The Breivik Paradox of Legal Systems - On the Use of Torture
by Leonardo F.
Olsnes-Lea on Tuesday, 26 June 2012 at 20:02 CEST.
With Breivik, it may have
proven to be a trick for the police to charge him with terror, so as to provide
themselves an excuse to torture. Because we don't know if they have tortured, do
we? And that he isn't this terrorist of convention, as they are so fixated to
think, isn't this so? Sorry for this Socrates-chain of words. So here we have a
legal paradox "from a strange and deficient legal system, that of Norway", that
has actualised or blurred when torture on people is supposed to take place,
BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T USED THE LIST OF EU AND THEY HAVEN'T ALLOWED THE TERRORIST
ORGANISATION TO FORM EVEN, BEFORE THEY STRIKE AND CATCH "ONE DAMN EVIL MAN",
(muted) one, perhaps, more Christian than them... "Ohh, is there a chance for
that...?"
Note: First written to Facebook under my Facebook profile (by public
setting, Sunday, 24 June 2012. Note2: Today, I've tried to inform the
ECtHR of serious problems in Norway relating to the formulation of the
Breivik Pradox. I've tried to phone them by official number: 00 33388412018 and
getting "this number is not in use" by NetCom mob.ph.-services.
Note3: The
message to ECtHR has been (upon sending):
I'd like You to know about the
Breivik Paradox and the very serious problems it offers in terms of legal
practice with a police force already marked by corruption and now is looking for
individuals, "whether they remember it or not", traumatic experiences can
/easily/ disappear from memory! Here:
The Breivik Paradox of Legal Systems -
On the Use of Torture
by Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea on Tuesday, 26 June 2012 at
20:02 CEST.
With Breivik, it may have proven to be a trick for the police to
charge him with terror, so as to provide themselves an excuse to torture.
Because we don't know if they have tortured, do we? And that he isn't this
terrorist of convention, as they are so fixated to think, isn't this so? Sorry
for this Socrates-chain of words. So here we have a legal paradox "from a
strange and deficient legal system, that of Norway", that has actualised or
blurred when torture on people is supposed to take place, BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T
USED THE LIST OF EU AND THEY HAVEN'T ALLOWED THE TERRORIST ORGANISATION TO FORM
EVEN, BEFORE THEY STRIKE AND CATCH "ONE DAMN EVIL MAN", (muted) one, perhaps,
more Christian than them... "Ohh, is there a chance for that...?"
(Note:
under the message to ECtHR) First written to Facebook under my Facebook profile
(by public setting, Sunday, 24 June 2012.
So this should be it.
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Monday, 24 September 2012
Thursday, 28 June 2012
Over the Wikipedia Editorial Team and (Assisted) Suicide
When Wikipedia editorial teams stop information of this kind, they do something awful to the World:
Background for the Intellectual Defence
The intellectual defence for the pro-assisted suicide side is: to be serious toward people who want the possibility to die because they suffer the most grievous pains. Now, after paying empathy to these people in pain, there are some common points like what possible hidden motives can the pro-side possibly have? Are we not supposed to be real about pain and therefore people in pain? Isn't a very painful life awful? And the arguments continue for the pro-side on this note, all very plausible and direct. So, who is the opposition? Who are they? Let's see! One list of arguments can be found here: http://philosophyblog777.blogspot.no/2012/06/assisted-suicide-final-argument-pro.html[50].(The rest is coming...)
Troubles in the World: Fx. the Wikipedia article of "Assisted suicide" FAILS to include basic information such as "The intellectual defence for the pro-assisted suicide side is: to be serious toward people who want the possibility to die because they suffer the most grievous pains. Now, after paying empathy to these people in pain, there are some common points like what possible hidden motives can the pro-side possibly have? Are we not supposed to be real about pain and therefore people in pain? Isn't a very painful life awful? And the arguments continue for the pro-side on this note, all very plausible and direct. So, who is the opposition? Who are they? Let's see!" Even if the body text has been placed under "Defence for Legalising Assisted Suicide", same thing happens! Now, if these people act under malicious intent, simply for securing the "existence of torture", then damnation on them, because that is to be evil in the hardest sense you can find on Planet Earth (and all attached to it)! Guns up, people! There's going to be trouble more! Cheers!
The very link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_suicide !
I've also added the above under a different header without success!
There is a note more to consider, for ending this, and it is:
The implausible slippery slope argument from the opposition is this,
- the "Slippery Slope" defeats itself (by fake ethics) by protecting hugely crazy people who have absolutely no problems accepting the devastation brought by it on human dignity and human worth/decency and how torture inflicts terror and deep fears, even sublimely, on the rest of the population.
