The People of Today Are Hungry for A Lynching. Its not good.

[Wilgrove]

I believe using humans as test subjects without their consent would violate the 8th amendment.

I think putting people through a game of "LOL torture for therapy" might be kinda on shaky legal ground too.

The difference is that it's not sanctioned by government. Also, if you'll re-read my posts, no where did it say that I approve of torture for therapy, I was simply making a correction about the Jigsaw games.

[New Ziedrich]

It's one thing to talk about it on the internet.
Hand the one who talked about pedophiles his needle full of AIDS and put him in a room with a child molester tied to a chair. Nine times out of ten he'll probably break down crying.

Pretty much this. Just a bunch of people with elaborate revenge fantasies that'll likely never come to fruition. Unless actual threats against individuals are made, there's really not much to do besides monitor things so that they don't get too heated.

[My 3rd Floor Flat]

I believe that in such cases the aforementioned testing on rapists and murderers would be fully acceptable.

Given that those who were raped did not give their consent...

Sorry, I don't agree with you on this. Did they do something horrible, yes. Does that mean that we should have a free pass to violate their rights? Hell no, because it just leads down a bad path. Today is the scum of the Earth, tomorrow it's mentally challenged people or people in a Vegetative State or Coma. Sorry, I think our government eroded our rights enough, I don't think we need to help them with that.

On the contrary, my entire stance on ideaology (aside from practicality and realism given current situations) is that an individual has the right to self determination, to do whatever they wish, whatever it is, provided their right to self determination is not violated or imposed upon by others.

Now, in the real world we have taxes, laws and so on and so forth; which I am in favour for, I support the welfare state even though I am a philanthrocapitalist. In my ideal world we would have that one ideal law being upheld and enforced by the state (which is itself ironic given that it's being enforced, however I digress).

The mentioned "scum of the earth" violated someone elses rights, thus they have given up their own rights. Is a fair straight forward reasoning, of course, we should not seek to cause them undue pain, rather, render them brain dead and then do what we must. In the very least ensure they cannot feel pain.

As for mentally challenged people and those in a coma or vegetative state, did they impose themselves upon someone else? No. They must be cared for by society.

And, just to cover all points, what is a mentally challenged person murders someone? No, I do not think they should be put to death for they, by dent of being mentally challenged, cannot make choices or morale decisions in the same way as we can; thus, they cannot be fully held responsible for their actions.

Someone who murders out of cold blood and is completely aware that what they are doing is wrong? Well, see above.

EDIT: To add to my moral compass: "Or impose themselves upon others."

[SD_Film Artists]

This thread calls for the Paedofinder General

[Ifreann]

The mentioned "scum of the earth" violated someone elses rights, thus they have given up their own rights.

No they haven't.

[My 3rd Floor Flat]

The mentioned "scum of the earth" violated someone elses rights, thus they have given up their own rights.

No they haven't.

Yes they have.

*Shrugs*

It comes down to a simple point of view. I believe that your entitled to human rights provided you yourself act in a way that can be considered humane. I do not place murderers in such a catagory.

[Hayteria]

I just saw a group on facebook called "Rapists, Peadophiles ect. Kill the lot of them" It was probably the most heartless group I have ever seen on Facebook, and I thought how sad it is that more than 1,000 people on that group agree that it's a good idea to shoot mentally ill people, and that they dont feel pain.

More than 1000? That's still not a lot of people. How many people are on facebook altogether?

As for shooting criminals, well let's go through this step by step. One of the main justifications for the death penalty is that "murderers sign away their right to life when they kill innocents"; when you take into account that rape is often thought of as being on about the same moral level as murder, then that becomes "murderer-equivalents sign away their right to life when they do something comparable to killing to an innocent"; thus it is not really that different from supporting the death penalty in the first place.

As for the "mentally ill" part, your initial post doesn't seem very specific as to the context of that part. Is it that the group doesn't believe in being leniant towards criminals with mental illness? If so, it may be worth considering that some are skeptical of the entire concept to begin with.

As for doing experiments on such criminals, I'd say it's at least better than executing them. We might get something out of those experiments.

[Ifreann]

The mentioned "scum of the earth" violated someone elses rights, thus they have given up their own rights.

No they haven't.

Yes they have.

*Shrugs*

It comes down to a simple point of view. I believe that your entitled to human rights provided you yourself act in a way that can be considered humane. I do not place murderers in such a catagory.

I think human rights are for humans. Good, bad, ugly.

[Ifreann]

I just saw a group on facebook called "Rapists, Peadophiles ect. Kill the lot of them" It was probably the most heartless group I have ever seen on Facebook, and I thought how sad it is that more than 1,000 people on that group agree that it's a good idea to shoot mentally ill people, and that they dont feel pain.

