Morality (involves extreme stuff)

Also Alias, who is this "you" you speak of? I am not the one doing the killing. Like I said it is the executioners unfortunate job. And even then, he is not murdering someone. He has to do it. I'm sure he wouldn't like to.

If "you" want to murder paedophiles (also known as the "death penalty") then you can pretty much say "you" are planning murder because you a wanting to kill a group of people (actually, that's more of genocide, isn't it?).

I'm not planning on going out and killing them personally.... I just think the government should do it.

Please, respond to my post as well... I want to continue the debate.

Seriously. That made no sense to me what so ever. Killing a 6 year old peeing on my lawn? Explain how you came to that conclusion?

It makes perfect sense. Read it closely again. It was a hypothetical situation proving that the death penalty in stupid. Also, just recently (as in the past few days) a man accused of brutally murdering three people and sentenced for life was found innocent after 9 years in jail. We took 9 years of his life away from him for nothing. But we didn't kill him. At least we didn't kill him. If only we had it your way, Olli...then we could've told his family "Oops, our bad. But you never know, he might have done something wrong later, eh? Eh?"

Matias, people don't just catch paedophila like a disease. It developes over a long time.

And this makes it less of a disease and mental condition how? I fail to understand at all. Does this make schizophrenia not a disease? Pedophilia is a condition which makes people enjoy something which they shouldn't, something disgusting and wrong which can ruin a persons life. It's a condition. It's something wrong in their head. This does not justify killing them.

Well, no one is going to win or loose here, seeing as we all have strong opinions on what should happen.

If paedophiles were born with a disoder that made them want to screw children, then maybe I might be more sympathetic, because its something they can do nothing about. As it stands at the moment, they are not born like that. Which is why I am not so sympathetic, because that indicates that it was a path chosen, and a path which could of been avoided. If they were scared that there were going down that route (through childhood beatings... or similar experiences.. etc) and found that they were turned on by small children then I'm sure they would want to seek help, before it gets too out of hand.

For example, if one day a person found themselves jacking off over child porn because they are turned on by kids, I'm sure they would not want to suddenly go out and start raping them and killing then. But, some people do. My point is, it could easily be avoided with help at the first signs.... and they would not be prosecuted, because they have not commited any crimes... yet, so seeking help could rectify the problem


Cloverfield, it is true, a life is worth more than money and it can not be brough with any amount. But, why waste money on keeping someone alive who is not worth it (in my opinion)? Why spend money on someone who has taken away someone elses life? they ended that persons right to life, and why should the crimial (paedophile is in mind) still have a right to life?Why not put it towards saving dying children in hospital, for example... or putting it towards saving other dying innocent people? Surely they are worth saving?


Cheshire... It is unfortunate that those things sometimes happen. I agree with you, at least he was alive. But If there is indisputable evidence that a paedophile has raped and killed a child, then....well, all explained above.
(still don't get the peeing on the lawn thing..)

Edited by olli, 23 January 2008 - 10:53 PM.