In Korea: Six Teenagers Arrested After Attempting To Sell 2 Middle School Girls [Archive]

The Spartan (Returns)

03-14-2009, 04:33

From Sankaku Complex:

"A gang of six teenagers have been arrested after they kidnapped and abused two middle schoolers, imprisoning them naked in order to sell them to clients, and torturing them on film to ensure their obedience.

Previously the gang captured other girls, forcing them to have sex with men and making millions of won in the process.

Using an Internet chat site, a gang of four boys, aged between 19 and 21, and two 19-year-old girls lured two 15-year-old middle school girls to a rendezvous.

Upon meeting the girls, two of the boys forced the girls into a car at knife point, imprisoning them and threatening their lives if they refused to prostitute themselves. They also attempted to have their way with the girls.

The teenage gang confined the two girls at a motel in Gimpo, Gyeonggi Province, forcing them to strip naked. One of the female gang members reportedly said “My hands hurt from hitting them”; her response was to make the girls hit one another for her.

The gang intimidated another 13-year-old girl they had previously captured into filming the action with a cell phone. The captive schoolgirls were told that the footage would be spread if they failed to cooperate, or ran away.

However, the two 15-year-olds did manage to escape, and true to their word the gang uploaded the video to the Internet.

Outraged Internet users soon alerted police, who used the video to track down the gang members. The video itself was quickly removed.

The gang is suspected of having perpetrated similar crimes in the past, apparently pimping three other girls over 60 times and making five million won ($3,340) between last October and November.

Net users are calling for an example to made of them to dissuade others from similar predation.

Via the Korea Times.

It seems such excesses are not limited to the Chinese teenagers who not so long ago perpetrated a very similar crime; of course, similar crimes are seen throughout the world, not least in Japan…"

The link to the site is not appropriate enough to be posted. =P

Lord Winter

03-14-2009, 06:56

Disgusting:shame:

Alexander the Pretty Good

03-14-2009, 07:00

The human condition, I suspect. :no:

Lord Winter

03-14-2009, 07:08

The human condition, I suspect. :no:

I hope this is just a case of a few isolated sickos and not a deeper reflection on humanity itself.

Alexander the Pretty Good

03-14-2009, 07:27

Well, I guess part of what I meant was that we'll always have (hopefully isolated) sickos.

It's really hard to respond to something so senseless.

HoreTore

03-14-2009, 09:58

I hope this is just a case of a few isolated sickos and not a deeper reflection on humanity itself.

Greed, power and our urge for control all combined at its most primitive and barbaric.

I'm sorry. This is humanity.

HoreTore

03-14-2009, 10:07

whoopsie-daisy, wrong thread.

lars573

03-14-2009, 18:05

I'm sorry. This is humanity.
I often wonder how people delude themselfs into thinking that were are anything but brutal, avaritious, and pretentious animals. :idea2:

Lord Winter

03-14-2009, 20:07

I often wonder how people delude themselfs into thinking that were are anything but brutal, avaritious, and pretentious animals. :idea2:

For each example like this there's a Mother Teresa. I think the majority of humans at least want to do good, even if they don't achieve it.

Husar

03-14-2009, 22:35

So korea is starting to crack down on free trade now? :inquisitive:

The company of those 6 teenagers should get a prize of 20 years each for that.

Mooks

03-15-2009, 01:09

For each example like this there's a Mother Teresa. I think the majority of humans at least want to do good, even if they don't achieve it.

You mean the woman who publicly helped the needy but then kept them in inhumane and sick conditions purposely so she could keep the money/fame flowing? You just perfectly proved Lars573's point.

Lord Winter

03-15-2009, 01:25

You mean the woman who publicly helped the needy but then kept them in inhumane and sick conditions purposely so she could keep the money/fame flowing? You just perfectly proved Lars573's point.

I've done a quick scan on wiki, but I could not find anything about this, do you have a link? Anyway, Mother Teresa was just one example I pulled off the top of my head, what about Ghandi or any other selfless person that will pop up in the news now and then? I'm not saying that they're perfect, but you can't deny that there are examples on the opposite end of the spectrum of the Hitlers, murders and rapist.

Either way that fact still doesn't disprove my point. What about the average person who is appalled by these sort of things? The person who at some level believes in a moral code and wishes to follow it, regardless of how much they fail in meeting it. Yes, there are evil people, and the world is full of greed and hate but there's more then that in the world. Hate and greed may be more visible but you can not ignore that the majority of people wish to be good.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-15-2009, 01:29

Mother Teresa was a good person - you may not agree with her methods or her religion, but she was undoubtedly a kind person who helped a lot of people.

Mooks

03-15-2009, 01:54

I've done a quick scan on wiki, but I could not find anything about this, do you have a link? Anyway, Mother Teresa was just one example I pulled off the top of my head, what about Ghandi or any other selfless person that will pop up in the news now and then? I'm not saying that they're perfect, but you can't deny that there are examples on the opposite end of the spectrum of the Hitlers, murders and rapist.

Either way that fact still doesn't disprove my point. What about the average person who is appalled by these sort of things? The person who at some level believes in a moral code and wishes to follow it, regardless of how much they fail in meeting it. Yes, there are evil people, and the world is full of greed and hate but there's more then that in the world. Hate and greed may be more visible but you can not ignore that the majority of people wish to be good.

Mother Teresa was a good person - you may not agree with her methods or her religion, but she was undoubtedly a kind person who helped a lot of people.

