NationStates Jolt Archive

Still not getting it?I don't care if anyone takes seriously my 'claims',I'm not trying to influence others.
Wonderful.

Try to remember, however, that this is a debate forum. If you post what many believe to be an untenable position, folks will debate it.

That's the problem,many of these criminals don't have a conscience
On certain matters, perhaps not, but only the mentally ill have no conscience.

An interesting article, though it's not clear that the dolphins are killing in cold blood; i.e. without any real purpose. I'm not claiming definitavely they aren't, but obviously these cases need to be studied further.

As to the lions, it's my understanding that the killings are territorial in nature, or to do with alpha-male assertion. This, in my understanding, wouldn't be murder in 'cold blood'.

However, I'd also say that murder in 'cold blood' is rather rare in humans also.



As far as I am aware, cannibalism certainly exists between certain groups of chimpanzees, as does rampant aggression, but these are killings for meat/dominance within the troupe, not cold-blooded murder.

Yeah, humans didn't come up with killing others, we're just the only ones who actually wake up and the morning, fix ourselves a cup of coffee and carefully plan out how to murder as many people at work today as possible using an assortment of firearms and samurai sword.

If you're like me you only get to the planning stage, but some of us actually go out and do it! That's evolution for you.

Wonderful.

Try to remember, however, that this is a debate forum. If you post what many believe to be an untenable position, folks will debate it.


On certain matters, perhaps not, but only the mentally ill have no conscience.
Mentally ill?I think you called the right name,or maybe criminally insane?

ok going to bed now,I'll see your posts tomorrow,goodnight.

Mentally ill?I think you called the right name,or maybe criminally insane?
If you're suggesting that all criminals are insane, then your position's more laughable than it initially appeared.

If one has no conscience, then on is mentally defective. But criminals do not have a total lack of conscience, far from it.

I'm leaving for work shortly, and should be able to keep up better once there aren't babies crawling all over me.

Anything like this?

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a353/tuebor/BabySuit.jpg

That's the problem,many of these criminals don't have a conscience and the state isolates them in prison from other inmates so as not to get killed,if they really suffered in prison I wouldn't have been so set up about what I'm saying.And no I'm sorry but for me some scumbags don't deserve a second chance,they didn't deserve a first one either.

you don't have to apologise for your opinion and I can see the logic behind it but the humanitarian in me has to disagree and say we should give these animals a chance just because we ourselves should not stoop to there level.(wonders if he has used the correct there)

It's a matter that has to be handled with care, and I think few people actually deserve to die. But I think it's a possibility when we think of cases like Dutroux (a pedofile who killed his victims, was arrested and managed to escape in jail).


Greetz

Cheers mate, thanks for the hijack.

Useful stuff indeed.
You're more than welcome. Ask again if you want any more info.;)

It's a matter that has to be handled with care, and I think few people actually deserve to die. But I think it's a possibility when we think of cases like Dutroux (a pedofile who killed his victims, was arrested and managed to escape in jail).


Greetz
My solution is to build better jails. I'm not being facetious here, most British jails are Victorian buildings that lack 150 years of psycology and criminology in their design and operation.

Didn't see this line then?

'Orca whales hunt eider ducks for practice'

Yes all sorts of animals kill young not of their gene pool, you can't figure out why, and so call it cold blooded?

1) Orca whales is a different story....

2) A lion will eat his mate's offspring, if not his. In other words, the lion will analytically target, and then methodically kill. How is it not 'cold blooded'?

3) The story was about dolphins, did you even read it?

An interesting article, though it's not clear that the dolphins are killing in cold blood; i.e. without any real purpose. I'm not claiming definitavely they aren't, but obviously these cases need to be studied further.

As to the lions, it's my understanding that the killings are territorial in nature, or to do with alpha-male assertion. This, in my understanding, wouldn't be murder in 'cold blood'.

However, I'd also say that murder in 'cold blood' is rather rare in humans also.


As far as I'm aware, 'in cold blood' means that there is not a passionate response. That is - no powerful revenge or other emotion forms the motivation for the act, it is just conceived and then executed.

Dogs fighting in the wild, probably wouldn't count as 'in cold blood'. The methodical rape gangs and murder gangs that dolphins seem to sometimes form into seem like they would be almost definitively 'cold blooded'.

And, of course, all snakes who kill, are cold-blooded.

If you're suggesting that all criminals are insane, then your position's more laughable than it initially appeared.


Because of how we define mental health? If the majority have the same condidtion, does it still count as insanity?

As far as I'm aware, 'in cold blood' means that there is not a passionate response. That is - no powerful revenge or other emotion forms the motivation for the act, it is just conceived and then executed.
I was using the term 'cold-blooded' to mean a killing for no reason other than killing; as the term is used in everyday language.

Lions killing male offspring in an attempt to retain alpha-male status within a pack, etc., is not what I meant. As I said earlier, I know of no nonhuman animal which commits such 'cold-blooded' acts, and it is relatively uncommon in human society.

Because of how we define mental health? If the majority have the same condidtion, does it still count as insanity?
Are all criminals mentally defective/posses non-standard mental characterstics?

