NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,523364,00.html



Saudis Behead, Crucify Convicted Child Molester, Murderer


Wow. I got to admit this is the type of punishment I think Child rapist/murders should get here.

Why?

Because he raped a little boy, killed him, then killed his dead. then hid the bodies at the shop.

Pointless sadism?

Seriously, just because someone's crimes are disgusting and inhumane does not mean that society can justify being disgusting and inhumane in response.

Pointless sadism?

Seriously, just because someone's crimes are disgusting and inhumane does not mean that society can justify being disgusting and inhumane in response.

It would have only be inhumane if they had not beheaded him before crucifixion.

Because he raped a little boy, killed him, then killed his dead. then hid the bodies at the shop.

Why is this any less abhorrent than crucifying him, then beheading him? I don't understand humans and their illogical levels of moral inequivilence. It must take a lot of mental gymnastics. Doesn't it get tiring?

Because he raped a little boy, killed him, then killed his dead. then hid the bodies at the shop.
And this is better than putting him in jail for the rest of his life? Or even a normal death penalty, for that matter?

And this is better than putting him in jail for the rest of his life? Or even a normal death penalty, for that matter?

In Saudi Arabia beheading is the normal death penalty.

First off, I oppose the death penalty for a number of reasons, one of which is the issue of false convictions. Somehow, I doubt the Saudi system is superior in that regard.

Also, what point does sticking him up serve? I don't buy the deterrent argument, as pedophiles are mentally disturbed and may be just as likely act on their impulses regardless of the risk, and because violent public executions never stopped crime in the past. It just seems pointless and rather distasteful, with no real purpose I can understand other than a desire to see someone suffer or be humiliated after death. A dispicable person yes (providing he wasn't wrongly convicted), but that doesn't make it right, any more than being a terrorist makes it ok to torture someone.

In Saudi Arabia beheading is the normal death penalty.
You know exactly what I mean.

If you somehow make some misguided argument that says it's better to kill someone than lock them up and wait for nature to do the rest, then it still does not follow that
a) the means of killing him make a difference
b) killing him in a more distressing or gory way is better

Getbrett is right. As far as justice is concerned, this hasn't added to it in the least.

You know exactly what I mean.

If you somehow make some misguided argument that says it's better to kill someone than lock them up and wait for nature to do the rest, then it still does not follow that
a) the means of killing him make a difference
b) killing him in a more distressing or gory way is better

Getbrett is right. As far as justice is concerned, this hasn't added to it in the least.

That's nice but the majority of the world still practices the death penalty. Id rather not want this thread to devolve into yet another death penalty debate.

As for hanging him up outside I imgine it makes society feel better, and perhaps the victims families.

That's nice but the majority of the world still practices the death penalty. Id rather not want this thread to devolve into yet another death penalty debate.

But it probably will become one. Almost inevitably, given the topic.

As for hanging him up outside I imgine it makes society feel better, and perhaps the victims families.

Should we be encouraging vengeful and sadistic impulses in society? Should we take pleasure in the suffering of another person, however disgusting they are?

But it probably will become one. Almost inevitably, given the topic.



Should we be encouraging vengeful and sadistic impulses in society? Should we take pleasure in the suffering of another person, however disgusting they are?

His suffering was but a few seconds long as they cut off his head.
Also it is a means to show he ahs been excuted. We are deal with a society where only 70% of the women can read. that means a large chunk of those who are most likely to be victimize have limited means to be certain a predator ahs been put to death.

His suffering was but a few seconds long as they cut off his head.
Also it is a means to show he ahs been excuted. We are deal with a society where only 70% of the women can read. that means a large chunk of those who are most likely to be victimize have limited means to be certain a predator ahs been put to death.

That's just making excuses. The solution there is to improve the literacy rates. And anyway, wouldn't they hear about it from other people who could read?

You know exactly what I mean.

If you somehow make some misguided argument that says it's better to kill someone than lock them up and wait for nature to do the rest, then it still does not follow that
a) the means of killing him make a difference
b) killing him in a more distressing or gory way is better

Getbrett is right. As far as justice is concerned, this hasn't added to it in the least.

I'm not really interested in the curious notion of "justice". I'm more interested in why greed and death can sanction one act while condoning another, despite them being equally socially abhorrent.

I'm not really interested in the curious notion of "justice". I'm more interested in why greed and death can sanction one act while condoning another, despite them being equally socially abhorrent.

I would not hold a state issued death penalty for murders and rapist equally abhorrent to rape and murder.

I would not hold a state issued death penalty for murders and rapist equally abhorrent to rape and murder.

And I ask again, why?

Hooray, lets all dance around merrily at the thought of a horrible person dying horribly.

And I ask again, why?

Because the state has the monopoly of the use of force.

Because the state has the monopoly of the use of force.

If I had the monopoly on force, would it be okay for me to kill people? This is an incredibly weak argument.

If I had the monopoly on force, would it be okay for me to kill people? This is an incredibly weak argument.

Well you try to exert your monopoly to kill people and let me know how that goes.

