Is there anything wrong in the principle "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"? Why do so many people find it so horrible?
>>70325533
>Why do so many people find it so horrible?
Because it's the current year.
>>70325533
They don't. Not really. It's just that they are desperate to find something to attack Christians about.
>>70325533
Would it be so wrong in theory if it were to be applied as laws in the western societies?
For example:
>Mehmet rapes Sigrid
Mehmet gets:
>A) Raped by a professional rapist enforcing the law of retaliation
or
>B) Sigrid gets to chop of Mehmets dick
>>70325533
Because if you kill your enemies, they win. The modern left doesn't understand that to completely and utterly destroy the enemy, you must be merciless. They think it's honorable and noble to spare and even aid the enemy, even if it means your own death.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
That being said, you can remove the eyes of someone who's done something half as bad to you, and they'll have a hard time finding other people's eyes.
>>70325533
It makes the whole world blind.
>>70325533
Just point out that an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, but the alternative is only eye stabbers get to retain their vision.
The very concept is rooted in Jewish tradition and teachings
>>70325939
>They think it's honorable and noble to spare and even aid the enemy, even if it means your own death.
That's stupid.
The only reason you spare your enemy is to destroy their sense of honor.
>>70325533
i once got my head smashed into a urinal and didnt do jack shit.
my dad told me i should have pissed on the dude.
>>70326126
Which themselves are rooted in The Code of Hammurabi
>>70325533
Mercy is what makes us human. This isn't to say I'm a pacifist, but reducing everything to eye-for-an-eye is a barbaric simplification.
>>70325533
>>70325533
>>70325533
STEALTH RARE
>>70326192
So what would you prefer were to happen to that dude?
A) You'd recieve monetary compensation for the damage he caused
B) You'd get to smash his skull into a urinal
>>70326327
Life is simple.
All the complicated bullshit is just mental gymnastics to excuse your actions while still vilifying those you dislike
>>70326162
The Allies weren't ashamed when Hitler spared them at Dunkirk, from what I understand. They just claimed the rescue mission was a miracle and then prepared for Operation Overlord. To correct my first post, it's not just the modern left who rejects the, "an eye for an eye" saying, it's anyone who doesn't have the guts to destroy a weak enemy. It's a noble thing, but foolish.
>>70326327
>t. leftist numale
>>70326327
You have a point there, which sadly only works if both parties involved are white and civilized. A sandnigger or a dindu on the other hand, takes that kind of reasoning as weakness from your side. Yes, it is very "barbaric" to apply to our human nature by enforcing "An eye for an eye", yet in our modern societies it is necessary.
No, Yahowsha(Jesus) name in paleo Hebrew actually has the symbol of an eye and a tooth in it. People think it is wrong because of the "cast the first stone" story which is a complete fabrication and never happened. Yahowsha said he didn't come to change or undo anything from Towrah or Prophets.
It's simple
>man a murders man b
Society loses man b 100%
Eye for an eye (execution of man A)
Society loses man a 100%
Total result: -2 people 100%
Non retailiatory - incarceration and rehabilitation
Society temporarily loses a man 30%
Result -1 man 30%
If there's a chance, always take it over losing both. There's been many stories of reformed criminals who now do a lot of good. We wouldn't have them if they had been executed or some sort of other cruel and unusual punishment. As a society, we should always take that chance.
EYE FOR AN EYE DOESNT MAKE THE WORLD BLIND YOU FUCKWITS. Each person has two eyes each lose one. They each have one
>>70326987
>only able to poke one eye at a time
Fucking pleb, you have two hands, and two eyes, for a reason.
>>70326626
>The Allies weren't ashamed when Hitler spared them at Dunkirk
We're way more pragmatic than to let things like shame hold us back.
But take a culture where shame plays a great role and these people get absolutely livid, especially when they can't harm you.
>>70326905
Do you really believe that you can rehabilitate murderers, pedophiles and rapists? How big are chances of that really happening? Would you honestly let a child rapist babysit your children after he gets out of prison? Not trying to turn this thread into a shitting contest, just try to answer truthfully.
>>70327131
P
RARE or is it?
O
X
Y
>>70325939
>The modern left doesn't understand that to completely and utterly destroy the enemy, you must be merciless.
