Can people at least agree Jessie was justified.. (spoiler)

What the heck are you talking about? Go back and read my replies very slowly this time. They talk about breaking agreements between people.

If you want a Cleveland Steamer or a Hot Lunch, look elsewhere.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

wow bing-57, you truly seem to be sick in the head.

Comparing a rape to lunch in a restaurant....can't say I've heard that one before.

Have you been turned down by women quite a lot in your life?

> Comparing a rape to lunch in a restaurant....can't say I've heard that one before.

That wasn't the point. The point is people making agreements and then breaking them. Since you don't quite understand that point, I must assume that you are a habitual agreement breaker. You get what you want and then you are outta there.

> Have you been turned down by women quite a lot in your life?

Not even close. Try again.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

"Have you been turned down by women quite a lot in your life?
Not even close. Try again."

Well here's a try...

Bing-57 doesn't get turned down because he doesn't ask girls out, he has them become "contractually obligated."

(I know I shouldn't keep feeding the troll, but I can't resist...)

> Bing-57 doesn't get turned down because he doesn't ask girls out, he has them become "contractually obligated."

Actually, if you read your history books, you'll find that for the first tens of thousands of years of civilization, women were sold to men under contract. It's only in the last couple hundred years that that has changed. Look up the word "dowry" sometime.

In any case, you are still way off. Nice try, though.

> (I know I shouldn't keep feeding the troll, but I can't resist...)

If you think I am a troll, you must not get out very much and have no idea what an internet troll really is.

I am just pointing out the reality of the situation and many people simply don't want to hear it. If a woman goes into the wilderness in a strange country with a strange man and then agrees to sexual contact with him and then suddenly tries to back out at the last minute, she's gonna get raped and killed.

That's a fact that no amount of touchy-feely woman power is going to change no matter how many people wish and pray that it wasn't true.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

I just wanted to say that your posts are some of the craziest things I have ever read on the internet. I am legitimately disturbed. You should probably invest in some psychiatric counseling.

Good movie, though.

> I just wanted to say that your posts are some of the craziest things I have ever read on the internet. I am legitimately disturbed.

Thank you. You should be disturbed. This is the way real life is and it is not very pretty. It is very easy to sit in your comfy chair at home and pretend that life is fair and that everyone does the right thing all the time.

But the fact is that reality is rather ugly and most people never even notice how disturbing it really is.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

This is absolutely not the way real life is. I don't know why I'm even going to bother, but if I can prevent a handful of rapes I guess it's worth it:

Women have sex because they enjoy it, not to pay you back for feeding them. They can actually get their own food. The point of a date is not an exchange of food for sexual favors.

Now, in the future, you can cap off a date with a simple kiss goodnight, rather than demanding that she either pleasure you or pay for half of dinner. This slight alteration can improve your chances of getting a second date. With time, you might come to realize that women are actually people. You might even meet one that wants to have sex with you. For free!

However, I understand this might be a little complicated. For your purposes, you might want to familiarize yourself with the concept of prostitution. You can actually skip the middleman of buying dinner, and instead exchange money directly for sex. You also whittle away some of the uncertainty of whether your "investment" will pay off.

Pick one of those two options, but either way, you're going to have to stop treating normal social encounters as "sexual contracts." This will spare any of the future women you date that awkward moment when you tell her what you expect in return for dinner, and, if this movie taught us anything, it can spare you from having your head bashed in with a plank of wood in the Russian wilderness.

Cheers!

> Women have sex because they enjoy it, not to pay you back for feeding them.

A few women, yes. Every man wishes that far more women would have sex just for the fun of it. But the reality of the world is that most women don't want to have as much sex as most men. And while dinner and a movie doesn't guarantee that the woman will have sex, that does create an imbalance of favors. Both parties realize that. If you don't believe that, you are quite naive.

> you can cap off a date with a simple kiss goodnight, rather than demanding that she either pleasure you or pay for half of dinner.

It's never like that. But you know that, don't you? The agreement is a lot more subtle than that.

> This slight alteration can improve your chances of getting a second date. With time, you might come to realize that women are actually people. You might even meet one that wants to have sex with you. For free!

So, this scenario looks like you are saying that the woman should be the sole determiner of if, when, and where the couple is going to have sex. And the man should just meekly pay for everything until the day the woman decides that the man had paid enough and she can dole out a little loving.

That's not "free" by anyone's definition. That's prostitution.

> You can actually skip the middleman of buying dinner, and instead exchange money directly for sex.

That does speed up the process quite a bit, that's true. But the concept you describe in the previous paragraph is still the same; the man pays in cash and the woman pays in booty.

> if this movie taught us anything, it can spare you from having your head bashed in with a plank of wood in the Russian wilderness.