More than 1000? That's still not a lot of people. How many people are on facebook altogether?

As for shooting criminals, well let's go through this step by step. One of the main justifications for the death penalty is that "murderers sign away their right to life when they kill innocents"; when you take into account that rape is often thought of as being on about the same moral level as murder, then that becomes "murderer-equivalents sign away their right to life when they do something comparable to killing to an innocent"; thus it is not really that different from supporting the death penalty in the first place.

As for the "mentally ill" part, your initial post doesn't seem very specific as to the context of that part. Is it that the group doesn't believe in being leniant towards criminals with mental illness? If so, it may be worth considering that some are skeptical of the entire concept to begin with.

As for doing experiments on such criminals, I'd say it's at least better than executing them. We might get something out of those experiments.

If it was good enough for Mengele, it's good enough for us, eh?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Rape is a pretty terrible, offensive thing. Lotta anger wells up inside when a friend or loved one gets raped. Just sayin'.

And letting that anger destroy your rationality is throwing away your humanity.

[Hayteria]

I just saw a group on facebook called "Rapists, Peadophiles ect. Kill the lot of them" It was probably the most heartless group I have ever seen on Facebook, and I thought how sad it is that more than 1,000 people on that group agree that it's a good idea to shoot mentally ill people, and that they dont feel pain.

More than 1000? That's still not a lot of people. How many people are on facebook altogether?

As for shooting criminals, well let's go through this step by step. One of the main justifications for the death penalty is that "murderers sign away their right to life when they kill innocents"; when you take into account that rape is often thought of as being on about the same moral level as murder, then that becomes "murderer-equivalents sign away their right to life when they do something comparable to killing to an innocent"; thus it is not really that different from supporting the death penalty in the first place.

As for the "mentally ill" part, your initial post doesn't seem very specific as to the context of that part. Is it that the group doesn't believe in being leniant towards criminals with mental illness? If so, it may be worth considering that some are skeptical of the entire concept to begin with.

As for doing experiments on such criminals, I'd say it's at least better than executing them. We might get something out of those experiments.

If it was good enough for Mengele, it's good enough for us, eh?

... what do you mean?

[Hayteria]

Rape is a pretty terrible, offensive thing. Lotta anger wells up inside when a friend or loved one gets raped. Just sayin'.

And letting that anger destroy your rationality is throwing away your humanity.

This. Just... this.

The distinction between "lawful revenge" and "chaotic revenge" seems less meaningful the more emotion-driven they are. I'd guess some murderers were absolutely convinced that their victims deserved to be murdered...

[Ifreann]

As for doing experiments on such criminals, I'd say it's at least better than executing them. We might get something out of those experiments.

If it was good enough for Mengele, it's good enough for us, eh?

... what do you mean?

Josef Mengele, perhaps you heard of him. Experimented on Jews and other detainees in Auschwitz-Birkenau.

[Hayteria]

As for doing experiments on such criminals, I'd say it's at least better than executing them. We might get something out of those experiments.

If it was good enough for Mengele, it's good enough for us, eh?

... what do you mean?

Josef Mengele, perhaps you heard of him. Experimented on Jews and other detainees in Auschwitz-Birkenau.

... comparing experiments on people of another religion to experiments on rapists and murderers is a bit of a false equivalence. It would be like saying "look at China, jailing people for their religious beliefs, surely it must be wrong to jail people for rape and murder!"

[Kamsaki]

Yes they have.

*Shrugs*

It comes down to a simple point of view. I believe that your entitled to human rights provided you yourself act in a way that can be considered humane. I do not place murderers in such a catagory.

Being humane is not the same as being human. Whether you like it or not, their biology is what it is, and if Human rights are Human rights, and not simply "who we like rights", we shouldn't allow their weakness of character to distract from that.

That said, of course, I wonder whether Human Rights are just as arbitrary as any "subset of Human Rights". Do people really care that much about the humanity of other people, or are they only stating as much because "humanity" has come to be conflated with "personhood"?

[Techno-Soviet]

It's one thing to talk about it on the internet.
Hand the one who talked about pedophiles his needle full of AIDS and put him in a room with a child molester tied to a chair. Nine times out of ten he'll probably break down crying.

Weren't there studies done on this a while back that said basically the opposite?

[Blouman Empire]

I'd like to point out that I dont advocate peados or Murdering ect.

Also, what worries me is the fact that so many people on facebook, what 40,000 people now seem to agree with that group.

Many of them are just sheep. Following the crowd.

Or just see some of their friends have joined the group and just click "join group" without thinking. I saw a mate of mine had joined a group for Old scholars of a high school he didn't even attend.

[Hayteria]

Or just see some of their friends have joined the group and just click "join group" without thinking.

If that's the case, that's their problem.

[Korex]

I believe that in such cases the aforementioned testing on rapists and murderers would be fully acceptable.

