IRL characters

Did nothing wrong.

Lawful good.

Knowing what he did isn't enough. Have to know the real reason he did it to know if it was a good or evil act.

If they were convicted for legitimate CP (as opposed to drawn CP) then they are funding/supporting something that does directly hurt children.

Paladins kill people in the name of their god/ideals all the time, so the fact that he is killing doesn't inherently make him evil. In fact, killing convicted pedophiles isn't too different from a paladin hunting down and killing heretics.

Him disobeying the law is what makes him Chaotic. So, by DnD standards, he sits quite firmly in Chaotic Good.

>then they are funding/supporting something that does directly hurt children.
Only if he gave money to them directly or through ads. If you saved some CP you found on Veeky Forums for example it wouldn't effect anybody but yourself. If you didn't spread it around you'd cause no harm.

>If you didn't spread it around you'd cause no harm.
But the moment you repost it, you would?

Sure, because it's possible the victim or those who know the victim would see the material and be negatively impacted by it.

he was abused by a pedophile in his youth

If I had my way, we'd still hang thieves.

Hmm, that's not the ruling I would vote for, but it's one I can understand.

>Him disobeying the law is what makes him Chaotic. So, by DnD standards, he sits quite firmly in Chaotic Good.
false
disobeying the laws of the land is not grounds for the chaotic marker
not following a personal code is grounds for the chaotic marker

at least one of his victims actually put his hands on a kid

>it's not CP if it's 3D

>convictions of CP
>victimless crime

'Cause those sexually abused kids in the CP don't count, right?

Incorrect.
A character disobeying the laws of the land in order to enact that character's own code of justice, honor and benevolence is the classically accepted definition of Chaotic Good. Not following a personal code is simply being indecisive, which could apply to any alignment.

>Rape is less bad than murder,

Defend your supposition.

Not the same guy, but a rape victim can recover through strong support and therapy. Murder victims don't recover by definition of murder.

just read up on this dude. Guy sounds like a fucking inquisitor, expect maybe the part where he stole stuff... but then again....

Counter Argument:

The damage caused by rape has a lasting impact on the victim, whereas murder ends a victim.

Which is worse? Killing someone, or torturing them for the rest of their life?

Ultimately, it's more of a philosophical or moral call - because there is no objective list of 'Good/Evil'.

The argument that 'Rape is less bad than murder, in every instance' is patently retarded. That's like arguing that murdering Hitler is worse than raping Hitler's mother and letting Hitler be born in the first place. You can't argue that a moral stance will always be correct under all instances.

>Rape is less bad than murder, in ALL instance.
>Raping a newborn baby is worse than euthanising someone suffering from terminal dementia.
>Moralfags actually believe this.

Great example of lawful good.

Rape leaves the victim with a chance to recover from the psychological damages. Not to mention that a victim of rape is entirely able to lead a happy, fulfilling life.

Murder does not give the victim any leeway to recover from the damages, for obvious reasons.

>Rape leaves the victim with a chance to recover from the psychological damages

This is an assumption, based on the belief that ALL psychological damage can be surmounted and repaired. Am I to assume then that you don't believe in the concept of irreparable mental/emotional damage?

>Murder does not give the victim any leeway to recover from the damages, for obvious reasons

True but as highlighted, in an excessively antagonistic fashion, murder isn't strictly a negative instance. Putting a mass-murderer to death, for instance. Or euthanasia, as the user suggests.

A question for you to ponder:

The guy in OP's post has been arrested for murdering child rapists.

What would be a worse punishment for this man - a convicted child-rapist mass-murderer:

1. Getting raped for the rest of his life.
2. Being executed.

Would you not believe that a person who was systematically abused and raped for the rest of their life would not WISH to die?

>. Not to mention that a victim of rape is entirely able to lead a happy, fulfilling life.

Is this why rape victims commit suicide?

Considering how retarded the american consent laws I'd say he might not really be good.
>mfw there are states where 18 is legal age
Literally what the fuck, who founded those shitshows?

>rape
>worse than termination of existence
There is no heaven or hell, faggot, you just stop existing. And this shit if far worse than being raped. A raped person can decide to move on with his/her life, a dead person doesn't have this luxury.
>inb4 fedora
Yeah, fuck you too, buddy.

