Advertisement
by Infected Mushroom » Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:41 am
by The New California Republic » Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:46 am
Infected Mushroom wrote:From Annie's point of view (not saying its justified, but its how it looks from her point of view):
She 100% believes that Europe must be purified and its her destiny to purify it.
These beliefs were heavily influenced by her childhood, mental health issues, and her near death experience with terrorism. She has been transformed for the worse through her traumatic experience her experience with the terrorist bomb in Rome.
She has been indoctrinated by right wing extremists.
She suffers from depression, anxiety, and problems of substance abuse.
She faces a greater temptation than most others because unlike others, she actually did have the magical power to destroy and conquer entire nations (this is the "you may have done the same thing if you had such powers" argument).
...
So I think its a lot more complicated than simply, "this is a Hitler 2.0... we must kill her"
there's a lot more going on I think...
by Infected Mushroom » Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:50 am
The New California Republic wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:From Annie's point of view (not saying its justified, but its how it looks from her point of view):
She 100% believes that Europe must be purified and its her destiny to purify it.
These beliefs were heavily influenced by her childhood, mental health issues, and her near death experience with terrorism. She has been transformed for the worse through her traumatic experience her experience with the terrorist bomb in Rome.
She has been indoctrinated by right wing extremists.
She suffers from depression, anxiety, and problems of substance abuse.
She faces a greater temptation than most others because unlike others, she actually did have the magical power to destroy and conquer entire nations (this is the "you may have done the same thing if you had such powers" argument).
...
So I think its a lot more complicated than simply, "this is a Hitler 2.0... we must kill her"
there's a lot more going on I think...
Nope. No amount of mitigating circumstances can excuse genocide.
by Infected Mushroom » Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:54 am
by The New California Republic » Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:57 am
Infected Mushroom wrote:Valrifell wrote:
No amount of mitigating circumstances can excuse genocide.
some degree of it has to right?
so you're telling me that someone can kill 12 people and be Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity... but no one can be Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity for killing a much higher number?
why's that?
by Infected Mushroom » Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:58 am
The New California Republic wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:
some degree of it has to right?
so you're telling me that someone can kill 12 people and be Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity... but no one can be Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity for killing a much higher number?
why's that?
Genocide requires a degree of organization. Spazzing out and murdering people on a whim doesn't.
by Valrifell » Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:00 am
Infected Mushroom wrote:Valrifell wrote:
No amount of mitigating circumstances can excuse genocide.
some degree of it has to right?
so you're telling me that someone can kill 12 people and be Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity... but no one can be Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity for killing a much higher number?
why's that?
by The Free Joy State » Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:01 am
Infected Mushroom wrote:Valrifell wrote:
No amount of mitigating circumstances can excuse genocide.
some degree of it has to right?
so you're telling me that someone can kill 12 people and be Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity... but no one can be Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity for killing a much higher number?
why's that?
by Infected Mushroom » Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:01 am
Valrifell wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:
some degree of it has to right?
so you're telling me that someone can kill 12 people and be Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity... but no one can be Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity for killing a much higher number?
why's that?
It's not the fucking bodycount. Lots of things go into determining insanity, chief among them being whether or not it was premeditated. Genocide, by default, falls into "premeditated."
by Ifreann » Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:03 am
Infected Mushroom wrote:Valrifell wrote:
It's not the fucking bodycount. Lots of things go into determining insanity, chief among them being whether or not it was premeditated. Genocide, by default, falls into "premeditated."
why couldn't a murder (or a series of murders) be both premeditated and the result of out of control insanity/delusions?
by Infected Mushroom » Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:07 am
by Infected Mushroom » Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:10 am
by The Free Joy State » Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:10 am
Infected Mushroom wrote:Ifreann wrote:Because if you can premeditate a crime, you are not, for the purposes of the law, insane.
okay, that may well be... for the purposes of law...
but for the purposes of morality/philosophy... why is the fact that a crime is planned/thought out is necessarily not compatible with the idea that someone's mental instability/insanity makes them believe that they are acting 100% right either as a result of delusions or rigid ideological indoctrination?
by Ifreann » Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:10 am
Infected Mushroom wrote:Ifreann wrote:Because if you can premeditate a crime, you are not, for the purposes of the law, insane.
okay, that may well be... for the purposes of law...
but for the purposes of morality/philosophy... why is the fact that a crime is planned/thought out is necessarily not compatible with the idea that someone's mental instability/insanity makes them believe that they are acting 100% right either as a result of delusions or rigid ideological indoctrination?
by Infected Mushroom » Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:11 am
The Free Joy State wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:
okay, that may well be... for the purposes of law...
but for the purposes of morality/philosophy... why is the fact that a crime is planned/thought out is necessarily not compatible with the idea that someone's mental instability/insanity makes them believe that they are acting 100% right either as a result of delusions or rigid ideological indoctrination?
