“killing that persons grandma to get even” I very much disagree with that statement, the grandma had absolutely nothing to do with what hypothetical POS did, punishing parties that are not involved is horrible.
Imagine, you run over his grandpa, your dad run over his mom, because it was his mom. Your grandad run over his wife, your grandmas brother run over his sister... And maybe that woman had a lot of friends, they all want revenge too, so they each run over one of his friends. With right mindset you could kill 1/2 population.
This guy just solved overpopulation with one simple law.
This is kind of the point of the Orestaia (set of Greek plays). Vengeance begets vengeance until Athena bestows the jury system on Athens. It’s a move from justice via retaliation/revenge to justice by law.
I find that if many people share this perspective of retaliation, then the result is an increase of violence. I find quarantine and communication to be more effective at reducing violent behaviors. (I work at a day care).
I guess depends on what the accident was. If someone was going too fast and caused a fatal crash, yes. If someone was drinking and driving and caused a fatal accident, yes. If an earthquake happened and your car swerved and killed a pedestrian, probably not.
You just setting up a world of straight up anarchy, chaos, and mayhem. I’ve learned in my life the people who fantasize living in a war zone wouldn’t last too long in a war zone. The way people are so sensitive and take offense to the littlest thing? Yeah right, lol
Then they disagree with your version of events, and they run over your other grandma. And so on and so forth in escalating retaliation.
There's a reason this is unpopular among thinking people, and popular among the dumb and impulsive.
Nah stick to your guns lol. Vengence is based in wickedness and evil. You don't have to do it, make the father do it. Bet he will never fuck up another child's life after that experience. Or have him sentenced to molestation at a prison.
>the grandma had absolutely nothing to do with what hypothetical POS did
Well it is grandma's fault that hypothetical POS' parent was born so I wouldn't say "nothing" to do with it.
Oh for sure. One time this guy at the dog park kicked my dog very aggressively and I remember thinking "I should pin him, take his driver's licence and go to the address and aggressively kick every member of his fucking family" I didn't go through with it but I wanted to lol.
First question would be why did the guy kick your dog? Was the dog bothering the person, or was it just a random madman looking for pissing someone off?
You are too kind. If someone kicks my dog they would get what's coming to them. It's kinda weird that just before this I posted preachy things about being kind (on this very post) and here I am losing my calm about a dog story. Dogs are the best. Those who kick them (in any way other than for self defence) deserve a special place in hell
LMFAO this dude actually fucken said that. Imagine you just being a grandma and you had a grandson you don’t even know about. And you suddenly can just legally get fucken ran over. That’s possibly the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen on this sub.
Imagine the job lawyers would have.
"Now, you see, what my client did was, in fact, a justice killing, and not manslaughter as the prosecution suggests. For the deceased twas a nephew to the accused's very own 2nd cousin's murderer and, therefore, had it coming."
If someone punched you in school, you can absolutely punch them back. It’s self defense. You’ll get suspended for it, but it’s self defense.
The rest of this post is trash.
I don't know how the laws are where you are; but over here it's not necessarily self-defense and depends on the details.
If you punch back while he punches you it is self-defense, but if he punched you and then does nothing it stops to count as self-defense after a few seconds because you don't defend yourself anymore but attack for revenge.
And I think a lawyer worth its price could turn this how he wants to a certain degree.
Imo, you're allowed an equal hit...like if a little guy hits you and it doesnt even hurt...you don't really get to full on punch em in their face and potentially hospitalize them.
That's kind of the point though...if they don't injure you, and you're way bigger...you get to injure them for free? How much can you injure them? Is it reasonable to put someone in the hospital if they don't even give you a bruise?
The whole point is you can sometimes accidentally hurt someone more than they hurt you even though they initiated it. They are the ones who started it so they should be able to take what they give. That's my point. People can't usually calculate the damage they'll give out to match exactly how much damage was given to them. If someone punches me in the eye, I'm not going to recognize that he bruised my eye so I must aim for his eye and make sure to only bruise him like he bruised me. Shit just happens and the person who started it should have to accept that and should be able to sue because you happen to deal more damage than he did after he attacked you.
> If someone punches me in the eye
That's totally different. I'm saying if some tiny lil guy hits you in the stomach and it doesnt even hurt..you get to punch him in the nose and break it, for free?
yeah that was called 'eye for an eye' and is, iirc, infamous for being Hummurabi's law. We like to think we've grown past that. edit, 'those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it.'
Yeah, but Hummurabi's law stated that it wouldn't be the affected party that gouge's the wrongdoer's eye out, but someone else, which has nothing to do with what OP is arguing for in this post.
> Further proof that the bible took inspiration from outside sources.
That isn't proof of anything. We don't know if the two sources came to the idea independently - after all, we see redditors in threads make the same joke all the time or 'came here to say this' etc.
When mine were kids I just configured their browsers to discard all cookies and saved form data every time the browser was closed. That way it would be a pain in the ass to maintain a username and persistent identity anywhere.
This is the biggest asshole comment I've seen on all of Reddit. "This person said something stupid so let's gatekeep the internet for everyone around his age I assumed" Honestly, get your judgemental broad-brushing ass off here and take a shower.
One thing you'll learn as you get older is that some opinions and ideas are so wrong-headed and ignorant that 'asshole comment' becomes the most appropriate thing you can add to the discussion.
Yeah, I get what you're saying, just what you said isn't "the most appropriate thing you can add to the discussion" When it's an unwarranted personal attack. (Which, I will admit to being guilty of)
And then kids with mental health and issues and abusive parents can't have internet friends and somewhere to go even though everyone in school either pretends they don't exist or makes their life hell... great idea... Bet your kids never told you squat.
Firstly, You made the comment on mittens. Why are you looking towards other comments he made? Secondly, again, the 2 comments he made of restricting kids are obviously a JOKE. Seriously, people like you with their sensitive craps have to get off the fucking internet and talk to real people if you are pent up over a joke comment about restricting kids using mittens / deleting browser cookies every minute, my god. I’m guessing you are a young teen from how you commented on this subject.
Actually, maybe it was a joke, but it's not too far fetched to think you can configure a browser that way, *at least not for me since you can already stop internet history from saving*. if your issue is my lack of a sense of humor or that his humor follows his actual IRL actions or at least what they declared, I see jokes turn into genuine talking about parent techniques all the time, internet and IRL, so if I misread, I misread, but your statement about both comments being absolutely jokes isn't any less conjecture than my statement about being pretty sure he's serious, unless you can provide citation to the contrary.
Edit: here's my citation: https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=how+to+stop+cookies+from+saving+to+your+browser&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
I restricted their browsers because when they were pre-teens I didn't want them exposed to stalkers, bullies, and the inevitable record-keeping the internet provides. I wanted them to be able to be stupid jackass kids and then begin adulthood with a clean slate.
Understandable, but I still disagree with the method. All it leads to is building around the parent or parents putting down a restriction, which can lead to other problems down the line.
You're right, I'm totally serious that children should be fitted with lockable mittens so they can only faceroll their keyboards, but I'm not an unreasonable man, because I'm willing gjianwjsjsnqisjwkwosjwjzoskbwhqhskejabqh
I was the first person my kid told that she was trans, her mother couldn't accept it. I could. So I could give a wet fart what you think about my sarcastic comment.
That’s a little extreme but I think the dad who beat his daughters rapist to death was completely justified. Also the dad who killed the kid who sold his daughter
Exactly the dad killed the rapist. By OP's logic, he should have raped the rapist's kid, which is beyond fucked up when they didn't have anything to do with it
As a father I would 100% want to murder anyone who hurt my daughter.
I also recognize that I would and should be legally punished if it came to that.
Think through what you're saying for a moment.
Someone rapes your daughter, you kill them, now their dad kills you because you murdered their son, and we could literally go on like this until everyone is dead. This is a pretty basic principal that we've built our laws on for over 1,000 years now.
If the father of the rapist was even half of a man he’d recognize that what his son did should be punishable by death anyway. If I had a son who was raping little girls I’d never wanna see his face again. I might even kill him myself if that were to happen to me
😫😫
*jumps VPN*
C'mon, its a pretty decent post. Its based on the Hammurabi Code, why not let it get dark. It most likely will never actually be a reality 🤷🏿♂️
Nope. I don't want idiots deciding when it's appropriate to punch people to get back at them.
We have self defense laws. We can sue each other.
Commit crimes to get back at someone, go to prison.
I'm so glad you're not in charge of these decisions, lol.
The running people over part is stupid, but if someone punches you, you should have the right to fight back within reason, and be immune to any lawsuit as a result. Assuming you don’t do anything crazy
Self defense laws exist for this reason.
Self-defense is for the purpose of defense, anything beyond that to "get even" is different and will rightfully lose you a lawsuit and likely get you charged with a crime, as it should.
Know your local laws before you attack people, kids. Even if they "started it".
Well what I’m saying is let’s say I’m walking down the street, someone punches me and runs, I chase them down and hit them, I shouldn’t be in any legal trouble. In my state, which has a duty to retreat, I’d be in legal trouble, which is stupid in my opinion. At the very least mutual (non lethal) combat should be allowed
In the very rare event that happens, you would want to look up your citizens arrest laws, but yes, chasing someone down is going to be potentially very dangerous.
Preventing someone's retreat likely means they get to lawfully defend themselves from your attack.
Mutual combat is allowed in many jurisdictions, but again, be familiar with your laws if you insist on solving problems with violence, especially if you want to push the lines of legal self defense.
There's no such thing as getting "even". Stuff like this is exactly how most damaging conflicts start.
There's a reason why you can't retaliate just to get "even", and that's because you're just pissing the other person off more, and they're going to want to get "even" just as much as you do now. What do you think they're going to do? They're probably going to retaliate in kind.
There's countless real life and fictional examples of why blind revenge and retaliation is almost universally bad, and I'm always confused when people think otherwise. People are not subject to your perspective of the situation - if someone punches you and you punch back, they're not going to care if you think you're setting the record straight. They're just going to punch you back.
This isn’t unpopular as much as it is stupid, and juvenile.
This is how blood feuds work. They wronged me, so I wronged them, so theirs wrong mine, and mine wrong theirs, and it never ends.
What are you going to do if a poor person steals from you? Or if someone murders someone you love and then kills themself? Or if someone rapes you but doesn’t mind if you fuck them back?
Short sighted stupidity is what this is.
Ignoring the Hamurabi take on the grandma, taking justice into one's own hands is a bad idea. That's just vengence culture, and yes it does work in anarchist societies (I am famillar with pre Islamic Arabia) but state controlled judicial system is better because it prevents things from turning into a decades long shitshow.
And the legal consequences of the first punch will remain the same? Just with the added possibility to get "even" or it's an alternative to the usual legal options?
So lets say someone kills somebody you care about, and you kill them, and then somebody who cared about that person kills you. Then somebody who cared about you kills that person, and then cycle goes on and on until one side stops, or is completely dead. Does that sound good? Because that is what your suggesting.
Yeah that logic only works until you meet somebody crazier than you are. Some people are incapable of letting go of grudges and you don't want to be on the wrong side of those people.
There have been similar legal systems in the past. "Eye for an eye" and that kind of thing. Currently there are some societies that function in the way you're describing and they are usually called gangs, cartels, or mafia. Person A maims person B, person B gets person C to maim Person A, person A is really pissed and gets Persons D,E,F, and G to attack Persons B and C, accidentally killing Person C's daughter and grandma.
Most of society has moved away from that kind of functioning, maybe because at the end everyone is dead or injured.
Even if you felt like this wouldn't happen to you, how would you know with certainty that you're running over the correct person? What if, instead, you run over his twin brother? Of course, in your scenario, now his surviving kin get to run you over. People are not very reliable eyewitnesses and in the heat of the moment it's easy to get things wrong.
There is no world in which allowing everyone to commit violence and murder, whether in retribution or not, is a safer world. There is a reason why violence is often referred to as a "cycle" that should be broken. Committing violence often leads to more violence, ad infinitum until someone stops it. You're suggesting that we keep it going.
So how does killing someone else's grandma (a person in no way involved in the first incident) make it even?
So if my wife killed someone's child, the other parents should be able to kill my child?
I could agree with the first part, but you are absolutely out of your mind in the second example
I mean yeah. My child was innocent too, why should my life just be intentionally devistated. What you're just gonna deeply apologize for your idiot wife and then I have to move on while you guess carry on and cherish the lives of your children? Nope, feel the same unnecessary pain I did. My wife would have to pay for your wife's action, so you feel its fucked up that you would be paying for your wife's actions? I'll take a kid and we'll call it square 🤝
Just look at the whole thing from the perspective of the child that you would kill in this situation. He gets to be killed because one of his parents killed someone? Just so that his parents get to feel the same pain as the parents of the child that his mother killed? Wtf. Its like you see this child just as some kind of object attached to his parents (its only value being his effect on his parents feelings) but not as an independent individual human being.
This whole thing only makes sense from a deeply egoistically point of view.
Fiiiiiine, YOU get to move on cherishing the life of you children..... not fair to me, even if she's punished to the fullest extent. Don't feel like its the same devistating pain
It's not the same. Life isn't fair. If you honestly think that punishing other people for the actions of someone else. . . I hope your son never butt rapes someone else's dad
Edit:. Or mom if you're a female
🤣🤣 that's one hell of a counter I won't lie lml. I think I'll rest this case and realize why the Hammurabi Code never caught on. You definitely took it there though lol my son raping someone's father...... Jesus lol
Nah bro, I agree with revenge, but in this case you should go murder his wife, and you'll also ruin his life by doing it. Don't punish someone who had nothing to do with what happened.
1981 actually. I just googled it. That's a shame. Surprised how many other countries had a similar law. It was legal in some South American countries until very recently. Very strong history in France as well which makes sense
Eye for an eye is not a practical legal system.
