quote:Kassel, Germany - The victim in the cannibal murder case in Germany wrote his will immediately before he met his murderer, authorities said Friday amid mounting indications that victim and killer both engaged in cannibalism.
"The victim appeared to be fully aware of the situation," an investigator said. "Videotape material definitely shows both him and the suspect engaged in eating his own flesh prior to his death."
Law officers who have seen the video made by the suspect of the final moments of his victim's life were said to be undergoing psychiatric counselling.
The 41-year-old suspect, identified only as Armin M, admitted having videotaped himself killing the man he had met via a gay Internet chat room. Both men were computer experts, both described as "Internet addicts". Authorities filed murder charges against the reclusive computer systems expert on Thursday.
His 42-year-old victim, a computer chip developer at Siemens corporation in Berlin identified only as Bernd Juergen B, willingly allowed himself to be led to the slaughter, police said.
Will notarised
On the morning of his disappearance March 9, 2001, Bernd Juergen B wrote out his will and had it notarised. He left the bulk of his estate including a lavish penthouse apartment and &50 000 worth of computer equipment to his live-in partner, a man named Rene.
Rene knew nothing of his plans and discovered the will only after Bernd Juergen B was reported missing, according to Berliner Morgenpost newspaper. The victim reportedly sold most of his other belongings, including a sports car just before his disappearance.
Unknown to his friend Rene, the victim had told his boss at Siemens he was taking that Friday off "to attend to some personal matters" and co-workers caught sight of him at a subway station in Berlin. That was the last time he was seen in Berlin.
According to police, the victim had several thousand dollars in cash and his passport when he travelled 300km from Berlin to the alleged murderer's rambling half-timbered house near Kassel.
The two men had met via a gay Internet chat room notice placed by the murderer, one of 80 such notices he had put on the Internet. The notices read: "Gay male seeks hunks 18-30 to slaughter."
Chat roomm
Police on Friday said a chat room user tipped them off to the existence of the ads. They now know of at least five respondents to the ad, besides undercover officers who answered it and quickly determined it was meant literally.
In addition to frozen human flesh and skeletal remains, police found the cellar had been renovated into a veritable two-room abattoir, including trough drains and meat hooks.
Police on Friday said the video shows the victim willingly allowed himself to be castrated and both men engaged in eating his severed flesh.
Armin M stabbed the man to death and suspended his body upside- down from a meat hook to gut and clean it. Then he dismembered the body. He froze the meat in "meal-sized packets" and ate most of it, burying the portions he did not eat.
Police used diggers to unearth body parts on the grounds of his sprawling 17th Century estate in the idyllic central German town of Rotenburg an der Fulda. The body parts were undergoing DNA testing to determine whether they came from perhaps more than one victim.
Authorities on Friday said there they have found no indications that more than one person's remains had been disposed of at the estate.
'Mama's boy'
The murder suspect was described by neighbours as a pleasant and polite man who kept to himself.
He served a dozen years in the German armed forces as a non- commissioned officer in ordinance. He was described as an amiable and conscientious military man.
After leaving the military in 1991, he got re-training as a computer technician and until recently had a job with a software firm in the Rhine Valley city of Karlsruhe, 30km south of Rotenburg.
He lived with his mother in the 17th Century half-timbered manor house, staying on there after her death three years ago.
"He was a mama's boy," a neighbour told reporters. "He was totally fixated on his mother, who he said never let him date girls. After she died, he began to thaw out." - Sapa-DPA
The "suspect," while certainly disturbing in and of himself, is actually not so unsettling as the "victim" who apparently willingly submit himself to being killed and eaten -- and, in fact, apparently, literally ate himself.
What the ----?!
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
In Spanish, to say "to each his own," we say "cada quien con su gusto engorda"- "everybody gets fat through his own taste."
I was going somewhere with that, but then I started munching on my fingers, and I lost my train of thought.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Chianti?
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Before the internet, whackos hardly ever ran into each other, being such a small portion of the total population and all.
With the internet, whackos are finding each other in droves. It's the rebirth of every weird ass fetish on the planet. Plushies and furries, anyone?
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
Fava beans?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
A better warning might be in order ... :-/ I just threw up after reading that.
