Jump to content

Welcome to Nightly.Net
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

MAN BEHEADS VICTIM, THEN EATS FLESH


107 replies to this topic

#51
Darth Dayton

Darth Dayton

    Member

  • Members
  • 717 posts

I believe Morality is based on Reason, yes.

Sorry for putting your quote out of order, but your points will remain. I'm just confirming that you do agree that morality exists, regardless of what it is based upon. I agree that morality would exist without religion. And you would apparently agree that there are socially accepted rights and wrongs.

This man was hungry and confused. Something inside him wanted to kill something and eat it, and he, out of confusion, picked the wrong animal.

You're assuming, then, that the man was so confused that he did not realize what he was doing was wrong. But what if he was not confused? What if this was a calculated act? Say he just thought it would be cool to behead someone and was genuinely curious what their flesh would taste like. He knew it would be wrong and he knew there would be consequences, yet he bucked morality. That would be pure evil.

#52
Undome Telcontar

Undome Telcontar

    Home.

  • Members
  • 13,400 posts

TRUE STORY TIME! A gang fight broke out in a parking lot by the local pizza shop and my sister totally ran in there and saved the day. But then she was late coming home with the family's pizza order since she had to stay and give a statement to the police. So : a moral quandary. Was she right to save that poor kid from getting stabbed to death or was the high cost of pizza delayage too much to bear? Discuss.


that's no quandry.

pizza wins every time.

#53
Pong Messiah

Pong Messiah

    don't want to be buried in a pet cemetery

  • Member
  • 19,360 posts

You're assuming, then, that the man was so confused that he did not realize what he was doing was wrong. But what if he was not confused? What if this was a calculated act?

News reports I've read indicated that he knew he was gonna at least do something...

Also, we can call him "crazy," but how do we know he's not right in his actions? Just because his behavior troubles us?

People used to be troubled and even infuriated at the idea of Africans being emancipated, or looking at white women. Fifty years ago, it was unthinkable that two gay man might be afforded the same legal rights as a hetero couple. A hundred years ago, the idea that women could (or should) vote was simply absurd.

I wouldn't be so quick to label this man as "disturbed."

#54
Destiny Skywalker

Destiny Skywalker

    Actually, I am a rocket scientist

  • Member
  • 20,820 posts
Most people don't carry a big frickin butcher knife with them. I think that alone indicates he was up to something, but who knows what set him off then and there?

#55
Darth Dayton

Darth Dayton

    Member

  • Members
  • 717 posts

You're assuming, then, that the man was so confused that he did not realize what he was doing was wrong. But what if he was not confused? What if this was a calculated act?

News reports I've read indicated that he knew he was gonna at least do something...

Also, we can call him "crazy," but how do we know he's not right in his actions? Just because his behavior troubles us?

People used to be troubled and even infuriated at the idea of Africans being emancipated, or looking at white women. Fifty years ago, it was unthinkable that two gay man might be afforded the same legal rights as a hetero couple. A hundred years ago, the idea that women could (or should) vote was simply absurd.

I wouldn't be so quick to label this man as "disturbed."

If every person should be afforded the rights to life and liberty, then this dude definitely infringed upon someone's right to life. That is morally and ethically wrong. Do you honestly believe there will come a time when society will look back and say, "boy, we were way off about everyone having the right to live. Homicidal cannibals had it right all along."

#56
Basil2

Basil2

    Finger-banger

  • Banned Users
  • 424 posts

Justus, are you actually arguing that something can be done that is NOT the result of a primitive impulse?

Name. One. Thing.


Again, you attempt to remove responsibility (and morality) for violent behavior by reducing it to a latent impulse of a beast. Motives and conditioning are real factors in many violent crimes without question, and when that conditioning occurs with a set of circumstances which did not exist as option or influence back in the tail-hanging days, then you must look beyond such a simple explanation of people "just" being monkeys.

For example, Manson's calculations were clearly born out of a complex society unknown to animal or early, hairy/knuckle-dragging man; his combination of sophisticated mind control (over "the Family"), the theory of using terrorism to inspire his enemies to act in the way he desired, incorporation of a kind mysticism to unnerve the establishment long disassociated with it (on a larger scale), and being perceptive enough to play all of that to fears of every side he sought to exploit is more than a simple animalistic act. Make no mistake: murder was merely the necessary vehicle used to light the fire & move the chesspieces, not the beginning and end of it all--which instantly takes his behavior and case beyond your basic animal explanation.

Man thinks. Man has options to not be forced into doing a thing for basic survival, which opens the door to awareness and responsibility for anything we choose to do. I've certainly seen enough violent men and women (personally and professionally) to know that the man is sure as Hell a creature of deliberation as well, not just some present day manifestation of Stevenson's Hyde.


I can make all kinds of plans for the perfect date with the perfect girl who I like for a lot of complicated reasons, but the fact is I'm just an ape trying to eat and screw, period.

All we do is BUILD on our basic impulses.

Even a dandelion tries to make the whole world just like it. Just like Manson.

