Thiefs get mega beat down in china *Warning GRAPHIC*

[inky]

@Toasty, Devil, Locke:

This place is packed with criminal-loving softies. I really don't understand why it's such a bad idea to give criminals like them real punishment. And yes, if they were just thieves, I would probably just beat the crap out of them, maybe chop off a finger or two...hell, maybe the entire hand just in case they try to do it again. And..erm, I really don't think I have anger issues. I can control my anger pretty well if someone starts to piss me off in person unless it's something that involves physical contact.

[inky]

Hilarious. Could have done better.

I would have broken their fingers, poked out they're eyes, and crippled them in some form so they can live and think about what they have done.

how can you say its Hilarious? they did die..and they are also a murder now..a normal human don't do that.

+1 Watching people suffer till their deaths is NOT an entertainment show



OT: Even though they are thieves, and/or might of killed the husbands' wife, i do feel sympathy for them

I really hate people like you.

[crazyskwrls]

^ i gotta agree with that, and yes they got wat they deserved

[Doppleganger]

Thiefs get mega beat down in china *Warning GRAPHIC*

lol i thought you were gonna post something like this

[Da_Realest]

We've already established your not normal ;d.

Normal
conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.

Most ppl see a video like this, they don't find it funny. You are not most, you are not the standard.


It's different, times have changed ya know, they fought like that for entertainment, that's what it was. This is not entertainment, and like I said, times have changed. Is it wrong? Ya. Did they deserve it? If the story about it is true then i'd say yes, if it was me in the position of the guys whos wives were murdered, I would definitely be doing it too, I certainly wouldn't find it funny though.

So, because my view is not the view of the majority, its wrong?

Boxing is a sport, they don't fight to kill each other.

If you go into a boxing ring and your mind isn't set on pretty much killing the other guy within the rules, you're most likely going to be seriously hurt.

Also, that doesn't make any of the other questions I brought up any less relevant.

The gun removes the emotion. Give a man a sword and tell him to kill the man that slaughtered his family; his days, after killing the man that took from him what mattered most, won't get any brighter. Vengeance will not complete him. It will not absolve the criminal of his crimes. Even vengeance has it's limits as most people (despite the boast) would not be willing to go this far unless they truly "lost it."

Look a man in the face and make him suffer as he made you suffer. Feel proud and powerful but only for a moment. Then you come back to Earth and realize you just killed a man. The feelings associated with vengeance are short lived.

I have many friends that would disagree with that. They've sought out vengenance and felt much better afterwards. It really just depends on the person.

[Grimjaw]

We've already established your not normal ;d.

Normal
conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.

Most ppl see a video like this, they don't find it funny. You are not most, you are not the standard.


It's different, times have changed ya know, they fought like that for entertainment, that's what it was. This is not entertainment, and like I said, times have changed. Is it wrong? Ya. Did they deserve it? If the story about it is true then i'd say yes, if it was me in the position of the guys whos wives were murdered, I would definitely be doing it too, I certainly wouldn't find it funny though.

So, because my view is not the view of the majority, its wrong?

Boxing is a sport, they don't fight to kill each other.

If you go into a boxing ring and your mind isn't set on pretty much killing the other guy within the rules, you're most likely going to be seriously hurt.

Also, that doesn't make any of the other questions I brought up any less relevant.

The gun removes the emotion. Give a man a sword and tell him to kill the man that slaughtered his family; his days, after killing the man that took from him what mattered most, won't get any brighter. Vengeance will not complete him. It will not absolve the criminal of his crimes. Even vengeance has it's limits as most people (despite the boast) would not be willing to go this far unless they truly "lost it."

Look a man in the face and make him suffer as he made you suffer. Feel proud and powerful but only for a moment. Then you come back to Earth and realize you just killed a man. The feelings associated with vengeance are short lived.

I have many friends that would disagree with that. They've sought out vengenance and felt much better afterwards. It really just depends on the person.

I am starting to like this man more and more.

[Barotix]

I have many friends that would disagree with that. They've sought out vengenance and felt much better afterwards. It really just depends on the person.