This every war should be a war of attrition, even after surrender do not stop until the enemy is completly dead
>>70327348
I already put a chance there. Summer chance is still better than no chance.
An eye for an eye may leave the whole world blind, but any other way leaves only the wicked with sight.
>>70328091
Yes, but would you let a former child rapist babysit your children?
>>70328243
Care to translate that allegory for me?
>>70326784
>complete fabrication
It's in the fucking bible, Jesus peaches about forgiving others and turning the other cheek because it's the best thing possible in that situation. It's not a good thing to hold on to hate and anger and cause suffering, Jesus does not claim to overwrite any of those laws but he does offer forgiveness. You probably naturally want to get revenge on those who wrong you, but that just leaves two people worse off than before.
>>70328091
Can you look at it in such a rational way though
People are emotional, Wouldn't it be better to sate person b's lust for revenge than have a 70% of turning loose a murderous person.
Also while they are incarcerated they spread their barbarity to minor criminals
Turning petty thieves into hardened criminals
A bullet in the head seems like a safer more moral solution
>>70326667
>leftist numale
I'm not Trudeau ing I'm just against savagery
>>70328587
person b's family*
sorry
>>70326327
"Barbarism" got us this far. You can look at Europe and lesser extent USA what happens to a civilization that shows mercy to violent crimes.
>>70328507
>>70326697
Again I don't want to sound like Trudeau here but what you're doing is rationalizing immoral behavior. If you don't have principles what do you have?
Pic unrelated
>>70328656
Pretty much this.
>>70326697
Then let us be weak. For every punch they throw at us let's give them an outstretched hand. If they kill us in the streets let's invite them into our homes and give them non bloodied clothes. We should put our trust in the migrants, no matter how often they betray us. There are people among them who have been wronged more than we are, and the ones who hurt them are hidden among them. Instead of being afraid of this wolf in the sheep and turning away the whole flock, we need to accept that the wolf will bite us, and accept the rest of the flock anyway.
>>70328865
>Again I don't want to sound like Trudeau here but what you're doing is rationalizing immoral behavior. If you don't have principles what do you have?
Strenght
Pretty simple answer there, buddy.
You're reasoning is exactly the same as the politicians in Sweden. "We shouldn't punish Muhammed for raping and killing a teenage girl. That would obviously play into the hands of racists. We should stand by our solidarity and our principles."
>>70325533
Because for some reason the new generations don't like consequences and don't think our enemies deserve them either.
Natural selection is a good thing contrary to this pussified world of feelers.
Good luck taking someones eyes when your already fucking blind.
Also IDK why anyone think an eye thief is beneficial to society.
>>70328507
Another misconception, twisted meaning. Turn the other cheek was meant as a challenge, "I dare you to do that again" . Yahowsha advocated self defense and most of his bitchy and sarcastic comments have had their meanings twisted.
>>70329147
>>70328507
The bible also says spare the rod spoil the child which essentially means consequences are beneficial.
>>70325533
How the Fuck did they translate Old Hebrew losing there punctuation to the Greek ? Pure coincidence !
>>70329194
Reading pretty much any of the New Testament disputes that. Everything Jesus preached was about forgiving. The Lords Prayer says to forgive us our trespasses as we forgive our trespassers. Jesus Christ was the son of God, and knew right from wrong, and violence is wrong. It does nothing, it's just satisfying your anger and more often than not starts a cycle of violence as others also seek vengeance. It's not a good thing, there is nothing noble about slaying your enemy.
>>70325533
I think it's one of those things that people claim to be against but somehow forget they are against once someone wrongs them.
That said, it's not hard to understand why people have issue with the principle. You harm someone. They harm you back. You harm them back. We've all been in this kind of situation. And if you try to follow it to it's logically extent, you run into problems. Many people are okay with killing a killer but do you rape a rapist or rob a robber? Is flashing a flasher a punishment? Outside of killing them, do any of these make the criminal any less likely to commit a crime in the future?
>>70325835
Why are you pretending it's not Christians that most go on about forgiveness and loving your enemies?
>>70329392
Another bastardization of the meaning. Sheppards used their staves to direct their flock. They didn't use them to beat their sheep. Go to www.blessyahowah.com , should clear up a lot of this nonsense
>>70329646
>there is nothing noble about slaying your enemy.
Beta leftist
>>70329665
I'm not pretending it's not Christians that most go on about forgiveness and loving your enemies, libtards are.
>>70329842
>my interpretation of a translation of a transcription of a transcription is right and yours is wrong
Stop this. This is an argument that cannot be won.
>>70325533
Dunno, I live by it!
>>70329999
Quads confirmed. Your people are by a majority acting good towards the immigrants though, and are good Christians even if they don't believe in Christ much. In 20 years Sweden will be a city on a hill for Europe showing how acceptance and tolerance makes for a great society.
>>70330078
Okay sorry, sheep herders would use their rods to violently beat their flock
>>70330380
to warm up that sheep pussy
>>70330380
How the hell do you get sheep out of talking about children?
"He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes."
>>70331226
It is a reference to sheep herding and being a good sheppard. It means that if you don't provide your children with proper direction you will ruin them.
it's better than what ran befroe which was blood feuds between families, all jesus meant was that if someone ills you slap em back and stop there then go to confession and all is right with the world
I find that most humans are evil and don't want to pay compensation for their bad deeds. The only time the "eye for an eye" principle would be justified is when they were on the receiving end.
>>70331703
That is almost exactly what I said.
I don't understand what you are getting at here.
chesteneth : to correct by punishment or suffering : discipline.
>>70325859
/pol/ would agree with you, I would too. But the left doesn't believe in personal responsibility.
Mehmet didn't rape Sigrid, society made Mehmet rape Sigrid!
So society needs to stop making Mehmet rape Sigrid, and society is mostly made up of white males so it's their fault!
I don't think they can be reasoned with. Also how is Aland treating you?
>>70332018
With liberals it's more a guilt thing I think. They are perpetually guilty and project that guilt onto everyone like them aka whites meaning they think victims deserved it even when they did nothing.
It usually goes like this when it happens
>Take eye
>Lose eye
>Take his tooth for taking my eye
>He takes my tooth for my eye
And it goes on and on
>>70328486
>An eye for an eye may leave the whole world blind, but any other way leaves only the wicked with sight.
It just says an eye for an eye may be bad an cruel, but it's better than any alternative (everyone is on the same ground instead of the wicked having an advantage in the allegory).
>>70332214
Fuck every time I get reminded of how cultural marxist societies work in the west, it hits me right in the feels. Every tiem. The saddest part is that there's nothing you can do to rectify this as an individual.
Åland is pretty quiet. Feels like this gated, white (and maybe even a bit incestual) middle class community is the last homogenous bastion of Scandinavia.
>>70326022
actually leaves one person with one eye...and amongst the blind, the one eyed man is king
>>70332018
>most humans are evil
Not evil, just selfish.
>>70333122
I have a terrible feeling that this anon thinks he said something clever.
>>70333427
>Not evil, just selfish.
That's why communism can never work.
>>70325785
fpbp
Maybe but keep in mind
everything YOU have done.
Everything YOU have fapped to
anyone YOU have had premarital sex with
you deserve the same punishment as the people you hate most likely. And if you really claim you're spotless why are you posting anonymously on the internet.
secrecy is degenerate and prevents proper punishment
>>70325859
>A) Raped by a professional rapist enforcing the law of retaliation
Sounds reasonable
>B) Sigrid gets to chop of Mehmets dick
I'm not sure, mate
>>70334621
Pretty sure an eye for an eye requires a person to redeem their own honour to avoid a life debt, so would she not have to just rape him back?
As he neither hired a rapist nor mutialted her genitals
>>70334788
How is it an eye for an eye as he would most likely enjoy it? And why are you implying that Hammurabis Law MUST be taken literally? It's all about justice by applying the same level of punishment, ergo the same amount of physical, psychological and emotional pain to the guilty party.
>>70335388
So now just because he was born blind, he loses a nose?
It has to be exactly the same, otherwise it doesn't work, as we start making adjustements for people's position in life.
>kill
>be killed
>steal
>be stolen from
>rape
>be raped
Where in there does it talk about pain or level of punishment?
As now we would start tailoring the pain to fit the crime, and be right back where we are today, with different jail terms (psychological pain for many) for different crimes.
She has to rape him back or let it go, otherwise it is not an eye for an eye, it is an eye for a nose.
>>70335892
>rape
>be raped
I agree on that one, but she doesn't have to do the raping herself. If I get raped I don't want to rape back myself, I do want to see my rapist raped though, we should have some sort of rape executioner in that situation.
>>70325533
>Why do so many people find it so horrible?
In virtue of the principle that two wrong don't make a right, and on the basis of a rejection of vengeance as a legitimate source of justice.
When you outsource the law to an impersonal state, be it in the form of a king or a court of the people, the notion of revenge as justice loses its meaning, since the criminal is tried under the understanding that "he broke the king's peace", not that he injured any specific individual.
If you furthermore start to see crime as being the result of social processes instead of individual actions, the notion of retributive justice suddenly also loses some of its sense. Do we punish a man for those things for which he was not responsible to begin with? And so with the rise of socialist theory to we see the guilt of criminal action being shifted from the individual to the society. It is society which is guilty of its criminal and not the criminal which is responsible toward society. A good example is that of the scandinavian cuck which was raped by a Somali and felt guilty for seeing the rapist being deported, since he was only the inevitable result of its bad environment.
These people -- the cucks -- are a kind of cognitive cancer.
>>70336243
Nope, then it becomes civilised like modern society.
Has to be the same, mate. Same person, next you are going to get to pick the cock size.
The whole point of eye for an eye is it is personal, so you get the justice that the now partially blind guy thinks you deserve (blinded by rage) by doing it back to you.
Only time this can be excepted is when a person is incapable of commiting the act due to death.
I guarantee people would not have the stomach for eye for an eye, it will just create more triggered people.
Imagine actually having to rape someone anon, gun to his head, him crying. Now enjoy the legal system we have, or man up.
>>70336775
So then the girl can't get any justice because she doesn't have a dick and the arab that raped her doesn't have a vagina. That's not very insightful of you and NO it does NOT have to be exactly the same. The grade of the punishment is what has to be the same. Fuck, are you one of those people who takes everything literally? What's it called again? Oh, yeah that right - Autist. Autists can't even tell when people are being ironic because of that!
>>70336775
>>70337701
Here's an example of said Hammurabi Code (An eye for an eye)
"If a son strikes his father, his hands shall be hewn off"
If it were the same, like you said it would obviously be "If a son strikes his father, his father shall strike back".
>>70337701
Don't get mad at me nigger, this is why we moved away from eye for an eye, it doesn't help.
>grade of punishments is the same
So now you are equating gay rape to being just as punishing as straight rape? I would say it is far more so, especially for men.
I am not autistic, I just can't see why you are so convinced to can chage the core tennets of a system and still claim to abide by it.
What you want is non-rehabilitive treatment of criminals, not an eye-for-eye style system.
>>70338460
That is not the general understanding of eye for an eye, as notice how the responce was not in kind?
>>70338601
Well fuck, nigger. I don't even know any more. I just posted an example of the first actual laws based on "An eye for an eye" and you are saying "No, that's not it".
Or am I being dense as fuck and misunderstood you?
>>70338875
The law you just posted does not fit the ideology.
Holy fuck I thought it was Iceland all the time, but it is some Aland I've never heard of! We got 2 rare flags in one thread!
RARE
A
R
E
>>70339019
But it IS the ideology. It's the law written by the man who INVENTED the ideology? WAT
>>70338460
This is not an eye for an eye to me, tis some ancient sandnigger barbarity.
>>70325533
I don't think it would wrong. I've been stealing cheap stuff from megastores every now and then just for the kicks because I know that even if I got caught I would just have to pay a fine of 60 euros. There's no fucking way I'd try stealing if there was a risk of losing my fingers or arm.
>>70325533
Run, run, run
But you sure can't hide
Or turn the other cheek and be all meek like Jesus but he was a hippie and I'm not.
>>70339019
of course this guy is on mobile
>>70339019
By the way, you do realize that the picture you just posted contradicts your own interpretation of the law?
>>70334788
I think its not necessarily she who must do the rape, its either she with a strapon or professional rapist.
>>70339155
Well Babylonians were the early day sandnigs.
>>70339137
No, that is simply an example loses based on the ideology.
This is the same as everyone screaming that Stalinism IS Communism.
These ideas are simply spins off the original framework that people use to show examples of how the ideology MaY work in practice.
I argue that the set of laws you mentioned are not infact inkeeping with the ideology of an eye for an eye.
>>70339332
>penalised to a similair degree
and I am saying the only true interpretation of that which doesn't stray intk the territory of already established systems is to uphold that ideal to the letter.
>>70339458
You have a point and I see what you are trying to say, but Hammurabi did invent and put the original law to use. The spin-offs would be your literal interpretations of it. Here's another example:
> Law #196: "If a man destroy the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye. If one break a man's bone, they shall break his bone. If one destroy the eye of a freeman or break the bone of a freeman he shall pay one gold mina. If one destroy the eye of a man's slave or break a bone of a man's slave he shall pay one-half his price."[
What is this nonsense about a whole world of blind people? Only eye pokers will be one eyed, not the whole world. Do you think all the people are eye poking psychos or something?
>>70339404
Again, that removes the implicitely personal aspect of eye-for-an-eye which differentiates it from Sharia law for example.
>>70339635
No, he put the ideal into a system of laws, the same way that Karl Marx did not invent communism, as no one can "invent" a set of such vague ideals.
>>70339408
I know, thats why i called them so
>>70325533
Alright let me break it down for you historically, at least the way a lot of bible or law professionals see it
What happened before an eye for an eye, if a guy from village a raped a girl from village b
Village b probably got together and wreaked havoc on village a if they could. They probably would not stop at the rapist, they'd kill his family and who got in their way, just the whole village if they could, because fuck village a and their rapy ways.
Now da juice comes along and they think about it, it should be just ONE eye for ONE eye - although they themselves take it not so literally as to rape the rapist back. With stealing it might be easy, you pay back what you stole double, with murder - not so much. So they attribute a value in money or labour or whatever to certain crimes, the amount to be paid if apprehended.
Pretty much what EVERY country does, charge money or imprison you time x for crime y.
Literal reading of it is islam tier, so there is nothing to hate about the system - maybe about the individual charge for a certain crime though. Like what the fuck is up with florida giving out so many life in prison sentences to underage kids?
>>70339778
That argument is pretty much bulletproof, so I can't argue against it.
>>70340242
So why not embrace it?
The world would be a better place if people thought of consequences in this way. It is easy to convict a possibly innocent man when you don't need to pull the trigger.
>>70340403
>It is easy to convict a possibly innocent man when you don't need to pull the trigger.
You just described how the current judicial system works.
>>70339674
She has the choice. Sharia law isnt talion, for example if you steal they cut your hand off , thats not proportional.
>>70340568
I know, it needs to change.
>>70340624
I know, but often if talion law is upheld by a third party or carried out by a third party then it is not true talion as only the victim knows the pain they suffered.
>>70340196
The main and most important function of the judiciary is justice for the victim. But who the fuck is the victim in cases like personal drug use? A pot head smoking faggot gets caught with 5 grams of weed and has to pay a hefty fine. So the state is the victim in that case?
test
>>70329147
Literally the most blue-pilled thing I've read in months.
the law of retaliation is the only moral principle that actually matters when you boil it all down.
My ideal is:
If someone inflicts bodily harm (intentionally), he must be subjected to the same harm. The victim should have choice to do it himself or to let a professional torturer do it. The perpetrator must pay restitution enough to cure the injuries and pay all judicial and police expenses (im an ancap, so there wont be any tax money).
Frexmpl: A guy poked another guy's eye. The victim can poke the perpetrator's eye or watch the professional torturer doing so. The perpetrator must buy victim a new eye from donor or corpse or maybe robotic in the future, or perpetrator's eye must be transplanted (thats easier and cheaper). He also must pay all the expenses.
cont.
>>70340884
Nothing to do with an eye for an eye
But, the whole anti-drug business is a relatively new development anyway in comparison. Hence all the early 20th century people enjoying their cocaine in everything.
