EPTI can't believe this guy is still alive - Page 6
| Blogs > nimysa |
|
foeffa
Belgium2115 Posts
| ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
On October 22 2009 14:11 qrs wrote: Dictionary says "Morally bad or wrong". Good enough for you? Hahaha. According to who's morals? Evil=immoral. Immoral=evil. Great definition. It means absolutely nothing. Evil is a great word for the bad guy in a movie you're not supposed to connect with at all or even remotely understand, but in human beings in real life it seems to be to be a term of ignorance. Used to help scapegoat inconvenient people. Let's say we arbitrarily declare it's immoral/evil to kill someone. What does every nation need to 'keep safe' (but also to conquor)? An amry. So maybe we tweak what's immoral about killing. Killing another human being is immoral when it's done for... I don't know, no reason? But killing in the name of land and god and resources is a-okay and just a part of normal human society. So why did this man kill the girl? He wanted to be taller and more attractive etc. Isn't that conquest? Why is it okay to kill someone from another land for their possessions, but not okay to kill someone from your own land? Is it a need to feel safe with your neighbors? So it's immoral to kill your neighbor. Do you not need to feel safe from people in other countries? Or when your own country conscripts you to fight? Aren't all the war stories of trauma and life loss indicative that it is incredibly frightening? So maybe it's only immoral to kill someone without warning. In war you know who's trying to kill you, and you know who you're trying to kill. In the case of neighbors no one expects to be killed. So it's immoral to kill someone if they don't see it coming (at least in some large sense. It's still okay to bomb buildings your enemy may be sleeping in), but otherwise it's pretty much okay. If you see what I'm getting at... Morality is a matter of convenience. It's what you want right now. Morality to another person is what they want right now. We're okay with following our own rules as long as everyone else follows them (and anyone who doesn't is called evil) but we're not okay with following someone else's rules if they don't match our own. And that's my page long rant to your sentence long reply. | ||
|
Cloud
Sexico5880 Posts
Killing is rarely ever productive. Especially in long terms. | ||
|
Magic84
Russian Federation1381 Posts
On October 23 2009 01:50 Chef wrote: *snip* I'm not sure what are you trying to say other than there is nothing evil or good in this world and all is just from people's perspective. A lot of people are brainwrecked by TV adopting fake morals, but in this one case i don't see how it's complicated, he can easily be tagged as evil by most of the people. Armies go and kill to obtain power or benefits for it's own society/nation, yet such maniac killers can only instill fear into society around them and harm it. The dude is better off dead. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
On October 22 2009 20:12 Magic84 wrote: Being is the prison is a life too, and a good life might i add. Free food, water, physical activity, communication with other people, own culture and hierarchy, even entertainment. Even if environment is brutal in some people's eyes, person still can be pretty happy/satisfied there and even happier than if he was free. Execution is the best possible way to deal with this kind of people. Other is loading them with medications until they basically lose their personality and develop horrible permanent side effects in nervous system. To what extent would you say it's okay to perform eugenics on people who don't function in society? Just the ones that illegally kill people, or would you go further than that? What if therapy were able to make them safe and functioning? I mean, it's been 30 years, he's 60ish years old now. What are you accomplishing by killing him? | ||
|
Magic84
Russian Federation1381 Posts
On October 23 2009 02:06 Chef wrote: To what extent would you say it's okay to perform eugenics on people who don't function in society? Just the ones that illegally kill people, or would you go further than that? What if therapy were able to make them safe and functioning? I mean, it's been 30 years, he's 60ish years old now. What are you accomplishing by killing him? Every case deserves individual approach, but if a guy killed someone to check if the meat is delicious or not, you need to kill it, not jail, the society overall will be happier with that and feel more safe/relieved/thankful for that, and that's the important thing. | ||
|
ilj.psa
Peru3081 Posts
| ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
There's two directions to go with every decision about morality. You can say only society matters, or you can say only the individual matters, and you can go in varying degrees between them. But even still, we're talking about an individual who hasn't committed a crime in 30 years. It's not good for society or the individual to go and kill him. It's arguable that studying his mind is more USEFUL to society to better understand what really happened (regarding his mental state at the time, and reflecting how that can be applied to modern psych tests). Believe me, it's not as simple as jail or death sentence. We have a plethora of options in dealing with people who have special conditions. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On October 22 2009 15:36 PokePill wrote: some of the responses in this thread are disgusting, you people should be more accepting of other cultures Are you trying to insinuate that the Japanese are all crazy cannibals or something? | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On October 22 2009 20:12 Magic84 wrote: Being is the prison is a life too, and a good life might i add. Free food, water, physical activity, communication with other people, own culture and hierarchy, even entertainment. Even if environment is brutal in some people's eyes, person still can be pretty happy/satisfied there and even happier than if he was free. Execution is the best possible way to deal with this kind of people. Other is loading them with medications until they basically lose their personality and develop horrible permanent side effects in nervous system. rofl what would you accomplish with that besides your own sense of justice? | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
I'd kind of like to know what the girl was thinking on her way to that study session. Probably not much, since study groups are normal, and that late in university you can't be choosy (but then, she went to his own house for dinner, which suggests it was personal)... Imagine she really liked him and was going to confess her love to him. Oops! | ||
|
Magic84
Russian Federation1381 Posts
On October 23 2009 02:20 Chef wrote: Certain notorious men in history thought so too. There's two directions to go with every decision about morality. You can say only society matters, or you can say only the individual matters, and you can go in varying degrees between them. But even still, we're talking about an individual who hasn't committed a crime in 30 years. It's not good for society or the individual to go and kill him. It's arguable that studying his mind is more USEFUL to society to better understand what really happened (regarding his mental state at the time, and reflecting how that can be applied to modern psych tests). Believe me, it's not as simple as jail or death sentence. We have a plethora of options in dealing with people who have special conditions. What kind of benefit the "research" can give? They could count all the neurons he has in every part of the brain, do whatever they want, all kind of mental tests out of curiosity, and then kill him. Overcomplicating things never lead to anything good, especially in relevance to happiness of people, if you want to make people happier, bastard better be terminated, any other option will make people overall less happy with the situation. How exactly does amount of passed time matter, it's not some rape or theft that happened, he killed a girl on purpose. Also, what will prevent mentally unstable people that hit their low point in life to think "fuck this life and this country, i just gonna go a finally have some fun killing and raping couple of children, and then i let the silly society study my mind, feed me and let me look badass, scary and important on TV"? On October 23 2009 02:39 koreasilver wrote: rofl what would you accomplish with that besides your own sense of justice? This will remove a person from this world in a way and hopefully make the person suffer a lot. I think it can be a proper punishment for some deeds. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
| ||
|
qrs
United States3637 Posts
On October 23 2009 01:50 Chef wrote: Hahaha. According to whose morals? Evil=immoral. Immoral=evil. Great definition. Let's say we arbitrarily declare it's immoral/evil to kill someone. ... I thought you might be driving at that, but in the very post I originally quoted from, you brought in torture as something that you find "repulsive". I thought that that made it clear that you did subscribe to a moral system. Maybe I was wrong in assuming that you considered it more than a matter of taste. Still, for anyone who does believe in a universal morality that has nothing to do with individual's beliefs, "evil" is a meaningful word; for that matter, even if you don't believe in that yourself, it's still a meaningful word, just like the word "centaur", for example. Evil=immoral. Immoral=evil. Great definition. Pardon me, but this is sophistry. In the first place, you can make statements like that about every word in the dictionary (although the chain might extend further than two words). In the second place, you're the one who added the second part, "Immoral = evil." The dictionary doesn't say that, actually: referring once again to answers.com, it has "Contrary to established moral principles." If you further inquire as to what these principles are, that would be a meaningful discussion. Granted, the rest of your post did go into detail about why you don't think any foundation of moral principles can be meaningfully established. I don't personally agree with you there: I think quite a simple and elegant one can be built off of the Golden Rule, but in any case, can you go so far as to agree that society, or at any rate the majority of people who constitute it, does share a certain set of moral standards, and that deliberate deviation from it can be legitimately considered "evil" from their point of view, even if you think the POV itself is invalid? Then that's what the doctors were saying. I could try to go further and address your main attack on the foundations of morality, but first let me ask you: you're an intellectual sort--is this just an intellectual issue to you? Or do you genuinely believe that you have absolutely no right to judge someone else for any crime at all? II'm not asking about your intellectual beliefs, I'm asking how you feel. | ||
|
Foucault
Sweden2826 Posts
| ||
|
Foucault
Sweden2826 Posts
