[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by andrzejpw When we talk about punishments, sure, he's a sicko. Sure, he deserves to be punished. But 5 years in prison is a little excessive. Its a long time. Now, I wouldn't cry if he got 5 years. I wouldn't care. But personally, I think a LOT of community service would be the ticket right here.

IF (and this is a big if for some people) you believe that part of the purpose of a prison term is to provide a disincentive for others to commit the same act, then I have no problem sending this guy to jail for 5 years. Do you think this idiot would have tried to barbeque a kitten *alive* if he knew he might have to spend 5 YEARS in jail for it, especially since there was an entire backyard full of witnesses? But that's more a discussion of the theories of punishment than anything else.

[no longer addressing andrzej's comments, FYI]

Like Jude said, I wholeheartedly agree that this behavior should be illegal. We, as a society, make things illegal for one reason: we think those things are wrong and people shouldn't be allowed to do them. Laws are inherently "moral" and decided, contrary to Kelly's position, based on societal sentiment. By opposing the classification of this act as illegal, people are implicitly saying that it's OK to do this. Maybe some people are saying that explicitly. But I sure don't want our society to condone such behavior.

I also think that most libertarians are clueless when it comes to considering what life would ACTUALLY be like if they had to live in a society based on their theories of law. I don't think most of them would find it too pleasant

As for the lack of enforcement/legal resources, that should never be a factor in whether or not something is illegal. These are implementation issues. The only thing that should factor into the decision to make something illegal is whether we, as a society, thinks that thing should not be allowed. Heck, if our legal and prison system is overcrowded, let's stop prosecuting people who use drugs but hurt no one, and put 1/10 of those resources into prosecuting people who abuse children, women, and pets

P.S. Kelly, I had to smile a bit at the inherent contradictions in your proposed legal system:

1) Harming pets/animals should NOT be illegal.
2) Animals should be property.
3) Government should exist to enforce matters of property law.

Your society would collapse in utter chaos if someone ever abused someone else's pet

(j/k)

 

[kwkarth]

Kelly,
re.
"kwkarth
The studies I've read about serial killers have indicated a higher average IQ than the norm. This is the first time I've heard it quoted otherwise. Are you sure you mean *serial* killers and not something else?"

I'll give you that statistically. The stupidity part is my pet theory. I see them sort of like idiot savants rather than truly intelligent.

Catch my drift? Any TRULY (wholly) intelligent person would not do the things they do.

 

[kelly]

MacDef
As I'm sure you'll not be surprised, I am not a member of the Libertarian party and do not claim to represent nor subscribe to their views. While I don't know their stance on animal rights, whatever it is, I doubt they would welcome someone like me as a member.

I didn't think my bullet on property law was a matter of confusion but since it must have been, I'll elaborate. When I said the government should enforce property law, what was to be inferred was property ownership laws. Ie, this is my CD player. If you steal it, you have broken a law and there should be consequences. In the issue of cat barbeque, my legal perspective would offer the following questions:

Did the man own the barbeque pit?
Did the man own the kitten?

If so, then I believe the law should take no role in his chosen activity and the usage of his own property. If on the other hand, the kitten belonged to some little girl, I would support any legislation to sue him for damage to her property and the emotional damage inflicted upon her. Likewise, if the man was using someone else's barbeque grill without edxplicit permission of the owner, the owner should be able to bring litigation against the man for use of his grill, damage to his grill and any psychological issues he may face as a result.

For me, I believe you should be allowed to do whatever you wish with your own property so long as no other human being is harmed. Does this mean I think you should be allowed to fire bullets into the air? No, that endangers other people. Fish the seas dry? No, that endangers others by endangering the enviornment. But frankly, barbequing your own kitten in your own grill damages no one. If it were his own (and I don't think it actually was), I'd wish we lived in a society where charges could be brought against the "rescuer" even for abducting his property.

Of course, this is what I wish the LAW would serve to do. What I personally would do would be take the kitten and beat the guy's ass, like any upstanding person would do.

I just don't want laws created for what we find to be in good taste.

One other thing. Pretending to seperate enforcement (implementation) from law (design) is naive. If we only did "what was right", don't you think we should have by now liberated the Chinese from their oppressive government? We didn't intervene when we saw student protesters run over by tank! Why did we not intervene there and yet we intervened in Kuwait? Two reasons: we had financial stake in Kuwait and we had the resources to implement our solution. We do not have the resources to enforce this moral dictation that most of you think should be the role of our government. And, for the record, if we did have the resources (let's just say I'm not being taxed AT ALL and we still have a magical surplus of government monies), I still would not want the government involved in such activities.