But have they sought out vengeance on such a large scale? Post. Traumatic. Stress. Disorder.

So, because my view is not the view of the majority, its wrong?

Far from wrong; it is merely abnormal.

[Mr.Ganji]

The gun removes the emotion. Give a man a sword and tell him to kill the man that slaughtered his family; his days, after killing the man that took from him what mattered most, won't get any brighter. Vengeance will not complete him. It will not absolve the criminal of his crimes. Even vengeance has it's limits as most people (despite the boast) would not be willing to go this far unless they truly "lost it."

Look a man in the face and make him suffer as he made you suffer. Feel proud and powerful but only for a moment. Then you come back to Earth and realize you just killed a man. The feelings associated with vengeance are short lived.

Is this from personal experience?

How would anyone in otl feel the same feelings as someone who has just gotten his family murdered? Barotix im sure u would say otherwise had it been ur family and not someone else's. Easier said than done, to keep your cool.

[LillDev!l]

@Toasty, Devil, Locke:

This place is packed with criminal-loving softies. I really don't understand why it's such a bad idea to give criminals like them real punishment. And yes, if they were just thieves, I would probably just beat the crap out of them, maybe chop off a finger or two...hell, maybe the entire hand just in case they try to do it again. And..erm, I really don't think I have anger issues. I can control my anger pretty well if someone starts to piss me off in person unless it's something that involves physical contact.

lol, hope you aint referring to me with the "criminal-loving softies" part, if you were, read my post again.
i just made clear i think its pointless to punish a family for 1 fked up person within the family.
If your cousin kills some1, should you; your mother; your aunt; hell... maybe even your little siter if you got one, be slaughterd in front off him to make him suffer? dont really think thats a good idea "personally".

[DarkJackal]

So, because my view is not the view of the majority, its wrong?

Did I say not being normal is wrong? Your trying to say there's no such thing as normal lol, there is, just cus you don't like it or agree doesn't mean there isn't. There's nothing wrong with not being normal, but the some might find things kinda messed up when its thinking someone gettin beat to death is funny >.>.

If you go into a boxing ring and your mind isn't set on pretty much killing the other guy within the rules, you're most likely going to be seriously hurt.

Also, that doesn't make any of the other questions I brought up any less relevant.

Killing is against the rules i'm sure. Of course every boxer is gonna go into the ring with the intention of winning, not killing.

[Barotix]

I would be enraged, I would probably kill them in my rage, but It would not change a thing. Those I cherish most would still be dead, I would have the weight of murder on my shoulders, my principles would be irreversibly compromised, and I would become no better than them. In my pursuit, in my thirst for revenge I would not find peace. Simply killing a man will not bring me peace and it will not absolve him of his heinous crimes.

Anger begets Anger.
Violence begets Violence.
Murder begets Murder.
Peace begets Peace.

Assuming the blood lust did not overpower me I would not be able to kill another man.

[Grimjaw]

I would be enraged, I would probably kill them in my rage, but It would not change a thing. Those I cherish most would still be dead, I would have the weight of murder on my shoulders, my principles would be irreversibly compromised, and I would become no better than them. In my pursuit, in my thirst for revenge I would not find peace. Simply killing a man will not bring me peace and it will not absolve him of his heinous crimes.

Anger begets Anger.
Violence begets Violence.
Murder begets Murder.
Peace begets Peace.

Assuming the blood lust did not overpower me I would not be able to kill another man.

I stand in awe as i take witness to Barotix's almost desperate plea to be embraced. His plea to be heard with the ears of terrible misguided and deaf Forum Members, Help me oh my liege ,my queen and my holy God! Guide my flickering and unwavering tongue and take firm heed of my words! For i, Barotix! Are eager to be the Martyr of this wretched and condemmned world. Self Declared messiah and upholder of the banner of Politically correct Self Righteousness..

Joke lol.

[heroo]

if they touched the other guys' women, they deserved it.