A state has different rights and privileges from a person, as the state is in theory the embodiment of society.

I'm not really interested in the curious notion of "justice". I'm more interested in why greed and death can sanction one act while condoning another, despite them being equally socially abhorrent.
That's easy. One is the initiation of violence, the other is the reaction to it, albeit belatedly.

If the father, rather than getting killed, had fought back and killed the guy, would that be socially abhorrent? Presumably not. Now, if the boy's uncle had, after the deed was done, found the guy and taken revenge, would that be socially abhorrent? The issue is a little more nuanced there. But whatever the case, it's not a clear-cut issue. The murderer's right to sovereignty and freedom are clearly compromised as a result of his refusal to honour those rights in others.

At any rate, the point is that in modern times we choose to transfer our right to self-defense and indeed our interest in seeing those who would hurt us punished to a centralised entity, primarily for practical reasons, though you can also make moral arguments.

And this is better than putting him in jail for the rest of his life? Or even a normal death penalty, for that matter?

"Normal death penalty?" Lolwhat?

"Normal death penalty?" Lolwhat?
You know, one that doesn't involve blood splatter for the entertainment of the masses.

You know, one that doesn't involve blood splatter for the entertainment of the masses.

but what am I going to do on a Friday night then ?

Because the state has the monopoly of the use of force.

Are you giving the state a blank check then, even when states have the capacity to abuse force for whatever purpose... and even more so when the state is despotic like Saudi Arabia?

Are you giving the state a blank check then, even when states have the capacity to abuse force for whatever purpose... and even more so when the state is despotic like Saudi Arabia?

The state has decide when and where violence is acceptable.
They have decide public executions are acceptable. It is not really for us to tell them it is wrong.
Yes they can be abused like when the "witches" were executed.

If you somehow make some misguided argument that says it's better to kill someone than lock them up and wait for nature to do the rest, then it still does not follow that
Life imprisonment is death penalty, just one done by the slowest means available so we can pretend our hands to be clean.


a) the means of killing him make a difference
b) killing him in a more distressing or gory way is better
Beheading beats the electric chair. At least it's an instant destruction of the brain, rather than stopping the heart and waiting for the brain to die from oxygen suffocation. And at least it doesn't involve convulsions for the entertainment of the masses.

I just hope this isnt something that waists too much time at G-20 summits. Too much work that needs to be done.

Beheading beats the electric chair. At least it's an instant destruction of the brain, rather than stopping the heart and waiting for the brain to die from oxygen suffocation. And at least it doesn't involve convulsions for the entertainment of the masses.

Technically, beheading doesn't destroy the brain. It just severs it from the heart, so it'll stay around for a little while, before it dies from shock or oxygen deprivation I imagine. A bullet (.45 hollow point) to the brain would get that instant destruction of the brain. Messy though.

They have decide public executions are acceptable. It is not really for us to tell them it is wrong.

I can tell them whatever I want, I think you'll find.

You know, one that doesn't involve blood splatter for the entertainment of the masses.
Entirely arbitrary definitions.

I can tell them whatever I want, I think you'll find.
Would you like to go over to Saudi Arabia and tell them ?
Or you jsut going to bitch on the itnernet where they can't see or hear you ?

I'm not really interested in the curious notion of "justice". I'm more interested in why greed and death can sanction one act while condoning another, despite them being equally socially abhorrent.

Not that I support it, but you know, it's not complicated, it's pretty simple stuff. Have you not heard of ideas like reciprocation? Proportionalism? An eye for an eye? Etc... Actions have different significance, generally, depending on the context. That's why murdering innocents, and murdering a crazed gunman in order to protect yourself are seen differently by most people, even though both actions are technically the same.

Beheading beats the electric chair. At least it's an instant destruction of the brain, rather than stopping the heart and waiting for the brain to die from oxygen suffocation. And at least it doesn't involve convulsions for the entertainment of the masses.

Oxygen suffocation of the brain is one of the best ways to die, it is normally a highly euphoric experience. Still, the electric chair is fucked up for all kinds of other reasons.

Oxygen suffocation of the brain is one of the best ways to die, it is normally a highly euphoric experience. Still, the electric chair is fucked up for all kinds of other reasons.Yeah. Energy, fossil fuels, global warming...

Would you like to go over to Saudi Arabia and tell them ?
Or you jsut going to bitch on the itnernet where they can't see or hear you ?

If I thought it would achieve anything I would have already done it and this thread wouldn't exist. Perhaps you'd prefer to take your mighty army there and relay the message for me? :rolleyes:

If I thought it would achieve anything I would have already done it and this thread wouldn't exist. Perhaps you'd prefer to take your mighty army there and relay the message for me? :rolleyes:
Last time I was over there I expressed how much I agree and they gave me a free barrel of Oil. But the guy complaining got his head cut off.
But yeah lets take a trip you complain and I compliment. We will see who leaves with a head.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,523364,00.html

Wow. I got to admit this is the type of punishment I think Child rapist/murders should get here.

wow... seems like Overkill to me.

wow... seems like Overkill to me.

