Merged The Suffering of Anders Breivik

[tsig]

1) The only things a human really needs are Food, Water and Shelter, and I fail to see how Supermax/suicide watch infringes on those.

2) I fail to see how actual cases are "ridiculous extremes" when I am talking about the worst criminals being put out of society's misery.

Protip, admitting failure is not the way to win an argument.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

1. The English language confuses you?

2. Yep, changing peoples minds is totally impossible, that's why we still have slavery, Prohibition and blue laws.

1. What I am talking about is why should the state give criminals the mercy that they denied to their victims?

2. Because getting people to welcome criminals back with open arms (it will take 50 years of consistent efforts of various governments to drag the public kicking and screaming to do so) is so totally comparable to the abolition of slavery? I highly doubt the next time there's a gruesome murder, the Daily Mail's reaction will be "How can we help the killer(s)?"

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Protip, admitting failure is not the way to win an argument.

How so? I am merely saying that I don't see how those work. Very well, I will rephrase.

1. All a human needs is food, shelter and water. I don't see how life on permanent suicide watch in solitary confinement infringes on those needs.

2. Why are you saying that actual cases are "ridiculous extremes" when they are the textbook cases for when criminals should be put out of society's misery?

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

Let us know when a vaccine has been developed that prevents murder.

*







*Warning: May cause side effects, including murder.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

1. All a human needs is food, shelter and water. I don't see how life on permanent suicide watch in solitary confinement infringes on those needs.

So you wouldn't smash your head in after a few months of that?

It's not a question about what prisoners should or should not get by the way, I'd just like an acknowledgement that the basics of biological function is not all a human needs, at least not in the long term.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

So you wouldn't smash your head in after a few months of that?

It's not a question about what prisoners should or should not get by the way, I'd just like an acknowledgement that the basics of biological function is not all a human needs, at least not in the long term.

Defeats the purpose of suicide watch, doesn't it?

 

[Rolfe]

I saw a TV documentary about conditions in Victorian prisons, and it was pretty appalling. Hard labour, day after day of backbreaking pointless work like breaking stones into gravel or turning a wheel against increasing resistance. Floggings.

I wouldn't support that sort of thing either, but something in me wants to make an exception for Breivik. One of the main arguments against it, however, was the experiences of the people who were playing the parts of the prison guards in the re-enactment. They said the experience of wielding such power over someone made them hard, vindictive, uncaring and cruel. This, while the guy who volunteered to take the part of the prisoner was sitting with his head in his hands, crying, and everyone involved knew he hadn't done anything wrong.

It's not just about the criminal, it's about who we are as a society, and what we ask of the people who have to carry out our vengeance. I think Norway has got it about right.

Rolfe.

 

[Polaris]

1. The English language confuses you?

2. Yep, changing peoples minds is totally impossible, that's why we still have slavery, Prohibition and blue laws.

Er, we do still have blue laws in a lot of places.

Resume, the death penalty isn't a deterrent. Executing Bundy and McVeigh prevented them from further crimes, but the death penalty did not deter them from committing the crimes that they were imprisoned for.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

1) The only things a human really needs are Food, Water and Shelter, and I fail to see how Supermax/suicide watch infringes on those.

Incorrect.

So you wouldn't smash your head in after a few months of that?

Defeats the purpose of suicide watch, doesn't it?

Way to not answer the question.

2) I fail to see how actual cases are "ridiculous extremes" when I am talking about the worst criminals being put out of society's misery.

Um, no, you don't. Sorry, but I don't buy that.

1. What I am talking about is why should the state give criminals the mercy that they denied to their victims?

Already answered.

2. Because getting people to welcome criminals back with open arms (it will take 50 years of consistent efforts of various governments to drag the public kicking and screaming to do so) is so totally comparable to the abolition of slavery? I highly doubt the next time there's a gruesome murder, the Daily Mail's reaction will be "How can we help the killer(s)?"

Again, how is this relevant to the discussion?

 

[Ziggurat]

Er, we do still have blue laws in a lot of places.

Resume, the death penalty isn't a deterrent. Executing Bundy and McVeigh prevented them from further crimes, but the death penalty did not deter them from committing the crimes that they were imprisoned for.

This is exceptionally bad logic, Polaris. The fact that something doesn't deter one person doesn't mean it doesn't deter anyone else. The people who were deterred will obviously not show up on death row, so it's a little harder to count them, but you can't assume that the number is zero just because somebody wasn't deterred.

 

[Ziggurat]

I haven't read every post in this thread, but it seems that a much larger story about Breivik has been missed. His demand for a Playstation 3 isn't nearly as significant as his recent statements that his initial claims of ideology and affiliation were a deliberate fraud intended to discredit those he views as his political opponents.

http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/01/breiviks-double-psychology/

 

[A'isha]

I haven't read every post in this thread, but it seems that a much larger story about Breivik has been missed. His demand for a Playstation 3 isn't nearly as significant as his recent statements that his initial claims of ideology and affiliation were a deliberate fraud intended to discredit those he views as his political opponents.

http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/01/breiviks-double-psychology/

Gates of Vienna? You're citing Gates of Vienna about Breivik?

 

[Ziggurat]

Gates of Vienna? You're citing Gates of Vienna about Breivik?

If you have any criticism based on actual, you know, facts, go ahead and offer them up. If all you've got is an ad hominem attack on the source, spare me your whining.

 

[A'isha]

If you have any criticism based on actual, you know, facts, go ahead and offer them up. If all you've got is an ad hominem attack on the source, spare me your whining.

Okay. How about the fact that Breivik's rambling faux-sense-of-superiority missive doesn't exactly say what the hatemongers and ******** at GoV claim it says?