[inky]

@Toasty, Devil, Locke:

This place is packed with criminal-loving softies. I really don't understand why it's such a bad idea to give criminals like them real punishment. And yes, if they were just thieves, I would probably just beat the crap out of them, maybe chop off a finger or two...hell, maybe the entire hand just in case they try to do it again. And..erm, I really don't think I have anger issues. I can control my anger pretty well if someone starts to piss me off in person unless it's something that involves physical contact.

lol, hope you aint referring to me with the "criminal-loving softies" part, if you were, read my post again.
i just made clear i think its pointless to punish a family for 1 fked up person within the family.
If your cousin kills some1, should you; your mother; your aunt; hell... maybe even your little siter if you got one, be slaughterd in front off him to make him suffer? dont really think thats a good idea "personally".

I really hate to sound arrogant but I have an egocentric view when it comes to justice -- that I'll admit. Do I think that killing their family members is right? No. Would I? I might.

[cin]

never know this days and if they had so anger they could take wrong...sure we dont know, but I don't think we can murder someone back if that happens..and fcking I hope not..

lol 28 posts. was in the pub -.-

bye fox.

[Advancechao]

Sadly this stuff can happen anywhere. I heard from my parents while they were living in Hong Kong, though, that beatdowns were common for debtors who couldn't pay up in time, and they heard of this stuff a lot while they were there.

[Da_Realest]

But have they sought out vengeance on such a large scale? Post. Traumatic. Stress. Disorder.

What do you consider to be large scale? If you mean taking the life of another, then yes.

Far from wrong; it is merely abnormal.

Abnormal compared to the views posted here? Yes. Abnormal compared to other views in the world? Not so sure.

Did I say not being normal is wrong? Your trying to say there's no such thing as normal lol, there is, just cus you don't like it or agree doesn't mean there isn't. There's nothing wrong with not being normal, but the some might find things kinda messed up when its thinking someone gettin beat to death is funny >.>.

Normality does exist but not in this case. In this case, it is just an illusion.

Ex:
Someone comes along and makes a rule. Some people agree with the rule, some conform because they see no reason to disagree with the rule(Me), some conform because they see others conforming, and others conform because they fear the consequences. I guess you would call those who don't conform for whatever reason not normal and the majority that did conform normal? In my opinion, none of them are normal.

I don't know if explained that clearly enough because I don't really like long-winded post, but I hope you got my point.

Killing is against the rules i'm sure. Of course every boxer is gonna go into the ring with the intention of winning, not killing.

How do you go about winning? You don't say, "I'm going to hold back when throwing punches towards his head because I don't want to kill him."

I'm not saying they literally want to kill the other guy... I'm just saying that they hit the other guy as hard as they can knowing that there is a possibility that they could kill the guy or cause serious harm. There would be no difference in effort between a boxer throwing a punch to someones' head and a killer throwing a punch to someones' head.



It would have been funny to me no matter if they were shot in the head or had every bone in their body broken before they were killed. I was laughing at the fact that they were being punished by a relative of the victim(s?), not the process in which they were punished. Does that make sense?

[AnemuS]

I would just say that if they really did kill their wives , its more than normal for me, i would do the same no matter what you think of this.

But for stealing such cruelty is not really a human way to deal with problems, in the last seconds where he took the theif's hand and broke the block breaking all hes hand+fingers+ whatever there still remained shocked me to the end , he was already not even screaming...

[NuclearSilo]

Okay, let's all turn to monks.

[Midori]

Okay, let's all turn to monks.

Tibetan monks?

[NuclearSilo]

Okay, let's all turn to monks.

Tibetan monks?

@_@?

[Midori]

Okay, let's all turn to monks.

Tibetan monks?

@_@?

Look it up.

[chesticles]

dam that was pretty brutal. Honestly I dont think they deserved this, well maybe if they did murder someone.

[NuclearSilo]

Being brutal in thus situation is not wrong. It's normal that humain inherit the legacy of the primary ancestor. Yet, it's still an animal.
Being abnormal is also not wrong. No one stops you to have tolerance in your heart ie being a higher rank of humain.

It's not because something is not wrong that it is right. What is wrong and what is right, who could define them better?

What's the reason to live in this world?
What's the reason to continue to live on if the partner of your life has gone away? Will what happen after (prison, peace, war, vengeance...) matter anymore?