Again, you are not seeing the real world with those rose-colored glasses on. In the real world, far more women get their heads smashed in for refusing sex than men get killed for trying to force sex on the woman.

If the movie was anything close to being a true story, the woman would be the dead one.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

Man, you're still going at it! I love how you refute everything people have to say except the implications that you are a bitter little misogynistic virgin who lacks the ability interact, not to mention actually engage in a relationship with a woman. If you spent less time trolling in your mom's basement you may eventually meet, and even speak with an actual woman.

Now please copy each point I made, place an arrow in front of them, and contradict it.

> I love how you refute everything people have to say except the implications that you are a bitter little misogynistic virgin who lacks the ability interact, not to mention actually engage in a relationship with a woman.

Correct. I respond to ideas not insults.

There is no point in responding to insults since the other person knows darn well they made them up out of thin air and they wouldn't believe you anyway when you deny them.

But I do know that when people on the internet resort to insults, they have run out of ideas in the main discussion.

And since you can only think to repeat your insults, I can safely assume that we are done here.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

[deleted]

> Yet I doubt that you told her up front what exactly she was agreeing to.

Fair enough. If she is actually mentally challenged, as you seem to think, she may not understand that it is normal when one party pays for the date that they get to call the shots later in the evening. In that case, the woman's caretaker pays for her meal and everybody walks away.

But seriously, do you know any women that have never heard of the idea that a man will expect a little loving if he pays $50 or so for her to have a nice evening out?

> Now if you told that woman that you are going to take her out on a date and that at the end of the date she is to have sex with you or get raped, I seriously doubt that any woman in her right mind would agree to that condition.

You've never heard of a prostitute or an escort? Okay, things are falling into place now. You seem like you've never come into contact with the real world.

> contrary to your opinion, not all men think they deserve sex at the end of a date or would even expect it. It's a little thing called being a gentleman, something you know absolutely nothing about.

Heh. You are so very wrong. Yes, all men *DO* think they deserve sex at the end of every date. However, most of them most of the time don't press the issue and go home unsatisfied. They seem to hope that maybe next time, if they give her more expensive things and beg enough, she'll give in.

> You make all men seem like rapists and they are not.

Deep inside, yes they are. Just like everyone really is a murderer and criminal. But the vast majority of people don't act on their criminal impulses for fear of the consequences.

> You say that it is a FACT that if a woman goes out into the wilderness with a strange man and agrees to sex but backs out of it with the man that she will be raped. Um no that is not a fact you idiot!

Have you actually put your charmingly innocent hypothesis to the test? Do you not read the papers and see that women do get raped all the time when they knowingly put themselves in compromising situations (usually with alcohol)?

> That is called a *beep* up sexist viewpoint.

Reality very often is *beep* up, yes.

> I can only wonder how many women you've actually raped

Yup, all you can do is wonder and imagine the worst things possible about me. People often do demonize other people that they disagree with. It makes them feel that their own opinion must be the only right one.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

[deleted]

> I'm not talking about prostitutes here dumbass, that's a totally different thing. I'm talking about regular women who you go out on a DATE with

Is it really all that different? At least the prostitute is honest about the transaction. With a date you spend all the money first and then it is her choice whether you've spent enough.

> And not all women expect or even want the man to pay for the date.

Where are these women?

> When I go out on dates with men I just meet I pay for myself.

You are in a very small minority. Ask among your girlfriends whether this is common.

> so *beep* you. Now go get some help. You're really pissing me off

Actually, you seem to be the unstable one in this discussion. You don't see me hysterically swearing at other people and demanding that they seek professional help just because they disagree with me.

> I think you just need to say that all men are rapists to make yourself feel justified because you are in fact a rapist!

That, my friend, is libel and you and IMDB can be sued for writing that. Do you have any actual proof that I am a rapist or are you just knowingly making false statements because it makes you feel more secure in your rose-colored view of the world?

If you respect the law you will please retract your false and baseless statement.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

">> I think you just need to say that all men are rapists to make yourself feel justified because you are in fact a rapist!

>That, my friend, is libel and you and IMDB can be sued for writing that. Do you have any actual proof that I am a rapist or are you just knowingly making false statements because it makes you feel more secure in your rose-colored view of the world?"

Well, you just said that all men are, "deep inside":

">> You make all men seem like rapists and they are not.

>Deep inside, yes they are. Just like everyone really is a murderer and criminal. But the vast majority of people don't act on their criminal impulses for fear of the consequences."

I.e. you said that I, as a man, am a rapist "deep inside". Are you a rapist "deep inside", with the law being the only thing that keeps you from doing it? I assume when you said "all men", you had to be speaking for yourself too (and really, you are the only one you can speak for).