They're desperate to have Breivik disassociate himself with their so-called "counterjihad" movement entirely, but Breivik doesn't actually do that. He says that he's against the "Jewish network" that comprises part of the movement, but is strongly in support of the straight-up racist part. Basically, he's not saying that he's against the "counterjihad" movement, and instead saying that he's against the ostensibly pro-Israel part of it, when he thinks it should instead be all about focusing on the hate for those icky non-white Muslim immigrants.

In short, he's not declaring that he doesn't share the goals of the hate-filled "counterjihadist" movement, but instead he's claiming that his secret intention all along (assuming you believe him, and he's not just an egotistical delusional nut saying "Aha, now I reveal my true plans all along! Muahahah!") was to carry out a "Night of the Long Knives"-style purge of the elements within the "counterjihadist" movement that he didn't like so his favored elements would be in control instead.

And, just like the fact that there were two factions within the Nazi leadership struggling for control that culminated in the Night of the Long Knives doesn't mean they weren't all still Nazis, the fact that there are two factions in the counterjihadist movement struggling for control here (in Breivik's mind, at least) doesn't mean that they aren't all still hate-driven bigoted ********. They just disagree on who else to hate besides Muslims, immigrants, and Muslim immigrants.

Which is why you really should stop citing Gates of Vienna.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

@SK

1) Not really founded. Anyway, the only things a lifeform needs to survive are food, water, shelter and air. Suicide watch/supermax doesn't infringe on those.

2) Except, in suicide watch/supermax, "smashing your own head in" is nigh-impossible, as the cell is designed to prevent that.

3) Please state why the state should give mercy and comfort to criminals that they denied to their victims, WITHOUT going "we'll be just as bad as them!"

4) Sorry.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

2) Except, in suicide watch/supermax, "smashing your own head in" is nigh-impossible, as the cell is designed to prevent that.

I think what you're missing is a lot of people think we should be humane to prisoners. So giving them the basics to continue biological functions, and someone on hand to stop them killing themselves when they go insane from lack of stimulation isn't really a fix.

Food, water and shelter plus enough basic entertainment as not to go insane. I'm not sure if that translates in your mind to spoiled prisoners playing x-box all day, but a human being needs at least some leisure activity for mental health.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

3) Please state why the state should give mercy and comfort to criminals that they denied to their victims, WITHOUT going "we'll be just as bad as them!"

We wouldn't be as bad as them, we just wouldn't be very good.

 

[Polaris]

This is exceptionally bad logic, Polaris. The fact that something doesn't deter one person doesn't mean it doesn't deter anyone else. The people who were deterred will obviously not show up on death row, so it's a little harder to count them, but you can't assume that the number is zero just because somebody wasn't deterred.

Resume was arguing that executing Ted Bundy was a deterrent to Ted Bundy committing further crimes. That's not deterrence.

And the research on actual deterrence is shaky at best. There are too many other variables to declare that the death penalty acts as a deterrent. Full disclosure: I'm opposed to the death penalty (I'll wait for you all to pick your jaws off the ground), not because of anything to do with deterrence or concern for the lives of the guilty, but because of the piss-poor track record of convicting the innocent.

 

[Ziggurat]

Okay. How about the fact that Breivik's rambling faux-sense-of-superiority missive doesn't exactly say what the hatemongers and ******** at GoV claim it says?

They're desperate to have Breivik disassociate himself with their so-called "counterjihad" movement entirely, but Breivik doesn't actually do that. He says that he's against the "Jewish network" that comprises part of the movement, but is strongly in support of the straight-up racist part. Basically, he's not saying that he's against the "counterjihad" movement, and instead saying that he's against the ostensibly pro-Israel part of it, when he thinks it should instead be all about focusing on the hate for those icky non-white Muslim immigrants.

In short, he's not declaring that he doesn't share the goals of the hate-filled "counterjihadist" movement, but instead he's claiming that his secret intention all along (assume you believe him, and he's not just a rambling nut) was to carry out a "Night of the Long Knives"-style purge of the elements within the "counterjihadist" movement that he didn't like so his favored elements would be in control instead.

And, just like the fact that there were two factions within the Nazi leadership struggling for control that culminated in the Night of the Long Knives doesn't mean they weren't all still Nazis, the fact that there are two factions in the counterjihadist movement struggling for control here (in Breivik's mind, at least) doesn't mean that they aren't all still hate-driven bigoted ********. They just disagree on who else to hate besides Muslims, immigrants, and Muslim immigrants.

Which is why you really should stop citing Gates of Vienna.

In other words, the fact that a Nazi mass murderer tricked people into believing he was a supporter of Jews and Israel in order to discredit people who are supporters of Jews and Israel is... what, exactly? Unworthy of notice and comment?

 

[A'isha]

In other words, the fact that a Nazi mass murderer tricked people into believing he was a supporter of Jews and Israel in order to discredit people who are supporters of Jews and Israel is... what, exactly? Unworthy of notice and comment?

No, the fact that a mass murderer who is a member of a group that's all about bigotry and racism now claims he was secretly trying to discredit other members of the same group that's all about bigotry and racism because they don't agree on just how broadly to apply their bigotry and racism is hardly worth mass media attention. "Convicted and imprisoned mass murderer who's a member of a Muslim-hating group turns out to also hate Jews, and dislikes some other members of that Muslim-hating group who don't share his hatred for Jews" isn't really a stop-the-presses kind of story. Particularly when it's done via yet another disjointed psychopathic manifesto.

[EDIT: It's not like the "counterjihad movement" faking support for Jews and Israel to support their Muslim-hate and try to cover up for their Nazi tendencies is a new thing, either. It's practically the EDL's bread and butter.]

The only reason the haters at Gates of Vienna are crying about the lack of press attention given to Breivik's latest screed is that they want to falsely pretend that he and they have nothing in common ideologically.