14 year old rapist

    <font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>... if we need to know nothing else, why don´t we say to hell with fair trials and shoot suspects where they stand? <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> Because it´s fun? Are you going to change your tune once he´s found guilty? Fair point though. No one should presume guilt at this point. <font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>Oh, I forgot. The whole &quot;morality&quot; thing that the justice system is based on. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> Aha. Ahaha. Ahahahahahaaaahahahahaaahahahaaaahahaahahaaaahahahaaaahahaaa! You´re funny. <img src=smilies/icon_smile.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> The &quot;justice&quot; system has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with control. Not that there´s anything wrong with that. C_V - Cogent argument. Castration (or whatever) by rusty spoon won´t un-rape the girls. Neither will killing the kid. Or, maybe it will. Really, only the victims can know what, if anything, can undo the trauma. Edited by - Aliens! Aaaah, aliens! on 7/13/2005 9:05:13 PM

    Note: I did not say its <i>content or structure </i> was morality, I said its base. The foundation only. Which has everything to do with morality. You´re right, it doesn´t extend farther than that. And no, I am not going to change my tune if he´s found guilty. The fact still remains that <i>you know nothing </i>. It´s one thing to call for his death after fair trial and conviction (though I also have my moral troubles with that), but it is entirely something else to demand the sword´s justice upon his neck when all that you know about him and about the situation is derived from this article. To say he should be killed is monstrous at least.

    <font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>Note: I did not say its content or structure was morality, I said its base. The foundation only. Which has everything to do with morality. You´re right, it doesn´t extend farther than that. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> No. No, no, no. If anything, you´ve got it backwards. The base is control. The content and structure is often - though by no means always - consistent with some form of morality. Laws exist to ensure that society is able to function. That many laws happen to coincide with a great deal of moral values is an interesting phenomenon and one which speaks to the social nature of the human animal. It´s easy to get confused though since the basis for morality is also control. <font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>And no, I am not going to change my tune if he´s found guilty. The fact still remains that you know nothing. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> Actually, we´d know that he´s guilty. That´s something. And a pretty significant something at that. I think you misunderstood my question.

    Ok, this is getting readiculous (I don´t care <i>HOW </i> it´s spelled.) Finalday needs to come in here and lock this up. We don´t need Politics, or religion discused on this site. I´m not saying they aren´t important, but they shouldn´t be put on this site. Ph34r d4 C/-//_/p4c4br4

    What the hell are you on about now? I see neither politics nor religion here. Except for &quot;Jesus tapdancing Christ&quot;, and that doesn´t bloody well count for anything anyway.

    It´s true. This has nothing to do with politics or religion. What I meant was, you know nothing outside of what the article has told you <i>which is equivalent to nothing itself. </i> You don´t know he´s guilty, though admittedly if there is anything you come close to knowing it´s that. Do you know this boy? Have you any idea of the full extent of his situation, mental state, character, or history? No. So don´t presume. And the basis for morality isn´t control in the least. The base of morality is judging the worth of an action by means of a touchstone in order to create a better life. The touchstone is the variable here; by different standards it could be riches, power, compassion, cruelty, wisdom, pleasure, and so forth. Edited by - Wilde on 7/13/2005 10:12:45 PM

    I ment the whole base and structure of the law, morality and control. Sounds like both to me. I still say this should be over with. Ph34r d4 C/-//_/p4c4br4

    Wilde, being english, and i´m sure every other brit on these boards can back me up on this, but i can almost tell you with certainty that this kid was not mentally disturbed or has an awful background. I´ll tell you why and i´ll provide evidence. <A href=´http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4119436.stm´ Target=_Blank>Click here</a> <A href=´http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/4095634.stm´ Target=_Blank>Click here</a> <A href=´http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/4540373.stm´ Target=_Blank>Click here</a> <A href=´http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1182338,00.html´ Target=_Blank>Click here</a> See a link? These types of things go on all the time in this country. Why? I don´t know. My personal opinion is that children between 8-18 these days are not being raised by their parents properly. Not all of them, but certainly a lot more. If i had time i´d find some stuff on happy-slapping for you and how we have had numerous deaths linked to total twats like this 14 year old kid. I mean, a good % of kids these days have tried crack in this country. Now wilde, don´t take this as if i´m having a go because i certainly respect what you are saying and i do understand where you are coming from. Usually i would agree with what you have said, but when this crime relates to someone in this country, it doesn´t suprise me anymore.