I haven't actually heard such statements since the heydays of Political Correctness and radical feminism on college campuses in the 90s, and I recognized it for the bunk that it was then too. I have no desire to rape, my dick doesn't get hard at the prospect of rape, and if the woman doesn't want it then neither do I (I might be disappointed that she doesn't want it, but that's life sometimes--but I have no desire to actually go forward with it once that's indicated).

"Deep inside, yes they [all men] are [rapists]. Just like everyone really is a murderer and criminal. But the vast majority of people don't act on their criminal impulses for fear of the consequences."

Yep, sociopaths do tend to think that everyone has their tendencies--or at least they tell themselves that to "justify" themselves. Nothing new to see here.

I don't murder or rape, not because I'm afraid of getting caught, but because my conscience would revolt against it, because I wouldn't want the same done unto me (you know, the golden rule and all that), and so I have some empathy for victims of same, or those threatened with same. You do understand what a conscience and empathy are, I hope.

And you have heard the saying that the measure of a person is what they'd do if they knew no one would discover their actions, right? Not doing wrong simply because you're afraid of punishment is a pretty weak moral foundation--that of a child, really--whereas not doing wrong because it is wrong means you've matured morally. And more people than you'd probably think really do operate in that latter way--it's just the ones who don't that we have to watch our backs from.

Guess what? I am a man, I don't expect sex on the first date but like a little challenge in that regard (if the woman is too easy that can be off-putting to me too), and I'm a bit of an old-fashioned gentleman romantic myself. The point of a date, for me, isn't the prospect (or "contractual" condition) of sex at the end, but of getting to know a potentially interesting person and seeing if I do want to get to know her further (and have a relationship that would include sex--which is important, sure--but wouldn't be all about the sex). I'll admit that in my 20s it was more about sex, but I've grown up some since then (but even in my 20s I didn't see dates as some quid-pro-quo "contract"--talk about killing the mood if that's even implied). If I offer to pay for the date (and I haven't, always), it's simply a gift--no strings attached (a real act of giving never has strings attached).

Oh and, what exactly did Carlos pay for? Their bus trip (probably amounting to pennies in that part of the world)? Some cheap snack they may have gotten from a street vendor in town? It's not even remotely analogous to "but she ordered the lobster", is it.

> I don't murder or rape, not because I'm afraid of getting caught, but because my conscience would revolt against it,

That's very easy to say sitting in front of your computer in a nice comfy home, sipping on a Starbucks.

But when you are put under duress, you will murder without hesitation to protect yourself or your family. And you justify it by calling is self-defense or protecting others.

> And you have heard the saying that the measure of a person is what they'd do if they knew no one would discover their actions, right?

Correct. And this is why mythical, all-powerful beings like Santa Claus and God were invented. They watch you all the time -- even when no other humans can see you -- and keep track of whether you are naughty and nice. So, if you believe in a magical being, you believe that there is never a point when you are not being watched. This keeps you from ever daring to act on your basic impulses.

And thus, you can then tell yourself that you are a good person and would never do any of those things even if no one was watching.

> seeing if I do want to get to know her further (and have a relationship that would include sex--which is important, sure--but wouldn't be all about the sex).

So then, your ultimate goal really is sex. But for your own amusement, you just don't want it to be too easy. But you do want it and expect it eventually, just like all men.

Suppose by your third date you really begin to like her but she says, "Just so you know, I have taken a life-long vow of celibacy. But I do enjoy all the dinners and jewelry you've bought me and the time we spend together." Do you see a long-time relationship for you?

> Oh and, what exactly did Carlos pay for? Their bus trip (probably amounting to pennies in that part of the world)? Some cheap snack they may have gotten from a street vendor in town?

The bottom line is still that she willingly accepted his invitation to go away with him into the woods for a few hours. Even the dimmest woman should realize what is implied and expected from her. If she had the slightest doubt about the situation she should have said, "No," right at the start.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

">> I don't murder or rape, not because I'm afraid of getting caught, but because my conscience would revolt against it,

">That's very easy to say sitting in front of your computer in a nice comfy home, sipping on a Starbucks.

But when you are put under duress, you will murder without hesitation to protect yourself or your family. And you justify it by calling is self-defense or protecting others."

Killing in self-defense or defense of another isn't murder, duh. I said "murder". And most people get that there is a significant moral distinction between self-defensive killing and murder. But yes, people have hesitated even in those situations, or if they did kill in that situation have been haunted by it. War veterans have been haunted by killing in wars, which can sometimes be a muddier situation but is generally not regarded as "murder", and certainly not if the people you kill were shooting at you. Most people don't take the act of killing lightly regardless of the circumstances.

And I don't drink five-bucks-a-cup coffee, so whatever.

