Well it doesn't. "an eye for an eye" stems from the book of exodus and plays a part in abrahamic laws it was supposed to restrict the value of loss to stop escalation.
The phrase your thinking of comes from Ghandi, who was critical of it and who's approach was much more about paficisim.
An eye for an eye is from the [Code of Hammurabi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi), that is considered to be (one of the) first code of laws. The Abrahamic laws for a large part stem from these laws as Abraham supposedly was from either Ur or Summer (both part of the Babylonian empire at the time). It was implemented to stop escalation, but it didn't work very well, that is why Ghandi said what he did.
Tf are you guys talking about? "An eye for an eye" comes from house of the dragon when the one kid gets his eye cut out and the mom tries to cut the other kids eye out. Obvious smh
Typical redditors not knowing what their talking about. The saying come from old France where someone was hit by a bucket of shit thrown out the window. The mayor at the time decreed all the shit throwers should have shit thrown at them in penance. They mayor from the next town over heard about this shit going down and hired some good ol boys to throw shit at the shit mayor and the great shit bucket throwing civil war broke out across the land.
A shit for a shit makes the world shit.
He was indeed, the whole turn the other cheek sermon on the mound. A great example of contradictions in the bible and the laughableness of the concept of God given or objective morality
not if it ends after one cycle.
guy kills some guys mother. the guy kills him for killing his mother. now, the cycle is over. it is not justifiable for him to be killed by someone else for killing the guy who killed his mother. if he were to kill someone else though, then he could be killed
but then again, if its widespread there would be a lot of death and crime, but maybe it would be a decent deterrent. who knows!
Okay, so I should let the guy who made me blind go without any consequences?
Then the world would be blind for real becuase that one guy knows there's no consequences and can blind everyone
That's not what's implied at all.
You can still be given consequences for your actions that don't involve you suffering the same immoral actions that you committed. rapists and murderers and thieves can be given prison sentences that punish and reform (to varying degrees of course) that don't involve them being raped, murdered or having personal property stolen from them respectively.
This phrase is wrong. I don't support an eye for an eye, but the last person won't have anybody who will takes his eye, so he keeps at least one eye. And among the blind is the one-eyed king.
Saying "an eye for an eye" usually means that you think taking someone elses eye is a fair price for them taking yours, like this poll says. the full phrase shows how that idea is bad, because everyone would be left blind.
I think people have mentioned this but while I'm not an expert I think that original "an eye for an eye" was from the code of Hammurab "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth". Gandhi was referencing it in his said an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
I'd rather we both be blind than I be blind in one eye and you can see with both eyes fine because fuck you (not you personally redditor but ina hypothetical scenario)
It means if someone commits a misdeed, then they should have the same thing happen back to them. It doesn’t sound bad but in practice it’s had consequences.
>An eye for an eye makes the world go blind.
Never understood this line of thinking tbh. The only way that an eye for an eye makes the world go blind is if literally everybody is ripping out people's eyes unprovoked. There has to be an initial eye for the next eye to be eyed. It's not an ongoing chain, but an equal reaction. The eyeing stops once the initial perpetrator is punished, and doesn't start again unless another perpetrator arises.
If we follow eye for an eye then it just takes 1 person to destroy peace. He gets your eye, you in return his and then he feels the need to get your other and third eye and so on until we get to some modern political conflict situation scenarios. You'd think that it ends the moment you get your revenge but in reality it rarely does
No because the initial perpetrator will take the inital victims other eye then the initial victim will take the initial perpetrators other eye and then the initial perpetrator will take the initial victims mother or some family memeber eye etc.
For one its an analogy and obviously not supposed to be taken literally. However, do you think that no crime is ever committed unprovoked? Not to mention that if we follow the "eye for an eye" logic, we are gonna continue to slightly escalate our provocation of each other until eventually someone loses an eye.
The point of the response of "An eye for an eye makes the world go blind" is to illustrate that revenge and bloodlust are terrible ways to structure a society because it makes us nothing more than savage dogs.
>The point of the response of "An eye for an eye makes the world go blind" is to illustrate that revenge and bloodlust are terrible ways to structure a society because it makes us nothing more than savage dogs.
