1. Welcome to the forums! Take a second to look at our Beginner's Guide. It contains the information necessary for you to have an easier experience here.

    Thanks and have fun. -NF staff
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Forum Skin Contest:

    Let us know if you’re participating or would like to participate in a forum wide skin contest. If so, please give us your opinions here.

    Dismiss Notice

Do u believe in "eye for an eye"??

Discussion in 'Perspectives' started by Tsubaki_No_Mai, Nov 9, 2005.

eye for an eye??

  1. yes

    23 vote(s)
    45.1%
  2. no

    28 vote(s)
    54.9%
  1. Tsubaki_No_Mai Taijutsu, Korean-Style

    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    just as the question states. i for one do not believe this as a good way to punish someone. basically for two reasons.
    1. i highly doubt that the criminal would care if u killed them the way they killed the victim.

    2. u are just being as bad as them by commiting the crime that u have accused them of..... no let me say that differently. ur being worse. u are commiting the crime that u know is wrong. i highly doubt that the criminal is going to be like " hmmm.. mayb i shouldnt do this cuz i know its wrong, aw well."

    for those that dont know.
    eye for an eye means that u deal the exact same damage that they deal to the other (correct me if im wrong). for example is they ripped a guys arm off, u would rip their arms off.
     
    Tags:
  2. TDM Toast

    Messages:
    6,844
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Definitely not.
     
  3. Ah B Member

    Messages:
    699
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Are you talking about capital punishment (I think that's what it's called)? I don't know what "Eye for an eye" means, unless you mean it literally..
     
  4. Tsubaki_No_Mai Taijutsu, Korean-Style

    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    if u check my first post i tell u what it means

    no. that is just killing them. basically by putting them to sleep and killing them or lethal injections. what im talking bout is giving them the same "punishment" that they gave to the victim. example is stated in my first post.
     
  5. sensaike Teacher, Master, God-like...

    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Man if somebody does something to you u have the right to pay him back tenfold. Hell go crazy and show the mf by destroying/killing everything he cares for!!!

    Everybody chooses what they do (except in some circumstances) but criminal are not different. They have no right to say ?oops sorry I?m a criminal I don?t know better?

    Also, they would care if you kill them the same or worse then how they killed a victim. Trust me they would while begging you for mercy.

    Let me ask you something. wouldn?t you get revenge on somebody if he took the most important thing/person you care the most for? If you had the chance wouldn?t you? Or would you just let him go away/ maybe let then go to jail?

    Some people are not going to be sentimental to you, you shouldn?t be to them either. I?m not saying everybody is going to be like that, but you should know went to close the line!

    Exactly!!!
     
  6. uncle jafuncle sustenance proxy

    Messages:
    1,592
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2005
    No, I believe in "three-fold return" meaning you take one of my eyes and I take both of yours and one from your spouse.
     
  7. Tsubaki_No_Mai Taijutsu, Korean-Style

    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    yea i would want revenge but not by killing the same that they killed my important person. to me thats basically doing a "sin" (i guess) to that important person. u know its wrong and u do it anyway. that makes no sense to me
     
  8. sensaike Teacher, Master, God-like...

    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Is revenge is doesn?t have to feel good or make sense. Therefore you must know what it means and no just say "I want revenge" with out understanding it. I never said It would be easy therefore u must want it, no just say it. Revenge is not suppose to feel good/better after doing it. You will feel worse even in most cases. is revenge for yourself not for them. is never for them. they're dead nothing you can do about it, nothing to it.
     
  9. Negative-Ion Life is BRUTAL!!

    Messages:
    2,376
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2005
    "An eye for an eye" doesnt mean that if someone broke your leg, you should break his leg too. Even tho it started that way millenia back, when king Solomon ruled.

    Now it just means that if someone hurts you, you can hurt him too, by whatever means and hurt him in whatever way possible.

    And yes, if someone hurt me for no reason, then i want to be the one to hurt them, just so they can feel the pain.

    Capital punishment can be considered as "an eye for an eye" deal.
     