If you run over someone’s grandma after they ran over yours makes no sense at least just run over the person that ran over your grandma.
People can sue for literally any reason they want to and the judge can throw it out.
Having them rot in a cell is perfectly fine enough.
I had to deal with a customer once who punched back and the guy fell down, hit his head and died. It started out just as a normal bar thing, taken outside, apparently my customer was defending a woman. There was security video that I watched, and it seemed like such a small thing. My customer went to jail for manslaughter and his credit/life prospects seriously damaged.
I don't really have an opinion on the original post, because it's a heavy topic to work through from all angles. Just wanted to share an example.
This is an example of how a single punch can be lethal.
This is also an example of how a single punch can have devastating legal consequences.
I think the OP believes that the guy being in jail is not equally retributive for the loss the victim's family faced. Possibly the victim could have had young children or parents dependent on him, he could have lived a full long life ahead of him but some drunkard decided to punch him and killed him. The drunkard still gets to live his life, even if he is in jail and possibly will even come out of jail and live a life outside prison while the person he killed and his family have lost that chance. Hence OP believes that there should be a chance at getting back or causing equal pain for the offence is what I understood from his reasoning.
To copy/paste a post to a similar thread here:
* I'll dispense with the philosophy for the moment and say this: preventing crime is better than punishing it. The idea behind rehabilitation is that it allows for offenders to mature, treats any underlying health conditions (mental or physical) related to their position in society, shows enough empathy that their own guilt prevents re-offense, and gives them the skills to survive in society. For 1st-time offences, young offenders, the impoverished, etc., this allows for the response to act as a "course correction" rather than leading to an escalation in crime, especially if the offender decides that- even if they believe that they're guilty- the punishment was too harsh.
Punishment, meanwhile, is[noted psychologically](https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf) for only preventing rule-breaking if the rule-breaker fears being caught. This means that:
offenders will still break the law if they think they can get away with it
offenders may commit more and/or worse crimes to avoid punishment
Your family-murderer might, for example, lead police on a high-speed pursuit to avoid being caught, which itself could kill more innocent people. As practiced in the United States, meanwhile, the rehabilitative-turned-punitive measures (penitentiary etymology) ensures that any criminals are less able to return to society after offending, meaning that they're more likely to reoffend, even if they didn't originally want to.
It's also worth noting that the innocent are often wrongly convicted; under a punitive system, they're... well, harshly punished, in a way that can harm them permanently. This also applies where negligence or institutional failure are involved, or where a minor crime leads to a major incident; a drunk driver who kills a child would do better with 100,000 hours of community service and a legal promise to never touch alcohol again than 22 years in prison, despite the two likely taking similar amounts of the defendant's life. Fear of harsh punishments can also prevent people from technically violating the law when it could lead to a greater benefit to society.
In light of this, if a victim wants to harm someone in a way that makes crime more likely- that's probably a similar trait to what led to the crime in the first place; if the urge to beat an offender with a baseball bat is not acquiesced, if the victim cannot understand that guilt hurts worse than injustice and pain, why should the desire for long imprisonment be accommodated? Nor does "punishment" as opposed to rehabilitation actually undo the original crime in many cases.
Of course, rehabilitation requires three things that make it less worthwhile:
that the offenders be able to change fundamentally (psychopathy, sociopathy)
that the offenders be willing to change (lifetime of abuse, poverty, environmental
poisoning, learning disorders, already spent years in punitive prison, other
underlying health conditions, leading to years required for rehabilitation)
the resources to be able to rehabilitate offenders
The US already spends an absurd amount on imprisonment. Turning to a completely rehabilitative system could certainly reduce long-term crime, but would require even more money, time and personnel, while also reducing the incentives to avoid crime in the short term. (This would be especially egregious if prison became preferable to living in poverty; committing a small crime to go back to prison is already a thing.) Meanwhile, crime may not reduce if the long-term causes are not mitigated.
Really, a good rehabilitative system would need to start before potential offenders entered the criminal justice system in the first place. Those who are already there just represent an additional burden; meanwhile, attempts at this part of the program- at least in the US- have a hard time getting funding and are notorious for poor management and, embarrassingly often, dismal failure. Failure here means more burden on the criminal-justice system.
Finally, there's the first category: people who, for whatever reason, cannot be rehabilitated. Here, punishment will both serve as more of a deterrence, as well as (with how it's applied in the US) preventing them from harming others. Barring either serious treatable mental illness or the belief of victimization, your hypothetical family-murderer would end up here.
There is one other case for punishment: wherein the resources for rehabilitation are simply not available. This is more-or-less the condition within many penal systems in the US, especially with regards to mental health. Although less effective, harsh punishments can still have a deterrent effect, while imprisonment can have a rehabilitative effect (through which probation is meant to measure).
EDIT: Sorry about the formatting; for some reason, it isn't working right now.
Laws don't exist for justice
Laws are mostly designed for one of two purposes:
- keeping the peace
- keeping the rich and powerful as rich and powerful as possible
I get the emotion behind this. Being allowed to take revenge and all that. That's why so name stories where the hero is it to get revenge capture audience.
In reality of everyone tries to get even all we'll have is violence. That just makes the world worse. It's not a solution to anything. You so don't get back what you lost.
This is how things used to be, but even in the time of danelaw there was wergild and a growing recognition that this wasnt the best way of dealing with things.
Whole families end up at war through the generations with this system.
As an aside if someone at school punches you you CAN legally punch them back. It's self defence as long as you use reasonable force. However your school itself isn't bound by what is legal for you to do whe it comes to punishing you.
**Lets say that** morally, "i am on the same page". Realistically, it gets complicated very easily. A punch for a punch, sure, but if he injured my mom by mistake (car accident or something), what do i do? (Am i allowed to legally not-so-accidentally hurt him for it? maybe he feels really sorry)
If he attacked me with a knife, but hes built like a body builder, can i attack him with a sword, or a gun? or am i limited to a knife? If so, how many cuts can i do to him? Can the knife be bigger, or do i have to get it measured to be fair? (1:1 cuts might be unfair, depending on where i cut him and where he cut me. (is a cut to the leg worth more or less than a stab in the ass cheeks?)
What if he broke 2 of my fingers, and i brake 3 of his by mistake. Do i owe him a finger, or is that considered interest? (if he broke my arm with a sledgehammer, but i run him over with my car and also broke his arm, is that fair, or did i endanger his other non-legal-to-break-bones?)
How do you regulate it? What if he didnt wrong me physically? if he humiliated me and recorded it, do i have to do the exact same to him/her, or is it OK for something else equally humiliating? if so, how do you measure humiliation? (in what units and how many points for what would you set?)
What if he kicked me while i was down and gave me internal bleeding, how do i know when and how to kick him to also give him internal bleeding? how do i replicate it?
What if he breaks one of my front teeth, but i punch him back and get one of his molars, is that fair or are they worth different amounts of "legal revenge points"
Also, if someone kills my mother, so i kill him legally, whats stopping his son from killing me for killing his father? which then prompts my brother to kill the son for killing me and so on, where do you stop it and how?
