Because people are justifying abuse when it’s very rarely, if ever, justified.
One person’s actions don’t justify your abusive actions regardless of how hurt you are.
Cheaters make terrible decisions that hurt their partners. I’m not defending that. But that’s independent of these revenge fantasies you all are coming up with for her.
She was punished by the courts as was he for their separate actions.
So if someone raped my daughter, you would defend that rapist from me trying to break every bone in their body?
If yes, something is deeply wrong with you.
If not, then we agree that sometimes consequences beyond what the law prescribes are appropriate. We just disagree where the line is, and it makes your reasoning pretty hollow.
How is it a false equivalence? One person broke a rule and might receive legal consequences, and the act certainly merits something more severe than that. Do you not think the legal consequences are not enough in that case? Because following your logic here, you would defend that rapist.
Again the only difference is where you draw the line, and that defeats the moral purity of your terrible argument. Abusers deserve the abuse they receive. End of fucking story.
Sure sounds to me like you are defending that rapists “rights” rather than subject them to a punishment they richly deserve. I think there would be a lot fewer rapists in the world if we made sure we actually made sure their actions had appropriate consequences.
Because people are justifying abuse when it’s very rarely, if ever, justified.
One person’s actions don’t justify your abusive actions regardless of how hurt you are.
Cheaters make terrible decisions that hurt their partners. I’m not defending that. But that’s independent of these revenge fantasies you all are coming up with for her.
She was punished by the courts as was he for their separate actions.
So if someone raped my daughter, you would defend that rapist from me trying to break every bone in their body?
If yes, something is deeply wrong with you.
If not, then we agree that sometimes consequences beyond what the law prescribes are appropriate. We just disagree where the line is, and it makes your reasoning pretty hollow.
That’s a false equivalence.
How is it a false equivalence? One person broke a rule and might receive legal consequences, and the act certainly merits something more severe than that. Do you not think the legal consequences are not enough in that case? Because following your logic here, you would defend that rapist.
Again the only difference is where you draw the line, and that defeats the moral purity of your terrible argument. Abusers deserve the abuse they receive. End of fucking story.
The rapist in the scenario should be serving their time in jail.
Sure sounds to me like you are defending that rapists “rights” rather than subject them to a punishment they richly deserve. I think there would be a lot fewer rapists in the world if we made sure we actually made sure their actions had appropriate consequences.