How low can you f**king go?!

[voh]

And most of the times the calling for medieval punishments is one way of letting out frustration concerning the fact that if I'd been anywhere near that, and seen it happen, I would've given the guy a swift right hook to the face.

But I wasn't.

And therefore I can only use words.

If people think I'd really (not just me but everyone who responded likewise) do any of those things, the problem lies with them, not with me.

[LimpingFish]

Indeed. And to reply specifically to Andail...

It always amazes me how so many are willing to vent their medieval view on justice and the making thereof. And when other more reasonable people tell them that public humiliation, castration and other means of torture cannot possible bring civilization forward, they always get the response "What! Do you sympathise with the culprit or what?" "What if it had happened to your mother!!?".

My "medieval" view on justice is simply a frustrated response to an abohorrent act commited in broad daylight amidst "civilized" society. Of course none of these punishments are going to actually be carried out upon this person. As human beings, we have evolved beyond automatically reponding to our darker impulses when faced with something that enrages our sense of justice/decency/humanity. It doesn't mean that can't vent that rage by airing our feelings

I haven't seen a specific case of anybody turning on anybody else's "resonable" view in this thread. My reply to Zor was in response to his apparent nonchalant view of urinating on somebody so obviously in need of help.

To me it's pretty obvious that most people who start shouting - in the most mob-like manner - about public and immediate execution, egging or castrating or whatever mostly do so to gain higher moral ground, scared of being accused of something themselves, relieved for not being targeted.

The ambiguity of this statement is both perplexing and intriguing. Maybe I'm missing something.

Regardless, the ability to appear "reasonable", and perhaps even expound pacifism, after the fact requires very little effort and tells us nothing, beyond giving us an oppurtunity to misconstrue a similar intent of ulterior motivation.

EDIT: I'll take this opportuninty to explain my reasons for starting this thread in the first place. Simply put, and maybe even rare for me, I was upset. As I read this story I became increasingly nauseous. I felt an anger towards, not only the person who commited the crime, but towards the society's increasing Youtube-fired mentality of "Pain is funny when it happens to Someone Else".

I even asked myself what I would have done if I had witnessed this happening. Would I have reacted violently to this person, perhaps even to a dangerous level? My anger would drive me to, but I doubt I would. It's not in my personality. I'd try to help the woman, as any decent person would. Of course, other people may see red and go straight for the jugular.

It's an animal response, no doubt, and an old world "justice" that we as a civilized society has, one would hope, left behind. But such a response is still very much a part of us, and how we react when it makes itself known is hard to predict.

I expressed it by venting my anger in a post.

[InCreator]

Medieval torture methods... though I think that they actually work (Middle Eastern examples?) - unlike modern systems, there's a punishment WAY worse due our informational era... than simple torture.

Simply, the criminal's name and photo should be published in press.
I'd like to see that guy have a social life or get a job for next 10 years.

[space boy]

Anger towards that guy is completely understandable and justified and so is the need to vent your anger. No need to lecture people and ridicule natural human reactions to a horrific crime.

[voh]

Yet some feel it's needed to distance themselves from the anger venting and thereby clumping us all together as people who are scared of being accused of something ourselves.

Your deeper analysis, Andail, is flawed. It's normal human instinct to want to retaliate for something that angers us deeply enough to go "WHAT THE FUCK" when reading it, yet it's human evolution to stop there where the words end. Judging us based on what we posted in anger (egg him! castrate him! break his ankles! publically rape him! (that one disturbed me, even..)) just shows that you're not able to put things in context and thereby have taken the "higher moral ground" yourself.

Wow. Talk about irony. The guy saying we're trying to take the higher moral ground did so himself by saying that.

Heehee

[MrColossal]

Don't you want to "deprogram" yourself of the "normal human instinct" to want to retaliate? Not starting a fight, just asking. I try to do this all the time personally. When there is something that humans seem to do as some sort of defense mechanism that goes against logic or how I want to actually behave I like to deconstruct it and see if it fits with the Eric I desire to be.

