Originally Posted by ReDorkulateD

Was it a Catholic school?

wow lmao

note to self: dont go on MI at the library

Originally Posted by Mepper

Am I the only one that thinks of Law Abiding Citizen after reading this?

I thought of Taken, even though his kid didn't get killed in that.

Don't ever **** with a man's kid. Especially if that man was the Jedi that learned how to become one with The Force.

Cut the texbook bullshit, "If the father kills the murderer, how does that make him any better".

It might not make him better, but it will damn well MAKE him feel better. Revenge is the sweetest sin.
Besides, all of you people can talk all level headed... why not have someone torture someone who is beloved to you, and let's see how you react

Befriend the killer and back-stab him when he's most vulnerable.

Originally Posted by Cliu91

It might not make him better, but it will damn well MAKE him feel better. Revenge is the sweetest sin.

Depends entirely on the circumstances, and the people involved.

Sorry to say it, but the father's obsession over avenging his son's death is, if he is truly unable to sleep or function properly, unhealthy. He needs professional help. I know some will say, "you're not in his position, who are you to judge" but I am just looking at this with a level head. I do not sympathize with the murderer, obviously.

Hypothetically, let's say the father -does- openly kill his son's murderer, where does that leave him? In prison, left to rot. He can justify it all he wants by saying that he "[made things] right" but it doesn't change anything substantial. And, consequently, this poor family has been cursed by two murders, instead of one.

Not the most desirable solution.

Originally Posted by grovad

Depends entirely on the circumstances, and the people involved.

Sorry to say it, but the father's obsession over avenging his son's death is, if he is truly unable to sleep or function properly, unhealthy. He needs professional help. I know some will say, "you're not in his position, who are you to judge" but I am just looking at this with a level head. I do not sympathize with the murderer, obviously.

Hypothetically, let's say the father -does- openly kill his son's murderer, where does that leave him? In prison, left to rot. He can justify it all he wants by saying that he "[made things] right" but it doesn't change anything substantial. And, consequently, this poor family has been cursed by two murders, instead of one.

Not the most desirable solution.

Yeah the fathers obsession is weird.

Its almost like he never forgot his son was killed then cannibalized. I think he must have OCD or something. LET GO MAN!!

Originally Posted by Rakim

Yeah the fathers obsession is weird.

Its almost like he never forgot his son was killed then cannibalized. I think he must have OCD or something. LET GO MAN!!

I like the sarcasm. Keep in mind though, it is the Internet; someone might actually take you seriously unless you show otherwise.

Still, I stand by what I said. Also, any criminal who murders and cannibalizes a five year old -probably- is not right in the head. "Punishing" him would be fruitless. But... let's not go into that.

Originally Posted by grovad

Depends entirely on the circumstances, and the people involved.

Sorry to say it, but the father's obsession over avenging his son's death is, if he is truly unable to sleep or function properly, unhealthy. He needs professional help. I know some will say, "you're not in his position, who are you to judge" but I am just looking at this with a level head. I do not sympathize with the murderer, obviously.

Funny how you didn't say the killer needs professional help. I mean he IS the one that killed a little kid and ate his flesh.

Originally Posted by Revolution1

Your excellent reference to The Lord of the Rings made me smile.

I completely agree with you.

@jo87:

"I feel bad for you because you seem to be clearly so into science and books that you can't make a point without sounding like you are trying to sound smart."

Wow, I'm incredulous at your ignorance and inability to make an intelligent argument. But, you made me smile, too.

The fact that you like Lord of the Rings makes me laugh But I'm sorry I must be dumb for not liking fantasy books and having a real life to live.

Originally Posted by grovad

I like the sarcasm. Keep in mind though, it is the Internet; someone might actually take you seriously unless you show otherwise.

Still, I stand by what I said. Also, any criminal who murders and cannibalizes a five year old -probably- is not right in the head. "Punishing" him would be fruitless. But... let's not go into that.

u serious ?

Originally Posted by jo87

Funny how you didn't say the killer needs professional help. I mean he IS the one that killed a little kid and ate his flesh.

I did not bring it up because anyone with an ounce of humanity in them, after reading the article's sub-headline, could tell you that.

Originally Posted by giftedchick

u serious ?

The ******* killed and consumed a five year old boy. He is -clearly- mentally unstable, with a low regard for other people's lives - and probably even his own. You think he is afraid of punishment?

Yo dawg I heard U like the Hannibal series so I murdered and ate your child

I believe there are two arguments being discussed here, and they should be treated not as one:

1) Is it right for the father in this particular scenario to kill his son's murderer?

2) Is revenge ever a proper course of action with respect to delivering justice?

The first statement is a question which the father must ask himself, which is likely to be answered affirmatively, as I see it, because he is consumed with anger and not even remotely open to logical third-party arguments. The second statement, although related to the first, is a question posed to society at large; if we allow this one man to kill his son's murderer, are we then agreeing that retribution, in all imaginable situations, is always the right course of action? My personal opinion is that revenge, at the level of society, can never be a legitimate method of carrying out justice, as it establishes an open-ended, back-and-forth struggle between two parties (that is, the first perpetrator and the one who punishes the perpetrator through revenge) who can then always claim, after they have been offended, that they rightfully possess a reason to seek revenge against the other party, and when they do, they offer the opposing party a countering reason to carry out an act of vengeance, and so the cycle continues, hypothetically, indefinitely. One only has to look at vendettas in Sicily to realize for how long this cycle can persist and to what extremes it can be taken. For this reason I do not support revenge as an avenue for justice.

However, from the perspective of the father, the previous argument seems to break down; realistically, how could the father ever ignore his overpowering emotional response (and perhaps even his desire for revenge) in favour of an ethical argument? On the one hand, the father is concerned with the immediate consequence of his act - that is, his son's murderer is dead - and nothing more; he strives for this goal alone. On the other hand, we, external observers of the same society, are concerned with the long-term: Will he actually be satisfied later in his life with having killed his son's murderer? How will others close to the father be affected by his decision? Will others follow suit and interpret revenge as a method of justice? Our concerns are largely hypothetical, or, at best, based on some set of philosophical principles; in discussing what is "right" for the father, we are inescapably pulled into an ethical debate which then is concerned with not the particular case of the father but revenge in general and which pits opposing philosophical opinions against one another. I could, for example, argue in support of the killing of the murderer from a hedonistic (in the true sense of the philosophical school that pleasure is the only inherent good and evil is the only inherent evil) point of view, but we would then be discussing what is good and evil and not whether the father should kill his son's murderer, and so a conclusion which corresponds with the reality of the father may not be reached. There is also another entire philosophical debate of whether we can apply our set of morals to the father, and whether he has any obligation at all to adhere to them; again, it becomes clear how quickly this debate can become philosophical and can possibly forget the matter at hand.

In short, although it may seem that the case of the father is the dilemma of revenge writ large, we need to remember that our philosophical opinions - or, more straightforwardly in the context of what seems to be popular on these forums, our assumptions of what is always right and what is always wrong in every social environment - do not always correspond to every setting; the absolutist pitfall, in a phrase. Perhaps, then, we should not forget this problem's basic conditions: a father's child has been killed and cannibalized. I feel strongly here that horror is not to be taken lightly.

Originally Posted by Revolution1

Yes, you are dumb. Quite dumb, indeed. You have made a fool of yourself on this forum. Just go re-read your own comments.

A sample: "No, I'm arguing you're stupid because you are using another persons work because you cant make a point on your own. Go read a book, Mr. Smartypants."
But, hey, at least you realize it!

No I didn't realize it, I was waiting for you to come along and tell me.