HEY! Let's all talk about experimenting on pedos! Whoo!

[Jacob]

Ugh, i loathe it when people go on and on about the war.

"Oh, but the Government lied to us! Oh, but people died in the war! Oh, but there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction!"

Give. A. Sh*t? No. No i don't. The ends justify the means. If i felt that i could cure Cancer/random disabilities/Heterosexuality by experimenting on the people who were cursed with such abnormalities, then i would happily do so. And do you know why? 'cos the suffering of the experimented is ultimately less important than the fact they would be helping generation after generation.

What does this have to do with the War on Iraq? Well, the suffering of the killed/maimed is ultimately nothing compared to the peace that will be achieved there now that Saddam has gone.

EDIT: From henceforth, all political rabble-rousing and experimenting on rapist talk will go in this direction. -SR

[Dino]

Precisely what "ends" justify the means Jacob? The war in Iraq came to fucking nothing. NOTHING. There was no threat of WMDs, therefore all those people were killed for nothing. There were no "ends". And don't come back at me with any shit about Saddam Hussein being the real threat because he wasn't. You don't send an army to arrest one person. If he was such a big threat to the world then he could've been assassinated by a sniper during the first gulf war.

What the fuck do you really know about the peace in Iraq prior to Saddam's capture? For someone who has niether been to Iraq or claims to disbelieve everything he hears in the media, this is a very telling statement. The death of soldiers and civillians as a result of the war isn't justified at all, because NOBODY has a right to kill someone else merely to satisfy their own means. It's insane to suggest that people should suffer and die to maintain your idea of a utopian world where everything is perfect... it's borderline nazi. Do you think that, as an innocent Iraqi is falling toward the ground having been shot by a bullet, he is actually celebrating that in the future life will be "better" for Iraqis?

The war in Iraq isn't even over. The Americans are still there causing havoc as usual. They're still encountering resistance. They're still being blown up by suicide bombers, who are the only REAL Iraqis who feel that their death will improve the world.

You loathe the fact that "people go on and on about the war"? Give a shit? No. I'll still go on about the war as much as I like, and if you don't like that, then good for you buddy, you just carry on posting your stupid "the war was justified so stop talking about it" bullshit and see how far it gets you.

[Jacob]

'There was no threat of WMDs'

I agree. But i believe the UN did say something about Saddam Hussein getting the means to make them, as soon as he possibly could. And though i couldn't give two f*cks about the war, i'm sure people would much rather have Saddam usurped from power now, whilst he's fo-f*cked and powerless, than going after him when he can actually fight back.

'You don't send an army to arrest one person. If he was such a big threat to the world then he could've been assassinated by a sniper during the first gulf war.'

Oh, i totally agree. The whole WMD thing was the actual reason we went to war in the first place, but still? So what? Saddam Hussein was heading for a Karmic kicking anyway, what with f*cking his sons mental states up by putting people in Woodchippers infront of them and making them watch etc.

'What the **** do you really know about the peace in Iraq prior to Saddam's capture? For someone who has niether been to Iraq or claims to disbelieve everything he hears in the media, this is a very telling statement.'

Not a lot. But going on the basis that the Media is telling the truth when it comes to those images of all the Iraqi's "Yaying" around when Saddam had gone, i assume they were quite pleased he had been usurped.

'The death of soldiers and civillians as a result of the war isn't justified at all, because NOBODY has a right to kill someone else merely to satisfy their own means.'

I'm assuming you're talking about the Americana-Oil thing. In which case i agree. Going into Iraq solely for Oil is shitty.

'It's insane to suggest that people should suffer and die to maintain your idea of a utopian world where everything is perfect... it's borderline nazi.'

Yes, some of my views are Hitler-esque, but when put in to context, they're the best way forward. And though my beliefs are that we need disease to keep our numbers down, i will play Devils advocate and champion the whole experimenting on people to get rid of disease. Who really wants a child that's going to have half of it's life in hospital? Who will always be stared at in the street? Who will die young? Who really wants a loved one to go through the turmoil of Cancer? Nobody. And it's all very well using animals for experimentation, but once you perfect something with an animal, you then have to perfect it for a human, meaning the first batch of people to go through the new medicine are like Guinea Pigs anyway. Why not just experiment on people to begin with? I'm sure nobody would mind if random Paedophiles/Child Molesters/Rapists/Serial killers were rounded up and used for such means. And i'm sure quite a few disabled people would happily volunteer for experimentation in the hopes of stopping others from suffering from their disease.

'Do you think that, as an innocent Iraqi is falling toward the ground having been shot by a bullet, he is actually celebrating that in the future life will be "better" for Iraqis?'

No, but there are always casualties in war. Are you saying that if worst came to worst and there was another full scale War with our country and some other random country, you'd go out protesting because you wouldn't want to kill any Soldiers/see any innocents get harmed?

'The war in Iraq isn't even over.'

I never said it was. Infact, i chose my words carefully. But give it a couple of decades and i'm sure there will be peace and stability.

'They're still being blown up by suicide bombers, who are the only REAL Iraqis who feel that their death will improve the world.'

Elaborate, please.

'You loathe the fact that "people go on and on about the war"?'

Yes, especially when they bring it up during the Elections. It has no place during the Elections. We should be concentrating on our country, not what Mr. Blair was led to believe thanks to false information fed to him (probably by Mr. Bush, but that's my little '24'-esque conspiracy theory).

[AquaticAmbi]

You know, Jacob, if you feel so strongly about this experimenting on humans and such, why don't you try exposing yourself to as many cancer-causing agents as possible. Then after your DNA mutates into some sort of cancer, you could volunteer as a subject for medical experiments. You have the power to make the future brighter for those who get cancer. Make us proud.

[Dino]

I agree with Jacob that there are some things that shouldn't be spoken about during an election.

War.
WMDs.
Terrorists. There is no "imminant terrorist threat".
Immigrants. Why won't they all just stay in much bigger nearby countries like germany and france? I'll tell you why: because Britain is a fucking pushover, with all our benefits and cushy free health service. To each immigrant is a pathetic sob story that they will tell in front of a camera for Channel 4 documentaries, but a the end of the day it's all bullshit.
9/11.
Drugs. Especially marijuana. Unless they're legalising it.
And any other type of propaganda that's intended to frighten or manipulate people into voting.

If some party wants me to vote for them, they're gunna have to have policies that make sense. If I catch them attempting to manipulate my vote even once, then I'll be saving my vote for another party. Sadly, with this attitude I fear that I'll end up abstaining for the rest of my life.

Oh well, fuck em. Scumbag politicians.

[Jacob]

'You know, Jacob, if you feel so strongly about this experimenting on humans and such, why don't you try exposing yourself to as many cancer-causing agents as possible. Then after your DNA mutates into some sort of cancer, you could volunteer as a subject for medical experiments. You have the power to make the future brighter for those who get cancer. Make us proud.'

How about i just hunt you down and "persuade" you into being the first ever person to help humanity on a whole. You'd be a matyr!

I'm confuzzed to who i'll be voting over. Probably Labour, due to the fact we have a good economy et al. Plus Michael Howard gives me bad vibes. And the Liberal Dems views on single mothers stealing is fudging rediculous.

[Drew the slig]

Jacob - you wouldn't let people experiment on you, would you?

These things may be for "the greater good" - but where does that stop? Sometimes the ends do not justify the means. Sometimes the means do not bring ends.

[Jacob]

'Jacob - you wouldn't let people experiment on you, would you?'

No. But that's like saying a person who sets an examination question has to answer the question themself before they make others do so. I don't see what me not being experimented on has to do with anything.

[Drew the slig]

Why should other people have to endure it?
Are you better than them?

[Dino]

Why should other people have to endure it?
Are you better than them?

Being controversial makes up for his otherwise boring personality, and subliminally gives you the impression that he has a large wang.

Wang is a magic word by the way. That word makes me giggle when I'm high.

Wang. Heh.

[Jacob]

'Being controversial makes up for his otherwise boring personality, and subliminally gives you the impression that he has a large wang.'

Yes, yes that's exactly it. Wow, you are such a good judge of character! Really! You are!! Amazing!

'Why should other people have to endure it?
Are you better than them?'

That's a moronic argument, which, if put in today's society would f*ck it up royally. It's like saying "Wait there a minute! Before we put Drug addicts in rehab, let's test it out oursevles!!" And thus, we'd get nowhere.

[Drew the slig]

There is a difference between putting people in Drug rehab and experimenting on them. Why shouldn't people test it out on themselves first? If it's not safe / good enough for yourself, why should it be suitable for others?

You are entitled to your own opinion.
End of argument.

[Jacob]

'If it's not safe / good enough for yourself, why should it be suitable for others?'

Okay, firstly, if somebody has raped a minor/a woman/killed somebody, then who really cares whether the experimentation is safe or not? Really? Who?

[Rich]

Okay, firstly, if somebody has raped a minor/a woman/killed somebody, then who really cares whether the experimentation is safe or not? Really? Who?

Indeed. Revenge is sweet. There's no other use for the bastards.

[Drew the slig]

Nobody is one dimensional; people make mistakes, some bigger than others.
Nobody deserves that kind of treatment - how can you justify killing or experimenting on someone but condemn rape or murder? Both are acts of inhumanity.

[Kimon]

Nobody is one dimensional; people make mistakes, some bigger than others.
Nobody deserves that kind of treatment - how can you justify killing or experimenting on someone but condemn rape or murder? Both are acts of inhumanity.

Yeah, agreed.

[Jacob]

'people make mistakes, some bigger than others.'

Okay, firstly, what? So, a serial killer going around killing people is making mistakes? A deviant who rapes children is making mistakes? A deviant who rapes adults is making mistakes? You do realise that this means they shouldn't be punished.

' how can you justify killing or experimenting on someone but condemn rape or murder? Both are acts of inhumanity'

No. You see, they need to be punished. Execution is far too quick for them and imprisonment does f*ck all. Infact, child rapers tend to share sexual fantasies. So, at least my way, they're punished as well as advancing the medical/cosmetic industries and sparing animals pain.

[TheRaisin]

Dino and Jacob Hijack the Thread: Act II. Now playing at OWF.

[Dino]

Jacob, explain to me why it is that psychologists have time and time again discovered psychological similarities between murderers, rapists, paedophiles, and other criminals?

And explain to me why you suggest treating these people as if they're normal people who have done bad things? If this is the case, why aren't there more people in jails? Surely the criminal population would be the majority not the minority if these people had nothing wrong with them?

I've watched TV documentaries in which paedophiles were interviewed, and quite frequently they were scared and worried by their own actions and urges. A lot of them even knew that there was something wrong with them, but simply admitted that they couldn't help but find children erotic. Something is clearly wrong here - these people have something not quite right with them.

A good example is of an insane man who murdered a neighbour at her door. Although people were upset at the loss of this person, there was an understanding among people that the insane man did not have any control over his actions. But when a paedophile is discovered, people are disgusted, because they don't understand that the paedo is also insane. Current findings are consistantly proving that this is the case with paedophiles, murderers, and rapists. They have no control over their actions - their judgement is impaired, they get carried away in a moment of anger, rage, or irrational thought. They can't stop it or help it, and their brain isn't normal enough to prevent it.

These people didn't ask to be born like this. They were condemned at birth, cursed to do something so horrible, then get treated like shit for it for the rest of their lives. This isn't fair, and the only thing that can truely prevent it is understanding in the place of ignorance.

[AquaticAmbi]

Dino and Jacob Hijack the Thread: Act II. Now playing at OWF.

For reals. Why don't you, Jacob, start an actual thread about the experimenting stuffs?

[Dipstikk]

Nah, nah! Shush, I'm enjoying this! *eats popcorn* Ah, internet drama.

[Dino]

Nah, nah! Shush, I'm enjoying this! *eats popcorn* Ah, internet drama.

Yeah exactly. Thankyou Dipstikk. AquaticAmbi, why don't you and Raisin get a room together or something? We've got people to entertain here!

[Teal]

... psychologists have time and time again discovered psychological similarities between murderers, rapists, paedophiles, and other criminals? ... These people didn't ask to be born like this. They were condemned at birth, cursed to do something so horrible, then get treated like shit for it for the rest of their lives. This isn't fair, and the only thing that can truely prevent it is understanding in the place of ignorance.

No amount of understanding will help those that genuinely ARE just twisted deviants who enjoy taking a life or raping children. You can't say ALL of them are mentally ill, or we'd ALL be. Most probably are to some degree, sure - but at the same time not all people that are mentally ill are murderers or rapists. Some use it as a convenient get-out clause, too - "oh, I was ill". To be honest, no, I don't think we should experiment on them, since it demeans us in turn (It's a bit like eye for an eye - and "an eye for an eye and the world goes blind"). I'm just soft, though.

But that's like saying a person who sets an examination question has to answer the question themself before they make others do so. I don't see what me not being experimented on has to do with anything.

*raises finger* Is it not taken that the person who sets the question knows the answer so s/he knows it's possible TO answer? Or is that too obvious? :b

The Nazis did a lot of work at death camps like Auschwitz on handicapped or terminally ill people, if I recall. And there's plently of people out there who'd happily experiment on homosexuals to "cure them of their homosexuality" if they had the chance. :P

But then, hey, that's just double standards for you.

[Dino]

No amount of understanding will help those that genuinely ARE just twisted deviants who enjoy taking a life or raping children. You can't say ALL of them are mentally ill, or we'd ALL be. Most probably are to some degree, sure - but at the same time not all people that are mentally ill are murderers or rapists. Some use it as a convenient get-out clause, too - "oh, I was ill". To be honest, no, I don't think we should experiment on them, since it demeans us in turn (It's a bit like eye for an eye - and "an eye for an eye and the world goes blind"). I'm just soft, though.

So you're saying that all or at least some of these murders, rapists, and paedophiles are perfectly normal people?

Give me a fucking break.

How could a normal person possibly find a child sexually attractive? And how could a normal person enjoy killing someone? What part of forcing someone to have sex with you is normal?

There is nothing 'normal' about these people. They're all mentally ill. There needs to be more research into the subject and less ignorance, so that we can find out what causes these mental problems and how they can be prevented or cured before they turn people into criminals.

You can understand why a mentally insane/retarded person who murders someone shouldn't be punished, but when you're faced with someone who appears and acts relatively normal you can't understand that they're actually not normal. It's a very primitive thing, humans generally find it hard to appreciate the latent.

For instance:

When faced with a clearly retarded insane man who has murdered someone, a normal human can see physical evidence that this person is insane and incapable of controlling his actions, they then sympathise with this person and can understand that he shouldn't be punished because he didn't have any control over himself. When faced with a paedophile however, who displays no outwardly visible signs of being insane, a normal human mind is too primitive to understand on it's own that this person is far from normal. Hence they believe that the person should be punished as a normal person would be punished.

[Jacob]

'This isn't fair, and the only thing that can truely prevent it is understanding in the place of ignorance.

In response to that, i feel the need to say "**** you". Mainly because it's people like you who are eventually going to make Paedophilia the norm, which i despise.

And i totally agree with you that Paedophiles don't choose to be what sexual c*ntwipes they are. But let's face it, they are sexual c*ntwipes who need to be wiped out. You say they're taken by the moment - serial killers plan their next killing. Serial rapists plan their next rape (unless they're opportunists, in which case they'll see a woman walking down a dark alleyway and attack her) and child molesters groom little kids so they can rape them. Okay, so they may not be able to help their affection for children, but that's all the more reason to experiment on them...to find a cure. To find what causes it and stamp it out. I'm intrigued as to how you've come to your view point of "let's not hate them", 'cos somebody who f*cks a newborn baby and knows what he's doing is pretty downright sick. And besides, Paedophiles are the most cleverest criminals there are.

'Why don't you, Jacob, start an actual thread about the experimenting stuffs?'

I do. It's the Ugly people breeding one, so i don't know how this one kicked off.

'And there's plently of people out there who'd happily experiment on homosexuals to "cure them of their homosexuality" if they had the chance. :P

Last i heard on the experimentation front was that it can't be cured. Besides, Homosexuals are hardly the scourge of the world now, are they?

'so that we can find out what causes these mental problems and how they can be prevented or cured before they turn people into criminals.'

What. The. F*ck?! Haven't i just been saying that. Christ. Okay, here's a run down on what i think we should do -

Gather up Child molesters/Paedophiles/Serial rapists and serial killers.
Experiment on them to find cures for their disorders. To find cures for Cancer. To find cures for AIDS and to find cures for the rest of the diseases that plague mankind.