">> And you have heard the saying that the measure of a person is what they'd do if they knew no one would discover their actions, right?

>Correct. And this is why mythical, all-powerful beings like Santa Claus and God were invented. They watch you all the time -- even when no other humans can see you -- and keep track of whether you are naughty and nice. So, if you believe in a magical being, you believe that there is never a point when you are not being watched. This keeps you from ever daring to act on your basic impulses."

I believe in God, yes, so thanks for the condescension. But I've known plenty of atheists who have a conscience as well that can trouble them when they do wrong, and who have a strong moral center. The scientific version (which I also believe to be true): The conscience evolved in humans and became part of the species' survival strategy--i.e. it made small tribes and later "civilization" possible, through psychologically inhibiting socially-counterproductive acts such as murder, rape, theft, etc. that break down social cohesion. Yes people with consciences sometimes violate them, but they pay a psychological penalty for it even if they don't receive a physical punishment. And sometimes those psychological penalties--"feeling horrible" about what you've done, for a long long time--can be worse than punishment from the outside--I've experienced such feeling myself, for far less than murder or rape. Have you ever? But most people never even consider doing the most heinous stuff, such as murder or rape. They don't want to be monsters, they want to sleep well at night, etc. But an estimated 4% of the population are sociopaths (which includes the more violent subset, "psychopaths"), one of their psychological characteristics being that they lack a conscience, and thus have no inner inhibition from doing wrong--only an outer one, through laws and punishment (if the wrong is illegal) or social ostracism (although they can be very careful to avoid these, using charm, manipulation, calculation, and stealth in their dealings with others).

Bottom line? While I do have faith (which is not the same as certainty--that's the opposite of faith) in God, I know of one person who is always "watching" me--and that's myself. I see what I do, and it matters to me that I be a good person and not do horrible things. I want to always be able to like myself, and live with myself and my actions. There is always at least one person watching you: yourself. If you can't grasp this concept and what it means, then there's really nothing further to say.

">So then, your ultimate goal really is sex. But for your own amusement, you just don't want it to be too easy. But you do want it and expect it eventually, just like all men."

Wanting and expecting are two different things, except to those who feel entitled to all they want (and usually those folks are never satisfied with life, because as Mick Jagger said, "you can't always get what you want"). That's a life lesson I learned pretty early, as a child in fact.

And sex is a goal, sure. But not the only one.

>Suppose by your third date you really begin to like her but she says, "Just so you know, I have taken a life-long vow of celibacy. But I do enjoy all the dinners and jewelry you've bought me and the time we spend together." Do you see a long-time relationship for you?"

Well, no (although if we still enjoy each others' company, she can be a friend and we can still talk and do things together as such). Just as I wouldn't if it turned out her personality didn't jive well with mine. Just as I wouldn't if I found out she was an alcoholic (and was still drinking) or had another type of drug addiction. Just as I wouldn't if I sensed we would never also have a true friendship, and that I couldn't stand her company outside the bedroom. There are many factors, many, that go into whether a relationship is workable for me, besides sex or the quality thereof. Sex you can get anywhere--you can even pay a hooker if you're desperate or lazy, or find the type of gold-digger you can bribe for such favors, as you've described (and tell yourself all dates are about, for all men). But a good relationship? Those are much harder to find, much harder to develop and work on, but with much better and more lasting rewards.

">The bottom line is still that she willingly accepted his invitation to go away with him into the woods for a few hours. Even the dimmest woman should realize what is implied and expected from her. If she had the slightest doubt about the situation she should have said, "No," right at the start."

Yes, it is implied in the movie that she was tempted at the prospect of sex with him. But she was also a married woman, and in the end she decided to do the right thing and not cheat on her husband, who had been very good to her and was a good man who certainly didn't deserve to have that done to him. Have you ever been tempted to do a bad thing, have been about to go through with it, and then at the last minute decided not to? Ever been morally conflicted like that? I have, plenty of times. We're human. Why are you condemning Jessie for deciding to do the right thing (not cheat) at the end? Isn't it better that she overcame her temptation and didn't cheat (even if she was almost going to), than if she succumbed to the temptation and did cheat?

Of course, what happened after that, when he tried to force the issue, is debatable. She was justified in using some force to defend herself, but once he was down and unable to attack, the extra blows were arguably murder.

"> You say that it is a FACT that if a woman goes out into the wilderness with a strange man and agrees to sex but backs out of it with the man that she will be raped. Um no that is not a fact you idiot!

Have you actually put your charmingly innocent hypothesis to the test? Do you not read the papers and see that women do get raped all the time when they knowingly put themselves in compromising situations (usually with alcohol)?"

