"Ryan Ginstrom" <ginstrom@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2mqv18Fpr9a8U1@uni-berlin.de...
> necoandjeff wrote:
> > "Ryan Ginstrom" <ginstrom@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> Had this conversation with a group of Japanese once. They couldn't
> >> understand how a child molester could be looked down on as worse
> >> than a murderer. I guess in a Japanese prison they would spend most
> >> of their time swapping photos of scantily clad morning musume with
> >> the prison guards.
> >
> > So may we assume then that, given the choice, you would have
> > preferred to have been murdered as a child rather than molested?
>
> And you draw this conculsion from?

It wasn't a conclusion. The question mark should have made that fairly
clear. In any event:

1. Premise: A group of Japanese with whom you had a conversation couldn't
understand how a child molester could be looked down on as worse than a
murderer.

2. Presumption: During the conversation, you represented the point of view
that child molesters are or should be looked down upon as being worse than
murderers.

3. The only thing we know for sure about a "child molester" or a "murderer"
in general that can be used to distinguish them is the particular crime they
have committed.

4. Hence, if a child molester is worse than a murderer, this implies that
the crime of child molestation is worse than the crime of murder.

5. Since the severity of a crime committed against a victim should be judged
from the point of view of the victim, this implies that being molested as a
child is worse than being murdered.

6. Therefore, if the presumption in 2 is true, it would be fair to conclude
that you believe it is worse to be molested as a child than to be murdered
and that, therefore, you would prefer being murdered over being molested.
But first the presumption has to be confirmed, hence my question.

Jeff