SAD NEWS

[skitzee2k]

Firstly we need to make clear a difference in Law and our ideas of 'Evil' and 'Just'.

The law states what is lawful and unlawful.
It doesn't let personal emotions get involved.
Therefore, attacking someone is wrong...whether the victim is a nun or Ian Huntley.

and what about a soldier attacking an enemy? (regardless of how underpaid they may be )

Show me the quote

Good example. Both soldiers feel what they are doing is justified. Both are 'just'.

...the law side is normally dealt with after the winners win and losers lose.

..the winners don't tend to have to attend 'war crimes' courts...the losers do......isn't it amazing how the 'Goodies' always win?

 

[lifesagasman]

dex, are you coming or not?

the Society's dinner dance dinner is on the table!!

 

[dextrous]

More to the point, is a soldier acting lawfully when (s)he attacks someone? It's not subjective, it's an application of a fundamental definition

 

[dextrous]

dex, you should know better.
Cogito ergo sum is a statement, not a question.

I was questioning the validity of the use of the statement, not the statement itself.

 

[skitzee2k]

More to the point, is a soldier acting lawfully when (s)he attacks someone? It's not subjective, it's an application of a fundamental definition

This is my point. Law is NOT subjective( even if there can be more than one..hmm), 'just' and 'evil' are.

The answer is, it all depends. Does the soldier's leader have a mandate by the law makers that he answers to?

 

[dextrous]

dex, are you coming or not?

the Society's dinner dance dinner is on the table!!

Reebok?

 

[dextrous]

More to the point, is a soldier acting lawfully when (s)he attacks someone? It's not subjective, it's an application of a fundamental definition

This is my point. Law is NOT subjective( even if there can be more than one..hmm), 'just' and 'evil' are.

The answer is, it all depends. Does the soldier's leader have a mandate by the law makers that he answers to?

With respect, "it all depends" isn't a strong enough nor satisfactory argument.

Also Law is entirely subjective, since it is based largely on what are commonly accepted meanings of "evil". Also the meaning of "evil" is also subjective and has changed and continues to evolve as history progresses.

For example, human sacrifices for religious purposes used to be considered highly moral and just, indeed an honour bestowed. Now it is considered to be the complete antithesis.

 

[skitzee2k]

I'm sorry, things aren't black and white.

Well the law is the law. It is written. When it changes it changes. It does not change depending on individual beliefs though.
You have either broken a law or you haven't...believing that you HAVEN'T broken a law doesn't mean you haven't. Therefore is not subjective.

 

[Blasphemous]

So, huntley wasn't evil and neither is what he did then? Or am I misreading your argument.

There is very little talk of murderers, rapists etc being 'evil' by the courts these days. They are described as 'mentally ill', 'Mentally Sick', 'Not of sound mind' etc etc. So their state of mind means that they cannot be held accountable for their actions... apparently!

Now as I posted earlier, psychologists basically agree that 'evil' is either a word used by us (society), to defend our want of vengeance against an 'evil person' and/or it is something that an 'evil person' just doesn't recognise. He/she is removed from feelings of compassion etc. In both respects, 'evil' is a state of mind.

So if an attacker is carrying out actions because of a state of mind, then someone cannot be 'evil' for wanting to kill, hurt etc Huntley et al because the reason they want vengeance is due to a 'mental state of mind'. They see Huntley as 'evil' and therefore they want vengeance.

If the courts want us to see Huntley et al as NOT 'evil' ie they committed their crimes because of their state of mind, then those that want 'vengeance' cannot be frowned upon for the same reason.

 

[skitzee2k]

As long as those people trying to kill Huntley agree they are no better than him there isn't a problem with that argument.

 

[Blasphemous]

Agreed... and as long as those people trying to kill Huntley agree they are no better than him there isn't a problem with that argument.

But I don't agree! I believe that killing, raping etc someone IS evil. I do agree however that because of that crime you're so appalled that your state of mind drives you to want vengeance. If a crime hadn't been committed in the first place then vengeance wouldn't be an issue. People are 'driven' to want vengeance by the evil of the likes of Huntley.

Vengeance is NOT the same as the crime Huntley committed. Are you saying that if one of those little girls' dads wanted to and did kill Huntley then he is no better than Huntley? I sincerely hope not!



EDIT: I note you have removed the word 'agreed' from the beginning of your post skitzee. Why is that? Don't you agree now? Make your mind up man!

 

[skitzee2k]

...but you just said that both were a state of mind.
I don't know why Ian Huntley did what he did and to be honest I would never even want to be so f**ked up that I DID understand it...but he must of had his reasons...
...just like we have our reasons to hate him.
A murderer is a murderer. We can democratically decide that one murder is more acceptable to us personally, but it is still one person killing another.

 

[skitzee2k]

EDIT: I note you have removed the word 'agreed' from the beginning of your post skitzee. Why is that? Don't you agree now? Make your mind up man!

....I didn't change it...that is odd. I thought it is meant to say If I edited it??

Well i agreed then and still do, don't know where it went.

 

[Blasphemous]

...but you just said that both were a state of mind.

I was outlining what the 'experts' slant is on it.

I don't know why Ian Huntley did what he did and to be honest I would never even want to be so f**ked up that I DID understand it...but he must of had his reasons...
...just like we have our reasons to hate him.
A murderer is a murderer. We can democratically decide that one murder is more acceptable to us personally, but it is still one person killing another.

Well obviously it's one person killing another but the two CANNOT be 'the same'. Huntley is evil. If one of the fathers/mothers killed him they WOULD NOT be evil. Surely you can see that?

 

[noseall]

It is not evil to want to punish a man for committing an evil crime, it is called justice.

If that punishment involves spending the rest of his life in prison and in fear then so be it.

Is it wrong to commit an evil man to such an establishment knowing he will be living his life in fear and in danger?