The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
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'm not saying that I would like it to happen, but there's nothing wrong with it.
Why can't people see that nothing that happens is wrong? Ever? Actions are only right or wrong in our own minds, outside of which they are all meaningless, totally. No exceptions.
Actions are only good or bad in terms of the purpose they achieve/try to achieve.
> And don't try the old "twelve year olds legally can't give
> consent" argument, because that flies in the face of your own
> comments.
You say that as if your argument would make me see the eroor of my ways, or something.
> 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'm not saying that I would like it to happen, but there's nothing wrong with it.
Why can't people see that nothing that happens is wrong? Ever? Actions are only right or wrong in our own minds, outside of which they are all meaningless, totally. No exceptions.
Actions are only good or bad in terms of the purpose they achieve/try to achieve.
> And don't try the old "twelve year olds legally can't give
> consent" argument, because that flies in the face of your own
> comments.
You say that as if your argument would make me see the eroor of my ways, or something.
Blank wrote:
> What does it have to do with my criteria? All I'm saying is that he
> should not be punished if everyone involved has given their consent
> and there is no disputing this.
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"?
And don't try the old "twelve year olds legally can't give consent" argument, because that flies in the face of your own comments.
> What does it have to do with my criteria? All I'm saying is that he
> should not be punished if everyone involved has given their consent
> and there is no disputing this.
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"?
And don't try the old "twelve year olds legally can't give consent" argument, because that flies in the face of your own comments.
Society's? Damn, I typed that in a hurry, and it shows.
Anyway, my point was that the only reason everyone reacts to this in such a way is because they are conditioned into having these views by of the society they live in. Nothing more.
There is nothing morally wrong in cannibalism or any act if context and circumstance are taken away. I'd like someone to justify to me how cannibalism is wrong *in itself*. If anyone would be so kind. Because I don't believe anyone can. The only justification is "It's wrong because....it's wrong!". It's really baseless, completely.
Anyway, my point was that the only reason everyone reacts to this in such a way is because they are conditioned into having these views by of the society they live in. Nothing more.
There is nothing morally wrong in cannibalism or any act if context and circumstance are taken away. I'd like someone to justify to me how cannibalism is wrong *in itself*. If anyone would be so kind. Because I don't believe anyone can. The only justification is "It's wrong because....it's wrong!". It's really baseless, completely.
It's just occured to me that these cannibal tribes probably eat those that snuff it via natural causes, in which case... oh who cares.
Blank wrote:
> If you came from one of Borat's cannibal society's you'd
> think completely the opposite. You've been conditioned. There's
> nothing wrong with the act in itself, the problem is purely in your
> head.
Surely all cannibals (in cannibal societies) eat 'unwilling' victims, thus making the whole practice utterly immoral and dispicable - dare I say 'savage' - so there is something wrong with act in itself as it involves murder.
I don't think you can compare the German case to 'normal' non-concentual cannibalism .
> If you came from one of Borat's cannibal society's you'd
> think completely the opposite. You've been conditioned. There's
> nothing wrong with the act in itself, the problem is purely in your
> head.
Surely all cannibals (in cannibal societies) eat 'unwilling' victims, thus making the whole practice utterly immoral and dispicable - dare I say 'savage' - so there is something wrong with act in itself as it involves murder.
I don't think you can compare the German case to 'normal' non-concentual cannibalism .
Belldandy wrote:
> The very fact this cannibal guy taped what he did suggests he
> is not normal by any standards.
So what? He's not normal, and your point is....? There's no justification for giving him any kind of punishment. So he killed and ate another man - it's not normal, but he didn't do it against the man's will, the eaten responded to the ad off his own back and went through with it. As long as you aren't harmed/affected by this, and are never going to be, then why should you care whether he's in prison or not?
If the rule meant it legal to kill and eat people against their will I'd obviously be against it. I don't want to be eaten against my will. But it will never affect you or I unless we want it to, so there is no cause for concern at all. It's just like bondage - I wouldn't like it done to me, but that isn't to say that everyone who consensually indulges in bondage should be locked up. Each to their own.
