Child Psychopath

[Norsefire]

I was pointing out that his incredible flexibility when it came to the kid should also apply to you. I did not think you were an experimenter or thought of yourself that way.

What is an "experimenter"?
My beliefs are simple: the righteous and dedicated should be treated with civility and humanity.

The vicious and twisted mean less to me than cockroaches, and really they are only tools. After all, they are doing nothing for us, why not take advantage of the biological opportunity?

You do realize how much scientific progress we could achieve if we just stopped focusing on compassion for criminals and thought logically, about using them as test subjects?

In a way, those criminals make amends for their actions. In such a situation, scientists need not worry about ethics or morals in their experiments, and the information gained could be valuable to the rest of humanity.

Why show compassion to criminals?

Of course, this child is no criminal and if indeed he was born as he was, it is cruel to punish him. Execution is merely maintenance, ensuring that he is not given the chance to hurt anyone. It isn't punishment.

 

[OilIsMastery]

Feed the parents and the boy to Terry.

 

[Asguard]

Norsefire you are a fucking psycho, he is a SEVEN YEAR OLD FOR FUCK SAKE.

You know something, about the only thing your posts do is make me hit the cricket ball harder pituring it as YOUR HEAD

 

[Norsefire]

Norsefire you are a fucking psycho, he is a SEVEN YEAR OLD FOR FUCK SAKE

We can give him a second chance. Why not? However, there has to be a point where we say "enough".

 

[Simon Anders]

You do realize how much scientific progress we could achieve if we just stopped focusing on compassion for criminals and thought logically, about using them as test subjects?

If you do this - and you should know it has been done before - I would consider you a criminal. I would want you in jail.

In a way, those criminals make amends for their actions. In such a situation, scientists need not worry about ethics or morals in their experiments, and the information gained could be valuable to the rest of humanity.

Sounds eerily like the Nazis.

Why show compassion to criminals?

I thought at last announcement you were Christian. My suggestion would be to approach Christian counselors or read some of the New Testament. There are answers to this kind of question there.

For me as a non-christian, compassion is not something I aspire to, it is something I often find present. I also notice that many people who do horrible things are not criminals and many criminals are not immoral people. How many of the founders of the USA would the British have put in prison if they had won?

Criminals are humans. I can't convince you, of course, to feel compassion. That's like trying to talk you into falling in love with some woman or telling you why you should like chocolate cake if you don't.

But I can feel sorry for you for being so cut off.

 

[Norsefire]

If you do this - and you should know it has been done before - I would consider you a criminal. I would want you in jail.

For being rational and logical?

Besides, it certainly would be a crime for me to get a criminal and experiment (even though I would do so to better human knowledge)
However, who says the government can't subsidize and legalize such a thing? At least they'd have done one thing smart.


Look, there are some things we could learn so much more easily by being limitless in our scientific inquiries. Criminals provide valuable opportunities where we would be able to experiment without committing a wrong.

Sounds eerily like the Nazis.

The Nazis experimented on the innocent, or their own version of "criminal" which wasn't decided by public consensus.

I thought at last announcement you were Christian. My suggestion would be to approach Christian counselors or read some of the New Testament. There are answers to this kind of question there.

I am not a "by the book" Christian. I am mostly a "philosophical" Christian. And I do believe in compassion...for the good.

For me as a non-christian, compassion is not something I aspire to, it is something I often find present. I also notice that many people who do horrible things are not criminals and many criminals are not immoral people. How many of the founders of the USA would the British have put in prison if they had won?

That's a different story. I'm talking about murderers; I'm talking about rapists. I'm talking about peadophiles. How are they not criminals? There are truly vile scum out there

....and we pay for them to have

food
entertainment
life

They owe us!

We can all agree that they are criminals, too. At least, some of them.

Criminals are humans.

Bad humans

I can't convince you, of course, to feel compassion.

I do feel compassion. I am empathetic. I would not be able to argue from any viewpoint if I wasn't. However, that doesn't mean I have to be tolerant nor does it mean I have to like criminals.



As I said, they are our only opportunity for true unrestricted science.

 

[Simon Anders]

For being rational and logical?

A burglar can be rational and logical. And a person being moral can be also. So, no. Not because you were rational or logical - if you were.

Besides, it certainly would be a crime for me to get a criminal and experiment (even though I would do so to better human knowledge)

And now you seem to understand. Good.

However, who says the government can't subsidize and legalize such a thing? At least they'd have done one thing smart.

Governments have. I think it is immoral.

Look, there are some things we could learn so much more easily by being limitless in our scientific inquiries. Criminals provide valuable opportunities where we would be able to experiment without committing a wrong.

Where I would say you would be committing a wrong.

The Nazis experimented on the innocent, or their own version of "criminal" which wasn't decided by public consensus.

