Osama Bin Laden is dead.

[Junaluska Castigare]

Shilberu Erikku

Chaimie Rahl

Shilberu Erikku

Chaimie Rahl

Shilberu Erikku

Would you have said the same about Albert Fish,Gilles De Rais, Adolf Hilter,Theodore Bundy, Andrei Chikatoli, or Tsutomu Miyazaki?
I agree with you to some extent, but I do believe Bin Laden deserved to die.
People don't deserve to die, unless they pass the breaking point. You know what Albert Fish did to 4 year old Billy Gaffney around 1930? Fish confessed the following to Billy's mother when she visited him in Sing Sing:
"I brought him to the Riker Ave. dumps. There is a house that stands alone, not far from where I took him. I took the boy there. Stripped him naked and tied his hands and feet and gagged him with a piece of dirty rag I picked out of the dump. Then I burned his clothes. Threw his shoes in the dump. Then I walked back and took the trolley to 59 St. at 2 A.M. and walked from there home. Next day about 2 P.M., I took tools, a good heavy cat-of-nine tails. Home made. Short handle. Cut one of my belts in half, slit these halves in six strips about 8 inches long. I whipped his bare behind till the blood ran from his legs. I cut off his ears – nose – slit his mouth from ear to ear. Gouged out his eyes. He was dead then. I stuck the knife in his belly and held my mouth to his body and drank his blood. I picked up four old potato sacks and gathered a pile of stones. Then I cut him up. I had a grip with me. I put his nose, ears and a few slices of his belly in the grip. Then I cut him through the middle of his body. Just below the belly button. Then through his legs about 2 inches below his behind. I put this in my grip with a lot of paper. I cut off the head – feet – arms – hands and the legs below the knee. This I put in sacks weighed with stones, tied the ends and threw them into the pools of slimy water you will see all along the road going to North Beach. I came home with my meat. I had the front of his body I liked best. His monkey and pee wees and a nice little fat behind to roast in the oven and eat. I made a stew out of his ears – nose – pieces of his face and belly. I put onions, carrots, turnips, celery, salt and pepper. It was good. Then I split the cheeks of his behind open, cut off his monkey and pee wees and washed them first. I put strips of bacon on each cheek of his behind and put them in the oven. Then I picked 4 onions and when the meat had roasted about 1/4 hour, I poured about a pint of water over it for gravy and put in the onions. At frequent intervals I basted his behind with a wooden spoon. So the meat would be nice and juicy. In about 2 hours, it was nice and brown, cooked through. I never ate any roast turkey that tasted half as good as his sweet fat little behind did. I ate every bit of the meat in about four days. His little monkey was as sweet as a nut, but his pee-wees I could not chew. Threw them in the toilet."

Did Fish not deserve the electric chair?

You're basing your judgement off of society where you've been brought up to think that murder, torture, and also such acts like this to a child is wrong. With that biased view point, you fail to look at it from a more international viewpoint. What if cannibalism was something traditional in a remote clan or tribe out in a far island we have yet to really survey. Why immediately call them wrong because they murder and eat their kind? How do you know they haven't been taught to do that by the likes of parental figures? Why shun them in that sense? It's just like meat. People eat chickens, cows, pigs, fish, right? Don't act like eating a human is any different. I'm not saying I would do it myself, since I find it would be physically disgusting to digest, but I'm not gonna knock people who do it, all because society has ranted to me that Murder, Rape, Molestation, Torture and other things in those categories are wrong, when they can be someone elses practices of remote.

Another thing, Death is a life cycle. You know how I see murder? Just a way of speeding up that cycle of life. What's so wrong with that? Sex is a natural cycle. Rape is just a way of achieving that cycle through means of force, as we all have forced other natural cycles before. What's so wrong with that? Now again, I'm not saying I would involve myself in some of these acts, but I'm not gonna dislike people who do it. And don't come to me about the emotional trauma it causes the victim. The victim(s) CHOOSES to be effected by what happens. You could brush it off and be done with it. Obviously that person was meant to be raped, or that person was meant to be murdered by the forces of nature at hand.
No one should judge who deserves death, because if you do, then by all means, you just as wicked to deserve death yourself. Call me heartless, I don't care. It'd just show more of your biased, social-view and the constant failure to accept any other.

So, you're saying that you don't care about anyone but yourself? What the hell's so great about you. You are such a pathetic human being. People should not care about themselves at all, whatsoever.

Did I say that all I care about is myself? Now you're jumping to conclusions: A flaw that should not ever be present within an arguement. It will make you seem illogical, and you will forever lag behind in the debate. I care for everyone. Why do you think I'm saying it's wrong to say someone deserves death? Because that's a wicked statement that should be placed upon no man. I am simply saying, what happens happens by means or was meant. Stop claiming that the people who did it are evil-hearted. You don't know what was going through their minds. That is why you can't call them malevolent. And, with your insult of calling me pathetic, you have just displayed your pride and ego, which is just as of compared to narcissistic or thinking only of yourself. If you were thinking of me, you would know, calling me pathetic could do no good to my emotional status. Thus, you are no better than what you claimed I was.

But if crime was overlooked on account of opinion, wouldn't the law be useless?

A lot of crime is already overlooked on account of opinion: They come in the form of accusations. People and the legal body accuse people of crimes when they could be totally innocent. Some legal arrests are based on discrimination, isn't that an overlook on account of opinion? And:

Straight from Dictionary.com -
Law –noun
1. the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.
2. any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation, as by the people in its constitution. Compare bylaw, statute law.
3. the controlling influence of such rules; the condition of society brought about by their observance: maintaining law and order.

There is no mention of crime being enthralled within law. Law doesn't need crime. Law doesn't thrive on crime. Actually, CRIME itself is based off of people's opinions of what is right or wrong. It contradicts itself. It is nothing enthralled in what law is.

As an example: Someone can steal the president's belt. Now, theft is considered an act of crime or felony((In the U.S, etc)), but if the LAW didn't state that it was and you had to be incarcerated, prosicuted, recorded, go on trial etc, for theft, there is no crime in it. If stated in law that crime is not of existance within the state or nation, then crime does not exist. See what I mean by law doesn't need crime to exist? It's quite the opposite. I don't know if I explained it as my mind thought it, but I did my best, and hope you understand what I meant. I know I may have confused some with that.

Crime is already overlooked on opinion, so your claim was practically void.

 

[Shilberu Erikku]

Insatiable Lust

Shilberu Erikku

Chaimie Rahl

Yuki Fujioka

Im happy to hear he's dead. I would have gladly killed him myself. He deserved to die and i hope when he did die he got as much pain as everyone during 9/11. Im just happy he's dead but it doesn't change anything. It's just another sick person dieing.

Who are you to declare who deserves to die or not as if you are supreme?