Well duh, there are people out there who do things that are morally wrong, like rape. Your posts seem to be defending such people though. Jessie may not have been the sharpest tool in the shed, but that certainly doesn't justify her getting raped, now does it. One person's stupidity or bad judgment doesn't justify another's wrong action, or taking advantage of that stupidity or bad judgment to do a wrong to that person. (As for what she did in response though, I do agree with many here that the last blows, after he was down, were over the top. Self-defense merely means stopping an attack, and ideally should go no further than that.)

And yes, plenty of men will take "no" for an answer, even in those situations. I would and have. It's not like sex is something I'd die for lack of, like water. And it's not like sex with a person barely coherent (i.e. drunked up) would even be fun for me, but I suppose your mileage may vary. I like sex with women who are fully aware of what they're doing, and want it, myself. (I like 'em better on top, actually!) The word "no" (especially cried emphatically, as Jessie did), anywhere in the chain of events, really does kill the mood for me. I get off on the woman wanting it as much as I do, and being able to satisfy that want effectively.

> Killing in self-defense or defense of another isn't murder, duh.

Murder is defined as one human killing another human. Period. Stop. That doesn't change no matter how much that you wish and hope that it does.

Now, what does change is whether or not your religion or your society will try to punish you for committing that murder. Society has long ago established certain conditions under which murder is justified and acceptable. Your example of self defense is one such acceptable circumstance. A soldier killing an enemy combatant is another example. The executioner that pulls the switch for the condemned man is also exempted from prosecution.

But murder is still murder and each case of murder comes down to the priest, the District Attorney, and the judge deciding whether the killing was justified or not.

Note that different societies have different levels of justification. In ancient Mayan society, a priest was justified in performing human sacrifices but in modern US society, that would not be justified.

> most people get that there is a significant moral distinction between self-defensive killing and murder.

The only difference is whether you can justify the killing or not. And you know what the funny thing is? Just a few messages ago you said that only psychopaths try to justify murder and now here you are doing it. What can we conclude from that?

> But I've known plenty of atheists who have a conscience as well that can trouble them when they do wrong, and who have a strong moral center.

Agreed. But not everyone is like that and that's why religion was invented. That keeps the people in line who might be tempted to give in to their basic impulses. With a magical being watching you all the time and condemning you to Hell if you do anything bad, people tend to behave themselves.

Religion is not for the good people who always do the right thing anyway; that's why your moral friend is an atheist. And religion is not for the bad people who always do the wrong thing.

Religion is for those people in those middle who aren't strong enough to always do good things and who would do bad things if they thought they could get away with them. Imploring them to go to church every week and constantly recite the basic commandments reminds them to not do the bad things they naturally want to do.

> And sometimes those psychological penalties--"feeling horrible" about what you've done, for a long long time--can be worse than punishment from the outside--I've experienced such feeling myself, for far less than murder or rape. Have you ever?

Sure. All the time. I'm probably more moral than most people. But I am also a scientist and a practical person. I see what people do and then, instead of ignoring them, I attempt to figure out why these people do them. Then I try to have effective and honest discussions about it. I am not the kind of person that just wishes and hopes and prays that the world's problems will go away.

So, in this movie, for example, the guy was looking for a little sex on the side and asked a good-looking woman to go away with him. She accepted his invitation. He then became angry when she changed her mind and changed the agreement.

I have never said that he was justified in doing that or that he was moral. I have always simply explained why he did that and said that that's the way the world works.

I also explained that the women is very much to blame for this situation for agreeing to go with him and then suddenly changing her mind and expecting that there would be no consequences. It's as if she seriously expected him to say, "Oh. You changed your mind? That's okay. Let me pay for your trip back to the train station."

That's like jumping off a cliff and then changing your mind halfway down. Sorry, but it's way too late for that. The time for changing your mind was a long, long time ago.

> Well, no

Exactly. So, the only difference between you and Carlos is time. Carlos took the girl out on a quick date and wanted sex in return right then. You take a woman on many dates and want sex in return after a while. Carlos is willing to take sex if it is not offered while you would simply break off the relationship if sex is not offered.

> Yes, it is implied in the movie that she was tempted at the prospect of sex with him. But she was also a married woman, and in the end she decided to do the right thing and not cheat on her husband,

Alas, many things in life cannot be stopped once you initiate them, like pulling a trigger or jumping off a building or signing a contract or agreeing to take your friend to the airport. If you try to stop these things there will be consequences to pay.

Jessie tried to stop her agreement with Carlos and there were consequences to pay.

> Have you ever been tempted to do a bad thing, have been about to go through with it, and then at the last minute decided not to?

Sure. All the time. But, depending on how far along I am, I know that there will be consequences to pay even if I stop.

> Why are you condemning Jessie for deciding to do the right thing (not cheat) at the end?

Morally, she made the right choice not to cheat. What I object to is her unwillingness to pay the consequences for changing her mind. And what made things even worse is that, in the end, she was rewarded for it with a big bag of money.

That's like hiring someone to paint your house, changing your mind after the job is done, not paying the guy, and then being given a gold medal.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

">Murder is defined as one human killing another human. Period. Stop. That doesn't change no matter how much that you wish and hope that it does."

Maybe you want to check the dictionary before smugly spouting off things you don't know. According to Merriam-Webster's (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder):

'mur-der (noun)

1. : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

2a : something very difficult or dangerous <the traffic was murder> b : something outrageous or blameworthy <getting away with murder>

(emphasis mine)

The first definition is what I was using, and neither of these definitions is how you defined it above. Language has the purpose of conveying specific meanings that are generally agreed upon by the speakers of that language. I.e. you don't get to make up any meaning you choose for a word, and substitute that for the actual established meaning of a word--that is intellectually dishonest, and you just wasted a bit of my time having to look up and cite something that you probably should have looked up yourself before attempting your argument.

">The only difference is whether you can justify the killing or not. And you know what the funny thing is? Just a few messages ago you said that only psychopaths try to justify murder and now here you are doing it. What can we conclude from that?"

Oh you think you're just too clever by half, don't you. Please cite the quote that conveys the meaning that only psychopaths try to justify murder. This may be the quote you were thinking of (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0800241/board/thread/134743692?d=196986551&p=2#196986551):

"Yep, sociopaths do tend to think that everyone has their tendencies--or at least they tell themselves that to "justify" themselves. Nothing new to see here."

I.e. I specifically was referring to what is commonly called "projection": ascribing flaws or undesireable traits you know you have onto others, in attempt to justify those traits in yourself. Note that this isn't referring to all types of self-justification, just that one. Nor did I say that only sociopaths/psychopaths use even this one type of self-justification, but it can be one marker of them, among other markers. I don't think you are a sociopath (just bitter about your past experiences, and much more cynical than even I can be) after seeing more of your posts and discussing this more with you, but I'll admit I did wonder before with the "all men are rapists, deep inside" comment (along with some other comments that seem to indicate you think of women, or their bodies, as property to be bought). Basically with that, you admitted you were a "rapist, deep inside"--a concept that is entirely foreign to me, but again you can only speak for yourself, and I presume you were there ;) .

The justification for self-defense comes from the inalienable right (referred to in the US Declaration of Independence, but also fairly self-evident and I believe, universal whether recognized by governments or not) to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Especially "life" in this case (but also recognized for other dangerous threats to liberty, such as attempted rape, or abduction/kidnapping). If one's life is threatened, it is one's right to remove that threat with the required amount of force, even up to deadly force if needed (or the only means available). It is the initiator of the force, i.e. the attacker, that has broken the social contract where we mutually recognize each others' right to life--and as you've said here often, breaking contracts carries consequences.

">Agreed. But not everyone is like that and that's why religion was invented. That keeps the people in line who might be tempted to give in to their basic impulses. With a magical being watching you all the time and condemning you to Hell if you do anything bad, people tend to behave themselves.

>Religion is not for the good people who always do the right thing anyway; that's why your moral friend is an atheist. And religion is not for the bad people who always do the wrong thing.

>Religion is for those people in those middle who aren't strong enough to always do good things and who would do bad things if they thought they could get away with them. Imploring them to go to church every week and constantly recite the basic commandments reminds them to not do the bad things they naturally want to do."

There are indeed some religious people whose practice is centered around precisely what you speak of: fear of hell. To me that's missing the point of a spiritual relationship with God though. For me, it is what helped me put my life, and who I am, in perspective (hard to explain for those who haven't gone through the process, but essentially that's what it's been for me).

I was an atheist once myself (or probably more accurately, agnostic, but didn't care much about the God question either way), but still had sharp reservations against doing wrong to others that had nothing to do with fear of external punishments like "hell" or the law. I actually don't think there is a "hell" now either, at least the way the concept is commonly presented--I do believe we can create our own hells though, as I've done before. I generally believe that what goes around, comes around--I've observed and experienced this as well. But most of all, I have an acute sense of empathy--I hate to see others suffer, and I certainly do not want to be the cause of that suffering. And I also recognize that it is up to me, and all of us, to continually create the kind of world we want to live in: if we want to see and enjoy a world with less suffering and more compassion, it can only begin with what we do (the only ones we have any real control over are ourselves). And I think "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" is pretty universal, recognized by most people of all faiths or none (if not always practiced--we do slip up sometimes).

