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

[The Spartan (Returns)]

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]

Disgusting

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

The human condition, I suspect.

[Lord Winter]

The human condition, I suspect.

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

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

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]

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]

whoopsie-daisy, wrong thread.

[lars573]

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.

[Lord Winter]

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

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]

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

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

[Mooks]

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]

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]

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]

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-Pos.../dp/185984054X

A interview on the book:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/libra...hens_16_4.html

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

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

[Scurvy]

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.

[Beefy187]

Its not the first time to hear that kind of news

[The Spartan (Returns)]

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.

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]

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]

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)]

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]

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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)]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Dare I hijack another thread?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.