EPTOn December 22 2008 13:22 EtherealDeath wrote:
What The Fuck.
What The Fuck.
ditto. fucking incredible - and that video was only ONE of many murders they did!? holy fucktits thats just wrong. i'd bash their fucking faces in if i could.
Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs - Page 21
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
QuoC
United States724 Posts
ditto. fucking incredible - and that video was only ONE of many murders they did!? holy fucktits thats just wrong. i'd bash their fucking faces in if i could. | ||
|
Cloud
Sexico5880 Posts
| ||
|
chobopeon
United States7342 Posts
On December 27 2008 10:34 Manifesto7 wrote: Seriously people, do not post the video here. People can use google, or be stuffed. We dont need snuff film links on this website. Use your head. yeah, sorry about posting at all for those few minutes earlier. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
On December 27 2008 10:51 Savio wrote: "Several days later, two 14-year-old boys from Podgornoye, a local village, were attacked as they went fishing. One of the two friends, Andrei Sidyuck, was killed, but a second boy named Vadik Lyakhov managed to escape. He was placed under arrest, suspected of murdering his friend. He was reportedly denied access to counsel and beaten by police during questioning. However, it quickly became clear that he was not responsible for his friend's death, and that the murder was connected with the Dnepropetrovsk murder spree. Vadik сooperated with the investigators to create sketches of the attackers." From wikipedia Whats up with that? Thats pretty messed up. You get attacked by the 3 maniacs but the police don't believe you and beat you instead. Its called, improved interrogation techniques. | ||
|
Loanshark
China3094 Posts
On December 27 2008 16:32 D10 wrote: Its called, improved interrogation techniques. Ah, the police. They'll always get it right in the end. | ||
|
MuR)Ernu
Finland768 Posts
I mean how can these guys just kill someone then just laugh about it casually, i mean even while they are doing it. Its like they have no value for life, thats kinda sad | ||
|
brambolius
Netherlands448 Posts
On December 25 2008 01:54 Kwark wrote: Name a single civilised nation which practices corporal punishment in its judicial system. Do you perhaps believe the entire of civilisation has gotten it wrong here? That the concerted move of the englightened world away from retribution and towards prevention and rehabilitation was the wrong way to go? How they treated others = A How they treated others = wrong A = wrong How we treat them = B How they treated others = How we treat them A = B B = wrong B = "there is nothing wrong with this"? You have just been logically proved to be an idiot. You have pre-empted the correct argument (that you'd be just as bad as them if you tortured them) with the proof that it is the correct argument as if you were making a point. I don't know how people like you get yourselves dressed in the morning. Humanity continues to disappoint me. 1. the courtrooms are a joke 2. we aren't civilized at all 3. you throw reason and consequence out of the equation now what was your point again? | ||
|
Rostam
United States2552 Posts
| ||
|
Night[Mare
Mexico4793 Posts
Seriously, this is one of the worst crimes i've ever watched. I dont know how this people can be dealt with. It's just so gruesome... The worst thing i think, it's that they have no solution. They're fucked in their minds. There is no way to make them realize what they've done. chirst... RIP All victims. Sorry for all relatives of the victims. I hope this will get a good solution. | ||
|
EmeraldSparks
United States1451 Posts
A = putting random people into prison B = putting criminals into prison A = B A = bad therefore B = bad | ||
|
LordWeird
United States3411 Posts
On December 27 2008 10:34 Manifesto7 wrote: Seriously people, do not post the video here. People can use google, or be stuffed. We dont need snuff film links on this website. Use your head. The link I posted wasn't the video, it was a link to the "Let me google that for you" page  | ||
|
tonight
United States11130 Posts
| ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
What Kwark said was trite. Intentionally here, but the rest of the stuff he said was also trite. When one wants to apply the word 'human' in a philosophical manner, which of course any matter involving morality will always entail; one does not have to simply use physical and genetic paradigms. I agree it's tricky and dangerous to talk about taking away peoples' human rights. In Kwark's opinion it's impossible. I just wonder why. The concept of human rights is completely arbitrary. Just like any moral law, it's not absolute and separate from humanity. It's ignored by a great deal of humans entirely. It was ignored by nazi scientists and is ignored by robert mugabe and has been ignored by mao and stalin etc. The concept of human rights, being entirely arbitrary, is therefore entirely down to the decisions of people. It's arguable just like any law. To argue against a philosophical definition of 'human' with a legal or biological definition is irritating to say the least, and pointless to say the most. | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
| ||
|
naonao
United States847 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States44374 Posts
On December 28 2008 06:09 HamerD wrote: What Kwark said was trite. Intentionally here, but the rest of the stuff he said was also trite. When one wants to apply the word 'human' in a philosophical manner, which of course any matter involving morality will always entail; one does not have to simply use physical and genetic paradigms. I agree it's tricky and dangerous to talk about taking away peoples' human rights. In Kwark's opinion it's impossible. I just wonder why. The concept of human rights is completely arbitrary. Just like any moral law, it's not absolute and separate from humanity. It's ignored by a great deal of humans entirely. It was ignored by nazi scientists and is ignored by robert mugabe and has been ignored by mao and stalin etc. The concept of human rights, being entirely arbitrary, is therefore entirely down to the decisions of people. It's arguable just like any law. To argue against a philosophical definition of 'human' with a legal or biological definition is irritating to say the least, and pointless to say the most. Either he has the same human rights as you do or there are no human rights. What I said about torturing people being wrong stands. What they did was wrong because torturing people is wrong. Torturing them is still wrong. | ||
|
Hans-Titan
Denmark1711 Posts
On December 27 2008 16:32 D10 wrote: Its called, improved interrogation techniques. Actually, it's enhanced interrogation techniques which is just another word for torture. EDIT: A youtube video explains in a quite humerous way. | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On December 28 2008 06:27 Kwark wrote: Either he has the same human rights as you do or there are no human rights. I'm not saying these people should have different human rights, the word 'same' is wrong in this instance. I'm saying they should have no human rights because the word 'human', for the purposes intended here, shouldn't apply to them.[/QUOTE] On December 28 2008 06:27 Kwark wrote: 1. What I said about torturing people being wrong stands. 2.What they did was wrong because torturing people is wrong. 3.Torturing them is still wrong. 1. I agree with you 2. It wasn't just the fact that they committed torture... 3. My colleague at work suggested: give them the choice of either imprisonment in the dark cell with the loom and the 2 meals a day paying for their own upkeep or execution. If the latter is torture then execute them. It's a pretty weak form of torture if it is torture anyway. | ||
|
SerpentFlame
418 Posts
| ||
|
pyrogenetix
China5098 Posts
| ||
| ||