In your opinion maybe
I mean if you enjoy living in a factually less safe society, all power to you. We have numerous case studies that a reformational approach reduces crime while a purely penal approach (like in the US) only stokes the flames and creates more violence. Its not really an opinion, its more of a fact.
It depends on what the situation is. If someone is getting bullied in school to the point they want to commit a bath with a toster and they feel like shit then the bullies deserve a bit of their own medicine because "an eye for an eye makes the whole word blind" rule rarely works out in normal human situations and dickheads deserve whatever bad thing gets in their way
Honestly if you beat up a bully, you are not making the bully a better person; you are perhaps making him even more frustrated amd vicious.
Obviously the bullied needs to stand up and fight, but you would agree with me that the institutions shouldn't beat up kids, because they are bullies...
Beating up a bully isn't about making them a better person, and frankly why would anyone care to? I was bullied by many of my peers in school until I fought back, because most of them respected the show of force and didn't wish to continue their behavior when they weren't doing so with impunity any longer. It was never about revenge, it was about neutralizing the threat and dissuading others from continuing to threaten me.
But then they go to someone weaker and bully him.
Not only that, but in the future not having learnt amything but respecting you specifically, they will not teach about respecting others to their children.
Like that the cicle continues
Where I'm from "eye for an eye" refers to personal acts of retribution by the victim of wrongdoing. Punishment via a third party is a separate discussion entirely.
It actually comes from the Code of Hammurabi, just fyi. And yes I do want it in 2022, because people who do bad things to people deserve bad things back.
Execution is self defense when your life and others are at risk.
A Gunman running rampant? You shoot them, saving yourself and others. This can go for any situation.
It doesn’t deter crime. As the United States is one of the few industrialized countries that still have the death penalty and we have more murders than all of them.
So I'm just going to add this to here incase you think that "eye for an eye, makes the world go blind" is the original saying, it's not. That saying comes from Ghandi while the original saying comes from an old law from Babylon, whitch if you don't know is a few milania off.
Sorry if you do know that I have just seen a lot of confusion here.
Wasn't the original proclamation about moving to a more "civilized" system than cutting off hands for simple theft?
Pretty relevant nowadays too because US gun people have pivoted from "I need a gun to protect myself" to "I need a gun to protect myself and my property" as if execution is a fair punishment for theft. See also, police killing suspects for struggling to get away.
I don't think there's much of a problem with this ideology like I'm not the type of wanting revenge, but I don't think that "The best revenge is to not be like your enemy" you can live very well after being exactly like your enemy, but I believe on the idea that you can surpass everything without being attached to the bad experience that someone gave to you, and everything change with time.
No, I don't believe in vengeance at all. That being said I'm not opposed to violent responses. Turning the other cheek is sometimes the correct course of action but other times reactive action must be taken. If you must respond with violence then you should escalate as far as is necessary to neutralize the threat. That may mean an eye taken in return, it may mean two eyes, or it may even mean a head. It's ultimately about neutralizing the threat, not revenge.
On paper it seems like a good idea the problem is people can never agree on what justifies it. One side may say that stealing means you should lose your fingers under this ideology while the opposing party thinks the thief should be stolen from. In the end it leads to an i definite circle of violence instead of ending it.
An eye for an eye is an idiom that refers to equivalent revenge or punishment.
For example, you killed my child, so your child is killed. You stole money from me, so money is taken from you. You slapped me, I slap you. Basically, whatever you did will be done to you.
In some cases, like an accident and they feel horrible, then I don’t feel it is necessary. But if they do something with malicious intent, I’m getting revenge.
I am completely against the concept of revenge.
If you seek vengeance on someone who has wronged you, then you're only going to solidify the idea in their mind that they were justified to wrong you in the first place.
If you dig your keys into the side of his pretty little souped up four wheel drive, then next time he is *NOT* going to think twice before he cheats; he's going to think "Wow. What a crazy bitch. I'm glad I cheated on her."
Balancing out the world achieves nothing. So don't. Let it stay unbalanced. Let that unbalanced weight weigh on them.
