Breivik: The Moral Dilemma

[Ifreann]

Because there's this thing called justice, and when you murder 77 of your own kinsmen, most of which are children for god's sakes, you deserve to die. Justice demands that a mass-murderer not be allowed to live when he did not extend the same courtesy to his victims.

That would run counter to the Norwegian sense of justice, where a large majority remains opposed to the death penalty even after the attacks.

Obviously the Norwegian sense of justice is wrong and needs to be changed so that Breivik can be executed.

[Wallenburg]

Godwin's Law +1

In a thread about a Neo Nazi Terrorist. How uncalled for.

Neo-Nazi. I don't think Neo-Nazis have killed tens of millions, systematically exterminated civilians, threatened the entire world order, and darkened all of Continental Europe under the hand of an absolute dictator.

[Wallenburg]

Because there's this thing called justice, and when you murder 77 of your own kinsmen, most of which are children for god's sakes, you deserve to die. Justice demands that a mass-murderer not be allowed to live when he did not extend the same courtesy to his victims.

That would run counter to the Norwegian sense of justice, where a large majority remains opposed to the death penalty even after the attacks.

That's just because they were fucking commies who hate children and want Muslims to rape their women!

[Kelinfort]

Anders Breivik is the Thing from the eponymous film, The Thing

[Wallenburg]

Anders Breivik is the Thing from the eponymous film, The Thing

Do not mention that movie...

[Ifreann]

-sigh-

If you're so in favour of rehabilitation, then answer me this.

If Hitler survived the war and was tried along with Himmler and his ilk during the Nuremberg Trials, should he have been given a second chance at life? Should the murderer of millions been given a chance at rehabilitation?

He would have become a fine upstanding German citizen if rehabilitated. He killed a few million people but oh well.

If only they'd had the death penalty during Hitler's formative years, then he never would have killed anyone.

[Kelinfort]

Anders Breivik is the Thing from the eponymous film, The Thing

Do not mention that movie...

Well, they both massacred Norwegians.

[Uxupox]

He would have become a fine upstanding German citizen if rehabilitated. He killed a few million people but oh well.

If only they'd had the death penalty during Hitler's formative years, then he never would have killed anyone.

Not advocating for the death of anybody. but your sarcasm is noted.

[Wallenburg]

Yeah, fact-checking is for nerds, fags and Nature.

Did you bother fact-checking gravlens links, or are you just being disingenuous?

Gravlen certainly is. Nowhere in her links is there anything saying he wasn't hit and abused, only that using this as a cause of the terrorism is not based in evidence, and that remote diagnosis shouldn't be attempted because of a thin source base and amounts to speculation.

So you've actually done the same thing you were accusing me of.

You can't prove a fucking negative, Ostro.

[Ostroeuropa]

He would have become a fine upstanding German citizen if rehabilitated. He killed a few million people but oh well.

If only they'd had the death penalty during Hitler's formative years, then he never would have killed anyone.

Well, there is the putsch.
But that'd mean some other Nazi, or the Communists, would have taken over Germany instead.

[Ostroeuropa]

Did you bother fact-checking gravlens links, or are you just being disingenuous?

Gravlen certainly is. Nowhere in her links is there anything saying he wasn't hit and abused, only that using this as a cause of the terrorism is not based in evidence, and that remote diagnosis shouldn't be attempted because of a thin source base and amounts to speculation.

So you've actually done the same thing you were accusing me of.

You can't prove a fucking negative, Ostro.

If there is a claim that he was abused in a book, and a bunch of people are taking issue with that book and don't mention this claim as suspect but object to remote diagnosis and speculation on it being the cause of his terrorism, then you can't use that to say
"These people object to the claim he was hit."

The book says it takes evidence of the abuse from psychology reports. It would be trivial to point out this isn't the case if it were so. So yes, you can prove this claim wasn't true if it wasn't true. Especially now the subject of some of those reports is dead. (The mother.)