If you want to know what you should do next, the answer is:

Why do you live?

[Toasty]

@Toasty, Devil, Locke:

This place is packed with criminal-loving softies. I really don't understand why it's such a bad idea to give criminals like them real punishment. And yes, if they were just thieves, I would probably just beat the crap out of them, maybe chop off a finger or two...hell, maybe the entire hand just in case they try to do it again. And..erm, I really don't think I have anger issues. I can control my anger pretty well if someone starts to piss me off in person unless it's something that involves physical contact.

holy shit i love it. too bad those guys got off pretty easy..i mean, come on. there's other ways to inflict even greater pain and humiliation than hitting them with a block. hell, if i was one of those guys who had their wives killed, i would probably make that thing look like a spa treatment.

think mallets, electric drills, barbed wires, fillet knife, pliers, nails, needles and more. maybe i might kill their family members in front of them too or force them to eat their parents' chopped off body parts, idk. but it will definitely end in them being buried alive..or half-dead. something like that. XD

So you love watching someone getting killed, even if it is right or wrong what happened to them, someone who watches it for entertainment has got a problem. And then fantacising about different ways to kill them / their family.. yeah thats perfectly fine, why not?

[*BlackFox]

Look a man in the face and make him suffer as he made you suffer. Feel proud and powerful but only for a moment. Then you come back to Earth and realize you just killed a man.

[inky]

@Toasty, Devil, Locke:

This place is packed with criminal-loving softies. I really don't understand why it's such a bad idea to give criminals like them real punishment. And yes, if they were just thieves, I would probably just beat the crap out of them, maybe chop off a finger or two...hell, maybe the entire hand just in case they try to do it again. And..erm, I really don't think I have anger issues. I can control my anger pretty well if someone starts to piss me off in person unless it's something that involves physical contact.

holy shit i love it. too bad those guys got off pretty easy..i mean, come on. there's other ways to inflict even greater pain and humiliation than hitting them with a block. hell, if i was one of those guys who had their wives killed, i would probably make that thing look like a spa treatment.

think mallets, electric drills, barbed wires, fillet knife, pliers, nails, needles and more. maybe i might kill their family members in front of them too or force them to eat their parents' chopped off body parts, idk. but it will definitely end in them being buried alive..or half-dead. something like that. XD

So you love watching someone getting killed, even if it is right or wrong what happened to them, someone who watches it for entertainment has got a problem. And then fantacising about different ways to kill them / their family.. yeah thats perfectly fine, why not?

Actually I'd rather get involved. Besides, it's not everyday that I get to see real justice get served..it's a small glimpse of hope for humanity, really. Once people like that commit crimes against others, they give up certain rights. Therefore, I see them nothing more than a burden for society who needs to be punished based on their crime. Those who punish them should not be labeled as outlaws or vigilantes but as heroes and role models. It's like the Medieval era without the religious bull.

[Stephanus]

Da_Realest:
Mostly, in terms of nature of humans, you are right.
But..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

There is a flawless example, how human nature works in a group.

Also, there is NO PROOF that those 2 ppl killed innocents or whatever.
What you saw was a brutal an probably deadly beatdown of two human male.
Nothing more, nothing less.

Very easy thing to say they deserve it. All too easy thing to say, you was told they deserved it. You cant simply know what the **** happened there.
Also, the duty to enforce the might of law upon the guilty is the duty of the state. Not of those civilians. What they did was the repeating the crimes of the guilty or even vorse...


Barotix:

In terms of normal and abnormal.
Did you know, that an experiment prooved the fact, that from 3 person 2 will kill someone just because he was told he/she did the right thing?
Just search for it. Pretty damn things are on the net about human nature.

