German man castrates teenage daughter's 57-year-old boyfriend

Mrmoe wrote: »

I can't understand the mentality behind the people who condone the castration of this man who essentially did nothing wrong. The only way such an action could be even morally justified is if he had sex without consent and all other avenues were exhausted. Even then do such an unfair and violent act is the mark of some one who has no respect for justice. Why is 17 different from 27 or 37? What criteria do you use for saying where the cut off mark is?

when they are out of their teens is a good start...

Moomoo1 wrote: »

strangely, I don't think a real Russian would do something like this though. Unless he was from the South.

in Soviet Russia, balls cut off YOU! :pac:

Memnoch wrote: »

Open mind about what? The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Try to stick to established facts, pointless speculating is pointless and the only reason you're engaging in it is because you want to try and imply something that is not supported by the facts.

you don't have "established facts" all you have is a couple of paragraphs from a syndicated online news story that's doing the rounds. since when did that become the whole gospel truth?

the only "facts" wee have are the ages of the 3 main people involved, that two of them were apparently in some kind of relationship and that someone cut someone elses balls off.

unless everyone else here has some other source of information other than the same few small paragraphs that are doing the rounds online there's no mention of consent to anything anywhere as far as I can see despite many people here mentioning the word as a defence for the old guy. a married man can rape his wife. proof of a relationship is no proof of consent by any means. you have no more or less proof of 'consent' for any sexual act that might have taken place than I have for my possible scenario. the difference being, i'm keeping an open mind rather than judging someone without klnowing the whole story rather than getting the torches and pitchforks out for no reason.

Memnoch wrote: »

What a load of nonsense? Have you ever heard about Honour Killings? People do a lot worse to others and even their own children/siblings because they feel their sense of honour has been insulted or diminished, or because they feel that unacceptable social boundaries have been broken. Throughout the thread all you've done is make countless, baseless assumptions to try and support this mediveal blood lust.

no more baseless than assuming that the old guy is totally innocent and has done nothing wrong. there are plenty of sexual predators walking around freely amongst us because they have never had any charges brought against them. a lack of a criminal charge does not mean no crime has been commited.

my whole point from the start has been that we have no idea what drove this guy to do what he did or what state of mind he was in when he did it and without knowing all this information nobody here has any right to judge him.

Memnoch wrote: »

This just summarises how ridiculous your attitude is becoming. So having your testicles cut off is just par for the course and no big deal? Put the reasons aside for a second and think about how you would feel if this happened to you, the actual violence and how it would affect the rest of your life.

Dudess wrote: »

Ah come on... you don't need to go down the road of pretending castration isn't devastating.

he's 57 years old, what was he planning on doing with them exactly? my response was in relation to someone claiming he would be in agonising pain for the rest of his life, which is quite blatantly not true. animals (and people) are castrated every day, but they're not in agony for the rest of their lives.

my own brother was forced to have one of his nuts removed before they would give him australian citizenship as they said it was a cancer risk after his medical. he was playing aussie rules football less than a month later and aside from his silicone replacement nut swelling up when he flies and giving him a tingling sensation down there he's fine.

i don't imagine having the other one removed would be a whole lot different. the only thing different is the method of removal and that the guy nearly bled to death, but he's not going to be agnoising pain for the rest of his life and to even suggest it is ridiculous. as for the emotional trauma of it all, who knows but i think given the choice between that and getting your throat cut and left to bleed out, most people would much rather just kiss goodbye to their love spuds.

people lose parts of their anatomy all the time and they get over it and move on with their lives. i've done a bit of reading on the subject of castration and it seems like the stereotypical idea of losing them is a whole lot worse than actually having them removed and a lot of men who have had them removed actually feel much better without them and now consider them to have been an obstacle in their life that is no longer there.

from what i've read its certainly not going to affect his sexual performance, assuming they were relatively cleanly removed and that he's brave enough to actually date again, but maybe next time he'll choose a partner a little closer to his own age in case he loses anything else.

Dudess wrote: »

Can't see where I said there was a difference?

Dudess wrote: »

It's right to say castration is wrong, no matter what the reasons.

everyone here seems to be obsessed with the rule of law being this unshakable rock which must guide us in what is right and wrong with regard to what this guy did and the age of consent in the country the crime happened in etc. etc.

just in Europe the UK, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Germany, Poland and Iceland they have all performed chemical castration on sex offenders. therefor by the rationale of everyone here demanding everything fit within the rule of law, castration is indeed 'right' even though the method and execution of the act in this case (and possibly the justification, depending on the actual circumstances) was wrong.

Dudess wrote: »

I believe I agreed with that - IF the hypothetical (no quote marks needed) situation you described were the actual reality.

But the info we DO have is she gave her consent.

no we don't, see my post above. we have no way to know what she did or didn't give her consent to. being in a relationship with someone does not grant them carte blanche access to do whatever they like to you.

