd dropped into my day, Kevin Alexander. That’s spiffing.

    Gosh, my fellow commenters think “Living Cait’s life is a punishment worse than death, to be used to threaten rapists,” isn’t even worth a comment to say, “hey, that’s fucked up, dude.”

    Thanks ever-so.

    CaitieCat, getaway driver, 14 posts and over half an hour later (kind of long in pharyngula time), calling attention to the lack of response to [8].

    11: @ freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/05/29/thats-some-mistake/comment-page-1/#comment-803548

    CatieCat, Aren’t you being rather unfair to Kevin Alexander, who included this point (which you rather pointedly did not include in yer quote (albeit you did forget to edit out the referencing *)):

    *Being a woman isn’t a punishment but women are punished anyway.

    blf, Asserting the “I’m not x, but…” defense of [8].

    =================================================

    A: @ ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2012/12/getting-it-right-aspergers-autism-and-ne

    In the aftermath of the horrific Newtown shooting, media reports began to circulate that the shooter, 20-year-old Adam Lanza, had been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndome. Although neither the family nor health care professionals involved in treatment have officially confirmed this, an unfortunate number of news media outlets leapt on this as a possible explanation for the murderous outcome.

    Knight Science Journalism at MIT, criticizing news coverage using Asperger’s syndrome as an explanation for the Newtown massacre.

    B: @ mediaite.com/tv/autistic-journalist-demands-joe-scarborough-retract-comments-linking-autism-to-aurora-shooting/

    You have these people that are somewhere, I believe, probably on the autism scale, I don’t know if that’s the case here, but it happens more often than not, people that can walk around in society, that can function on college campuses, can even excel in college campuses, but are socially disconnected. I have a son who has Asperger’s who is loved by everyone in his family and who is wonderful, but it is for those that may not have a loving family and a support group and may be a bit further along on the autism spectrum, an extraordinarily frustrating, terrible challenge day in and day out. and so, I do think, again, I don’t know the specifics about this young man, but we see too many shooters in these type of tragedies bearing the same characteristics mentally.

    Joe Scarborough, quoted in an article about demands to retract that comment.

    C: @ motherjones.com/politics/2012/11/jared-loughner-mass-shootings-mental-illness
    @ motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

    Editor’s note, December 14, 2012: This story on the prevalence of mental-health problems among mass shooters has new relevance in light of the Newtown tragedy. (It has been updated with data from the latest mass killing.)

    A majority were mentally troubled—and many displayed signs of it before setting out to kill.

    Mother Jones, articles blaming, at least in part, mental health problems for many mass shootings, despite their own data stating other variables (like being not a woman – “Forty four of the killers were white males. Only one of them was a woman. (See Goleta, Calif., in 2006.)” – or easy access to guns – “Nearly 80 percent of the perpetrators in these 62 cases obtained their weapons legally”) are better correlated. Ignoring, of course, that this a completely ass-backwards way to look at the statistics – “x% of people with trait y do z” is very different from “x% of people who do z have trait y”.

    D: @ freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymiller/2012/12/14/when-you-tie-shootings-to-mental-illness/
    links converted to reference numbers

    Do not try to rationalize this away with mental illness. Stop talking about how it could have been schizophrenia[5a], stop saying he had to have mental health issues[5b]. You do not know.

    Ashley F. Miller, talking about these same issues back in 2012. That paragraph links to:
    5a: @ healthblog.dallasnews.com/2012/12/keep-an-eye-out-for-possible-mental-illness-in-horrific-connecticut-shooting.html/
    5b: @ blisstree.com/2012/12/14/feel/connecticut-school-shooting-ryan-lanza/

    E: @ thecaffeinatedautistic.wordpress.com/so-what-is-the-problem-with-autism-speaks/
    Just read the whole post. It shows several more issues than mentioned here with that organization.

    F: Some might even consider it the final solution.

    G: I’ll bet you don’t even need me to link it, but just in case:
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_…

  122. chigau (違う) says

    dreikin #140
    You obviously spent a lot of time and energy on that comment but I really cannot follow your train of thought.

  123. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @dreikin:

    I got it. Wasn’t wasted on me.

    Thanks for the entertaining catalog of wonder that has been this last week on the internet.

  124. dreikin says

    #141 chigau:

    Well, it started from chimera (previously Bicarbonate)‘s comment:

    I do believe in separating dangerous people from the general population, whether or not they are guilty of something in the eyes of the law.

    I made a short, sarcastic comment to that, alluding to the history of locking up, castrating, exterminating, etc. people deemed undesirable or dangerous by society as a whole, or particular powerful portions of it:

    Yeah, it’s not like that’s never been abused to get rid of the “undesirables”.

    Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden responded to that with the formerly linked quote – which I think was not a serious questioning of my intent – and more substance demonstrating what I was talking about.

    I then took that as a starting off point to point to a lot of recent holes that were dug around my particular issue (Asperger’s) and the week’s reminders of how likely I’d be to be put in the involuntary confinement suggested (intentionally or not) by chimera (previously Bicarbonate) as unobjectionable. Since I was using those examples as demonstration, and did not wish to implicitly exclude other sections of society who’d likely be there as well (or before my section, or after my section), I also intentionally included this particular thread’s cluster of holes regarding transphobia as an example of the wider principle and objection to chimera (previously Bicarbonate)‘s suggestion.

    I also included some related historical bits, (e.g., the repeated connection of mass/spree killers with autism/Asperger’s), and probably a few bits from my mind wandering (like the italics portion at the end of the first section). Also, the majority of the post – every thing below the second makeshift horizontal rule – is supporting links/posts/notes.

    As for you not following it – I’m not entirely surprised. Having not been talking to people outside my family much for the past [indefinite time interval], my communication skills are not exactly at their sharpest.

    tl;dr: it’s a list of grievances related to local and global responses to current events, with particular relation to autism and transphobia, motivated by the suggestion that locking up those perceived as dangerous (read: undesirable or scary – which both autistics and trans* people have been grouped as, among others) without them having committed a crime is a good idea.

    Does that help or shall I try again?

  125. Amphiox says

    Murder is unjustified killing

    Disgusting bloodthirsty caesar once again making up definitions to excuse his own violent fantasies.

    The definition of murder is UNLAWFUL killing.

  126. chigau (違う) says

    dreikin #143
    It did help.
    I think my problem is that iPads have teeny screens and all that scrolling up-and-down is unpleasant.

  127. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @dreikin, #143:

    which I think was not a serious questioning of my intent – and more substance demonstrating what I was talking about.

    Correct. Though I permitted ambiguity in my wording just in case you weren’t sarcastic (a possibility I deemed unlikely, but not infinitesimal).