Consented Canabalism - be warned because its far worse than it sounds - seriously its really creepy

[jessegeek]

Time for my fun list!!

1) Germany has crazy good/strong beer.
2) The language is harsh.
3) This 'sicko' has the same punishment as Dr. Kevorkian.
4) German Hockey is good, but not great.
5) My darker Bohemian/Polish blood clashes with Federal Republics.
6) I'm just tryin ta make excuses to justify my post.
7) This is my favorite German cartoon:

Spoiler

Futbol, Football, Soccer, they all are furthest on my list of entertaining sports...

(late reply is late) I really couldn't give a damn about football either but damn that's a funny cartoon XD Also, I would disgree about the language sounding harsh (imo it only sounds harsh if you're shouting, when 90% of languages do) but then again I have learnt Russian to a fluent level because I think it sounds lovely so maybe my ears are strange.

 

[aei_haruko]

It doesn't matter that someone tells you commit a crime, it's still a crime.

I disagree. The idea of "crime" is that you're infringing on someone's rights. Giving someone money is not the equivalent of them stealing from you and telling someone to kill you is not the equivalent of them murdering you. The right to life implies the right to death the same way the right to property implies the right to give it away.

But then we get into the loophole where, perhaps, someone quite scary is handing you a contract and a pen, saying "Sign it, or I won't kill you. I'll do far worse..."

There's no escape. Do you sign it?

First off, i agree with Xiado on this one, because (to me) a crime must be something nonconsentual, or that harms others in some way. As for the loophole, that would not be okay because it is consent with coersion, if somebody lies about what is on a contract, it'd be coersion( sp?) and if somebody threatens you to sign it, it's coersion. Needless to say, the analogy is not similar.

 

[Jegsimmons]

....................WHAT THE FUCK!?!?!?!?!


fuck this planet im going to mars!!!
Whose coming along? i got a whole bunch of oreos and gatorade and megadeth on the stero for the trip.

 

[DracoSuave]

It doesn't matter that someone tells you commit a crime, it's still a crime.

I disagree. The idea of "crime" is that you're infringing on someone's rights. Giving someone money is not the equivalent of them stealing from you and telling someone to kill you is not the equivalent of them murdering you. The right to life implies the right to death the same way the right to property implies the right to give it away.

You've confused the word "tort" with "crime." Understanding the difference is important in cases like this. Look at the terms assault and battery.

Assault is the act of attacking another human. Battery is the act of physically damaging another human. Both are related, but you never see anyone indicted in criminal courts for battery, and you never see anyone sued for assault. Crimes and torts are different concepts.

A tort is an act that violates the legal rights of an individual. When you kill someone, there is a tort involved... the estate of the person you killed can sue you for that tort. That tort, however, is not murder, or manslaughter. Those are crimes. You cannot sue for crimes, only torts. If Jack D. Rippa kills John Q. Public, the survivor suit would be callled 'The Estate of Mr. J. Public vs Mr. Jack D. Rippa.' No jail time could result of this, only restitution of damages.

A crime is an act that violates social interest. When you murder someone, it's the state that puts you on trial. If Jack D. Rippa is accused of killing John Q. Public, the case isn't 'The Estate of Mr. J. Public vs Mr. J. Rippa'... it's 'The State of California vs Mr. J. Rippa' or 'The Crown vs Mr. J. Rippa.'

So in this case, the volition of the decedant can absolve the defendant from a wrongful death tort case... the estate could sue the defendant, and if the preponderance of the evidence shows that consent was truly signed, the defendant might be able to escape paying reparations or restitution for damages suffered.

HOWEVER

The crime of manslaughter does not take consent into account. Seeking that consent is currently seen by the state as anti-social behavior, and as such, will not absolve the individual of the crime inherent in killing someone.

First off, i agree with Xiado on this one, because (to me) a crime must be something nonconsentual, or that harms others in some way.

But unfortunately, crimes are not determined by harm to the individual, but the fact that criminal acts harm society as a whole. Stuff that harms the individual is handled by tort law... by suing.

Cannibalism harms society as a whole, thus, is a crime under the law.

 

[fleurdust]

Interested to know what people might think of other kinds of consensual harm.

There have also been cases involving one person (or several people) 'harming' someone else with their consent, usually for er, sexual purposes. In UK law this is still illegal (though there was a case of a husband branding his wife, who wasn't convicted). Yes, not as bad as killing someone, but still consensual, so should that be allowed? Or only in some circumstances?

I suppose the irreversibility of killing someone makes it more difficult. It's not like someone can want to be killed, then change their mind afterwards. The issues of mental state obviously play a part - if it was to be legal, would you need some kind of stringent test to decide if someone was in a fit state to decide if they wanted to be killed, or hurt in some other way?

In theory I support euthanasia, but I think the practicalities are difficult to get around.

 

[BeerTent]

It doesn't matter that someone tells you commit a crime, it's still a crime.

I disagree. The idea of "crime" is that you're infringing on someone's rights. Giving someone money is not the equivalent of them stealing from you and telling someone to kill you is not the equivalent of them murdering you. The right to life implies the right to death the same way the right to property implies the right to give it away.

But then we get into the loophole where, perhaps, someone quite scary is handing you a contract and a pen, saying "Sign it, or I won't kill you. I'll do far worse..."

There's no escape. Do you sign it?

First off, i agree with Xiado on this one, because (to me) a crime must be something nonconsentual, or that harms others in some way. As for the loophole, that would not be okay because it is consent with coersion, if somebody lies about what is on a contract, it'd be coersion( sp?) and if somebody threatens you to sign it, it's coersion. Needless to say, the analogy is not similar.

My point is, how are we going to know that you weren't coerced into signing it. You and, say, Dexter the killer are the only two people who know. Obviously Dexter the killer won't say he forced you to sign it, and your not around to say you were forced to it either.

Think about it for five seconds to see why a legal document is a terrible idea for something as massive as extinguishing one's life.

 

[aei_haruko]

It doesn't matter that someone tells you commit a crime, it's still a crime.

I disagree. The idea of "crime" is that you're infringing on someone's rights. Giving someone money is not the equivalent of them stealing from you and telling someone to kill you is not the equivalent of them murdering you. The right to life implies the right to death the same way the right to property implies the right to give it away.

But then we get into the loophole where, perhaps, someone quite scary is handing you a contract and a pen, saying "Sign it, or I won't kill you. I'll do far worse..."

There's no escape. Do you sign it?

First off, i agree with Xiado on this one, because (to me) a crime must be something nonconsentual, or that harms others in some way. As for the loophole, that would not be okay because it is consent with coersion, if somebody lies about what is on a contract, it'd be coersion( sp?) and if somebody threatens you to sign it, it's coersion. Needless to say, the analogy is not similar.

My point is, how are we going to know that you weren't coerced into signing it. You and, say, Dexter the killer are the only two people who know. Obviously Dexter the killer won't say he forced you to sign it, and your not around to say you were forced to it either.

Think about it for five seconds to see why a legal document is a terrible idea for something as massive as extinguishing one's life.

Well of course it's a bad idea, but i people want to do it ( like if somebody says " please kill me, I'm in so much pain") they should be allowed to take their own life, or if they are unable, then they can ask somebody to take it for them, provided the person is willing. Because to me, it should be a right to do as you please, even if it's something useless like physical harm to your own body, or even ending your life, because your body belongs to nobody but you. Totally though, this is just philosophical, but nonetheless, the contract is a BAD idea. very BAD idea, totally.

It doesn't matter that someone tells you commit a crime, it's still a crime.

I disagree. The idea of "crime" is that you're infringing on someone's rights. Giving someone money is not the equivalent of them stealing from you and telling someone to kill you is not the equivalent of them murdering you. The right to life implies the right to death the same way the right to property implies the right to give it away.

You've confused the word "tort" with "crime." Understanding the difference is important in cases like this. Look at the terms assault and battery.

Assault is the act of attacking another human. Battery is the act of physically damaging another human. Both are related, but you never see anyone indicted in criminal courts for battery, and you never see anyone sued for assault. Crimes and torts are different concepts.

A tort is an act that violates the legal rights of an individual. When you kill someone, there is a tort involved... the estate of the person you killed can sue you for that tort. That tort, however, is not murder, or manslaughter. Those are crimes. You cannot sue for crimes, only torts. If Jack D. Rippa kills John Q. Public, the survivor suit would be callled 'The Estate of Mr. J. Public vs Mr. Jack D. Rippa.' No jail time could result of this, only restitution of damages.

A crime is an act that violates social interest. When you murder someone, it's the state that puts you on trial. If Jack D. Rippa is accused of killing John Q. Public, the case isn't 'The Estate of Mr. J. Public vs Mr. J. Rippa'... it's 'The State of California vs Mr. J. Rippa' or 'The Crown vs Mr. J. Rippa.'

So in this case, the volition of the decedant can absolve the defendant from a wrongful death tort case... the estate could sue the defendant, and if the preponderance of the evidence shows that consent was truly signed, the defendant might be able to escape paying reparations or restitution for damages suffered.

HOWEVER

The crime of manslaughter does not take consent into account. Seeking that consent is currently seen by the state as anti-social behavior, and as such, will not absolve the individual of the crime inherent in killing someone.

First off, i agree with Xiado on this one, because (to me) a crime must be something nonconsentual, or that harms others in some way.

But unfortunately, crimes are not determined by harm to the individual, but the fact that criminal acts harm society as a whole. Stuff that harms the individual is handled by tort law... by suing.

Cannibalism harms society as a whole, thus, is a crime under the law.

as for you, you're looking at it in black and white terms, strickly from a legal stnadpoint ( seeing as though i am no lawyer) i have no ability to speak for or against it from a legal standpoint, only from a philosophical one. and from the philosophical viewpoint I hold, it is entirely wrong to supress the right of an individual to do as he pleases with life, even if that means ending it. If somebody wants to give their property away, then they should be allowed to seeing as though they lay claim to it. Thus, if one gives the fruit of their life away ( their property) then they also should be able to give their life away. Am i saying that what this man did was in any way shape or form not completely stupid, perverted, and many degrees of wrong, god no, both people are SICK in this case. What I am saying though, is that it is much more of a crime to suppress the freedom of both individuals to do as they please when it brings no harm to other people

 

[Altorin]

"Perfectly sane" but "deeply disturbed". I'm sorry, what? Aren't those at opposite ends of the spectrum...? Is it even possible to be both...

sane in this case means that he understands it's wrong. disturbed means that he's obsessed with something that we would (rightly I think) consider wrong.