In Australia, serial rape is ok.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Sun Jul 03, 2011 11:23 pm

Bruce_Bitenfils wrote:

cry of the banshee wrote:

Goat wrote:

cry of the banshee wrote:

And I find it amusing that you all are going so easy on ol' fridge here, if it were a right-leaning poster, you'd all be saying what an idiot he was...

Being fair, it's not like this is the first time Fridge has done his Don Juan routine here, and I certainly remember plenty of people calling him an idiot at the time.

Being a douche is one thing, but claiming that people with a lower than normal capacity for "abstract reasoning" ( a vague term, at any rate) are not human is a new nadir of stupidity.

Coming a bit late here but Fridge's posts I take seriously are only the ones where he talks about putting his dick in stuff. Hence the lack of reaction. I don't think it has anything to do with being a right-winger or not.

CotB wrote:

I have posted evidence that there is a very strong likelihood that life is present as early as 20 - 40 days of the gestational period of a fetus, yet, abortion is just fine.

Yes, very interesting. To this day, I simply thought that "embryo = lifeless mass of cells" and "foetus = life". If there is a strong evidence showing what you suggest, then I agree that currently implemented abortion equals to murder. If not, well, it'll have to wait a little.

Well, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here, as I am a pragmatist.
Regardless of whatever morality is involved, abortions are not going away, so it should remain legal and safe.

I'm just trying for some reconciliation of the two (execution vs. abortion and the arguments both for and against) and the fact that the two things are not necessarilly black and white.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Sun Jul 03, 2011 11:32 pm

Goat wrote:

cry of the banshee wrote:

State execution vs abortion

Interesting points, but the difference surely is that in one case we're questioning whether the person is innocent or guilty, and in the other we're questioning whether the foetus even counts as alive - everyone accepts the condemned man is 'alive' so the two don't really compare. Mentioning the capital punishment point is a very good argument that late-term abortion should be avoided at all costs, but it doesn't really apply logically to earlier cases, where nearly all are agreed there's no chance of life away from the mother. Of course, Fridge being pro-abortion even at a late stage iirc, he has a case to answer here...

Not to diminish my libertarian cred. but I don't want to see privatised abortion, since you mention state subsidies. I think abortion is not a great thing, but is better regulated rather than made illegal - like drugs and prostitution, people will do it anyway, so we should ensure that as far as possible the public's general health is not made to suffer as a result. Makes it easier to control late-term abortions, too. Different, too, is that we're not actually trusting the state with ultimately making the final decision, as we are with capital punishment, we're putting the legal framework into place to ensure the mother has the choice where safe to do so. I assume we're all ok with abortions where the foetus has a serious illness and its birth could kill the mother?

The life argument to me is dependant on whether said life can survive, viability as mentioned before. If mere cellular activity indicated life, Bruce, it would be illegal to masturbate! COTB has a good point re developing organisms, but a line must be drawn somewhere - viability outside of the body seems to be the most logical option.

A couple of things, then I'm off for awhile.
I think that before a person is executed, guilt should be as close to 100% proven as possible. Also, only for the most reprehensible crimes, e.g. raping and / or murdering children, etc... there is always a chance that if the guilty paty is somehow released, it will happen again. As it has. One example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Singleton

That must not be allowed, society has an obligation to protect itself and especially those withing that are incapable of protecting themselves. this is a very controversial topic, and I respect the opposing opinion, as long as it is consistent.

Lastly, cellular activity doesn't necessarilly indicate life, but a heartbeat, usage of oxygen and brain activity does.

I'm off for a bit, my brain is tired and it is hot.

dead1 · **Joined:** Tue Apr 13, 2010 7:22 am **Posts:** 2250

Goat wrote:

And what, leave them to themselves? Prisons would become Victorian-style lunatic asylums. Showing them more humanity than they showed their victims is what makes us civilised.

Yeah we're civilised cause we let psychopaths live the good life and
then release them on to the streets to perpetrate crimes again. :blink:

That's not civilised, that's just perverted.

By the way if someone raped your mother/girlfriend/wife, tortured her and then murdered her, do you think the sick puppy that did it should spend 10-15 years in a comfortable cell (or 3 years as it seems these days) and then be released back into the community?

