posted
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.
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...)
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think at least a few of us believe that in some cases (but not all), suicide is not a sign of insanity.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 !
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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 ]
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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)?
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
<--- not hip
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