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
Ah... So the internet is the tool of the devil.
Seriously though, I can stomach quite a bit of whack™ without getting ruffled (at least as a removed observer), but this story evoked Slash-like impulses to go beat the living daylights out of these people (of course, one is already dead, so I guess that would be rather pointless). Ugh...
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
Sorry Paul -- my thread title wasn't hyperbole.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Godric,
this was discussed on at least one other thread. The cannibal has been convicted, but since the victim gave consent to being killed, I think he'll be serving only 5 years in prison. In the meantime, he has a book done and offers for film rights. I don't think Germany has "Son of Sam" laws, which prohibit felons from making profits off their crimes, so the cannibal might come out of this with a ton of money after a fairly short period of imprisonment. Short, considering the crime.
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
Now that might just be the most disturbing part of it all.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Holy cow. O_O
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Surely this is some sort of sick joke and I just don't get it.
Dude, if this isn't sexual perversion, I don't know what is. What the heck was going through their brains? I probably don't want to know.
Takes S&M to the extreme! (Did they use any anesthetic?)
[ March 16, 2004, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
See, the thing is, no cows were hurt in the production of this incident. Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
What do you think they mean, "After his mother died, he began to thaw out"?
Wasn't that Jeffrey Dahmer?
Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
Folks, it was purely consensual on both sides. It was what the fellow wanted. Just leave it be.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
I heard about this when the news broke. Back then, I thought that this guy was clearly insane and couldn't have consented to such an act. However, having learned more of the details of the case, and having time to think about it, I'm not so sure that what happened was such an evil act. Perverse and viscerally offensive it certainly was, and no doubt it caused pain for Juergen's family and friends; however, at the risk of making light of death, this was clearly something that an otherwise no doubt intelligent and by all accounts sane man wanted. Most of us don't get to choose the manner of our death, we typically aren't afforded that luxury. This man died fulfilling his deepest fantasies. While I certainly don't share them, I think his death is less tragic than most.
-----edit----- Mack, you rock.
[ March 16, 2004, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: Chaeron ]
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
I think you are out of your freaking mind, Chaeron. I have no compassion for either of the sick bastards, and your implicit tolerance of such insanity is nearly as worrisome as the fact that crazy shit like this happens.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
Am I going to have to dig out the link of the Canadian Pork processing plant, and what they think that suspect did?
Personally, that gets to me more than this story does (but not enough to keep me from laughing at either of them).
Feyd Baron, DoC
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't think I could have come up with something this satanic using my imagination. Was it consentual? Sure. Evil? I think so.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Unmaker: But Chaeron has a point. People should have the inherent right to their own life when they are of sound mind. The victim seems, to all appearances, to have been as sane as you or me. His fetish does not make him insane.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
If the desire to be castrated, then eat your own severed penis, then be stabbed to death and eaten is not insane, then there is no meaningful definition of that word.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I agree with Slash, though I will never forgive him for exposing me to plushies.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Did you finally find people who would understand you, Geoff? Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
As much as I love my beanbag tiger, I think there's a consent issue here ...
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
What is a meaningful definition of insane, Slash? Does it have something to do with reason? Who says desires, sexual or otherwise, need be rational? What's necessarily irrational or insane about having desires stronger than the desire for self-preservation? After all, that's a less than sane desire, in that it cannot be fully satisfied. I am afraid of death, yet I have no hope of avoiding it. The man who ended up in freezerbags had his desires satisfied. Should I call him insane if he happily chooses to end his life in this way, and I chose to cling to mine terrified and desperate? I think you are confusing bizzare and distasteful desires for insanity.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Chaeron, I think you are confusing word wanking about desires and fetishes and having an open mind with the cold hard insane reality of having someone cut off your penis so that you can eat it.
And I totally stand by my statement that if that is not insane, then there is no meaningful definition of insane, and we should all just get rid of that word.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:3) What is a 'fursuit'?
This is a full-body costume that makes the wearer look like a favorite animal, or an animal character. Costumes like this are commonly seen being worn by staff members at amusement parks dressing up as popular cartoon characters. They're also seen at sporting events where the team has a mascot in a costume. Since a person in a fursuit looks (and feels) a lot like a 'living plushie', such costumes are understandably popular with some plushophiles. Several of us here have made or bought our own animal costumes.