You can never kill a child rapist enough??

Technically, beheading doesn't destroy the brain. It just severs it from the heart, so it'll stay around for a little while, before it dies from shock or oxygen deprivation I imagine.
There's the thing with it instantly severing so many neuron connections that the brain immediately ceases to function. Or so I've heard.


Oxygen suffocation of the brain is one of the best ways to die, it is normally a highly euphoric experience. Even when paired with extreme pain? Not so sure.

You can never kill a child rapist enough??

unless they perfected Necromancy over there... they can only kill a child rapist/muderer once.

beheading is much faster and merciful form of death over crucifixition.

Technically, beheading doesn't destroy the brain. It just severs it from the heart, so it'll stay around for a little while, before it dies from shock or oxygen deprivation I imagine.
I don't think the person beheading will care about that fact at that point. :p

unless they perfected Necromancy over there... they can only kill a child rapist/muderer once.

beheading is much faster and merciful form of death over crucifixition.

Why can't they do both ?

Why can't they do both ?

crucifixition is a slow and torturous way to die. so beheading a dead body is minor and petty.

beheading is quicker and usually fatal... unless the blade is like... really, really dull or something... and putting up a headless body for display is just plain demented and twisted (not to mention the question of whether or not that headless body is actually the perpetrators.)

crucifixition is a slow and torturous way to die. so beheading a dead body is minor and petty.

beheading is quicker and usually fatal... unless the blade is like... really, really dull or something... and putting up a headless body for display is just plain demented and twisted (not to mention the question of whether or not that headless body is actually the perpetrators.)

Still no reason they can't do both. Id personally crucify him first then cut off his head.

Still no reason they can't do both. Id personally crucify him first then cut off his head.

either way. it doesn't discount my statement that it's overkill. :D

either way. it doesn't discount my statement that it's overkill. :D

Overkill? This isn't a game of Kick-the-Ouphe!
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Lava%20Burst
http://www.coolstuffinc.com/images/Products/mtg%20art/Ice%20Age/Lava%20Burst.jpg

Overkill? This isn't a game of Kick-the-Ouphe!
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Lava%20Burst
http://www.coolstuffinc.com/images/Products/mtg%20art/Ice%20Age/Lava%20Burst.jpg

from actual headline.
"Man shot, stabbed; death by natural causes ruled" (http://www.geocities.com/quotequeen81/stupidity/headlines.html)

Crucifixion is so old, and it has those Christian connotations now. Why do it?

Why not go with something more entertaining, like forcing the victim to fight to the death with another in a caged arena with random weapons and no safety glass between the spectators.

Wow. I got to admit this is the type of punishment I think Child rapist/murders should get here.

As much as I find the death penalty stupid and useless, I won't exactly be crying my head off about the loss of this specific human being.

Though the crucifixion-of-a-beheaded-body part seems to me unusually cruel to the bypassers. And a bit disgusting, too.

(btw: Yes, I think that "toast" is an appropriated description. Jaya Ballard, Task Mage.)

Because he raped a little boy, killed him, then killed his dead. then hid the bodies at the shop.

And what if he didn't?

Besides, in modern countries we don't do this anymore. We had already our middle ages.

This cruel death penalty didn't stop the sadist either, isn't?

And what if he didn't?

Besides, in modern countries we don't do this anymore. We had already our middle ages.

This cruel death penalty didn't stop the sadist either, isn't?

true. but it brought closure for the victim's friends and family.

and we can see how the threat of jail time is stopping crimes in our enlightened society. ;)

true. but it brought closure for the victim's friends and family.

and we can see how the threat of jail time is stopping crimes in our enlightened society. ;)

A punishment isn't created to satisfy family and relatives of the victims, but to punish the criminal and make society in its whole a little safer for some time.

Again, how would the same family feel when later turned out that someone else did the crime?

Jail time isn't stopping crime. But there is no better system yet.

A punishment isn't created to satisfy family and relatives of the victims, but to punish the criminal and make society in its whole a little safer for some time.

Again, how would the same family feel when later turned out that someone else did the crime?

Jail time isn't stopping crime. But there is no better system yet.

For certain crimes I would say Crucifixion and beheading is a better system.

A punishment isn't created to satisfy family and relatives of the victims, but to punish the criminal and make society in its whole a little safer for some time. yet such punishment (including Jail Time) also brings closure. how many victims and their survivors are revisited by the memories of the crime done to them when the person who violated them get's early parole?

Again, how would the same family feel when later turned out that someone else did the crime? do you have proof that the person tried and executed did NOT do it? remember, it's not the USA so different Legal Procedures.

Jail time isn't stopping crime. But there is no better system yet. so why bring up the opinion that the DP is there to 'prevent' crimes in Saudi Arabia?

not saying what they did is right in my opinion. just that it's their court system and they have the right to punish their citizens. had the person tried been from another country, then it would be between those two countries.

Crucifixion is so old, and it has those Christian connotations now. Why do it?