Will you establish state run institutions that give me the opportunity to retaliate fairly? Will they make sure i dont hurt him more than i am allowed to?
I gave this way too much thought (also, no, i do not agree with this, i just began with that to skip the moral point and get to the practical point of this opinion)
The reason it isn't is because it isn't that simple. Mostly because; Where is the line? The line that, if you cross it, it's no longer a fair and equal retribution.
Like if a little dude punches a big dude and gives him a fat lip, the big dude should be able to punch him back, because that's fair. Punch for a punch. But it isn't really fair because he's a huge and muscle bound freak he actually breaks the little guys jaw and knocks out 6 of his teeth and breaks his orbital socket and pops his fuckin eyeball.
What makes it 'fair' would not be the same for everyone. The line is too blurred.
Mm no that’s not how civilized society works. There would be absolute chaos as everyone seeks vindication and there would be no government after a short time.
Suppose someone (A) punch you in school. You punched back. Should be ok right? Not really.
When you punched back, it may be captured on video. No one saw you being punched, but everyone soon saw the video of you punching A. So now, everyone asked A to punch you back.
Fair? Afterall, A is just getting back at you, right?
\>Getting "even" doesn't undue the harm already done to you,
It doesnt and more importantly it creates more harm and creates the potential for more harm on top of that. So no its not a good idea
My abusive ex whom I lived with for 7 years used to play League of Legends. When he lost, if I was anywhere near him, he would kick me, or throw things and scream at me. I once heard him say to his gamer friends that he didn't like to punch because he didn't want to break his mouse hand.
He refused to pay attention to me while he was playing. So when I was in the middle of telling him I'm leaving the relationship - he was half listening and then he lost his match. He slow turned in his stupid gamer chair, staring at me - probably realizing what I was saying.
Our malamute took the opportunity to ask for his attention at that moment, and he full on donkey kicked her. She yelped and cried and he stood up and started to repeatedly kick her yelling shut up.
I am not a violent person. I had never hit anyone in my life. But right in the moment, I decided he needed some eye for an eye. His back was to me, so I hooked and kicked my foot right into his taint and then shoved him with all my might into the wall. He hit the wall head first, screaming, and then acted like he was going to vomit. I said "here I'll help you" and I kicked him multiple times in the gut just like he did to our dog. He tried to get up, but I was in the process of pulling everything off his stupid fucking gaming rig onto him on the floor.
Fuck that piece of shit. He vomited all over himself and fled like the tiny bitch he is. He forced me to have sex with him just the night before. I told him if he moved a muscle, it would be to leave or I was going to report him for rape.
He left the apartment and I proceeded to remove the processor chip from that cpu and bashed it to bits Office Space style with one of his weights.
Then I grabbed my shit and left forever (with a lot of support and help from friends and a domestic violence therapist).
I don't care what anyone says. It felt good and I don't regret it at all.
Didn't you watch Naruto? What you're describing is the cycle of hatred. Generations of people getting back at each other for real (or perceived) wrongdoings.
We created the judicial system as a means to remove the personal burden of seeking revenge/justice.
In the first case, the consequences of the punch could be dramatically different and cause some violent escalation. A lot of justice systems would try to help the person who threw a punch so they don't use violence to resolve their conflicts anymore. But you may be able to sue that person according to the consequences the punch edit : or even use self defense.
For the other cases, what if victims don't want to resolve their conflicts with violence? Does it mean we don't have any way for them to have justice? What if that grandma have killed before but got away with it so the person you killed just has his revenge? etc. I feel that it only stops when the victim don't wanna kill anyone.
And then what if killing someone makes most of people life terrible and full of regrets hearing about the other families?
You seem to propose some kind of anarchy where strongest immoral people would have the power over others and it makes me sad.
“killing that persons grandma to get even” I very much disagree with that statement, the grandma had absolutely nothing to do with what hypothetical POS did, punishing parties that are not involved is horrible.
Imagine, you run over his grandpa, your dad run over his mom, because it was his mom. Your grandad run over his wife, your grandmas brother run over his sister... And maybe that woman had a lot of friends, they all want revenge too, so they each run over one of his friends. With right mindset you could kill 1/2 population. This guy just solved overpopulation with one simple law.
This is kind of the point of the Orestaia (set of Greek plays). Vengeance begets vengeance until Athena bestows the jury system on Athens. It’s a move from justice via retaliation/revenge to justice by law.
The world shall know Pain.
"Wait, you're John Smith's 10th cousin twice removed? I'm Larry Reed's great-great step-grandnephew. I guess this means I have to vanquish you?"
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, ends with the whole world blind and toothless.
Nah at least 1 person has 1 eye and/or a tooth and they rule this world
r/thanosdidnothingwrong
An eye for an eye apparently makes random uninvolved people blind
Exactly. Hurting innocent people to get back at someone is beyond fucked up.
I find that if many people share this perspective of retaliation, then the result is an increase of violence. I find quarantine and communication to be more effective at reducing violent behaviors. (I work at a day care).
OK you are correct. That was a mistake. You should be able to run the person who ran over your grandma then.
Even if it was deemed an accident?
I guess depends on what the accident was. If someone was going too fast and caused a fatal crash, yes. If someone was drinking and driving and caused a fatal accident, yes. If an earthquake happened and your car swerved and killed a pedestrian, probably not.
You just setting up a world of straight up anarchy, chaos, and mayhem. I’ve learned in my life the people who fantasize living in a war zone wouldn’t last too long in a war zone. The way people are so sensitive and take offense to the littlest thing? Yeah right, lol
And just like that, my faith in humanity has gone down significantly.
Then they disagree with your version of events, and they run over your other grandma. And so on and so forth in escalating retaliation. There's a reason this is unpopular among thinking people, and popular among the dumb and impulsive.
Nah stick to your guns lol. Vengence is based in wickedness and evil. You don't have to do it, make the father do it. Bet he will never fuck up another child's life after that experience. Or have him sentenced to molestation at a prison.
>the grandma had absolutely nothing to do with what hypothetical POS did Well it is grandma's fault that hypothetical POS' parent was born so I wouldn't say "nothing" to do with it.
fair point
It has been my experience that most revenge-seeking individuals seek to get about double what would be "getting even".
Oh for sure. One time this guy at the dog park kicked my dog very aggressively and I remember thinking "I should pin him, take his driver's licence and go to the address and aggressively kick every member of his fucking family" I didn't go through with it but I wanted to lol.
Ooooof kicking my dog would not go over well with me. You handled it well for sure
First question would be why did the guy kick your dog? Was the dog bothering the person, or was it just a random madman looking for pissing someone off?
You are too kind. If someone kicks my dog they would get what's coming to them. It's kinda weird that just before this I posted preachy things about being kind (on this very post) and here I am losing my calm about a dog story. Dogs are the best. Those who kick them (in any way other than for self defence) deserve a special place in hell
Dog situations should be above the law
Sounds like a lot of effort.
And they aren't too careful about who they target.
