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!!

Pandaemonium wrote:
> Supposedly there is a massive cannible network in Germany. What would
> happen if the guy got away scot free?

Exactly, it is a sick thought but if the guy had gotten away with it how long until someone dreams up some screwed up internet site based on it? The very fact this cannibal guy taped what he did suggests he is not normal by any standards.

where the grey area lies, is when so called civilised societies impose their laws and beliefs on those for whom this is a way of life. Tribes in parts of Africa still practise cannibalism, and have done for hundreds, maybe thousands of years. Who are we to intervene and tell them what they are doing is wrong? It's like the war on iraq - we seem to think we have the right to tell people how to live.

I know this isn't the exact same thing as the german cannibal trial, but I'm just using it to illustrate how the west seems to automatically assume it knows best.

I have to agree with Belldandy here. Regardles of the fact it is between consenting adults, at the end of the day murder has been commited and he needs to be punished, less a precidence is set.

Supposedly there is a massive cannible network in Germany. What would happen if the guy got away scot free?

People live within a society. Society defines right or wrong regardless of the philisophical nature of the terms. Normal society does not accept it is right for a person to eat and kill another even if both consent. You'll find Germany only never ruled it out explicitly because it is not a regular or expected kind of thing.

Sorry, didn't really answer you, so here goes:


Belldandy wrote:
> then it opens the
> doorway to just about every perversion known to man being okay by you
> as long as the situation meets your criteria.

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. It still doesn't affect the act in itself. An act cannot possibly be right or wrong unless in terms of achieving a certain goal.

Nothing is "okay" or "right" or "wrong". That's what you have to grasp. They are your opinions on the act, but the act in itself can be none of those things unless in the context of a purpose. In this case, the purpose would be to get enjoyment from the act. And they did. So in that case it's "right" to do it, or it's a "good" act. But in itself it cannot be any of these things.

Er right, using that kind of reasoning - that something is okay if everyone involved is sane and its consensual - then it opens the doorway to just about every perversion known to man being okay by you as long as the situation meets your criteria.

Belldandy wrote:
> Eh? Nothing morally wrong? Are you human?

I take Blokey's side. Nothing IS morally wrong. Morals exist purely in our own heads, not in the real world. Nothing is actually right or wrong, they are labels we apply. It's only natural to apply these things for the survival of the species.

But that's the point - for the survival of the species. So the action is a means to an end. Action X is only wrong if you want outcome Y. Or in other words, eating someone is wrong if you want the species to survive. But in itself? Of course it isn't wrong. It can't be. There isn't anything written in stone.

This guy should get off (no pun intended) scott free in my opinion. He's completely sane, only indulges in consensual activities and is not a menace to society at large or *anyone* who doesn't want him to do these things to them.

So his fetishes are a little away from the norm....so what? I don't like Westlife, that doesn't mean I should get life imprisonment.

So you class disembowling someone and keeping them in your fridge incase you get the munchies, as a sexual fetish?

Spanking, whipping, chopping off someones nob and eating it......yup, I can see the similarity's.

El Blokey wrote:
> Sexual fetishes don't cause the raising of an eyebrow (unless it's to
> do with harming others; ie beastiality or paedophilia). What is
> different between spanking and whipping a consenting adult, and
> eating their penis?

Are you still joking? I'm finding it hard to tell...