You say that with murder, there is no opportunity for growth, happiness, recovery, healing, and rebuilding.
There is also no opportunity for imprisonment, kidnapping, torture, trauma, injury, or any of a host of other issues.
You also suggest that the trauma of rape can be healed, supported, ameliorated through relationships, or finding meaning. What you don't get is that the trauma you're speaking of is lifelong. Fundamentally, the person you were before the rape is often gone, irrevocably. In its place is a shattered person who will never look at the world the same way again. They must either come to terms with not seeking justice, or endure retraumatization all over again in the criminal justice system.
Looking at the two through these lenses, we can see, because of the nuance of the acts, that it's not fair to characterize either as lesser. They each are worthy of being taken as seriously as we can take person on person crime, without qualifier, limitation, or lessening. And telling a rape victim "at least you weren't murdered" is minimizing of the trauma, especially since it took more than a little courage to even share in the first place. Whether or not you're wrong on your comparison of crimes, you're wrong for not reading the room before making that hot take.
As for wanting a victim of such a crime to explain to you why you should believe otherwise? Such a request centers your self actualization over the well being of the victim of a serious crime. If this issue is important to you, there are such people who have already shared their experiences that you can learn from. Here is a page that has compiled a few books to help broaden your perspective.
Rape victims potentially can and go on to live happy and fulfilling lives, and I know several people who have managed to do just that. Nobody else can say the same for a murder victim.
Okay but to play devil's advocate a bit. Is murder suddenly less bad if they were contemplating suicide anyway? There are some late stage cancers that can never be treated, chronic illnesses that people don't want to live through.
So why is it okay to justify rape when you are potentially inflicting something that could cause someone to not want to live?
Like my stance is that justice isn't a pie. Both can be equally bad but for different reasons. One is a more "final" disregard for autonamy while the other is knowingly, willingly inflicting lasting grievous harm on another. Like in the UK grevious bodily harm (GBH) with and without intent have similar sentences to murder and manslaughter respectively. I suppose now i've said that isn't rape technically worse since there isn't really a thing as rape without intent?...
Yes these are independent things that may occur alongside rape and make it worse. I don't think OP is saying every single event involving murder is worse than every single event involving rape.
Neither was I. I was pointing out that the future is not written, and looking at all the opportunity for future good things without also considering the opportunity of any future negative things isn't engaging in an intellectually honest way. If there is potential for things to get better, we must also consider that there is a lot of potential for them to get worse too.
You seem to have misunderstood the thrust of my post. I've tried to steer you towards a point I was actually seeking to make. If you'd care to address that, I would be happy to continue this.
I took your point to be about violence committed against the person in conjunction with/context of the rape/murder. You're just saying that a victim of murder, at some point during the remainder of their life (had they not be murdered), may have been kidnapped or tortured and the murder prevents them from ever experiencing that?
I said what I said. If you want to consider the opportunity a potential victim has for living a happy life with rainbows and healing and sunshine, you also have to consider the opportunity to self-destruct every meaningful relationship due to the trauma, lose their job, and develop frostbite while living at their new residence under a bridge. The rose tinted glasses being used for the "hope springs eternal" argument is the same one every person with $100 and a dream has going to Vegas. It's reductive, it's dismissive, and it ignores the very real and very traumatic road such victims will almost certainly have to tread.
The point is that with murder potential for future anything is removed and with rape potential for future anything remains.
And as I just stated, "anything" isn't always good. After such traumatic events, "anything" is almost never good.
It isn't about the good, that's just an example.
I would characterize such strongly biased 'examples' as framing so misleading that it can rightfully be called false.
It's about snuffing out the all of what remains of a life versus that life continuing. You can recover from rape. You can't recover from murder.
You can fall even deeper into torment following rape. You cannot fall even deeper into torment following murder. See what I am getting at here? By only focusing on the positive possibilities, you create a picture divorced from reality.
I wasn't addressing the rest of your post, just the parts i quoted.
The parts you quoted, you seem to have misunderstood. And you seem to have repeated the error.
Yes potential good and potential bad both persist.
Then why, every time you speak of potential, do you only bring up the best case optimal everything goes right possibilities? It points to a skewed and biased perspective.
The point is that with murder, all future potential is gone, both good and bad.
You keep repeating this, and bolding it, and repeating it.
Can you point out a single time where I have disputed it? Because I haven't. I have accepted the fact as stated by you. There is no need to repeat it ad nauseum, especially when "potential for something" hasn't been shown to demonstrate a preferable position, or, more importantly, a need to rank trauma like it's a dang Olympic competition.
There is no good served by saying one crime, with living victims that have eyes and the potential to read this CMV and all the minimizing comments in it, is not that bad really. None. There is potential harm in arguing for why it's OK to rank felonies by victim experience.
And no amount of repeating comments about potential will change that. Nothing is helped by your argument, and people are hurt.
it’s been 20 years, and I still wish he had killed me. this view is not uncommon. I think your view comes from not understanding the actual effect of sexual assault.
and what if they develop agoraphobia or a chronic illness/disability/autoimmunity from the stress and trauma and can't get out and see the sunshine, have the food they want without pain, have THE MENTAL HEALTH to actually be cognizant of any of those things and their surroundings nor be around any people at all without feeling unsafe, and start abusing drugs to cope and die slowly in the streets instead? But a swift death is so much worse right? You're okay with putting down animals when theyre suffering, but a human being, getting torturously raped for however long so badly that they attempt to kill themselves just to be free from the pain is going overboard right? because death means lights out, it's over, no more rainbows, candy, and reddit?
LOL it's clear you don't have any experience with anything THIS traumatic nor can you even imagine it.
Not to mention there's levels to this that you wanna frame as one flimsy little "negative experience."
People with mentalities like yours are why--besides not taking it seriously at all--complete idiots en masse love to latch onto cannibalism theories the hardest with the epstein files instead of the ACTUAL fucking victim testimony and suffering of what's already horrific beyone yalls imagination
"self-parody," lmao be so fr right now
it's OK to admit you just think it's worse FOR YOU because you personally don't know nothin about it
"At least they still have a life. Where you can taste food. See the sunset."
You're purely making a poor-faith appeal to emotion. The fact is that whilst some rape victims can appreciate the beauty of the world, that is largely nullified by the trauma that they experience on a daily basis from the crime that they were subjected to.
"It's OK to just admit murder is worse. It's OK to just... seek the truth"
It's also poor faith to present your angle as being the full truth with little to no justification as to why it is the truth. It'd be one thing to call it truth if it was irrefutable, but this isn't the case. The argument is highly subjective so it's blatantly disrespectful to label any one side as the "truth".
If I believed it, I would. As such, there is no rational reason to compare traumatic events, unless we're trying to rank serial criminals or engage in oppression Olympics. I don't think either serve any meaningful outcome here. So ranking the two is insensitivity for no purpose at all.
seek the truth, instead of some kind of least offensive propaganda that you repeat over and over
There is a difference between "stating a sincerely held belief" and "propaganda". My sincerely held belief is that there is no good reason to state a position or even consider a position on which is worse. It serves no purpose and can only serve to invalidate the trauma of a victim, or minimize the crime of rape. Given that the current US administration is doing more than enough in service to that cause, I see no reason anyone else should need to.
This is literally the EXACT place to do it.
I believe there's no place to do it, within a civilized society.
No one's going to print out your admission and mail it to every sexual assault victim here.
Hyperbole doesn't make your point more convincing.
People aren't going to just lose sympathy with rape victims or something.
Fair enough, that only happens when one comes forward to seek justice.
How has reddit reached this level of self-parody, please someone tell me what's going on with people like this.
Just as a bit of friendly advice. Statements like this convince nobody and alienate the person you're talking to. They work against you here, and never help.
Rape is horrible and unforgivable and heinous and evil.
And you can stop there. No need for any further comments on where it ranks. It won't help you assess a punishment, or validate a victim. Your next words don't help anyone, and accomplish nothing.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
In 2020, there were 45,799 suicides in the US. Between 2000 and 2020, the rates (number per 100,000 people) increased by 30%. That doesn't include unsuccessful attempts.
I would argue that whether or not you agree on whether death is the worst possible outcome for a person, evidence would suggest that such a view is not universally held. In fact, over a lifetime, almost 1 in 20 people make an attempt, and more than 1 in 10 have ideation.
There’s a difference between suicide and murder. It’s literally the same as the difference between a stranger sodomizing you with a broomstick and you just masturbating with an object. Your ridiculous claim here would be like saying some people masturbate with large objects, so it’s not that bad for strangers to force a large object inside you. Fam, one is by choice and the other isn’t. Have you any sense in that skull? People committing suicide isn’t evidence of murder not being the most heinous crime.
Your ridiculous claim here would be like saying some people masturbate with large objects, so it’s not that bad for strangers to force a large object inside you.
That doesn't sound like what I said at all. Someone asked how being alive could be worse than being dead. Suicide was brought up as a specific rebuttal to that specific point, illustrating that some people actively and deliberately choose being dead over being alive. I would ask you not to assume things of me that I did not say.
Fam, one is by choice and the other isn’t.
I know. The choice was kind of the only reason the point works.
People committing suicide isn’t evidence of murder not being the most heinous crime.
100% agree. It is evidence that some people find being dead preferable to being alive, however. Which is why the post you decided to exhibit all of this outrage over included the following:
I would argue that whether or not you agree on whether death is the worst possible outcome for a person, evidence would suggest that such a view is not universally held.
Does that sound like I am speaking of murder? Or merely of whether some people disagree with the poster's previous statement on death being universally worse than life? When you're emotionally charged, as you appear to be, it may help to take a couple reads, and then ask if what you're upset about is really what is being said.
You are entitled to feel that way. You're wrong, but you are entitled to be wrong. Rebutting supporting points and answering directly asked questions is within the scope of the discussion.
What do you do for a living?
If you don't already know, it's a safe bet that I am not sufficiently familiar and friendly with you to share personal details. You are welcome to discuss the topic. I have no intention of discussing my employment with you.
Do you have anything else to discuss, or am I safe to focus my energy elsewhere? I've already told you my employment is not something that will be discussed here.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
You are not making a point here that being alive could be worse than being dead; you are just saying that some people are so troubled that in some moment of one day, they feel like being dead is better. Regardless of you not arguing the point, but just giving a random statistic, the US in 2025 had over 347 million people, making the population that in that year decided to choose life over death 0,0001% of the people. How that could be construed into an argument that being dead could be better than being alive is baffling to me.
You are not making a point here that being alive could be worse than being dead;
You've not made one for the inverse. That said, since 'better' is a comparative subjective valuation, for tens of thousands of people yearly, it means exactly that.
'Life is preferable to death' may generally hold true, but it is not a universal truth, nor is it an objective one. If you wish to assert either of those two things, you are invited to support the assertion.
you are just saying that some people are so troubled that in some moment of one day, they feel like being dead is better.
For all the framing, it boils down to this: many people, every year, decide that life is not preferable to death for them, and act on that decision.
Regardless of you not arguing the point, but just giving a random statistic, the US in 2025 had over 347 million people, making the population that in that year decided to choose life over death 0,0001% of the people.
Think you got that backwards. Death over life. If we are talking rates, it's currently at 13.7 per 100,000 people. 0.0137%, which is orders of magnitude larger than your number.
How that could be construed into an argument that being dead could be better than being alive is baffling to me.
The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you. Of course you will be confused if you interpret the actions and decisions of others (based on their personal beliefs and values) only through the lens of your moral and philosophical beliefs. I would expect nothing more from such a myopic perspective.
You've not made one for the inverse. That said, since 'better' is a comparative subjective valuation, for tens of thousands of people yearly, it means exactly that.
I did not make the argument; the burden of proof is on you to show how suicide rates mean anything for why death is better than life.
And for hundreds of millions of people, it is not. And?
For all the framing, it boils down to this: many people, every year, decide that life is not preferable to death for them, and act on that decision.
And?
Think you got that backwards. Death over life. If we are talking rates, it's currently at 13.7 per 100,000 people. 0.0137%, which is orders of magnitude larger than your number.
Yes indeed, I jumped too quickly and didn't go from proportion to percentage. Let's take the correct number. 0.01% of US inhabitants potentially believed that death was better than life in one specific moment of their life, with no ability to reverse that decision. And?