Crucifixion only has Christian connotations because Christians, being batshit insane, decided to make a Roman method of killing dissidents and rabble a main icon in the religion.

For certain crimes I would say Crucifixion and beheading is a better system.

Sure. Let us hope you never do something stupid as driving drunken, crossing a red light, not entering your taxes correctly.

For those crimes we should people castrate, remove an eye and chopping a hand. Isn't?

yet such punishment (including Jail Time) also brings closure. how many victims and their survivors are revisited by the memories of the crime done to them when the person who violated them get's early parole?


People can get their closure with other set of punishments as well. Or are you suggesting that none of them get their closure in most European countries and some US states?


do you have proof that the person tried and executed did NOT do it? remember, it's not the USA so different Legal Procedures.


I don't have to, because that's irrelevant. Maybe he actually did it, but are you suggesting that SA isn't having mistrials?



so why bring up the opinion that the DP is there to 'prevent' crimes in Saudi Arabia?

not saying what they did is right in my opinion. just that it's their court system and they have the right to punish their citizens. had the person tried been from another country, then it would be between those two countries.

I didn't suggest that one. I only explained that it is not preventing crimes.

Sure it's their country, their laws. But I don't want to import those backward laws to our modern western world.

People can get their closure with other set of punishments as well. Or are you suggesting that none of them get their closure in most European countries and some US states? hmm... if you read what you quoted... you would find that I've already answered this. (hint, check the perenthisis) ;)

I don't have to, because that's irrelevant. Maybe he actually did it, but are you suggesting that SA isn't having mistrials? nope, but you suggested he's innocent without knowing what evidence was brought against him.

I didn't suggest that one. I only explained that it is not preventing crimes.

Huh? you did not suggest that?
This cruel death penalty didn't stop the sadist either,

sounds like you did. and you admitted again just now (in red). now if you're suggesting that the excuse of America's use of DP is to prevent crimes, then that is a gross generalization if you're applying it to the Middle East. After all, in a region where Honor Killings exist and blood is the only way to appease some crimes, such a sentence wouldn't be about prevention, but satisfying the need for revenge for the victim and those who the Victim left behind.

the fact that hitting someone with their footware is the worse insult imaginable in that region, given the fact that many people join in such 'mob' activities (remember footage of people slapping Saddam's Statue with their shoes), perhaps their need for such bloody executions are not for prevention but closure (for them.)

Sure it's their country, their laws. But I don't want to import those backward laws to our modern western world.
and no one here is suggesting it. and I will stand along side you if they ever should. :cool:

hmm... if you read what you quoted... you would find that I've already answered this. (hint, check the perenthisis) ;)

nope, but you suggested he's innocent without knowing what evidence was brought against him.



Huh? you did not suggest that?


sounds like you did. and you admitted again just now (in red). now if you're suggesting that the excuse of America's use of DP is to prevent crimes, then that is a gross generalization if you're applying it to the Middle East. After all, in a region where Honor Killings exist and blood is the only way to appease some crimes, such a sentence wouldn't be about prevention, but satisfying the need for revenge for the victim and those who the Victim left behind.

the fact that hitting someone with their footware is the worse insult imaginable in that region, given the fact that many people join in such 'mob' activities (remember footage of people slapping Saddam's Statue with their shoes), perhaps their need for such bloody executions are not for prevention but closure (for them.)


and no one here is suggesting it. and I will stand along side you if they ever should. :cool:

Whatever.

So people in the west never get a closure and ALL criminals leave on parole. Right.

Are you sure the chopped guy is guilty? Besides, it's mentioned in a general way. SA is having mistrials as any country does. Their fast trial system, the lack of proper defending, etc is even suggesting they have more mistrials.

The OP likes this kind of punishments, I just argued that DP isn't stopping crimes and that there's no reason to feel good. That's it.

I have misread DP as OP and have reading the later words a little too fast. Hey it's 3:30 in the morning :)

A question: Do you like the Sharia?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,523364,00.html

Saudis Behead, Crucify Convicted Child Molester, Murderer


Wow. I got to admit this is the type of punishment I think Child rapist/murders should get here.

...and then they find that it was the wrong guy.

I'm still very confused by this. Why do people feel the need to express extra outrage when pedophilia is involved? It comes across as overcompensating to cover up self doubt, or because social pressure means NOT expressing extra outrage implies that you support pedophilia. Both are stupid positions. I don't understand why people have a spectrum of responses. Child rape and murder are equivilent. Do you express this rage at a murder? At a theft?

All crimes are illegal. That is all they are.

It makes me glad I don't experience this nonsensical world the way you apparently do. It's so illogical.

Last time I was over there I expressed how much I agree and they gave me a free barrel of Oil. But the guy complaining got his head cut off.
But yeah lets take a trip you complain and I compliment. We will see who leaves with a head.
Well if they'd kill me for telling them what I think then why would I?
...and then they find that it was the wrong guy.
What, you don't have total faith in the Saudi justice system?
It makes me glad I don't experience this nonsensical world the way you apparently do. It's so illogical.