I urge you both look at Christopher Hitchens book "Missionary position:Mother Teresa in practice. Even if 10% of the book is true it still shatters the myth that surrounds the woman.

http://www.amazon.com/Missionary-Position-Mother-Teresa-Practice/dp/185984054X

A interview on the book:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hitchens_16_4.html

A wiki related article on mother teresa's organization:
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Missionaries_of_Charity_-_Criticisms/id/1771246

And I dont disagree with you, just that your example supports his point so well.

Scurvy

03-15-2009, 02:22

The criticism of Mother Teresa is vastly outweighed by the praise, i don't agree with her religious motivation, and she is perhaps above criticism in the mainstream media, but he actions resulted in overwhelmingly good consequences (one of his core arguments is that her orphanages etc. are underdeveloped, but before she arrived they did not exist at all), aswell as providing a figurehead for modern humnaitarian aid - whatever the reality, the fact that people idolise her / want to follow her (perhaps false) example in helping people is fine with me...

On the humaninity thing, imo people are fundamentally bad, hence why we have to teach children not to be violent/ steal/ etc. and rely on legal codes, and even advertise capitalism as a good idea.

:2thumbsup:

Beefy187

03-15-2009, 02:34

Its not the first time to hear that kind of news :shame:

The Spartan (Returns)

03-15-2009, 02:51

On the humaninity thing, imo people are fundamentally bad, hence why we have to teach children not to be violent/ steal/ etc. and rely on legal codes, and even advertise capitalism as a good idea.

:2thumbsup:That's also why we show sex, violence, cursing, and drugs in the media today. [Sarcasm]

Sex is widely promoted in mainstream media... at least in America.

Even if you teach your child the right things, you can see what mainstream media can do to the youth today.

Beefy187

03-15-2009, 02:55

Childrens seems to be more mature in terms of sex as lots of younger generation seems to know a lot about sex without adults teaching them.

Thats why teenagers has a laugh at Anti porno clip that schools shows.

What we lack is responsibility and thoughts about the consequenses. Or in bigger words..Morality.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-15-2009, 03:59

Well, Hitchens hates Christians in particular, though he's the most virulant atheist I know of in general. Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised to discover that Mother Theresa was somewhat narrowminded, or even incompetent.

I have seen examples of great evil and selfishness, I have also seen the reverse. Soldiers who throw themselves on grenades, firefighters who rescue babies only to die themselves. Hummanity is capable of acts of great love and compassion. In my experience the quickest route to evil and selfishness is to see those traits in others.

The Spartan (Returns)

03-15-2009, 04:37

What we lack is responsibility and thoughts about the consequenses. Or in bigger words..Morality.The teaching of the Theory of Evolution in schools ties in that, in the sense that, in my opinion, may undermine morality of the students... therefore most of the youth.

Quote from WIKI:

However, any use of evolutionary descriptions to set moral standards would be a naturalistic fallacy (or more specifically the is-ought problem), as prescriptive, moral statements cannot be derived from purely descriptive premises. Describing how things are does not imply that things ought to be that way. It is also simplistic to suggest that evolutionary "survival of the fittest" implies treating the weak badly, as social behaviour cooperating with others and treating them well improves evolutionary fitness.

It has also been claimed that "the survival of the fittest" theory in biology was interpreted by late 19th century capitalists as "an ethical precept that sanctioned cutthroat economic competition" and led to "social Darwinism" which allegedly glorified laissez-faire economics, war and racism. However these ideas predate and commonly contradict Darwin's ideas, and indeed their proponents rarely invoked Darwin in support, while commonly claiming justification from religion and Horatio Alger mythology. The term "social Darwinism" referring to capitalist ideologies was introduced as a term of abuse by Richard Hofstadter's Social Darwinism in American Thought published in 1944. When used as a criticism of Darwin's theory of evolution, this claim is also an example of the appeal to consequences fallacy – even if the concept of survival of the fittest was used as a justification for violence in human society, this has no effect on the truth of the theory of evolution by natural selection in the natural world.

I at first hand, know non-believers at school using Evolution as reference when debating the existence of God, and/or the importance of morals. Or people abandoning their religion because of Evolution. For example a non-believer saying, "Technically we're just animals." Can destroy all morals in the sense that animals/organisms do not have morals. Plain science on paper says humans are just animals/organisms.

Being a non-believer makes an individual create his own morals; whether being taught or by his own experiences. Rather, being in a religion teaches you morals. (mostly good ones) The world today, teaches the youth to pretty much "do as you please". Correct? People can interpret this different ways. Most of us are smart and develop "correct" morals (at least in the sense that mindless killing is wrong) and others develop the "wrong" morals. (such as rapists, murderers) Now since a broad subject such as Evolution is taught in school, some people can interpret whats being taught the "wrong" way.

I know how ignorant this sounds but, even I'm somewhat confused in my statement in that I'm not sure if I filled in all the argumentative "holes". Perhaps what I posted is incorrect. And if I'm not even too sure how do you expect a weak-minded youth to understand? The world today has created a "broad" atmosphere for the youth... and we can't expect all of the youth to interpret everything the "correct" way.

Lord Winter

03-15-2009, 05:58

That's also why we show sex, violence, cursing, and drugs in the media today. [Sarcasm]

Sex is widely promoted in mainstream media... at least in America.

Even if you teach your child the right things, you can see what mainstream media can do to the youth today.

I think the media is blamed too much. At worst, the media is just a symptom and not the problem itself.

I at first hand, know non-believers at school using Evolution as reference when debating the existence of God, and/or the importance of morals. Or people abandoning their religion because of Evolution. For example a non-believer saying, "Technically we're just animals." Can destroy all morals in the sense that animals/organisms do not have morals. Plain science on paper says humans are just animals/organisms.

Being a non-believer makes an individual create his own morals; whether being taught or by his own experiences. Rather, being in a religion teaches you morals. (mostly good ones) The world today, teaches the youth to pretty much "do as you please". Correct? People can interpret this different ways. Most of us are smart and develop "correct" morals (at least in the sense that mindless killing is wrong) and others develop the "wrong" morals. (such as rapists, murderers) Now since a broad subject such as Evolution is taught in school, some people can interpret whats being taught the "wrong" way.

I know how ignorant this sounds but, even I'm somewhat confused in my statement in that I'm not sure if I filled in all the argumentative "holes". Perhaps what I posted is incorrect. And if I'm not even too sure how do you expect a weak-minded youth to understand? The world today has created a "broad" atmosphere for the youth... and we can't expect all of the youth to interpret everything the "correct" way.

Evolution doesn't mean that we are just animals. Even if we're just organic computers humans are clearly different. Look at art, music, literature and then tell me that we have not created something greater then the thoughts of a wild boar that eats its own young. Teaching evolution is no more evil then teaching psychology. While there are forces in our minds that influence us, the final decision is still up to us. I'm not worried that we're devolping some moral nihilism due to evoloution. We feel like we have free will, no matter if we do in the end or not.
The feeling of control is still there and thus it is relatively easy to understand on a personal level that we are responsible for our actions.

The Spartan (Returns)

03-15-2009, 07:11

Evolution doesn't mean that we are just animals. Even if we're just organic computers humans are clearly different. Look at art, music, literature and then tell me that we have not created something greater then the thoughts of a wild boar that eats its own young. Teaching evolution is no more evil then teaching psychology. While there are forces in our minds that influence us, the final decision is still up to us. I'm not worried that we're devolping some moral nihilism due to evoloution. We feel like we have free will, no matter if we do in the end or not.
The feeling of control is still there and thus it is relatively easy to understand on a personal level that we are responsible for our actions.Haha See? Well that just proves it. Trusting you, perhaps I misinterpreted Evolution. But do you see how easily a weaker mind could interpret this? Am I wrong?

My main point is that, I believe society has created such a vast atmosphere in which our youth lives. With all the mixed "messages"/confusion in music, movies, science etc. it's no wonder why the youth may apprehend these the "wrong" way, and go out and kidnap and sell six girls into human trafficking.
And of course there's always other reasons...

Sasaki Kojiro

03-15-2009, 07:13

the youth may apprehend these the "wrong" way, and go out and kidnap and sell six girls into human trafficking.

Or you know, the youths in this case could have been sociopaths.

Lord Winter

03-15-2009, 07:53

Haha See? Well that just proves it. Trusting you, perhaps I misinterpreted Evolution. But do you see how easily a weaker mind could interpret this? Am I wrong?

My main point is that, I believe society has created such a vast atmosphere in which our youth lives. With all the mixed "messages"/confusion in music, movies, science etc. it's no wonder why the youth may apprehend these the "wrong" way, and go out and kidnap and sell six girls into human trafficking.
And of course there's always other reasons...

I don't really get how I disproved my own point. I was saying two things in that quote:

1) One we're greater then animals and are more then bits of carbon even if we don't have a soul/god
2) Even if we don't have free will, the fact that we believe that we can chose in our lives is enough to override any effects a deterministic world would cause.

In my experience I don't think "weaker minds" would even be thinking of free will vs. determinism. The fact is you can not blame education or society. Where is the message that we should go kidnap, beat and abuse girls? I agree with Sasski, these are just exceptions rather then the rule.

Beefy187

03-15-2009, 13:23

Well you gotta admit though. The recent media trend is "more blood! more sex!!"

There is rarely a movie without violent or sex. If you compare the horror movie 20 years ago and now. Compare cheap horror film like (Insert horror movie 20 years ago here) and "Saw" series for instance. I bet there was no twisted movie like Saw back then.

And we can't blame the media for what their doing. Because they are just making what people want to see.

What seems to be strange and disgusting now could be normal and common in few years time

Rhyfelwyr

03-15-2009, 14:53

In my experience I don't think "weaker minds" would even be thinking of free will vs. determinism.

Dare I hijack another thread? :clown: :smash:

More seriously, on the topic being discussed in the last few posts, I do not believe that morality can be taught alongside evolution. Instead, it only teaches the rules of consent and convenience, that for the good of the species as a whole, one person should generally not hinder anothers pursuit of happiness. That people should be totally free to do with themselves as they please. Individualism isn't necessarily evil, but in this form it removes all sense of responsibility. It is this very selfish attitude that causes problems in society today. It is the law of consent and not morality, it does not acknowledge that there is anything greater than one person's pursuit of happiness at any one time, regardless of the consequences.

For example, if someone wants to have sex at the risk of getting pregnant, that is their right. Now they've got pregnant, there's this parasite in their body, so its their right to remove it. Not meaning to start an abortion debate, this is just an example to the larger argument.

