I’m trying to understand the downvotes you have. Like yeah, what you’re saying is extreme. But murdering goddamn infants is pretty fucking extreme. If there was ever a time to wish someone pain, it would be now.
Youre gonna get downvoted for not validating the 2 minutes’ hate. There are an awful lot of people who are very excited to find someone they can get away with doing violence against.
That’s like saying we should be tolerant of republican’s fascism. Some things shouldn’t be allowed even if you sorta need to act like them towards them to get it to stop.
Some people aren’t mental and don’t wish to inflict pointless harm on others.
Those are the ones upvoting him.
If its wrong to harm people, its wrong to harm those who harm people too.
Alright, let me explain it to you as if you were a five year old:
No one thinks murdering babies is wrong because harming anyone is wrong.
They think it’s wrong because they’re babies.
It’s a specific case.
If harming others was always wrong, it would be impossible for her to be arrested and imprisoned.
Actually, the nurse wasn’t even using violence to kill the babies so trying to use nonviolence to shame others for wanting that vile bitch of a murderer beaten in prison doesn’t track either.
The fact that you think that’s the reason why I and many others (I am very clearly not alone in my thinking) believe what we do tells us all we need to know about you. You never even asked me the reason why I believe the way I do, you just constructed a stereotype of me and people like me you built in your head based off dumb things others told you and it’s completely warping your judgement. Learn some empathy.
Schadenfreude would be the term for the actual pleasure derived. And I’m not going to pretend that it’s morally right or ethical to enjoy. But it is human to desire vengeance and revenge. Wishing harm to someone who murdered newborns is one of the least morally wrong instances of vengeance.
Plus, I hold that moral absolutism is an even greater evil. This is why the paradox of tolerance exists, and why the same goes for pacifism. It’s impossible to have a pacifistic society unless you are willing to use violence to dissuade violence. You would probably say that means there’s no difference between the two individuals, and I would have to vehemently disagree. Intent and context are incredibly important.
Sadism would be torturing an innocent. She’s far from that. And she won’t spend her life in prison so she won’t even get the punishment inflicted by the law. They’ll kill her before long. Why all this grace reserved to an angel of death?
That’s not how this works yo. The monster is in prison, she will stay in prison till she’s dead. No more need for extrajudicial punishments. No need to torture or to murder her.
There is nothing gained from hurting her further except a bunch of unwashed brainlets get hateboners; further it opens a whole can of worms of extrajudicial, punitive violence.
This isn’t to say that I’m arguing for torture as retribution, but this almost comes across as you arguing against actions having consequences, which is a wholly different argument, and I understand you probably don’t actually support that, but I’m just going off what’s written. I’m actually kind of with you in terms of the torture thing, like I’d probably just put her in solitary and leave it at that. But yeah, as with tolerance, a peaceful society has to have ways to deal with violence, lest it become a violent society.
This has nothing to do with the paradox of tolerance. Not even slightly
for one she’s been arrested, charged and given 14 life sentences and is going to spend her entire life in prison. So she has faces consequences for her actions.
and for two she is not a threat to tolerant society, shes a serial killer.
I dont think you actually know that the paradox of tolerance means.
There usually isn’t much that makes me literally speechless or at a loss for words, but after I read more specific details further down in this thread it actually happened to me. I also can’t remember the last time my eyes actually widened in horror at reading something.
Absolutely, people can down vote to oblivion but I stand by what I said. Days old babies, I cannot comprehend this. It’s that reason I may sound a smidge extreme, for a very laid back easy going person this has awoken a great anger in me.
And it should, but that anger should be directed not to further hurt this sick animal, but towards all the checks and balances that should have caught this earlier - administration that refused to look into it after her colleagues raised concerns, the implicit trust we put into people in these careers, and the lack of screening that lets people like this into these jobs in the first place.
I’m trying to understand the downvotes you have. Like yeah, what you’re saying is extreme. But murdering goddamn infants is pretty fucking extreme. If there was ever a time to wish someone pain, it would be now.
Some people aren’t mental and don’t wish to inflict pointless harm on others.
If its wrong to harm people, its wrong to harm those who harm people too.
Youre gonna get downvoted for not validating the 2 minutes’ hate. There are an awful lot of people who are very excited to find someone they can get away with doing violence against.
Well yeah, it’s a great stress reliever, AND you rid the world of a burden. Win/win.
It’s almost like you’re actually in the wrong and what they’re doing is normal. It’s almost like the problem is you
This might surprise you mate but it’s not normal to fantasise about inflicting bodily harm to criminals.
Might want to talk to someone about that.
Public hangings used to be the social event of the week, on what basis exactly are you determining normality?
The average experience today rather than 200 years ago
That’s like saying we should be tolerant of republican’s fascism. Some things shouldn’t be allowed even if you sorta need to act like them towards them to get it to stop.
