Eryemil (533 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Mar-03-09 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #75
82. He broke a social contract, that's obvious enough
Edited on Tue Mar-03-09 10:54 PM by Eryemil
But the people that have replied so far detailing all the manner of horrific tortures they'd like to perform on him disturb me just as much, if they actually mean it.
I understand in situations such as these people will say things like that as coping mechanism but it is still disconcerting.
Anyway. As I said, I am a moral relativist so there are a few assumptions in this thread that I find interesting.
1) The idea that crimes against a child are worse than those committed against an adult.Chilren are more defenseless, asshole. I'd feel the same about crimes committed against retards like you.
2) The concept of retribution in general. I suppose you don't want Bush tried?
3) The severity of specific punishments against those that break agreed-upon social contracts specifically. Breaking those contracts against the most defenseless, calls for more severe punishment.
4) The consensus of when and when not certain violent acts can be morally perpetrated upon others. WTF does that mean?
I would personally be content with isolating people such as him in a place where they can remain as content as possible without the access to children.
Ideally, treatment would be provided (if they so desired) but that is still out of reach. Me too. Let's drop them in the river with cement shoes.