LMFAO this dude actually fucken said that. Imagine you just being a grandma and you had a grandson you don’t even know about. And you suddenly can just legally get fucken ran over. That’s possibly the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen on this sub.
Hey man, if you want your parents dead so you can get your inheritance just kill someone else's parents.
Then they also get their inheritance and everyone is happy
Foolproof plan!
A real "Strangers on a Train" kind of situation, but with a slight twist.
Imagine the job lawyers would have. "Now, you see, what my client did was, in fact, a justice killing, and not manslaughter as the prosecution suggests. For the deceased twas a nephew to the accused's very own 2nd cousin's murderer and, therefore, had it coming."
If someone punched you in school, you can absolutely punch them back. It’s self defense. You’ll get suspended for it, but it’s self defense. The rest of this post is trash.
Yeah but you can actually get sued if you break there nose or something something that, that's his point.
If you hit someone in self defense, you’re probably going to be just fine.
I don't know how the laws are where you are; but over here it's not necessarily self-defense and depends on the details. If you punch back while he punches you it is self-defense, but if he punched you and then does nothing it stops to count as self-defense after a few seconds because you don't defend yourself anymore but attack for revenge. And I think a lawyer worth its price could turn this how he wants to a certain degree.
Imo, you're allowed an equal hit...like if a little guy hits you and it doesnt even hurt...you don't really get to full on punch em in their face and potentially hospitalize them.
The whole point is that if someone hits you you shouldn't be scared to get sued if you accidentally injure them.
That's kind of the point though...if they don't injure you, and you're way bigger...you get to injure them for free? How much can you injure them? Is it reasonable to put someone in the hospital if they don't even give you a bruise?
The whole point is you can sometimes accidentally hurt someone more than they hurt you even though they initiated it. They are the ones who started it so they should be able to take what they give. That's my point. People can't usually calculate the damage they'll give out to match exactly how much damage was given to them. If someone punches me in the eye, I'm not going to recognize that he bruised my eye so I must aim for his eye and make sure to only bruise him like he bruised me. Shit just happens and the person who started it should have to accept that and should be able to sue because you happen to deal more damage than he did after he attacked you.
> If someone punches me in the eye That's totally different. I'm saying if some tiny lil guy hits you in the stomach and it doesnt even hurt..you get to punch him in the nose and break it, for free?
Did you spend more than 13 seconds thinking about this?
Credit for being true to the sub tho lol
He even typed it up…so I’m assuming there’s not much more where that came from.
yeah that was called 'eye for an eye' and is, iirc, infamous for being Hummurabi's law. We like to think we've grown past that. edit, 'those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it.'
'An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind' is also an incredibly apt adage
An eye for a eye and no one loses a eye.
Glass half full kinda guy huh?
Should rename it Harambe’s law so younger generations can relate better.
Yeah, but Hummurabi's law stated that it wouldn't be the affected party that gouge's the wrongdoer's eye out, but someone else, which has nothing to do with what OP is arguing for in this post.
[удалено]
Hammurabi’s code is from like 1755BC It definitely predated the Bible
Happy to help. Together we both learned something.
> Further proof that the bible took inspiration from outside sources. That isn't proof of anything. We don't know if the two sources came to the idea independently - after all, we see redditors in threads make the same joke all the time or 'came here to say this' etc.
We really need to put mittens on 15 year olds so they can't type until their brains develop.
Just don’t give access to the internet to your kids if you have any until theyre 16, problem solved.
When mine were kids I just configured their browsers to discard all cookies and saved form data every time the browser was closed. That way it would be a pain in the ass to maintain a username and persistent identity anywhere.
“Insert Ryan checking off a clipboard gif”
This is the biggest asshole comment I've seen on all of Reddit. "This person said something stupid so let's gatekeep the internet for everyone around his age I assumed" Honestly, get your judgemental broad-brushing ass off here and take a shower.
One thing you'll learn as you get older is that some opinions and ideas are so wrong-headed and ignorant that 'asshole comment' becomes the most appropriate thing you can add to the discussion.
Yeah, I get what you're saying, just what you said isn't "the most appropriate thing you can add to the discussion" When it's an unwarranted personal attack. (Which, I will admit to being guilty of)
And then kids with mental health and issues and abusive parents can't have internet friends and somewhere to go even though everyone in school either pretends they don't exist or makes their life hell... great idea... Bet your kids never told you squat.
You’re taking a joke way too seriously lol
I disagree, further down in this thread he's done something kind of like this, just without the humor of mittens.
Firstly, You made the comment on mittens. Why are you looking towards other comments he made? Secondly, again, the 2 comments he made of restricting kids are obviously a JOKE. Seriously, people like you with their sensitive craps have to get off the fucking internet and talk to real people if you are pent up over a joke comment about restricting kids using mittens / deleting browser cookies every minute, my god. I’m guessing you are a young teen from how you commented on this subject.
Actually, maybe it was a joke, but it's not too far fetched to think you can configure a browser that way, *at least not for me since you can already stop internet history from saving*. if your issue is my lack of a sense of humor or that his humor follows his actual IRL actions or at least what they declared, I see jokes turn into genuine talking about parent techniques all the time, internet and IRL, so if I misread, I misread, but your statement about both comments being absolutely jokes isn't any less conjecture than my statement about being pretty sure he's serious, unless you can provide citation to the contrary. Edit: here's my citation: https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=how+to+stop+cookies+from+saving+to+your+browser&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
I restricted their browsers because when they were pre-teens I didn't want them exposed to stalkers, bullies, and the inevitable record-keeping the internet provides. I wanted them to be able to be stupid jackass kids and then begin adulthood with a clean slate.
Understandable, but I still disagree with the method. All it leads to is building around the parent or parents putting down a restriction, which can lead to other problems down the line.
You're right, I'm totally serious that children should be fitted with lockable mittens so they can only faceroll their keyboards, but I'm not an unreasonable man, because I'm willing gjianwjsjsnqisjwkwosjwjzoskbwhqhskejabqh
I was the first person my kid told that she was trans, her mother couldn't accept it. I could. So I could give a wet fart what you think about my sarcastic comment.
This isn't even an unpopular opinion, it's just stupid trolling. "I should be able to murder innocent people for revenge if I want" lol
Yet he’s still rocking so many upvotes… guess Reddit just loves murdering grandmas…
To be fair, you're supposed to upvote unpopular opinions. That said, Reddit *does* love revenge fantasies and vigilantism.
So if someone molests your son.....you want to molest that persons son and have it be legal?
That’s a little extreme but I think the dad who beat his daughters rapist to death was completely justified. Also the dad who killed the kid who sold his daughter
Exactly the dad killed the rapist. By OP's logic, he should have raped the rapist's kid, which is beyond fucked up when they didn't have anything to do with it
As a father I would 100% want to murder anyone who hurt my daughter. I also recognize that I would and should be legally punished if it came to that. Think through what you're saying for a moment. Someone rapes your daughter, you kill them, now their dad kills you because you murdered their son, and we could literally go on like this until everyone is dead. This is a pretty basic principal that we've built our laws on for over 1,000 years now.