As Borat says, we (the west) try to impose our views and beliefs on other cultures. But that also applies to people within our own society. If these two people say that they like this, and choose to do it of their own accord and affecting nobody else, who are you to argue against it?
Why is this case any worse than any kind of euthanasia? The guy wanted to be killed just like some sufferers of long term illnesses want to be killed.
You have to think about the issue in much broader terms - the only reason your thoughts are as they are is because of the society you've come from. If you came from one of Borat's cannibal society's you'd think completely the opposite. You've been conditioned. There's nothing wrong with the act in itself, the problem is purely in your head.
And that problem is fine if you will be endangered, but you won't.
Sorry in advance for the all-over-the-place post.
> The very fact this cannibal guy taped what he did suggests he
> is not normal by any standards.
So what? He's not normal, and your point is....? There's no justification for giving him any kind of punishment. So he killed and ate another man - it's not normal, but he didn't do it against the man's will, the eaten responded to the ad off his own back and went through with it. As long as you aren't harmed/affected by this, and are never going to be, then why should you care whether he's in prison or not?
If the rule meant it legal to kill and eat people against their will I'd obviously be against it. I don't want to be eaten against my will. But it will never affect you or I unless we want it to, so there is no cause for concern at all. It's just like bondage - I wouldn't like it done to me, but that isn't to say that everyone who consensually indulges in bondage should be locked up. Each to their own.
As Borat says, we (the west) try to impose our views and beliefs on other cultures. But that also applies to people within our own society. If these two people say that they like this, and choose to do it of their own accord and affecting nobody else, who are you to argue against it?
Why is this case any worse than any kind of euthanasia? The guy wanted to be killed just like some sufferers of long term illnesses want to be killed.
You have to think about the issue in much broader terms - the only reason your thoughts are as they are is because of the society you've come from. If you came from one of Borat's cannibal society's you'd think completely the opposite. You've been conditioned. There's nothing wrong with the act in itself, the problem is purely in your head.
And that problem is fine if you will be endangered, but you won't.
Sorry in advance for the all-over-the-place post.
Takes Cordon Bleu to whole new levels.
Eight years is about right.
Two dementoids: one wanted to be on the menu, one wanted to eat through the menu. Feast and be merry, then take him down.
Eight years is about right.
Two dementoids: one wanted to be on the menu, one wanted to eat through the menu. Feast and be merry, then take him down.
Belldandy wrote:
> And, whilst non western countries continue to want aid and help
> they're going to have to accept our (limited) morality.
These african tribes I mentioned though despise white men and oppose them, violently at times, for trespassing in their territory. It is considered a great insult, and the punishment can be death. Yet it has been known that some white people have gone in and arrested these people for such killings, and cannibalism. They are trying to keep themselves to themselves, yet we still seem to feel we have the right to enforce our laws on them, even though for them to do the same we find unacceptable.
Why does the west seem to think it owns the world?
> And, whilst non western countries continue to want aid and help
> they're going to have to accept our (limited) morality.
These african tribes I mentioned though despise white men and oppose them, violently at times, for trespassing in their territory. It is considered a great insult, and the punishment can be death. Yet it has been known that some white people have gone in and arrested these people for such killings, and cannibalism. They are trying to keep themselves to themselves, yet we still seem to feel we have the right to enforce our laws on them, even though for them to do the same we find unacceptable.
Why does the west seem to think it owns the world?
Basically, my argument is that kidnapping somebody and cutting them up barbarically and eating them is WRONG.
Asking them if you can, even ADVERTISING and them coming to YOU to volunteer to be cut up barbarically and eaten isn't in the same league.
Asking them if you can, even ADVERTISING and them coming to YOU to volunteer to be cut up barbarically and eaten isn't in the same league.
And, whilst non western countries continue to want aid and help they're going to have to accept our (limited) morality.
Page: