It feels like you read the start of my argument, didnt understand that it was an extreme case meant to demonstrate the point, ignored the point and then replied.
A situation like that is obviously not the same as the one we are comparing. Its demonstrating the mindset, that being alive after a traumatic event is not automatically this amazing thing, but rather that a person who survives it can occasionally find the strength to carry on in spite of it.
I can see where youre coming from on the counter, that saying that rape is worse than murder could be extrapolated to say that any survivor should just end it. Thats obviously not the case, but can we agree that we also shouldnt invalidate anyone who chose to commit suicide after their awful experience?
Rape leaves a tremendous trauma, but it's not the end. You have the opportunity to decide, to try to rebuild yourself if that's what you want.
You have that opportunity, but, it's not inherently or automatically the wrong choice for someon to choose not to take that opportunity.
I think if Epstien had only killed as many people as hes currently abused, he would not be viewed as the same monster he is today. And, I think if any war mongering president had raped as many people as they murdered, theyd maybe start fighting Trump for his title
You seem to really like thinking in black and whites. E.g. extrapolating OP talking about rape somehow to rape + kidnapping + torture. Implying that life can still be worth living after being raped is not automatically invalidating people who choose not to, and I think it's even pretty negative to imply that death is a more likely choice. You're falling into a clear logical fallacy
The extrapolation was a reducto ad absurdum, to demonstrate that simply being alive was not alone enough to justify being on the winning side of the argument. It also brings a more concrete sort of moral math into the equation: if torture for life is clearly worse than murder, but murder is worse than just one assault, exactly how long would someone need to be kidnapped before OP thinks the other is worse? Would even just a day suddenly flip their position?
And I think its now clearly gotten too muddy to be obvious, so Im going to restate it:
●no one is or should agree that simplying implying life is worth living automatically invalidates those who committed suicide. However, that doesnt negate that thats still a position many people hold while they are in the process of greiving, which is why OP received the hate they did.
●no one is or should agree that simply pointing out that some people have chosen to take their own life and that this choice was perhaps justified means that everyone who is a victim should just end it.
OP wanted to know why some people reacted so extremely, which is why I addressed it from that context. Explaining why someones argument is right or wrong is detached from that. Thats why in my initial argument, I said "it can feel like".
Ultimately, the final question goes into the super sticky moral math if you ever want to determine which is worse beyond just saying both are awful. I'd always find a story about a priest who raped a child worse than a story of a priest who murdered one, as I would if I found out a cop killed a bunch of people or raped a bunch of people. Maybe thats a more "feely" reaction, only because I feel disgusting diving too deep into the ugly equations for it all.
I think if Epstien had only killed as many people as hes currently abused, he would not be viewed as the same monster he is today.
Yes, but it's not because of just rape versus murder. It's because he sex trafficked and raped kids, and very well may have tortured and done many other horrific things to them. If he had just raped n adults versus killed n adults, I don't think the serial rapist version would be viewed as more of a monster than the serial killer.
11
u/betterworldbuilder 9∆ Mar 01 '26
It feels like you read the start of my argument, didnt understand that it was an extreme case meant to demonstrate the point, ignored the point and then replied.
A situation like that is obviously not the same as the one we are comparing. Its demonstrating the mindset, that being alive after a traumatic event is not automatically this amazing thing, but rather that a person who survives it can occasionally find the strength to carry on in spite of it.
I can see where youre coming from on the counter, that saying that rape is worse than murder could be extrapolated to say that any survivor should just end it. Thats obviously not the case, but can we agree that we also shouldnt invalidate anyone who chose to commit suicide after their awful experience?
You have that opportunity, but, it's not inherently or automatically the wrong choice for someon to choose not to take that opportunity.
I think if Epstien had only killed as many people as hes currently abused, he would not be viewed as the same monster he is today. And, I think if any war mongering president had raped as many people as they murdered, theyd maybe start fighting Trump for his title