Why is it so important to you that people go easy on this genocidal witch?
Face it, the law is important.
And, in law, she will have no insanity plea and be granted no clemency.
And, morally, there should be no clemency granted to this genocidal witch. If someone can understand their actions are considered to be wrong, if someone can plan the murders of dozens/hundreds/millions, they should be held accountable in law.
by Infected Mushroom » Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:12 am
Ifreann wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:
okay, that may well be... for the purposes of law...
but for the purposes of morality/philosophy... why is the fact that a crime is planned/thought out is necessarily not compatible with the idea that someone's mental instability/insanity makes them believe that they are acting 100% right either as a result of delusions or rigid ideological indoctrination?
Legal insanity is not the same as having a mental health problem.
by Trollzyn the Infinite » Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:13 am
Infected Mushroom wrote:The following is a hypothetical situation:
In 2033, a witch queen Annie Holstadt takes over Europe and attempts to use her command of magical forces to take over the world.
by The Free Joy State » Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:13 am
Infected Mushroom wrote:The Free Joy State wrote:Why is it so important to you that people go easy on this genocidal witch?
Face it, the law is important.
And, in law, she will have no insanity plea and be granted no clemency.
And, morally, there should be no clemency granted to this genocidal witch. If someone can understand their actions are considered to be wrong, if someone can plan the murders of dozens/hundreds/millions, they should be held accountable in law.
but what if they know that most of society would consider it wrong but they themselves, (as a result of a degree of insanity), do not consider such actions to be wrong but instead to be morally correct?
by Infected Mushroom » Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:15 am
The Free Joy State wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:
but what if they know that most of society would consider it wrong but they themselves, (as a result of a degree of insanity), do not consider such actions to be wrong but instead to be morally correct?
In what the hell kind of world is this scenario taking place?
Is this a new amendment to your fictional future? Norway is an ultra-liberal paradise where people are sentenced to play Xbox and no-one considers genocide a crime?
by Infected Mushroom » Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:22 am
Valrifell wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:
some degree of it has to right?
so you're telling me that someone can kill 12 people and be Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity... but no one can be Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity for killing a much higher number?
why's that?
It's not the fucking bodycount. Lots of things go into determining insanity, chief among them being whether or not it was premeditated. Genocide, by default, falls into "premeditated."
by Len Hyet » Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:29 am
Infected Mushroom wrote:Valrifell wrote:
It's not the fucking bodycount. Lots of things go into determining insanity, chief among them being whether or not it was premeditated. Genocide, by default, falls into "premeditated."
Okay, its "premeditated" (some thought needed to go into it, it needed to be planned out, carried out systematically, intentionally)
but why couldn't insanity (i.e. delusions, mental instability) still be a driving force behind it overriding any meaningful conception of Choice? for instance, they've been programmed/devolved to think that their actions are 100% right while someone more sane wouldn't have gone that way...
by Ifreann » Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:31 am
Infected Mushroom wrote:Ifreann wrote:Legal insanity is not the same as having a mental health problem.
Okay but in considering this hypothetical, you don't have to think like a lawyer
its not about the law, its ultimately about greater considerations of morality (you're allowed to take a philosophical or moral approach if you don't agree with the formality of the law)
by Infected Mushroom » Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:32 am
Ifreann wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:
Okay but in considering this hypothetical, you don't have to think like a lawyer
its not about the law, its ultimately about greater considerations of morality (you're allowed to take a philosophical or moral approach if you don't agree with the formality of the law)
This hypothetical is about a matter of law.
by The Free Joy State » Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:33 am
Len Hyet wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:
Okay, its "premeditated" (some thought needed to go into it, it needed to be planned out, carried out systematically, intentionally)
but why couldn't insanity (i.e. delusions, mental instability) still be a driving force behind it overriding any meaningful conception of Choice? for instance, they've been programmed/devolved to think that their actions are 100% right while someone more sane wouldn't have gone that way...
Because at some point society has to say enough. There are lines that cannot be crossed by anyone, sane or not.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Corporate Collective Salvation, Daphomir, El Lazaro, Emotional Support Crocodile, Opiachus, Pale Dawn, Philjia, Saarenmaa, Tungstan, Valrifall, Valyxias
Advertisement