People aren't logical, computers are.

Well if they'd kill me for telling them what I think then why would I?

What, you don't have total faith in the Saudi justice system?


People aren't logical, computers are.

I don't really consider myself a person.

I'm still very confused by this. Why do people feel the need to express extra outrage when pedophilia is involved? It comes across as overcompensating to cover up self doubt, or because social pressure means NOT expressing extra outrage implies that you support pedophilia. Both are stupid positions. I don't understand why people have a spectrum of responses. Child rape and murder are equivilent. Do you express this rage at a murder? At a theft?

All crimes are illegal. That is all they are.

It makes me glad I don't experience this nonsensical world the way you apparently do. It's so illogical.

Not all crimes are equal.

I'm still very confused by this. Why do people feel the need to express extra outrage when pedophilia is involved? It comes across as overcompensating to cover up self doubt, or because social pressure means NOT expressing extra outrage implies that you support pedophilia. Both are stupid positions. I don't understand why people have a spectrum of responses. Child rape and murder are equivilent. Do you express this rage at a murder? At a theft?

All crimes are illegal. That is all they are.

It makes me glad I don't experience this nonsensical world the way you apparently do. It's so illogical.

It are just emotions. They don't have the same feelings for 'common' murder cases while these are happening more. Many people do have own children and feel like it could happen to them. Also the media is taking part in this issue. An arrested paedophile is claiming the headlines for weeks, a 'common' murder doesn't have, in general, that privilege.

People feel like there are paedophiles just *everywhere*. Hundred years ago there were probably the same amount of paedophiles available as today (compared to the entire population), but since there was no TV, radio or internet you were not aware. Add this to the fact that it doesn't occur a lot and you begin to understand who is feeding the emotions of the people.

Well if they'd kill me for telling them what I think then why would I?

What, you don't have total faith in the Saudi justice system?


People aren't logical, computers are.

Computers aren't logical either. A computer is a dumb tool, you have to feed it with software to make something useful of the tool. Software is created by humans and since people aren't logical, computers aren't too.

Not all crimes are equal.

Yes, they are. All crimes are, ipso facto, illegal. That is their only attribute. They are equal.

Yes, they are. All crimes are, ipso facto, illegal. That is their only attribute. They are equal.

http://onni.jkl.fi/~lauri/kuvia/not_this_shit_again.jpeg

http://onni.jkl.fi/~lauri/kuvia/not_this_shit_again.jpeg

A=A bitches.

Yes, they are. All crimes are, ipso facto, illegal. That is their only attribute. They are equal.

If they were equal, then there was one punishment for all crimes.

Not entering all your income on your tax-papers is a crime as well, but not on the same line as murder or rape.

Yes, they are. All crimes are, ipso facto, illegal. That is their only attribute. They are equal.

Why do crimes have only one attribute? And why should punishment be based on one attribute?

A=A bitches.

I warned you not to say that anymore...

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/Forum%20Pictures/ultima.gif

If they were equal, then there was one punishment for all crimes.

Not entering all your income on your tax-papers is a crime as well, but not on the same line as murder or rape.

Hah, just because they're objectively equal doesn't mean the subjective human treats them as equal. I don't think there should be punishment for any crime, because I don't think laws should exist.

Hah, just because they're objectively equal doesn't mean the subjective human treats them as equal. I don't think there should be punishment for any crime, because I don't think laws should exist.

There are some spots on the globe with (almost) no laws and it are not pleasure locations. Somalia to name one. But even they have laws working, the local warlords determine what the law is of today.

Anarchy doesn't work. A society is in need of laws to get people in line. I don't trust the morality capacities of single humans. I'm rather sure that when murder was accepted then it would occur more.

There are some spots on the globe with (almost) no laws and it are not pleasure locations. Somalia the name one. But even they have laws working, the local warlords determine what the law is of today.

Anarchy doesn't work. A society is in need of laws to get people in line. I don't trust the morality capacities of single humans. I'm rather sure that when murder was accepted then it would occur more.

I'm not an anarchist. I do not have morals. I'm pro-extinction of humans, if anything.

I'm not an anarchist. I do not have morals. I'm pro-extinction of humans, if anything.

You already said that a dozen times or something. I got the message.

Maybe due the laws and its correlated punishments you stay more or less in line.

You already said that a dozen times or something. I got the message.

Maybe due the laws and its correlated punishments you stay more or less in line.

Yup.

I'm not an anarchist. I do not have morals. I'm pro-extinction of humans, if anything.

You want to die???? :confused:

You want to die???? :confused:

Oh, no. I don't consider myself completely human. I'd be spared.

Yup.

So laws should exist. Maybe not for you, because in a way you can't be what you want to be. But it's maybe good that laws are protecting us against people with a low morality. It doesn't protect it perfect, but it's the best we can get, yet.

Most paedophiles will never face a jail. Not because they are not caught, but because they don't break the laws and rules. If there were no laws with decent punishments then it would be logical that more of them would try to get sexual access to children.