 

[kelly]

Quote:

Originally posted by kwkarth Kelly, re. "kwkarth The studies I've read about serial killers have indicated a higher average IQ than the norm. This is the first time I've heard it quoted otherwise. Are you sure you mean *serial* killers and not something else?" I'll give you that statistically. The stupidity part is my pet theory. I see them sort of like idiot savants rather than truly intelligent. Catch my drift? Any TRULY (wholly) intelligent person would not do the things they do.

kwkarth
That's an interesting theory. I'll have to give that more thought. If you've seen the trailer to Red Dragon (the prequel to Silence of the Lambs, the second attempt at making the book into a film--Manhunter being the first), this was alluded to when Hannibal asked Ed Norton's character how he could catch him if he didn't think he was smarter than him and he replies, "Because you're insane."

It's a good argument. I've often wondered why a true sociopath would recklessly endanger himself to do silly things like collect human parts, rape little kids in a clown costume or eat people.

Maybe the greater thing to wonder here is this: If serial killers represent only the insane (or savant) subset of a sociopath superset, how large must that superset be? How many sociopaths are there in the world that don't do pointless things like serial killing?

 

[CRESCENDOPOWER]

MacDEF, and ArChaos I agree with totally. What this man did was wrong, and he should be punished. If I was there I guarantee it wouldn't of happened. But, I don't have to worry about these things, because I would never surround myself around individuals of this type.
kwkarth, I agree with also. No matter what I.Q. he has, he is still an idiot.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly kwkarth That's an interesting theory. I'll have to give that more thought. If you've seen the trailer to Red Dragon (the prequel to Silence of the Lambs, the second attempt at making the book into a film--Manhunter being the first), this was alluded to when Hannibal asked Ed Norton's character how he could catch him if he didn't think he was smarter than him and he replies, "Because you're insane." It's a good argument. I've often wondered why a true sociopath would recklessly endanger himself to do silly things like collect human parts, rape little kids in a clown costume or eat people. Maybe the greater thing to wonder here is this: If serial killers represent only the insane (or savant) subset of a sociopath superset, how large must that superset be? How many sociopaths are there in the world that don't do pointless things like serial killing?

We probably would not want to know. Probably a MUCH bigger segment of the population than we'd care to know...

 

[Totoy]

Hmm...gone for a few hours and already this many posts...heh...

Quote:

If I understand correctly, the alleged act is already illegal there, and it'll simply be a matter of conviction or not.

Then he should be punished. If something is illegal and someone does it, punish them, otherwise it shouldnt be illegal...I would think at least...

Quote:

Regarding the loaded system: it's my opinion that determining what's criminal and what's not should be done independent of the status of how loaded the system is. I figure the system will always be loaded.

Point taken...but there is a time that the load becomes too much for the system to take, and it is at that time that people should reconsider what is punishable and what is not. Is that now? I have no idea...

Quote:

If he or they were, so what? It's not an acceptable excuse.

Its not an excuse, it is the reason. Should this discount them from punishment if that course of action is persued? No. But it does help explain why some people, who would normally find that sight disturbing, broke up into laughter. There is a slight difference between the two. If a child goes up to his teacher and says "My dog ate my homework can I have another day to do it?," then he made an excuse. If, however, he said "I'm sorry but my dog ate my homework, so I don't have it to turn in," and then accepted getting no credit for the homework, then it would be a reason.

Quote:

We, as a society, make things illegal for one reason: we think those things are wrong and people shouldn't be allowed to do them.

We? Who's "we"? If you speak of us as a country...well...nothing would be accomplished. People will disgree on everything for the most part. Even if we did manage to all agree on one thing at a set time, problems would eventually arrise. For if you get a group of people who believe the same thing when they come together, they will eventually find differences, through discussions, etc., and split apart into separate groups. Then who decides? If you get a single person, why should they decide what I should do with my life?

Quote:

By opposing the classification of this act as illegal, people are implicitly saying that it's OK to do this.

Everything that is wrong should not be illegal...There is a difference between something being morally wrong and something being illegal in my view. Then there is the point that if everything that is wrong is illegal and must be punished, the costs to maintain constant enforcement are far higher than their benefits to society. Keep the things defined as being illegal and punishable lower and get constant enforcement, for that will uphold the law far better than having laws covering a larger area, but having inconsistent enforcement...

