Honestly I think the only seen viewpoint I disagree with when it comes to Satanism is that you can only kill with good reason. I would never kill somebody on purpose, even if my own life was in danger because I don't think anybody's life is mine to take, no matter what that person did. That's honestly probably a very idiotic belief, and if I ever find myself in a dangerous situation I'll most likely die, but I really just don't have the heart to kill somebody.
In the situation of them deserving vengeance, it partially has to do with the vengeance based system presented in Satanism, in which case, you still don't need to kill the person. Vengeance in Satanism is yours to deliver or not deliver as you see fit in the way you see fit (within reason). So if you believed that justice through the American Justice system or just leaving the person alone is the right way to go about it, then you are still in the right. Nobody is forcing you to take a life, because that would be taking away your free will, the main principle of Satanism.
As for defending yourself in the moment, that is a much harder situation to deal with. Unless you know exactly how to disable a person without killing them, have the means to do so, and do so correctly in the moment, there are certain situations where you may not have a choice. I know somebody who went through a training program for a concealed weapons permit and the main thing that allows the law enforcement and program to decide if you are ready, is if you can use whatever weapon you have when you need too. (It doesn't even have to be a firearm. Some states consider those extending batons a concealed weapon.) If you cannot, you are only putting yourself, and others in danger by having the weapon. (That was my only real life example I could think of.)
It's not stupid to have a fear or regret of taking a human life. It's not an easy thing to deal with for a lot of people. In a way it actually can be viewed as a good thing, because it means you are a sympathetic person. You just need to be careful out there, the world can be a scary place.
(Not trying to frighten or dishearten you, I just want you to know there are two sides here but it doesn't mean you are wrong.)
Oh, and don't forget too, the Destruction Ritual. If you still wish to get revenge, but you don't want to kill a person, there is the option of cursing them during the Destruction Ritual. In fact, that's part of the value of cursing people. If you don't want to kill them, curse. Plus, there is also a context in which somebody asks you to kill someone. You are free to curse the target, in fact, that is all you are asked to do.
Wanna talk about hate crime?
Wanna talk about hate crime?
What about them specifically?
Well I think the term and crime is stupid and should be eliminated. As in no one should be able to be charged with hate crime.
But why, exactly? The term "hate crime" is used to define a crime that has been done out of hate for a specific type of person, so I don't see why the term should be eliminated
Hate Crime usually pertains to a crime based on racism, especially in this day and age.
For example, you wouldn't call a bar fight between some men a Hate Crime because it was mos likely two hot heads getting up in each others faces, not because anyone went into the bar looking to fight.
But why, exactly? The term "hate crime" is used to define a crime that has been done out of hate for a specific type of person, so I don't see why the term should be eliminated
Because it adds an extra charge that is not necessary. The gov should not be policing what we feel. In America we should be free to hate people if we so desire.
But why, exactly? The term "hate crime" is used to define a crime that has been done out of hate for a specific type of person, so I don't see why the term should be eliminated
Because it adds an extra charge that is not necessary. The gov should not be policing what we feel. In America we should be free to hate people if we so desire.
If we remove the "why" factor, we can't punish or rehabilitate a person correctly. Plus, if hate crimes are "not necessary", then it doesn't matter why someone committed a crime and all criminals should be treated the same.
I didn't say it didn't matter. I just don't think someone should be punished for hating someone.
I didn't say it didn't matter. I just don't think someone should be punished for hating someone.
Hating someone and acting upon that hatred with murder, terrorism, assault, etc. are different.
Well, I think we should keep it as an extra charge because sure, you can hate someone all you want, but acting on that in a way that could potentially harm hundreds? Yeah, that's fucked up, and they deserve an extra charge for it
Well, I think we should keep it as an extra charge because sure, you can hate someone all you want, but acting on that in a way that could potentially harm hundreds? Yeah, that's fucked up, and they deserve an extra charge for it
No they don't. They should be charged for there crime. Not how they feel.
But they're not just being charged for their hateful feelings. That's preposterous. They're being charged for acting on those hateful feelings.
Yeah, they're being charged for committing a crime against someone because of prejudice, not for 'hating someone'.
People aren't charged for the Hate Crime itself, just the actual crime committed. The media calls it a Hate Crime because of the intent behind it.
Intent is incredibly important in the legal system, which is why it’s taken into account and people have heavier charges for hate crimes. Intent in the difference between first, second, and third degree murder
I love this topic. And stuff about the criminal justice system in general
Exactly what Moxie said. If we don't take intent into account, then manslaughter should be considered just as bad as premeditated serial killing.
Also 'manslaughter' sounds so brutal and it's the least bad murder charge
I've always had an issue with that too. And how serial sounds like cereal…. weird
Here's my unpopular opinion/debate topic: Dumbledore is not a good person and doesn't deserve the reputation that he has. Anyone disagree?
Nope. I agree wholeheartedly.
You forget all the good he was because of the reveal of the bad he did.
Dumbledore was never my favorite character, but unlike some people Snape his backstory excuses some of what he did, but he still should have told Harry about everything sooner. I mean, the only reason he didn't was for dramatic effect and a more exciting climax.
Also he has horrible taste in men.
Breaking News: J.K. Rowling reveals that you, the reader, were gay all along.