Simply put, no.

It's not a question of definition, it's dispelling a criminology myth that was rightfully thrown out in Victorian times.

I was using the term 'cold-blooded' to mean a killing for no reason other than killing; as the term is used in everyday language.

Lions killing male offspring in an attempt to retain alpha-male status within a pack, etc., is not what I meant. As I said earlier, I know of no nonhuman animal which commits such 'cold-blooded' acts, and it is relatively uncommon in human society.


Then dolphins still qualify.

Why does everyone keep obsessing about the lions? Is it just ebcause dolphins are cute?


Are all criminals mentally defective/posses non-standard mental characterstics?

Simply put, no.

It's not a question of definition, it's dispelling a criminology myth that was rightfully thrown out in Victorian times.

That's the second time you've invoked that 'we know better than that nowadays' schtick. I'm not saying EVERY criminal act is a result of aberrant faculty. Example: stealing food because you are hungry, very different thing to dashing babies against walls.

But what about actual 'criminal' psychology... the sort of thing that drives people to hurt or kill? Could that not be aberration? (Thinking about it, there was a news article maybe as little as a week ago, about bully's brains working differently to other people's brains...) I don't think it's unrealistic to assume there is a 'mental' problem sitting in there somewhere.

I don't like this idea that 'we know it doesn't work like that'... most of the time, it's a ridiculous claim to make, and you're arguing that a modern THEORY has somehow 'proved' past ideas wrong. Especially in areas like the working of the brain, where we are still making baby steps.

An interesting article, though it's not clear that the dolphins are killing in cold blood; i.e. without any real purpose. I'm not claiming definitavely they aren't, but obviously these cases need to be studied further.

As to the lions, it's my understanding that the killings are territorial in nature, or to do with alpha-male assertion. This, in my understanding, wouldn't be murder in 'cold blood'.

However, I'd also say that murder in 'cold blood' is rather rare in humans also.


This looks like a gray area. How do you 'know' which human crimes are 'cold blood'? It rather seems like you're looking for boundaries that might not exist. Crimes of passion, for example... wouldn't that be a kind of 'territorial' killing? Why isn't alpha male assertion 'cold blood'?

I was using the term 'cold-blooded' to mean a killing for no reason other than killing; as the term is used in everyday language.

I've never heard it used that way, and we seem to be having a problem so I looked it up. And, I'm getting this kind of thing: "done or acting without consideration, compunction, or clemency <cold–blooded murder>"

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Then dolphins still qualify.

Why does everyone keep obsessing about the lions? Is it just ebcause dolphins are cute?
It's because the dolphins aren't a clear-cut case. We can't say for sure that they were attacking the porpoises and/or offspring purely for the sae of attacking them, or even whetehr this behaviour is 'normal' for dolphins.

There simply isn't enough evidence.

That's the second time you've invoked that 'we know better than that nowadays' schtick.
Because it's a valid defence.

We (or most of us) don't think the word is flat nowadays; we know better. Similarly, we (or many, if not most) don't think that humans and animals are two distinct things, that human=good and animal=bad, or that criminals commit crimes because they are mentally defective; we know better.

I'm not saying EVERY criminal act is a result of aberrant faculty. Example: stealing food because you are hungry, very different thing to dashing babies against walls.

But what about actual 'criminal' psychology... the sort of thing that drives people to hurt or kill? Could that not be aberration? ... I don't think it's unrealistic to assume there is a 'mental' problem sitting in there somewhere.
Some crimes are obviously motivated, in part, through mental deficiency (psychopaths and sociopaths are an obvious example), but I think it's highly unrealistic to try and assert that all murders are in the same category as psycopathy.

Especially when 'murder' is, in part, a culturally specific term.

I don't like this idea that 'we know it doesn't work like that'... most of the time, it's a ridiculous claim to make, and you're arguing that a modern THEORY has somehow 'proved' past ideas wrong. Especially in areas like the working of the brain, where we are still making baby steps.
I'm not arguing that modern theory has proven past theory to be incorrect, simply that past theory has been proven to be incorrect through evidence.

This looks like a gray area. How do you 'know' which human crimes are 'cold blood'? It rather seems like you're looking for boundaries that might not exist. Crimes of passion, for example... wouldn't that be a kind of 'territorial' killing? Why isn't alpha male assertion 'cold blood'?
Simply, it isn't killing for the sake of killing.

If this is not what is commonly understood to be meant by 'cold-blooded', then so be it. But my argument still stands. Find me an animal apart from humans who kill for no reason but for the sake of killing.

It's because the dolphins aren't a clear-cut case. We can't say for sure that they were attacking the porpoises and/or offspring purely for the sae of attacking them, or even whetehr this behaviour is 'normal' for dolphins.

There simply isn't enough evidence.


It's a behaviour that's been observed for quite some time, in two different locations. I know I first heard about it years ago.... in fact, since I was still at college, probably somewhere around 15 years ago.

So, it's not 'new'.

We can't say for sure why the dolphins were attacking. But the same is true with humans.

We can't say whether the behaviour is normal for dolphins, but it's irrelevent - because we're not arguing it's 'normal' for humans, either.