So if they had had a nationwide vote

'Are Jews, Gypsies, the retarded, gays, etc. criminals?'

and the German public voted yes,
it would have been OK to experiment on Jews?

Essentially slavery had consensus amongst voters. Was it OK?

You are such a relativist. Whatever consensus is is moral.

I am not a "by the book" Christian. I am mostly a "philosophical" Christian. And I do believe in compassion...for the good.

So easy compassion. Sort of Christianity light.

That's a different story. I'm talking about murderers; I'm talking about rapists. I'm talking about peadophiles. How are they not criminals? There are truly vile scum out there

And those who would experiment on them, even them, would join them in being scum.

....and we pay for them to have

food
entertainment
life

They owe us!

God, I won a grant once. I hope the organization that gave me the grant doesn't think they can operate on my spine or something.

Bad humans
I do feel compassion. I am empathetic. I would not be able to argue from any viewpoint if I wasn't. However, that doesn't mean I have to be tolerant nor does it mean I have to like criminals.

No one said you had to like anyone. In fact I never even said you had to feel compassion for them. I think it's sad how not compassionate you are in relation to them.

As I said, they are our only opportunity for true unrestricted science.

So science should be free, but not people.

 

[Norsefire]

A burglar can be rational and logical. And a person being moral can be also. So, no. Not because you were rational or logical - if you were.

It'd be for the greater good.

Governments have. I think it is immoral.

Why? Criminals are immoral. At least, many are.

What is wrong, then?

Where I would say you would be committing a wrong.

You don't explain your reasoning. Mine is simple.

Criminals harm society. Society has no obligation to show humanity to those that harm it. A smart society would use such scum for their own benefit.

So if they had had a nationwide vote

'Are Jews, Gypsies, the retarded, gays, etc. criminals?'

and the German public voted yes,
it would have been OK to experiment on Jews?

If the German public truly viewed those groups as such, my first question would be to those groups: "why do you remain in Germany?"

Besides, they might be culturally out of place, but they aren't actually harming anyone. So no.

Criminals, in the sense of serial killers, serial rapists, etc, do harm people.

You are such a relativist. Whatever consensus is is moral.

Morality is subjective. It is not objective, therefore morality can be whatever you want. For the social unit, however, it is important that society agree upon morals in order to opreate.

And those who would experiment on them, even them, would join them in being scum.

Why?

God, I won a grant once. I hope the organization that gave me the grant doesn't think they can operate on my spine or something.

Did you attack, rape, and kill and harm members of that organization?

So science should be free, but not people.

Imagine the good that can come out of it. The discoveries we make on a few criminals can help good people in need.

 

[Simon Anders]

It'd be for the greater good.

So you think. Because you think you know all the effects of experimenting on criminals. You think the effects would be the visible ones you imagine in your head. Of course the effects would be much more complicated. We would all suffer from that kind of state sanctioned immorality.

Why? Criminals are immoral. At least, many are.

Doesn't give me the right or the desire to treat them as if they were not human.

What is wrong, then?
You don't explain your reasoning. Mine is simple.

And immoral. Criminals do not become things, they are still people. We can try to make ourselves safe. We can punish or try to rehabilitate. But we do not get to treat them like things. That's my morality. You have to understand that I cannot prove what is good and moral. You don't feel compassion for them and so you will never, ever understand my position. I do, and so I will never ever find yours moral.

Criminals harm society. Society has no obligation to show humanity to those that harm it.

How odd that every society does anyway.

A smart society would use such scum for their own benefit.
If the German public truly viewed those groups as such, my first question would be to those groups: "why do you remain in Germany?"

So it would be moral because they should have left.

Besides, they might be culturally out of place, but they aren't actually harming anyone. So no.

Hitler thought the Jews were harming people. Many people think gays are harming people even when they have sex in private and certainly if they kiss in the street.

Criminals, in the sense of serial killers, serial rapists, etc, do harm people.

On this we agree.

Morality is subjective. It is not objective, therefore morality can be whatever you want. For the social unit, however, it is important that society agree upon morals in order to opreate.

Yes. And I don't agree with experimentation on criminals. And I think your idea would lose a popular vote.

Why?

Because they are not things.

Did you attack, rape, and kill and harm members of that organization?

I was pointing out what I saw as a flaw in your logic. They pay, they get to treat me like an object. A lot of employers do think this. And I think they are immoral.

Imagine the good that can come out of it. The discoveries we make on a few criminals can help good people in need.

And again. You think you can see all the effects of such a practice. But you really have no idea how experimenting on criminals will affect the way we all start to look at each other.

And again. You are clearly a moral relativist.

 

[Asguard]

SA, why do you bother?
why do you keep banging your head against that wall?

 

[Norsefire]

So you think. Because you think you know all the effects of experimenting on criminals. You think the effects would be the visible ones you imagine in your head. Of course the effects would be much more complicated. We would all suffer from that kind of state sanctioned immorality.

What effects? We experiment on them, and then we can dispose of them. Or, use their bodies for transplants or further experiments.

Doesn't give me the right or the desire to treat them as if they were not human.

They aren't human.

And immoral. Criminals do not become things, they are still people. We can try to make ourselves safe. We can punish or try to rehabilitate. But we do not get to treat them like things. That's my morality. You have to understand that I cannot prove what is good and moral. You don't feel compassion for them and so you will never, ever understand my position. I do, and so I will never ever find yours moral.

And experimentation is, in a way, a punishment

How odd that every society does anyway.

Really? Which would those be? I know of none.

Hitler thought the Jews were harming people. Many people think gays are harming people even when they have sex in private and certainly if they kiss in the street.

he thought they were. Hardly compelling proof. We have much proof that rapists do, indeed, harm people.

Yes. And I don't agree with experimentation on criminals. And I think your idea would lose a popular vote.

In the Christian West?
Yes

However any logical person would understand my reasoning: unlimited science can have benefits, but we can't harm innocent people. Criminals are not innocent and therefore they owe us.

Because they are not things.
I was pointing out what I saw as a flaw in your logic. They pay, they get to treat me like an object. A lot of employers do think this. And I think they are immoral.

They are things. That's why we lock them up...and treat them as property.

And again. You think you can see all the effects of such a practice. But you really have no idea how experimenting on criminals will affect the way we all start to look at each other.

We can emphasize humanity and compassion while at the same time condeming the twisted.

And again. You are clearly a moral relativist.

Like everyone?

SA, why do you bother?
why do you keep banging your head against that wall?

Why not refute my points? Asguard, you may have a good heart but you are too trusting and too willing to show mercy. That is not always a good thing.

 

[Simon Anders]

Funny I almost asked you the same thing in this thread or maybe another. Honestly, it is almost pleasant to actually speak to someone with these views. I can't tell if Norsefire is serious or role playing - I know Norsefire, you don't like when people doubt you this way. But what it gives me is an opportunity to actually come in contact with the mindset he has or pretends to have.

In person I would not feel safe going into this stuff with someone I so heartily disagreed with.

So I get to see what happens. What happens when I point out _________? Oh, he comes back with this. I notice where he subtley shifts his argument without admitting anything, perhaps without noticing. I get a feel for the exact shape of his worldview and how he justifies it for himself. Sometimes it is in ways I would not have thought of.

And then I often get bored and give up.

But there is something in this. Right now, anyway.

 

[Norsefire]

I don't understand why people always say I am to be "role playing" just to "get a rise out of people"


I don't understand what is so wrong with my views. I support a strong social unit and pushing Humanity forward.

 

[flameofanor5]

You left out an option.
Institutionalize the parents.

Yeah, the only people in this story that are bigger idiots than him are his parents.

 

[Simon Anders]

What effects? We experiment on them, and then we can dispose of them. Or, use their bodies for transplants or further experiments.

Right. You see only the direct physical effects. You do not even for a moment consider the effects on how people will come to see each other and their government or doctors once they realize these experiments are happening. It is the same with your naivte around privacy issues.

Oh, the guilty will get caught more and the innocent have nothing to hide.

But what are we teaching children about who they are, when their movements are monitored by cameras all the time and they know that as adults they will ALWAYS be under a distrustful eye.

How will this educate them and us?

What are the side effects?

we all get dehumanized. When something is done in our name that is inhuman, it dehumanizes us if we accept it as normal.

It is almost as if you see us as billiard balls. Hit the bad one he goes in the corner pocket. Don't hit the good one.

But humans, at least some of them, are far more subtle and are affected by the laws you wish to pass in ways that are hard to predict, especially by people like you who never even consider this.

The world you would make would have people with no self-respect.

They aren't human.

So you say.

Really? Which would those be? I know of none.

What you are proposing is illegal in the country you live in. I hope you have the integrity to openly admit you are wrong here. It is illegal in the US, even in Texas, to experiment, especially in the ways you are suggesting no prisoners, even murderers.

he thought they were. Hardly compelling proof. We have much proof that rapists do, indeed, harm people.

So the government would have to show that its justice system is a good one, not unfair along racial lines, for example.

In the Christian West?
Yes

Well, there you go. So it is immoral where you live.

They are things.

No, they're not.

Like everyone?

Well, no. Many religious people and many secular people are not relativists. In fact you, for example on the gay issue, seem to present yourself as not a relativist. Just thought you needed a little heads up, because you are one. If there is consensus then it is ok. When there is consensus against you, you are not a relativist. When you are presenting your ideas of how things should be you say it will be OK because there will be consensus.