No its nothing like that. Shes been given 14 life sentences, how is that tolerating anything??
Those are the ones upvoting him.
Alright, let me explain it to you as if you were a five year old:
No one thinks murdering babies is wrong because harming anyone is wrong.
They think it’s wrong because they’re babies.
It’s a specific case.
If harming others was always wrong, it would be impossible for her to be arrested and imprisoned.
Actually, the nurse wasn’t even using violence to kill the babies so trying to use nonviolence to shame others for wanting that vile bitch of a murderer beaten in prison doesn’t track either.
Justify it however you want, these are not the sort of things we should be decided based on emotion.
“This crime really triggered me so we should influct great harm on the perpetrator” is pretty fucked up man.
The fact that you think that’s the reason why I and many others (I am very clearly not alone in my thinking) believe what we do tells us all we need to know about you. You never even asked me the reason why I believe the way I do, you just constructed a stereotype of me and people like me you built in your head based off dumb things others told you and it’s completely warping your judgement. Learn some empathy.
You are calling for empathy in the same breath as calling for someone to be beaten lol
Isn’t exactly pointless when someone’s committed a crime against humanity – and murdering those newborns is absolutely a crime against humanity.
Stopping her from hurting anyone else is the point. Torturing her just because you can get away with it is pointless.
It would be for revenge, not pointless torture. We can certainly argue if revenge is pointless or not though.
Aye there’s a word for people who take pleasure from the suffering of others…
Schadenfreude would be the term for the actual pleasure derived. And I’m not going to pretend that it’s morally right or ethical to enjoy. But it is human to desire vengeance and revenge. Wishing harm to someone who murdered newborns is one of the least morally wrong instances of vengeance.
Plus, I hold that moral absolutism is an even greater evil. This is why the paradox of tolerance exists, and why the same goes for pacifism. It’s impossible to have a pacifistic society unless you are willing to use violence to dissuade violence. You would probably say that means there’s no difference between the two individuals, and I would have to vehemently disagree. Intent and context are incredibly important.
It’s called a good person who cares about the lives of innocent children. The word you’re looking for is good
Nah the word is sadist.
So torturing her is going to bring those people back to life? No? So then theres no point to it other than sadism.
Sadism would be torturing an innocent. She’s far from that. And she won’t spend her life in prison so she won’t even get the punishment inflicted by the law. They’ll kill her before long. Why all this grace reserved to an angel of death?
oof
Paradox of tolerance at work
That’s not how this works yo. The monster is in prison, she will stay in prison till she’s dead. No more need for extrajudicial punishments. No need to torture or to murder her.
There is nothing gained from hurting her further except a bunch of unwashed brainlets get hateboners; further it opens a whole can of worms of extrajudicial, punitive violence.
I swear you guys heard someone say that once and now think you can use it to justify any unrelated bullshit.
Who is “you guys” and what the fuck are you on about?
People blindly parroting “paradox of tolerence” in this case without understanding what it means.
Not at all lol
Inflicting pain on someone is not stopping them from harming others.
Making premeditated violence illegal but then punishing it with violence is retarded.
Have you heard of the paradox of tolerance
This isn’t to say that I’m arguing for torture as retribution, but this almost comes across as you arguing against actions having consequences, which is a wholly different argument, and I understand you probably don’t actually support that, but I’m just going off what’s written. I’m actually kind of with you in terms of the torture thing, like I’d probably just put her in solitary and leave it at that. But yeah, as with tolerance, a peaceful society has to have ways to deal with violence, lest it become a violent society.
This has nothing to do with the paradox of tolerance. Not even slightly for one she’s been arrested, charged and given 14 life sentences and is going to spend her entire life in prison. So she has faces consequences for her actions.
and for two she is not a threat to tolerant society, shes a serial killer.
I dont think you actually know that the paradox of tolerance means.
Yes of course I have, how else could I have said “this isn’t that” without knowing about it lol?
Yea, I’m generally a well composed guy, but it’s hard to keep cool in this instance
There usually isn’t much that makes me literally speechless or at a loss for words, but after I read more specific details further down in this thread it actually happened to me. I also can’t remember the last time my eyes actually widened in horror at reading something.
Simps sniffing after that young hot nurse pussy is all it is. They don’t care she killed babies. They care about that hot pic on the front page.
Absolutely, people can down vote to oblivion but I stand by what I said. Days old babies, I cannot comprehend this. It’s that reason I may sound a smidge extreme, for a very laid back easy going person this has awoken a great anger in me.
And it should, but that anger should be directed not to further hurt this sick animal, but towards all the checks and balances that should have caught this earlier - administration that refused to look into it after her colleagues raised concerns, the implicit trust we put into people in these careers, and the lack of screening that lets people like this into these jobs in the first place.