Oh, no. I don't consider myself completely human. I'd be spared.

What are you, a vampire?

What are you, a vampire?

I'm a chewbacca.

I'm a chewbacca.

*looks at Getbrett's avatar- squints*

I could believe that.

Whatever.

So people in the west never get a closure and ALL criminals leave on parole. Right.
lets hear it for purposely missing the mark. please show me where I said ALL criminals leave on parole.

Are you sure the chopped guy is guilty? Besides, it's mentioned in a general way. SA is having mistrials as any country does. Their fast trial system, the lack of proper defending, etc is even suggesting they have more mistrials.

fast trial system? I know for the US the accused has the right to a speedy trial, so now, are you saying that's wrong?

I have misread DP as OP and have reading the later words a little too fast. Hey it's 3:30 in the morning :) I've done that myself.

A question: Do you like the Sharia?
no, but will you admit that there are some people out there that do like Sharia?

Child rape and murder are equivilent.

All crimes are illegal. That is all they are.

Hah, just because they're objectively equal doesn't mean the subjective human treats them as equal. I don't think there should be punishment for any crime, because I don't think laws should exist.

Yes, they are. All crimes are, ipso facto, illegal. That is their only attribute. They are equal.

If you don't think laws should exist, what basis would you have to declare two quite different acts equal? Other than that they are both illegal?

If we take seriously your plea that "law should not exist" then it follows that you find all actions equivalent and equal to each other.

Which might sound fine to you. Consider then, that actions are quantative as well as qualitative. Lifting a brick one centimetre is a different degree of the same action, as lifting a brick one metre. If all actions are equal, action is equal to inaction.

Surely you don't believe that? Simply by taking action (eg, typing words) you demonstrate that some part of you can distinguish one action from another, and action from inaction. Whatever you might say, you don't actually believe that all actions are equal.

If you don't think laws should exist, what basis would you have to declare two quite different acts equal? Other than that they are both illegal?

If we take seriously your plea that "law should not exist" then it follows that you find all actions equivalent and equal to each other.

Which might sound fine to you. Consider then, that actions are quantative as well as qualitative. Lifting a brick one centimetre is a different degree of the same action, as lifting a brick one metre. If all actions are equal, action is equal to inaction.

Surely you don't believe that? Simply by taking action (eg, typing words) you demonstrate that some part of you can distinguish one action from another, and action from inaction. Whatever you might say, you don't actually believe that all actions are equal.

You're talking absolute rubbish. Not once did I use the word "action", I used the word "crime".

All crimes are equal. This does NOT imply all actions are equal, because criminal actions are a small subset of actions.

You're talking absolute rubbish. Not once did I use the word "action", I used the word "crime".

All crimes are equal. This does NOT imply all actions are equal, because criminal actions are a small subset of actions.

But you say that "laws should not exist."

Have you not spared a few minutes to consider how to judge "actions" for right or wrong after your wish comes true and no action is any more considered a crime?

But you say that "laws should not exist."

Have you not spared a few minutes to consider how to judge "actions" for right or wrong after your wish comes true and no action is any more considered a crime?

Intrinsic morality doesn't exist either; I'm an amoralist. There is no such thing as "right" or "wrong".

Intrinsic morality doesn't exist either; I'm an amoralist. There is no such thing as "right" or "wrong".

Did I mention right or wrong? I specified that you have a criterion of action, whether you call it moral or not, and for evidence I point to the fact that you post. Clearly, whether you consider your actions right or wrong or neutral, you are moved to some action.

Now, you assert that all crimes are equal. But you claim that "laws should not exist" which (correct me if I have you wrong here) means that no action should be called a "crime" and no punishment be imposed based on an action being "unlawful."

This is my point. Among the many points I could make to show your "beliefs" as absurd, this is the one I choose: without laws to define what is a crime, how can you assert that raping a baby is EQUAL TO murdering a person, baby or not?

Did I mention right or wrong? I specified that you have a criterion of action, whether you call it moral or not, and for evidence I point to the fact that you post. Clearly, whether you consider your actions right or wrong or neutral, you are moved to some action.

Now, you assert that all crimes are equal. But you claim that "laws should not exist" which (correct me if I have you wrong here) means that no action should be called a "crime" and no punishment be imposed based on an action being "unlawful."

This is my point. Among the many points I could make to show your "beliefs" as absurd, this is the one I choose: without laws to define what is a crime, how can you assert that raping a baby is EQUAL TO murdering a person, baby or not?

Because all actions are morally equal - all actions are amoral. Typing is an action and is equivilent to any other action. Raping a child is equivilent to typing is equivilent to shitting in the street is equivilent to murdering someone. They're all amoral. They're just actions. The consequences differ, of course, but the actions themselves don't.

Because all actions are morally equal - all actions are amoral. Typing is an action and is equivilent to any other action.

Then I return to my previous point, that if all actions are equal (NO, don't qualify -- you cannot, without invoking the "morality" you deny exists) then an action is equivalent to the lack of an action. Which, if true, means that there is no such thing as an "action." Absurd.