[Imperializt Russia]

Yeah, fact-checking is for nerds, fags and Nature.

Did you bother fact-checking gravlens links, or are you just being disingenuous?

Gravlen certainly is. Nowhere in her links is there anything saying he wasn't hit and abused, only that using this as a cause of the terrorism is not based in evidence, and that remote diagnosis shouldn't be attempted because of a thin source base and amounts to speculation.

So you've actually done the same thing you were accusing me of.

I'm not the one speculating wildly because I read it in an MRM blog.

[Ostroeuropa]

Did you bother fact-checking gravlens links, or are you just being disingenuous?

Gravlen certainly is. Nowhere in her links is there anything saying he wasn't hit and abused, only that using this as a cause of the terrorism is not based in evidence, and that remote diagnosis shouldn't be attempted because of a thin source base and amounts to speculation.

So you've actually done the same thing you were accusing me of.

I'm not the one speculating wildly because I read it in an MRM blog.

Who said that's what i'm doing?
I said i'm aware of these things because of the MRM. They use mainstream news sources. MRM blogs aren't typically welcome in the places I frequent except as commentary on news events.

So you've, in fact, jumped to conclusions and made shit up because it fit your narrative, and are speculating wildly because of shit you read on an internet forum. While doing so, you ran with a link someone else posted and made a few posts about fact checking, without bothering to follow those links yourself and read them. All because it fits your narrative and serves as useful ammunition to attack the MRM.

Including using words improperly in a way that jmakes no sense if you bother to think about them, unless you're using them as Snarl words.

[Gravlen]

Yeah, fact-checking is for nerds, fags and Nature.

Did you bother fact-checking gravlens links, or are you just being disingenuous?

Gravlen certainly is. Nowhere in her links is there anything saying he wasn't hit and abused, only that using this as a cause of the terrorism is not based in evidence, and that remote diagnosis shouldn't be attempted because of a thin source base.

So you've actually done the same thing you were accusing me of.

Incorrect. The links doesn't say he was hit and sexually abused, and that's the point: The reports does not say he was hit and sexually abused. This quotes the report the author used to create his hypothesis that the mother hit and sexually abused Breivik, and it does not say that Breivik was hit and sexually abused. It would be strange for such a report to note that a child was not hit and sexually abused, because that should be the normal situation.

The book review shows that the argument the author makes is unsubstantiated and based on speculation. There's no evidence to support that Breivik was hit and sexually abused - 'all of the parts of the authors line of reasoning may be false, and they may be true. We don't know. His analysis is based more on fiction than fact.'

Professor in psychiatry Sigmud Karterud has been a consultant for the author during his writing process. He says that the sources for determining whether Breivik was abused is lacking, so the conclusions drawn are speculative. He's seen the reports, and still says it's speculative. No confirmation that Breivik was hit or sexually abused. That's spinning a possible scenario only.

[Sanctissima]

He would have become a fine upstanding German citizen if rehabilitated. He killed a few million people but oh well.

If only they'd had the death penalty during Hitler's formative years, then he never would have killed anyone.

You kid, but when he was incarcerated the Weimar Republic actually did have the death penalty (as did the German and Austrian Empires during his youth). He could have been killed for treason and inciting violence during his trial, but the German government of the time decided against it.

In a way, the use of the death penalty could have saved a lot of lives.

[Conserative Morality]

As much of a piece of shit that Breivik is, I do quite enjoy seeing the posts saying he should be tortured or tossed into Gitmo. Especially since it's coming from posters who I know have spoken out against both a) Gitmo b) torture in general.

Double points if you've wished he be placed with Muslim prisoners, under the assumption that they would attack and/or kill him thus strengthening the view of Muslims that he himself holds as well as those of his supporters.

*cough*

Breivik is a piece of shit by almost any standard. Putting him in an ordinary prison is like putting a child molester in an ordinary prison - there's a good chance that someone will decide that there are some things beyond even hardened criminals, and shank him in the kidneys.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'm not the one speculating wildly because I read it in an MRM blog.