Because it's a valid defence.


No it isn't, and I'll show you why...


We (or most of us) don't think the word is flat nowadays; we know better.


...in order to defend it, you have to refer to a completely un-similar thing.

We can see the shape of the earth. We are still guessing what goes on in brains.


Similarly, we (or many, if not most) don't think that humans and animals are two distinct things, that human=good and animal=bad, or that criminals commit crimes because they are mentally defective; we know better.


Some crimes are obviously motivated, in part, through mental deficiency (psychopaths and sociopaths are an obvious example), but I think it's highly unrealistic to try and assert that all murders are in the same category as psycopathy.


Not all murders have to be in the same category as psychopathy. Bit of a strawman there.


Especially when 'murder' is, in part, a culturally specific term.


Irrelevent.


I'm not arguing that modern theory has proven past theory to be incorrect, simply that past theory has been proven to be incorrect through evidence.


I think you're overstating things for the benefit of your own argument, to be honest.


Simply, it isn't killing for the sake of killing.

If this is not what is commonly understood to be meant by 'cold-blooded', then so be it. But my argument still stands. Find me an animal apart from humans who kill for no reason but for the sake of killing.

You can't even show that that is true in humans.

Anything like this?

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a353/tuebor/BabySuit.jpg

Slightly less babies, but much the same effect.

:D

I've still noticed that you haven't provided a single argument as to why we should believe that killing someone makes you not human, GnI.

Because an actual human being can be measured by it's actions.

If it doesn't act right, it's not human.


I'm not being trivial. I'm not saying the wrong skin tone, or going to the wrong church - I'm talking about behaviour that deliberately breaks the 'human contract'... like killing, or rape.

The argument I keep seeing against it... is biological. I don't buy that as a realistic measure.

It's a behaviour that's been observed for quite some time, in two different locations. I know I first heard about it years ago.... in fact, since I was still at college, probably somewhere around 15 years ago.

So, it's not 'new'.
I never said it was, but nothing in the article, and nothing any expert on the matter says, definitifely states that the dolphins killed porpoises/offspring merely for the ske of killing them.

I admit, it's a very intriguing case, and could potentially prove to be an exception to what I am stating. but it's not yet something to base an argument on.

We can see the shape of the earth. We are still guessing what goes on in brains.
Quite, but not knowing the full extent of the brain-mind's activity, how consciousness 'works', etc., does not mean to say that we have to consider disproven theory that was previously held to be acceptable. Assigning mental defectiveness to all criminals (and if you want to object that's not what you're arguing, see below) is one of these disproven theories.

Not all murders have to be in the same category as psychopathy. Bit of a strawman there.
A strawman to what? If all you're arguing is that sometimes, some murderers who are not psychopaths may kill because of mental defects, then I've no problem agreeing with you.

But the position above seems to be a massive backpeddle from what I believe you were originally arguing.

Irrelevent.
How so? What's murder in one country is not murder in another. Is the individual mad in the country which would charge him with murder, and not mad in the country which would not?


Because an actual human being can be measured by it's actions.
But they do not define what is a human.

I'm talking about behaviour that deliberately breaks the 'human contract'... like killing, or rape.
There is no such contract. It's as unintelligable as the 'social contract'.

I see no confusion; to be human is to be part of the human species. To be a chimpanzee is to be part of the chimpanzee species. Why would humans be any different, unless you're positing that humans are seperate from the natural world, and/or 'touched' by a deity?


Nothing to do with deity.

I'm not ruling out the possibility that there can be a similar state for 'mundane' animals... indeed, all the evidence I've seen suggests the opposite.

What I'm saying is - the boundaries are being blurred. Humans are animals, but they are also 'more than' animals - they are civilised animals.

The evidence is right there - feral children don't even look like 'civilised' humans, except as a basically similarity of conformation. There are two 'states' of human. Biologically human - the animal... and what I'm going to call 'Human'.


Hitler was a human. Jack the Ripper was a human. Stalin was a human. Myra Hindley was a human. To deny otherwise seems to be both a delusion of grand proportions,


Not at all. To refer to every human-shaped-animal as a 'Human' is a delusion.


...and a poor excuse for ridding responsibility of one's actions.


A very good excuse, actually... should you wish to do so.


And the problem with that is...?

EDIT: The X-men aren't human, but that's not a problem, morally or practically etc., unless our morals are distinctly speciesist.


You've been arguing that they are, so far.

You've specifically pointed out 'humans' (as you identify them) as having behaviours aberrant in the animal kingdom.

What I'm saying is - the boundaries are being blurred. Humans are animals, but they are also 'more than' animals - they are civilised animals.


What does living in a city have to do with it?

The evidence is right there - feral children don't even look like 'civilised' humans, except as a basically similarity of conformation. There are two 'states' of human. Biologically human - the animal... and what I'm going to call 'Human'.

They don't "look human" (to you) so they aren't, not really?


Not at all. To refer to every human-shaped-animal as a 'Human' is a delusion.

It's not a delusion when it is 100% true and accurate to call all humans, humans. Your problem is that you've turned "human" into some sort of statement about moral quality, such that people you don't like, well, you can dismiss them as "not really human" and people whose moral quality is more to your preference are "human."