-from a website you need to be eighteen or over to view, so I'm not linking it.
Goofy! NOOOOOO!!!!!
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Well, I know that I have no desire to have my penis cut off, and I'm sure you don't either. But what about someone who does? There are plenty of people who have emasculation fantasies or desires. Are these people necessarily insane, or do they just have a desire we find entirely alien and repulsive? If one is mentally competent enough to understand the consequences of satisfying these desires, he or she should be permitted to excersise their right to control over their own body and life, up to and including the right to be mangled, disfigured and ulimately killed if they so wish. Besides, in this case it's not like he really has a chance to regret it later.
That aside, you really didn't answer any of my questions, you just reasserted your previous position.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Yeah, because I honestly think trying to apply those questions to this situation is silly. But a short answer is, Yes, any fetish taken to the point of self extermination is mental illness. People who gamble until they lose all their money and their house and their families are considered mentally ill. People who drink until they lose everything are considered mentally ill. In fact, most any compulsion to repeatedly commit a self destructive act is generally considered mental illness, to one degree or another.
The compulsion to devour your own body and die in the process can't be anything but mental illness. The fact that he didn't hurt anyone else in the process is not a valid basis on which to determine the sanity of his acts.
There are girls who repeatedly cut themselves. They don't hurt anyone else. But when they are depressed, they cut themselves with knives. This is considered a mental illness, and is treated as such when diagnosed. Do you think they are merely expressing an uncommon, but legitimate lifestyle choice? Should they be allowed to disfigure themselves in this way?
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Oh, I'll agree that it's a mental illness. But mental illnesses aren't illegal.
[ March 17, 2004, 06:33 AM: Message edited by: Richard Berg ]
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
Chaeron:
quote:Well, I know that I have no desire to have my penis cut off, and I'm sure you don't either. But what about someone who does? There are plenty of people who have emasculation fantasies or desires. Are these people necessarily insane, or do they just have a desire we find entirely alien and repulsive?
You can't be serious. I mean -- I have no response to that. I tried writing a few. I couldn't get past the part explaining why the desire to have someone kill you and participate in eating yourself is wrong. If that isn't self-evident, I might as well go fulfill my favorite fantasy death and jump out of an airplane without a parachute -- ASAP.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
To play devil's advocate, are all self-destructive behaviors significant of mental illness? Drinking alcohol, even when not carried to extremes, can lead to significant liver problems. Gambling, even when not carried to extremes, can and does lead to significant loss of money. Are those mental illnesses?
Cutting off your penis and eating it is rather extreme cannibalism, I like to think. What if I just cut strips out of my thighs? Or sampled flesh from my torso? That is, if I ate small portions of myself, the loss of which wouldn't lead to significant damage? Am I mentally ill?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
First of all, I'm very thankful I read Geoff's response and the quote before googling plushies, because I think I have an idea what it's all about and I really don't want to know more.
Second of all, folks we TREAT people who are suicidal. You know, we put them in hospitals and we medicate them and such so yes, suicidal fantasies, no matter how bizarre, are indeed considered a mental illness. I would say that sexual fetishes or perversions, if you will, cross the line into mental illness whenever they involve the death or severe harm to yourself or another person.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Anybody else think of King's Survivor Type?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
zgator - yes. *shudder*
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
That has to be, indeed, one of the sickest things I have ever read in my life.
Gives me the willies like "A Thousand Deaths" did in Maps in a Mirror -- yet you know, worse, that the article means it really happened. And that is just so hard to fathom.
Farmgirl
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Lalo -- yes.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
I have to go with Chaeron and Suneun on this one. The guy consented, and died happy. Eating human flesh might be disgusting, but I know I would if my plane crashed in the Andes. These guys were both very sick disgusting perverts, but no one was harmed in any measurable way other than the dead guy.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Assisting in a suicide is illegal. Killing someone, even with their consent, is still considered murder in most countries of the world, including our own.
Cutting yourself when you get depressed is a mental illness. Cutting someone else, even if they want you to, is assault.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I chew on my cuticles sometimes.