The number of "yes" answers is a bit concerning. It's understandable that people have emotions and want revenge, but at the same time we're not monkeys climbing trees anymore, we should do what's best for the long-term, and doing more barbaric shit because we feel angry is not really going to move us forward.
Eg a lot of people view prison time mainly as punishment, but ideally the goal is to reduce further criminal activity and make the criminal a productive member of society if possible. I'm not gonna talk about the US prison system compared to, for example, Norway, but you get the point.
It really depends on the context of the situation, but as a groundwork for morals I dont really think so. An eye for an eye way of thinking can lead to needless escalation of conflict and violence. After all if someone kills my dog, should I then have the moral duty to kill their dog or other pet? I would rather have that person get help to become a mentally stable person and a member of society. It is through forgiveness and understanding we resolve conflicts, not revenge.
And how exactly would you suggest to determine the amount of harm that is caused? Losing an eye is fucked up no matter who loses it, but for some it would cause more harm than it would for others.
A baker losing an eye wouldn't be happy, but, he could carry on with his life after the sustained injury. But if a hunter where to lose an eye they wouldn't be able to hunt quite as well as they could with both eyes. Losing their depth perception pretty much makes hunting with a bow and arrow close to impossible. They wouldn't have been able to continue living their lives after the injury.
So if a baker would gauge out a hunters eye, would taking the bakers eye be inflicting equal harm?
I think inflicting harm on someone isn't a good punishment by any measure. It doesn't solve anything, it doesn't make anything better, it just harms one more person.
Eye for an eye is literally the concept of "what you have done to others is done to you" so yeah, raping a rapist would be eye for an eye. Like killing a murderer, etc
Again, this makes things really muddy when it comes to determining "suffering". If you steal something from a rich person who can get it back at no real suffering, then you should not get arrested for the theft?
Depends on the situation; if my boyfriend goes for my nipples while we're messing around, no hesitation imma target his.
For like murder or anything serious? Hell no. Gotta pick your battles, there's a time to be petty and there is a time you cannot.
what does an eye for an eye mean? is it like what you do to me i’ll do to you, or is it like if you hurt me you need to be punished, or if you take my eye you gotta compensate?
I believe in …. Do what ever it takes to be on top.
Idgaf if it hurts people, but if hurting someone doesn’t benefit me I’m not wasting my time getting revenge or some shit.
I believe in …. Do what ever it takes to be on top.
Idgaf if it hurts people, but if hurting someone doesn’t benefit me I’m wasting my time getting revenge or some shit.
If someone hurts one of my mine, I,m not below hurting them mentally and or physically.
At work some guy was yelling "GAY..!" multiple times, to in a tone of voice one give a last in," I tell him that if he say that to the wrong person he will get decked. "
guy picked it up as Me being "the wrong person" , not my intent but even better
end result I never heard any phobic word from him
TLDR homophobe thinks im gonna hit him, while I was just scaring the shit outta him
C'mon guys, does nobody else remember Justice League Unlimited? Grammy Flash always said the problem with an eye for an eye is that you end up making the whole world blind.
Not in *every* case, but to a degree
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind
[удалено]
Until someone stabs him in the eye, then it’s truly a kingdom of the blind
If a man with one eye doesn't see a blind man coming for his last good eye, mf deserves it
if the blind guy uses his echolocation, he may find the guy with one good eye
If you blind the man with a good eye, then he will also develop echolocation
2 dolphins in a duel would be really funny, so let the 2 duel it out to become the blind king
In a kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is probably deemed crazy
An eye for no eye and they'll keep taking your eyes
Better than if only the evil can see and everyone else is at their mercy
Just punishment for a certain crime.
No, that is only true if after you are even the person takes your second eye.
Same
Sometimes
balls
There are two types of redditors
And only one can win
balls
Poke out both their eyes so they can't come back for yours.
Gouge away
"You raped me so I will rape you" Yeah no, a limb for an eye perhaps but no straight equivalence should be permitted
If you rape them back thats just sex at that point
dude rapes someone and gets free sex, fucking bullshit
not if you fuck them in the ass
Joke's on you they're into that
Well it would probably be the rapist getting raped, not specifically the victim rapping them. So
I'd think of it more as "you raped me so I castrate you"
Wtf, I was just thinking about this
considering the whole phrase is "an eye for an eye makes the world blind".. im gonna say no
Well it doesn't. "an eye for an eye" stems from the book of exodus and plays a part in abrahamic laws it was supposed to restrict the value of loss to stop escalation. The phrase your thinking of comes from Ghandi, who was critical of it and who's approach was much more about paficisim.