Now, how exactly is this a bad thing? I am really quite baffled by how it is. Prison is like a holiday camp these days, just minus the freedom. The death penalty is farrrr to quick for them. And releasing them is ridiculous. Besides, people offer themselves up for experimental treatments anyway, what's the difference in making it a punishment? How can helping people be bad?

'The Nazis did a lot of work at death camps like Auschwitz on handicapped or terminally ill people, if I recall.'

Yeh, but Mengele (who i f*cking love 'cos he's the best non-fictional evil Scientist EVER!!) was a twisted freak who got his kicks out of medical torture. The only things he really did for Medical Sciences (methinks, anyway) was the whole amputation thing and shtuffs on growth.

[Nepharski]

You're probably all past this now, but I get extraordinarily annoyed every time I see this, and thought It was time to set the record straight.

If he was such a big threat to the world then he could've been assassinated by a sniper during the first gulf war.

Last time I checked, it is an international and severly punishable crime to assassinate anyones head of state, no matter how much of a jackass they may or may not be.

Anyway, continue gentlemen.

[Dino]

Last time I checked, it is an international and severly punishable crime to assassinate anyones head of state, no matter how much of a jackass they may or may not be.

It's an international and severely punishable crime to go to war with a nation without UN approval. But that didn't stop them. And who the hell is going to argue with the United States? They possess enough nuclear firepower to decide the fate of everyone on the planet at the push of a button.

The American army went to war with Iraq, killed hundreds of innocent people, arrested and held Saddam Hussein, and killed his two sons. All on a whim. Also Bush was intimidating countries into joining him, saying that "you're either with us, or you're with the enemy". I think that not only is that just as bad as assassinating a head of state, it's also much worse.

[Nepharski]

It's an international and severely punishable crime to go to war with a nation without UN approval. But that didn't stop them. And who the hell is going to argue with the United States? They possess enough nuclear firepower to decide the fate of everyone on the planet at the push of a button.

As does Russia, I should think...that is, if they haven't disarmed them all already. Also, I don't believe we need UN support to fight a war. If I'm wrong, by all means prove me wrong, but if it's really a punishable crime, I suggest the UN get around to the punishment part.

The American army went to war with Iraq, killed hundreds of innocent people, arrested and held Saddam Hussein, and killed his two sons. All on a whim. Also Bush was intimidating countries into joining him, saying that "you're either with us, or you're with the enemy". I think that not only is that just as bad as assassinating a head of state, it's also much worse.

You know, there's this thing I've heard about war...people die in it. I'm not making light of war and the tragedy associated with it, I'm just saying that people do die, especially in today's, "Total Warfare." However, it is probably of merit to note that we try to minimalize civilian casualties, whereas our enemy cares little about how many innocent brains and organs lie smashed against the street. Yes, we do kill innocents. But not on purpose. This is war, man. If you attack an enemy facility, there just might be some unfortunate souls standing too close. It is deeply unfortunate that they died, but it's not as if previous wars have been free of civilian casualties.

We removed Saddam Hussien. Darn good thing too. Famous for, amongst other things, trying to invade a nextdoor country, firing scud missles at isreal, openly supporting terrorism, and brutally butchering his own people, with special attention payed to the kurds. Gas chambers. Giant "blenders." Dismemberment. This was a man after Mullock's heart. We also killed his sons. Yep. Both of them. Each as bad as their dad, reportedly making torture their spectator sport of choice. I shudder to think if they were alive to seize control.

"If you are not with us, you are against us." Yep, that sums up alot quite nicely. You see, there are only two stances on terrorism: You support it, or you don't. This is no apathetic, "I don't give a #$%&," third option.

[The Marching Mudokon]

You know, one of the main reasons George Bush wanted to go fight in the Middle East wast because of all of the oil there. If there was nothing of value for him in Iraq he wouldn't give a shit about going to war with the Iraqis.

[Rich]

And as Britain is the 52'nd state, we get dragged along too. Why can't we stay with Europe? Fuck America. It's ruining our relationship with our sophisticated Euro peace-keeping peers.