Banquo's Ghost

03-15-2009, 15:06

More seriously, on the topic being discussed in the last few posts, I do not believe that morality can be taught alongside evolution. Instead, it only teaches the rules of consent and convenience, that for the good of the species as a whole, one person should generally not hinder anothers pursuit of happiness. That people should be totally free to do with themselves as they please. Individualism isn't necessarily evil, but in this form it removes all sense of responsibility. It is this very selfish attitude that causes problems in society today. It is the law of consent and not morality, it does not acknowledge that there is anything greater than one person's pursuit of happiness at any one time, regardless of the consequences.

You are confusing unrelated ideas.

Evolution is a scientific theory. Morality is within the compass of philosophy. You appear to be arguing that physics should not be taught in case the corrupting of morals caused by internet pr0n is facilitated by the wickedness of electro-magnetism.

I don't deny there have been plenty of people willing to shoe-horn their odd views of morality into a evolutionary framework (particularly with natural selection) but that's their problem.

Rhyfelwyr

03-15-2009, 15:11

You are confusing unrelated ideas.

Evolution is a scientific theory. Morality is within the compass of philosophy. You appear to be arguing that physics should not be taught in case the corrupting of morals caused by internet pr0n is facilitated by the wickedness of electro-magnetism.

As much as the bolded bit made me lol, I think the ideas are very much related. According to evolution, we are really just another kind of animal, and most people don't consider animals to be moral. Even if you believe that morals are something which evolve, that removes the whole idea of unchanging moral absolutes. For morals to be universal truths, they cannot be something that emerges or adapts over time. According to evolution, 'morals' are just nice or helpful ideas.

Banquo's Ghost

03-15-2009, 15:28

As much as the bolded bit made me lol, I think the ideas are very much related. According to evolution, we are really just another kind of animal, and most people don't consider animals to be moral. Even if you believe that morals are something which evolve, that removes the whole idea of unchanging moral absolutes. For morals to be universal truths, they cannot be something that emerges or adapts over time. According to evolution, 'morals' are just nice or helpful ideas.

Again, you're conflating.

Physics shows us that we are simply stardust. Chemistry further demonstrates we are just a bunch of complex chemicals.

Strike these (and geology, cosmology et al) from being taught then? Why does biology get all the special attention?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-15-2009, 17:26

Lord Winter, in a deterministic world our perception of free will is merely part of the determinism. So you're argueing both sides of a debate.

As far as the evolution vs. morality thing goes, while I can see the point Rhyfelwyr is trying to make, I think he has it backwards. The arguement runs that we are just animals and therefore morality is merely something we have evolved as a means od improving our chances of survival. Therefore, we can do whatever we want so long as we don't impede others' survival.

This is faulty for two reasons:

1. It assumes animals have no emotion or morality, patently false. Anyone who has a dog will argue against this. Researchers working with Dolphins and Apes have seen pretty much all the best and worst of hummanity in these species, including hatred grief, and arguably love. Two examples that spring to mind are the Dolphin that performed it's dead friend's routine infront of a crowd and the Gorilla who carried around here dead son for three days.

2. The model also assumes that actions like unresponsible sex (and pregnancies) don't impact on the group, we know they do.

So, overall this theory of amorality doesn't really stand up from a scienticif or theistic/philosohphical standpoint.

Evolution should be taught in schools, and so should ethics. Currently the State in most countries half-cooks both.

Rhyfelwyr

03-15-2009, 19:00

I definitely wouldn't say animals have no emotions, and I wouldn't suggest that morals are beyond them either. If they have a creator just like us humans, then they could also be bound by universal morals (when I said they didn't earlier on I meant if they had evolved in the Darwinian sense; animals do of course evolve but if they are created as moral beings, rather than gradually becoming so, then they can have proper morals*). On the other hand, if you believe that all life originated from microscopic life-forms, then 'morals' must have evolved with us (so they're not proper morals), or were instead 'planted' in us at a certain evolutionary stage, which is a bit speculative.

* 'proper morals' refers to values understood by all moral agents, which are unchanging and absolute, and therefore cannot evolve through time with a species, or just be adopted by some

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-15-2009, 19:50

Rhyfelwyr

03-15-2009, 19:59

Unless morals are something you evolve towards. The morals can be absolute, while your understanding can be hideously crippled.

That is an interesting position, although by suggesting we are only partially moral creatures, could we also be held responsible for failing to keep to morals yet beyond us (ultimately sin as disobedience to God's ways if we're being scriptural here)?

Lord Winter

03-15-2009, 22:17

Rhyfelwyr

03-15-2009, 23:05

Rhyfelwyr, under that logic wouldn't it be unjust for god to punish anyone just because of one man 3,000 years ago?

If we can't reach a certain level of morals then the only valid test would be our intentions instead of our results.

We're still moral in that we know what we are doing is wrong (deep down, even if we deny it). The thing is, ever since Adam committed the original sin, we just can't help it. Our nakedness has been revealed. We are but a moral agent that by its wicked nature commits only sin.

Sheesh, I've been a Calvinist ever since I began to learn about Christianity, but since I started debating here I just sound more and more cheerful. Honestly, you're making me more Calvinistic by the day. :laugh4:

EDIT: I guess you meant 6,000 years ago? I don't actually believe in a young earth myself, or that life on earth is that young.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-16-2009, 02:39

That is an interesting position, although by suggesting we are only partially moral creatures, could we also be held responsible for failing to keep to morals yet beyond us (ultimately sin as disobedience to God's ways if we're being scriptural here)?

I'll go with moral sufficiency here. We hold children accountable for some of their transgressions, as they mature we hold them accountable for more. I would argue that man has matured far enough to be held accountable by God.

Od course, if you're a Calvinist your morality is irrelevant anyway.

Rhyfelwyr

03-16-2009, 14:12

I'll go with moral sufficiency here. We hold children accountable for some of their transgressions, as they mature we hold them accountable for more. I would argue that man has matured far enough to be held accountable by God.

Od course, if you're a Calvinist your morality is irrelevant anyway.

Our morality is crucial, in that if we didn't have it, we could not be judged by our actions. Also, if you believe that ultimately sin is disobedience to God, that doesn't leave much room for a learning curve. If Abraham had killed his son, it would not have been a sin, since God ordered it. If someone nowadays randomly kills his son, it is a sin. Being the source and nature of all good itself, God will judge us according to how we served him, not by what we think is right or wrong.

So really there is only one sin - disobedience to God. The Ten Commandments just show us what is generally offensive to God.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-16-2009, 14:31

Our morality is crucial, in that if we didn't have it, we could not be judged by our actions. Also, if you believe that ultimately sin is disobedience to God, that doesn't leave much room for a learning curve. If Abraham had killed his son, it would not have been a sin, since God ordered it. If someone nowadays randomly kills his son, it is a sin. Being the source and nature of all good itself, God will judge us according to how we served him, not by what we think is right or wrong.

So really there is only one sin - disobedience to God. The Ten Commandments just show us what is generally offensive to God.

I believe people should be judged by their intention as well as action. I'm sure I can find a scriptural parralel, ah... Sermon on the Mount, adultery. There you go.

As far as disobedience to God, is it just to punish someone if they don't know they are transgressing?

Husar

03-16-2009, 15:29

Rhyfelwyr

03-16-2009, 15:55

I believe people should be judged by their intention as well as action. I'm sure I can find a scriptural parralel, ah... Sermon on the Mount, adultery. There you go.

As far as disobedience to God, is it just to punish someone if they don't know they are transgressing?

Absolutedly, actions are only really an indication of people's intentions. We know people by their fruit, God knows them by their hearts.

For the disobedience issue, I do believe that we all have the same moral principles, its just we can't act by them without God's help. And when I say act, I mean even in our hearts/minds. We know we were doing wrong, but we do it anyway.

Wait, didn't we already have a christian religious dogmatic philosophy discussion in that thread about the old woman getting lashes?

I guess we can agree that Jesus didn't advocate selling sex slaves, can't we? :inquisitive:

I suppose, but the discussion here is different. Maybe its got a bit off topic, sorry if it has. PVC and myself have only made a couple of threads our battleground in recent times, its not that bad. :sweatdrop:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-16-2009, 17:56

Wait, didn't we already have a christian religious dogmatic philosophy discussion in that thread about the old woman getting lashes?

I guess we can agree that Jesus didn't advocate selling sex slaves, can't we? :inquisitive:

I'm not really interested in a dogmatic discussion here. My point was that I believe in absolute morals, but not necessarily an absolute understanding of them. With that in mind, we should be as forgiving as possible. In this case though, I see no reason to believe that these people didn't know what they were doing. Sociopath would be letting them off lightly, plain nasty would be better.

As to Jesus, seems he was ok with slaves in general, the problem would likely be the extra-marital sex.

Rhyfelwyr, you've strayed back into determinism, which definately is off topic here.

Rhyfelwyr

03-16-2009, 18:07

Rhyfelwyr, you've strayed back into determinism, which definately is off topic here.

I can't help it, everything is so interconnected, even Lord Winter raised the determinism issue earlier.

But yeah, on the original topic, I also stated I believe in absolute morals, however I also think we have an absolute understanding of them. This goes for this Korean gang, I'm sure they were well aware that what they were doing was wrong.

drone

03-16-2009, 18:27

This is just a sign that the release of StarCraft 2 is desperately needed.

Banquo's Ghost

03-16-2009, 18:59

I suppose, but the discussion here is different. Maybe its got a bit off topic, sorry if it has. PVC and myself have only made a couple of threads our battleground in recent times, its not that bad. :sweatdrop:

Not only is it not bad, your discussions are both learned and fascinating - whilst being conducted with a mutual respect and passion that is an exemplar for everyone in how to conduct a debate.

The both of you have honoured the Backroom with your discourse, and I for one, thank you.

:bow:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-16-2009, 19:22

oh please, you're making my head swell.

I can't abide being called learned either, though thank you for the sentemant. I am flattered to recieve such an in-appropriate complemant from one such as yourself, sir.

The Spartan (Returns)

03-17-2009, 02:11

This is just a sign that the release of StarCraft 2 is desperately needed.Am I the only one who notices this? :lipsrsealed2:

Husar

03-17-2009, 06:33

Well, Banquo is probably right and I shouldn't have made the above comment.
I must be getting on my own nerves a lot lately. :sweatdrop:
Must get some other issues out of my head before I can read yours I guess.

KukriKhan

03-17-2009, 13:39

So korea is starting to crack down on free trade now? :inquisitive:

The company of those 6 teenagers should get a prize of 20 years each for that.

I've re-scanned the thread, and still don't know: What IS the going rate for 3 Korean middle-school girls? How much would the gang have netted, had they been successfull?

Banquo's Ghost

03-17-2009, 13:57

I've re-scanned the thread, and still don't know: What IS the going rate for 3 Korean middle-school girls? How much would the gang have netted, had they been successfull?

The gang is suspected of having perpetrated similar crimes in the past, apparently pimping three other girls over 60 times and making five million won ($3,340) between last October and November.

About $55 a time it appears.

KukriKhan

03-17-2009, 14:06

Thanks, BG.

So it pays better than crack-dealing...

Though crack doesn't cry or get hungry or need to use the loo. I dunno, seems a bad business deal to me. Too much overhead, and (when caught) too much jail time, to justify the $55 per. Maybe they ought to transition into burglery or car-jacking or loan sharking or financial advising.

Husar

03-17-2009, 15:26

My mom always says I'm priceless, 55$ per girl is way too low, I'm sure they're also priceless.

That's why I said the government should help them and give them 20 years full pay each.

If it's not clear enough I mean 20 years in jail.

KukriKhan

03-17-2009, 18:17

Average gross income in Korea is @30K usd. Which works out to about $625 per week. That's 11.36 girls to abduct, maintain & sell per week, just to keep food on the table.

So, it's not only a reprehensible crime, it's a stupid crime. So the gov't must be subsidising them somehow. I think you're right Husar: it would be cheaper to clothe, house and feed them in a controlled environment (prison) for 20 years.

Unless it were North Korea, which only earns about $37.50 per week. Then 1 girl a week would do it, and have a little beer money left over.

Don Corleone

03-17-2009, 20:36

What a fascinating thread(s). I'm always struck by Lars' nihilistic arguments. I must admit, I've attempted over the years to make just such arguments... that an absence of the divine leads to an utter rejection of morals in the general and in the particular, but even I know that's a weak argument generally intended to score points on an atheist I'm nursing a resentment against from another thread (Yes, Lemur, siggy it and hit me in the head with it repeatedly if it arises again).

The argument that we've since we've evolved from lower life forms we're patently incapable of comporting ourselves under the morality we fancy for ourselves shows a limited understanding of evolutionary theory in the first place (or, in my case a willful escapism of the facts already in evidence, usually in a tempermental bout).

First, a biological perspective: descendent species are generally superior, in the objective sense, to their ancestors, as their very existence proves their superiority. Primates didn't suffer from the lack of an opposable thumb and somehow, a random and capricious "nature" stepped in to create one for them. That's called adaptation, and that's not how evolution works. As I understand it, and I'm not a biologist mind you, adaptation is generally considered to apply only to animal behvior, not anatomy or physiology.

So how did that accursed chimpanzee morph the opposable digit to rip that poor woman's face off in CT? Biologists are almost universal in the acceptance of the Theory of Natural Selection. What does that mean? That means that due to chemical, horomonal and radiological stimuli, as well as random errors in RNA transcription, mutations occur all the time. Mutants are not the X-men, nor are they the Morlocks from H.G. Wells' Time Machine. Simply put, we're all mutants. We all have one or more genetic markers that has been corrupted in its RNA transcription. Sometimes these mutations lead to an alteration in the anatomy or physiology of the organism, like the beloved "Six Finger Man" from the Princess Bride. So the thumb was a happy random accident that some primate baby (actually, more than a few primate babies, as the trait wound up being expressed) just happened to win the lottery with. With the thumb, these new apes, with slightly different abilities than their ancestors, were able to survive and thrive, spreading their genetic material through the ages. Their poor thumbless cousins? Displaced, unable to breed (either through lack of competitiveness in the breeding cycle, or usually and more dramatically, through displaced habitat or critical resources).

Where am I going with this? There is nothing in evolution that assumes an equivalency. Quite the opposite, the assumption is generally that descendant species are superior to their ancestors, and the evolutional separation is a direct measure of how superior. To the evolutionist, we ARE superior to dogs, goats and other mamnals, who ARE superior to snakes, fish and birds and other vertabrates, who ARE superior to snails, spiders and earthorms, etcetra, all the way back to those poor slouches, the unicellular organisms who are generally considered vastly inferior to all subsequent species.

So, the evolution of the human brain to reason, to moralize, to assign value both to action and intent, these not only are possible, they are proof of our superiority, theoretically at least. Notice the Holy Trinity never arose in the discussion until the very end, where I noted the absence.

Don Corleone

03-17-2009, 20:40

Don Corleone

03-17-2009, 20:46

With regards to Mother Theresa, I'm certain Christopher Hitchens, the ginblossom turncoat who ties his allegiances to whichever perspective will help sell his latest book is exactly the sort of man we want to have stand in moral judgement over a woman who sacraficed her entire life and all creature comforts she could have enjoyed to tend to the poor, the sick and the infirm. I find especially amusing the that the sum of shis charges amount to that she should have been able to have done a more efficient, more complete job. And he would know this from setting martini consumption records in Faragut Circle, how, exactly?

I mean, he would know how shoddy Morther Theresa's work actually was because of.... his similar expertise but vastly superior results at running orphanages and care facilities in the slums of Calcutta or some similar blighted megalopolis?

Really people... isn't citing Christopher Hitchens' criticisms of Mother Theresa for ineffective service the effective equivalent of having a university dropout criticize Stephen Hawking, for having taken too long to develop the Big Bang Theory?

Don Corleone

03-17-2009, 20:52

Finally, with respect to the original post...

Evil is evil. There are all sorts of theories man uses to justify its presence. What happened to these girls was horrible and atrocious, but I don't think hand-wringing over "what were the perpetrators thinking" gets us anywhere.