Would you have said the same about Albert Fish,Gilles De Rais, Adolf Hilter,Theodore Bundy, Andrei Chikatoli, or Tsutomu Miyazaki?
I agree with you to some extent, but I do believe Bin Laden deserved to die.
People don't deserve to die, unless they pass the breaking point. You know what Albert Fish did to 4 year old Billy Gaffney around 1930? Fish confessed the following to Billy's mother when she visited him in Sing Sing:
"I brought him to the Riker Ave. dumps. There is a house that stands alone, not far from where I took him. I took the boy there. Stripped him naked and tied his hands and feet and gagged him with a piece of dirty rag I picked out of the dump. Then I burned his clothes. Threw his shoes in the dump. Then I walked back and took the trolley to 59 St. at 2 A.M. and walked from there home. Next day about 2 P.M., I took tools, a good heavy cat-of-nine tails. Home made. Short handle. Cut one of my belts in half, slit these halves in six strips about 8 inches long. I whipped his bare behind till the blood ran from his legs. I cut off his ears – nose – slit his mouth from ear to ear. Gouged out his eyes. He was dead then. I stuck the knife in his belly and held my mouth to his body and drank his blood. I picked up four old potato sacks and gathered a pile of stones. Then I cut him up. I had a grip with me. I put his nose, ears and a few slices of his belly in the grip. Then I cut him through the middle of his body. Just below the belly button. Then through his legs about 2 inches below his behind. I put this in my grip with a lot of paper. I cut off the head – feet – arms – hands and the legs below the knee. This I put in sacks weighed with stones, tied the ends and threw them into the pools of slimy water you will see all along the road going to North Beach. I came home with my meat. I had the front of his body I liked best. His monkey and pee wees and a nice little fat behind to roast in the oven and eat. I made a stew out of his ears – nose – pieces of his face and belly. I put onions, carrots, turnips, celery, salt and pepper. It was good. Then I split the cheeks of his behind open, cut off his monkey and pee wees and washed them first. I put strips of bacon on each cheek of his behind and put them in the oven. Then I picked 4 onions and when the meat had roasted about 1/4 hour, I poured about a pint of water over it for gravy and put in the onions. At frequent intervals I basted his behind with a wooden spoon. So the meat would be nice and juicy. In about 2 hours, it was nice and brown, cooked through. I never ate any roast turkey that tasted half as good as his sweet fat little behind did. I ate every bit of the meat in about four days. His little monkey was as sweet as a nut, but his pee-wees I could not chew. Threw them in the toilet."

Did Fish not deserve the electric chair?

It comes down to what beliefs you have. I believe in God and Karma. My view is that anything terrible a person does will come back to them ten fold, and when they die and stand before the powers that be, they will be judged and punished for their crimes.

To me it's arrogant for a human to decide whether a person lives or dies regardless of what they did. Lock them up away in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives, but when you kill them you are just as bad as they are. Murder is murder regardless if it's in the name of "justice". What if this person that they suspect is the culprit is innocent? There's no way to ever be 100% sure.

I know this is all easier said than done. If it were someone I loved, I don't know how I'd feel. I can understand giving into that primal anger and wanting the life of the person who stole the life of your loved one. However, if you act on those urges and take that person's life, you will receive karmic retribution.

Apparently your beliefs and spiritual views don't base themselves on a higher power or karma, and hey that's your choice. However, you can't look down on us that take the higher road because that's what it is.

1.But why wait until they die? Isn't that just away of avoiding responsibility?
2.What if life was truly meaningless? If every single thing you believed was proven wrong, would you still feel the same way?
3. As for your argument on the innocence of a person: http://youtu.be/bTqb6dFBDwI
4. On account of the scenario where the victim was someone close to you, again, why wait based on an assumption?
5. My views may be based completely off of science and psychology, but that doesn't mean I look down on those who aren't satisfied with what they have to offer. Though of course, there are some cases in which I can't stand those people,such as:
- when achytiphobia ( the fear of being wrong) kicks in, resulting in a bunch of insecure fundementalists that fear change and the beliefs of others.
-when one's beliefs are used as an excuse to hate on account of achytiphobia.
-when faith is used by people as a sheild from the harshness of reality.
-when people are so religious to the point where they have completely lost the ability to take control of their own lives.
-when it's used as an excuse to escape from responsibility.
-when people abuse their faith in order to gain power.  