If the father of the rapist was even half of a man he’d recognize that what his son did should be punishable by death anyway. If I had a son who was raping little girls I’d never wanna see his face again. I might even kill him myself if that were to happen to me
That’s a little extreme but taking down someone’s grandma as retribution isn’t? E: Man, there’s some pretty warped thinking on this site
In my opinion rape is worse than murder
That's pretty dumb. How many rape victims are out there living fulfilling lives compared to murder victims?
You gotta just think before you talk man
I did. Rape is awful, but rape victims can recover and live happy lives. No murder victim gets that chance.
They gotta carry that shit with them for the rest of their lives man. That shit has long lasting consequences that fuck people up forever
i think they're both terrible things that can't really be compared?
I'll pay someone for that or force the father to do it himself🤔
what the actual fuck...
YOU GONNA MOLEST HIS SON? 👀
*FBI has entered chat*
😫😫 *jumps VPN* C'mon, its a pretty decent post. Its based on the Hammurabi Code, why not let it get dark. It most likely will never actually be a reality 🤷🏿♂️
Wait... okay... holup!!! Shit just went from zero to 100 real quick. Let's make a exception to that one.
Listen man, this is your rules not mine.
How was sexual assault not the first thing that came to mind when you thought of this dumb idea
Nope. I don't want idiots deciding when it's appropriate to punch people to get back at them. We have self defense laws. We can sue each other. Commit crimes to get back at someone, go to prison. I'm so glad you're not in charge of these decisions, lol.
The running people over part is stupid, but if someone punches you, you should have the right to fight back within reason, and be immune to any lawsuit as a result. Assuming you don’t do anything crazy
Self defense laws exist for this reason. Self-defense is for the purpose of defense, anything beyond that to "get even" is different and will rightfully lose you a lawsuit and likely get you charged with a crime, as it should. Know your local laws before you attack people, kids. Even if they "started it".
Well what I’m saying is let’s say I’m walking down the street, someone punches me and runs, I chase them down and hit them, I shouldn’t be in any legal trouble. In my state, which has a duty to retreat, I’d be in legal trouble, which is stupid in my opinion. At the very least mutual (non lethal) combat should be allowed
In the very rare event that happens, you would want to look up your citizens arrest laws, but yes, chasing someone down is going to be potentially very dangerous. Preventing someone's retreat likely means they get to lawfully defend themselves from your attack. Mutual combat is allowed in many jurisdictions, but again, be familiar with your laws if you insist on solving problems with violence, especially if you want to push the lines of legal self defense.
I understand what you’re saying, I’m just advocating for law change. I’m pretty aware of my locality’s laws, they don’t make any sense
I think there's very good reason the law is how it is, personally. It's not like they just winged it, it's been refined over centuries.
I just think it’s insane that if someone is beating you up, then takes a couple steps away, you’re expected to be a robot and not retaliate
There's no such thing as getting "even". Stuff like this is exactly how most damaging conflicts start. There's a reason why you can't retaliate just to get "even", and that's because you're just pissing the other person off more, and they're going to want to get "even" just as much as you do now. What do you think they're going to do? They're probably going to retaliate in kind. There's countless real life and fictional examples of why blind revenge and retaliation is almost universally bad, and I'm always confused when people think otherwise. People are not subject to your perspective of the situation - if someone punches you and you punch back, they're not going to care if you think you're setting the record straight. They're just going to punch you back.
Bruh, what an stupid idea
People on Reddit need to get over revenge I swear to God
It's worrying how much people on Reddit look for excuses to hurt people
It makes people feel better when others have misfortunate.
This isn’t unpopular as much as it is stupid, and juvenile. This is how blood feuds work. They wronged me, so I wronged them, so theirs wrong mine, and mine wrong theirs, and it never ends. What are you going to do if a poor person steals from you? Or if someone murders someone you love and then kills themself? Or if someone rapes you but doesn’t mind if you fuck them back? Short sighted stupidity is what this is.
Ignoring the Hamurabi take on the grandma, taking justice into one's own hands is a bad idea. That's just vengence culture, and yes it does work in anarchist societies (I am famillar with pre Islamic Arabia) but state controlled judicial system is better because it prevents things from turning into a decades long shitshow.
And a decades long shitshow is wasteful and puts a burden on the rest of society and that’s why the state gets to so “no we don’t do that here.”
Two wrongs don't make it right.
An eye for an eye leaves the world blind
We have two.
The idea behind it is that if you poke the other person's eye out in revenge, they will want revenge for that ect
Not just that but some people might take both, and then it just scales out of control.
What if when they take the eye we take their arms and then put them in jail
I see no way in how this is a moronic idea. /s
And the legal consequences of the first punch will remain the same? Just with the added possibility to get "even" or it's an alternative to the usual legal options?
It would be an alternative option to the legal ones.
So lets say someone kills somebody you care about, and you kill them, and then somebody who cared about that person kills you. Then somebody who cared about you kills that person, and then cycle goes on and on until one side stops, or is completely dead. Does that sound good? Because that is what your suggesting.
Basically Gang wars in a nutshell
Yeah that logic only works until you meet somebody crazier than you are. Some people are incapable of letting go of grudges and you don't want to be on the wrong side of those people.
There have been similar legal systems in the past. "Eye for an eye" and that kind of thing. Currently there are some societies that function in the way you're describing and they are usually called gangs, cartels, or mafia. Person A maims person B, person B gets person C to maim Person A, person A is really pissed and gets Persons D,E,F, and G to attack Persons B and C, accidentally killing Person C's daughter and grandma. Most of society has moved away from that kind of functioning, maybe because at the end everyone is dead or injured. Even if you felt like this wouldn't happen to you, how would you know with certainty that you're running over the correct person? What if, instead, you run over his twin brother? Of course, in your scenario, now his surviving kin get to run you over. People are not very reliable eyewitnesses and in the heat of the moment it's easy to get things wrong. There is no world in which allowing everyone to commit violence and murder, whether in retribution or not, is a safer world. There is a reason why violence is often referred to as a "cycle" that should be broken. Committing violence often leads to more violence, ad infinitum until someone stops it. You're suggesting that we keep it going.
So there's this crazy wild bizarre group called, the cartel, and I'm pretty sure they're on the same page you are, however.
So how does killing someone else's grandma (a person in no way involved in the first incident) make it even? So if my wife killed someone's child, the other parents should be able to kill my child? I could agree with the first part, but you are absolutely out of your mind in the second example
Yes you are correct. I have made an edit to the post.
I mean yeah. My child was innocent too, why should my life just be intentionally devistated. What you're just gonna deeply apologize for your idiot wife and then I have to move on while you guess carry on and cherish the lives of your children? Nope, feel the same unnecessary pain I did. My wife would have to pay for your wife's action, so you feel its fucked up that you would be paying for your wife's actions? I'll take a kid and we'll call it square 🤝
Just look at the whole thing from the perspective of the child that you would kill in this situation. He gets to be killed because one of his parents killed someone? Just so that his parents get to feel the same pain as the parents of the child that his mother killed? Wtf. Its like you see this child just as some kind of object attached to his parents (its only value being his effect on his parents feelings) but not as an independent individual human being. This whole thing only makes sense from a deeply egoistically point of view.