He might be incorrect in the assumption that one is always worse than the other, but in general I'd say the one that does not take your most important property away (life) is the worst one.
Of course, in the situation you present things get reversed because you take away many other precious properties of living that life might become meaningless.

>Literally what the fuck, who founded those shitshows?

>mfw the legal age of consent in Australia is 16, within two years until the age of 18.
>mfw the legal age of consent in Italy is fucking 14.
>mfw the legal age of consent in Spain used to be 13 until they raised it to 16.

18 is pretty old for a legal age of consent. Unless you mean it's the legal age of consent for having sex with a willing partner at any age, in which case it's standard.

Women, once they were allowed to vote they started shitting things up. They didn't want to compete with 16 year old qts, also if the age of consent was based on your brain being fully developed then it should be illegal to make sex related decisions without parental supervision until the age of 25.

I am saying that it's too high, higher than almost everywhere.
Here and in basically every neighbouring country it's 14-16, which I hear is pretty common elsewhere too.

But in the US you can drive a 2 ton motorized vehicle before you can put a dick in your vagina, what the fuck?

I think they mostly just kick the ball at the puberty range and go with what sounds sensible, within the framework of ideology of course.

>And this shit if far worse than being raped.

It is patently less worse. You stop existing. You do not suffer. There is no you. You cease to be.

How can not existing actually be worse than anything?

But here, let me play by your headcanon fedorafag.

What is worse:

1. Being murdered.
2. Having all your limbs cut off, your eyes burnt out, your tongue removed, your sense of smell and hearing destroyed and having only your sense of pain remain, to be tortured constantly and creatively for the full length of your natural life.

>you take away many other precious properties of living that life might become meaningless.

This. There is more to life than just being alive.

>But in the US you can drive a 2 ton motorized vehicle before you can put a dick in your vagina, what the fuck?

Can't you also join the army and kill someone legally before you can drink?

You get that you are going to die, right? That nothing you do, say or achieve will matter in the grand scale because you'll be dead and forgotten inside 100 years or so?

You seem to be ignoring the notion of 'Quality of Life' vs. straight duration. Would I be correct in assuming you'd believe living ten years in perfect bliss was objectively worse than living a hundred years in constant agony?

There are victims of CP, they are the children being abused in the CP. If you don't understand that you're a fucking moron.

Otherwise I generally agree with you, going out of your way to hunt down and murder people, even if the victims are terrible people is not "good". A "good" character wouldn't seek out someone with the intent to inflict violence on them unless there was no other option.

>Can't you also join the army and kill someone legally before you can drink?
Fun fact: You can join the US Navy and drive a 2 billion dollar nuclear powered submarine without being old enough to legally drink.

If it's just loli, then I'd agree with you. Drawings are just drawings, but the real stuff is wrong. Still doesn't justify murder, no matter what every person who turns into an internet tough guy says. Either we can accept that the law will punish people for their crimes, or we turn into a mob that hands out 'justice' which will be different for everyone.

>You get that you are going to die, right?
Yes, that doesn't mean that I should speed up the process.
>That nothing you do, say or achieve will matter in the grand scale because you'll be dead and forgotten inside 100 years or so?
Then why don't you hang yourself and stop shitposting, faggot?
>Having all your limbs cut off, your eyes burnt out...
My point still stands, rape is better than death.
>"B-but what about what I said"
Not rape, just torture. Consider suicide, faggot.

That would be a pretty kick ass job being the helmsman of a Nuclear Submarine. Being stuck in a metal coffin 20,000 leagues under the sea, not so much.

...

>Completely unable to come up with a legitimate argument

Yep. Sounds about right. Fuck off.

>there is no heaven or he'll

Maybe not for you

You've got it backwards, the probability of any serious loss of life is infinitesimally small, the US hasn't lost a submarine or even had a casualty resulting in a major loss of life since 1968. You're more likely to die in a flight deck accident or fire on a surface ship.

Being helm is actually mostly just intensely boring. It mostly consists of sitting in front of a panel covered in dials for 6 hours at a time occasionally making course changes. If anything remotely stressful happens it's extremely stressful and the most senior people in your entire command come and stand with their balls nearly touching you and try and yell what you should do at you, except they don't have enough information about the current conditions of the environment or the ship's trim to actually be able to give useful advice so you pretty much have to sit there and not do what the most important people in your workplace are telling you to do while they yell until the situation is over.

>projection

>Not rape, just torture.

