₦airaland Forum

Share your reasons as you give your answer.

When u rape someone u have murdered d person psycologically

osazsky:
When u rape someone u have murdered d person psycologically

But rape victims can embark on a journey of healing to overcome trauma and experience small moments of joy.

A victim of murder cannot enjoy such privileges.

What say you?

Na me be OP, by the way.

How can someone with a brain even compare the both?

Nawa oh

SmallDick99:
How can someone with a brain even compare the both?

Nawa oh

You wey get brain oya tell us why they shouldn't be compared.

FiveFootNinja:
➜But rape victims can embark on a journey of healing to overcome trauma and experience small moments of joy.
➜A victim of murder cannot enjoy such privileges. What say you? Na me be OP, by the way.

According to research, most rape victims never really recover from the experience as they are haunted for the rest of their lives by the experience. With that in mind, does simply having the ability to embark on this supposed "journey of healing" really amount to much when compared to that lost as a result of the trauma?

2. A murder victim has no more journeys to embark on and no more cares. He is dead because his life was unjustly taken from him, sought of like the traumatic experience rape victims are subjected to at the point of their rape.

Kobojunkie:
According to research, most rape victims never really recover from the experience as they are haunted for the rest of their lives by the experience. With that in mind, does simply having the ability to embark on this supposed "journey of healing" really amount to much when compared to that lost as a result of the trauma?

2. A murder victim has no more journeys to embark on and no more cares. He is dead because his life was unjustly taken from him, sought of like the traumatic experience rape victims are subjected to at the point of their rape.

Since many rape victims "never really recover" from rape, and are "haunted for life", could an argument be made that some rape survivors would have been better off murdered than rape?

If the answer is yes, how do we possibly justify making that heavy judgment on anyone's behalf, apart from their own?

FiveFootNinja:
✓ Since many rape victims "never really recover" from rape, and are "haunted for life", could an argument be made that some rape survivors would have been better off murdered than rape?
If the answer is yes, how do we possibly justify making that heavy judgment on anyone's behalf, apart from their own?

Who are you to make any judgement on them though?

Kobojunkie:
Who are you to make any judgement on them though?

Who said anything about making judgements ON them?

I just asked a simple question that follows from your very own words. Since according to you, rape victims never really recover, does this make murder a better option than rape? If no, why? If yes, then what gives you the right to make that decision on behalf of the victim?

It's a simple question.

FiveFootNinja:
✓ Who said anything about making judgements ON them?
I just asked a simple question that follows from your very own words. Since according to you, rape victims never really recover, does this make murder a better option than rape? If no, why? If yes, then what gives you the right to make that decision on behalf of the victim?
It's a simple question.

Your question does not follow from any of what I said in previous comment though. The claim that they never really recover does not come from me but from admissions made by so many of them who have come out to speak of the mental torment of life after the experience. Rape victims walk around like the living dead among us. Who am I or you to pronounce judgment of any kind on them particularly when we cannot boast of walking a mile or two moons in their shoes or moccasins? 🤔

Kobojunkie:
Your question does not follow from any of what I said in previous comment though. The claim that they never really recover does not come from me but from admissions made by so many of them who have come out to speak of the mental torment of life after the experience. Rape victims walk around like the living dead among us. Who am I or you to pronounce judgment of any kind on them particularly when we cannot boast of walking a mile or two moons in their shoes or moccasins? 🤔

What's funny about your response is that you wish to respect survivors' experiences, and yet somehow you've gone ahead and reduced them to the "living dead among us", thereby denying them the dignity of their respective journeys. We can acknowledge both the devastation of sexual trauma and the human capacity to reclaim meaning afterwards. Two things can be true at the same time. The real judgement being made here is you seemingly consigning survivors to a philosophical grave.

The point of my question, since you missed it so carelessly, was to scrutinize the logical endpoint of your statement that rape victims NEVER recover. If we accept your absolutist framing of trauma as creating irrecoverable damage, then we'll be creating a hierarchy where death might seem more preferable than living with this trauma.

That is the exact point I wanted to challenge: the subtle implication in your argument that a traumatized life has less value categorically, than a life that simply ends.

On the issue of rape vs murder, everyone has their own answers. If you think one is worse than the other, I'm interested to hear your reasons why. But ultimately, what I'm trying to figure out here is why society treats these violations differently, as I've shown with the example in my other thread comparing the GTA franchise with that weird "No Mercy" game.

If you say we cannot speak about experiences we haven't personally had, then we really don't have the right to speak on most subjects of ethical discourse. I'm assuming by your worldview, murder should never be discussed, since none of us have ever been murdered.

FiveFootNinja:
✓ What's funny about your response is that you wish to respect survivors' experiences, and yet somehow you've gone ahead and reduced them to the "living dead among us", thereby denying them the dignity of their respective journeys. We can acknowledge both the devastation of sexual trauma and the human capacity to reclaim meaning afterwards. Two things can be true at the same time. The real judgement being made here is you seemingly consigning survivors to a philosophical grave. ...

1. That description did not come from my person but from interviews of rape victims. I simply borrowed a phrase used by some of them to describe what living with that burden is like for them.

Death will happen to us all but rape won't. Acknowledging their pain and trauma is how you gain understanding of their pain and maybe the knowledge to compare it to anything else.

Kobojunkie:
1. That description did not come from my person but from interviews of rape victims. I simply borrowed a phrase used by some of them to describe what living with that burden is like for them.

Death will happen to us all but rape won't. Acknowledging their pain and trauma is how you gain understanding of their pain and maybe the knowledge to compare it to anything else.

Not bad. Although this is actually a very solid argument for why murder is such a profound and sinister violation. If death is a final destination in a journey, and rape is a derailment, murder can be described as an outright termination of that journey.

And I'm particularly interested to hear your thoughts on the meta ethics of it all. For instance, in the way both rape and murder are portrayed in the media.

What do you think it reveals about our society that some violations are normalized in entertainment (murder) while others remain taboo (rape)? Is there really any framework of ethics that can justify why a traumatized life may have more value than "no life", or vice versa?

FiveFootNinja:
✓ Not bad. Although this is actually a very solid argument for why murder is such a profound and sinister violation. If death is a final destination in a journey, and rape is a derailment, murder can be described as an outright termination of that journey.
And I'm particularly interested to hear your thoughts on the meta ethics of it all. For instance, in the way both rape and murder are portrayed in the media.
What do you think it reveals about our society that some violations are normalized in entertainment (murder) while others remain taboo (rape)? Is there really any framework of ethics that can justify why a traumatized life may have more value than "no life", or vice versa?

It all means absolutely nothing given humans have always had to condone that depraved aspects of their being that does its most to attempt providing justification for some of the most absurd whenever it suits them; the very same cry bloody murder when they become victims.

Kobojunkie:
It all means absolutely nothing given humans have always had to condone that depraved aspects of their being that does its most to attempt providing justification for some of the most absurd whenever it suits them; the very same cry bloody murder when they become victims.

If it all means absolutely nothing, then the trauma experiences you've been emphasizing lose all their ethical weight as well. That would be a stunning volte face, don't you think?

FiveFootNinja:
✓ If it all means absolutely nothing, then the trauma experiences you've been emphasizing lose all their ethical weight as well. That would be a stunning volte face, don't you think?

Are you certain you are able to clearly comprehend responses at all? My response is to the question you posed. How does that relate to the trauma experienced by rape victims including the families of murde victims? 😩😩😩😩

Kobojunkie:
Are you certain you are able to clearly comprehend responses at all? My response is to the question you posed. How does that relate to the trauma experienced by rape victims including the families of murde victims? 😩😩😩😩

I think you have a problem following logical implications. I'm only addressing your response by questioning if moral relativism serves either group of victims properly in establishing ethical boundaries.

Let me lay it out for you point by point.

1. My question was centered on why society treats virtual representations of rape and murder differently in entertainment.

2. You said that humans justify depravity when it is convenient, but "cry bloody murder when they become victims".

3. Based on your answer in number 2, if all moral boundaries are just manifestations of self-serving hypocrisy, then it means that the distinct trauma being experienced by survivors of rape versus the trauma experienced by families of murder victims becomes irrelevant to how we should treat these acts in virtual spaces like in TV, video games etc.

FiveFootNinja:
I think you have a problem following logical implications. I'm only addressing your response by questioning if moral relativism serves either group of victims properly in establishing ethical boundaries.
Let me lay it out for you point by point.
1. My question was centered on why society treats virtual representations of rape and murder differently in entertainment.
2. You said that humans justify depravity when it is convenient, but "cry bloody murder when they become victims".
3. Based on your answer in number 2, if all moral boundaries are just manifestations of self-serving hypocrisy, then it means that the distinct trauma being experienced by survivors of rape versus the trauma experienced by families of murder victims becomes irrelevant to how we should treat these acts in virtual spaces like in TV, video games etc.

You don't pay attention well, do you?

FiveFootNinja:
What do you think it reveals about our society that some violations are normalized in entertainment (murder) while others remain taboo (rape)? Is there any framework of ethics that can justify why a traumatized life may have more value than "no life", or vice versa?

And my response to your ask is ... .

It all means absolutely nothing given humans have always had to condone the depraved aspects of their being that do their most to attempt justifying some of the most absurd whenever it suits them; the very same cry bloody murder when they become victims.

I don't get where you get this "all moral boundaries are just manifestations of self-serving hypocrisy" idea of yours from. 🤨🤨🤨🤨🤨🤨🤨

Kobojunkie:
You don't pay attention well, do you? And my response to your ask is ... . I don't get where you get this "all moral boundaries are just manifestations of self-serving hypocrisy" idea of yours from. 🤨🤨🤨🤨🤨🤨🤨

I see. I got carried away thinking you were teetering towards moral relativism. My bad then.

So you're basically saying that these boundaries in entertainment are NOT based on careful ethical consideration but cultural habit, convenience, psychological distance, and a myriad of other possible reasons.

Does this represent what you're saying better?

FiveFootNinja:
➜I see. I got carried away thinking you were teetering towards moral relativism. My bad then.
So you're basically saying that these boundaries in entertainment are NOT based on careful ethical consideration but cultural habit, convenience, psychological distance, and a myriad of other possible reasons.
Does this represent what you're saying better?

Sure!

There was a time in history when different cultures taught it was cool to watch public beheadings and executions. That quickly went out of fashion when those watching realized that there was nothing much keeping their heads from being next on the chopping block. Suffice to say, we no longer find those entertaining now, do we?. 😑😑😑😑

I have never read or heard of a serial killer or murderer ecstatic at the fact of his becoming a target of another murderer or serial killer; even those whose lives are ruled by depravity do not love becoming victims of their depravity.

Kobojunkie:
Sure!

There was a time in history when different cultures taught it was cool to watch public beheadings and executions. That quickly went out of fashion when those watching realized that there was nothing much keeping their heads from being next on the chopping block. Suffice to say, we no longer find those entertaining now, do we?. 😑😑😑😑

I have never read or heard of a serial killer or murderer ecstatic at the fact of his becoming a target of another murderer or serial killer; even those whose lives are ruled by depravity do not love becoming victims of their depravity.

That's a great example with the guillotines and public executions. But these patterns haven't fully extended to our virtual violence, have they?

I believe we've managed to maintain some psychological distance with murder when it comes to games like GTA, partly because death remains abstract until imminent. Or because we've managed to convince ourselves that it is unlikely to happen to us.

I guess the question now is if our moral outrage is selectively calibrated to protect us from confronting what feels personally threatening to us, instead of those things that can actually cause real harm to us?

Because if that's the case, we might really have to re-examine the authenticity of our ethical frameworks.

Lol. I don't understand why this topic appears to be ban bait. Plenty people don chop ban on top this topic.

If anyone is commenting, please try not to use vulgar words or words that might seem too offensive or sexual. Maybe na wetin dey set the bot off.

To the people who got banned because of my topic abeg no vex. Make we just dey manage the bot like that. 🤧