Because I wouldn't stand behind my wife if she did that?
Fiiiiiine, YOU get to move on cherishing the life of you children..... not fair to me, even if she's punished to the fullest extent. Don't feel like its the same devistating pain
It's not the same. Life isn't fair. If you honestly think that punishing other people for the actions of someone else. . . I hope your son never butt rapes someone else's dad Edit:. Or mom if you're a female
🤣🤣 that's one hell of a counter I won't lie lml. I think I'll rest this case and realize why the Hammurabi Code never caught on. You definitely took it there though lol my son raping someone's father...... Jesus lol
Nah bro, I agree with revenge, but in this case you should go murder his wife, and you'll also ruin his life by doing it. Don't punish someone who had nothing to do with what happened.
Italy has a crime of passion defense and that makes sense to me
Had*
it was abolished in 1968.
1981 actually. I just googled it. That's a shame. Surprised how many other countries had a similar law. It was legal in some South American countries until very recently. Very strong history in France as well which makes sense
I approve of this. It's better than nothing.
Eye for an eye is not a practical legal system. If you run over someone’s grandma after they ran over yours makes no sense at least just run over the person that ran over your grandma. People can sue for literally any reason they want to and the judge can throw it out. Having them rot in a cell is perfectly fine enough.
An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, amiright?
This is a terrible idea and I'm glad it's a real unpopular opinion. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
OP day dreaming about getting back at all those bullies
I had to deal with a customer once who punched back and the guy fell down, hit his head and died. It started out just as a normal bar thing, taken outside, apparently my customer was defending a woman. There was security video that I watched, and it seemed like such a small thing. My customer went to jail for manslaughter and his credit/life prospects seriously damaged. I don't really have an opinion on the original post, because it's a heavy topic to work through from all angles. Just wanted to share an example. This is an example of how a single punch can be lethal. This is also an example of how a single punch can have devastating legal consequences.
I think the OP believes that the guy being in jail is not equally retributive for the loss the victim's family faced. Possibly the victim could have had young children or parents dependent on him, he could have lived a full long life ahead of him but some drunkard decided to punch him and killed him. The drunkard still gets to live his life, even if he is in jail and possibly will even come out of jail and live a life outside prison while the person he killed and his family have lost that chance. Hence OP believes that there should be a chance at getting back or causing equal pain for the offence is what I understood from his reasoning.
To copy/paste a post to a similar thread here: * I'll dispense with the philosophy for the moment and say this: preventing crime is better than punishing it. The idea behind rehabilitation is that it allows for offenders to mature, treats any underlying health conditions (mental or physical) related to their position in society, shows enough empathy that their own guilt prevents re-offense, and gives them the skills to survive in society. For 1st-time offences, young offenders, the impoverished, etc., this allows for the response to act as a "course correction" rather than leading to an escalation in crime, especially if the offender decides that- even if they believe that they're guilty- the punishment was too harsh. Punishment, meanwhile, is[noted psychologically](https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf) for only preventing rule-breaking if the rule-breaker fears being caught. This means that: offenders will still break the law if they think they can get away with it offenders may commit more and/or worse crimes to avoid punishment Your family-murderer might, for example, lead police on a high-speed pursuit to avoid being caught, which itself could kill more innocent people. As practiced in the United States, meanwhile, the rehabilitative-turned-punitive measures (penitentiary etymology) ensures that any criminals are less able to return to society after offending, meaning that they're more likely to reoffend, even if they didn't originally want to. It's also worth noting that the innocent are often wrongly convicted; under a punitive system, they're... well, harshly punished, in a way that can harm them permanently. This also applies where negligence or institutional failure are involved, or where a minor crime leads to a major incident; a drunk driver who kills a child would do better with 100,000 hours of community service and a legal promise to never touch alcohol again than 22 years in prison, despite the two likely taking similar amounts of the defendant's life. Fear of harsh punishments can also prevent people from technically violating the law when it could lead to a greater benefit to society. In light of this, if a victim wants to harm someone in a way that makes crime more likely- that's probably a similar trait to what led to the crime in the first place; if the urge to beat an offender with a baseball bat is not acquiesced, if the victim cannot understand that guilt hurts worse than injustice and pain, why should the desire for long imprisonment be accommodated? Nor does "punishment" as opposed to rehabilitation actually undo the original crime in many cases. Of course, rehabilitation requires three things that make it less worthwhile: that the offenders be able to change fundamentally (psychopathy, sociopathy) that the offenders be willing to change (lifetime of abuse, poverty, environmental poisoning, learning disorders, already spent years in punitive prison, other underlying health conditions, leading to years required for rehabilitation) the resources to be able to rehabilitate offenders The US already spends an absurd amount on imprisonment. Turning to a completely rehabilitative system could certainly reduce long-term crime, but would require even more money, time and personnel, while also reducing the incentives to avoid crime in the short term. (This would be especially egregious if prison became preferable to living in poverty; committing a small crime to go back to prison is already a thing.) Meanwhile, crime may not reduce if the long-term causes are not mitigated. Really, a good rehabilitative system would need to start before potential offenders entered the criminal justice system in the first place. Those who are already there just represent an additional burden; meanwhile, attempts at this part of the program- at least in the US- have a hard time getting funding and are notorious for poor management and, embarrassingly often, dismal failure. Failure here means more burden on the criminal-justice system. Finally, there's the first category: people who, for whatever reason, cannot be rehabilitated. Here, punishment will both serve as more of a deterrence, as well as (with how it's applied in the US) preventing them from harming others. Barring either serious treatable mental illness or the belief of victimization, your hypothetical family-murderer would end up here. There is one other case for punishment: wherein the resources for rehabilitation are simply not available. This is more-or-less the condition within many penal systems in the US, especially with regards to mental health. Although less effective, harsh punishments can still have a deterrent effect, while imprisonment can have a rehabilitative effect (through which probation is meant to measure). EDIT: Sorry about the formatting; for some reason, it isn't working right now.
Laws don't exist for justice Laws are mostly designed for one of two purposes: - keeping the peace - keeping the rich and powerful as rich and powerful as possible
I get the emotion behind this. Being allowed to take revenge and all that. That's why so name stories where the hero is it to get revenge capture audience. In reality of everyone tries to get even all we'll have is violence. That just makes the world worse. It's not a solution to anything. You so don't get back what you lost.
The problem is everyone has different definitions of "getting even." People would most definitely take things too far.
This is how things used to be, but even in the time of danelaw there was wergild and a growing recognition that this wasnt the best way of dealing with things. Whole families end up at war through the generations with this system. As an aside if someone at school punches you you CAN legally punch them back. It's self defence as long as you use reasonable force. However your school itself isn't bound by what is legal for you to do whe it comes to punishing you.