When you say. "plushie" are you meaning... people who, like, hump stuffed animals? Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
HELLO! What the f.... ?? Scary! Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Wow Olivet! I thought the MILF think made you seem naive. Don't you ever watch CSI?
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Just because something is illegal does not mean it should be. I happen to agree that this was a murder, but I do not believe it is a type of murder that the state should prosecute. This guy was capable of killing himself without help, and I see no added detrimental effect on society by letting someone help him do so.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
We definitely need a vomit graemlin in here... And we also need to treat some of the people who posted in this thread before they hurt themselves...
Gray world... I like the chessboard better...
Edit: Danzig, we live in a society, we're not just some individuals that happen to live in the same area. Reading the article made me sick, and seeing comments like yours and some others just added to the feeling. So it at least affected me, if no one else.
[ March 17, 2004, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: Corwin ]
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I don't have cable! And I DID once ask the forum at large what a Circle Jerk was
But,is that what it means?
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
I have to say this thread is one of the most entertaining things I've read since Hitchhiker's...
some favorites:
quote:See, the thing is, no cows were hurt in the production of this incident
this was clearly something that an otherwise no doubt intelligent and by all accounts sane man wanted
The victim seems, to all appearances, to have been as sane as you or me
no one was harmed in any measurable way other than the dead guy
and Slash gets my award for the greatest two sentences in the English language:
quote:Chaeron, I think you are confusing word wanking about desires and fetishes and having an open mind with the cold hard insane reality of having someone cut off your penis so that you can eat it.
and the all-time great
quote:If the desire to be castrated, then eat your own severed penis, then be stabbed to death and eaten is not insane, then there is no meaningful definition of that word.
It just doesn't get any better than this.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
I suppose I could have worded that a little better.
Corwin - I am a radical libertarian. I support the freedom to do lots of stuff I heartily disagree with. Also, I do not see being made "sick" as a measurable harm. Lots of things I have seen make me sick, but that is not a reason to ban them. (I can give examples if anyone wants, but I worry that any I give will result in someone protesting the comparison.)
Posted by Gilipollas Apendejado (Member # 2546) on :
I demand a law right this instant prohibiting aided auto-castration and penis-ingestion!
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
What frightens me (about the title of this thread) is that Godric might find something else MORE disturbing. Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Well, I'm naive too, but I think I figured it out from the context.
I don't watch much CSI anymore, because Thursday night is dance night.
Danzig, I don't even think many libertarians would back you up on this - you honestly think it should be legal for a guy to string someone up and gut him? Cannibalize him while he's still alive?
Your point, if I've got it correct, is that the guy consented to this, right? On what planet do you think that any sane reasonable person would consent to this? Like I said, if your fantasies require irreprable harm to yourself and others, you've crossed the line from a little bit kinky to criminal.
I don't want to live in a society where this kind of behavior is legal. Where Jeffrey Dahmer can kill and eat people and then say "Oh, but it was consensual, it was all part of the person's sexual fantasies."
No thank you.
In the few places where assisted suicide is legal, it must be done under the care of a physician. Just because in some places it's legal to help end someone's life (and I don't agree with that) doesn't mean it's okay to carve people up and eat them and then hang them from meat hooks and cut them into nice flank steaks.
I can't figure out if you're really serious with your position or are just arguing for the sake of argument. I hope that once you consider it some more, you'll see that society in general has a vested interest in outlawing these types of behaviors.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
Would it be wrong of me to mention that if Germany had had same-sex marriage the live-in partner would have inherited automatically, so he wouldn't have even needed to make a will.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
So if I watched CSI, I would have gotten the reference?
<--- not hip
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote: I don't think Germany has "Son of Sam" laws, which prohibit felons from making profits off their crimes.
We don't really have them in the United States anymore either.
Again, I restate that what occurs in the provate sanctum of two consenting individuals is their own business. I was recently in Germany, staying very near to the location that this occurred. By all accounts, this man was sane and rational...its just what he wanted.