You can see where it comes from though, morphine addicts, especially medical personell and wounded from two world wars - then heroin to get the addicts off their morphium. That's quite a serious addiction, damaging your ability to function in society - which needs functioning members. The victim, apart from the dependent would be the state and everybody that needs the state, which is either no one or everyone depending on who you ask.
I don't know when weed and stuff like meth really blew out of proportion - i suppose after world war two, but the state just lumped everything together, especially in the united states.
They might have genuinely thought weed would be as bad as heroin, what do i know.
>>70340884
Drug use and prostitution called victimless crimes, the laws which criminalize them should be be repeled.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victimless_crime
>>70341534
If you are thinking future and vat grown or robotic eyes this shit really starts to matter less and less anyway. Although, getting your eye stabbed out for the old staberoo and then paying for a new eye for the victim would be double punishment, which is just stupid.
If it is the utopian future a rich person could not care less about a lost limb, and would have a dozen braindead clones at the ready to replace everything.
You'd just leave poor perpetrators in debt and eyeless - meh
>>70341534
Mehmet rapes a woman. The woman can put on a strapon and rape him or watch a professional rapist doing it. Mehmet must pay for psychologist and medicines and all the judicial expenses.
cont.
>>70326219
> Nice flag
>>70341840
>You'd just leave poor perpetrators in debt and eyeless - meh
Well, he shouldnt have poked other guys eye out. Thatll be a deterrent.
Cont:
If somebody steals/breaks property he must give back all money/pay for reparing and pay all that money second time (the first is restitution, the second - talionic punishment).
>>70338508
"I am not autistic"
SWEAR IT !
>>70342991
Got something to say you sad fuck?
Because I took a rational view to an argument?
>>70342966
Right - it seems simple and cool, but it really is not
Some guy calls your mother a whore, you break his jaw - does he get to break your jaw too, maybe after you called his mother a whore?
So maybe it was a crime of passion, but a lot of them are. If you find your wife in bed with another man, and you murder him, do you get killed too?
Where do you draw the line - when do you not judge crimes this way? This is basically why we do not have this shit anymore, because it is still so arbitrary that it becomes meaningless. Apart from the fact that i think life imprisonment without the chance for parole is more of a punishment than death anyway.
That is usually what people mean when they say "it would leave the whole world blind" - if you do it literally it is just childish
>>70343233
"Got something to say you sad fuck?
Because I took a rational view to an argument?"
>rational
>>70343399
>implying there is something wrong with rational
Correct my argument fuckface, then we can talk.
An eye for an eye is inherently paradoxical.
If you take my eye, someone takes your eye in retaliation, one of your friends then takes my friends eye and repeat ad infinitum.
It works in theory but not in practice, because even the most well meaning and well enforced retaliations degrade into throwing shit at each other in the streets.
>>70343486
>>70325533
> Why do so many people find it so horrible?
What? as far as im concerned the only thing that, TRIES, to stops someone from committing an act of revenge against another person, is the law.
>>70343621
Mad much?
>>70343574
Might want to brush up on your philosophy. If it's paradoxical and implies infinite regress, then it doesn't work in *theory*.
>>70329665
>That said, it's not hard to understand why people have issue with the principle. You harm someone. They harm you back. You harm them back.
That's not how it works.
you cannot retaliate against a retaliation.
You have no moral or ethical ground to stand on if you try to retaliate against someone who has retaliated upon you for a transgression.
That is an entirely NEW transgression.
Your argument is flawed circular logic, and is the same bullshit liberals do to stop people from defending themselves against attackers.
>>70325533
>Is there anything wrong in the principle "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"?
We use it today, it just means the damages paid should reflect the damages incurred. The Bible also lists what the body parts should be worth.
>Why do so many people find it so horrible?
They have a horrible understanding of it.
>>70334596
>implying fapping and premarital sex are morally equivalent to things like murder, theft, rape
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that I'm not as bad as the people I hate.
>>70343760
>guy states on a anonymous board that he isn't an autist
>random anon points out the sheer autism of that statement by making fun of it
>guy goes full retard mode claiming to be rational
>random anon doesn't even bother much
>guy actually expects to get attention while still on the chimp-out
>random anon makes fun of guy
>guy projects his madness
>inb4 more cheap insults and claims of superiority
3/10 made me reply