And dogs hunt in packs with extremely complex division of labor to kill their prey. Just like Manson.

"Responsibility" is just our way of SUBDUING the ever-present "animal impulse", nothing more.

And Jekle and Hyde is an excellent illustration of the duality of the human/ape dichotomy.

D. Dayton, so "pure evil" is simply going against the admittedly ever-changing morals of an ever-changing society?

I'd agree, except I agree to illustrate that there IS no "pure evil". Only differences of opinion.

We ALL kill to live.

Everything else pales in comparison to that most un-Original Sin.

#57
Darth Dayton

Darth Dayton

    Member

  • Members
  • 717 posts

D. Dayton, so "pure evil" is simply going against the admittedly ever-changing morals of an ever-changing society?

I'd agree, except I agree to illustrate that there IS no "pure evil". Only differences of opinion.

To knowingly behave in a mannor that is the opposite of moral would be evil. Now, that doesn't mean that every immoral act is evil. Stealing a candy bar from the store is immoral, but probably not considered evil. I consider evil to be acting far beyond what is moral.

Even a dandelion tries to make the whole world just like it. Just like Manson.

And dogs hunt in packs with extremely complex division of labor to kill their prey. Just like Manson.

"Responsibility" is just our way of SUBDUING the ever-present "animal impulse", nothing more.

Responsibility is taking morality and applying it to your behavior. Dogs kill because they need to do so to eat and survive. Manson did not need to kill people to eat and survive. Murder is not instinctual behavior for humans.

#58
Basil2

Basil2

    Finger-banger

  • Banned Users
  • 424 posts
I think all of human history would disagree with that last statement.

Or the evening news, for that matter.

#59
Pong Messiah

Pong Messiah

    don't want to be buried in a pet cemetery

  • Member
  • 19,360 posts

If every person should be afforded the rights to life and liberty, then this dude definitely infringed upon someone's right to life.

We didn't always think everybody deserves the rights to life and liberty. Who's to say we think that 100-200 years from now?

Do you honestly believe there will come a time when society will look back and say, "boy, we were way off about everyone having the right to live. Homicidal cannibals had it right all along."

Who's to say? Perhaps Li is a revolutionary.

:shrug:

#60
Darth Dayton

Darth Dayton

    Member

  • Members
  • 717 posts
I suppose since the death penalty is legal (I'd include abortions but really don't care to go down that road), maybe the right to life is more like a revokable privilege. Regardless, sleeping bus passengers have done nothing to lose that privilege/right. Pong, you'd have to think that humanity would take a giant leap backwards to reach the point where random killing is considered moral.

#61
Pong Messiah

Pong Messiah

    don't want to be buried in a pet cemetery

  • Member
  • 19,360 posts

Pong, you'd have to think that humanity would take a giant leap backwards to reach the point where random killing is considered moral.

Or a great leap forward.

I'm not willing to make a value judgment here.

#62
basil

basil

    Member

  • Banned Users
  • 14,855 posts
If humans are no more holy than a fly (and they aren't), then cutting off the head of a bus passenger is no "crazier" than swatting a fly on the window.

Now it's stupid to the point of insanity, as now you're gonna get it from the other apes, but if FLIES ruled the world (and you can make an argument that they DO, as anything that can procreate, raise their offspring in, and dine on poop pretty much have their run of the place), then it's the fly-swatter who is stupid to the point of insanity.

"It's all relative, monkey." - Darwin Einstein

#63
Undome Telcontar

Undome Telcontar

    Home.

  • Members
  • 13,400 posts
back home again?

#64
basil

basil

    Member

  • Banned Users
  • 14,855 posts
And how.






And high. :hmm:

#65
R.CAllen

R.CAllen

    walking

  • Member
  • 4,113 posts

Also, we can call him "crazy," but how do we know he's not right in his actions? Just because his behavior troubles us?


Yes. Exactly. Except it's not "just because". That's precisely what crazy is.

I think people call this man crazy because he got up and stabbed some guy for no apparent reason and then beheaded him and then ate parts of him and then paraded the severed head around. This is troubling behavior.

Any definition of the word crazy which does not cover this sort of thing is, well, crazy. Any attempt to either explain or justify this behavior with ideas like "WE ARE ALL ANIMALS" or "I KNOW FACTS ABOUT CHARLES MANSON" is also pretty crazy but that's something I feel more comfortable attributing to personal opinion rather than universal truth.

#66
Justus

Justus

    Member

  • Member
  • 13,100 posts

[Any definition of the word crazy which does not cover this sort of thing is, well, crazy. Any attempt to either explain or justify this behavior with ideas like "WE ARE ALL ANIMALS" or "I KNOW FACTS ABOUT CHARLES MANSON" is also pretty crazy but that's something I feel more comfortable attributing to personal opinion rather than universal truth.


Uh, you're just reiterating my point: that its possible for Li to be of the other side of the coin (read:Manson) instead of writing/speaking/thinking in absolutes about the nature of human beings, as though there's only one kind of behavior or motivation.