Hence you can sleep easy at night, knowing that Hitler is not a human, not really, no good human would really do that sort of thing. And the bit about "human-shaped-animals" is just creepy. I mean so do you think the concept of Human Rights is a delusion, since people want to apply it to everyone and you don't think everyone is human?

What does living in a city have to do with it?


Nothing... since 'feral children' can actually be urban.

Hence, I didn't mention living in cities. I'm coy like that.


They don't "look human" (to you) so they aren't, not really?


Missed the point?

We are almost a dimorphic race - depending on how we are raised. Offspring raised in isolation do not follow the same behaviours, or even look much like, their 'civilised' counterparts. Not only that - but if they get to a certain stage of development, such offspring are not even retrievable.


It's not a delusion when it is 100% true and accurate to call all humans, humans.


But you haven't shown that it IS 100% true and accurate. You are confusing DNA with humanity.


Your problem is that you've turned "human" into some sort of statement about moral quality,


Not at all. I've not made any 'moral' arguments. Only behavioural.


Hence you can sleep easy at night, knowing that Hitler is not a human, not really, no good human would really do that sort of thing. And the bit about "human-shaped-animals" is just creepy. I mean so do you think the concept of Human Rights is a delusion, since people want to apply it to everyone and you don't think everyone is human?

Nothing to do with sleeping easy.

Do I think the concept of Human Rights is a delusion? I think the question is nonsensical. How can an amorphous concept be a delusion... or be NOT a delusion.

Nothing... since 'feral children' can actually be urban.

Hence, I didn't mention living in cities. I'm coy like that.

You mentioned "civilized people," which means a city building and dwelling society.

Missed the point?

We are almost a dimorphic race - depending on how we are raised. Offspring raised in isolation do not follow the same behaviours, or even look much like, their 'civilised' counterparts. Not only that - but if they get to a certain stage of development, such offspring are not even retrievable.


"Almost." Key word. We are all humans, regardless of behavior, and that includes Hitler. There isn't some real distinction between "human shaped animals" and humans. You can point to any difference of behavior and upbringing and use it to suggest - coyly! - that some are human and others are not-human, but it's a questionable tactic and I fail to see the purpose if not to artifically demonize some people and elevate others.

But you haven't shown that it IS 100% true and accurate. You are confusing DNA with humanity.

You are confusing your own moral bias with humanity. Hence, to you, Hitler is not human, as I guess feral children aren't. That's what's nonsensical to me.

Not at all. I've not made any 'moral' arguments. Only behavioural.

Suggesting Hitler wasn't human sounds like a moral argument to me. Or do you suggest he wasn't human not because of his heinous crimes, but some other reason perhaps? The mustache?


Do I think the concept of Human Rights is a delusion? I think the question is nonsensical. How can an amorphous concept be a delusion... or be NOT a delusion.

Erm. Because a delusion is a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact. Since when did delusionality require tangibility anyway? It didn't and I think you're evading the question.

You mentioned "civilized people," which means a city building and dwelling society.


No, it doesn't.

Dig around, I'm sure you can find a definition somewhere that might say something like that... but, I'll wager it's in a list of half a dozen other definitions that say otherwise.

If you want to quibble some weird semantic argument, however... knock yourself out.


"Almost." Key word. We are all humans, regardless of behavior,


Except that we're not. Because of behaviour. Maybe.


...and that includes Hitler. There isn't some real distinction between "human shaped animals" and humans.


Yes, there is.


You can point to any difference of behavior


Exactly.


...and upbringing and use it to suggest - coyly! - that some are human and others are not-human, but it's a questionable tactic and I fail to see the purpose if not to artifically demonize some people and elevate others.


Nothing artificial about it. Feral children that have been allowed to progress past a certain part cannot function as people, only as pets.


You are confusing your own moral bias with humanity.


There's been no moral bias on my part.


Hence, to you, Hitler is not human, as I guess feral children aren't. That's what's nonsensical to me.


You don't get it. That's hardly my failing.


Suggesting Hitler wasn't human sounds like a moral argument to me. Or do you suggest he wasn't human not because of his heinous crimes, but some other reason perhaps? The mustache?


I don't know. That was your argument, not mine.

Bump around in the thread if you like. Show me where I argued Hitler wasn't human?


Erm. Because a delusion is a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact. Since when did delusionality require tangibility anyway? It didn't and I think you're evading the question.

Missing the point, I think.

'Human Rights' are an agreement between people. That's it. It has no material or verifiable existence. Saying 'human rights' are either delusional or non-delusional are equally valid, because they only 'exist' in our heads.

If you're suggesting that all criminals are insane, then your position's more laughable than it initially appeared.

If one has no conscience, then on is mentally defective. But criminals do not have a total lack of conscience, far from it.
No I didn't call them mentally ill,the vast majority of them is not,if they were we could not hold them entirely accountable for their actions.

you don't have to apologise for your opinion and I can see the logic behind it but the humanitarian in me has to disagree and say we should give these animals a chance just because we ourselves should not stoop to there level.(wonders if he has used the correct there)
Ok man,I respect your point of view.

