The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
"the cannibal" only had 8 years, i belive for inviting people into his house and eating them he shouldnever be allowed back on the streets
he says he recorded it all and put it on a website (yuk!)
unlitimate thrill YHEA RIGHT!!
he says he recorded it all and put it on a website (yuk!)
unlitimate thrill YHEA RIGHT!!
Page:
...That it then?
I don't think the murder example is completely comparable because to me murder implies a lack of consent. My point with that was that the fetish and the consent are two completely separate spheres; distinct, one does not affect the other. So while there very well may be a cannibal who just eats anyone willy nilly (again no pun intended), but it is not necessary that all cannibals are like this BECAUSE they are cannibals.
On what you said about it "bringing into question his abilities to interact in society" I will have to disagree again I'm afraid - I think it shows perfectly his excellent ability to interact with others in a well mannered way. If this guy had gone out and got anybody, what would we have suggested he do? I mean if we assume that he wants to eat somebody, what would we suggest as the best method of doing this, producing least harm etc? The best method I can think of is putting up an ad. It's a perfectly civilised way to do things and makes them come to you. It illustrates that this guy has no psychological defects and can operate just fine in our society. I mean, he didn't just ask someone, he put up an advert. That's brilliant.
On what you said about it "bringing into question his abilities to interact in society" I will have to disagree again I'm afraid - I think it shows perfectly his excellent ability to interact with others in a well mannered way. If this guy had gone out and got anybody, what would we have suggested he do? I mean if we assume that he wants to eat somebody, what would we suggest as the best method of doing this, producing least harm etc? The best method I can think of is putting up an ad. It's a perfectly civilised way to do things and makes them come to you. It illustrates that this guy has no psychological defects and can operate just fine in our society. I mean, he didn't just ask someone, he put up an advert. That's brilliant.
I think that is simplifying things a bit. You are right that someone's personal habits don't always mean they are an evil person, but you could say that about any mass murderer. Their hobby is murder, they may enjoy a spot of burial in the back garden or under the floor boards, but at other times they may be the most friendly person you could meet.
In the case of this man, his cannibal instincts may not mean he is evil, as such, but it does question his ability to interact with accepted rules in society and his act was a form of murder (or manslaughter if the victim really did agree to be eaten).
In the case of this man, his cannibal instincts may not mean he is evil, as such, but it does question his ability to interact with accepted rules in society and his act was a form of murder (or manslaughter if the victim really did agree to be eaten).
Belldandy wrote:
> But if you are going to argue that there is no right and wrong then
> you cannot borrow or steal...
OMFGYMFSPMLMFGWTMPAISBNDDUSKNSGAYNSUDIDKS
I didn't say "there is no right or wrong" I said "right and wrong are purely purpose dependent". That is to say that if you want event X to happen, and action Y makes that event happen, then action Y is the correct course of action. If action Y doesn't make it happen, or event X is not the desired event, then action Y is the wrong act.
Secondly, how does no right or wrong equate to no borrowing and stealing? Stealing is not defined as an event which is morally wrong, it's defined as taking without consent. What does that have to do with morals or right/wrong?
> Though how you equate borrowing and stealing with that guy looking at
> pictures then making his own picture is beyond me.
I didn't say anything about pictures, I compared the borrowing/stealing example to the cannibal. Here:
Borrowing does not lead to theft. Yet borrowing is only stealing with consent added on.
Similarly, there is cannibalism with and without consent. Cannibalism with consent does not necessarily lead to cannibalism without consent.
So why should those cannibals who always obtain consent and are of sound mind be locked up? They do not pose a threat.
Just because somebody has an unusual want/liking/desire/fetish (in this case to eat another person) that does not mean that they are a bloodthirsty monster and will go against the wishes of another. For example, take someone who has a bondage fetish (no pun intended). Now, you and a lot of others may find this a completely horrible act to even think about. I'm not saying you do, but let's assume that you do. Or if you can't, exchange bondage for something else that you do find horrible. Now, that hypothetical person who does like bondage is also what you might call a moral person. They believe that to do something to another person without consent is wrong. So they always get permission and are sure the other person wants to be spanked or whipped or whatever it is. Now, are you saying that that person will necessarily go on to do this without consent?
It's no different, really, just an exchange of fetishes. Cannibalism is more unusual or extreme, but just because someone likes the unusual doesn't mean that they would go against the wishes of another. It's two separate areas, and being a cannibal doesn't mean you aren't what you might call a nice person.
> But if you are going to argue that there is no right and wrong then
> you cannot borrow or steal...