Given that those who were raped did not give their consent...

Sorry, I don't agree with you on this. Did they do something horrible, yes. Does that mean that we should have a free pass to violate their rights? Hell no, because it just leads down a bad path. Today is the scum of the Earth, tomorrow it's mentally challenged people or people in a Vegetative State or Coma. Sorry, I think our government eroded our rights enough, I don't think we need to help them with that.

On the contrary, my entire stance on ideaology (aside from practicality and realism given current situations) is that an individual has the right to self determination, to do whatever they wish, whatever it is, provided their right to self determination is not violated or imposed upon by others.

Now, in the real world we have taxes, laws and so on and so forth; which I am in favour for, I support the welfare state even though I am a philanthrocapitalist. In my ideal world we would have that one ideal law being upheld and enforced by the state (which is itself ironic given that it's being enforced, however I digress).

The mentioned "scum of the earth" violated someone elses rights, thus they have given up their own rights. Is a fair straight forward reasoning, of course, we should not seek to cause them undue pain, rather, render them brain dead and then do what we must. In the very least ensure they cannot feel pain.

As for mentally challenged people and those in a coma or vegetative state, did they impose themselves upon someone else? No. They must be cared for by society.

And, just to cover all points, what is a mentally challenged person murders someone? No, I do not think they should be put to death for they, by dent of being mentally challenged, cannot make choices or morale decisions in the same way as we can; thus, they cannot be fully held responsible for their actions.

Someone who murders out of cold blood and is completely aware that what they are doing is wrong? Well, see above.

EDIT: To add to my moral compass: "Or impose themselves upon others."

I agree completely. Of course my views have been shaped by things that happened to me as a child. I was repeatedly raped as a child by a child molester who had been released from prison. I believe in drastic measures because it ensures that criminals arn't released to repeat their crimes.

[New Ziedrich]

Rape is a pretty terrible, offensive thing. Lotta anger wells up inside when a friend or loved one gets raped. Just sayin'.

And letting that anger destroy your rationality is throwing away your humanity.

As I later clarified.

Damn, that first post of mine is really screwing me over, isn't it?

[Parthenon]

Can I get a link to the group? I would like to join it.

[Lackadaisical2]

It's one thing to talk about it on the internet.
Hand the one who talked about pedophiles his needle full of AIDS and put him in a room with a child molester tied to a chair. Nine times out of ten he'll probably break down crying.

Weren't there studies done on this a while back that said basically the opposite?

The ones where a researcher asked a person to give someone in another room 'shocks'?

Yeah, the vast majority of people went ahead and shocked them up pretty good.

[Parthenon]

It's one thing to talk about it on the internet.
Hand the one who talked about pedophiles his needle full of AIDS and put him in a room with a child molester tied to a chair. Nine times out of ten he'll probably break down crying.

Weren't there studies done on this a while back that said basically the opposite?

The ones where a researcher asked a person to give someone in another room 'shocks'?

Yeah, the vast majority of people went ahead and shocked them up pretty good.

Milgram Experiment

[Osarius]

Rape is a pretty terrible, offensive thing. Lotta anger wells up inside when a friend or loved one gets raped. Just sayin'.

And letting that anger destroy your rationality is throwing away your humanity.

On the contrary. I would argue that people's affection by this anger is exactly what makes them human. That loss of rationality - which I feel is mainly the result of social constraints anyway - is rarely more than a temporary lapse, a moment of madness brought about by intense emotion. This is why various legal systems have provision for "crimes of passion", but not premeditated crime, I would assume.

Doesn't make what these people are saying right, of course. But I understand. Ideally, people wouldn't lose control like that. But thats how we are. Not all of us are strong enough to control our emotions. I would guess I'm not alone in saying its reasonably likely that I would attempt to attack - perhaps even with (legally defined) intent to kill - a man who raped my mother, for example, if given a chance. I'm not saying I advocate torturing or experimenting on this hypothetical man, or even that I would be right in inflicting further punishment on him beyond the assumed removal of his liberty at the hands of the legal system... but I'd certainly want to hurt him or see him get hurt. Its a natural human reaction. Some people just take that to an extreme. *shrug*

[Allanea]

It's one thing to talk about it on the internet.
Hand the one who talked about pedophiles his needle full of AIDS and put him in a room with a child molester tied to a chair. Nine times out of ten he'll probably break down crying.

Weren't there studies done on this a while back that said basically the opposite?

The ones where a researcher asked a person to give someone in another room 'shocks'?

Yeah, the vast majority of people went ahead and shocked them up pretty good.

Milgram Experiment

Not a valid experiment because people had solid reasons to believe the person wouldn't be harmed, and that he was a volunteer.

Of course, they were right - the person was a volunteer, and he was not harmed.