I was having a debate with my zone partner (QUESTION INSIDE)
 

And we were arguing about rape.

The proposed question was “should a woman’s rapist be pardoned if she decides to keep the baby and tell the baby about their father once he/she’s old enough.”

I said yes because if love works in mysterious ways.

He said no because it doesn’t change the fact that a rape occurred.


What do you think?

@DMS here’s a philosophical question for you to answer

no problem my guy. This seems pretty fucking simple tbh. Actions should be punished according to the action. the poor decision by the mother doesn't change what he did, and he's still a possible threat to society. he probably won't be a good father or husband, so there's no reason to pardon him on the child's behalf. This argument doesn't make sense from a utilitarian view or a Kantian view.

Ok, so if the woman said no no don’t take him I want to be with him (stock Holmes syndrome)

That's exactly what it is ^^^.

The question is: Did she publicly drag him before pardoning him?

I'll interpret this as a question.


Whether you want him or not doesn't change whether he's husband material or if he did a moral evil. still a public threat, whether those threatened recognize it as so. Like I said, neither Kantian nor utilitarian rules work here.

So if it were a drug dealer

that's honestly even worse from a deterrence view, since they're more likely to repeat the offense if pardoned.

I agree with this: "it doesn’t change the fact that a rape occurred." How people deal with rape afterwards is extremely different from person to person. If they find solace in the fact that they want to bring the baby to the world, let them, but also punish the dude for what he did. People deal with hardship in tons of different ways, to say one way to deal with it is correct but another isn't is just fucked up from an empathetic standpoint.

To not punish the rapist gives off the notion that it's ok as long as they keep the baby and that's not cool whatsoever, specially when it can take time before the victim even realize they're pregnant. Loss of period can happen due to stress so it's not weird to not have it for a while after a rape even if they're not pregnant either. So this would create a weird twist and another really difficult obstacle if it goes to court and it's too late for an abortion. It can also take time before a victim is ready to go through the ordeals of courtrooms too. In order to not make that process even more difficult we need to be hard on people that takes advantage of people weaker than them for their own egotistical needs and wants.

I don't understand why this is even a question that needs to be explained/answered tbh, lol.

Fucking dead @ "Stock Holmes Syndrome"

jesus

Can we talk about stock holmes sin drone now plz?

This guy gets it

I think the wp was stalk homes syndrome it works both ways

If they agree to be neutered they can go free. Other wise bubba gonna get a crack at ya butt cherry. End of story. Elect me as universal dictator and I’ll get this shit on the books.

Tbh I think this is zelph trying to get us to believe he's a cop by planting it in our subconscious as a small detail here while we we're too focused on 'lol retard rape is bad'

But it’s not bad if she keeps the kid, right?

its not murder amiright

It’s like the opposite of murder actually

I’ma waiting for you guys to see the bigger picture here,
Orc almost had it