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

[Barotix]

I know what experiment you're talking about. It depends on the circumstances and they did not kill because they were told by an average Joe; they "killed" because an authority figure told them to. We tend to not question authority. We just follow orders. FYI, there is no human nature; there is only human behavior. That is subject to change. In a group people are less likely to help another human because they are under the assumption that Sally or Bob will help. The Standford prison experiment is a classical example of human behavior at it's worst. You become what you are told to become, but that is not what you actually are. A man can become a leader if he is put in a position of power. Will he be benevolent? It depends on the situation but despotism usually leads to tyranny and paranoia. It was also shown that if people can see their victim suffer they are far more likely to disobey the authority figure. In many of those experiments they removed the human element; have a man sit face to face with another man, position yourself as an authority figure, and tell him to deliver electric shocks to the man; chances are he won't be able to deliver the fatal one. The group mentality is very powerful; we are a social animal, but because of this (unless blinded by rage) when confronted with the human element we find it difficult to kill. I say I would not kill them (if I were calm) because I know my behavior. I don't have what it takes to kill; most people don't have what it takes to kill.

@Inky, the middle ages? You can't be serious.

[Stephanus]

I know what experiment you're talking about. It depends on the circumstances and they did not kill because they were told by an average Joe; they "killed" because an authority figure told them to. We tend to not question authority. We just follow orders. FYI, there is no human nature; there is only human behavior. That is subject to change. In a group people are less likely to help another human because they are under the assumption that Sally or Bob will help. The Standford prison experiment is a classical example of human behavior at it's worst. You become what you are told to become, but that is not what you actually are. A man can become a leader if he is put in a position of power. Will he be benevolent? It depends on the situation but despotism usually leads to tyranny and paranoia. It was also shown that if people can see their victim suffer they are far more likely to disobey the authority figure. In many of those experiments they removed the human element; have a man sit face to face with another man, position yourself as an authority figure, and tell him to deliver electric shocks to the man; chances are he won't be able to deliver the fatal one. The group mentality is very powerful; we are a social animal, but because of this (unless blinded by rage) when confronted with the human element we find it difficult to kill. I say I would not kill them (if I were calm) because I know my behavior. I don't have what it takes to kill; most people don't have what it takes to kill.

@Inky, the middle ages? You can't be serious.

Our opinion differs because as i see, there is a damn real human nature. And thats what you wrote:
"...The group mentality is very powerful; we are a social animal..."
This is human nature.
You try to fit in, so you do your best to ensure your good position in this group and so, if you can, you raise the standards of this group norms. I hope you know to where im getting at.
This is human nature.

EDIT: also there is more and more in terms of human nature.
My point is: this whole topic is farked up.
Period.

EDIT: missed a word (bold text "know" )

EDIT3:
Here is a part of the Milgram experiments description.

Spoiler!

The Milgram Experiment raised questions about the ethics of scientific experimentation because of the extreme emotional stress suffered by the participants. In Milgram's defense, 84 percent of former participants surveyed later said they were "glad" or "very glad" to have participated, 15 percent chose neutral responses (92% of all former participants responding).[10] Many later wrote expressing thanks. Milgram repeatedly received offers of assistance and requests to join his staff from former participants. Six years later (at the height of the Vietnam War), one of the participants in the experiment sent correspondence to Milgram, explaining why he was glad to have participated despite the stress:

While I was a subject in 1964, though I believed that I was hurting someone, I was totally unaware of why I was doing so. Few people ever realize when they are acting according to their own beliefs and when they are meekly submitting to authority . . . . To permit myself to be drafted with the understanding that I am submitting to authority's demand to do something very wrong would make me frightened of myself . . . . I am fully prepared to go to jail if I am not granted Conscientious Objector status. Indeed, it is the only course I could take to be faithful to what I believe. My only hope is that members of my board act equally according to their conscience . . . .

The experiments provoked emotional criticism more about the experiment's implications than with experimental ethics. In the journal Jewish Currents, Joseph Dimow, a participant in the 1961 experiment at Yale University, wrote about his early withdrawal as a "teacher", suspicious "that the whole experiment was designed to see if ordinary Americans would obey immoral orders, as many Germans had done during the Nazi period".[11] Indeed, that was one of the explicitly-stated goals of the experiments. Quoting from the preface of Milgram's book, Obedience to Authority: "The question arises as to whether there is any connection between what we have studied in the laboratory and the forms of obedience we so deplored in the Nazi epoch".