Viewing Thread:
"who thinks that "the cannibal" has got a short sentance?"

"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!!

But in the case of the argument used, the law does not decide what is right and what is wrong. And what you choose to ignore when thinking in such terms is that the man consenting to be killed was in need of psychiatric help and was in no condition to give his consent.

And what if the man had lived one more day? What if he had woken up and thought "actually, I don't want to die"? How right is it now that was killed the way he was?

ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> Why does the west seem to think it owns the world?

Because it has the biggest guns.

I think Blank's reasoning is totally f%^ked up BTW.

Insane Bartender wrote:
> So you're saying that if some thirty-something bloke approached a 12
> year old girl and asked to perform sexual acts on her, to which she
> agreed, you'd say that the mutual satisfaction of requirements was
> "good"?

I agree, but in this actual case it was more a case of a thirty something bloke appealing for people to have sex with, and the 12 year old coming to him and consenting.

Except of course saying that you can't use the "12-year-olds-can't-consent" argument is like me saying I'm right, and telling you that you can't try and prove me wrong. These were two adults in the eyes of the law.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

And can I say, with people like you hanging around - thank christ for the law.

Sorry, please ignore all the typing errors. I need sleep.

Dictated by who? People who wrote down the religious texts, usually.

I don't decided right or wrong because there IS no right or wrong. If I pick up this keyboard, is that right? Is it wrong? No, it doesn't even make sense to talk about it in those terms. So why is it that some acts are right or wrong, and yet others that are very similar cannot be sensibly spoken about in those terms? I'd like it if someone make sense of it for me...

Oh but it is. YOU don't decide what is right and wrong. Nor do I.

It is dictated for us.

It's not a point of view, you moron.

It's idiotic points of view like yours that make law necessary.

*Error.