By the way do any of you guys anti-death penalty types support that idiotic idea of just war?

dead1 · **Joined:** Tue Apr 13, 2010 7:22 am **Posts:** 2250

It's also amazing that none of the pro-lifers have exhibited any empathy with the victims of these brutal crimes.

People's lives have been taken or they've suffered massive physical and mental abuse that will change them for ever.

Yet people defend the perpetrators and show no concern for the victims.

As Alexander said, kill them all.

The Annoying Frenchman · **Posted:** Mon Jul 04, 2011 6:46 am

You're such an idiot you don't even understand those against death penalty are not criminal lovers but people who think taking a life is wrong and society has to give an example as to how we treat convicts. It has nothing to do with empathy (of which we might possess a lot more than you given what you've said in this thread), this was not the suggest.

dead1 · **Joined:** Tue Apr 13, 2010 7:22 am **Posts:** 2250

The Annoying Frenchman wrote:

You're such an idiot you don't even understand those against death penalty are not criminal lovers but people who think taking a life is wrong and society has to give an example as to how we treat convicts. It has nothing to do with empathy (of which we might possess a lot more than you given what you've said in this thread), this was not the suggest.

Look you're promoting the status quo - scmubags get treated very well for commiting atrocities against the inncoent (Goat calls this being civilised and you call it setting an example).

So what's your solution for people who rape, murder, molest children etc etc?

Also your "setting an example" is typically mindless idealism.

I grew up surrounded by these scum. I've associated with drug dealers, robbers, thieves, burglars, junkies, wife beaters and all manner of other thugs in my youth (I never did any crimes except using drugs and the odd graffiti).

These people don't give a fuck about you setting an example . You treat them nice and they think you're a sucker. They exploit you to get what they can.

This is not "My Fair Lady" with Audrey Hepburn. It's not about showing some kindness and the bad will reform.

They have no respect for the law (prison was viewed as a holiday) or for society. These people respond to fear and violence.

traptunderice · **Posted:** Mon Jul 04, 2011 7:07 am

dead1 wrote:

These people don't give a fuck about you setting an example . You treat them nice and they think you're a sucker. They exploit you to get what they can.

It doesn't matter that they think we are suckers. If they are so worthless to exterminate, as you call for, why should their opinion matter? I don't judge myself and our society does not judge itself according to their standards. A community posits itself a standard and expects behavior to live up to that standard. To violate that standard in order to punish violations of that standard is so clearly and blatantly hypocritical.

dead1 · **Joined:** Tue Apr 13, 2010 7:22 am **Posts:** 2250

traptunderice wrote:

It doesn't matter that they think we are suckers. If they are so worthless to exterminate, as you call for, why should their opinion matter?

I assumed Goat and the Frenchman think that treating people kindly changes their ways and turns them to good people.

traptunderice wrote:

I don't judge myself and our society does not judge itself according to their standards. A community posits itself a standard and expects behavior to live up to that standard. To violate that standard in order to punish violations of that standard is so clearly and blatantly hypocritical.

So we have to treat murderers and rapists well? Fuck that.

The attitude in our community seems to be that scum gets treated too well. Just about every day the newspapers are full of stories about felons getting a free ride and letters of outrage from community members. I work with social workers,mental health nurses and psychologists and even they comment that the law is too lenient.

However a standard is imposed on us by airy fairy hippy types in the legal profession and waste of space human rights activists who believe that treating rapists and murderers with respect is the way to go. It makes us "better" than them.

The law should reflect community values. If the community wants scumbags to rot for the awful atrocities they've commited, the law should dispense that.

It's not hypocritical. If the value is that those that hurt or kill need to be punished with horrid conditions or even death then so be it.

Milan · **Posted:** Mon Jul 04, 2011 10:31 am

I suppose murderers and rapists should be executed by the government, no? So what if someone's wife got raped and killed and the husband murders the rapist before the officials get the chance to arrest said rapist. Should that husband be executed too? After all, he murdered someone. On the other hand it could also be said that he just "executed" a rapist and murderer.

Goat · **Posted:** Mon Jul 04, 2011 11:26 am

Quote:

Yeah we're civilised cause we let psychopaths live the good life and then release them on to the streets to perpetrate crimes again.

Straw man alert! No-one said releasing psychopaths is a good idea. And being locked up all day =! the good life, whether they get an hour's exercise or not.

Quote:

By the way if someone raped your mother/girlfriend/wife, tortured her and then murdered her, do you think the sick puppy that did it should spend 10-15 years in a comfortable cell (or 3 years as it seems these days) and then be released back into the community?

Did I ever say that I thought those who were a danger to society should be released? Quite the opposite. I just don't think hanging and flogging is as suitable or necessary as you do. Some societies execute graffitists, for what it's worth.

Quote:

By the way do any of you guys anti-death penalty types support that idiotic idea of just war?

No. The only 'good' war is a defensive one fought against invaders. War by its very nature is neither good nor just.

Quote:

As Alexander said, kill them all.

You're not showing empathy for the victims, you're showing hatred to the perpetrators. Your entire attitude is kinda showed up by the fact that you think the legal profession is full of "airy fairy hippy types".

The Annoying Frenchman · **Posted:** Mon Jul 04, 2011 4:31 pm

dead1 wrote:

So what's your solution for people who rape, murder, molest children etc etc?

There is no solution, atrocity is an inseparable part of human nature.

Milan wrote:

I suppose murderers and rapists should be executed by the government, no? So what if someone's wife got raped and killed and the husband murders the rapist before the officials get the chance to arrest said rapist. Should that husband be executed too? After all, he murdered someone. On the other hand it could also be said that he just "executed" a rapist and murderer.

Since we're not allowed to do justice ourselves those who kill a murderer, molester or rapist are criminals themselves.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Mon Jul 04, 2011 4:45 pm

The Annoying Frenchman wrote:

You're such an idiot ...

Quote:

And I find it amusing that you all are going so easy on ol' fridge here, if it were a right-leaning poster, you'd all be saying what an idiot he was...

Just as I predicted.

The Annoying Frenchman · **Posted:** Mon Jul 04, 2011 4:50 pm

Saying Fridge is an idiot is like trying to break through an open door, Val. :wink:

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Mon Jul 04, 2011 4:50 pm

Anyway, stefan, I remember you saying way back in the old days (old NSBM thread) if you had the chance you would put a bullet in Hitlers brain, for the better of mankind.
Also, you suggested the same fate for neo-nazis.

Do you still hold that belief?

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Mon Jul 04, 2011 4:53 pm

The Annoying Frenchman wrote:

Saying Fridge is an idiot is like trying to break through an open door, Val. :wink:

Still, I've been around long enough to know how it goes 'round here.
dead1's arguments are polite, civil and just because you don't agree with them, doesn't make him an idiot...

The Annoying Frenchman · **Posted:** Mon Jul 04, 2011 4:54 pm

I do. And I would accept the consequences and face a conviction for killing a monster before he became one.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Mon Jul 04, 2011 4:55 pm

The Annoying Frenchman wrote:

I do. And I would accept the consequences and face a conviction for killing a monster before he became one.

Hitler was a human being... so are "neo-nazi's".

I thought ALL life is sacred.

The Annoying Frenchman · **Posted:** Mon Jul 04, 2011 4:55 pm

cry of the banshee wrote:

The Annoying Frenchman wrote:

Saying Fridge is an idiot is like trying to break through an open door, Val. :wink:

Still, I've been around long enough to know how it goes 'round here.
dead1's arguments are polite, civil and just because you don't agree with them, doesn't make him an idiot...

When one's arguments (whatever the matter) appear to me as idiotic, I call them idiots.
And, c'mon, idiot is not that strong an insult... :rolleyes:

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Mon Jul 04, 2011 4:56 pm

You don't consider somebody that rapes, tortures and murders a child a monster?
Interesting.

The Annoying Frenchman · **Posted:** Mon Jul 04, 2011 4:56 pm

cry of the banshee wrote:

The Annoying Frenchman wrote:

I do. And I would accept the consequences and face a conviction for killing a monster before he became one.

Hitler was a human being... so are "neo-nazi's".

I thought ALL life is sacred.

All life is hence the "facing the consequences" when comitting a murderous act.

Metal Reviews

In Australia, serial rape is ok.

Who is online