OMFGYMFSPMLMFGWTMPAISBNDDUSKNSGAYNSUDIDKS
I didn't say "there is no right or wrong" I said "right and wrong are purely purpose dependent". That is to say that if you want event X to happen, and action Y makes that event happen, then action Y is the correct course of action. If action Y doesn't make it happen, or event X is not the desired event, then action Y is the wrong act.
Secondly, how does no right or wrong equate to no borrowing and stealing? Stealing is not defined as an event which is morally wrong, it's defined as taking without consent. What does that have to do with morals or right/wrong?
> Though how you equate borrowing and stealing with that guy looking at
> pictures then making his own picture is beyond me.
I didn't say anything about pictures, I compared the borrowing/stealing example to the cannibal. Here:
Borrowing does not lead to theft. Yet borrowing is only stealing with consent added on.
Similarly, there is cannibalism with and without consent. Cannibalism with consent does not necessarily lead to cannibalism without consent.
So why should those cannibals who always obtain consent and are of sound mind be locked up? They do not pose a threat.
Just because somebody has an unusual want/liking/desire/fetish (in this case to eat another person) that does not mean that they are a bloodthirsty monster and will go against the wishes of another. For example, take someone who has a bondage fetish (no pun intended). Now, you and a lot of others may find this a completely horrible act to even think about. I'm not saying you do, but let's assume that you do. Or if you can't, exchange bondage for something else that you do find horrible. Now, that hypothetical person who does like bondage is also what you might call a moral person. They believe that to do something to another person without consent is wrong. So they always get permission and are sure the other person wants to be spanked or whipped or whatever it is. Now, are you saying that that person will necessarily go on to do this without consent?
It's no different, really, just an exchange of fetishes. Cannibalism is more unusual or extreme, but just because someone likes the unusual doesn't mean that they would go against the wishes of another. It's two separate areas, and being a cannibal doesn't mean you aren't what you might call a nice person.
But if you are going to argue that there is no right and wrong then you cannot borrow or steal...
Though how you equate borrowing and stealing with that guy looking at pictures then making his own picture is beyond me.
Though how you equate borrowing and stealing with that guy looking at pictures then making his own picture is beyond me.
Belldandy wrote:
> Okay, if you use the argument that it was okay because it was
> consensual then surely you have to acknowledge that there is always a
> danger that the person involved will stray into criminal activity?
No more so than anyone else.
I've borrowed things from people - does that mean I'll steal things? No. One's consensual, the other isn't. They don't affect each other. So making borrowing and lending illegal would be ridiculous.
It's the same thing.
> Okay, if you use the argument that it was okay because it was
> consensual then surely you have to acknowledge that there is always a
> danger that the person involved will stray into criminal activity?
No more so than anyone else.
I've borrowed things from people - does that mean I'll steal things? No. One's consensual, the other isn't. They don't affect each other. So making borrowing and lending illegal would be ridiculous.
It's the same thing.
Okay, if you use the argument that it was okay because it was consensual then surely you have to acknowledge that there is always a danger that the person involved will stray into criminal activity?
Take the case of that teacher convicted today for killing another teacher. He looked asphyxiation fetish picture on the internet - legal - but then made his fantasy real by strangling to death a woman teacher and then keeping the body for a month.
Take the case of that teacher convicted today for killing another teacher. He looked asphyxiation fetish picture on the internet - legal - but then made his fantasy real by strangling to death a woman teacher and then keeping the body for a month.
Then you lose, by default.
Nyer nyer nyer.
Nyer nyer nyer.
Like I can be arsed to read all that.
Sorry IB, you would have got a reply from me last night but I was disconnected - the same AOL account being used from two different places, never seen it actually happen like that before, but it did last night. Anyway, didn't mean to be rude, he's the full malarkey.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> To be honest, your thinking is far too linear. From a personal point
> of view, what is right or wrong is essentially a matter of how it
> effects you. However, acts cannot be judged on that basis alone, as
> you are not the only person to be effected by any given act.
I think you might be seeing what I'm talking about here. You say "right or wrong is a matter of how it affects you and others" - this is exactly my point. I'm not trying to say this in some kind of sarcastic way, I'm saying that I agree with you.
My point is this: if you take away those effects, if you take away the context, purpose etc then the act isn't wrong. Or right, for that matter. How can any act be wrong in itself? I really don't understand the concept. The only argument against it is "It's just wrong".
This has nothing to do with the cannibalism act, in fact I don't know quite where that was lost along the line, but general. About everything.