Quote:

As for the lack of enforcement/legal resources, that should never be a factor in whether or not something is illegal....

Well, yea...The more laws you have, the more people it takes to enforce them. There comes a point when the resources invested into such matters will not justify the minimal benefit it gives to society.

Hmm...*Goes off to think more*...

 

[a1leyez0nm3]

Quote:

Originally posted by kwkarth ... Then there were the SICKO onlookers. They're no better if they were cheering him on.

this totally reminds me of fist fights... the onlookers cheering the fighters on.. if the fighters should be thrwon in jail the onlookers should be thrown in jail with the fighters, they are no better. even at my school when fights happen, EVERYONE, almost everyone crowds around and cheers the fighters on. i just walk on, knowing that i would probably get mobbed by the crowd of people if i were to do anything. its sick.






on the topic; you see some kid frying ants in the sun, you dont think much of it, but when someone fries a cat, its a big deal.

 

[TimSchirmer]

If you want to prevent things like this from happening continously like like they do, sign the petition. Once the masses figure out they'll spend a good chunk of time behind bars for cruelty, perhaps they will think twice before they do something like this.

 

[ArChaos]

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly ArChaos I am certainly very glad that you are not a legislator. Furthermore, I wish people like you were not allowed to vote for legislators and beyond that wish that if they had to be elected that they could only serve one term rather than having to depend on your emotional reactions to gain a second term. It is far too easy for any one person to decide what is and is not "evil." It is harder to imagine that the world we live in is actually far more complex and that what is or is not "moral" to one culture or individual may not be to another. Whenever possible, I believe, like I believe our founding fathers did, that the government should have no authority or responsibility over matters of moral character. Rather, I believe the government should serve three very basic needs. They are: 1. Defend itself and our country from military enemies foreign and domestic. 2. Protect its citizens from harming one another. 3. Enforce matters of property law. Convicting kitten torturers simply does not fall within what is in my opinion the role of government. That you find this behavior to be sickening or repulsive or even evil or wrong to me has no relevence. If the law were to only attempt to do the three above tasks which I have designated, it would already be overloaded. It is already an impossible task. Asking the law to then on top of that defend your taste or decide morality is a burden I believe our tax dollars could do without. Emotional reaction is the most basic reason why democracy and representative democracy can never be just. It is in every man's character to vote for that which benefits himself and his views the most--or to elect individuals with the best perception that they are doing so. The ruling class of our society must be pleased that the peons so willingly elect to destroy their own freedoms and enforce moral and social conformity. Good consumer. Eat up. ............................... I state my opinions strongly in real life too, I'm just not as excited about it as your average antisocial geek. When you actually have the social prowess to speak your mind when its unpopular, you get used to people disagreeing and you don't have to be as emotional and uptight as the average internet poster. And I DO think they're a lot like that in real life! I've met them!

kelly,hi
First, let's live this air of "superiority" you assume in your post out of our debate... (beside your english beeing much better than mine...

)... the "intelligent man" with analitical in depth thinking against the "average internet poster" with emotional shallow thinking...

The real issue at hand here is SHOULD THE LAW BE BASED ON *MORAL VALUES* versus law based on *PRACTICAL VALUES*, IF and WHERE to draw the border line between them and HOW to define in the first place WHAT is "moral" and what is not, if at all... If you read my post more carefull you would have understood that THIS is the main thing that separates our views - I stand in JUDE's, MacDEF's and some others' side which feels and THINKS!!! that basically the laws should be based on moral values - while you and some others bassically think that a common moral ground is unattainable - hence there should be minimum interference of the law with private conduct...
On the surface it seems there could be no bridge between our oppinions and maybe so but still we could perhaps find some common ground...

