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.
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.