Who said that's what i'm doing?
I said i'm aware of these things because of the MRM. They use mainstream news sources. MRM blogs aren't typically welcome in the places I frequent except as commentary on news events.

So you've, in fact, jumped to conclusions and made shit up because it fit your narrative, and are speculating wildly because of shit you read on an internet forum. While doing so, you ran with a link someone else posted and made a few posts about fact checking, without bothering to follow those links yourself and read them. All because it fits your narrative and serves as useful ammunition to attack the MRM.

Including using words improperly in a way that jmakes no sense if you bother to think about them, unless you're using them as Snarl words.

Calm down there, Chris Brooker.

[Ostroeuropa]

Did you bother fact-checking gravlens links, or are you just being disingenuous?

Gravlen certainly is. Nowhere in her links is there anything saying he wasn't hit and abused, only that using this as a cause of the terrorism is not based in evidence, and that remote diagnosis shouldn't be attempted because of a thin source base.

So you've actually done the same thing you were accusing me of.

Incorrect. The links doesn't say he was hit and sexually abused, and that's the point: The reports does not say he was hit and sexually abused. This quotes the report the author used to create his hypothesis that the mother hit and sexually abused Breivik, and it does not say that Breivik was hit and sexually abused. It would be strange for such a report to note that a child was not hit and sexually abused, because that should be the normal situation.

The book review shows that the argument the author makes is unsubstantiated and based on speculation. There's no evidence to support that Breivik was hit and sexually abused - 'all of the parts of the authors line of reasoning may be false, and they may be true. We don't know. His analysis is based more on fiction than fact.'

Professor in psychiatry Sigmud Karterud has been a consultant for the author during his writing process. He says that the sources for determining whether Breivik was abused is lacking, so the conclusions drawn are speculative. He's seen the reports, and still says it's speculative. No confirmation that Breivik was hit or sexually abused. That's spinning a possible scenario only.

That's not what the links you provided show.
The first talks talks about the problems of remote diagnosis and the speculation that his upbringing is the cause of his terrorism. It doesn't challenge on the facts.

I havn't read the book, so I can't comment on whether your linked report is the right one.
The second, near as I can tell, is the same.

[Ostroeuropa]

Who said that's what i'm doing?
I said i'm aware of these things because of the MRM. They use mainstream news sources. MRM blogs aren't typically welcome in the places I frequent except as commentary on news events.

So you've, in fact, jumped to conclusions and made shit up because it fit your narrative, and are speculating wildly because of shit you read on an internet forum. While doing so, you ran with a link someone else posted and made a few posts about fact checking, without bothering to follow those links yourself and read them. All because it fits your narrative and serves as useful ammunition to attack the MRM.

Including using words improperly in a way that jmakes no sense if you bother to think about them, unless you're using them as Snarl words.

Calm down there, Chris Brooker.

So you've got nothing then. Okay.

[Ifreann]

Did you bother fact-checking gravlens links, or are you just being disingenuous?

Gravlen certainly is. Nowhere in her links is there anything saying he wasn't hit and abused, only that using this as a cause of the terrorism is not based in evidence, and that remote diagnosis shouldn't be attempted because of a thin source base.

So you've actually done the same thing you were accusing me of.

Incorrect. The links doesn't say he was hit and sexually abused, and that's the point: The reports does not say he was hit and sexually abused. This quotes the report the author used to create his hypothesis that the mother hit and sexually abused Breivik, and it does not say that Breivik was hit and sexually abused. It would be strange for such a report to note that a child was not hit and sexually abused, because that should be the normal situation.

The book review shows that the argument the author makes is unsubstantiated and based on speculation. There's no evidence to support that Breivik was hit and sexually abused - 'all of the parts of the authors line of reasoning may be false, and they may be true. We don't know. His analysis is based more on fiction than fact.'