- secondly, and more directly, the Slippery Slope never accounts for formal qualification, while citing this Nazi program "so seriously", "as if their whole bodies would be immersed", such as obtaining 3-year therapy after the age of 18 before getting the approval for suicide!
- "The Slippery Slope", in addition, has no concept or credible prediction for how many people Slippery Slope will affect outside those already, virtually, queued in! When 36 000 people die from guns (or gun deaths) in USA every year, would the rest of USA therefore get killed by guns next year? NO! Why is this? Because troubles need to obtain in certain ways first! This has a direct analogy to legislated suicides in that this counters the very Slippery Slope argument and the way these disgusting people (complex, as with traits of psychopathy and mis-a/-ophiles) remain active in society, "defending humanity" still! There is no doubt where I want: (Assisted) Suicides need legal defence/legislation and practice urgently so that people can achieve greater respect and have the possibility to escape the great horrors of the World today, thus moving the World up one step in terms of dignity and worth.
Note1: As people enter the academic discussion, they inherently commit to honesty!
Note2: They can call themselves doctors or whatever! They have been defeated! (That is, they're not "born" with credibility.)
So, surely, suicide remains controversial, not to say the fishes on wanting people's tails, and I ask you therefore to take CARE and put much attention toward personal security (as a warning sign by the behaviour shown above)! Cheers!
Background for the Intellectual Defence
The intellectual defence for the pro-assisted suicide side is: to be serious toward people who want the possibility to die because they suffer the most grievous pains. Now, after paying empathy to these people in pain, there are some common points like what possible hidden motives can the pro-side possibly have? Are we not supposed to be real about pain and therefore people in pain? Isn't a very painful life awful? And the arguments continue for the pro-side on this note, all very plausible and direct. So, who is the opposition? Who are they? Let's see! One list of arguments can be found here: http://philosophyblog777.blogspot.no/2012/06/assisted-suicide-final-argument-pro.html[50].(The rest is coming...)
Troubles in the World: Fx. the Wikipedia article of "Assisted suicide" FAILS to include basic information such as "The intellectual defence for the pro-assisted suicide side is: to be serious toward people who want the possibility to die because they suffer the most grievous pains. Now, after paying empathy to these people in pain, there are some common points like what possible hidden motives can the pro-side possibly have? Are we not supposed to be real about pain and therefore people in pain? Isn't a very painful life awful? And the arguments continue for the pro-side on this note, all very plausible and direct. So, who is the opposition? Who are they? Let's see!" Even if the body text has been placed under "Defence for Legalising Assisted Suicide", same thing happens! Now, if these people act under malicious intent, simply for securing the "existence of torture", then damnation on them, because that is to be evil in the hardest sense you can find on Planet Earth (and all attached to it)! Guns up, people! There's going to be trouble more! Cheers!
The very link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_suicide !
I've also added the above under a different header without success!
There is a note more to consider, for ending this, and it is:
The implausible slippery slope argument from the opposition is this,
- the "Slippery Slope" defeats itself (by fake ethics) by protecting hugely crazy people who have absolutely no problems accepting the devastation brought by it on human dignity and human worth/decency and how torture inflicts terror and deep fears, even sublimely, on the rest of the population.
- secondly, and more directly, the Slippery Slope never accounts for formal qualification, while citing this Nazi program "so seriously", "as if their whole bodies would be immersed", such as obtaining 3-year therapy after the age of 18 before getting the approval for suicide!
- "The Slippery Slope", in addition, has no concept or credible prediction for how many people Slippery Slope will affect outside those already, virtually, queued in! When 36 000 people die from guns (or gun deaths) in USA every year, would the rest of USA therefore get killed by guns next year? NO! Why is this? Because troubles need to obtain in certain ways first! This has a direct analogy to legislated suicides in that this counters the very Slippery Slope argument and the way these disgusting people (complex, as with traits of psychopathy and mis-a/-ophiles) remain active in society, "defending humanity" still! There is no doubt where I want: (Assisted) Suicides need legal defence/legislation and practice urgently so that people can achieve greater respect and have the possibility to escape the great horrors of the World today, thus moving the World up one step in terms of dignity and worth.
Note1: As people enter the academic discussion, they inherently commit to honesty!
Note2: They can call themselves doctors or whatever! They have been defeated! (That is, they're not "born" with credibility.)
So, surely, suicide remains controversial, not to say the fishes on wanting people's tails, and I ask you therefore to take CARE and put much attention toward personal security (as a warning sign by the behaviour shown above)! Cheers!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)