German cannibal gets only 8.5 years (!!??)

[DukeP]

I beg to differ. KvH.

The important matter is ALWAYS what the proffesionals think.
They DO in fact, know best.
Real knowledge is only rarely cumulative. 100 ignorants doesnt make one genious.

Remember: Everybodies opinions arent equal. Your opinion might be better or might not be as good as mine - but its unlikely that our opinions have equal value.

The opinion of the knowledgable outweighs the opinion of the ignorant. By far.

~~DukeP~~

[Brian Ellis]

Who, at some time, has not bitten off part of their body, such as a hangnail, or sucked their own blood? Autoanthropophagism is common, so why not simply anthropophagism?

Actually, if you discount the emotional and the possible epidemiological factors, I suppose human meat is not much different from any other kind of meat. However, I'm safe, too fat, too old and too tough.

More seriously, I looked it up in the encyclopaedia and found the following as a small extract from a long article

There is no one satisfactory and all-inclusive explanation forcannibalism. Different peoples have practiced it for different reasons, and a group may practice cannibalism in one context and view it with horror in another. In any case, the spread of modernization usually results in the prohibition of such practices. In modern society cannibalism does occasionally occur as the result of extreme physical necessity in isolated surroundings; the case of the Donner party crossing into California in 1846–47 is such an instance.

[DukeP]

I think theres some rather good reasons for NOT praticing canibalisme.
Most (if not all) involves diseases.
AFAIK Kreutzfeld-Jacobsen syndrome (mad cow disease) was first described in a tribe of cannibals.

A good way to keep healthy, is to avoid eating things that carry the same sort of diseases as YOU do.

~~DukeP~~

[Jon P. Inghram]

For a good reason not to automaticly trust a "trained professional" read this article: http://www.lobotomy.info/adventures.html

[KvHagedorn]

Originally posted by DukeP
I beg to differ. KvH.

The important matter is ALWAYS what the proffesionals think.
They DO in fact, know best.
Real knowledge is only rarely cumulative. 100 ignorants doesnt make one genious.

Remember: Everybodies opinions arent equal. Your opinion might be better or might not be as good as mine - but its unlikely that our opinions have equal value.

The opinion of the knowledgable outweighs the opinion of the ignorant. By far.

~~DukeP~~

Having a degree doesn't always equate to not being ignorant.

Furthermore, someone who would follow blindly the word of a "trained professional" and deny his own better judgement and standards of morality is a danger to himself and society. Mengele was a doctor, too.

[KvHagedorn]

The point in this case is not really cannibalism, but murder. Does anyone have the right to tell someone else that it's "OK" to kill them? Most people believe that life is a God-given gift, which is why suicide is considered a crime and a sin unforgivable. Answer me this question.. to whom does a life belong? To oneself? To the people who care for that person? To God? To society at large? Truly, I believe the answer is all of the above. Thus no one has the "right" to kill themselves, or give "permission" for themselves to be killed. For even God himself to kill someone would thus be wrong, though most religionists consider God's will to be above the normal standards of morality.

If you want to start an argument about mercy killing, I might agree that it is expedient and in some cases the best thing to do, but it can never be moral, nor should it be thought to be. You are still a murderer even if you are putting someone "out of their misery," for who are you to judge whether it is that person's time to die or not? Are you God? Do you think you're God because you have a piece of paper hanging on your wall that says M.D. on it? If you want to destroy everything sacred in this world and call it progress, go ahead and try.

[Technoid]

Originally posted by Jon P. Inghram
For a good reason not to automaticly trust a "trained professional" read this article: http://www.lobotomy.info/adventures.html

talk about a REAL horrorstory

[Brian Ellis]

Oh boy, KvH, now you've opened a can of worms.

Firstly, you speak from a purely Christian point of view, as the Church has interpreted and changed their viewpoint over the centuries, not as the Bible has stated. I know nowhere in the New Testament that Jesus or the early Church stated that suicide was a sin. This is a purely moral decree and entered into Canon Law in the Middle Ages, based on Old Testament teachings. However, suicide in Judaism is not unknown and even condoned (cf. Masada). It is true that some early Christians did not condone suicide, but the same ones condoned no killing of any nature; military converts refused to bear arms. In spite of what Jesus had said about turning the other cheek, a few of the early church leaders declared that killing in a “just war” was not a sin. There is therefore no historical certainty about the status of suicide.

Many of the early Christian martyrs deliberately denounced themselves because martyrdom was a sure shortcut to Heaven. In fact, the very word 'martyr' comes from the Greek 'martys' meaning a witness. They were bearing witness to their faith. But they were killed by their very own acts, starting with the first of all, St. Stephen who voluntarily was brought before the Sanhedrin, knowing that his Hellenistic brand of Galilean Judaism was certain to result in his own death.

Actually, I do not believe that others have the right to decree whether I can or cannot take my own life. That having been said, I do not think that suicide is morally right when committed by a lucid person but to say it is unforgiveable is going far too far. Do you really believe that a loving God will not forgive someone who commits suicide, no matter the circumstances? How dare you gainsay the degree of God's charity?

As for mercy killing, as you have broached the subject, I agree that active euthanasia is wrong, because it puts too great a burden of responsibility on the killer. The next stage is much less clear cut. Should a doctor administer a strong analgesic treatment to a terminally ill patient in great pain, knowing that it could reduce his/her lifespan by a few days? I would unequivocally reply yes, if it allows the patient to die peacefully and with dignity. Should such a patient be considered "unforgiveable" if he deliberately ends his own suffering by taking an OD? Surely not. Is there a moral difference between the two cases? Where I am in doubt is the question of assisted suicide of terminally ill patients. I hope I'm never put in the position of having someone ask me to help them kill themselves.

Then, of course, there is the cultural view of suicide. For the Inuits, an old person simply wandering off to die of hypothermia is not considered sinful, any more than the disgraced samurai committing seppuku. In both cases, it is/was considered their duty. In fact, the condemnation of suicide is purely Judeo/Christian/Muslim. Most other faiths either tolerate or even consider it noble. Even some extremist Christian sects have practised it such as the Peoples Temple (Jonestown, Guyana, 1978) and more recent examples.

The Brahmans of India tolerate suicide; and suttee, the theoretically voluntary suicide of an Indian widow, now outlawed, was highly praised at one time. In ancient Greece, convicted criminals were permitted to take their own lives (cf, Socrates).

Back to the point in question: I agree that killing someone who agrees to be killed must be classed as murder, but I would say that both the murderer and his victim were mentally deranged at the time. The report (how true?) that they both enjoyed eating the victim's penis before the victim was killed seems symptomatic, but I suggest that there must have been considerable chemical help for the horror of it.

I would not want to share a cell with the guy!

[cbman]

Wow... I learn something new everyday... today I learned how to spell "Socrates"

Actually... I don't know where I stand on this yet... but still nicely put response BrianE

[Admiral]

Originally posted by az
What is your problem, people? He WANTED to be eaten. I find it disgusting, sure, but they may do whatever they please as long as they don't hurt anybody who doesn't want to be hurt. I would never engage in s/m also, but I have no problem with people whipping each other behind closed doors.

BTW, we in germany don't believe in extra-hard punishment like you in the US. And honestly, I can't see your system working any better.

AZ

You'll have to pardon me but humans are not ****ing mantis !
And s/m is on e thing, killing another human or permanently disabling him is another, that's where you draw the line.

You can't even talk about assisted suicide here, the first guy wasn't terminally ill or disabilitated, he was just mentally ill and suicidal to agree to such a thing.
As for the second, if he just "digs the idea of eating other people" doesn't make him sick to an extent, I don't know what does.
They both belonged in a nuthouse to begin with.

[The PIT]

Originally posted by DukeP
I beg to differ. KvH.

The important matter is ALWAYS what the proffesionals think.
They DO in fact, know best.
Real knowledge is only rarely cumulative. 100 ignorants doesnt make one genious.

Remember: Everybodies opinions arent equal. Your opinion might be better or might not be as good as mine - but its unlikely that our opinions have equal value.

The opinion of the knowledgable outweighs the opinion of the ignorant. By far.

~~DukeP~~

Yeh the profs always know best. Thats why they send headcases home and then wonder why when someone gets killed or commits sucide or dies cos they can't look after themselfs.

[az]

Sure they're sick. So? As far as I am concerned, they may do to their lives whatever they want, as long as they don't hurt other people (which also includes society as a whole, i.e. dismembering oneself and having the treatment paid for by the public healthcare system).

AZ

[Admiral]

I'm not saying to put them to sleep here, but they do need to be permanently watched after/over wherever they might end.

[KvHagedorn]

Originally posted by Brian Ellis
Oh boy, KvH, now you've opened a can of worms.

Firstly, you speak from a purely Christian point of view, as the Church has interpreted and changed their viewpoint over the centuries, not as the Bible has stated. I know nowhere in the New Testament that Jesus or the early Church stated that suicide was a sin. This is a purely moral decree and entered into Canon Law in the Middle Ages, based on Old Testament teachings. However, suicide in Judaism is not unknown and even condoned (cf. Masada). It is true that some early Christians did not condone suicide, but the same ones condoned no killing of any nature; military converts refused to bear arms. In spite of what Jesus had said about turning the other cheek, a few of the early church leaders declared that killing in a “just war” was not a sin. There is therefore no historical certainty about the status of suicide.