What does living in a city have to do with it?



They don't "look human" (to you) so they aren't, not really?



It's not a delusion when it is 100% true and accurate to call all humans, humans. Your problem is that you've turned "human" into some sort of statement about moral quality, such that people you don't like, well, you can dismiss them as "not really human" and people whose moral quality is more to your preference are "human."

Hence you can sleep easy at night, knowing that Hitler is not a human, not really, no good human would really do that sort of thing. And the bit about "human-shaped-animals" is just creepy. I mean so do you think the concept of Human Rights is a delusion, since people want to apply it to everyone and you don't think everyone is human?
So human is a label attributed to anyone?Both to a kind philanthropist and to serial killer?If that is the case then yes human rights are a joke and they should be enjoyed only by the worthy.

So human is a label attributed to anyone?Both to a kind philanthropist and to serial killer?If that is the case then yes human rights are a joke and they should be enjoyed only by the worthy.
Who decides who is 'worthy' of enjoying fundemental rights and liberties, and how do you do it? How do you prevent tyrannical government if one can pick and choose what rights do and do not apply?

Who decides who is 'worthy' of enjoying fundemental rights and liberties, and how do you do it? How do you prevent tyrannical government if one can pick and choose what rights do and do not apply?
Who decides?How about all you idealistic types that invented human rights?Fundamental?Why that?Because everyone says so?If someone is not able to understand the distinction between a normal citizen and a bloodthirsty criminal then debates are useless,voting is useless,trusting in governments is useless.

Who decides?How about all you idealistic types that invented human rights?Fundamental?Why that?Because everyone says so?If someone is not able to understand the distinction between a normal citizen and a bloodthirsty criminal then debates are useless,voting is useless,trusting in governments is useless.
People have fundemental human rights because it is naive to trust government and other voters. Your rather cavalier attitude towards my human rights is proof of that, if nothing else.

People have fundemental human rights because it is naive to trust government and other voters. Your rather cavalier attitude towards my human rights is proof of that, if nothing else.
Ok keep believing that,apparently we see things differently,you have your opinion and I have mine.

Not at all. To refer to every human-shaped-animal as a 'Human' is a delusion.
Instead of going back and forth on this issue, perhaps you'd answer, or give some indication of your position, on these questions? (For arguments sake, I'll take it that you're calling murderers 'inhuman', though if you'd disagree, substitute a suitable alternative.)

Were murderers ever 'human'?
At what point do they become 'inhuman'? During the planning, if any, of the murder? As the knife slips into the chest?
Can they ever become 'human' again?
Presumeably someone can become 'inhuman', in your view without ever committing murder directly (Hitler, Stalin, etc.)?
If they're not 'human', what are they?
Are humans thus incapable of murder?
Are we free to do whatever we wish to these 'nonhumans'?
I murder you in a fit of rage, then instantly regret what I've done. I give myself up to the police, serve my time, and spend the rest of my life doing valuable community work. Am I 'human'? Did I lose, then regain my 'humanity'?

You've been arguing that they are, so far.
That morality is speciesist? I don't believe I have.

You've specifically pointed out 'humans' (as you identify them) as having behaviours aberrant in the animal kingdom.
Aberrant behaviour does not nessecitate speciesist morality.

Not at all. I've not made any 'moral' arguments. Only behavioural.
You've made an almost entirely moral argument: behaviour x is so immoral, that to commit it is to lose one's status as 'human'.

Indeed, you're attempting to define 'human' as a moral term.

What, exactly, makes executing a murderer more 'stooping to their level' than, say, sending a kidnapper to prison?

Also, why is it unacceptable to deny people the right to life but all right to deny the rights to liberty and freedom of movement - both basic human rights as outlined in the UDoHR - in the form of prison?

Note that I don't have a strong opinion on the death penalty one way or the other, and that these are honest questions probably borne out of ignorance.

What, exactly, makes executing a murderer more 'stooping to their level' than, say, sending a kidnapper to prison?
I wouldn't stress that part of the argument, but for many pople it's the finality of a death penalty, accompanied by the inevitabilty that innocents will be killed.

There's major problems in my mind about the criminal punishment system also, but reintroducing the death penalty would solve none of these.

Still not getting it?I don't care if anyone takes seriously my 'claims',I'm not trying to influence others.And honestly I don't need their approval either,if I were in a position of power and was able to decide about the fate of such criminals I'd do what I think is right without putting it into a referendum.

Then you don't get it either huh! I've alredy told you that my reason for being here is to better understand my own principles by debating with those who seem to hold an opposite view. Why are you contributing if you really don't care and have nowt to say?

And no I'm sorry but for me some scumbags don't deserve a second chance,they didn't deserve a first one either.

And you don't see how this sort of thinking is similar to the kind of thought that perduces these acts in the first place?

The fucker he deserves it*stab*

Well he shouldn't have been born black then *stab*

She shouldn't wear cloths like that *stab*

You have offered nowt but anger and emotion for your stance, which I just find incredable, and certianly puts your mind on par with those you want to suffer.

If you count your self as a 'human', can you afford to have feelings like these, and be happy, and proud, to not examine them?

By wishing the same on the purpetratures of these crimes, are you not acting in the same way as them?

1) Orca whales is a different story....

2) A lion will eat his mate's offspring, if not his. In other words, the lion will analytically target, and then methodically kill. How is it not 'cold blooded'?

3) The story was about dolphins, did you even read it?

1. Fair point.
2. If it has a reason, in case like these to maintian his genetic stock, it is not cold blooded.
3. Yes, it says that scientists are not sure why the dolphins do this and went on to name a few reasosn. All in all we can't say why and so it may be coldblooded murder, it may not be.

Because of how we define mental health? If the majority have the same condidtion, does it still count as insanity?

Now that is an interesting question.

Then you don't get it either huh! I've alredy told you that my reason for being here is to better understand my own principles by debating with those who seem to hold an opposite view. Why are you contributing if you really don't care and have nowt to say?
Why am I contributing?Maybe I had nothing better to do?Who cares?I said what I believe,I don't care if people like it,dislike it,want to discuss it or not.

And you don't see how this sort of thinking is similar to the kind of thought that perduces these acts in the first place?

The fucker he deserves it*stab*

Well he shouldn't have been born black then *stab*

She shouldn't wear cloths like that *stab*

You have offered nowt but anger and emotion for your stance, which I just find incredable, and certianly puts your mind on par with those you want to suffer.

If you count your self as a 'human', can you afford to have feelings like these, and be happy, and proud, to not examine them?

By wishing the same on the purpetratures of these crimes, are you not acting in the same way as them?
Nice stab sounds there!
And no although it may seem I adopt their mindset I am not doing so,the important thing here is the identity of the aggressor not their payback.I didn't say I'd execute anyone for no reason,the criminals act that way.Yes I can believe my stuff AND consider myself human.

Because an actual human being can be measured by it's actions.

If it doesn't act right, it's not human.


I'm not being trivial. I'm not saying the wrong skin tone, or going to the wrong church - I'm talking about behaviour that deliberately breaks the 'human contract'... like killing, or rape.

The argument I keep seeing against it... is biological. I don't buy that as a realistic measure.


Okay lets talk a little about this 'human contract' I ghave never signed such a document, what is it's origin?

Humaity has been killing and comiting violence upon one and other since our inception. So it seems to me that such acts are quite conversant to the state of being human.

When did this change? When did the concensus agree to this change?

No, killing criminals only vindicates or martyrs them, its stupid and backwards

Who decides?How about all you idealistic types that invented human rights?Fundamental?Why that?Because everyone says so?If someone is not able to understand the distinction between a normal citizen and a bloodthirsty criminal then debates are useless,voting is useless,trusting in governments is useless.

Heh and I guess picking up your guns to defend your territory is the only answer?

In which case, we are back at the begining. You talk a lot about humanity, or what acts are human or not.

Is it human to react to problems first with violence?
Is it human to let rage overide reasoning?
Is it human to treat criminals as part of some other speices, and thus excuse all the bad that we do to them in the name of justice(read vengance)?

Or is this last bit why so many of us argue so fircely that these people are not human? To make it easyer to treat them inhumanely?

Nice stab sounds there!
And no although it may seem I adopt their mindset I am not doing so,the important thing here is the identity of the aggressor not their payback.I didn't say I'd execute anyone for no reason,the criminals act that way.Yes I can believe my stuff AND consider myself human.

Yes it does seem that you have the same mindset. Explain to me how you have not?

Say a pedophile rapes a little boy, and gets scared that he may get caught so kills him.

The pedophille certianly has a rational behind the act of murder. In other words he had a reason, and what he does is in line with his belifes. Can he claim also to hold to his belifes and still be human?

What are you saying here?
It is the unreasonable act that makes a man non human? It is the act itself wheter it has a rational behind it or not that makes a man non human?

No, killing criminals only vindicates or martyrs them, its stupid and backwards
Your opinion.

Heh and I guess picking up your guns to defend your territory is the only answer?

In which case, we are back at the begining. You talk a lot about humanity, or what acts are human or not.

Is it human to react to problems first with violence?
Is it human to let rage overide reasoning?
Is it human to treat criminals as part of some other speices, and thus excuse all the bad that we do to them in the name of justice(read vengance)?

Or is this last bit why so many of us argue so fircely that these people are not human? To make it easyer to treat them inhumanely?
No picking guns to defend yourself is not the only answer,however if everything else fails...

To answer to your questions:

-No it is not human to react first with violence,I'm talking reacting LAST with violence,after the tribunals of murderers have stabilized the facts.
-No,rage should never cloud reason,but if justice can serve both (reason and emotion) then what is the problem?
-I find it perfectly logical to exclude them as an alien part of society,what is the problem with this?

Lastly you are right about what we are trying to prove here (the humanity or lack thereof in criminals),like a soldier in a war the first thing he'll learn will be to distance himself from the enemy 'He's not a fellow man,he's my enemy' or 'I have to kill him or he'll kill me',the same applies for our reasoning with criminals.

Yes it does seem that you have the same mindset. Explain to me how you have not?

Say a pedophile rapes a little boy, and gets scared that he may get caught so kills him.

The pedophille certianly has a rational behind the act of murder. In other words he had a reason, and what he does is in line with his belifes. Can he claim also to hold to his belifes and still be human?

What are you saying here?
It is the unreasonable act that makes a man non human? It is the act itself wheter it has a rational behind it or not that makes a man non human?
Well the criminal can perfectly keep his beliefs (killing,raping,etc) as long as I am free to keep mine (killing criminals,torturing them,etc).

And your other point is a good one,so I'll elaborate:It is NOT reason or lack of it that makes a criminal non-human (in my book at least),it is the monstrous acts that define you as one.

-No,rage should never cloud reason,but if justice can serve both (reason and emotion) then what is the problem?

So where is the reaosning in your stance? So far I have seem only rage, you have presented only emotional reasons, show me now your rational reasons.



-I find it perfectly logical to exclude them as an alien part of society,what is the problem with this?

What is wrong with this, is that you do not see the contradiction in treating them the way that they have treated others whilst still trying to maintian the moral highground. In addition, although you mention the word logical, you have as yet to show me your logical process behind this belife of yours.



Lastly you are right about what we are trying to prove here (the humanity or lack thereof in criminals),like a soldier in a war the first thing he'll learn will be to distance himself from the enemy 'He's not a fellow man,he's my enemy' or 'I have to kill him or he'll kill me',the same applies for our reasoning with criminals.

Well I don't know how this answers the questoion I assume it is directed to. Is it then an admission that the reason you say 'these people are not human' is so that it makes it easyer to do violence on them in the name of justice(read vengence)?

Because if it is that is scary. Have you ever seen 'Silence of the lambs'?

Does the phrase: 'It puts the lotion on its skin' mean anything to you? Do you reconise the reason the charector in the film would say this, what his porpose in dehumanising his victims in this way was?

Now do you see by saying 'These people are not human', you are infact using the same thought procesess. Does this not scare you a little that you may be like them?

Well the criminal can perfectly keep his beliefs (killing,raping,etc) as long as I am free to keep mine (killing criminals,torturing them,etc).

And your other point is a good one,so I'll elaborate:It is NOT reason or lack of it that makes a criminal non-human (in my book at least),it is the monstrous acts that define you as one.

I'm glad that say this actualy. So if it is the act itself, then why is the act fine with you if the state sanctions it?

So where is the reaosning in your stance? So far I have seem only rage, you have presented only emotional reasons, show me now your rational reasons.




What is wrong with this, is that you do not see the contradiction in treating them the way that they have treated others whilst still trying to maintian the moral highground. In addition, although you mention the word logical, you have as yet to show me your logical process behind this belife of yours.




Well I don't know how this answers the questoion I assume it is directed to. Is it then an admission that the reason you say 'these people are not human' is so that it makes it easyer to do violence on them in the name of justice(read vengence)?

Because if it is that is scary. Have you ever seen 'Silence of the lambs'?

Does the phrase: 'It puts the lotion on its skin' mean anything to you? Do you reconise the reason the charector in the film would say this, what his porpose in dehumanising his victims in this way was?

Now do you see by saying 'These people are not human', you are infact using the same thought procesess. Does this not scare you a little that you may be like them?
Good thinking there,but even if I admit in using their mindset or conceding the higher moral ground how does this change things?Morals aside I find it perfectly logical to exclude destructive elements of society the way some animals cast out or kill their defective or diseased members of their tribe/pack.
By the way,I have seen Silence Of The Lambs,I liked it although I had not made the connection you're referring to,in any case I don't feel scared at all why should I?

I'm glad that say this actualy. So if it is the act itself, then why is the act fine with you if the state sanctions it?
Heck if the state sanctions it that would be legal,although I acknowledge the fact that in many dictatorships state killings were also of 'dissidents' and not only of hardcore criminals.In any case I think I would be able to kill by myself a pedophile/rapist/etc even if the state defines my act as a crime,that would make me a criminal I admit but a different criminal than the one I killed nonetheless.

Heck if the state sanctions it that would be legal,although I acknowledge the fact that in many dictatorships state killings were also of 'dissidents' and not only of hardcore criminals.In any case I think I would be able to kill by myself a pedophile/rapist/etc even if the state defines my act as a crime,that would make me a criminal I admit but a different criminal than the one I killed nonetheless.

Okay well thanks for playing Saluna, welcome to NSG, I do hope you'll stay around.:D

I think I have got all from you that I'm likely to get, if you want to know what I have learned about my own stance as a result of talking to you, please do say so.

Okay well thanks for playing Saluna, welcome to NSG, I do hope you'll stay around.:D

I think I have got all from you that I'm likely to get, if you want to know what I have learned about my own stance as a result of talking to you, please do say so.
Actually I'm not new here,but my mail got registered again on this state,I have been around since 2004 as Leventakistan.And I hope you learned nothing from me,the personal outlook I have on life and society is pretty grim,if your points of view make you a happy person then by all means keep them.The world does not need more psychopaths like me :-).

Aw! Don't be like that saluna! We love your retributionist trolling!
At least you're trying to keep us entertained.

What wouls be worse - death by lethal injection or being strapped to achair with your eyes forced open being made to watch sky news with Bill O'Reilly for the rest of your life?

People have fundemental human rights because it is naive to trust government and other voters. Your rather cavalier attitude towards my human rights is proof of that, if nothing else.

People do not have 'fundamental human rights'. They are pure artifact.

Instead of going back and forth on this issue, perhaps you'd answer, or give some indication of your position, on these questions? (For arguments sake, I'll take it that you're calling murderers 'inhuman', though if you'd disagree, substitute a suitable alternative.)


I'll try. I wasn't specifically saying 'murderers', I was talking about people who make a pattern of non-human behaviour. So - serial killers and serial rapists, for example, would be under that umbrella - as would serial abusers, perhaps.


Were murderers ever 'human'?


With the qualifier above - that I'm not talking about someone who 'just killed someone', no. They may have looked like real perople, and even acted much like them... but they're not.


At what point do they become 'inhuman'? During the planning, if any, of the murder? As the knife slips into the chest?


No.


Can they ever become 'human' again?


No. Because they don't 'stop' being human... they just can be mistaken for human, but never actually were.

(Another qualifier - as with feral children, there may be a developmental point at which the human animal just becomes a human-shaped-animal).


Presumeably someone can become 'inhuman', in your view without ever committing murder directly (Hitler, Stalin, etc.)?


I never invoked Stalin or Hitler in this conversation. I find it harder to work out where someone stands who deals with numbers in a remote fashion, and doesn't end up with the 'blood on their hands'.


If they're not 'human', what are they?


Human-shaped.


Are humans thus incapable of murder?


No. But a real 'human' doesn't (have the capacity to, even?) carry out a protracted series of inhuman actions.

Bite once, and you're acting like an animal. Bite every time, and you're an animal.


Are we free to do whatever we wish to these 'nonhumans'?


I wouldn't say that, but then I believe in being humane to animals.


I murder you in a fit of rage, then instantly regret what I've done. I give myself up to the police, serve my time, and spend the rest of my life doing valuable community work. Am I 'human'? Did I lose, then regain my 'humanity'?


No - you were human the whole time, because - while your animal nature was exposed, your human nature was dominant.


You've made an almost entirely moral argument: behaviour x is so immoral, that to commit it is to lose one's status as 'human'.

Indeed, you're attempting to define 'human' as a moral term.

No, I've not made a moral argument at all.

I've made an entirely behavioural argument. Cats torture mice before they kill, and then eat them. That is a behaviour - not a moral judgement.

2. If it has a reason, in case like these to maintian his genetic stock, it is not cold blooded.


I think this is another of those weird uses of 'cold blood'.


3. Yes, it says that scientists are not sure why the dolphins do this and went on to name a few reasosn. All in all we can't say why and so it may be coldblooded murder, it may not be.

We can't honestly say any better for humans...

Okay lets talk a little about this 'human contract' I ghave never signed such a document, what is it's origin?


You signed such a contract in exactly the same way you 'signed the contract' for citizenship.


Humaity has been killing and comiting violence upon one and other since our inception. So it seems to me that such acts are quite conversant to the state of being human.


Well, you're lumping a whole load of stuff on top of one another there - war and murder are not indentities, one of the other, for example.

Has there always been violent predatory behaviour among our own species? Yes. Does that define the species?


When did this change? When did the concensus agree to this change?

Whatever point it was we became societal? I don't know.

Advent of language? Possibly... there are markers that might suggest it.

Since these question connect to what I've been saying, I'll answer them, too.


Is it human to react to problems first with violence?


No. It is part of the human-animal to do so, and that animal is part of what makes us up.


Is it human to let rage overide reasoning?


Again, human-animal.


Is it human to treat criminals as part of some other speices, and thus excuse all the bad that we do to them in the name of justice(read vengance)?


I've not been talking about criminals being some other species - I've been talking about people that exhibit predominantly the characteristics of the human-animal.

In some societies, they might not even be considered criminals. It's not their legal status that matters, it's their behaviour.

Aw! Don't be like that saluna! We love your retributionist trolling!
At least you're trying to keep us entertained.

What wouls be worse - death by lethal injection or being strapped to achair with your eyes forced open being made to watch sky news with Bill O'Reilly for the rest of your life?
Being strapped to the chair!

Hard labor beats death penalty and basic solitary. The convict needs to earn his food. Why the hell should I be taxed to pay for the room and board for a criminal?

^ This.

Although death by lethal injection would be too good for some cases......how about the gallows or the electric chair?

Hmmm and since good entertainment is hard to find these days,how about gladiatorial fights among deathrow criminals?

You signed such a contract in exactly the same way you 'signed the contract' for citizenship.

So not real and subject to change then.



Well, you're lumping a whole load of stuff on top of one another there - war and murder are not indentities, one of the other, for example.

Has there always been violent predatory behaviour among our own species? Yes. Does that define the species?

I would say so, wouldn't you? Are you defined by your thoughts', words, or actions?