I'm not going AGAIN through points that others have already stressed better than I could do with my English, in favor of the "moral law" position the Bill of Rights protecting people and not infringing on their liberty and so on... I still would like to stress some points:

1)We are living in a democratic society. Winston Churchill once said about democracy that "democracy is the least bad of
all of the systems of government produced out of human experience"... so, like it or not, you should accept people thinking like me beeing legislators as much as I accept people thinking like you and I don't feel bad about it because I'm practical and I cann't sugest anything better

2)The most BASIC thing about *Universal Moral Values* is them beeing accepted by almost EVERYONE regardless of society, religion(or "unreligion"-beeing atheistic),place and time. Just beeing HUMAN is a common ground which can unite most of us - certainly ENOUGH OF US to be RIGHT in a democratic society... You could look on the "command" YOU SHOULDN'T DO ON OTHERS WHAT YOU WOULD'T WANT TO BE DONE TO YOURSELF from a moral, religios or atheistic or practical standing or whatever - it still holds bassically IN ANY CULTURE... I think that NOT BEEING SADISTIC TO *ANYBODY-INCLUDING ANIMALS* should hold strong enough because of us being HUMAN and that such behavior is DEVIANT enough to be punished by law, regardless of religion,culture and so on

3)On what basis do you believe our fathers wanted law NOT to be based on moral principles and "that the government should have no authority or responsibility over matters of moral character." I think history of human society proves exactly the opposite and throughout history society evolves towards more *just* systems and each system that FAILED TO BE based on SOME common moral values at least, eventually fell...(just look over the uprisigs and revolutions througout history and see there is a common point to all of them) There are a lot of philosophical beautifull systems - as Nietzsche's survival of the fittest, for example - which seem so right and logic when you read them - and guess what - you get "Mein Kampf" and the CREMATORIES when you try to implement them...If I look at the three principles you sugested for enforcing law :-

1. Defend itself and our country from military enemies foreign and domestic.
2. Protect its citizens from harming one another.
3. Enforce matters of property law.

...I don't find where the nazzis went wrong based on your laws...
perhaps you tell me... unless you tell me the only thing they went wrong is not winning the war... -

4) I strongly oppose all this way of thinking about the "ruling class" and the "peons" -
...... "The ruling class of our society must be pleased that the peons so willingly elect to destroy their own freedoms and enforce moral and social conformity. Good consumer. Eat up." ......
I think there should be ruling *PEOPLE*(the most gifted, the most talented, the most intelligent, even the "stronger" if you want...) but not ruling *CLASS*. I am all against moral conformity as you also are, but I still believe in SOME common universal moral values - it's entirely different thing.
The more you learn the more you realize how much you don't know...I don't know about you and how much you read in your life about anthropology, religion, ethics and philosophy but I don't recall any system that sugested "the government should have no authority or responsibility over matters of moral character." I'm not going any deeper in this for now because I'm already afraid we went too far from the subject of this thread...Best regards and take it easy....

 

[andrzejpw]

Quote:

IF (and this is a big if for some people) you believe that part of the purpose of a prison term is to provide a disincentive for others to commit the same act, then I have no problem sending this guy to jail for 5 years. Do you think this idiot would have tried to barbeque a kitten *alive* if he knew he might have to spend 5 YEARS in jail for it, especially since there was an entire backyard full of witnesses? But that's more a discussion of the theories of punishment than anything else.

That's a good point. My point also is, 5 years is a long time. Think if where you were/will be in 5 years. Now think, all that time, you're in prison. See where I'm going?

But nevertheless, he should be punished. I wouldn't cry if he got 5 years. But that won't be a deterrent to the people that think it will be funny while drunk. But nothing will be to them.

 

[2 channel]

Quote:

Originally posted by ArChaos but I still believe in SOME common universal moral values ...

For fear of getting a bit deeper,
Who defines the "Universal Moral Values"?

This guy bbq'd a cat. I have seen video of live cats being dipped in hot oil so their skin comes off easier and then later cooked for food...To that culture, there is nothing wrong with this behavior.
Nazi Germany had no moral issues with the way they lived, Don't even get me started on sexual practices in various cultures. What about 9/11? Those men believed they were pleasing their god and thus earning a place in Heaven. Universal morality when left to fallen human reason is non-existant

2

 

[kwkarth]

Some would like to believe there are no moral absolutes. Respectfully, I refute that personally. I believe that the reason the world is in such chaos now is because of poeple adopting the morality of "if I can get away with it, it must be ok" That sucks, thank you very much. Relative and rationalized morality are the root of most of our societal problems. If people held and internalized the right values, the world would be a much more pleasant place. IMHO

 

[2 channel]

Moral absolutes and universal morality are two entirely different subjects. I do believe in Moral absolutes as well as absolute truth, and believe they are both found in the Bible and in the Bible alone. Just because they exsist however, doesn't mean people universally conform to and/or believe in them.

2

 

[kwkarth]

I agree 2 cannel.