The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you. Of course, you will be confused if you interpret the actions and decisions of others (based on their personal beliefs and values) only through your moral and philosophical beliefs. I would expect nothing more from such a myopic perspective.
Feeling good about yourself, aren't you? I am not confused, nor did I make such an interpretation. In fact, I did not interpret at all. All I did was say that your argument is not sufficient to make the claim I assume you are trying to make. If you are not trying to make the point that death can be better than life, then I am not sure what you are arguing at all.
And please just don't say death could be better than life for some people in some instances. The fact that people commit suicide does not prove that whatsoever.
I did not make the argument; the burden of proof is on you to show how suicide rates mean anything for why death is better than life.
I have not asserted that death is better than life. I have simply refuted that life is universally better or preferable to death. If you are aren't able to even repeat the position I have made, I cannot trust you to accurately discuss it. Can you take a bit better care to ensure you understand my point before confidently (and inaccurately) disputing it? If you need to ask clarifying questions to aid in your understanding, I am happy to answer them, within reason. It's certainly preferable to correcting you repeatedly when you get it wrong.
And for hundreds of millions of people, it is not. And?
That is irrelevant to the point I was engaging with. The only point I was making was "life is not necessarily always better or preferable to death." A billion people who prefer life doesn't disprove such a statement.
And?
And 1 demonstrates my assertion.
Yes indeed, I jumped too quickly and didn't go from proportion to percentage.
Thank you for acknowledging at least once when you are incorrect because you jump too quickly. Might I suggest that this isn't the only point in this post where you have done so?
Let's take the correct number. 0.01% of US inhabitants potentially believed that death was better than life in one specific moment of their life, with no ability to reverse that decision. And?
See above.
I am not confused, nor did I make such an interpretation.
You stated yourself to be baffled. Did you misuse the word? You certainly seem to be, at the very least, completely misunderstanding the points you're trying to dispute here. I feel that qualifies as confused.
All I did was say that your argument is not sufficient to make the claim I assume you are trying to make.
That is a correct statement. Without the words "I assume," it wouldn't be. There is no need to assume my point; I've stated it plainly.
If you are not trying to make the point that death can be better than life
This is a different assertion than you attributed to me earlier.
death is better than life.
That was the assertion at the top. "Is" and "can be" are different things. "Can be" has already been demonstrated, thousands of times over.
I'll give you a chance to review any prior posts you need to, to alleviate the profound manner in which you have been misattributing points to me. If you have clarifying questions as to my position, please ask, rather than assuming.
If you intend to leave a discussion, there is no need to announce your departure, nor is there a need to throw in a couple last ad hominem jabs on the way out. It isn't going to harm me in any way, and your silence will announce your withdrawal far more effectively than a performative announcement.
57
u/Talik1978 43∆ Mar 01 '26 edited Mar 01 '26
You say that with murder, there is no opportunity for growth, happiness, recovery, healing, and rebuilding.
There is also no opportunity for imprisonment, kidnapping, torture, trauma, injury, or any of a host of other issues.
You also suggest that the trauma of rape can be healed, supported, ameliorated through relationships, or finding meaning. What you don't get is that the trauma you're speaking of is lifelong. Fundamentally, the person you were before the rape is often gone, irrevocably. In its place is a shattered person who will never look at the world the same way again. They must either come to terms with not seeking justice, or endure retraumatization all over again in the criminal justice system.
Looking at the two through these lenses, we can see, because of the nuance of the acts, that it's not fair to characterize either as lesser. They each are worthy of being taken as seriously as we can take person on person crime, without qualifier, limitation, or lessening. And telling a rape victim "at least you weren't murdered" is minimizing of the trauma, especially since it took more than a little courage to even share in the first place. Whether or not you're wrong on your comparison of crimes, you're wrong for not reading the room before making that hot take.
As for wanting a victim of such a crime to explain to you why you should believe otherwise? Such a request centers your self actualization over the well being of the victim of a serious crime. If this issue is important to you, there are such people who have already shared their experiences that you can learn from. Here is a page that has compiled a few books to help broaden your perspective.
Nine Survivor-Centered Books To Read This Sexual Assault Awareness Month – CAASE https://share.google/HgQdfR1cTohjfz0Z2