#67
Stallion

Stallion

    Member

  • Admin
  • 22,932 posts

Still, that does not instantly make him insane.


Wow. Yeah... it really does.


Agreed Rock.


Then you are being shortsighted, when I gave you two (for a start) classic examples of men who were absolute butchers--and while the general opinion on the street/media was that they were "insane"...clinically..officially, they were not, hence their current status in prison. Insanity does exist in some cases, but too often, observers (and the criminals along with them) immediately use insanity as a way of not being held fully responsible for their own decisions...and I think we have seen some criminals escape their true legal fate by their defense team claiming the nut bit, and its off to a rubber room facillity instead of prison. Who knows? Li may be diagnosed as looney, but there are others who make conscious, uncluded desicions to kill that are not the end result of primitive impulses or insanity.


Wait, so what your saying is they aren't insane because they are fully aware of what they were doing?

#68
Paratech

Paratech

    Member

  • Members
  • 10,106 posts

You're assuming, then, that the man was so confused that he did not realize what he was doing was wrong. But what if he was not confused? What if this was a calculated act?

News reports I've read indicated that he knew he was gonna at least do something...

Also, we can call him "crazy," but how do we know he's not right in his actions? Just because his behavior troubles us?

People used to be troubled and even infuriated at the idea of Africans being emancipated, or looking at white women. Fifty years ago, it was unthinkable that two gay man might be afforded the same legal rights as a hetero couple. A hundred years ago, the idea that women could (or should) vote was simply absurd.

I wouldn't be so quick to label this man as "disturbed."


But if you are to support everything you said, then in 100 years it will be ok to kill homosexuals, African Americans, or anyone.

How can you list empowering homosexuals to have rights as well as African Americans having rights and then support regression or the taking away of everyone's rights?

If giving African Americans and Homosexuals rights then taking away those rights would be regression and bad.

BTW, there is a history of peoples gaining and losing rights, I'm not denying that part of history, but I am arguing that progression = more rights and regression = less rights.

progression = good, regression = bad.

IMSHO...

#69
Red 5

Red 5

    Old Timer

  • Members
  • 11,065 posts
On the issue of intervening, while I was not there of course, the story indicates that there was just one victim and it was too late to help him. In other words, if the perp had attempted to harm a second individual then intervening might have been necessary and possible. But based on the accounts I read, he was focused on one victim and the danger to others was not evident as he was busy having dinner by himself.

#70
Hammurabi-Sith

Hammurabi-Sith

    Eye for an eye you liberal hippies!

  • Members
  • 2,689 posts
That story just gave me an idea for a new novel. I love it when crazy people do crazy ****.

#71
Red 5

Red 5

    Old Timer

  • Members
  • 11,065 posts

That story just gave me an idea for a new novel. I love it when crazy people do crazy ****.

I'm sure the family and loved ones of the deceased are happy to know that you "love" it. You are one sick ****er.

#72
basil

basil

    Member

  • Banned Users
  • 14,855 posts

[Any definition of the word crazy which does not cover this sort of thing is, well, crazy. Any attempt to either explain or justify this behavior with ideas like "WE ARE ALL ANIMALS" or "I KNOW FACTS ABOUT CHARLES MANSON" is also pretty crazy but that's something I feel more comfortable attributing to personal opinion rather than universal truth.


Uh, you're just reiterating my point: that its possible for Li to be of the other side of the coin (read:Manson) instead of writing/speaking/thinking in absolutes about the nature of human beings, as though there's only one kind of behavior or motivation.


Eat, screw, survive.

Nothing we do is geared toward any other end.

You gotta get off this "we're special and complex things" kick. Reality is reality.

All the higher thoughts in the world are simply ways to achieve those ends.

We are animals.


...how insane was Abraham?

Edited by basil, 05 August 2008 - 09:52 PM.


#73
Paratech

Paratech

    Member

  • Members
  • 10,106 posts
If all humans did was that there'd be no sports, entertainment, exotic foods, or any other frivolous junk we humans partake in. The 1% of the people with all the wealth do more than that, frag, I do more than that. Speak for yourself Basil.

BTW, why do you post such nonsense here then if your case is true, it has nothing to do with survival.

#74
basil

basil

    Member

  • Banned Users
  • 14,855 posts
If you're not doing it for free, you're doing it to survive.

Everything else is sex or boredom-related.

#75
Paratech

Paratech

    Member

  • Members
  • 10,106 posts

If you're not doing it for free, you're doing it to survive.

Everything else is sex or boredom-related.


But we do a freaking lot for free, we buy a lot of stuff we don't need, waste our time on frivolous pursuits, make issues about unimportant things, and in the end we're forgotten ashes fertilizing the earth from 6 feet under.

Most of what occurs in the world is unimportant and will be forgotten. Nobody will give a crap about any conversations that occurred here in 10, 20, 100 years, frag there may not be an Internet by then.

Do you think anyone will know "Basil" "Paratech" "Monkeygirl" or any other member here in 100 years?

:blush:



Reply to this topic