  10. SaitouBatch New Member

    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2004
    What a stupid, barbaric form of "justice". It's just a form of childish selfishness. The only thing it accomplishes is making the person who was wronged feel better. It doesn't accomplish anything for society or other people as a whole, its only just from the point of view of the one person exacting the revenge, and people cannot just decide what is just themselves(or at least act upon what they decide is just). If its ok to commit a crime in retribution just because it makes YOU feel better, then how can you say it is not justified for the original criminal to do what he did, since it probably made him feel better? And once you committ that crime against him, he has just been wronged by you, so what keeps him from being justified in doing something back? It would just keep going back and forth until everyone is dead. If you try to justify your desire to commit wrong-doings with the fact that someone else did it to you first, then you are using the logic and reasoning of a child.
     
  11. Haruka modkop

    Messages:
    7,663
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Let me guess, You just read the book Whirligig by Paul Flaniggan correct?
    Yes, I do believe an eye for an eye. It's better than restitution.
     
  12. darkspark Man, I love my work...

    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2005
    i'd say no, but i've never really been faced with that sort of situation. seen under a different light, i might change my mind.
    but for the meantime, no.
     
  13. Uchiha_Sin .+:*Itasasuphile*:+.

    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2005
    Well... I'd like to say no, it's not right. But if I was in a situation where someone I love was murdered, I would be wishing all kinds of death on the murderer.
     
  14. martryn Dick in hand

    Messages:
    30,976
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    1,432
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2005
    Well, I support punishment in any form for any of the higher crimes. I'm all for public executions and the gallows and whipping someone and the death penalty. If someone wrongs me, one, I'd want them to understand they can't do that and if that means wronging them back, then fuck yes! Two, if not eye for an eye, then what? Let people get away with things? Let people walk all over you?
     
  15. mandron Screaming baby eater

    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    If they deserve it yes. And by deserve I mean... It was on purpose and they knew what they were doing. For example: brother throws out my palmpilot. I punch him in the face. That's perfectly okay. (hehehe...) But if for example his key chain necklace thingymabobber (no clue what they're called) somehow got latched onto my palmpilot and it got thrown out, no harm done, because everyone likes screwing Future Shop over :D As for capital punishment... It's not a question of ethics... It's more a question of 'can we afford to feed these bastards for the rest of their lives?' Yes it's cruel. But hey, they deserve it, and the government saves money. They're killing two criminals with one stone!

    Edit: Also what martryn said ^^
     
  16. Tsubaki_No_Mai Taijutsu, Korean-Style

    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    i am not saying that the revenge itself is to make sense. im saying that the method of revenge is not making any sense. most of the time revenge is used to let that pain of loss go. they think "i have all this anger and hate towards this person, lets see how he feels if i kill him the exact same way as he did my loved one." killing that criminal doesnt bring that person back. i would kill him for the pain. also to revenge that person but i wont use their method to kill him/her. besides most people DO revenge for their loved ones

    lets just go with this

    if u are asking me, no.

    it says in the title EYE FOR AN EYE. in my definition this does not count as eye for an eye

    let them go to jail. eye for an eye is used for revenge (mostly) not for self defense.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2005
  17. diglossiablues No really, it's this big.

    Messages:
    494
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2005
    Sure, I believe in an an eye for an eye. It was good enough for Hammurabi, so it's good enough for me. Let's promote ID (ignorant drivel) too, and fear, war, oppression, crass grammatical errors and hate. Man, the dark ages sure were fun! Let's go back!

    ...now let's go find us some heathens. :laugh
     
  18. Near Seeker of Truth

    Messages:
    1,095
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Not really. It doesnt mean I wouldnt retaliate either though. Lets say someone kills my family, I am not going to go out and kill his. My conflict is with that person, not the family. Its all about clearly stating boundries through actions. You might find that barbaric or primitive, but so is the assumption that you are better than that person because you think differently. There are certian situations that need to be experienced for you to make a truthiful judgement on whether you would engage in that sort of thing, as of right now your state of mind is clear, unaffected. In those situations its unavoidable to remain that way, or you would not be human. I believe this would be one of those situations.
     