">> Yes, it is implied in the movie that she was tempted at the prospect of sex with him. But she was also a married woman, and in the end she decided to do the right thing and not cheat on her husband,

>Alas, many things in life cannot be stopped once you initiate them, like pulling a trigger or jumping off a building or signing a contract or agreeing to take your friend to the airport. If you try to stop these things there will be consequences to pay."

So basically you're saying that once Jessie caused Carlos to get a hard-on with the possibility of sex, it can't be turned off and he must go through with it. I have actually been in a similar situation as Carlos, where the girl led me to think we'd have sex and then changed her mind. I lived with it--didn't like it, but I certainly wasn't going to force the issue. I really do think most guys wouldn't rape in that situation, which is why there was genuine surprise and horror on Jessie's face when it dawned on her that Carlos was about to try. Up to that point, I think Jessie thought he was an average, somewhat decent guy, if a bit on the wild side--he was charming enough, and even the smartest among us can be fooled by the charms of a sociopath (which I think Carlos was). IIRC, I think she even apologized to him for backing out--with most guys that should be enough. Most guys would still be angry or disappointed, but would probably just curse and walk away in disgust.

And okay, you said you weren't saying what Carlos did was justified. But you're focusing all your energy on condemning Jessie here, as if what she did (prior to killing him) was worse. I tend to like putting things in perspective, and treating things proportionally, and to me what Carlos attempted to do was far worse than Jessie's indecisiveness. So why devote all these pages to condemning Jessie, when Carlos was worse? Unless you think Jessie's weakness in coming to a correct decision in a timely manner, really is a worse wrong than Carlos' attempted rape.

And I am one that does forgive acts of stupidity (after giving some criticism perhaps, but still). I've done stupid things, people I love have done stupid things, but forgiveness of such, and other wrongs, is one of those social lubricants that help make cooperative civilization possible. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"--i.e. if no one forgave anyone, we'd probably all be dead as a race by now after tearing each other apart. So yeah, Jessie was weak in her faithfulness to her husband and started down a foolish road, which in most cases she would still be able to turn back from--but not that one. But while Jessie bears responsibility for her mistake, so does Carlos for his subsequent actions. And I'd say the latter trumps the former, in terms of magnitude.

">Morally, she made the right choice not to cheat. What I object to is her unwillingness to pay the consequences for changing her mind. And what made things even worse is that, in the end, she was rewarded for it with a big bag of money."

Huh? Carlos' girlfriend Abby is the one who recovered the money, after she got out of the hospital. Jessie merely told her where it (and Carlos' body) was. There is no indication that I recall that she'd get a cut of it later, either.

And "paying the consequences" meant "cheating on her husband". So you'd rather a good man like her husband, who had nothing to do with what happened (other than missing the train), get cuckolded so that she duly "pays her consequences", than be spared the cuckolding by her not. The very best face you can paint on that is, that she committed one "sin" (not "paying her consequences") in order to avoid committing another (adultery). And I think the latter is a worse wrong (especially against a man who deserved it far less), so I'm glad she chose the lesser one.

">That's like hiring someone to paint your house, changing your mind after the job is done, not paying the guy, and then being given a gold medal."

Okay, what exactly in the movie situation equates with "the job is done" (the guy painting your house)? The bus trip? We don't even know if Carlos paid for hers, and if he did it probably amounted to pennies (or hundredths of Euros, whatever those are called). And while there was sexual tension between them, and sexual intent might be read into her agreeing to go with him to see that church, remember that Jessie was a photographer and so she could very plausibly have been motivated mainly by having a good subject for photography. She did have a day to kill waiting for her husband, in a town that looked fairly boring to hang out in.

And what she actually said basically was that if they'd known each other before she was married (i.e. "back in the day" as I think she put it), she'd have done him. I actually told a woman once that "if I wasn't taken, I would" when she offered sex, and I'm pretty sure she understood it to mean exactly that, respected my monogamy, and dropped the matter. So there was no good reason Carlos shouldn't have taken her words at face value either. "Contracts" (stated or implied) don't mean you get to put words in another's mouth that add to or contradict what they actually said.

> The first definition is what I was using, and neither of these definitions is how you defined it above.

You may recall that I did go on to say that any murder had to be judged by a priest or judge to determine whether it was allowed under whatever laws govern the situation.

> Oh you think you're just too clever by half, don't you.

Yes. Because you are spending a lot of time justifying killing another human while condemning others who justify their own killings. I mean, c'mon, you just wrote another twenty paragraphs on your justifications.

> I have an acute sense of empathy--I hate to see others suffer, and I certainly do not want to be the cause of that suffering.

So then it seems that you have not become religious for yourself, since you seem comfortable with your own character, but rather you have joined religion to teach other people to be empathetic. And where better to find people who need that kind of help but a church?