> So, generally, what is right or wrong has to be decided on a basis
> that takes into account, as best as is possible, the feelings of all
> those who would be concerned.
"Right or wrong has to be decided..." there you go - it has to be decided, it isn't objective. That's my argument, that no act is right or wrong objectively in itself.
> So, you say there is nothing wrong with a man consenting to be killed
> by a man who wants to eat him. I say that all those related to either
> man involved, whose view is infinitely more important than yours in
> the case, will disagree with you. All those with relatives in need of
> psychiatric help, or suffering from depression or suicidal thoughts
> will say it's wrong and will demand "justice" to ensure
> that it doesn't happen again, that it doesn't happen to someone they
> love.
Right, back to cannibalism then. Taking into account what you've just said, I still don't think it's wrong or should be illegal. What's the difference between wanting to be eaten and wanting to be anything else?
Say if someone's son wanted to be.....a plumber, for instance. And the parents weren't happy with this. It would bring them all the distress etc that you mentioned above. Would you want to say that all plumbing should be illegal? It's no different. Because there is no more objectively wrong with eating someone than there is with plumbing. Only your opinions on the issue, which is why some people might not be happy with their offspring becoming a plumber and others would, similarly others might not mind their son being eaten if it was what their son really wanted to do with their life. Or lack of.
> How many other people have a personal stake in what happened? It
> could be thousands, hundreds of thousands. Millions, could all be
> threatened or live in fear if such acts were deemed "good"
> or "acceptable".
And who is saying they're good? Not bad does not mean good. I hate to break that to you.
And this one case of cannibalism will not endanger millions, thousands, hundreds or even tens. Or even ones. Because it was all consensual.
> Thankfully for them, for me and for you, we instead rely on central
> hubs of moral decency called "The Law", which is engineered
> to worry about all the rights and wrongs so you don't have to.
Oh believe me, I don't worry about the rights and wrongs. Because objectively there are no rights or wrongs.
But we see them as such. Because we are humans. And we are context and purpose dependent. We view the world through a lens of the above, and this comes from our upbringing, society etc and natural instincts. And the point of these things? Well generally it keeps us alive as a species. If we didn't have them we wouldn't last long. So to get to this stage of evolution, we've had to have them.
You're thinking way too much in terms of laws, rights, wrongs and society. I'm just thinking objectively about things in general. Maybe if you realise that nothing *actually* matters, then you'll begin to get what I'm talking about.
> And can I say, with people like you hanging around - thank christ for
> the law.
That's just irrational and illogical.
So because no act is right or wrong in itself I'm going to go out and do all the bad stuff? Where in the name of hell did that one come from? Surely there's just as much chance of me doing the "good" stuff as there is of the "bad"?
I think basically you misunderstand my point - I'm not saying that I would be fine with cannibalism, murder, rape, paedophilia etc etc etc. because I would. I'd be just as angered by a paedophile as you would, because we exist in the world that has consequences, that has context, that has purpose. I'm just saying, for the nth time, that no act *IN ITSELF* with all purpose stripped away, is right or wrong.
An example for you: I help an old lady across the road, say. Now, that's generally the clichéd "good act", right? But what is it that is actually good about that act? Well, you make the old lady feel nice, you stopped her from injury maybe. So if your purpose is to make an old lady feel nice or protect her, the act is good. If your purpose is to hurt her, the act is bad.
Strip away all those things and what do you have? There's nothing, and you can't argue otherwise without using a purpose dependent argument, which is circular. The act in itself isn't right.
But that's not to say I'm going to ignore the old lady asking for help, because what I'm saying now does not and will not affect my actions in the real world.
I was talking about this today with some people (in a philosophy class, it was bound to happen some time) and we more or less came to an agreement. At first they were as argumentative as you (or we) are being now, but we came to a kind of mutual conclusion because we realised what the other was saying. It's a lot easier to convey in person than over text based things like this, because you know what someone really means without having to analyse their words.
What I'm saying isn't very radical at all. Many think it is, but I don't believe so. I think it was Aristotle who said "'Good' is only fit for purpose," and that sums my views up. And I think you'd have a very hard time trying to disprove that. Well, you *couldn't* disprove it, but you could argue it.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> To be honest, your thinking is far too linear. From a personal point
> of view, what is right or wrong is essentially a matter of how it
> effects you. However, acts cannot be judged on that basis alone, as
> you are not the only person to be effected by any given act.
I think you might be seeing what I'm talking about here. You say "right or wrong is a matter of how it affects you and others" - this is exactly my point. I'm not trying to say this in some kind of sarcastic way, I'm saying that I agree with you.