  19. Wing-Zero Whoa!!!

    Messages:
    1,518
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    i am not completely sure but in the Koran i thin it says an eye for an eye but if u do not seek revenge and forgive u are rewarded in heaven *something like that*
     
  20. neko-sennin AKA shadesmaclean

    Messages:
    9,042
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    392
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    The amazing part is that "an eye for an eye" was originally a LIMIT on revenge, often attributed to King Hamurabi(sp?) of Babylon. In ancient times, if you murdered a man, their familiy would often come and slaughter your entire family-- possibly even your whole CLAN-- as revenge.

    Personally, I don't believe in Eye For An Eye. It just leaves everybody blind. I think there's more of a future in the "Let the Punishment Fit the Crime" approach.

     
  21. Mousowi Member

    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Joined:
    May 15, 2005
    Well, first off that?s not eye for an eye, if it were you would kill said persons family. Eye for an eye means you do to them what they do to you.

    What that is however is exactly how our criminal law systems works.

    Also:

    Yeah, like I said law system.


    Actually, no that?s not barbaric, that?s snobbish and elitist but not barbaric. And as stated what you said previously isn?t eye for an eye, it is in fact the way our judicial system works. So no I don?t find it barbaric.

    A couple years ago, two family members of mine were brutally murdered. One was pregnant. And I was mad, I honestly hate the person who did it, I felt horrible and helpless. But I still wouldn?t do and don?t believe in what your trying to say.

    Yes it is. People do it everyday. Instead of taking matters into their own hands they call the police.

    Again, this is wrong. People around the world suffer this and they do not go crazy or take the law into their own hands, they go to the authorities instead.
     
  22. Chamcham Trigger 光翼型近接支援残酷戦闘機“エヴァッカニア・ドゥーム

    Messages:
    54,191
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    1,657
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2005
    An eye for an eye makes nothing right. That's one thing that is something that is hard to disprove, but that doesn't disprove the fact that it doesn't make things even. Let's just put it in literal terms so that people can understand what I mean. Now you go and you yank my eye out right. Now I have one eye and I am prone to infection in the eye or if that's not a problem let's consider the fact that I'm missing an eye. Now if you don't believe in this eye for an eye thing, then you are just saying that if someone yanks your eye out then it'd be wrong for you to yank his eye out thus leveling the playing field.

    People have created some counter arguement to an eye for an eye by saying that it makes the world go blind. I see 3 major flaws to this attitude.
    1. It is saying that the agressor should just live with the advantage while the victim is left in pain and permanently damaged with no reperations.
    2. Who is to say that after you get your revenge that the other person has the right to strike again? If you take my eye out and I take yours out then we're even. Once you strike again, then you're in the wrong again and I'd just have to strike back again. This is where the whole world blind part comes in. I say that if everyone's blind then it's better than if agressors can see while the poor blind people are victims of the time and have to just stand there bleeding and saying that they'd be wrong to strike back for the wrong that was committed to them. What kinda way to live is that?
    3. Most people (but not all I guess) who say this line lie down and think that Karma or god or whatever spookism is gonna make everything better for them. Now I find this one hypocritical. You mean to tell me that if someone does something wrong to you, then you should just leave it alone because you know that later down the line something bad will happen to him/her? If that's the case, then all you're doing is playing the cowards role and you're still on a destructive path because of the fact that you're waiting for something bad to happen down the line. Who knows how long i'd take and who knows if it'd have anything to do with Karma or anything like that in the first place? You'd just basically be ther, eyeless and in pain while waiting for something bad to happen to the person with your eye living it up. You'd be stewing in your own hate slowly but surely while in pain until you'd snap and even if something happens to the person, then you'd just be as petty because the wanting for hurt for another person would still be in you. It's just that you'd be cowardly and want someone else to do it so that you can feel righteous when you wouldn't be.

    I say that life is unequal as it is, so we shouldn't tolerate it when people try to make it even more imbalanced, and if I have to give up my life to try to create a sense of balance in this world, then I'm willing to do so because I'd rather die for balance, than to live as a victim talking about how cruel the world is.
     
  23. Mousowi Member

    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Joined:
    May 15, 2005
    Who said there wouldn?t be repercussions? I said to just let the law or authorities handle it. The person who did it will be damaged; they?ll be put in jail for what they?ve done. Lose years on the outside, meaning they?ll have to start all over again once they get out, and they?ll have what they?ve done to you on there record. So they will be damaged not in the same way, but it?s still something they?ll have to deal with for the rest of their lives.

    Okay, I?m not really sure what your getting at on this one, but it sounds to me like your saying the only way to punish some one is ?an eye for an eye?. But again that?s what the law is for. The aggressor is not let off scotch free to wander around repeating his actions. He?s punished, he has his freedom taken away, and is forced to carry the burden of his actions around with him for the rest of this life. This guy is a violent offender, and will have to tell every employer what he?s done. And the victims are not just left lying in the streets helpless saying they?ve been wronged as you say.

    I don?t consider the police and government to be some kind of spookism, as you put it. And I don?t believe calling the police when some harms you in a way that breaks the law. (If what they did to you was not against the law then I don?t care what you do as long as you don?t break the law.)

    Okay, now here?s where I really disagree, first I don?t think that way, and second that?s not hypocritical, in fact being hypocritical in this instance would be ?eye for an eye? because for you to do it you must have felt they wronged you in some way i.e. what they did to you was wrong, but in doing the same thing to them you are now wrong as well, your equal now but your also equally wrong. Making you a hypocrite for calling them on their bad deeds while doing the same yourself.
    Also wishing bad things on some one is not hypocritical it?s petty and/or vindictive but not hypocritical.

    First, I addressed this previously, you wouldn?t just be sitting there in anger with no way of getting vindication, and you would call the police and have them put in jail. Having the police handle things for you is not something I would call cowardly.

    Also I feel that people who feel the need to retaliate to every little slight against their person are themselves rather petty and vindictive. If I?m walking down the street and someone purposefully scuffs my brand new shoes I?m not going to follow them around the block trying to do the same, and I fail to see how that?s cowardly.
     
  24. Gunners .

    Messages:
    47,360
    Likes Received:
    645
    Trophy Points:
    1,908
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2005
    No i dont if someone takes my eye im taking both of his.

    rember this '' an eye for an eye , the world will soon be blind''

    But yeh i agree with it, it is hard to turn the other cheek.
     
  25. Chamcham Trigger 光翼型近接支援残酷戦闘機“エヴァッカニア・ドゥーム

    Messages:
    54,191
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    1,657
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2005
    Well for one thing, I wasn't responding to what you said, but besides that, whose to say that the law will always work? When I'm talking about an eye for an eye, I'm talking about through all time periods and all nations. There were times when there wasn't law. When there wasn't law, what was the victim supposed to do? Not only that, but going to the authorities is just another way of revenge, but it's just that justice is being used as a synonym in this case. Thus when you go to the authorities it's an eye for an eye. The proof is that people say that when you do an eye for an eye, the person who get's revenge will only be creating a cycle of "I get you and you get me back". When you go to the authorities, and IF that person gets his just deserts, a lot of times, this person will harbor hatred towards the person. I'm not saying that they'll always be able to get you back, but most of the time, they would get you back if they had the chance and are wishing bad things upon you, thus making "justice" a synonymous situation for an eye for an eye.


    I guess the above thing I posted would be applied here as well.



    Again you miss my point a bit. I'm not talking about the time period of today only, I'm addressing multiple periods of time. Plus when you call the authorities, you're getting revenge/Justice, it's synonymous. Thus after that is all said and done, the cycle of eye for an eye are put back up again. Calling authorities is basically doing an eye for an eye. When I use the word spookism, I'm refering to when people think things like karma or whatever force will come back to them in another form. More like applying to people that think more on terms of mysticism and stuff. I'm not applying spookism to literal terms. Sorry if I made it seem that way, but that's not what I meant.



    Why do you keep thinking that I directed this at you? I used very general terms to address a very general audience which may or may not apply to you. Why would you think that it's directed at you? You already made it clear that you'd use the law against the perpetrator thus getting justice done. Plus if you are calling the authorities on someone because you think they've wronged you, then you're causing harm back to them by calling the cops and having years of their life taken away from them plus the threat of death always lurks in jail, so if I'm being hypocritical, then you're being hypocritical as well. You're causing harm to the person that harmed you when you call the cops don't you? Just because it's through another means doesn't mean that you're not harming the other person



    I guess if you're still reading this redundancy I'm writing then you already know that, I already know that using the law is not cowardly, but is a means of an eye for an eye. What I consider cowardly are people who sit there and do nothing. Calling the law is an action, meaning that you're doing something for revenge. What I say is cowardly are people that do nothing and think that guilt or whatever is gonna affect the agressor. I hope we're clear on that one, plus I hope you know that I wans't even addressing you when I typed this post.

    When did I say that I would retaliate to people making mistakes? I'm talking about agressors. This point is invalid and only serves to put an emotion in my argument that I wasn't even trying to convey. There's a difference between a mistake and someone being an agressor. If someone accidentally stepped on my feet or hit me or anything like that, then I'd just keep moving on, even if the person didn't say sorry, I don't need apologies, I already knew it was a mistake. If someone purposfully steps on my shoes or hits me or mushes me, then I don't see what's wrong in addressing the manner. I don't have to get revenge by hitting him, I can get my revenge by addressing the manner and deducing why s/he did the thing to me. From there it's just the persons manner that will determine where it goes from there.

    In closing, I don't even know why you think I was addressing this towards you (that is if you did think such a thing). I also would like to say that you missed the fact that I wasn't only talking about the here and now. I also believe that calling the athorities is using the eye for an eye method for the above stated reasons because you are actively getting revenge/justice done on the person, by causing harm. Finally I an mot vindictive nor petty enough to act on every little thing that's done to me. I don't even know why you would put that there to try and make me look like some mean person.

    EDIT: Ohhh that's why you thought that I was addressing you. Sorry I didn't see your post above mine. Well to clear things up, I wasn't posting based off of your post so don't think I was calling you a coward or anything. I was only addressing people that only use wishful thinking and are blah blah blah. You already know what I mean in the above arguement since I was redundant.:laugh
     
  26. neko-sennin AKA shadesmaclean

    Messages:
    9,042
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    392
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    Only those who know what it's like to desire vengeance enough to act, who have felt so much hatred and malice toward someone who's harmed them that it feels like you have bettery acid flowing through your veins, to the point that your rage phsyically HURTS, know how much of a LIMIT "Eye For An Eye" really was when it was first established.

    In the end, though, it really is nothing more than a limit on revenge (as I stated above), but is at best a draconian deterrent in lawless times. It has never brought any long-term remedy to injustice or human suffering.

     
  27. Mousowi Member

    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Joined:
    May 15, 2005
    The victim could do whatever they wanted since there wasn?t any law. But by following 'eye for an eye' the victim also creates another victim. Also if you truly follow history and human nature you?ll find that we always have technically had laws. In every society we do have a system of social codes. When people would break those codes the public would punish them.

    It is revenge but it?s also about protection, to keep that person from committing other crimes. Eye for an eye does not do that eye for an eye creates a cycle of violence, that?s doomed to repeat itself. Also not all revenge is 'eye for an eye'.

    No it?s not. ?Eye for an eye? is doing to someone what they have done to you. ?Eye for and eye? would be if some one kills the one you love, you kill the one they love. ?Eye for an eye? is not if someone kills the one you love, you have the person arrested and sent to jail, that is simply crime and punishment.

    As explained previously the judicial system is not 'eye for an eye', they do not punish the person who wronged you by doing the same thing to him/her.

    Aslo it is less likely that a cycle of violence will continue in the legal system/social code (in the social code system people like that would be closely watched, and they would protect the community as a whole from that person) then in ?eye for an eye?. In the legal system you have protection from the person, that person also is usually closely watched. You have none of these things in ?eye for an eye?. Also I don?t see how doing to the person what they did to you will cause them to harbor less hatred for you on their part. So I don?t see any of the things stated as a positive for ?eye for an eye? and a negative for the judicial system, that isn?t the same for the other.

    The above would apply here.

    I?m sorry for misinterpreting.

    I did not assume it was directed at me, I merely used my self to clear some things up, and make it known that I am not one of those people who believe in a spookism as you put it.

    Actually I?m not. Eye for an eye is:

    Punishment in which an offender suffers what the victim has suffered.



    Exodus:

    ?Thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.?

    Not you took out my eye, I will have you put in jail.

    I believe I?ve already answered this.