Kneejerk lashing out at something is what I've tried to repress because it usually never ends up good.

Personally.

[Vince Twelve]

I even asked myself what I would have done if I had witnessed this happening. Would I have reacted violently to this person, perhaps even to a dangerous level? My anger would drive me to, but I doubt I would. It's not in my personality. I'd try to help the woman, as any decent person would. Of course, other people may see red and go straight for the jugular.

Maybe you wouldn't be driven to a dangerous level of aggression, but what if you were in the middle of a mob of people?  I'm reminded of a story I read about a while back:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8PSKSDO0&show_article=1

Basically, at some large public gathering, a man hit a child with his car.  The child sustained non-life threatening injuries.  But the crowd around him was enraged and tried to attack him rather than wait for the proper authorities to handle the incident.  Another man tried to stop the mob and was killed.  The driver got away and is cooperating with investigators.

Now, not only does the driver need to be investigated for his dangerous driving, but the members of the mob need to be investigated for the killing of an innocent bystander.

[voh]

In real life I hardly ever get aggressive. I only get aggressive when I'm as sure as I can be that whoever it's aimed at deserves it. I.e. a guy who hits a girl, and I'd try to just push him away first. I don't really throw punches.

And Mr. Colossal, of course I try that, but from time to time it's also good to indulge and just let the frustration out. Choosing a verbal and not-directed-at-asshole approach seems to work for me. Everybody has their vices, and everybody has their way around them.

This is mine

[Stupot]

We still talking about this guy?
Internet notoriety is what he wanted.  By keeping this thread alive we are helping him achieve his sorry excuse for an ambition.

[space boy]

Don't you want to "deprogram" yourself of the "normal human instinct" to want to retaliate?

We should strive to understand our behaviour and force ourselves to change it if needed, but in this case I don't see a need to reprogram our behaviour. The methods suggested might be "medieval" and I don't agree with most either but I think throwing some virtual eggs at that son of a bitch is a good therapy. Repressing emotions is unhealthy. It's better to let them out in such a way that nobody gets hurt, like in this topic.

That said it's good that we don't get too carried away and have people who remind us that we should keep the egg throwing in text form. But let's not be patronizing.

[LimpingFish]

Maybe you wouldn't be driven to a dangerous level of aggression, but what if you were in the middle of a mob of people?

Interesting point. But can any of us predict how we would react if we allowed ourselves to be swept up by a mob? I like to believe my personality, as a responsible individual, would enable me to retain my individuality and my humanity. It certainly wouldn't be in my nature to wilfully  engage in violence of any description. But who can say for sure? That's my point about the darker side of of the human psyche. We haven't evolved beyond these feelings.

What seperates us from the animal is how we allow these feelings to manifest, and ultimately our control over them. But to deny that they exist, or that repressing these feelings is what makes us human, isn't the answer.

[Andail]

Well, I can totally understand the sudden frustration caused by the thought of deeds like this. If I had been there when it happened I would also get the impuls to punch him in the face, and would certainly not try to stop anyone in the process of doing so.
But from that certain situation to writing posts on the internet is a pretty long step; and furthermore similar stuff happens every minute.

I'm not trying to say that you should opress your frustration, or that anger is something beastial. My point was that people who are very obstinate about punishment (and the overly forgiving attitude of your country's judicial system, etc) are a bit suspicious in my eyes. I can only relate to dinners or parties I've been to when the person ranting most audibly about how they'd like to do this and that (torture, execute) to a specific (often only alleged) perpetrator, and how they'd love to change the laws so that criminals could be publically spanked or whatnot, is always the most trouble-minded, frustrated and least sympathetic of those present. It's like they can't express clearly enough how righteous and innocent they are themselves - like an obsession, a complex.

The problem I addressed in my previous post was that whenever someone else steps in to argue whether harsher punishment is really the solution, they often get comments questioning their moral fibre or sense of justice.

It's ok to be pissed off, to want to beat up people and be frustrated, it's perfectly normal. But when justice gets an obsession to someone, I'm just hearing warning bells.