Originally posted by Darkphoenix77
I think thats my point. The endless view that this is evil.
What is evil?
The Moors Murderers could be defined as evil. The consioulsy took children to a far off place, tortured them and recorded it. This would be a fair
description of evil. Ina Brady would argue that he has an unalienable right as a human to carry out such actions. If you cant understand his argument
then you are lacking, in my opinion. But what he did was evil.
This guy progressivly lost control over an extended time. How often did he repent and treat the child, try to make it better? The time probably went
by quite quickly. He probably began to not care, but subconciously hoped the child would not die.
The court ruled. Justice was done.
Perhaps if he was sent to Iraq to bomb children his 'evil' would have been seen in a better light?
You need a description of evil? really?
23 years being coddled and seperated from violent people in jail is not justice in response to the month long torture and eventual death of an
innocent child! WTF planet do you live on?
and no, if one's intent is to bomb children it would indeed NOT be looked upon in a better light.
For your benefit, This is from Merriam Webster's Dictionary.
Definition of EVIL
a: morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked
b: arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct
b: causing discomfort or repulsion : offensive
a: causing harm : pernicious
b: marked by misfortune : unlucky
It kind of seems to me that what he did actually fits several definitions of evil on LOTS of levels. To argue otherwise is either ignorant, illogical
Not sure cutting and pasting vague nouns relating to the definition of evil really do much.
I fear that whilst I employ a personal encyclopedia of conciousness you are simply reffering to a phamphlet of life experience and thought.
I think the most applicable defination inferred is that of morality.
did you define morality? His actions were throughout to punish the child. Ergo, to instill a sense of what what right and wrong. He didnt do it for
pleasure or self gain. His mind was as mentioned before, in a 'piosoned' place. He acted as he felt fit to instill correct behaviour. At the age of
21 was he perfectly suited for that role? Did he understand the true and fuller result of his actions?
I think rather, a man that accepts a system of justice that represents his moral stand point and then contradicts its without having changed it is
more morally compromised. What i mean by that is that I dont recall asking the governemtn to define morality for me or you. I recall government being
responsible for enacting a degree of punishment upon those that cross certain boundries, morality not being one of those. hopefully you can see your
concept oof evil and morality going out the window here.
The governemnt employed servants to investigate, arrest, prosecute and imprison a human being for infringing on legal boundries, namely causing the
loss of life, in this case wilfully, murder not manslaughter. At no stage was morailty on the charge sheet.
I really dont see how you can leverage concepts of morality to dtermine that he was evil.
He was a superior force educating a weaker one.
Whilst I dont believe the child was his, if it was, he would under the light of a natural order have the right to take what he had created. Thousands
of children are killed before, at or after birth by mothers.
I dont imagine for a moment that this was not a tight call between manslaughter and murder. To be convicted of murder you need premeditation and most
incidents of this nature actually result in manslaughter, not murder.
I actually refute your and all others claims that he was evil or morally compromised.
The only truth that matters here are that he carried out a chain of actions that were the direct cause of of the childs departure from this plane of
For this WE as a society must determine a course of appropriate action.
You can make yourself feel confortable if you want to bring morality into it and try to define more than is not, but myself, I preffer to deal with it
in a matter of fact way.
I cant say exactly what I recommend as a punishment, but lets assume that i decided a death sentence was appropriate. That would be the course of
action. Years ago most cases would have resulted in the death sentence. And ballads would be sung. And he would have a chance to repent, to give a
warnign to all those that felt like he did. He would be described as an unfortunate soul that had suffered the misfortune to have lost his way. And
then he would hang.
I see these to ways mine and yours as wholly seperated in all ways.