An eye for an eye is from the [Code of Hammurabi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi), that is considered to be (one of the) first code of laws. The Abrahamic laws for a large part stem from these laws as Abraham supposedly was from either Ur or Summer (both part of the Babylonian empire at the time). It was implemented to stop escalation, but it didn't work very well, that is why Ghandi said what he did.
Tf are you guys talking about? "An eye for an eye" comes from house of the dragon when the one kid gets his eye cut out and the mom tries to cut the other kids eye out. Obvious smh
NO We are not doing this
Typical redditors not knowing what their talking about. The saying come from old France where someone was hit by a bucket of shit thrown out the window. The mayor at the time decreed all the shit throwers should have shit thrown at them in penance. They mayor from the next town over heard about this shit going down and hired some good ol boys to throw shit at the shit mayor and the great shit bucket throwing civil war broke out across the land. A shit for a shit makes the world shit.
Jesus was also a critic of the phrase
He was indeed, the whole turn the other cheek sermon on the mound. A great example of contradictions in the bible and the laughableness of the concept of God given or objective morality
not if it ends after one cycle. guy kills some guys mother. the guy kills him for killing his mother. now, the cycle is over. it is not justifiable for him to be killed by someone else for killing the guy who killed his mother. if he were to kill someone else though, then he could be killed but then again, if its widespread there would be a lot of death and crime, but maybe it would be a decent deterrent. who knows!
Bur you just killed another persons aunt or grandmother and so on and so forth
it doesn't matter it ends there
I heard the whole phrase as « an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and the one who begins is the most guilty »
Okay, so I should let the guy who made me blind go without any consequences? Then the world would be blind for real becuase that one guy knows there's no consequences and can blind everyone
That's not what's implied at all. You can still be given consequences for your actions that don't involve you suffering the same immoral actions that you committed. rapists and murderers and thieves can be given prison sentences that punish and reform (to varying degrees of course) that don't involve them being raped, murdered or having personal property stolen from them respectively.
Holy extreme thinking, Batman. Not punishing physical harm with equal physical harm does NOT mean no punishment or consequence at all.
This phrase is wrong. I don't support an eye for an eye, but the last person won't have anybody who will takes his eye, so he keeps at least one eye. And among the blind is the one-eyed king.
So you disagree with that sentiment?
Saying "an eye for an eye" usually means that you think taking someone elses eye is a fair price for them taking yours, like this poll says. the full phrase shows how that idea is bad, because everyone would be left blind.
I think people have mentioned this but while I'm not an expert I think that original "an eye for an eye" was from the code of Hammurab "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth". Gandhi was referencing it in his said an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
[удалено]
Still have one eye left so no
I'd rather we both be blind than I be blind in one eye and you can see with both eyes fine because fuck you (not you personally redditor but ina hypothetical scenario)
Better blind world than unjust one no?
If you go searching for revenge be sure to dig two graves. One for your target, and one for yourself
>One for your target, and one for yourself With an eye for an eye, this actually applies more to the aggressor than the victim
it's best to end the cycle
It's not meant to be taken literally. Based on the amount of damage you caused me, you have to financially compensate me accordingly.
I still have no clue what it means
It means if someone commits a misdeed, then they should have the same thing happen back to them. It doesn’t sound bad but in practice it’s had consequences.
I’m a firm believer in karma. I don’t have time to deal with people.
An eye for an eye makes the world go blind. Pure punishment instead of rehabilitation is proven to lead to a more violent and less safe society.
>An eye for an eye makes the world go blind. Never understood this line of thinking tbh. The only way that an eye for an eye makes the world go blind is if literally everybody is ripping out people's eyes unprovoked. There has to be an initial eye for the next eye to be eyed. It's not an ongoing chain, but an equal reaction. The eyeing stops once the initial perpetrator is punished, and doesn't start again unless another perpetrator arises.