So is your argument now that torture is worse than murder, but murder is worse than rape?

Or are you arguing that rape and torture are too different to correlate to each other in a discussion about murder always being worse than rape when you're arguing that murder is always the worse thing possible?

>Consider suicide, faggot.
Never mind, you're just a monkey.

Fucking sauce on that webm?

My argument is that it's relative. But yes, murder is worse than rape.
>Never mind, you're just a monkey.
You too, kid.

...

>My argument is that it's relative. But yes, murder is worse than rape.

If it's relative, then how can one be worse than the other? Isn't it, you know - relative?

Readers Digest Version:
>Guy goes around mass-murdering guys convicted of pedophilia in Alaska.
>People argue that not all of them deserve it - depending on where you are just having loli shit saved can get you a pedophilia charge
>At least one victim was a child molester
>Hey - killing rapists doesn't make you a good guy, because murder is always worse than rape.
>Wait, always worse?
>Always worse.
>Why?

And here we are.

murder is not worse.
if you're dead you don't care what's going on because hey you're a corpse.

PTSD is about as close to hell as you can get.
in fact one could argue that if a rape victim commits suicide because of the PTSD from said rape then the rapist is at that point a murderer in a similar way that a person is a murderer if they say "go kill yourself" to someone who is suicidal and that suicidal person acts on it.

For what it's worth, I tend to agree with you - barring one caveat. There are victims to a murder beyond the dead. Friends, family, co-workers. People whose lives were influenced or affected by the now deceased.

>not liking vigilante justice
lol faggot
They all deserved it.
Honestly this man should be a national hero.

Damn, Shawn Michaels looks pretty good for his age. Shame about the conviction.

>all dis basement libertarianism
endearing really

You folks do realize that this "rape is worse than murder" attitude is part of the reason why it's so difficult to help people cope with the trauma, because you are making them take up the role of victims forever in order to justify your worldview, right?

> take up the role of victims forever

Nothing about the concept of rape being worse than murder means that a victim has to feel that way for any longer than they want to. Part of the damage of rape is to make a person feel victimised.

And most of the argument in this thread about "rape is worse than murder" is actually "shit is subjective, yo".

But here's a question for you to consider - if you lived in a society where the negative physical aspects of rape could be eradicated, and your memories could be altered, would rape still then be a crime?

>euthanizing a terminally ill person who's suffering and can't make the decision to end it themselves is murder

Chaotic Good Hero.

>euthanizing a terminally ill person who's suffering and can't make the decision to end it themselves is murder

Yes? And?

It's certainly justified, and something that happens more often than people realise - depending on your nation, Doctors have quite a bit of leeway as far as 'quality of life' goes. They don't HAVE to save or resuscitate a patient if they feel that letting them die is better than forcing them to suffer life.

That being said, killing someone who doesn't or can't consent is still murder, at the end of the day.

It's not about the concept, it's about the attitude of the proponents of the concept. Ie, rape victims keep being victims because you won't allow them to be anything else.

>rape victims keep being victims because you won't allow them to be anything else.

No-one can force a rape victim to stay a rape victim. Rape victims stay rape victims until they become rape survivors. That means conquering the emotional, physical and mental damage done by the act.

You are right to say that social attitudes and views towards it will influence that recovery, but it's ultimately up to the individual as to when or if that happens.

I could stand on the top of a hill yelling that 'You're a victim! You're a victim!' until the cows come home - but it's up to the person if they want to be a victim or a survivor.

t. Achmed Pedosaki

An Arabo-Japanese Canadian .

>pictures of dead and mutilated children are a-okay to possess
'Cause those dead and mutilated children don't count, right?

Yes because at the very, very least you are still losing time and literally a moment of your life lost (via wiping away the specific memory).

Although I suppose it would be less bad if there was such a convenient fix for most victims.

Survivor sounds a lot more melodramatic that victim.
You're a victim of bank fraud, you're a survivor of attempted murder.

Alright.

Bearing that in mind, what about if you existed in a community where Death was similarly fixable? You could be resurrected at the murderers cost.

Is murder still considered a crime in this situation? Or is it a misdemeanor, an inconvenience?

And what then is worse in that community - rape or murder?

You're a victim of a crime until you've survived the impact of the crime. It's a question of mental stance. Being a survivor implies that the event is in your past - behind you, something you've moved beyond.