[Shilberu Erikku]

Chaimie Rahl

Shilberu Erikku

Chaimie Rahl

Shilberu Erikku

Chaimie Rahl

Shilberu Erikku

Would you have said the same about Albert Fish,Gilles De Rais, Adolf Hilter,Theodore Bundy, Andrei Chikatoli, or Tsutomu Miyazaki?
I agree with you to some extent, but I do believe Bin Laden deserved to die.
People don't deserve to die, unless they pass the breaking point. You know what Albert Fish did to 4 year old Billy Gaffney around 1930? Fish confessed the following to Billy's mother when she visited him in Sing Sing:
"I brought him to the Riker Ave. dumps. There is a house that stands alone, not far from where I took him. I took the boy there. Stripped him naked and tied his hands and feet and gagged him with a piece of dirty rag I picked out of the dump. Then I burned his clothes. Threw his shoes in the dump. Then I walked back and took the trolley to 59 St. at 2 A.M. and walked from there home. Next day about 2 P.M., I took tools, a good heavy cat-of-nine tails. Home made. Short handle. Cut one of my belts in half, slit these halves in six strips about 8 inches long. I whipped his bare behind till the blood ran from his legs. I cut off his ears – nose – slit his mouth from ear to ear. Gouged out his eyes. He was dead then. I stuck the knife in his belly and held my mouth to his body and drank his blood. I picked up four old potato sacks and gathered a pile of stones. Then I cut him up. I had a grip with me. I put his nose, ears and a few slices of his belly in the grip. Then I cut him through the middle of his body. Just below the belly button. Then through his legs about 2 inches below his behind. I put this in my grip with a lot of paper. I cut off the head – feet – arms – hands and the legs below the knee. This I put in sacks weighed with stones, tied the ends and threw them into the pools of slimy water you will see all along the road going to North Beach. I came home with my meat. I had the front of his body I liked best. His monkey and pee wees and a nice little fat behind to roast in the oven and eat. I made a stew out of his ears – nose – pieces of his face and belly. I put onions, carrots, turnips, celery, salt and pepper. It was good. Then I split the cheeks of his behind open, cut off his monkey and pee wees and washed them first. I put strips of bacon on each cheek of his behind and put them in the oven. Then I picked 4 onions and when the meat had roasted about 1/4 hour, I poured about a pint of water over it for gravy and put in the onions. At frequent intervals I basted his behind with a wooden spoon. So the meat would be nice and juicy. In about 2 hours, it was nice and brown, cooked through. I never ate any roast turkey that tasted half as good as his sweet fat little behind did. I ate every bit of the meat in about four days. His little monkey was as sweet as a nut, but his pee-wees I could not chew. Threw them in the toilet."

Did Fish not deserve the electric chair?

You're basing your judgement off of society where you've been brought up to think that murder, torture, and also such acts like this to a child is wrong. With that biased view point, you fail to look at it from a more international viewpoint. What if cannibalism was something traditional in a remote clan or tribe out in a far island we have yet to really survey. Why immediately call them wrong because they murder and eat their kind? How do you know they haven't been taught to do that by the likes of parental figures? Why shun them in that sense? It's just like meat. People eat chickens, cows, pigs, fish, right? Don't act like eating a human is any different. I'm not saying I would do it myself, since I find it would be physically disgusting to digest, but I'm not gonna knock people who do it, all because society has ranted to me that Murder, Rape, Molestation, Torture and other things in those categories are wrong, when they can be someone elses practices of remote.

Another thing, Death is a life cycle. You know how I see murder? Just a way of speeding up that cycle of life. What's so wrong with that? Sex is a natural cycle. Rape is just a way of achieving that cycle through means of force, as we all have forced other natural cycles before. What's so wrong with that? Now again, I'm not saying I would involve myself in some of these acts, but I'm not gonna dislike people who do it. And don't come to me about the emotional trauma it causes the victim. The victim(s) CHOOSES to be effected by what happens. You could brush it off and be done with it. Obviously that person was meant to be raped, or that person was meant to be murdered by the forces of nature at hand.
No one should judge who deserves death, because if you do, then by all means, you just as wicked to deserve death yourself. Call me heartless, I don't care. It'd just show more of your biased, social-view and the constant failure to accept any other.

So, you're saying that you don't care about anyone but yourself? What the hell's so great about you. You are such a pathetic human being. People should not care about themselves at all, whatsoever.