If you are to judge this as insane, then what about consensual bondage? Or any consensual sex practices that are considered far outside the norm, like (and don't Google these):
EMETOPHILIA FORMICOPHILIA TAPHEPHILIA <--- maybe Google that one OPHIDICISM URTICATION
And, for the sake of...younger readers, I'll stop there.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
What exactly are society's interests in outlawing this kind of behavior? Who is society protecting? The man who wants to be eaten? Hardly. All thats happening here is people are being stripped of their rights to do things that others are offended by. I have yet to see anyone offer any reasons why this should be illegal other than merely expressing their distaste for it. It isn't sufficent to claim that he was insane because he wanted to be stabbed to death and eaten, there needs to be a justification for why that is sufficent grounds for insanity, especially when the man went as far as to write a will and tie up his worldly affairs before his death. I think this whole argument hinges on the assumption that only someone who is insane or irrational could wish to die.
Belle: by compairing Armin Mewes to Jeffrey Dahmer, you ignore the fact that Dahmer killed people against their will. There was no consent involved. Of course I think society should protect people from murderers. This case, however, crosses the line into the state interfering with private affairs between consenting adults.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
HRE, those are some interesting examples. How bout this list?
Purity test for those with large vocabularies. Doesn't explain what most of them are, and it is way too long a list for me to bother with.
I dunno, I think any sexual activity that involves death should be illegal, consensual or not. Kinda like minors can't legally give consent, I think wackos like this shouldn't legally be able to give consent to be slain.
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
Guys, what you are missing is that to have a genuine desire to destroy yourself is by definition to not be of sound mind and, therefore, by definition unable to give consent. Ask your local psychologist.
This is why it's so funny that you guys keep insisting the guy was "otherwise sane."
It's like describing a serial killer as "otherwise law abiding."
I will point you back to Slash's original statement on the matter of sanity. He's absolutely right.
quote:If the desire to be castrated, then eat your own severed penis, then be stabbed to death and eaten is not insane, then there is no meaningful definition of that word.
(reposted because I just love reading that over and over...)
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Listen, I got something in the mail about a Star Trek convention (I attended one with my sister once and now on the mailing list, I guess, even though I have no interest in the fandom).
AAAAAaanyway, one of the things listed on the schedule was "Plushie Theater" which was described as something similar to our own 'playing with action figures' at WenchCon. While the stuff at WenchCon One got a bit risque (and we shall never speak of the WenchCon Two action figure festivities, thank you very much) neither time did any of it involve anybody actually... deriving pleasure of a private fashion from their proximity. (and if there was, I don't want to know).
Meh. I still don't get it. But I don't get somebody wanting to ... well, do a lot of things that people do.
Something similar happened in America, I think, but it involved being tortured to death and there was no real proof that the woman consented to it, other than the fact that she corresponded with the guy and went to see him at his house of horrors willingly.
I think it would be a good idea to make it impossible for someone to LEGALLY consent being killed, so that it would still carry the penalty of murder. Because anybody who gets a kick out of killing people should be treated as a murderer.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:What exactly are society's interests in outlawing this kind of behavior? Who is society protecting? The man who wants to be eaten? Hardly
Absolutely. That is exactly who is being protected, and for the same reason that it is against the law to commit suicide.
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
jeniwren:
quote:What frightens me (about the title of this thread) is that Godric might find something else MORE disturbing.
Click if you dare...
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I think there is a fundamental point here a lot of people are missing.
We don't let people commit suicide. If you are suicidal, you cannot refuse treatment. No matter how lucid you are, no matter how many wills you've written, no matter how you've tidied up your affairs, if you're attempting to commit suicide you can be arrested and taken to a hospital against your will.
Why? Because a desire to kill yourself is considered to be a definitive sign of mental illness. You can be oriented to date, time, and place, and still be locked up and taken to the hopsital forcibly.
If you're mentally ill, you cannot consent. Consent must be given by someone with a sound mind. Someone who wants to eat his own flesh and be stabbed to death is not in his sound mind. I don't care what people do in their bedrooms if they're consenting adults. HOwever, by definition, this man didn't consent because he was mentally incapable of doing so. How do we know he was mentally incapable? Because he wanted to do it.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Is that like the movie Catch 22?
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
I think at least a few of us believe that in some cases (but not all), suicide is not a sign of insanity.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I vote that in this case it was. Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Belle, your circular logic is impeccable, but that doesn't make it any less circular.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
quote:If you're mentally ill, you cannot consent. Consent must be given by someone with a sound mind.