    Actually, the justice system is designed and based on the notion of protecting order in society. Morality is a dangerous thing to base laws on because everyone has different opinions. The justice system is simply there to ensure a certain degree of fairness and consistency. For example, murder is illegal because otherwise people would just go around killing each other, hang the consequences (ha ha). If the law was indeed based on morality then why do frauds and other ´civil´ criminals so often escape ´justice´ through technicalities and loopholes. Take Nestle, who caused the deaths of thousands of babies in Africa through a sick money making scheme - no-one who has any power batted an eyelid. I am going to reserve judgement on this 14 year old until I know everything that will allow me to make an informed and fair opinion. As for all this ´evidence´ you have gathered, bret... you provide four examples of <i>gangs </i> of youths (which will undoubtedly be more confident) rather than solitary 14-year-olds wreaking havoc. I´m pretty sure these are two completely different animals and so your examples cannot really be used to the extent you suggest that 14-year-olds are spiralling out of control.

    <font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>Do you know this boy? Have you any idea of the full extent of his situation, mental state, character, or history? <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> So then it´s back to my old question. What else - aside from guilt, because I agree that it must be proven - does one need to know? <font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>And the basis for morality isn´t control in the least. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> It is control in the most. What are moral judgments? They are expressions of approval or disapproval of an action. And what is the point of approving or disapproving? To influence a person. To say either &quot;act X is good; do it more often&quot; or &quot;act X is bad; don´t do it anymore&quot;. Have you studied any Ayer or Stevenson? I´m generally not a fan of logical positivists, but these emotivist guys have a point. Mr. Bretonian - So you´re saying that all sorts of crap goes down. And? That doesn´t really prove the kid´s guilt. Let the judge and/or jury determine that. If he is guilty, then of course the hammer should fall, and hard. But let´s not jump the gun here.

    Argh! I´m not trying to prove his guilt or anything as i don´t need to. What i am saying is that children in this age group are causing trouble and on a regular basis. 50 years ago you would never have heard of this kind of thing. This country is turning in to a toilet and these kind of actions will no doubt be common. Do i need to bring up James Bulger? Now my question, if he is guilty, which he probably will be, what are you views on it then? Please have this one little thing in the back of your mind. Lets say it was YOUR daughter who was accusing this boy of raping her? What would you be thinking then?

    Aliens-- one most certainly needs to know more. This is a perfect example of the fundamental attribution error. If YOU mess up, commit an immoral action, act like a general asshole etc. you whine that your situation led you to act in the way that you did. But if anyone else acts barbaric, cruel, like an asshole, etc. you condemn them for being a horrible person, that their character is fundamentally dangerous, base, and inferior to yours, and that they should be shot. Especially when all you know about them is a quoted paragraph posted by a fellow forum member. Morality is not about that at all. Don´t be a cynic about other´s attempts to propagate moral ways of life, firstly because the motives are so varied, and secondly becuase it´s presumptuous. Morality in many, indeed most, situations revolves around a genuine wish to help others, not to control their actions. The impulse of morality is based first and foremost about considering the worth of one´s <i>own </i> actions, and then perhaps writing something along the lines of the the Meditations and outlining a moral existence as you see it--but that in most cases is <i>not </i> caused out of a desire to control people, but rather to HELP them. One might interpret your assumption as pure projection. Evil--Untrue. A sufficient condition, by itself, for a regime to become totalitarian is basing society´s values on order first and foremost and morality second, or not at all. This is why there is constantly a huge debate over capital punishment, for example. People are concerned about the morality of killing convicted murderers, not whether it disrupts order in a society. But thank you for showing true reason in your withholding of judgement. Edited by - Wilde on 7/14/2005 9:17:49 AM

    Not necessarily, Wilde. You are correct to a point but the extremity of the law-enforcement or creation of any state is more to do with the restraint that is both applied and accepted. In the classical era, it was seen as perfectly acceptable to cover people in pitch and burn them alive, but now any government who did that would receive universal outcry. What has changed? Clearly not morals themselves, judging by a few choice responses on these boards to the rapist´s actions, but the level of restraint which society expects from the government and, indeed, itself. Edited by - The Evil Thing on 7/14/2005 10:10:42 AM

    What has changed is that society is more conscientious of basic human and civil rights--well, relatively. When compared to the Victorian ages.