It might be easier, since the terms have no meaning for you, to just say that I am right and you are wrong ...;)

Then I return to my previous point, that if all actions are equal (NO, don't qualify -- you cannot, without invoking the "morality" you deny exists) then an action is equivalent to the lack of an action. Which, if true, means that there is no such thing as an "action." Absurd.

It might be easier, since the terms have no meaning for you, to just say that I am right and you are wrong ...;)

Uh, I completely fail to see how you cannot see the distinction between action and inaction. Your argument that they are indistinguishable should all actions be ruled equal is nonsense.

You are also deliberately misinterpreting me. I am not arguing that all actions are equal in the sense that they are the same thing, I am arguing that all actions have the same moral weight; ie, none. This is not the same thing as what you're attempting to portray.

Uh, I completely fail to see how you cannot see the distinction between action and inaction. Your argument that they are indistinguishable should all actions be ruled equal is nonsense.

Well, if it is nonsense to you I will drop it. It seems pretty strong to me.

You are also deliberately misinterpreting me. I am not arguing that all actions are equal in the sense that they are the same thing, I am arguing that all actions have the same moral weight; ie, none. This is not the same thing as what you're attempting to portray.

I am, indeed, deliberately bringing the various things you have said in this thread together and making a farce of them.

If the only point you are trying to make is that all actions have equal moral weight, ie none (a point I do not concede, but cannot disprove) then I want to know why you think laws should not exist.

I would agree that laws should not punish inclinations, they should not punish intentions. Laws should only punish acts.

But I am at a loss to see what basis you have for saying that laws "should not" exist?

Well, if it is nonsense to you I will drop it. It seems pretty strong to me.



I am, indeed, deliberately bringing the various things you have said in this thread together and making a farce of them.

If the only point you are trying to make is that all actions have equal moral weight, ie none (a point I do not concede, but cannot disprove) then I want to know why you think laws should not exist.

I would agree that laws should not punish inclinations, they should not punish intentions. Laws should only punish acts.

But I am at a loss to see what basis you have for saying that laws "should not" exist?

Because laws are the only thing that prevents me from doing what I want.

Because laws are the only thing that prevents me from doing what I want.

You admit yourself that actions have consequences. I can quote you if you like.

If the fear of legal consequences STOPS you from doing what you want, why are you so sure that without laws, there would not be other equally undesirable (or worse) consequences for the exact same action "that you want" ?

You admit yourself that actions have consequences. I can quote you if you like.

If the fear of legal consequences STOPS you from doing what you want, why are you so sure that without laws, there would not be other equally undesirable (or worse) consequences for the exact same action "that you want" ?

Then it becomes a game of survival, something I'd enjoy.

Then it becomes a game of survival, something I'd enjoy.

Break a law. Break a big one, go to Supermax. Enjoy.

Break a law. Break a big one, go to Supermax. Enjoy.

No laws. Nothing to break. Enjoyment, pain free.

There are laws I don't like. On occasion I have broken them, precisely because my moral judgement sees no legitimacy in their claim over my body. I speak of course of drug laws.

But there are other laws which have almost certainly saved my life. Laws have probably spared me rape, imprisonment, slavery, assault and abuse. Laws have provided food when I was down and out, medical treatment when I was sick.

There is absolutely no question in my mind that laws, however slow they are to catch up with collective morality, have made my life easier not harder.

Yes, I am sceptical about new laws, and very concerned about laws further infringing the freedom of speech. I hate that for every bad law repealed (and that is almost never) there are a dozen new laws passed. All drugs should be legalized, not least as a part of devolving responsibility for taking drugs to the user and thereby reducing medical liability which drives up medical costs and inhibits the introduction of new drugs of medical and recreational worth.

But I believe that misdirected laws (such as those which criminalize acts against the self, like drug use and suicide) can be defeated on principle. Hell, they can be defeated on practicality.

To say "law stops me doing what I want" simply isn't true. Without laws, your wants would be different ... without laws, your world would be so different, you probably can't imagine what your wants would be.

And "law stops me doing what I want" is doubly wrong. You can do what you want, and there may be almost no consequences at all, if you do it cleverly and you can pay for good legal defence. Or there are consequences, life imprisonment for instance. You can still do what you want. But there may be consequences.

The whole point of centralized law is efficiency in consequences. Predictability! Do the crime, do the time. Jail terms could be a lot shorter, a lot more rehabilitative, and even so more effective, if there was greater certainty that doing the crime, one would do the time.

I started this post saying I had got away with crimes. I end it by saying that shouldn't be possible. If enough people break the same law, it is the law which breaks: no country can afford to criminalize and jail forty percent of its population, which is a conservative estimate of the proportion who break drug laws. There is more than one way to break a law!

I'm not interested in recognising any higher authority than myself. I am forced to, because I do not wish to be caught and punished. Without fear of being caught or punished, I would do whatever I wanted.

This isn't a philosophical debate, as such. This is something that appeals to my nature.