    I don?t think that?s cowardly, at best I believe it?s petty or vindictive, which is the same way I feel when people chose to get revenge/justice for every perceived slight against there person. And if the person chooses to move on with their life and not allow that persons negativity to effect them then I call that taking the high road.

    I?m not sure what your talking about now. The scuff as I stated was done on purpose. And I wasn?t addressing you, I like to use examples to get my point across.

    This point is not invalid because it was not a mistake; it was done so purposefully, not by accident, I?m sorry if I did not make myself clear.

    See this is where are beliefs differ; I would not feel that confrontation is worth it. I would more then likely assume this person just wants attention, which I would refuse to give them by ignoring that person.

    I didn?t. I?m sorry looking back at it, it did seem that way. My first sentence was meant to question where you got the idea that there would be no repercussions if you do not go with ?eye for an eye?.

    I believe I?ve addressed all of these points previously.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2005
  28. Chamcham Trigger 光翼型近接支援残酷戦闘機“エヴァッカニア・ドゥーム

    Messages:
    54,191
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    1,657
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2005
    This is starting to get a little redundant since we keep on saying the same thing over and over, and that's why I don't really like going into apples and oranges situations like these. I'll try to keep it short this time because It's kinda tough going quote for quote especially when we know where the other person's coming from.

    When we are using the "eye for an eye" theory, rule whatever you want to think of it as, we don't use it in a literal sense. When the bible quote you used, was being used they didn't literally mean that if you took out someone's hand, then the other person's hand would be taken off. It was a figure of speech, meaning if you harm me, then I'm gonna harm you back. An example of this would be in middle eastern countries (a long time ago, I don't know if they still do this). If you were to steal, then you'd get your hand cut off. This rule was taken as an interpretation of an eye for an eye, but the person didn't directly steal the guy's goods back, he'd just get retribution in an alternate way. When someone in this modern day or even a long time ago, called the local authorities, they weren't doing so just to protect everyone else. They were doing so because they were wronged and they wanted justice for themselves. They wanted revenge, but in a way that they wouldn't get in trouble for.

    Now I think we're misunderstanding eachother when we're talking about eachother's views of an eye for an eye. For one thing, an eye for an eye is only appliccable when the revenge or retribution gotten is equal to the crime committed on him/herself. Yes I'm sure that it'd create a cycle of revenge because I've made a victim of the person, but only because I was a victim myself. When I call the law, then I'm making the person a victim of the circumstance of the law gettin gone this person. You may see the law as not being an eye for an eye, but when you think of certain justice systems, they try to make the punishment proportional to the crime s/he's committed, thus an eye for an eye is being acted upon. The very fact that many systems are based off of the "eye for an eye" principle must show that the law is just another medium for an eye for an eye. Also, it doesn't help stop the cycle either. Once that person is out of jail, then he's probably gonna be pissed. If the case is murder, then the grudge may be held off to the next generation. The law is just a safer means of the eye for an eye system. If you really don't believe me then just read this:
    It's an essay comparing the "eye for an eye" system to the law and how they used this system in it. It also shows how the law would also use it irrationally in some cases.

    In the end this is an apples and oranges issue. One person may think that this system is good while the other doesn't. The fact is that neither person is right. All I'll say is that if I invoke the eye for an eye system, then I know that a cycle may continue on and on, but whose to say that I won't be a repeated victim if I don't use it. I know many people who get picked on repeatedly only to stop getting picked on when they stand up for themselves and sometimes when doing that, the agressor becomes the "victim". Using the authorities doesn't stop this cycle in the least bit, and I hope we can agree, using the above article, that the law is a derrivative of "an eye for an eye". If you don't believe me, then meh I guess there's nothing that can be done about that.
     
  29. C?k --------

    Messages:
    18,558
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2005
    i can relate to the first part, i need revenge, i dont like people harming me, or any of my family or freinds, if they hurt them i hurt them ten times harder, coz they gotta learn a lesson :amuse
     
  30. sasukecopyninja In The Midst of Your Angst

    Messages:
    4,279
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2005
    "an eye for an eye woudl leave the whoel world blind" - Gahndi(SP)

    with that said I have to disagree, but really ppl, its not a litteral term, it's just a figure of speach, and I really doubt anyone here really would say yes cause they'd be lieing...
     
Loading...