On October 23 2009 01:54 Cloud wrote: I think it's fair to define morality as the set of virtues that make society progress as a whole. Killing is rarely ever productive. Especially in long terms. Society would still progress as a whole if morality would change quite alot. Our morality, at least in the western world is based on christianity and christian values to a large degree. Don't take it for granted as the only kind of morale there is. That depends on your view of what "productive" is. It might be productive to kill off people if the earth was super-overpopulated, however it wouldn't be seen as morally right with our current moral. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
you brought in torture as something that you find "repulsive". I really don't think I did at all. I said I'd rather be killed and eaten than be tortured. That doesn't say anything about whether I think torture is immoral or not. I don't believe in morality as a sense of human decency. I think what people mislabel morality is really their own personal convenience of what they like and don't like. is this just an intellectual issue to you? Or do you genuinely believe that you have absolutely no right to judge someone else for any crime at all? II'm not asking about your intellectual beliefs, I'm asking how you feel. I believe that if someone commits some act (crime or otherwise) and you don't like that act, you have all the right not to like the person, not to want to be around them, and really to do whatever you want. The issue I take is with the idea of giving your actions some higher purpose, like for the sake of morality you kill a dangerous person. No, you killed the dangerous person because you felt threatened. Them committing an act you didn't like, and you taking your revenge shouldn't be justified because "they're immoral" it should be justified because you think it will improve your life. So I "feel" that it's dangerous and stupid to ignore the real reasons we do things and instead believe that everything is somehow based on morality. I "feel" there's no reason to do anything to this man because he isn't dangerous anymore, he's been in jail (tho he was sentenced longer) and basically we're trying to get revenge on a man because of some false sense of morality, rather than remembering the reasons we had to do anything 30 years ago. My point being that the reasons have expired, they don't hold up anymore, but people's sense of morality never dies and causes them to be vengeful without good reason. I don't know if that explains well what I mean or not. Certainly 30 years ago I'd have pissed my pants to be in the same house with this person, but today? I'd probably feel safe enough (whether I'd find him amiable or not is a different question). | ||
|
toastybunz
United States47 Posts
On October 22 2009 12:27 Loser777 wrote: I saw those pictures, now I'm actually scared. At least horror movies are fictional, pictures make me... this :[ | ||
|
pubbanana
United States3063 Posts
On October 23 2009 02:20 ilj.psa wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAzLVOMuJMI That host woman is so fucking hot, oh my god.  | ||
|
Magic84
Russian Federation1381 Posts
On October 23 2009 04:17 Chef wrote: I really don't think I did at all. I said I'd rather be killed and eaten than be tortured. That doesn't say anything about whether I think torture is immoral or not. I don't believe in morality as a sense of human decency. I think what people mislabel morality is really their own personal convenience of what they like and don't like. I believe that if someone commits some act (crime or otherwise) and you don't like that act, you have all the right not to like the person, not to want to be around them, and really to do whatever you want. The issue I take is with the idea of giving your actions some higher purpose, like for the sake of morality you kill a dangerous person. No, you killed the dangerous person because you felt threatened. Them committing an act you didn't like, and you taking your revenge shouldn't be justified because "they're immoral" it should be justified because you think it will improve your life. So I "feel" that it's dangerous and stupid to ignore the real reasons we do things and instead believe that everything is somehow based on morality. I "feel" there's no reason to do anything to this man because he isn't dangerous anymore, he's been in jail (tho he was sentenced longer) and basically we're trying to get revenge on a man because of some false sense of morality, rather than remembering the reasons we had to do anything 30 years ago. My point being that the reasons have expired, they don't hold up anymore, but people's sense of morality never dies and causes them to be vengeful without good reason. I don't know if that explains well what I mean or not. Certainly 30 years ago I'd have pissed my pants to be in the same house with this person, but today? I'd probably feel safe enough (whether I'd find him amiable or not is a different question). Well it's more logical to give this man to relatives, mother, father of victim and let them do what they want, kill, torture, dismember alive, feed to dogs. This way it will be revenge and not only punishment based on morality and social perspective, revenge is a natural, healthy and proper thing to have for human psyche. As well as all the law protections and human rights could be lift off him, so anybody could kill or hurt him with no consequences. But that would create a lot of controversy and additional social problems, so it's better to kill him via official execution. | ||
| ||