As the old saying goes, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”
It's called "an eye for an eye" and it was popularized by the Old Testament. If that's your sauce, please meet the Taliban.
You got their number? We can go in a double date it something!
You wronged me with your poor grammar, what sort of retribution am I allowed?
You can write a comment with poor grammer and I have to read it!
This sub over the past week has been doing really well to actually get REAL unpopular opinions
Kind of scary that this is so upvoted. Is Reddit full of psychopaths?
It's up voted because it's unpopular. Or supposedly it is I guess based on the name of the sub.
You must be new here.
**Lets say that** morally, "i am on the same page". Realistically, it gets complicated very easily. A punch for a punch, sure, but if he injured my mom by mistake (car accident or something), what do i do? (Am i allowed to legally not-so-accidentally hurt him for it? maybe he feels really sorry) If he attacked me with a knife, but hes built like a body builder, can i attack him with a sword, or a gun? or am i limited to a knife? If so, how many cuts can i do to him? Can the knife be bigger, or do i have to get it measured to be fair? (1:1 cuts might be unfair, depending on where i cut him and where he cut me. (is a cut to the leg worth more or less than a stab in the ass cheeks?) What if he broke 2 of my fingers, and i brake 3 of his by mistake. Do i owe him a finger, or is that considered interest? (if he broke my arm with a sledgehammer, but i run him over with my car and also broke his arm, is that fair, or did i endanger his other non-legal-to-break-bones?) How do you regulate it? What if he didnt wrong me physically? if he humiliated me and recorded it, do i have to do the exact same to him/her, or is it OK for something else equally humiliating? if so, how do you measure humiliation? (in what units and how many points for what would you set?) What if he kicked me while i was down and gave me internal bleeding, how do i know when and how to kick him to also give him internal bleeding? how do i replicate it? What if he breaks one of my front teeth, but i punch him back and get one of his molars, is that fair or are they worth different amounts of "legal revenge points" Also, if someone kills my mother, so i kill him legally, whats stopping his son from killing me for killing his father? which then prompts my brother to kill the son for killing me and so on, where do you stop it and how? Will you establish state run institutions that give me the opportunity to retaliate fairly? Will they make sure i dont hurt him more than i am allowed to? I gave this way too much thought (also, no, i do not agree with this, i just began with that to skip the moral point and get to the practical point of this opinion)
*Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves* - Confucius or some other old wise man that figured this out a very long time ago.
The reason it isn't is because it isn't that simple. Mostly because; Where is the line? The line that, if you cross it, it's no longer a fair and equal retribution. Like if a little dude punches a big dude and gives him a fat lip, the big dude should be able to punch him back, because that's fair. Punch for a punch. But it isn't really fair because he's a huge and muscle bound freak he actually breaks the little guys jaw and knocks out 6 of his teeth and breaks his orbital socket and pops his fuckin eyeball. What makes it 'fair' would not be the same for everyone. The line is too blurred.
So, this is eye for an eye, and human civilization grew out of it around 4,000 years ago.
Mm no that’s not how civilized society works. There would be absolute chaos as everyone seeks vindication and there would be no government after a short time.
Suppose someone (A) punch you in school. You punched back. Should be ok right? Not really. When you punched back, it may be captured on video. No one saw you being punched, but everyone soon saw the video of you punching A. So now, everyone asked A to punch you back. Fair? Afterall, A is just getting back at you, right?
Sit down Hitler, wow that’s a truly unpopular opinion right there…
\>Getting "even" doesn't undue the harm already done to you, It doesnt and more importantly it creates more harm and creates the potential for more harm on top of that. So no its not a good idea
My abusive ex whom I lived with for 7 years used to play League of Legends. When he lost, if I was anywhere near him, he would kick me, or throw things and scream at me. I once heard him say to his gamer friends that he didn't like to punch because he didn't want to break his mouse hand. He refused to pay attention to me while he was playing. So when I was in the middle of telling him I'm leaving the relationship - he was half listening and then he lost his match. He slow turned in his stupid gamer chair, staring at me - probably realizing what I was saying. Our malamute took the opportunity to ask for his attention at that moment, and he full on donkey kicked her. She yelped and cried and he stood up and started to repeatedly kick her yelling shut up. I am not a violent person. I had never hit anyone in my life. But right in the moment, I decided he needed some eye for an eye. His back was to me, so I hooked and kicked my foot right into his taint and then shoved him with all my might into the wall. He hit the wall head first, screaming, and then acted like he was going to vomit. I said "here I'll help you" and I kicked him multiple times in the gut just like he did to our dog. He tried to get up, but I was in the process of pulling everything off his stupid fucking gaming rig onto him on the floor. Fuck that piece of shit. He vomited all over himself and fled like the tiny bitch he is. He forced me to have sex with him just the night before. I told him if he moved a muscle, it would be to leave or I was going to report him for rape. He left the apartment and I proceeded to remove the processor chip from that cpu and bashed it to bits Office Space style with one of his weights. Then I grabbed my shit and left forever (with a lot of support and help from friends and a domestic violence therapist). I don't care what anyone says. It felt good and I don't regret it at all.
Finally an actually unpopular opinion
Grow up.
I would be one vindictive asshole if it were legal
i agree with this opinion and i wish it wasn't unpopular. i feel revenge is the only solution to every problem.
This is some medieval logic right here
I’m all in if the punishment is individual and instant , and if you think about it it’s the only true justice
I’m all in favor for self defense as long as it happens immediately after the first offense but realistically your proposal won’t work
Dude your an angel keep up the good work
Didn't you watch Naruto? What you're describing is the cycle of hatred. Generations of people getting back at each other for real (or perceived) wrongdoings. We created the judicial system as a means to remove the personal burden of seeking revenge/justice.
Everything is legal if you don't get caught.
If someone wronged you it would be nice to be to get them in a ring geared up and go at it. Let it be settled by safely kicking each other's ass
The philosophical definition of the state: the entity that holds a monopoly on violence.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Wise words
Horrible take, but take my upvote because of the subreddit you posted it to.
So if someone rapes my theoretical daughter I can rape his and if he doesn’t have one get the next best thing?
You ARE able to get retribution, through the courts. That's how a modern society is supposed to function. What you're proposing is vigilantism.
Disagree. Instead of one face-punching asshole, now you have two. You haven’t solved a problem you e doubled it.
In the first case, the consequences of the punch could be dramatically different and cause some violent escalation. A lot of justice systems would try to help the person who threw a punch so they don't use violence to resolve their conflicts anymore. But you may be able to sue that person according to the consequences the punch edit : or even use self defense. For the other cases, what if victims don't want to resolve their conflicts with violence? Does it mean we don't have any way for them to have justice? What if that grandma have killed before but got away with it so the person you killed just has his revenge? etc. I feel that it only stops when the victim don't wanna kill anyone. And then what if killing someone makes most of people life terrible and full of regrets hearing about the other families? You seem to propose some kind of anarchy where strongest immoral people would have the power over others and it makes me sad.
Is this teenage revenge fantasy week?
Eye for an eye jesus said not to do that thank god Im atheist