Professor in psychiatry Sigmud Karterud has been a consultant for the author during his writing process. He says that the sources for determining whether Breivik was abused is lacking, so the conclusions drawn are speculative. He's seen the reports, and still says it's speculative. No confirmation that Breivik was hit or sexually abused. That's spinning a possible scenario only.

---

If only they'd had the death penalty during Hitler's formative years, then he never would have killed anyone.

You kid, but when he was incarcerated the Weimar Republic actually did have the death penalty (as did the German and Austrian Empires during his youth).

And that didn't deter him? Golly.

[Wallenburg]

If only they'd had the death penalty during Hitler's formative years, then he never would have killed anyone.

You kid, but when he was incarcerated the Weimar Republic actually did have the death penalty (as did the German and Austrian Empires during his youth). He could have been killed for treason and inciting violence during his trial, but the German government of the time decided against it.

In a way, the use of the death penalty could have saved a lot of lives.

Germany had the death penalty then, and it failed.

[Imperializt Russia]

Calm down there, Chris Brooker.

So you've got nothing then. Okay.

Well, saying "this is not immediately supported by the facts" or "this spurious statement widely challenged may not be correct" is neither a narrative nor wild speculation, for one, that's being unwilling to jump to conclusion and application of Occam's Razor.

So I have that I guess.
It's about as substantive as your last post.

[Sanctissima]

You kid, but when he was incarcerated the Weimar Republic actually did have the death penalty (as did the German and Austrian Empires during his youth). He could have been killed for treason and inciting violence during his trial, but the German government of the time decided against it.

In a way, the use of the death penalty could have saved a lot of lives.

Germany had the death penalty then, and it failed.

Probably because it was rarely implemented outside of a period of armed insurgency during the early post-war period. There's quite a few early members of the Nazi Party who could have been executed, but weren't. I imagine the predominantly Socialist Weimar government officials regretted the decision not to have them executed, particularly when some of them weren't extended the same courtesy by those they decided to spare. But either way the Weimar Republic fell for other reasons far more impactful than the death penalty.

[Ostroeuropa]

Germany had the death penalty then, and it failed.

Probably because it was rarely implemented outside of a period of armed insurgency during the early post-war period. There's quite a few early members of the Nazi Party who could have been executed, but weren't. I imagine the predominantly Socialist Weimar government officials regretted the decision not to have them executed, particularly when some of them weren't extended the same courtesy by those they decided to spare. But either way the Weimar Republic fell for other reasons far more impactful than the death penalty.

I may be wrong, but I don't think it was up to the Weimar politicians whether he could have been executed or not.
In Hitlers case, the judge presiding over his trial for the Putsch was arguably sympathetic to his views and he was given a lenient sentence.

Overall it was worse to have arrested him at all, since it gave him a national platform for the first time, gave him time to write mein kampf, and martyred him while not removing him from the board. 5 years is the typical time spent in opposition anyway... And he only served 9 months.

It also caused a realignment of Nazi ideology away from revolution and coup support toward capturing legitimate institutions and the democratic process through propaganda.

[Sanctissima]

Probably because it was rarely implemented outside of a period of armed insurgency during the early post-war period. There's quite a few early members of the Nazi Party who could have been executed, but weren't. I imagine the predominantly Socialist Weimar government officials regretted the decision not to have them executed, particularly when some of them weren't extended the same courtesy by those they decided to spare. But either way the Weimar Republic fell for other reasons far more impactful than the death penalty.

I may be wrong, but I don't think it was up to the Weimar politicians whether he could have been executed or not.
In Hitlers case, the judge presiding over his trial for the Putsch was arguably sympathetic to his views and he was given a lenient sentence.

Overall it was worse to have arrested him at all, since it gave him a national platform for the first time, gave him time to write mein kampf, and martyred him while not removing him from the board. 5 years is the typical time spent in opposition anyway...

True, but it's worth noting that the Weimar government's relatively lenient attitude towards the NSDAP largely allowed them to rise. There's a reason why that judge was never replaced, and why they never really cracked down on the early Nazi party as hard as they should have.