Did I say that all I care about is myself? Now you're jumping to conclusions: A flaw that should not ever be present within an arguement. It will make you seem illogical, and you will forever lag behind in the debate. I care for everyone. Why do you think I'm saying it's wrong to say someone deserves death? Because that's a wicked statement that should be placed upon no man. I am simply saying, what happens happens by means or was meant. Stop claiming that the people who did it are evil-hearted. You don't know what was going through their minds. That is why you can't call them malevolent. And, with your insult of calling me pathetic, you have just displayed your pride and ego, which is just as of compared to narcissistic or thinking only of yourself. If you were thinking of me, you would know, calling me pathetic could do no good to my emotional status. Thus, you are no better than what you claimed I was.

But if crime was overlooked on account of opinion, wouldn't the law be useless?

A lot of crime is already overlooked on account of opinion: They come in the form of accusations. People and the legal body accuse people of crimes when they could be totally innocent. Some legal arrests are based on discrimination, isn't that an overlook on account of opinion? And:

Straight from Dictionary.com -
Law –noun
1. the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.
2. any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation, as by the people in its constitution. Compare bylaw, statute law.
3. the controlling influence of such rules; the condition of society brought about by their observance: maintaining law and order.

There is no mention of crime being enthralled within law. Law doesn't need crime. Law doesn't thrive on crime. Actually, CRIME itself is based off of people's opinions of what is right or wrong. It contradicts itself. It is nothing enthralled in what law is.

As an example: Someone can steal the president's belt. Now, theft is considered an act of crime or felony((In the U.S, etc)), but if the LAW didn't state that it was and you had to be incarcerated, prosicuted, recorded, go on trial etc, for theft, there is no crime in it. If stated in law that crime is not of existance within the state or nation, then crime does not exist. See what I mean by law doesn't need crime to exist? It's quite the opposite. I don't know if I explained it as my mind thought it, but I did my best, and hope you understand what I meant. I know I may have confused some with that.

Crime is already overlooked on opinion, so your claim was practically void.

I can see where you're getting at, but it really just comes down to the pride of the law enforcement.
Although, a country dismissing the existance of crime is just stupid. I mean, that's what the USSR did. The result? Andrei Chikatilo. A madman who committed the murders of a minimum of 52 women and children between 1978 and 1990. He was convicted in October 1992.
Apparently, Chikatilo killed most of his victims by literally eating them alive, usually starting with their genitals.  

[Junaluska Castigare]

Shilberu Erikku

Chaimie Rahl

Shilberu Erikku

Chaimie Rahl

Shilberu Erikku

So, you're saying that you don't care about anyone but yourself? What the hell's so great about you. You are such a pathetic human being. People should not care about themselves at all, whatsoever.

Did I say that all I care about is myself? Now you're jumping to conclusions: A flaw that should not ever be present within an arguement. It will make you seem illogical, and you will forever lag behind in the debate. I care for everyone. Why do you think I'm saying it's wrong to say someone deserves death? Because that's a wicked statement that should be placed upon no man. I am simply saying, what happens happens by means or was meant. Stop claiming that the people who did it are evil-hearted. You don't know what was going through their minds. That is why you can't call them malevolent. And, with your insult of calling me pathetic, you have just displayed your pride and ego, which is just as of compared to narcissistic or thinking only of yourself. If you were thinking of me, you would know, calling me pathetic could do no good to my emotional status. Thus, you are no better than what you claimed I was.

But if crime was overlooked on account of opinion, wouldn't the law be useless?

A lot of crime is already overlooked on account of opinion: They come in the form of accusations. People and the legal body accuse people of crimes when they could be totally innocent. Some legal arrests are based on discrimination, isn't that an overlook on account of opinion? And:

Straight from Dictionary.com -
Law –noun
1. the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.
2. any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation, as by the people in its constitution. Compare bylaw, statute law.
3. the controlling influence of such rules; the condition of society brought about by their observance: maintaining law and order.

There is no mention of crime being enthralled within law. Law doesn't need crime. Law doesn't thrive on crime. Actually, CRIME itself is based off of people's opinions of what is right or wrong. It contradicts itself. It is nothing enthralled in what law is.

As an example: Someone can steal the president's belt. Now, theft is considered an act of crime or felony((In the U.S, etc)), but if the LAW didn't state that it was and you had to be incarcerated, prosicuted, recorded, go on trial etc, for theft, there is no crime in it. If stated in law that crime is not of existance within the state or nation, then crime does not exist. See what I mean by law doesn't need crime to exist? It's quite the opposite. I don't know if I explained it as my mind thought it, but I did my best, and hope you understand what I meant. I know I may have confused some with that.

Crime is already overlooked on opinion, so your claim was practically void.

I can see where you're getting at, but it really just comes down to the pride of the law enforcement.
Although, a country dismissing the existance of crime is just stupid. I mean, that's what the USSR did. The result? Andrei Chikatilo. A madman who committed the murders of a minimum of 52 women and children between 1978 and 1990. He was convicted in October 1992.
Apparently, Chikatilo killed most of his victims by literally eating them alive, usually starting with their genitals.

You're getting back to cannibalism which I already explained could be tradition. Also, murder, which isn't really big, because we're all gonna die at some point; What matters how, when, or why?

 

[Shilberu Erikku]

Chaimie Rahl

Shilberu Erikku

Chaimie Rahl

Shilberu Erikku

Chaimie Rahl

Shilberu Erikku

So, you're saying that you don't care about anyone but yourself? What the hell's so great about you. You are such a pathetic human being. People should not care about themselves at all, whatsoever.

Did I say that all I care about is myself? Now you're jumping to conclusions: A flaw that should not ever be present within an arguement. It will make you seem illogical, and you will forever lag behind in the debate. I care for everyone. Why do you think I'm saying it's wrong to say someone deserves death? Because that's a wicked statement that should be placed upon no man. I am simply saying, what happens happens by means or was meant. Stop claiming that the people who did it are evil-hearted. You don't know what was going through their minds. That is why you can't call them malevolent. And, with your insult of calling me pathetic, you have just displayed your pride and ego, which is just as of compared to narcissistic or thinking only of yourself. If you were thinking of me, you would know, calling me pathetic could do no good to my emotional status. Thus, you are no better than what you claimed I was.

But if crime was overlooked on account of opinion, wouldn't the law be useless?

A lot of crime is already overlooked on account of opinion: They come in the form of accusations. People and the legal body accuse people of crimes when they could be totally innocent. Some legal arrests are based on discrimination, isn't that an overlook on account of opinion? And:

Straight from Dictionary.com -
Law –noun
1. the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.
2. any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation, as by the people in its constitution. Compare bylaw, statute law.
3. the controlling influence of such rules; the condition of society brought about by their observance: maintaining law and order.

There is no mention of crime being enthralled within law. Law doesn't need crime. Law doesn't thrive on crime. Actually, CRIME itself is based off of people's opinions of what is right or wrong. It contradicts itself. It is nothing enthralled in what law is.

As an example: Someone can steal the president's belt. Now, theft is considered an act of crime or felony((In the U.S, etc)), but if the LAW didn't state that it was and you had to be incarcerated, prosicuted, recorded, go on trial etc, for theft, there is no crime in it. If stated in law that crime is not of existance within the state or nation, then crime does not exist. See what I mean by law doesn't need crime to exist? It's quite the opposite. I don't know if I explained it as my mind thought it, but I did my best, and hope you understand what I meant. I know I may have confused some with that.

Crime is already overlooked on opinion, so your claim was practically void.

I can see where you're getting at, but it really just comes down to the pride of the law enforcement.
Although, a country dismissing the existance of crime is just stupid. I mean, that's what the USSR did. The result? Andrei Chikatilo. A madman who committed the murders of a minimum of 52 women and children between 1978 and 1990. He was convicted in October 1992.
Apparently, Chikatilo killed most of his victims by literally eating them alive, usually starting with their genitals.

You're getting back to cannibalism which I already explained could be tradition. Also, murder, which isn't really big, because we're all gonna die at some point; What matters how, when, or why?

You're quite the pessimist, aren't you?  

[Shilberu Erikku]

Osama Bin Laden was the world's most unhinged man. He's now dead. So that moves Ann Coulter up to first place. blaugh  

[Robbie-fyed]

Shilberu Erikku

Insatiable Lust

Shilberu Erikku

Chaimie Rahl

Yuki Fujioka

Im happy to hear he's dead. I would have gladly killed him myself. He deserved to die and i hope when he did die he got as much pain as everyone during 9/11. Im just happy he's dead but it doesn't change anything. It's just another sick person dieing.

Who are you to declare who deserves to die or not as if you are supreme?

Would you have said the same about Albert Fish,Gilles De Rais, Adolf Hilter,Theodore Bundy, Andrei Chikatoli, or Tsutomu Miyazaki?
I agree with you to some extent, but I do believe Bin Laden deserved to die.
People don't deserve to die, unless they pass the breaking point. You know what Albert Fish did to 4 year old Billy Gaffney around 1930? Fish confessed the following to Billy's mother when she visited him in Sing Sing:
"I brought him to the Riker Ave. dumps. There is a house that stands alone, not far from where I took him. I took the boy there. Stripped him naked and tied his hands and feet and gagged him with a piece of dirty rag I picked out of the dump. Then I burned his clothes. Threw his shoes in the dump. Then I walked back and took the trolley to 59 St. at 2 A.M. and walked from there home. Next day about 2 P.M., I took tools, a good heavy cat-of-nine tails. Home made. Short handle. Cut one of my belts in half, slit these halves in six strips about 8 inches long. I whipped his bare behind till the blood ran from his legs. I cut off his ears – nose – slit his mouth from ear to ear. Gouged out his eyes. He was dead then. I stuck the knife in his belly and held my mouth to his body and drank his blood. I picked up four old potato sacks and gathered a pile of stones. Then I cut him up. I had a grip with me. I put his nose, ears and a few slices of his belly in the grip. Then I cut him through the middle of his body. Just below the belly button. Then through his legs about 2 inches below his behind. I put this in my grip with a lot of paper. I cut off the head – feet – arms – hands and the legs below the knee. This I put in sacks weighed with stones, tied the ends and threw them into the pools of slimy water you will see all along the road going to North Beach. I came home with my meat. I had the front of his body I liked best. His monkey and pee wees and a nice little fat behind to roast in the oven and eat. I made a stew out of his ears – nose – pieces of his face and belly. I put onions, carrots, turnips, celery, salt and pepper. It was good. Then I split the cheeks of his behind open, cut off his monkey and pee wees and washed them first. I put strips of bacon on each cheek of his behind and put them in the oven. Then I picked 4 onions and when the meat had roasted about 1/4 hour, I poured about a pint of water over it for gravy and put in the onions. At frequent intervals I basted his behind with a wooden spoon. So the meat would be nice and juicy. In about 2 hours, it was nice and brown, cooked through. I never ate any roast turkey that tasted half as good as his sweet fat little behind did. I ate every bit of the meat in about four days. His little monkey was as sweet as a nut, but his pee-wees I could not chew. Threw them in the toilet."

Did Fish not deserve the electric chair?

It comes down to what beliefs you have. I believe in God and Karma. My view is that anything terrible a person does will come back to them ten fold, and when they die and stand before the powers that be, they will be judged and punished for their crimes.

To me it's arrogant for a human to decide whether a person lives or dies regardless of what they did. Lock them up away in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives, but when you kill them you are just as bad as they are. Murder is murder regardless if it's in the name of "justice". What if this person that they suspect is the culprit is innocent? There's no way to ever be 100% sure.

I know this is all easier said than done. If it were someone I loved, I don't know how I'd feel. I can understand giving into that primal anger and wanting the life of the person who stole the life of your loved one. However, if you act on those urges and take that person's life, you will receive karmic retribution.

Apparently your beliefs and spiritual views don't base themselves on a higher power or karma, and hey that's your choice. However, you can't look down on us that take the higher road because that's what it is.

1.But why wait until they die? Isn't that just away of avoiding responsibility?
2.What if life was truly meaningless? If every single thing you believed was proven wrong, would you still feel the same way?
3. As for your argument on the innocence of a person: http://youtu.be/bTqb6dFBDwI
4. On account of the scenario where the victim was someone close to you, again, why wait based on an assumption?
5. My views may be based completely off of science and psychology, but that doesn't mean I look down on those who aren't satisfied with what they have to offer. Though of course, there are some cases in which I can't stand those people,such as:
- when achytiphobia ( the fear of being wrong) kicks in, resulting in a bunch of insecure fundementalists that fear change and the beliefs of others.
-when one's beliefs are used as an excuse to hate on account of achytiphobia.
-when faith is used by people as a sheild from the harshness of reality.
-when people are so religious to the point where they have completely lost the ability to take control of their own lives.
-when it's used as an excuse to escape from responsibility.
-when people abuse their faith in order to gain power.

The very thought that we are anyone to judge them is arrogant in my beliefs. Your response is hard to follow because you're jumping around and listing off responses which isn't making sense to me, so that's all I have to say in response.  

[Junaluska Castigare]

Shilberu Erikku

Chaimie Rahl

Shilberu Erikku

Chaimie Rahl

Shilberu Erikku

But if crime was overlooked on account of opinion, wouldn't the law be useless?

A lot of crime is already overlooked on account of opinion: They come in the form of accusations. People and the legal body accuse people of crimes when they could be totally innocent. Some legal arrests are based on discrimination, isn't that an overlook on account of opinion? And:

Straight from Dictionary.com -
Law –noun
1. the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.
2. any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation, as by the people in its constitution. Compare bylaw, statute law.
3. the controlling influence of such rules; the condition of society brought about by their observance: maintaining law and order.

There is no mention of crime being enthralled within law. Law doesn't need crime. Law doesn't thrive on crime. Actually, CRIME itself is based off of people's opinions of what is right or wrong. It contradicts itself. It is nothing enthralled in what law is.

As an example: Someone can steal the president's belt. Now, theft is considered an act of crime or felony((In the U.S, etc)), but if the LAW didn't state that it was and you had to be incarcerated, prosicuted, recorded, go on trial etc, for theft, there is no crime in it. If stated in law that crime is not of existance within the state or nation, then crime does not exist. See what I mean by law doesn't need crime to exist? It's quite the opposite. I don't know if I explained it as my mind thought it, but I did my best, and hope you understand what I meant. I know I may have confused some with that.

Crime is already overlooked on opinion, so your claim was practically void.

I can see where you're getting at, but it really just comes down to the pride of the law enforcement.
Although, a country dismissing the existance of crime is just stupid. I mean, that's what the USSR did. The result? Andrei Chikatilo. A madman who committed the murders of a minimum of 52 women and children between 1978 and 1990. He was convicted in October 1992.
Apparently, Chikatilo killed most of his victims by literally eating them alive, usually starting with their genitals.

You're getting back to cannibalism which I already explained could be tradition. Also, murder, which isn't really big, because we're all gonna die at some point; What matters how, when, or why?

You're quite the pessimist, aren't you?

I'm glad you noticed.~

 

[AstridMiriam]

This was long ago and now I am reading this. :O