I'm starting to take a rather pragmatic approach to morality and evil. I'm getting to a point where I no longer care to understand evil, I simply care to eradicate it. If the only way to keep these 6 monsters from kidnapping, raping, torturing and publicly humiliating innocent teen victims is to dig a hole and throw them down it... hand me a shovel. :evil:

Seamus Fermanagh

03-17-2009, 21:07

As for the rather intriguing morality discussion going on between Philip and Rhyfelwyr (hope I spelled that right), too much to get into in any thread other than a dedicated one. Fascinating stuff, lads, but might I humbly suggest before the two of you proceed debating theories of morality and virtue, you define morality in the absolute sense within each of your respective frames of reference? I forget the official rhetorical term for it, but I believe the two of you are engaged in what I call a diagonal argument... you're not quite speaking past each other, but neither are you in direct opposition... you're close enough in intent that each of you believes the other is on the same page, but a close examination of your fundamental precepts might indicate that you're not quite there.

Lyotard labeled this a "differend:" two individuals speaking past one another because their moral/intellectual frames of reference failed to mesh enough for them to do so.

EDIT

As to your resolution choice, Don C, I'm pretty well in line with you. The Church teaches me that the death penalty is not appropriate, but that does NOT mean that any of this evildoers need to see the light of day anytime in the next half century. In fact, a society that does NOT remove such wrongdoers from any position where they might threaten society in future is acting counter to its own surivival as a society.
__________________

Mooks

03-17-2009, 23:17

I mean, he would know how shoddy Morther Theresa's work actually was because of.... his similar expertise but vastly superior results at running orphanages and care facilities in the slums of Calcutta or some similar blighted megalopolis?

Really people... isn't citing Christopher Hitchens' criticisms of Mother Theresa for ineffective service the effective equivalent of having a university dropout criticize Stephen Hawking, for having taken too long to develop the Big Bang Theory?

She couldve used the money she used (Provided from donations) to build convents and support the catholic church to help feed the poor and homeless in Calcutta. I really dont see how you could argue this.

In that 1 sentence I just destroyed your entire arguement. I would appreciate my balloon now.

On another note. I find argueing morals while adhering to scripture...ultimately pointless. It all boils down to what the book says and how far you want to take it.

For example: the 10 commandments. Sure, they make great sense morally, but most people skip over the punishments for them. They are horrific and befit Saudi Arabia. Most Christians are great fans of the 10 commandments, but I dont know one that would stone a person for working on the sabbath (or actually refuse to do any work on the sabbath at all). Or kill a disobedient child. I could keep on going on, and on, and on.

Don Corleone

03-18-2009, 01:43

She couldve used the money she used (Provided from donations) to build convents and support the catholic church to help feed the poor and homeless in Calcutta. I really dont see how you could argue this.

In that 1 sentence I just destroyed your entire arguement. I would appreciate my balloon now.

On another note. I find argueing morals while adhering to scripture...ultimately pointless. It all boils down to what the book says and how far you want to take it.

For example: the 10 commandments. Sure, they make great sense morally, but most people skip over the punishments for them. They are horrific and befit Saudi Arabia. Most Christians are great fans of the 10 commandments, but I dont know one that would stone a person for working on the sabbath (or actually refuse to do any work on the sabbath at all). Or kill a disobedient child. I could keep on going on, and on, and on.

Where did I cite scripture? And how much charity work have you done? Do some work with lepers in Calcutta, then tell me how stupid Mother Theresa was and how much better she could have done, if only she had you and Christopher Hitchens to guide them. Until then, keep quiet.
In fact, go fetch me another Jameson. You tire me.

Mooks

03-18-2009, 03:45

Where did I cite scripture, dumbass? And how much charity work has your lazy ass done? Do some work with lepers in Calcutta, then tell me how stupid Mother Theresa was and how much better she could have done, if only she had you and Christopher Hitchens to guide them. Until then, shut your pie-hole, you're catching flies.

In fact, go fetch me another Jameson, boy. You tire me.

Great, a ad hominem.

Where did I cite scripture?

I was referring to the earlier discussion, not you.

And how much charity have you done?

I currently volunteer every thursday at the Aquarium. Lots of cleaning fishtanks and coming home smelling like fish.

Do some work with lepers in Calcutta, then tell me how stupid Mother Theresa was and how much better she could have done, if only she had you and Christopher Hitchens to guide them.

Are you honestly telling me that the millions she spent building convents and giving generous donations to the catholic church couldnt have gone to a class A medical facility? Even if that is unrealistic it still completely knocks her off her moral highhorse; only a person who was completely dedicated to scoring points with god wouldve done such a thing.

You tire me.

And you amuse me. Considering the mods give me a warning for a hostile "tone", I wonder what they are going to give you?

Lord Winter

03-18-2009, 03:48

Are you honestly telling me that the millions she spent building convents and giving generous donations to the catholic church couldnt have gone to a class A medical facility? Even if that is unrealistic it still completely knocks her off her moral highhorse; only a person who was completely dedicated to scoring points with god wouldve done such a thing.

So all of her work is meaningless because she gave to the catholic church? :inquisitive:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-18-2009, 03:54

Mooks

03-18-2009, 04:14

How much of the money she gave to the Catholic Church went to other international charity work that the Church runs? Or do you think that all the money was used on conversions and anti-condom campaigns?

Is the catholic church big on charity work? I presume the money went to whatever the catholic church spends its money on (big silk dresses I presume :book:). But to say all of it, or even most of it, went to charity would be like me saying it went to covering up pedophiles.

So all of her work is meaningless because she gave to the catholic church?

http://members.lycos.co.uk/bajuu/

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/shields_18_1.html <- This one a actual testimony of someone who worked with the Missionary of Charity (A nun)

http://www.ibiblio.org/prism/oct97/mothert.html

No, but she couldve done (and her successors can do) much much more. She intentionally didnt use her full capabilities (millions of dollars) for the needy, instead she did the minimum she had to do to get into the spotlight and project her agenda, in her noble peace prize ceremony (she received one) all she could talk about was abortion.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

03-18-2009, 04:17

Is the catholic church big on charity work?

Absolutely huge on charity work.

Seamus Fermanagh

03-18-2009, 04:51

Is the catholic church big on charity work? I presume the money went to whatever the catholic church spends its money on (big silk dresses I presume :book:). But to say all of it, or even most of it, went to charity would be like me saying it went to covering up pedophiles.

http://members.lycos.co.uk/bajuu/

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/shields_18_1.html <- This one a actual testimony of someone who worked with the Missionary of Charity (A nun)

http://www.ibiblio.org/prism/oct97/mothert.html

No, but she couldve done (and her successors can do) much much more. She intentionally didnt use her full capabilities (millions of dollars) for the needy, instead she did the minimum she had to do to get into the spotlight and project her agenda, in her noble peace prize ceremony (she received one) all she could talk about was abortion.

I will set aside the borderline attack on my religion -- "silk dresses" --even though in the strictest interpretaton that is not within BR guidelines. EMFM has answered your question regarding charity succinctly and correctly.

Instead, I would like to point out that both of the pieces I could access (lycos wouldn't open for me) make the presumption that Mother Theresa was supposed to work to stop poverty or alter the socioeconomic dynamics that help to create poverty -- even though she never set that as the ministerial goal of her order. I'm enough of a believer in good works to think that keeping more of the funds that had been donated within the order to expand services would be worthwhile -- clearly the Sisters of the Poor are focused on their spiritual mission even more than that of physical caregiving. This may not be my way of expressing my faith, but I refuse to sit in judgement of her when she has added to the human condition more than she has subtracted from it. Most of her detractors are angry she did not do MORE.

Mooks

03-18-2009, 05:11

Absolutely huge on charity work.

Iv never actually heard of catholic charities. Iv heard of Protestant charities all the time, never catholic. Must be because they fill up their sections of the headlines with pedophilia, covering up said pedophilia, and helping the progression of AIDS.

I will set aside the borderline attack on my religion -- "silk dresses" --even though in the strictest interpretaton that is not within BR guidelines. EMFM has answered your question regarding charity succinctly and correctly.

Instead, I would like to point out that both of the pieces I could access (lycos wouldn't open for me) make the presumption that Mother Theresa was supposed to work to stop poverty or alter the socioeconomic dynamics that help to create poverty -- even though she never set that as the ministerial goal of her order. I'm enough of a believer in good works to think that keeping more of the funds that had been donated within the order to expand services would be worthwhile -- clearly the Sisters of the Poor are focused on their spiritual mission even more than that of physical caregiving. This may not be my way of expressing my faith, but I refuse to sit in judgement of her when she has added to the human condition more than she has subtracted from it. Most of her detractors are angry she did not do MORE.

The Silk dresses bit was a joke. Not sure whether they are silk or not.

I googled "mother teresa quotes" and came up with only a few quotes that vaguely support that her mission was to help the poor, so you got me on that. However, donators clearly made it out that they wanted their money to go to the poor in country XYZ. If the general populace (and some members of the .org) hold her up to such high moral standards, why did she not make her mission statement more clear?

I'm enough of a believer in good works to think that keeping more of the funds that had been donated within the order to expand services would be worthwhile -- clearly the Sisters of the Poor are focused on their spiritual mission even more than that of physical caregiving.

And what is their spiritual mission exactly? If not to help the poor in all means possible, why do they have over 500 locations in ghettos and slums? What exactly are they trying to do treating what people they do in Calcutta?

Most of her detractors are angry she did not do MORE.

She had the means (people, currency, location) to do much more. If I was somebody who believed in her or donated id be angry too.

Seamus Fermanagh

03-18-2009, 05:24

Iv never actually heard of catholic charities. Iv heard of Protestant charities all the time, never catholic. Must be because they fill up their sections of the headlines with pedophilia, covering up said pedophilia, and helping the progression of AIDS....

You know, the rest of your post was understandable and very much on point. The above, however, is borderline Catholic bashing...and THAT is how you chose to open? :inquisitive:

You don't have to like The Church, but I would caution you against being quite so dismissive of a Church that operates -- in the vast majority of instances -- for the betterment of humanity. Did some in the clergy commit sinful crimes? Yes. Did some Diocesan leaders handle their response to this poorly? Yes. Does this invalidate the entirety of the efforts of a world-spanning church? I think not.

As to the progression of AIDS, I can assure you that -- if observed -- pre-marital abstinence as advocated by The Church would have markedly decreased that progression. Nor have I read about crusading Jesuits holding medical supply convoys at gunpoint until all the prophylatics have been destroyed -- must've missed that. Taking a moral stance in opposition to a certain stance on an issue does not equate with prevention of that stance being taken by others. Or are you one of those who believe that a Catholic clinic should discard its own values in pursuit of what you consider to be a higher objective?

Friend, why do you hold such hate in your heart?