Printable View
Yeah, might be just a TAD difficult finding one in Holland. Tell you what, saw a couple of dead Koalas on the way to work today, what about I go out, slice one up all nice and thin, and pop it in the post for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
Sounds like a plan.....just turn em into Jerky first....
I think sexual abuse in general and child abuse specifically has been going on since the beginning of time; there's just been different definitions in different cultures of the terms 'child' and 'abuse'. Also it has to be borne in mind that by far most cases of systematic violence and physical abuse involve family members, not complete strangers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo
I think people understand more than they wish they did. It comes with being human and identifying with others. Fact is that perpetrators of horrible deeds are not mythical monsters, they are people, which is a very scary thought. This is why such people are deemed 'monsters', 'inhuman' and I don't know what. De-humanizing someone makes them less confronting, it creates an emotional distance between 'you' and 'them'. I think this is very natural, yet something we have to be careful with. Mass hysteria, witchhunts and lynching mobs are also frightfully human. I'm not defending horrible deeds, just saying that sadly morals are not always clear-cut.
I read your post "4" times; maybe it's just above my comprehension.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pithor
But,,
I find the act (Lack of any sort of morals) and the "Response", in the O.P., to be very "Clear-Cut".
I was drawing it out a bit more generally. My point in this specific case would be that it is easy for bystanders who only hear about this case in the media to form an opinion on what happened, some of them thinking the purpotrator got what he deserved. When actually the father of the abused child is apparently shocked to find out he killed the man, with that never being his intention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hirlau
I'm questioning the morals of vindictive actions and righteous opinions of bystanders. Of course what the purpotrator did was morally wrong, no question. The fahers response was justified, defending his son is morally more than justifiable. The purpotrator dying and thereby 'getting what he deserved' in the eyes of many is the part I'm questioning. Plus that to some people it is apparently morally sound to castrate and lynch sex-offenders.
My remark was not about the case mentioned in the first post but about the publics opinion on justice.
Actually, we do find the occasional roo steak in these parts, they're imported. Ostrich steaks as well (but these are mostly bred locally).Quote:
Originally Posted by carlmaloschneider
Ostrich I've had....it's pretty good. Roo....haven't seen it so far.
Not only has this been going on for long time, but also the norms and values have changed (for the better).
I'm reading a book by Michael Jecks who is a medieval historian. He has written a lot of books, and they all take place at the fringe of actual historical events. They also give a more or less accurate depiction of the norms and values of the time.
One thing I considered interesting was spousal abuse in the book I am currently reading. A women was thinking to herself that she hated her husband. He was not always a bad man. The beatings didn't start until the last couple of years. Initially he was a good husband who only slapped her around a bit one or 2 times per week.
Can you imagine living in a society where slapping your wife around on a weekly basis does not make you a bad husband, not even in the eyes of the wife?
The molester got what he deserved. I have 0 tolerance for child molestation.
I have a coin purse made from a Roo Nutsack, LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency