|
| Thread: How stupid is the media?..... really?? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV |
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
posted October 03, 2005 03:59 PM |
|
|
OK...my part ends here.
Not even u missed about 80% of my points, but u start to compare me with a Nazi, and thatīs not the level i will go down and talk with you any further.
Thx.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Russ
Promising
Supreme Hero
blah, blah, blah
|
|
posted October 03, 2005 06:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Other angering headlines are such as :
"burglar sues resident for falling through a sky light during roberry..."
That's nothing. A woman in US hit a man with her car. He died on her car trunk. She went to jail for a few years, then SUED THE WIDOW because the man has caused her some emotional damage when he died on her car trunk and... WON the settlement!!! (I read it from an Internet which has a lot of hoaxes, but I am inclined to belive that one - the site was called "10 most ridiculous cases" or smth like this, and some other cases I heard about before were there.)
Quote:
And there is one word in nearly all breaches of law all over the world, which really makes me crazy when reading: stultify somebody
"Ignorance is no excuse" has always said by all adults when i was young. Also when u are visiting a new country, itīs your business to inform yourself about the laws. If someone breaks rules, no matter if he knew it or not, he has to pay for it. If a man kills a woman with a knife, he has to go in jail, normaly for at least 15 years (at least this is the law in germany). If he does the same when being totally drunk, he gets 4 years. This is no fiction or a fairy tale, this is my own experience, coz that happened to my mother (as victim) 6 years ago. Thatīs the reason why i stopped drinking any kind of alcohol. So please no1 tell me anything about "fairness of laws" and "treating like a human being". I watched it live in the courthouse, how they "treated" and "valued" the life of my mother. Seems like in our modern community, alcohol can be an excuse for nearly everything.
The newest example we have here in germany is from yesterday. An 18 year old girl was getting judged for killing 2 people and injuring 6 others with her car. She was drunk, had the licence for 2 months, had taken cocaine. She drove way too fast in a small city, lost control in a curve and drove directly into a "beer garden". The car stopped when hitting the wall of the restaurant. Adjudgement: 3 Years in jail, coz she didnīt knew what she was doing coz of alcohol and drugs. Yeah...thatīs how it should work.
That has always pissed me off as well, even though I never experienced it 1-st hand. When you kill someone while drunk or on drugs, they will be just as dead as if you killed them with a clear mind. Why should we treat them differently?
Surely, the 18-year old girl did not want to kill someone, but such ignorance and disregard for consequences of her actions is extremely dangerous. Come to think of it, if I had to chose a neighbor, I would prefer a cold-blooded killer living next door to me instead of a criminally negligent person or a crazy drug abuser. At least this one won't touch me unless I piss him off or cross his interests, while the other two are completely unpredictable and much more dangerous because of that. I think she deserves the 15 years you mentioned - that should give her enough time to learn to avoid such "seemingly innocent" actions in the future and it should give the rest of us a 15-year break.
Quote:
Quote:
It seems perfectly natural to me that some people would be born with more or less development of the lower frontal lobe, based on their genes. Depending on the neural connections in there, someone may or may not be highly prone to anti-social (ie. criminal) behaviour.
This is just wrong, so your saying people with brain defects have a higher chance of being a criminal? It reminds me of the way they thought they could spot a criminal in the victorian age by the way people looked.
Actually, it is true. No matter how politically correct you think you are, some people will be black, some will be white, some will be short, some tall, some smart, some stupid and some will be born with degraded "social" brain center that normally prevents us from doing very antisocial things such as murder.
However, it is wrong to treat the people who were born with genetic deficiencies any differently UNTIL they commit a crime.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted October 03, 2005 09:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
OK...my part ends here.
Not even u missed about 80% of my points, but u start to compare me with a Nazi, and thatīs not the level i will go down and talk with you any further.
Thx.
A NAZI???!!! WTF, man? Would you kindly direct me to where I did that? I believe I used the word "Germanic", not "Nazi", and as I'd expected you to know, the two things are obviously not synonymous.