    <font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>This is a perfect example of the fundamental attribution error. If YOU mess up, commit an immoral action, act like a general asshole etc. you whine that your situation led you to act in the way that you did. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> Do I now? Care to back that up with an example? Oh, can´t find one? Pity. <font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>But if anyone else acts barbaric, cruel, like an asshole, etc. you condemn them for being a horrible person, that their character is fundamentally dangerous, base, and inferior to yours, and that they should be shot. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> I never said anyone should be shot. Not in this thread. Try again. <font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>Morality in many, indeed most, situations revolves around a genuine wish to help others, not to control their actions. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> Morality simply modifies basic control. Instead of simply saying &quot;do this&quot;, it says &quot;doing this is good, so you should do it&quot;. Either way, you´re still trying to change someone´s behavior, to get them to do what you think they should do. As I said before, there´s nothing wrong with that. The desire to control is part of being human. All I´m doing here is stripping away the artifice. I know it can be hard to handle though.

    <font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade> If YOU mess up, commit an immoral action, act like a general asshole etc. you whine that your situation led you to act in the way that you did <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> You are basing your reasoning on the supposition of how he would react, when in truth - you simply cannot know?? Interesting. Whilst you bash on about how no-one knows any further details with regards to the case - in particular, the young man at the centre... (citing this as a reason why they should not castigate sd extraneous circumstances may be to blame/impact upon the blame) - then how can you argue that his circumstances could have been responsible for this as well? How do you know? You base your whole discussion to date upon an idea that he must have something wrong to explain his behaviour. Your posts so far have been based on speculation - so instead of acting like an authorative figure - try reading up on the case instead... I always find it interesting that if someone behaves &quot;out of the norm&quot; - then we can find a condition to explain their behaviour, and put our minds to rest. They suffered something. Whilst this may be true for this lad, until you know more - you shouldn´t treat your speculations with such authorative force over everyone elses perspectives. Interestingly enough, if this were an adult - what would peoples thoughts be then I wonder? Unfortunately we will never know, because just by mentioning this line of thought, it would affect your response simply due to the discussion to date. Edited by - Spanner Monkey on 7/14/2005 3:59:28 PM

    *sigh*... Collective, inspecific &quot;you&quot;. Not personal &quot;you.&quot; I wasn´t addressing Aliens with that. <font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade> I never said anyone should be shot. Not in this thread. Try again. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> I wasn´t addressing you with that comment either. Also, to clarify, I wasn´t speculating anything. I´m not defending him, I´m not sticking up for what happened, so please stop assuming again and again that I am (AND this is also not aimed directly at you two.) I said <i>may </i>. Noting a <i>possibility, </i> which there is. He may have a condition, he may have a bad background...and he may not. We don´t know. I know nothing but what the article has told me. You know nothing but what the article has told you. So it´s wrong to call for punishment or to assume any thing for that matter. Once again, <i>I AM NOT DEFENDING HIM IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM </i>. ALL I´m saying is that we don´t know anything about this case. Just to clear that up. And even if he wasn´t a psychopath and didn´t have a disturbing background...why NOT weigh the possibilities equally? Why be so quick to judge? Why demonize him? Aliens--I take it then you have no understanding of the meaning of the word &quot;compassion&quot;. Interesting.

    <font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>Collective, inspecific &quot;you&quot;. Not personal &quot;you.&quot; I wasn´t addressing Aliens with that. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> <img src=´http://www.hybridized.org/forum/images/smiles/wtf.gif ´> Huh? You were addressing me before that. And after that. But okay, I´ll take your word for it. <font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>ALL I´m saying is that we don´t know anything about this case. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> For the third time, what would you like to know? <font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>Aliens--I take it then you have no understanding of the meaning of the word &quot;compassion&quot;. Interesting. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> Like, pity? Sure I understand it. You see yourself and you see a suffering other. You feel bad for the poor person. Maybe you try to help him. And that´s when you try to exert control. Or, alternately, you see someone <i>not </i> help a suffering person and you tell him that he´s being immoral for it. Why tell him? So he´ll stop (or start, rather). If moral statements had no capacity to influence people´s dispositions, they´d be pointless, except perhaps as expressions of emotion. Honestly, it´s really not such a threatening idea. Just take a few deep breaths and <i>think </i> about it for a second. Hell, it´s not even incompatible with most of what you seem to like to think about morality.