This sounds pretty scary to me. Who here is fit to determine what I really mean when I say that my desire is to take leave of the living world?
We have to go back to the notion of society interest. In one corner, we see that homicide is accorded varying degrees of punishment because we want protection from it. For parallel reasons, we've developed a notion of "consent" not out of pity but because we believe it may protect us from matters of fraud, rape, suicide, and a few others. Having once been minors, we prevent them from being party to legal contracts. (Some of us) having been clinically depressed, we recognize that with treatment all such people will prefer emerging from their imbalanced state.
Some make the converse assumption that all suicides have an underlying desire to resume normal life. Science has brought into highlight the ways Major Depressive Disorder, Manic Depression, Dysthymia, etc. remove one's ordinary understanding of free will, but using those labels (or more likely, an overgeneralized notion of what mental illness "ought" to be) to in turn undermine the free choice to live or die is ironically fallacious.
Is there a Pfizer pill that would've had this German gentleman returning to productive society convinced that penises don't taste good? I take the opposite reaction as Slash, namely that the oddity of this case points against the likelihood he was actually a normal human underneath merely beseiged by a treatable illness. It may have been in society's interest to "save" him if it can shown that people of his disposition really do, somehow, desire salvation -- I doubt it -- but in the meantime there's nothing amoral about watching the great hand of Darwin march onward.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Well, I'm surprised this topic is still on the first page... By posting in it I guess I help it stay here for a while more... Oh, well
Chaeron, DO YOU KNOW WHAT A CIRCLE IS ?!? It looks like this. Now, let's try to find that circular argument you were talking about in Belle's post:
1.
quote: We don't let people commit suicide. If you are suicidal, you cannot refuse treatment.
2.
quote: a desire to kill yourself is considered to be a definitive sign of mental illness. (she should have added "or to be killed")
3. this man wanted to be killed.
If 3 is true => (using 2) the man was mentally ill. As he was mentally ill => (using 1) this man should have been treated.
So, starting from 3, we find that the man should have been treated, and not free to do whatever he wanted.
Of course, if 3 is not true, then this is a murder with premeditation !
Now, for logic's sake, Chaeron, please help us connect the conclusion of this reasoning back with 3. In your opinion, how does "the man should be treated" imply that "he wanted to be killed" ?!? If I am mentally ill, but do NOT want to die, I should be treated, but that DOES NOT imply I want to be killed ! It says that I don't in the hypothesis, in case you missed it.
And next time you say something like what you posted, Chaeron, THINK OF IT FIRST !
[ March 18, 2004, 05:46 AM: Message edited by: Corwin ]
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
I think he confused circular logic with tautologies, which Belle's reasoning certainly include. For the logic inclined, that's the equivalent of saying "if X, then X." Not invalid, but not insightful either.
Why X, Belle?
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Richard, what you name tautologies I see as Belle wanting to emphasize her reasoning.
Look at my transcription of Belle's reasoning: I started from a fact (3). I used 2, which is a definition. Then added 1, which is a fact. From that, I riched the conclusion. Belle's post just tried to be less mathematical and more "conversational" and she's entitled to do that, as usual debates don't use numbering for the arguments nor do the people envolved refrain from emphasizing an argument.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Corwin, any reasoning that contains the assumption of its conclusions in the premises either directly or indirectly is circular. Perhaps it would be less confusing if I said she begs the question. She assumes that his desires imply he is mentally incompetent for the purposes of consent, then uses this to claim that he cannot consent.
<edited for grammar>
[ March 18, 2004, 06:30 AM: Message edited by: Chaeron ]
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
desires => (by definition) he is mentally incompetent for the purposes of consent.
You make no sense, Chaeron. You say she used this to prove that he cannot consent. Of course she did, that's the purpose of it !!!!
Let (1) A => B be a definition. Now, let A be true. I use (1) to find B. As in (1 & A)=>B. The definition and the fact imply the conclusion.
Show me the difference with
quote: She assumes that his desires imply he is mentally incompetent for the purposes of consent, then uses this to claim that he cannot consent.
Then show me how this line of reasoning turns into a circle.
[ March 18, 2004, 06:34 AM: Message edited by: Corwin ]
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Let me summarise the argument this way:
p = man consents to being killed q = man is mentally incompetent for purposes of consent
We assume p, I ask, why q?
She responds with what is essentially this:
p p=>q --- q
yes, basic modus ponens, but the argument is without substance, it's just an assumption.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Ok, but it is the GENERALLY ACCEPTED assumption. You cannot *prove* a definition. If I say "Let x be equal to 3", you cannot argue with that. "Let it not" does not make sense.
We have to start with an axiom, otherwise we cannot find anything. "The grass is green." If I'm to agree with that, I have to agree with the person's definitions of "green", "grass" and with the fact that we both perceive the light in the same way. If we don't agree on that, then it's useless to say if the grass is green or not.
And I'm still at a loss to see how all this is circular. If you don't believe it is and it was just a word error on your part, please say so, so we can forget that part.
Edit: You can desagree with a law. But if you don't obey it, you suffer the consequences, wether you agree with it or not. As long as our definition of mental illnesses includes wanting to die, you have to work with that.
[ March 18, 2004, 06:49 AM: Message edited by: Corwin ]
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
No, it isn't a generally accepted definition. I don't accept it, and I have repeatedly made this clear. I'm not going to bother reiterating my arguments since no one responded to them in the first place.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Ok, the language of circularily may be confusing, I'll just say the argument is begging the question. Now that this has been addressed, can we move on? Of course there must be propostions for logic to function, but I can challenge the assumptions, you don't get to define them by fiat.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
I've never been arguing as to what the law is, I've been arguing about what it should be.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Oh, ok, I see the problem now... Sorry for not reading more thoroughly your previous posts. And sorry for all the sarcasm, but I was really mad about what you said.
As for moving on, well, there's nothing to move on to, as I believe the law is right and you don't.
Again, sorry about being so sarcastic. I have to go to lunch now. Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
For future reference, there are very few times that people come to Hatrack to ask what the law says, and when they do the difference is pretty obvious. Now that we're back on topic...scroll up, I'm not going to quote myself.
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
Because any argument has to start from assumptions (the most obvious is "good logic is sound" and the most famous, of course, is "never get involved in a land war in Asia"). There are always unprovable things. If you want to question them, fine, but tautologies and assumptions (called postulates by people who do not want to admit they are assumptions) are at the base of any proof and you will not destroy anyone's logic by questioning them, only your own ability to use logic.
Slash's statement is sufficient to show that this is something than can be safely posited and doesn't need to be proven.
quote:If the desire to be castrated, then eat your own severed penis, then be stabbed to death and eaten is not insane, then there is no meaningful definition of that word.
In every sense of the following words, I cannot post that enough in this thread.
If you cannot agree with that statement, then I, and most of the rest of the world really can't say anything more convincing to you because, strictly speaking, you inhabit a different reality.
[ March 18, 2004, 08:36 AM: Message edited by: T. Analog Kid ]
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Laws against suicide are absurd. How exactly are they going to catch the victim, stop the victim, or punish the victim in the event of success?
Besides, I see no intrinsic reason why suicide should be wrong. If it is done for others it is called noble. Self-centered suicide may not be noble, but I am not sure how wrong it is or should be.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Wrong or right -- that's debatable.
But they are not absurd. They serve a real purpose. If somebody is attempting to commit suicide, the police can stop them. If necessary, they can lock them up for attempted suicide. This is rarely done, but is has saved lives. Also, it makes it illegal to assist somebody else commit suicide.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
I've been staying out of this thread for a number of reasons, but thought I'd go ahead and see if I can add something a little different into the mix.
To those of you who say this argument is somewhat circular in its logic: (summarizing and paraphrasing)
"Wanting to commit suicide is proof of mental illness; people who are mentally ill are incapable of making important choices."
I think you have a valid point. I work with these issues every day and I'm personally conflicted as to whether or not the state should be giving professionals the right to lock people up because "they're a danger to themselves."
But...
Those who are equating a person's arguable right to be left alone in committing suicide with a right to be murdered, you're not even using logic. The two are different. Very different.
The libertarian philosophy that supports a right to suicide centers on the right to self-control. If you want to base yourself in libertarian philosophy when you talk about this, there are some excellent resources to out there that expand the discussion from kneejerk, logically inconsistent responses.