So you shift, when it suits you, between saying

certain things are just wrong, period
to saying that if we get consensus then things that seem wrong now will actually be good.

Make up your mind.

 

[Simon Anders]

I don't understand why people always say I am to be "role playing" just to "get a rise out of people"

After countless posts bemoaning homosexuals you said in one of your posts that you were attracted to a few men. I find it hard to believe a conservative like you are supposed to be would toss that out like you did. There was another post also where both Orleander and I called you out on where your persona slipped.

I am not sure you are role playing, but I often wonder. Perhaps you are just very odd, or very impulsive and never notice the contradictions.

I don't understand what is so wrong with my views. I support a strong social unit and pushing Humanity forward.

You do understand why people react the way they do to your ideas, right. I don't mean you see why they are right, but you do understand why we, for example, react negatively to the idea of experimenting on criminals. Are you capable of entering the mindset of others?

 

[Norsefire]

Right. You see only the direct physical effects. You do not even for a moment consider the effects on how people will come to see each other and their government or doctors once they realize these experiments are happening. It is the same with your naivte around privacy issues.

Of course I consider social effects. I see none. The people will realize that the "people" being experimented on earned and chose their fate.

Oh, the guilty will get caught more and the innocent have nothing to hide.

But what are we teaching children about who they are, when their movements are monitored by cameras all the time and they know that as adults they will ALWAYS be under a distrustful eye.

How will this educate them and us?

What are the side effects?

It is almost as if you see us as billiard balls. Hit the bad one he goes in the corner pocket. Don't hit the good one.

But humans, at least some of them, are far more subtle and are affected by the laws you wish to pass in ways that are hard to predict, especially by people like you who never even consider this.

The world you would make would have people with no Oh, the guilty will get caught more and the innocent have nothing to hide.

But what are we teaching children about who they are, when their movements are monitored by cameras all the time and they know that as adults they will ALWAYS be under a distrustful eye.

How will this educate them and us?

What are the side effects?

It is almost as if you see us as billiard balls. Hit the bad one he goes in the corner pocket. Don't hit the good one.

But humans, at least some of them, are far more subtle and are affected by the laws you wish to pass in ways that are hard to predict, especially by people like you who never even consider this.

The world you would make would have people with no self-respect.
self-respect.

It depends on how we teach it. If we did have such "big brother", it doesn't mean we have to teach the children that they are animals to be monitored.

We could teach: "the government is our friend and our people are united, and so we like to help each other and our friend"

So you say.

So as the truth is.

What you are proposing is illegal in the country you live in. I hope you have the integrity to openly admit you are wrong here. It is illegal in the US, even in Texas, to experiment, especially in the ways you are suggesting no prisoners, even murderers.

That's not what you said, though. Texas doesn't show compassion to criminals, even if we don't experiment on them. In fact Texas has the highest execution rate in the US (over a hundred executions a year)

Well, there you go. So it is immoral where you live.

Morality can change

No, they're not.

Why?

Well, no. Many religious people and many secular people are not relativists. In fact you, for example on the gay issue, seem to present yourself as not a relativist.

Of course I am a relativist. I said "homosexuality is wrong in my opinion"
Or at least, I hope you inferred that because that is the case
However, my opinion of homosexuality has changed anyway so it's irrelevant to discuss.
Most of my concern with it has to deal with cultural change

So you shift, when it suits you, between saying

certain things are just wrong, period
to saying that if we get consensus then things that seem wrong now will actually be good.

Make up your mind.

Certain things are wrong, period, when the consensus says so. Remember, society is made up of individuals in agreement. Therefore you can be totally immoral in a certain society, but completely fine in another.

 

[Norsefire]

After countless posts bemoaning homosexuals you said in one of your posts that you were attracted to a few men. I find it hard to believe a conservative like you are supposed to be would toss that out like you did. There was another post also where both Orleander and I called you out on where your persona slipped.

I can find a few men attractive and even be a homosexual without thinking it is right.

I am not sure you are role playing, but I often wonder. Perhaps you are just very odd, or very impulsive and never notice the contradictions.

Believe me, I would not be hear, having over 7,000 posts, just "role playing"

My views are a product of many things. I don't find them odd at all.

understand why people react the way they do to your ideas, right. I don't mean you see why they are right, but you do understand why we, for example, react negatively to the idea of experimenting on criminals. Are you capable of entering the mindset of others?

Of course. I just don't see why you find the idea of experimenting on CRIMINALS

Repeat, CRIMINALS

..wrong

 

[Asguard]

SA, do you piture osam in his cave somewhere when reading norsefires posts, talking about the "infidels"? or the english invaders of Australia?, the slave drivers of the US? or the nazis?

 

[Norsefire]

I don't talk about infidels and I don't promote slavery.