Eddowes Mortuary Photo - Graphic

[perrymason]

Elequent and I believe sensible comments Nicola.

Cheers.

[Hellrider]

Good post here Nicola

although I think that the following statement of yours is built on sand if seen in the context:

as to what a monster and throughly worthless human being he was.These photos put the emphasis on the victims and not the subhuman piece of feces who brutalized them. I also think it is insulting to say that those who view these photos all have some necrophiliac or plain crazy interest.I would think that most who view these photos are decent and normal people.

Isn't naming somebody "subhuman" and "worthless" a step towards fanaticism as well? Isn't that exactly what a serial killer might be thinking (the latter one at least)? He might regard his victims as "disposable", he doesn't see the human being, he only sees an object.

No personal attack implied of course...just something to think about

[Ally]

Good post here Nicola



Isn't naming somebody "subhuman" and "worthless" a step towards fanaticism as well?

No. When dealing with people who believe they can eliminate people based on whim, or sheer desire, then a rational judgment can be made that they are worthless, and therefore, the correct course of action is to eliminate them from the population for the benefit of the population as a whole and specific individual rights.

If a person believes that they have the right to kill others and they can choose to indiscriminately remove a member of the population, then by their own value system they have judged their own life worthless and subject to elimination. They are the ones who have deemed human life worthless, so they have no recourse when their rationale is turned on them.

People who violate human rights do not get to claim them in their defense.

[Hellrider]

I see and accept your point and it is not my intention to defend murderers, but are we any better if we assume the right to judge those "worthless" who judge other people "worthless"? Who will say we are "worthless" in the end?


Thanks for the reply though, it's always best to discuss issues

[Ally]

Who said anything about being better? I am talking about being logical.

People who want to be seen as being "better than" are using emotional response rather than reason, and emotions should rarely be the final decision maker in any situation, much less serious decisions.

[Hellrider]

I see where you are coming from. Let's leave it at this....the thread is about the picture after all.

[Ally]

I'll leave it, but this thread hasn't been about the picture since it was hijacked by whiny prima donnas posting their emotional and hysterical responses to the picture.

[Hellrider]

yes, indeed, though both sides have valid arguments I think.

Human rights, dignity and especially the dead are always difficult subjects...it's like walking on a razor's edge.

[Pippin Joan]

Bad people

The last few posts remind me of a lunchroom conversation when I was a teacher. The kindergarten teacher was burned up about a critical letter from a concerned mother. The letter referred to the teacher's advice to the children about child molesters and possible abduction and the use of the term "bad people". Mummie said she had taught her daughter that there are no bad people, just people who do bad things. The teacher was exploding over the idea of teaching 5 year olds that paedophiles were good people who did bad things. At what point does bad behavior add up to being a bad person?

[Hellrider]

I never denied Jack was a bad person, did I?

I just pointed out (completely objectively) that I think the terms "worthless" and "subhuman" applied on human beings (whatever terrible things they may have done) is questionable. That's all I wanted to convey, not criticise anybody, just provide something to think about for those who are interested. The rest may well ignore me.

Interesting comparison though

[Cap'n Jack]

Hell Rider is bang on the moneyI reckon, for if it turns out that the Whitechapel Murderer was placed in an asylum under Her Majesty's Pleasure - which is highly likely - then it follows that he would have been adjudged to be insane at the time of the crimes and not reponsible for his actions, or perhaps even aware of those actions.

[Ally]

How would you define worth then Hell Rider? Does being shot out of a woman's womb automatically make you "worthy"? Is that all it takes? You have a specific DNA sequence so you are automatically immune from being called worthless?

Who determines inherent worth? Why does that specific sequence of DNA grant immunity from judgment?

There is no such thing as inherent worth just because of a DNA sequence. We don't grant such immunity to any other species and it is the height of ego and hubris to grant it to ourselves.

When people talk about the inherent worth of human beings, what they are saying of course, is that they themselves are immune from judgment, and no matter what terrible things you do, you are still "worthy". This is indulgent and egocentric thinking.

When an individual violates the rights and bodies of members of their society, they cease to be contributing members of that society because no matter what their contributions may be in other areas, arbitrary elimination of members of the society outweighs any positive contribution they might otherwise make. They therefore have no worth to that society, they therefore are worthless and should be removed.

Unless they are kept alive for the purpose of medical research and experimentation, and kept alive only so long as they continue to provide valuable research, to be disposed of when they are no longer viable.

[Hellrider]

I perfectly understand your opinion, even though I'm not a proponent of the death penalty. Nevertheless I accept that there are viable arguments for it, still I think killing somebody is not completely "clean" no matter what they did. Of course, it must be secured that the respective people have little to no chance to ever again harm somebody. So I agree with people that say "it''s a bad joke that murderers often only serve 10 years". But killing somebody because they have committed a murder (arguably the most serious crime) and are "worthless" because they did so still smells of "punishung a crime with another crime" to me. I'm well aware though what the Old Testament says...

That was only indirectly connected to your question though, but I hope you forgive me for clearing that point because I think I read between the lines that you want these people to be eliminated.

The question whether somebody is born as "worthy" person is the same discussion that's been going on for quite some time about abortion and stem-cell-research. Is it okay to "kill" a being because this being has no sense of self-worth, is not conscious of itself? If you answer that question with "Yes", then you won't have any problems to demand that killers (even the ones that are mentally deranged and not aware of their actions) be killed, because it basically follows the same logic. I'm sure there are enough people that would answer that question with "No", I can also understand that.

What I cannot comprehend fully is how some people can answer can say "No!" to abortion but "Yes!" to the death penalty. It might sound provocative and of course there's a difference but I think the two can be compared.

I'm not too much of a Christian believer, so all morality is relative and none is universally valid. Okay, I've made much ado about nothing, so I now draw my conclusion:

even if a judge or somebody else decides that somebody has to die because of laws made by humans, they are still human beings and I think it is possible to execute somebody without calling him "worthless" or "subhuman".

Thanks for your attention

[Ally]

HellRider,

You turned it into an argument about the death penalty and abortion, when that is not the question.

The question is: why are humans automatically considered "worthy" and immune to the label of worthless?

By what criteria can you say that being human = being of value?

[Hellrider]

I know I wrote a lot but I felt that the logic is the same and therefore they are connected. Sorry for that...

the main problem I have with the label "worthless" is that it is so easy to abuse. Have not nearly all cases of genodice in history been committed because somebody thought somebody else was "worthless"? The Nazis thought so of the Jews, the Turks of the Armenians....the term "worthless" or "subhuman" reeks of fanaticism, either racial or religious, to me. I always see the danger of subjectivity, you know, maybe it's not the right word but I'm no native speaker of English. Fanatic islamists tend to think the "heretics" in the western world are worthless, Christian fanatics thought so as well during the crusades and so on and so forth.

So my problem is not the question whether people are protected by birthright against certain treatments, but I don't like the use of these words.

I hope I made myself a little clearer now