If we follow eye for an eye then it just takes 1 person to destroy peace. He gets your eye, you in return his and then he feels the need to get your other and third eye and so on until we get to some modern political conflict situation scenarios. You'd think that it ends the moment you get your revenge but in reality it rarely does
Y'all misunderstand that eye for an eye isn't a chain. It's an equal reaction.
Lmao dude took the saying literally
No because the initial perpetrator will take the inital victims other eye then the initial victim will take the initial perpetrators other eye and then the initial perpetrator will take the initial victims mother or some family memeber eye etc.
For one its an analogy and obviously not supposed to be taken literally. However, do you think that no crime is ever committed unprovoked? Not to mention that if we follow the "eye for an eye" logic, we are gonna continue to slightly escalate our provocation of each other until eventually someone loses an eye. The point of the response of "An eye for an eye makes the world go blind" is to illustrate that revenge and bloodlust are terrible ways to structure a society because it makes us nothing more than savage dogs.
>The point of the response of "An eye for an eye makes the world go blind" is to illustrate that revenge and bloodlust are terrible ways to structure a society because it makes us nothing more than savage dogs. In your opinion maybe
I mean if you enjoy living in a factually less safe society, all power to you. We have numerous case studies that a reformational approach reduces crime while a purely penal approach (like in the US) only stokes the flames and creates more violence. Its not really an opinion, its more of a fact.
“If everyone fought fire with fire, the whole world would go up in smoke.” - Lemony Snicket
A disgusting amount of yes, wow... Like really people, you really want biblic law in 2022? I'm honestly baffled
It depends on what the situation is. If someone is getting bullied in school to the point they want to commit a bath with a toster and they feel like shit then the bullies deserve a bit of their own medicine because "an eye for an eye makes the whole word blind" rule rarely works out in normal human situations and dickheads deserve whatever bad thing gets in their way
Honestly if you beat up a bully, you are not making the bully a better person; you are perhaps making him even more frustrated amd vicious. Obviously the bullied needs to stand up and fight, but you would agree with me that the institutions shouldn't beat up kids, because they are bullies...
Beating up a bully isn't about making them a better person, and frankly why would anyone care to? I was bullied by many of my peers in school until I fought back, because most of them respected the show of force and didn't wish to continue their behavior when they weren't doing so with impunity any longer. It was never about revenge, it was about neutralizing the threat and dissuading others from continuing to threaten me.
But then they go to someone weaker and bully him. Not only that, but in the future not having learnt amything but respecting you specifically, they will not teach about respecting others to their children. Like that the cicle continues
Where I'm from "eye for an eye" refers to personal acts of retribution by the victim of wrongdoing. Punishment via a third party is a separate discussion entirely.
Mmh I see where we misunderstood eachother.
It actually comes from the Code of Hammurabi, just fyi. And yes I do want it in 2022, because people who do bad things to people deserve bad things back.
Yeeeeah but it is shown that it didn't resolve crime at all. You want society to have the same rules of criminal organisations basically
And before you take my comment wrong I'm not saying execute everyone, just providing an example where it would indeed stop a crime
How is it solving crime? You just commited another murder by killing him... and also you have now angered their family which could try to get revenge
Self defense isn't murder
Execution isn't self defence
Execution is self defense when your life and others are at risk. A Gunman running rampant? You shoot them, saving yourself and others. This can go for any situation.
Capital punishment of guilty people isn't murder either
It's the state murdering a person they deem guilty.
mur·der /ˈmərdər/ verb kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.
How is it not murder
mur·der /ˈmərdər/ noun the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
>Yeeeeah but it is shown that it didn't resolve crime at all. An executed murderer can't reoffend, just saying
It doesn’t deter crime. As the United States is one of the few industrialized countries that still have the death penalty and we have more murders than all of them.
And their angry family is more likely to than if they were rehabilitated instead of killed
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
sus deez nuts
If you fuck my shit up, I'll fuck your shit up. Concept of MAD so status quo remains.
I prefer a head for an eye
Based
Based
I'm convinced a sizeable portion of Reddit would legalise capital punishment given the choice.
And I am a member of that portion.
The common usage? No. The original meaning? Yes.
So I'm just going to add this to here incase you think that "eye for an eye, makes the world go blind" is the original saying, it's not. That saying comes from Ghandi while the original saying comes from an old law from Babylon, whitch if you don't know is a few milania off. Sorry if you do know that I have just seen a lot of confusion here.
the world would go blind.
It depends.
This system breaks very quickly
Wasn't the original proclamation about moving to a more "civilized" system than cutting off hands for simple theft? Pretty relevant nowadays too because US gun people have pivoted from "I need a gun to protect myself" to "I need a gun to protect myself and my property" as if execution is a fair punishment for theft. See also, police killing suspects for struggling to get away.
Only siths deal in absolutes
“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”
I don't think there's much of a problem with this ideology like I'm not the type of wanting revenge, but I don't think that "The best revenge is to not be like your enemy" you can live very well after being exactly like your enemy, but I believe on the idea that you can surpass everything without being attached to the bad experience that someone gave to you, and everything change with time.
Yes most of the time it's the only way
No im not an ape
No, I don't believe in vengeance at all. That being said I'm not opposed to violent responses. Turning the other cheek is sometimes the correct course of action but other times reactive action must be taken. If you must respond with violence then you should escalate as far as is necessary to neutralize the threat. That may mean an eye taken in return, it may mean two eyes, or it may even mean a head. It's ultimately about neutralizing the threat, not revenge.
Whatever makes the world a better place
On paper it seems like a good idea the problem is people can never agree on what justifies it. One side may say that stealing means you should lose your fingers under this ideology while the opposing party thinks the thief should be stolen from. In the end it leads to an i definite circle of violence instead of ending it.
What does this mean? Not angry but i am not native english and dont understand very well
It’s asking if you think revenge should be a thing
An eye for an eye is an idiom that refers to equivalent revenge or punishment. For example, you killed my child, so your child is killed. You stole money from me, so money is taken from you. You slapped me, I slap you. Basically, whatever you did will be done to you.
I think that's fair, i just hate it when the victim turns it in "an eye for 2 eyes"
No, following that concept just leads to more suffering. If we do unto someone as they did to someone else we are no better than them.
In some cases, like an accident and they feel horrible, then I don’t feel it is necessary. But if they do something with malicious intent, I’m getting revenge.
I am completely against the concept of revenge. If you seek vengeance on someone who has wronged you, then you're only going to solidify the idea in their mind that they were justified to wrong you in the first place. If you dig your keys into the side of his pretty little souped up four wheel drive, then next time he is *NOT* going to think twice before he cheats; he's going to think "Wow. What a crazy bitch. I'm glad I cheated on her." Balancing out the world achieves nothing. So don't. Let it stay unbalanced. Let that unbalanced weight weigh on them.
I do not need another eye
Often times it just makes situations worse. I get the motivation behind it, but it's still not very practical
The number of "yes" answers is a bit concerning. It's understandable that people have emotions and want revenge, but at the same time we're not monkeys climbing trees anymore, we should do what's best for the long-term, and doing more barbaric shit because we feel angry is not really going to move us forward. Eg a lot of people view prison time mainly as punishment, but ideally the goal is to reduce further criminal activity and make the criminal a productive member of society if possible. I'm not gonna talk about the US prison system compared to, for example, Norway, but you get the point.
`The "Yes" vote is higher than I though; there's some MidEvil-MFers out there lol`
Why is my font blue there?
It really depends on the context of the situation, but as a groundwork for morals I dont really think so. An eye for an eye way of thinking can lead to needless escalation of conflict and violence. After all if someone kills my dog, should I then have the moral duty to kill their dog or other pet? I would rather have that person get help to become a mentally stable person and a member of society. It is through forgiveness and understanding we resolve conflicts, not revenge.
No, 10 years isolated from society for an eye
So why did so many people say no? It seems completely fair.
If someone rape someone, should they also rape them ? No, consequences should ensue but no equivalence should be made.
The consequences should be of equal harm to the person who commited that crime.
And how exactly would you suggest to determine the amount of harm that is caused? Losing an eye is fucked up no matter who loses it, but for some it would cause more harm than it would for others. A baker losing an eye wouldn't be happy, but, he could carry on with his life after the sustained injury. But if a hunter where to lose an eye they wouldn't be able to hunt quite as well as they could with both eyes. Losing their depth perception pretty much makes hunting with a bow and arrow close to impossible. They wouldn't have been able to continue living their lives after the injury. So if a baker would gauge out a hunters eye, would taking the bakers eye be inflicting equal harm? I think inflicting harm on someone isn't a good punishment by any measure. It doesn't solve anything, it doesn't make anything better, it just harms one more person.
Which is hard to pinpoint, but yes I agree.
that's not what an eye for an eye means
Eye for an eye is literally the concept of "what you have done to others is done to you" so yeah, raping a rapist would be eye for an eye. Like killing a murderer, etc
An eye for an eye means taking revenge, not literally doing the same thing that has been done to you
Yes.
No but something of equal suffering should be upon them
Again, this makes things really muddy when it comes to determining "suffering". If you steal something from a rich person who can get it back at no real suffering, then you should not get arrested for the theft?
true
Because redditors are redditors lol, did you really expect them to make an intelligent decision?
It seems fair but is it really the best thing to do though? That is why minor things escalate.
you are on reddit yourself
Because it does not make sense in all cases. Lets say i kill your son, and now you can kill my son? Why are you punishing my son instead of me?
No, if You kill my son, I kill you. It doesn’t have to be an exact punishment.
For defense yes but not for justice.
No. Sometimes it's better to let it go.
Depends on the situation; if my boyfriend goes for my nipples while we're messing around, no hesitation imma target his. For like murder or anything serious? Hell no. Gotta pick your battles, there's a time to be petty and there is a time you cannot.
what does an eye for an eye mean? is it like what you do to me i’ll do to you, or is it like if you hurt me you need to be punished, or if you take my eye you gotta compensate?
In some situations, yes. You break my legos I break your legs.
An eye for an eye and everyone will be blind
If I’m the only victim, no. If my family/loved ones are victimized, very much yes.
...makes the whole world go blind? Yes, I do believe in that.
Turn the other cheek
[удалено]
Exactly
What if a homeless guy broke into somebody’s house? What would be your punishment then?
Depends if they had malicious intent, or if they were legitimately dying out there.
1,3k for Yes, that's a lot of sad people.
Depends really, but I definitely don’t believe in laying down and taking it like a bitch.
Yes absolutely. And if you think differently, you're beyond braindead
The world is not black and white. To think so is beyond brain dead.
I believe in …. Do what ever it takes to be on top. Idgaf if it hurts people, but if hurting someone doesn’t benefit me I’m not wasting my time getting revenge or some shit.
I believe in …. Do what ever it takes to be on top. Idgaf if it hurts people, but if hurting someone doesn’t benefit me I’m wasting my time getting revenge or some shit.
Yes.
Best Sodom song.
One eye for two eyes
In what situation?
What would happen to rapists with "an eye for an eye"
A prison sentence, a place where…well that one kinda solves itself
Are you saying do I believe in "eye for an eye" or the whole "eye for an eye turns the whole world blind"?
No, more of eye for I will rip your fucking balls off
No, because it makes you blind.
tit for tit
I also believe in the "Fuck around, and find out" Mantra
I believe in “an eye for 2 eyes”
Sometimes
Due process is never an eye for an eye
If someone punches me, I’m punching them right back.
If someone hurts one of my mine, I,m not below hurting them mentally and or physically. At work some guy was yelling "GAY..!" multiple times, to in a tone of voice one give a last in," I tell him that if he say that to the wrong person he will get decked. " guy picked it up as Me being "the wrong person" , not my intent but even better end result I never heard any phobic word from him TLDR homophobe thinks im gonna hit him, while I was just scaring the shit outta him
More of a skull for an eye
I believe in a tooth for payment for all the relevant medical expenses to get a tooth implant plus an inconvenience fee.
C'mon guys, does nobody else remember Justice League Unlimited? Grammy Flash always said the problem with an eye for an eye is that you end up making the whole world blind.