-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Fuck Anders Breivik!
- Thread starter Dogma's Demise
- Start date
Sandracottus
New Member
And how is this relevant to the topic?
it isn't, it's just another attempt at derailing the topic.[/quote]
Aaawh ........Its actually a solution ........
Think about it.......
Why would any reasonable sane human being serve an entity which would most certainly kill him or her for exercising his or her free speech? Atheism is also infidelity, if you didn't know.
Oh....just forget it......
Duvelthehobbit666
New Member
Sandracottus said:
Aaawh ........Its actually a solution ........
Think about it.......
Why would any reasonable sane human being serve an entity which would most certainly kill him or her for exercising his or her free speech? Atheism is also infidelity, if you didn't know.
Oh....just forget it......[/quote]
The topic is about Breivik, an absolute nut who killed children to further his ideas.
Dogma's Demise
New Member
Yes, back to Breivik. I think it's a shame there are some loopholes by which he could be released one day.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/29/anders-behring-breivik-avoid-jail-insane
Most likely not going to happen, but you never know...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/29/anders-behring-breivik-avoid-jail-insane
Most likely not going to happen, but you never know...
australopithecus
Active Member
Then those loopholes need to be closed.
CosmicJoghurt
New Member
Dogma's Demise said:
And what do you think of my objections to your arguments? Refer to page 3.
)O( Hytegia )O(
New Member
The loophole closure would be that no doctor would ever find him mentally stable. He'd be sitting in a secure cell in a psychiatric hospital for the rest of his life - not that it's much difference in contrast to a Norwegian Cell anyways. If it was an American jail vs. mental ward, then I would see why people would raise a sharp contrast to the treatment of the convicted.
But a problem you will find that you have is that, if Breivik is legitimately, mentally ill and they treat him for it, then why should he not walk a free man? I was under the impression that condemning the mentally incompetent was a solely-American practice.
But a problem you will find that you have is that, if Breivik is legitimately, mentally ill and they treat him for it, then why should he not walk a free man? I was under the impression that condemning the mentally incompetent was a solely-American practice.
australopithecus
Active Member
Call me cynical, but the insanity plea is little more than pissing in the eyes of those who died and their families. Breivik is not mentally ill, he's just a cunt.
)O( Hytegia )O(
New Member
australopithecus said:
So.
If he actually is mentally ill, and this could have been prevented given proper medication and treatment, then what?
If he could be treated and shown, medically, to be no threat to the public then why should he be in prison for something that was literally out of his control?
I'm not saying that he was - don't get me wrong here - but IF he was, then why so cynical?
People tend to dehumanize other human beings, seeing them as monsters based upon their actions or deeds. And, usually it's not only justified but it's correct. There are few things humans will literally and totally believe that someone is a "Monster" for - Hitler was a monster. Anders Beivik is a monster.
But if someone had literally something outside of their control is where my concern is placed. You would see it as a loophole - a spit in the face - but on the same notion we don't condemn people to jail who spread AIDS without knowledge that they had it. We send them to a hospital. Why should we treat other medical incidents differently?
Is it the scale of the offence that matters?
australopithecus
Active Member
If he is actually and medically mentally ill then (though you could argue anyone who commits such a crime is) and was genuinely not in control of his actions then of course he should be treated and rehabilitated rather than locked away for life. However what is more likely is that he was completely in control and this plea is purely damage limitation and an attempt to literally get away with murder.
bluejatheist
New Member
)O( Hytegia )O( said:
Not to try to speak for him, but I think Austra may mean only this particular insanity plea and the possibility that it is only an attempt to excuse Brevik, while you're interpreting him as talking about insanity pleas in general.
Dogma's Demise
New Member
Don't you need at least SOME grasp of reality to carry out such attacks? I'm not buying the insanity plea. It seems to me like he knew very well what he was doing.
bluejatheist
New Member
Dogma's Demise said:
For this I would look at the case of Timothy McVeigh. He was very much sane(though one can argue his motives weren't) and in control when he planned, scouted out, organized and then executed the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. Soil prior to 9/11. His motives for the attack weren't religious per se, it was a retaliatory strike for the Waco Siege, which he viewed as a case of the federal government committing crimes against its people. He was a U.S. Army veteran and claimed to have been able to 'switch off his emotions' and go through with the attack due to his military training and experiences. McVeigh described himself as atheistic, though he was a very difficult person to 'read' and spoke little about his beliefs. He faced his execution with what witnesses described as a satisfied smile. Religious extremism is not required for terrorism and other violence, and religiosity is not needed for one to be cruel or apathetic in violence and when facing death.
Edited 06:55 EST
As far as I understand it, Breivik has claimed that he's totally sane the whole time. He's even gone as far as to say that doubting his sanity is an insult and that he'd rather take the death penalty (not a choice in Norway) than to be declared insane.australopithecus said:
)O( Hytegia )O(
New Member
Oh no.
You can't not have control while firing fully-automatic weapons and picking out targets to shoot at. You can't not be in control and rig 3 high-explosive rigs to go off via trigger while you're en route to another location. He brought enough ammo to play Rambo and a change of clothing meant to fool officers as well as civilians.
If nothing but than for rigging the explosives.
This plan was formulated intentionally and, as for planning-wise, went off perfectly without a hitch in terms of triggering of the explosives.
He had to have tested these rigs before. Making a triggering mechanism and testing for effective range both is something that should be maintained and done extensively via field testing and study. Especially for a homemade rig.
I have no doubt that he was sane.
You can't not have control while firing fully-automatic weapons and picking out targets to shoot at. You can't not be in control and rig 3 high-explosive rigs to go off via trigger while you're en route to another location. He brought enough ammo to play Rambo and a change of clothing meant to fool officers as well as civilians.
If nothing but than for rigging the explosives.
This plan was formulated intentionally and, as for planning-wise, went off perfectly without a hitch in terms of triggering of the explosives.
He had to have tested these rigs before. Making a triggering mechanism and testing for effective range both is something that should be maintained and done extensively via field testing and study. Especially for a homemade rig.
I have no doubt that he was sane.
bluejatheist
New Member
)O( Hytegia )O( said:
Indeed. It's believed he even planned to be captured by leaving deliberate holes in his escape plan. I dont know about the ammo part, I know he was a serious gun rights advocate but don't recall his being particularly armed when he was captured. Another good example was Columbine- Two teenagers taking an entire year to plan for a school shooting, right down to reloading practice-drills so that they were able to keep firing consistently.
CosmicJoghurt
New Member
Dogma's Demise said:
Your opinion on my arguments in page 3, no?
:|
Dogma's Demise
New Member
CosmicJoghurt said:
Well yeah, maybe it's not quite so clear what he believes, but yes that prayer he talked about could be just metaphorical. Maybe he's some kind of deist, I dunno, all his other statements seem to suggest he's an atheist (by the "weak" definition, I don't think it's terribly productive to get into an argument over whether or not atheism means lack of belief, or belief that gods don't exist, most dictionaries I've come across don't go by "lack of belief", but I don't really mind if people want to use that).
Personally I identify as a somewhat-strong atheist, it's my opinion that gods don't exist, but I'm not entirely convinced of that. Nobody can know for certain. But I wouldn't say I simply "lack a belief".