Yes, as a Christian (and passing my judgement within my own culture, which itself is strongly based upon Christian morality) my Christian point of view carries relevance. But You miss the point, Brian. You can cite all the human failings of certain individuals that you want, but they had other concerns which might or might not have ameliorated their sins in the eyes of God. My conclusion that suicide is a sin is written in the Ten Commandments. It says "Thou shalt not do murder." With the specifics of who one murders left out, one must assume it applies to anyone, including oneself. Of course, this is my own interpretation, and has nothing to do with church dogma. You should know better than to infer that I would let someone else do my thinking for me.

Many of the early Christian martyrs deliberately denounced themselves because martyrdom was a sure shortcut to Heaven. In fact, the very word 'martyr' comes from the Greek 'martys' meaning a witness. They were bearing witness to their faith. But they were killed by their very own acts, starting with the first of all, St. Stephen who voluntarily was brought before the Sanhedrin, knowing that his Hellenistic brand of Galilean Judaism was certain to result in his own death.

Not suicide.

Actually, I do not believe that others have the right to decree whether I can or cannot take my own life. That having been said, I do not think that suicide is morally right when committed by a lucid person but to say it is unforgiveable is going far too far. Do you really believe that a loving God will not forgive someone who commits suicide, no matter the circumstances? How dare you gainsay the degree of God's charity?

You have the power to take your own life, but not the right. Suicide must be considered a crime, although it is unpunishable upon this Earth. However, in my opinion it is still a sin. I do agree that the unforgiveable part rests upon the idea that one must repent one's sins before being forgiven. That would be hard to do with your brains splattered all over the wall behind you. Even if you took poison and repented thereafter, but before death took you, your sincerity would be under serious suspicion. Oh, and please spare me your contrived emotion of a "How dare I gainsay...!" My beliefs are my beliefs, and as far as I am concerned, they are based upon reason. What God decides to do is of course within his purview alone.

As for mercy killing, as you have broached the subject, I agree that active euthanasia is wrong, because it puts too great a burden of responsibility on the killer. The next stage is much less clear cut. Should a doctor administer a strong analgesic treatment to a terminally ill patient in great pain, knowing that it could reduce his/her lifespan by a few days? I would unequivocally reply yes, if it allows the patient to die peacefully and with dignity. Should such a patient be considered "unforgiveable" if he deliberately ends his own suffering by taking an OD? Surely not. Is there a moral difference between the two cases? Where I am in doubt is the question of assisted suicide of terminally ill patients. I hope I'm never put in the position of having someone ask me to help them kill themselves.

I was unaware that morphine injections or the like would necessarily shorten one's life by some hours/days. That's possible, I suppose, but beside the point. It isn't murder.. not any more than risking the life of the patient by doing surgery. Assisted suicide like Kevorkian practiced it is murder. It is perhaps forgivable, but that is between the killer and whatever God he acknowledges.

Then, of course, there is the cultural view of suicide. For the Inuits, an old person simply wandering off to die of hypothermia is not considered sinful, any more than the disgraced samurai committing seppuku. In both cases, it is/was considered their duty. In fact, the condemnation of suicide is purely Judeo/Christian/Muslim. Most other faiths either tolerate or even consider it noble. Even some extremist Christian sects have practised it such as the Peoples Temple (Jonestown, Guyana, 1978) and more recent examples.

The Brahmans of India tolerate suicide; and suttee, the theoretically voluntary suicide of an Indian widow, now outlawed, was highly praised at one time. In ancient Greece, convicted criminals were permitted to take their own lives (cf, Socrates).

These examples are non sequitur. The subject is modern Western society, Germany in particular. It is those traditions we are arguing.

Back to the point in question: I agree that killing someone who agrees to be killed must be classed as murder, but I would say that both the murderer and his victim were mentally deranged at the time. The report (how true?) that they both enjoyed eating the victim's penis before the victim was killed seems symptomatic, but I suggest that there must have been considerable chemical help for the horror of it.

I would not want to share a cell with the guy!

My main point is that one cannot legitimately agree to be killed. One does not belong to oneself alone. One also belongs to one's family and to the extended family that is the society he inhabits. This is my own philosophy, independent of any religion, and I challenge anyone here to mount argument against it. If you add the religious thought of the society in question, life is a sacred thing.. a God-given gift, and not to be given away lightly. Therefore, my argument is with those who gave any weight whatsoever to the fact that this guy agreed to be murdered. This is a dangerous path to take, and one which shows a clear lack of reason which is most disturbing.

[Wulfman]

One does not belong to oneself alone. One also belongs to one's family and to the extended family that is the society he inhabits.

maybe his whole family is dead or has done the same as society: rejected him because of his behavior/wishes/believes.

looks like his life was given back into his own hands.

mfg
wulfman