Using negative characterizations on people who disagree with me, is not something I consider to be an ethical rhetoric tool. (At least not that negative characterizations, since obviously, my allusion to the justice system of Medieval Germans wasn't exactly positive.  )
And about the "missing 80% of your arguments", well, I thought I commented on what I saw as relevant, just as you selected some part of all the bs I've been typing for the last two pages, to comment on that.
Anyway, I have since my last post discovered that some of the premises I have based my arguments on, are false. I'll try to sort them out:
1) It appears that the professor whose lectures and books I have based my argument about "the only instinct humans are born with, is an instinct for sucking", is a cultural determinist. In other words, he believes that biology only plays a marginal role, if any, in shaping humans.
This point of view is obviously rather flawed.
But still, this doesn't change the fact that socialization plays a bigger role than biological factors in shaping humans.
2) Pedophiles are sick people, and their condition is most likely connected to a disfunction in their brain. Today, someone referred to an American test to me, in which 12 pedophiles had gone through 6 years of intensive "rehabilitation". When they were released after that, only 5 of them did not molest children again.
However, even though these factors falsified some of my arguments, I still stand by my conclusions: Pedophiles are sick people, who should be taken care of, although in a humane way, since despite what they do, they're still humans. Of course, in conflict with this consideration, we have the consideration of safety in our societies: We simply cannot allow people who rape and kill children to roam free.
But what are our alternatives?
A) This brings me to Jebus' question on page 2: According to him, no one had yet presented a "GOOD" reason not to kill them instead of locking them up for life.
I don't know how good a reason this is for you, since your respect for life seems to be rather marginal, but here's the basic reason why I'm opposed to the death penalty as a tool for saving tax money:
Valuing money over human lives, is not something I find to be even close to ethical right.
As I stated in my last post, you can always make more money, but you can't give life back to a dead person.
So, Killing them is not an option.
B) Lobotomating them.
In cases where the pedophilia is caused by brain damage, lobotomy is an option. Through simple surgery, the pedophile can be made into a completely harmless creature.
The backfire here, however, is that you remove the victim's ability to feel. And people with no emotions, can imho, be quite more dangerous to society than someone with too much of them. The lobotomated person won't be able to support him-/herself, though, and frankly, I think killing is a more humane treatment than lobotomy.
C) Castraction.
Different approach than with lobotomy, but the same basic results. Men with no ability to produce testosterone can unfortuneatly be abandoned by all desire to do something with their lives, and just grow fat while watching soap operas.
Not to mention, that I still find killing to be more humane than maiming, although the criminal might not agree with that.
So, unless anyone comes up with a brilliant idea of how we can make them harmless or isolate them from society cheaply, the only option I see left, is internation, preferably in some form of high security mental institution, where their behaviour can be monitored by experts. Expensive, yes. But also safe, and humane, compared to the other options.
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted October 03, 2005 09:24 PM |
|
|
Sorry Terje, you are right here. I missread your "Germanic" and thought u meant the "worst" german time between ī33 and ī45.
But still i will stop posting in such threads coz at the end i always recognize my english is too bad to express what i really think. Too often i get missinterpreted or i missread some other posts wrong. It would be much easier for me in german, or if i would be 15 years younger and could remember the english language better.
Sorry for irritating anyone...
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
|
posted October 03, 2005 09:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
C) Castraction.
Different approach than with lobotomy, but the same basic results. Men with no ability to produce testosterone can unfortuneatly be abandoned by all desire to do something with their lives, and just grow fat while watching soap operas.
I remember reading that in cases of pedophilia (and other sicknesses like it) that the defect is in the brain. So by castrating an offender, you're removing the "direct" tool of stimulus but the "need" to touch, molest or abuse is still produced (seing it as it's a mental illness and not a physical reaction)... all you've really done is highten the feelings of resentment and anger of the offender, causing his next acts to be more violent of gruesome.
(i'd have to look into it again cuz I can't remember where I saw those studies)
Angel,
don't get down on yourself like that... I found your arguments very clear and understandable...
(I've been writing in English all my life and still can make Terje see that he smells!!  )
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
| |
|
|
