[jjj1000]

Keep in mind that someone is innocent until proven guilty ;)

Originally Posted by uswdkb42 ↗

Now you're calling him a "***" instead of the politically correct term of "homosexual pedophlle." It's not about "undoing the damage," it's about removing these savages from the gene pool.

Your "ethical standards" aren't too popular here on this thread, are they, TheIckyMan?

This has nothing to do with genes. People are products of their circumstances. Crime has its roots in social conditions, not genes.

[uswdkb42]

Originally Posted by jjj1000 ↗

Keep in mind that someone is innocent until proven guilty ;)

This has nothing to do with genes. People are products of their circumstances. Crime has its roots in social conditions, not genes.

So, it's nature vs nurture, and actually, it's a little of both.

[serh1986]

HEADSHOT!

[TheIckyMan]

Originally Posted by uswdkb42 ↗

Yeah, rapes never happen in prison... ever.

Well yeah, that's what I'm getting at. This guy would have been a prison bitch for sure. Seriously, if he had to force himself on a little kid, you can bet the other inmates would wreck his shit very easily.

[TheIckyMan]

Originally Posted by uswdkb42 ↗

Now you're calling him a "***" instead of the politically correct term of "homosexual pedophlle." It's not about "undoing the damage," it's about removing these savages from the gene pool.

Your "ethical standards" aren't too popular here on this thread, are they, TheIckyMan?

I would have called him a pederast but he wasn't worth the effort of proper terminology. Spare me your hilarious social Darwinism because I think killing someone who didn't kill anyone themselves is pretty savage too. This guy could have been corrected. Otherwise, being imprisoned and periodically raped sounds like a perfect fate for him, since that's exactly what he did to the guy's son.

I could give a shit whether my views are popular among people I laugh at. :)

[Boss.]

I completely agree with Leon Plauché, good on him for avenging his son... I would have done exactly the same thing, only with a knife

[Boss.]

There are two strategies for the rehabilitation of a pedophile. One is neutering them, two is executing them...

[dan-b]

Originally Posted by TheIckyMan ↗

I would have called him a pederast but he wasn't worth the effort of proper terminology. Spare me your hilarious social Darwinism because I think killing someone who didn't kill anyone themselves is pretty savage too. This guy could have been corrected. Otherwise, being imprisoned and periodically raped sounds like a perfect fate for him, since that's exactly what he did to the guy's son.

I could give a shit whether my views are popular among people I laugh at. :)

Sorry, but I really can't stand this Americanism, it actually means the opposite to what you're trying to say. To say you "could give a shit" suggests there's the possibility of a time where you could care about being popular on here.

You mean "couldn't give a shit", right?

[RedneckR0nin]

That video was pure WIN

[uswdkb42]

Originally Posted by TheIckyMan ↗

Well yeah, that's what I'm getting at. This guy would have been a prison bitch for sure. Seriously, if he had to force himself on a little kid, you can bet the other inmates would wreck his shit very easily.

I would have called him a pederast but he wasn't worth the effort of proper terminology. Spare me your hilarious social Darwinism because I think killing someone who didn't kill anyone themselves is pretty savage too. This guy could have been corrected. Otherwise, being imprisoned and periodically raped sounds like a perfect fate for him, since that's exactly what he did to the guy's son.

I could give a shit whether my views are popular among people I laugh at. :)

So, in this case, the policy of "an eye for an eye" would have been acceptible, so to speak (not saying the "eye" in question is the "brown eyed cyclops," but I guess in this scenario, it is). That's pretty "Old Testament" too, which was a point of your derision toward one of my previous posts in another thread.

Interesting thing about the Old Testament vs New Testament doctrines of "an eye for an eye" and "turn the other cheek" (again, turning the other cheek here, is not to be misconstrued as a low-brow sodomy joke).

Prior to the Old Testament times of Moses/Abraham, there were no social moral restrictions on revenge. If your neighbor broke into your house and stole your shoes, you might cut off his feet in retaliation.

However, God saw that as an injustice, and used Moses to send the message to the Jews, that basically, the punishment should fit the crime, ie: "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth."

In the interim between the Old Testament, and the New Testament, the Jews and the Gentiles had evolved socially, so Jesus sent another message when He "turned the other cheek" after Pontius Pilate slapped him. At times, to keep the peace, we should accept a little swallowing of our pride. It made a profound effect on Pontius Pilate's determination to have Jesus crucified, so rather than having Jesus' blood on his own hands, he put the decision upon the "people" and left it up for a vote... and we all know how that turned out.

But even Jesus didn't turn the other cheek in every case. He went ballistic when He went into a temple and saw the money changers had taken over at the entry. The money changers weren't violent, but they were desecrating a Holy place, and Jesus literally whipped them for it.

So, like I said before, I think it's great that you're a pacifist, and I totally respect your views, even though you show no respect for mine, or apparently anyone else's here, since you find us all so "laughable."

At the end of the day, you have to realize that each of us is a single vessel, floating in a sea of solitude, and when you encounter another vessel in that sea, it's up to you, how the other vessel perceives you... as a friend, or as a foe. You can never know the kind of tumultuous storms, battles and heart-breaks, that the "other" vessel has triumphed over.

Funny how you come off as a total pacifist, yet you launched an attack on me, because I said I would kill the person who killed, and/or raped my family member. Sorry, but I see that as more moralistic than the "eye for an eye" scenario, which you're now embracing. In my view, rape and murder aren't "crimes," equal to a "slap on the cheek," as you apparently perceive them to be. They're desecrations of "Holy places" since our bodies are "Temples of God."

And why are you defending the lives of pedophiles, rapists and murderers anyway? If your argument is based on humanity, or "ethical stanards," it's still flawed. This guy was a martial arts instructor, so the other prisoners would have ganged up on him, shanked him, beat him severely every day, while raping him too, and eventually, he would have been killed when he wasn't "fun" any more... whatever it took. Given my druthers, I'd take a bullet to the head, any day. The boy's father actually (most likely) unwittingly saved this "***" (your word, not mine) a very long torture, and short lifetime of intense misery of physical pain and psychological torment.

And who's to say that 'he' wouldn't have become the rapist while incarcerated? He was a martial arts instructor afterall, maybe he really was a badass! Thankfully, we'll never know.