>Survivor sounds a lot more melodramatic that victim.
>You're a victim of bank fraud, you're a survivor of attempted murder.

>Assault Victim.
Someone who is still in the hospital from being beaten with a hammer.

>Assault Survivor
Someone who shows you the scars over a drink and laughs about it.

Get the difference?

>Is murder still considered a crime in this situation
Well given that you literally prefaced that question with a fine for murdering someone, yes I would have to conclude it would be some kind of crime based on your premise.

Or is this happening in a world where people are fined without having committed any crimes? A misdemeanor is still a crime as far as I'm aware, although even if you could resurrect someone perfectly I'd still say it would at least be on the same level as assault, which is a felony.

>And what then is worse in that community - rape or murder
Whatever would be more inconvenient at that point.

Sure I guess, but I usually think of survival regarding life threatening situations.

I mean no shit you're going to 'survive' something that has no chance of killing you.

Assault is a potentially life threatening event.

However being spat on counts as assault in some places, are you going to call a spit target a spit survivor?

>Assault is a potentially life threatening event.
>However being spat on counts as assault in some places, are you going to call a spit target a spit survivor?

Bullying is not a life threatening event, but you'd still call those people bullying victims and bullying survivors.

And yeah, spitting on someone counts as assault in some places - but your issue there is even calling something like that assault.

The term survive just means to continue to exist in the face of hardship or danger. Shit, technically speaking you could say that you 'survived' posting on Veeky Forums and it would be true.

We just associate survival with life threatening situations because it's the best fit for the term.

Are you niggers really arguing the definition of survival?

If someone who was spat on was the sort of person to say they were assaulted, they'd also be the sort of person to say they survived an assault. Sounds like chickenshit either way, but technically correct chickenshit.

It depends on whether the spit has a disease in it or not. A woman cop got spat on and contracted TB and has since died from the disease, so yes you can be a spit survivor. In her case though she didn't.

It can be, but nah I wouldn't call them survivors.

>We just associate survival with life threatening situations because it's the best fit for the term.
So why the argument? You don't think a thing that is legally assault should count as assault, and I don't think a term so be so broad as to lose meaning.

>and I don't think a term so be so broad as to lose meaning.
>So broad
>Term literally means to exist after the event
>So broad

To be fair, that is the last guy I would want drinking

insofar that he thought he was doing it for a cause and clearly didn't care about the laws of the land.

10/10 good analogy

Why does everyone have to overthink everything so much? Bad people are bad, good people are good, don't do the crime if you don't want to be bad, you can obviously tell an important crime from a harmless one, and punish accordingly, but everyone goes full retard with regulations and shit.

Is this a call for sharia law?

I'm not sure I know what that is, I've heard of it but never looked into it.

He's a crazed vigilante who hunted down people already punished by law. Being on the sex offenders list doesn't make you a monster and also means you've already been punished. He's CN meteing out his own sick sense of justice at best, and possibly a CE crazed psycho looking for an excuse

>convicted pedophiles

>decides to murder them anyway

I'll never understand the desire some people have to punish people that have already been punished.

He's also a thief and a criminal, with multiple previous convictions. He's not an avenging hero and he's certainly not good.

Thankfully no one was killed, just injured and stolen from.

He probably decided they needed to be removed. Give no quarter.

Nope, he is right, in the instance where you turned rape into something much worse it transcended rape as you added torture and fused it into a soul-crushing experience, which mind you one or another could feasibly survive.
If the question is "is murder always worse than rape?" and you need to add information outside the rape itself to favour your side of the argument then you have already lost, as it's no longer anything inherent to the rape itself.
For instance, everything you added to be done during raping could be done before someone's execution, which would mean a lot more pain and a lot less chance or ever recovering in any regard.

Hello Hillary "Women Are the Real Victims of War" Clinton

Don't people that haven't been raped also commit suicide?

I didn't know it was such a case specific phenomenon

How do you know that?
Did you look at their criminal history?
Do you have absolute certainty they did what you are claiming?
Or even if it wasn't in some cases just some dumb dudebro who fucked a 17 year old?
Vigilantism could be justified, but with this much information you'd have to condemn it anyway, unless you actually think it's right to support someone who can't even go for actual criminals (because hint: you don't know it).

yes, ALL rape victims commit suicide. If raped you have to kill yourself there's no option to get better.