My point is this: if you take away those effects, if you take away the context, purpose etc then the act isn't wrong. Or right, for that matter. How can any act be wrong in itself? I really don't understand the concept. The only argument against it is "It's just wrong".
This has nothing to do with the cannibalism act, in fact I don't know quite where that was lost along the line, but general. About everything.
> So, generally, what is right or wrong has to be decided on a basis
> that takes into account, as best as is possible, the feelings of all
> those who would be concerned.
"Right or wrong has to be decided..." there you go - it has to be decided, it isn't objective. That's my argument, that no act is right or wrong objectively in itself.
> So, you say there is nothing wrong with a man consenting to be killed
> by a man who wants to eat him. I say that all those related to either
> man involved, whose view is infinitely more important than yours in
> the case, will disagree with you. All those with relatives in need of
> psychiatric help, or suffering from depression or suicidal thoughts
> will say it's wrong and will demand "justice" to ensure
> that it doesn't happen again, that it doesn't happen to someone they
> love.
Right, back to cannibalism then. Taking into account what you've just said, I still don't think it's wrong or should be illegal. What's the difference between wanting to be eaten and wanting to be anything else?
Say if someone's son wanted to be.....a plumber, for instance. And the parents weren't happy with this. It would bring them all the distress etc that you mentioned above. Would you want to say that all plumbing should be illegal? It's no different. Because there is no more objectively wrong with eating someone than there is with plumbing. Only your opinions on the issue, which is why some people might not be happy with their offspring becoming a plumber and others would, similarly others might not mind their son being eaten if it was what their son really wanted to do with their life. Or lack of.
> How many other people have a personal stake in what happened? It
> could be thousands, hundreds of thousands. Millions, could all be
> threatened or live in fear if such acts were deemed "good"
> or "acceptable".
And who is saying they're good? Not bad does not mean good. I hate to break that to you.
And this one case of cannibalism will not endanger millions, thousands, hundreds or even tens. Or even ones. Because it was all consensual.
> Thankfully for them, for me and for you, we instead rely on central
> hubs of moral decency called "The Law", which is engineered
> to worry about all the rights and wrongs so you don't have to.
Oh believe me, I don't worry about the rights and wrongs. Because objectively there are no rights or wrongs.
But we see them as such. Because we are humans. And we are context and purpose dependent. We view the world through a lens of the above, and this comes from our upbringing, society etc and natural instincts. And the point of these things? Well generally it keeps us alive as a species. If we didn't have them we wouldn't last long. So to get to this stage of evolution, we've had to have them.
You're thinking way too much in terms of laws, rights, wrongs and society. I'm just thinking objectively about things in general. Maybe if you realise that nothing *actually* matters, then you'll begin to get what I'm talking about.
> And can I say, with people like you hanging around - thank christ for
> the law.
That's just irrational and illogical.
So because no act is right or wrong in itself I'm going to go out and do all the bad stuff? Where in the name of hell did that one come from? Surely there's just as much chance of me doing the "good" stuff as there is of the "bad"?
I think basically you misunderstand my point - I'm not saying that I would be fine with cannibalism, murder, rape, paedophilia etc etc etc. because I would. I'd be just as angered by a paedophile as you would, because we exist in the world that has consequences, that has context, that has purpose. I'm just saying, for the nth time, that no act *IN ITSELF* with all purpose stripped away, is right or wrong.
An example for you: I help an old lady across the road, say. Now, that's generally the clichéd "good act", right? But what is it that is actually good about that act? Well, you make the old lady feel nice, you stopped her from injury maybe. So if your purpose is to make an old lady feel nice or protect her, the act is good. If your purpose is to hurt her, the act is bad.
Strip away all those things and what do you have? There's nothing, and you can't argue otherwise without using a purpose dependent argument, which is circular. The act in itself isn't right.
But that's not to say I'm going to ignore the old lady asking for help, because what I'm saying now does not and will not affect my actions in the real world.
I was talking about this today with some people (in a philosophy class, it was bound to happen some time) and we more or less came to an agreement. At first they were as argumentative as you (or we) are being now, but we came to a kind of mutual conclusion because we realised what the other was saying. It's a lot easier to convey in person than over text based things like this, because you know what someone really means without having to analyse their words.
What I'm saying isn't very radical at all. Many think it is, but I don't believe so. I think it was Aristotle who said "'Good' is only fit for purpose," and that sums my views up. And I think you'd have a very hard time trying to disprove that. Well, you *couldn't* disprove it, but you could argue it.
Page: