highly sadistic perpetrator who did all he could to have a slave

[Marquis]

Marquis:

Just becuase someone disagrees with you does not make them WRONG.

You're jumping the gun here bro!

I just called you a troll, I didn't say you were wrong!

Yet.

For the record, you're not wrong, you're just not giving the full picture. You're stating an obvious truism in unecessary and irrelevant detail without making any meaningful conclusions.

Your theories on nihilism are super cool and all, but if you don't have any substantive arguments on why kidnapping is not wrong, I'll just go ahead and take my chances with my biases. I'm not that skeptical.

In fact, this post is no different.

Of course someone disagreeing with me doesn't make them wrong, but how do I know the difference? If something violates my sense of reason, I disagree with it.

 

[MorfeuV]

Marquis: Everyone is biased, I am not exempt.

My opinion of why kidnapping is wrong, is because a child is unable to fully consent to going with the kidnapper, not because the case saddens or angers me.

But you do realize that it is just your opinion?

Wether or not anyone agrees with you.

I have my own opinion & it is only that.

In general, a ten year old child is not experienced enough to make a well reasoned decision, to consent to leave her parent's home, to live with another.

I did.

That is why kidnapping is wrong.

No. That is why you felt negatively about it.

Yes- we all leave our parent's home at some point in Life. Some of us (myself, included) are forced to make a choice to leave it earlier, rather than later.

So was she.

However, this child was ten at the time of the kidnapping. She did not *choose* to leave her parent's home. She was forced through the act of kidnapping, to leave her parent's home.

You say that you did not have a choice, but you still chose.

This is not the same as going off to college, or signing up for the military, or getting married, or turning that idioticly magical age of 18- most of which one can choose to participate in with full consent.

Yes it is because they are still leaving.

The kidnapping of a ten year old child simply can not be compared to the normal course of maturing that occurs as young people reach the age of majority.

Why not? You said so yourself,

... or turning that idioticly magical age of 18- most of which one can choose to participate in with full consent.

It's silly to label someone "mature" just becuase of their age.

I know a lot of 40 year old kids.

Now- how about you prattle on a bit about why the kidnapping was right?

I do not feel that this kidnapping was right or wrong.


I can not tell you that it was right or wrong.


I can only tell you how I feel about it.

 

[MorfeuV]

You're jumping the gun here bro!

I just called you a troll, I didn't say you were wrong!

Yet.

You disagree.

For the record, you're not wrong, you're just not giving the full picture. You're stating an obvious truism in unecessary and irrelevant detail without making any meaningful conclusions.

I'm not claiming to be right or wrong.

There is no such thing as right or wrong.

You can only say that you do not like it.

Your theories on nihilism are super cool and all, but if you don't have any substantive arguments on why kidnapping is not wrong,

I'm not saying that it is not wrong, or right.

I'll just go ahead and take my chances with my biases.

You already have.

 

[Marquis]

You're not skilled enough to do what you're trying to do MorfeuV, seriously.

You remind me of someone.

 

[O'Mac]

Just read the paper today that had a pretty big article about the whole issue.

The more I think about it, the more I wish the guy hadn't killed himself and thus giving me the opportunity to dispense some justice of my own. Basically this girl has been brainwashed. There is no way to seriously argue that fact. I'm quite confident that her's will be a text-book case of Stockholm Syndrome that psycharitrists shall be talking about for many decades to come. The very fact that she's vigourously defending the man who abducted and held here for 8 years says so much about how well he has conditioned her. When notified of his death, she had shown police investigators much grief over the news. She also talks about intimate moments with her abductor as being very special to her.

Again, these are clear indications of reinforced mental conditioning over a very long period of time. And let's not forget, this isn't over the span of a few months or anything. This is 8 years! 8 years away from her friends and her family. 8 months of forced confinement and gradually losing her free will to a sexual predator.

If that's not sadism on the part of the abductor, I don't know what is.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I
Peoples opinions/morals are shaped off of their own biased beleifs, prejudices & values. [/U]


Many people do not like what that man did becuase of how it made them feel.

I suspect that you do not like what he did because it made you feel angry & sad.

You must realize that what you feel is notwithstanding to what is.

Sorry, my feelings didn't come from any of the above, they came from my inability to support or tolerate one person taking away the liberty of another without their consent or any concern whatsoever for their feelings, desires, or dreams. I daresay if someone snatched you off the street and spirited you away and forced you to live a life you could not bear or wish for, totally disregarding your rights as a person or your feelings, you would not be defending their right to do so.

Catalina

 

[Marquis]

If that's not sadism on the part of the abductor, I don't know what is.

He was cruel in so much as he had to be to achieve his goal. I know that if I went through the trouble of kidnapping a prisoner, she would certainly be put through terrorizing events of every kind. That seems like it would be a major part of the appeal of having a non-con prisoner, at least for a sadist.

Yet it sounds like this guy was kind to her, outside of what he had to do to keep her locked down.

 

[O'Mac]

He was cruel in so much as he had to be to achieve his goal. I know that if I went through the trouble of kidnapping a prisoner, she would certainly be put through terrorizing events of every kind. That seems like it would be a major part of the appeal of having a non-con prisoner, at least for a sadist.

Yet it sounds like this guy was kind to her, outside of what he had to do to keep her locked down.

But that's exactly what I'm talking about. The victim has gone completely out of her way to paint a picture of how well treated she has been, although the investigators know now that that is not the case. For starters, if she was actually treated as well as she implies, I don't think her weight would still be the same as it was at the time of her abduction (apparently she's only gained 5 pounds over 8 years). She's been terribly malnourished as a result of her incarceration, but she doesn't understand all that as a bad thing. This is exactly what Stockholm Syndrome does to a person. She quite literally does not know the different between right and wrong in some matters.

 

[RJMasters]

I'm not claiming to be right or wrong.

Actually that is not true as my next comment will reveal.

There is no such thing as right or wrong.

This is a claim of fact. You claim you are right, by not claiming a position of rightness or wrongness". This then makes you a hypocrite to your nihilistic position

Hence your claim that right and wrong does not exist is merely your opinion. Which anyone can offer an equal weighing opinion that right and wrong does exist and equally be equally right based on the equivlant hypocritical credibility you ascert. Meaing simply that the harder you argue your position that right and wrong does not exist, you only succeed in equally strengthing that right and wrong does exist by inverse proportion.

Thus based upon the fact that all are on equal footing, it is correct to say that people can in fact take a position of right or wrong and be right, just as you assume being right based on the belief that right and wrong does not exist.

Stop quivering I am not done with you yet.

As Marquis said you fail to present the full pciture concerning the law. Though there is such a thing as the letter of the law, there is also a purpose and or spirit of the law which is just as valid within the context of reality in which it functions.

The laws exist to serve a purpose, that purpose is the reason it exists, therefore it is true that it exists. If something is true, then something can be false. If truth is based on facts and falseness is not provable, then Nihilism is false as it is based upon something which cannot be proven.

Though you may argue to disagree or not disagree with the rightness or wrongness of any law, you cannot argue that the purpose of a law is false. The law exists because of the purpose for which it exists. Therefore, because it exists, it becomes a standard, and using a standard one can measure effectively against it. Not against "the why" but against the law. Therefore it is not an opinion to say it is wrong to kidnap a child and use them as a sex slave, because the wrongness is applied to the law itself, for which exists to serve a purpose.

You cannot debate "the purpose" of any law by means of Nihilism, because any reasoning you present will only be opinion. Debate is based upon claims of facts, not opinions.

 

[Marquis]

But that's exactly what I'm talking about. The victim has gone completely out of her way to paint a picture of how well treated she has been, although the investigators know now that that is not the case. For starters, if she was actually treated as well as she implies, I don't think her weight would still be the same as it was at the time of her abduction (apparently she's only gained 5 pounds over 8 years). She's been terribly malnourished as a result of her incarceration, but she doesn't understand all that as a bad thing. This is exactly what Stockholm Syndrome does to a person. She quite literally does not know the different between right and wrong in some matters.

She was probably just malnourished because he was incapable as a host and provider.

This girl never mentioned being beaten or tortured in any way.

 

[O'Mac]

She was probably just malnourished because he was incapable as a host and provider.

This girl never mentioned being beaten or tortured in any way.

She has described physical punishment for various wrongdoings, but the newspaper did not elaborate on that. However, certainly it is not the case that the only legitimate term for slavery or bondage is by that of physical interaction only. Surely the mental and emotional bondage on the part of her abductor is just as sadistic.

Oh, and thanks for leaving the philosophical symantics out of this one, Marq.

 

[Hooper_X]

I'm generally opposed to the death penalty, but in the case of sexual predators of children, the only thing that will fix them is a bullet in the head.

 

[O'Mac]

I'm generally opposed to the death penalty, but in the case of sexual predators of children, the only thing that will fix them is a bullet in the head.

I say lock them up and make them suffer the rest of their lives with zero sexual relief.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

I say lock them up and make them suffer the rest of their lives with zero sexual relief.

I personally cannot reconcile myself with capital punishment but for people like this I truly believe (if they haven't already conveniently committed suicide) they should be chemically castrated. it should be mandatory and a condition of them ever being released at any stage in the future.

"You had your chance pal, you blew it. You do not deserve to breathe, let alone fuck ever again." *Waves big scary syringe menacingly*

 

[MorfeuV]

Hahaha!

Debate is based upon claims of facts, not opinions.

That depends on what type of debate you are engaged in.

A philosophical debate can occur without a single fact.

You're not skilled enough to do what you're trying to do MorfeuV, seriously.

That's just your opinion.

It does not make you right or wrong.

This is a claim of fact. You claim you are right, by not claiming a position of rightness or wrongness". This then makes you a hypocrite to your nihilistic position.

Yes it does.

I'm not being Nihilistic, you must have skimmed through my posts and jumped on the bandwagon with Marquis.

I realize that right & wrong is subjective.

Hence your claim that right and wrong does not exist is merely your opinion.

Yes! What you feel is right & wrong is merely your opinion as well.

Meaing simply that the harder you argue your position that right and wrong does not exist, you only succeed in equally strengthing that right and wrong does exist by inverse proportion.

The onus of proof is on you to prove that right or wrong does in fact exist.

Thus based upon the fact that all are on equal footing,

You have yet to prove that it exists. You can't do that.

it is correct to say that people can in fact take a position of right or wrong and be right,

No.

They can only state what they feel.

just as you assume being right based on the belief that right and wrong does not exist.

That's after you made the assumption that I am trying to be right when I'm only saying that I can never be right, and at the same time I can never be wrong.

Stop quivering I am not done with you yet.

Bring it on cowboy.

As Marquis said you fail to present the full pciture concerning the law. Though there is such a thing as the letter of the law, there is also a purpose and or spirit of the law which is just as valid within the context of reality in which it functions.

It is still made by the people.

It is still their opinions.

The laws exist to serve a purpose, that purpose is the reason it exists, therefore it is true that it exists.

My argument does not state that the law does not exist.

My argument does state that the law is based of the opinion & moral stance of the people.

That being said, the law is not absolute.

What was "wrong" 200 years ago may not matter today.

If something is true, then something can be false. If truth is based on facts and falseness is not provable, then Nihilism is false as it is based upon something which cannot be proven.

Nihilism is irrelavent.

Nihilism is another opinion.

It doesn't make that opinion right or wrong.

Though you may argue to disagree or not disagree with the rightness or wrongness of any law, you cannot argue that the purpose of a law is false.

No, I can't.

You're not making any sense.

The law exists becuase people want them to exist.

I think your cowboy hat is just a little bit too tight.

The law exists because of the purpose for which it exists. Therefore, because it exists, it becomes a standard, and using a standard one can measure effectively against it.

Why are you repeating the same fact twice?

Yes, the law exists.

Just becuase it exists doesn't make it right or wrong.

Not against "the why" but against the law. Therefore it is not an opinion to say it is wrong to kidnap a child and use them as a sex slave, because the wrongness is applied to the law itself, for which exists to serve a purpose.

Who makes the law?

People make the law.

The law is based of the opinion & moral stance of the people.

The law is not absolute.

You cannot debate "the purpose" of any law by means of Nihilism, because any reasoning you present will only be opinion.

Yes. I will only present my opinion, you can only present your opinion.

You cannot present an absolute truth.

You can make a law that says "Thou shalt not kill".

I can ask why & you can only tell me "The reason why I you shall not kill is because I do not like it."

You can even kill me because you do not like it but that does not make you "right" it just means that you disagree and you have more power.

 

[chris9]

She wrote a letter basically saying that she's not going to elaborate what he did or did not do to/with her to the press/the whole world. The way I understood it it's her private life that she will eventually talk about with a therapist, and the police, but that's not for everyone to know about.
While I'm curious as to how she lived, what he did to her, I do respect her choice to keep this hidden. He's been the only human she has seen in the last eight years, a time where biologically she grew a woman. Especially if they had any sexual intercourse it's her right to keep this as much to herself as possible.
Yes, of course she has Stockholm Syndrom. No surprise. But she is a very brave woman who will have a hard time learning 'normal' everyday interaction between adults without the whole world watching her.

 

[MorfeuV]

Hmmm.

Some people may be wondering how I feel about this particular incident.

It doesn't matter, it's just my opinion.

 

[Hooper_X]

I say lock them up and make them suffer the rest of their lives with zero sexual relief.

I'd rather that the $30,000.00 or so per year it takes to incarcerate a sexual predator be used to improve the inadequate American educational system. If there was a reasonable possibility that such a creep could be rehabilitated, then I'd say lock him up and subject him to 10 years of behavior modification. However, everything I've read on the subject has indicated that child molesters are forever broken.

 

[RJMasters]

That depends on what type of debate you are engaged in.

A philosophical debate can occur without a single fact.

That may be true, but a debate cannot occur unless one makes a claim of fact. Up till then it is a philosophical discussion or dialague. Two people can state opposing philosophical opinions and not debate them at all, but as soon as one of them says, the other position is not true(like you did here) then it does become a debate.

The onus of proof is on you to prove that right or wrong does in fact exist.

Actually no it doesn't. Since you claim it does not exist you share an equal burden to prove it does not. Nice try.

That's after you made the assumption that I am trying to be right when I'm only saying that I can never be right, and at the same time I can never be wrong.

Actually you did claim to be right by making the claiming that right and worng does not exist. However now that you have restated your position here more clearly saying that you can't be right or that you can't be wrong, there is no sense in ever discussing anything further with you, ever.

Bring it on cowboy.

Giddy-up ah oom papa oom papa mau mau, Giddy-up ah oom papa oom papa mau mau, Hi ho silver farewell.

/end irrelevant

 

[Aeroil]

Woohoo!!! crazy ass semantics debate!!!!!

I like to believe that Right and Wrong exists. Not because it may be true, but because I believe it's a positive thing to believe that they exist.

Who makes the law?

People make the law.

haa, people also make words, MorfeuV, words like "Right" and "Wrong" ^_^

 

[Pure]

response to morfeu

M
Let's say the female in this analogy is 1 month away from turning eighteen, & her 18 year old partner was only 1 month older than her.

Most people, will feel that nothing wrong happened.


Nevertheless, he did commit a crime [the crime of statutory rape] wether or not he had mal intentions or how it made her feel.

==
I think we all recognize that sometimes 'the law's an ass.' I will concede too, that some laws about 'statuatory rape' [without coercion] are ridiculous. And further, I will stipulate that the law sometimes requires what's wrong (like returning a slave to her master).

As to laws against kidnapping; for both the child and the adult case, it seems to me that most moral systems would hold these acts to be wrong. Let us say, Kant and Mill, to take two examples. Indeed it's hard to conceive of a system, unless it was straight 'might makes right' that would justify kidnapping.

I might agree with you on the morality issue *in small part*, as follows: Supposing *we restrict the discussion to 'living with' and to the time period since she was, say, 15,* then perhaps one might argue 'no wrong,' in that she might be construed as consenting and adult. Other than that, I cannot see that you have any case. But the history of being captive since 10, i.e., up through 14, fatally undermines the claim of consent.

===
PS: The question of the objectivity or subjectivity of morality is neither here nor there.

The question "is anything right or wrong" is relevant of course, if you're simply claiming that *nothing is wrong.* It follows trivially that if 'nothing is wrong', then murder, rape, kidnapping etc. is not wrong. But it isn't clear to me that your position is simply utter moral skepticism. If so, the discussion of the girl is not relevant; i'd have to begin by asking if there are *any* things you think there are good reasons to abstain from--- where those reasons apply to other people besides you.

 

[MorfeuV]

Abstinence is an Evasion of Responsibility!

Actually no it doesn't. Since you claim it does not exist you share an equal burden to prove it does not. Nice try.

No. Did you even read my posts? I changed my stance on how it exists.

Morality exists subjectively becuase it is not absolute.

Actually you did claim to be right by making the claiming that right and worng does not exist. However now that you have restated your position here more clearly saying that you can't be right or that you can't be wrong, there is no sense in ever discussing anything further with you, ever.

It seems to me that you just want to be "right".

That's is not why I debate.

So far I've gotten only a shit load of circular reasoning & logical fallicies from you, so there really is no sense in debating with you.

If you still want to be "right", I'll still be here to show you that you can never be "right" ... you'll just be sharing your opinion with me.

The question "is anything right or wrong" is relevant of course, if you're simply claiming that *nothing is wrong.* It follows trivially that if 'nothing is wrong', then murder, rape, kidnapping etc. is not wrong.

Yes it is trivial, but it's funny to see why people think it's not.

There really is no reason withstanding.

But it isn't clear to me that your position is simply utter moral skepticism. If so, the discussion of the girl is not relevant;

If someone said that it was wrong it is, & someone did.

i'd have to begin by asking if there are *any* things you think there are good reasons to abstain from--- where those reasons apply to other people besides you.

No.

Abstain from nothing you want.

If there is something that you want, you shouldn't even think twice about getting it.

If a preist chooses to abstain from sex, it doesn't make him a "better person", it just means that he doesn't have sex.

People that follow the law are not "better" than the people who do not.

I'm not going to abstain from something, just becuase someone else doesn't like it.

 

[Marquis]

I'd rather that the $30,000.00 or so per year it takes to incarcerate a sexual predator be used to improve the inadequate American educational system. If there was a reasonable possibility that such a creep could be rehabilitated, then I'd say lock him up and subject him to 10 years of behavior modification. However, everything I've read on the subject has indicated that child molesters are forever broken.

Then what would you propose we do with the sexual predators?

 

[Hooper_X]

Then what would you propose we do with the sexual predators?

Put them down like mad dogs.

 

[Marquis]

Abstain from nothing you want.

If there is something that you want, you shouldn't even think twice about getting it.

If a preist chooses to abstain from sex, it doesn't make him a "better person", it just means that he doesn't have sex.

People that follow the law are not "better" than the people who do not.

I'm not going to abstain from something, just becuase someone else doesn't like it.

What planet are you from?

Is it so hard to interpret someone saying:

"This is wrong" as "This is wrong, in my opinion"?

Given the ultimately subjective nature of all of our thoughts, aren't those words implicit in everything we say?

Why are you using this thread as your personal platform to preach about the subjectivity of moral judgments?

Just to show everyone how deep and wise you are?

I don't think anyone is impressed, but then again, I can only speak for myself.

This absurd degree of chestpuffing usually indicates one of 3 things in my experience:
1. You are an alt, come back with a score to settle.
2. Your SO also posts on or reads this board, and you want to show her how cool and dominant you are
3. You've decided you want to be top dog alpha around here, and you haven't given the other big dogs nearly enough credit.


But then again, I could be wrong. Maybe you're a really attractive, magnetic and charismatic person in real life, and you're used to people melting when you enunciate the words you can only bold here.

Whatever the case, you seem to have some intelligence, if not a lot of sense. Why not step down to our level and engage us in the conversation we're actually having?