> So basically you're saying that once Jessie caused Carlos to get a hard-on with the possibility of sex, it can't be turned off and he must go through with it.

No. I am saying that if she leads him on and then slams on the brakes, there will be consequences to pay, just as we saw in the movie. One of the ways out of her predicament is to relent to having sex with him. That should be quick and easy and might be fun.

Or she could opt for the hard consequences, which she actually did. That would involve a lot of screaming and fighting and bloodshed.

She seemed to hope that she could get out of her agreement with no consequence at all. That may work sometimes in America but it certainly won't work with a random stranger out in the middle of nowhere in a lawless country.

> I lived with it--didn't like it, but I certainly wasn't going to force the issue.

But at some level I'm sure that you considered it.

> I really do think most guys wouldn't rape in that situation

In America, in a nice civilized town, that's quite true. But this wasn't America; this was a country where everyone lived and survived by taking whatever they wanted by force.

> which is why there was genuine surprise and horror on Jessie's face when it dawned on her that Carlos was about to try.

Right. Up until that point in her life Jessie had been told that everybody is equal and that everybody must respect other people just because they exist. She was living in a fantasy world where everyone automatically had empathy for everyone else and she never had to face someone who didn't think that way.

> Up to that point, I think Jessie thought he was an average, somewhat decent guy, if a bit on the wild side

More specifically, she thought that he was just like all the soft American guys that she's met in her life and she could completely control the situation by using the magic word, "No." As you even note, many girls do lead a guy to think they will be having sex and then slam on the brakes at the last moment and simply expect that the guy will just walk away.

> he was charming enough, and even the smartest among us can be fooled by the charms of a sociopath (which I think Carlos was).

But he wasn't a sociopath, at least for the area of the world he lived in. Everyone used force or charm to get whatever they wanted or needed. Those that didn't, died.

> But you're focusing all your energy on condemning Jessie here, as if what she did (prior to killing him) was worse.

Well, she was the trigger to this whole situation. Carlos was just a letch looking to hit on a woman. Had Jessie said, "No," at the train station, he would have moved on to the next hot babe and this would have been a very short movie. But she lead him on, apparently confidently thinking that she could stop things at any time without consequence. It never occurred to her that once Carlos had invested a little time in her that he'd want something in return.

> Unless you think Jessie's weakness in coming to a correct decision in a timely manner, really is a worse wrong than Carlos' attempted rape.

In a way, yes. If you dangle meat in front of a hungry tiger and then you get your hand bitten off, I'm going to blame you for being stupid. I'm not going to blame the tiger for doing what tigers do.

> But while Jessie bears responsibility for her mistake, so does Carlos for his subsequent actions. And I'd say the latter trumps the former, in terms of magnitude.

Yes and no. While Carlos seems reprehensible to us while we sit in our comfy homes in America, for the part of the world he lived in, he was par for the course. You wouldn't go to a native tribe in South America and expect them to act like (United States) Americans.

And the bottom line is that everyone is responsible for their own safety. Jessie disregarded her safety and went off on an adventure with a strange man.

> Huh? Carlos' girlfriend Abby is the one who recovered the money

Sorry. It's been a long time since I've seen the movie.

> So you'd rather a good man like her husband, who had nothing to do with what happened (other than missing the train), get cuckolded so that she duly "pays her consequences", than be spared the cuckolding by her not.

Her husband was already cuckolded at the moment when she agreed to leave the station with Carlos. You don't go on a date with another man, whether or not it ends up with sex.

> The very best face you can paint on that is, that she committed one "sin" (not "paying her consequences") in order to avoid committing another (adultery).

That is true. By leaving with Carlos she pretty much guaranteed that something bad was going to happen. At minimum, if she's lucky, she goes for a nice walk with Carlos and has cheated on her husband emotionally. Any other outcome is worse than that, from willingly having sex, to rape, to kidnapping, to death.

> And what she actually said basically was that if they'd known each other before she was married (i.e. "back in the day" as I think she put it), she'd have done him.

Does anyone actually say that without suggesting the possibility that it could still happen? The correct response, if you really aren't interested, is, "No thank you, I'm not interested."

> I actually told a woman once that "if I wasn't taken, I would" when she offered sex, and I'm pretty sure she understood it to mean exactly that, respected my monogamy, and dropped the matter.

Heh, heh. I seriously doubt that she dropped the matter. You basically told her that you'd do her if the right situation comes up (for example, if you weren't taken). She has not forgotten that and is biding her time waiting for a chance.

When someone tells you that there is a chance, people will try to make that chance happen.

Don't believe me? Call her up and say that you are having troubles with your partner and that you'd like to see her tonight. She'll be on your doorstep within five minutes.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

Comparing a rape to lunch in a restaurant....can't say I've heard that one before.