Szasz, for what it's worth, refers to "assisted suicide" as an oxymoron. I agree.
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
Danzig, for an excellent description of the difference between the noble sacrifice for others and the wish for self-destruction... see this book chapter
[ March 18, 2004, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: T. Analog Kid ]
Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
ok. Today at work I completed "suicide prevention training." A couple of the "warning signs" identified with depression and the possibility of suicide were "a preoccupation with death or dying" and "behavior such as putting one's affairs in order or giving away prized possessions."
The victim in this case exhibited those behaviors. He was "at risk" for, and may actually have been suffering from, depression. Depression is, as far as I know, an actual mental illness. Did he have friends or family close enough that could have picked up these and other symptoms of depression? If they had, wouldn't he have been treated for the illness? If so, how could he have been considered a competent judge of his own actions?
I think his actions showed actual signs of a recognized mental illness, no matter how entwined they might have eventually become with his sexual desires.
Just my 2 cents.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
:shutters:
or did I
:shudder:
I'm not doing well this afternoon...especially after reading that!
[ March 18, 2004, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: Tammy ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
[Destrado]
Destrado is, according to the theory advocated by E.Weiss, the energy of the self-destructive impulse. It is the antonym of Libido. Its meaning is different from the energy of "Instinct of Death", advocated by P.Federn, the master of Moltedor-Weiss.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
The Germans are stuck with this case. A number of years ago, they enacted a lower homicide statute of "killing of request," meant to be applied to so-called "mercy killings." That charge carries a term of 6 months to 5 years. The defense wasn't successful in getting that to be the charge he was convicted of. But the manslaughter charge - I checked - meant a sentence of eight and a half years (not the five I stated previously when going from memory).
I have no sympathy for the German legal system and its handwringing over this. The "killing of request" statute was a bad idea - just a way of allowing lower sentences for the murders of old, ill and disabled victims of fatal domestic violence. Now they're stuck with this "consent" issue until they change that law.
If the Germans wanted, there's another option available to them. According to an interesting legal analysis on the CNN website, they could charge Miewes under European and International Law:
quote:First, they could bring a claim under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which Germany has ratified. The Convention states in Article 3 that, "no one should be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Certainly what Meiwes did to his victim fits this description.
Second, they could try to bring charges pursuant to the European Convention on the Prevention of Torture -- which entered into force in 1989 and which has been ratified by Germany. This agreement created a committee that investigates allegations of torture, primarily by conducting visits to the torture victim's place of confinement. Here, the investigation ought to be brief, as Meiwes has confessed and the nature of his crimes is clear. While the Convention itself does not contain any remedies, it does allow torture victims to bring claims before the highly respected European Court of Human Rights, which has the authority to afford "just satisfaction" to the harmed party (or his heirs).
The author notes in the article that consent has never been a legitimate defense of torture.
[ March 18, 2004, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
I get the feeling that Article 3 was meant to apply to states more than individuals.
If he could be convicted of torture, then I see no reason why people who merely engage in BDSM should be protected from the same laws, after all, the only difference between some extreme practitioners and Meiwes is that his case ended in a death.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
quote:If you cannot agree with that statement, then I, and most of the rest of the world really can't say anything more convincing to you because, strictly speaking, you inhabit a different reality.
Even if I accept that the man was insane, you're still begging the question. Our experience tells us that some insane people should be protected from their first-level desires because, if able to review the situation once cured or lapsed, we would want the same for ourselves. Do you have any evidence that this logic applies to all forms of insanity, much less this case (which has already proven itself the exception to most rules of common sense)?
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
On a psych ward, there are a variety of behaviors that, in the US, removes the ability to give consent. There are appropriate times when society says that person can not give consent and they loose a degree of individual rights.
From what I read from the story, I think the victim meets those criteria. This discussion should move from the henious acts committed and focus on whether it is possible to give consent to such actions? I think not, and therefor, I consider it akin to murdering an innocent life.
If someone is brainwashed and asks to be killed, does anyone think that person has the facutly to give consent?
I am not saying he was brainwashed, I am only illustrating there are times when an adult is not capable or recognized as giving consent.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
Gray world... ![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)