No laws. Nothing to break. Enjoyment, pain free.

If it was my sister you "enjoyed" and there were no laws ... lots of pain.

If there is law to deal with it, I leave it to law.

If there was no law, you'd be a fool to expect fairer treatment from an angry brother than from a judge.

If it was my sister you "enjoyed" and there were no laws ... lots of pain.

If there is law to deal with it, I leave it to law.

If there was no law, you'd be a fool to expect fairer treatment from an angry brother than from a judge.

This isn't about fairness! If I wanted to rape your sister (I don't), and did, and you caught me, I'd kill you. With no consequences.

This appeals to me.

This isn't about fairness! If I wanted to rape your sister (I don't), and did, and you caught me, I'd kill you. With no consequences.

This appeals to me.

God-modding. A fail even in role-playing.

Are we done?

If I wanted to rape your sister (I don't), and did, and you caught me, I'd kill you. With no consequences.

Even if he burst in wielding a gun?

God-modding. A fail even in role-playing.

Are we done?

Huh?

Even if he burst in wielding a gun?

As if I'd be stupid enough to do something like that in a location that's easily accessible.

This isn't about fairness! If I wanted to rape your sister (I don't), and did, and you caught me, I'd kill you. With no consequences.


God-modding. A fail even in role-playing.


If it was my sister you "enjoyed" and there were no laws ... lots of pain.


That's just as much "God-modding" - who's to say what would happen in a confrontation? However, if you have the full force and resources of a state the outcome is swayed.

Huh?

If neither of us is going to bring this back to the subject of law enforcement in Saudi Arabia, I think we're done.

I'm not interested in game-playing rape scenarios in a imaginary world of anarchy where you get whatever you want.

Game over. Insert content to continue.

If neither of us is going to bring this back to the subject of law enforcement in Saudi Arabia, I think we're done.

I'm not interested in game-playing rape scenarios in a imaginary world of anarchy where you get whatever you want.

Game over. Insert content to continue.

I already get whatever I want, there's just a lingering threat of being punished for it.

I accept your concession.

I already get whatever I want

Not true. I still decline your advances.

Not true. I still decline your advances.

I'd totally rape you. Like, totally. Wearing a robe and wizard hat.

Not true. I still decline your advances.

Pfft. Asif he'd go for you. We all know he's hot for me.

I'd totally rape you. Like, totally. Wearing a robe and wizard hat.

You'd have to catch me first.

You'd have to catch me first.

The hunt is almost as fun as the kill.

I already get whatever I want, there's just a lingering threat of being punished for it.

Well, if you got what you came for here, don't worry about punishment. I'm not one to bear a grudge.

I accept your concession.

The record of this thread plainly shows me trying to argue for law, Saudi or not, and you trying to argue for ... something about you.

If you interpret that as me bowing down and recognizing your sovereignty over all questions moral or legal, on the basis of "you say so" then sure ... I concede.

The hunt is almost as fun as the kill.

Well I'm pretty fast, so feel free to try lol.

Well I'm pretty fast, so feel free to try lol.

My method of stalking doesn't involve running :(

My method of stalking doesn't involve running :(

:):)

My method of stalking doesn't involve running :(

It does when I work out you're following me.

It does when I work out you're following me.

If you sleep, I can catch you.

I've been arrested only once: for breaking and entering. I'm quite an accomplished lockpick, I can bypass most locks in under a minute. Compression of the carotid while you sleep and you're a dead weight in under thirty seconds.

That, or I chase you with a frying pan while Benny Hill plays in the background.

If you sleep, I can catch you.

I've been arrested only once: for breaking and entering. I'm quite an accomplished lockpick, I can bypass most locks in under a minute. Compression of the carotid while you sleep and you're a dead weight in under thirty seconds.

That, or I chase you with a frying pan while Benny Hill plays in the background.

This is making me want to be stalked.

If you sleep, I can catch you.

You have to find where I'm hiding first, then get past the defences.

That, or I chase you with a frying pan while Benny Hill plays in the background.

Yeah that sounds good.

You have to find where I'm hiding first, then get past the defences.



Yeah that sounds good.

It can be arranged.

It can be arranged.

Oops. Not posted from that account for a while.

Oops. Not posted from that account for a while.

lol, nice avatar.

Oops. Not posted from that account for a while.

I still don't quite understand what happened with that account, could you explain?

I still don't quite understand what happened with that account, could you explain?

A guy I'd wronged had taken it upon himself to stalk me throughout time, space and the interwebs.

A guy I'd wronged had taken it upon himself to stalk me throughout time, space and the interwebs.

You're messing with my mind?

A guy I'd wronged had taken it upon himself to stalk me throughout time, space and the interwebs.

So then you made a thread telling everyone how you were the Mindset reincarnated? Didn't that defeat the point slightly?

So then you made a thread telling everyone how you were the Mindset reincarnated? Didn't that defeat the point slightly?

The irony made me laugh.

The irony made me laugh.

What happened to the guy?