Dudess wrote: »

What's unreasonable about that though is the way you imply only a parent would understand his anger if she had been groomed and raped. But you hardly have to be a parent to understand that, even if being a parent adds another dimension to it. You pulled the parent card as a way of belittling people's responses too, which is bound to get people's backs up, especially when you've no solid info to go on.

i don't care if i get peoples backs up by telling the truth and that's exactly what i did. for example, you can sympathise with a rape victim all you like, but unless you have been raped you can't fully comprehend the devastation that rape causes or what other rape victims feel after being attacked.

i could tell you what its like being in prison, but unless you've actually been in prison you simply can't comprehend what it is actually like to live that experience and its the same with every other major event in your life.

sure, you can draw on your own experiences, but unless they are the same, or very close to the situation in question, its simply not possible to fully comprehend what someone is talking about.

these are things that totally change you as a person, your priorities, your emotional respones and your physical reactions to the world and people around you and if you haven't experienced these things directly there just no way for you to fully comprehend how someone else in that situation will feel or react.

Dudess wrote: »

That doesn't mean he's not being sympathised with though (if his daughter was being abused). You even said yourself he wasn't justified in going that far.

i agree he probably went to far, but its funny though, when john wayne bobbit got his mickey chopped off everyone seemed to think it was funny and he deserved what he got for cheating on his wife. horses for courses i expect.

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Em, yes there is. It was consensual and she isn't pre-pubescent. Therefore: not a rapist and not a paedophile.

show me where 'it' was consentual or even what 'it' actually is. i don't see any mention of 'it' in what little information there is in ther article or that consent was given for anything.

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

I have pm'ed the mods and asked them to perma-ban you as we have no way of knowing whether you rape your wife or not.

And after that - we are banning everybody. Better to be safe than sorry.

hilarious, you should do a standup show with that razor sharp wit. :rolleyes:

i'm pretty sure that if i was prone to doing that her brother would have cut my balls off by now, so you can rest easy.

and yet again my basic point has been missed entirely.

i'm not excusing this guy for cutting someone's balls off, i'm trying to show that we have no idea of the circumstances under which it was carried out and for what reason and the circumstances under which a crime is committed make a huge difference to what the likely outcome of the trial will be and until that trial is complete, we have no idea what the circumstances were and making a summary judgement against someone based solely on a couple of paragraphs in a syndicated news story is certainly not the right way to go about it.

if the majority of the posters here can speculate that he did it because he's a psychopath with some serious father/daughter issues then i should be allowed to postulate that he let a bad situation get out of hand and was driven to it by compelling circumstances of which we are currently unaware that could have led almost anyone to a similar overreaction.

prinz wrote: »

Jesus. You spend half your post telling people they don't know the full facts and then decide that castration was indeed the right thing to do?... How many of those countries have chemically castrated a man for having a consensual relationship with a female over the age of consent?.....because that is all we have to go on, and your hypotheticals is no basis for claiming castration was any sort of 'right' course of action.

seriously, this is like dealing with children ffs. I was responding specifically to Dudess who had said in a previous post that castration was always wrong in general, i've showed that according to the rule of law that everyone here seems to hold so dear that this not always the case as several countries in europe use chemical castration as a legitimate form of punishment for crimes of a sexual nature. I did not say at any time that the father was justified in what he did.

and proof of a relationship is not proof of consent for anything as I have always said, just as a lack of a criminal conviction for a crime does not mean that no crime was committed.

as a real world example, the man who raped my fiancé was never charged with or convicted of any crime but that does not mean that he is not a rapist.

all i am trying to show is that until this goes through the legal system and the full story comes out, there is no point building a pyre for the father and burning him at the stake.

i have never said that the father was justified in his actions despite the fact that everyone here seems to be 'making it up' that I am, which to me seems rather ironic given the accusations pointed at me. :rolleyes:

prinz wrote: »

I guess the next time someone wrongs me, I can knock them out, take them to a cellar and lock them up for that's what we do in thic country we lock people up. To hell with you know the police, the justice system, the jury system, bypass them all and I'll dispense my own. Sure it all adds up to the same thing...

if someone does indeed wrong you, you are totally free to weigh up your options and do whatever you think is justified to them,however the police, the justice system and the jury system will be the ones who decide whether you were justified or not and since I'm not a member of your police force, your judge or jury it won't be up to me to judge you or decide your guilt (or lack of).

sensibleken wrote: »

two things.
What crime was commited?

its funny how you would hold up the rule of law and then totally disregard innocent untill proven guilty, holding vigilante 'justice' above it

now we're getting somewhere at last!

my point is that we have no idea of the circumstances of the crime. i'm not saying no crime was committed as it clearly was. i'm also not saying that the father was justified in what he did as he we already know and agree that he wasnt.

what I am saying is that without knowing the full circumstances of the crime and what drove him to commit it, which *may* include wrongdoing on the part of the daughter's boyfriend there is no way for any of us to be able to decide what the course of justice should entail.

as another example, one man shoots another man in cold blood during the course of a robbery = 1st degree murder. a cut and dry conviction.

now say one man shoots another man in cold blood, but does so because he has just watched whilst the other man has raped and murdered his wife and child in front of him.

the two scenario's present the same crime of one person shooting another, but under totally different circumstances which changes everything.

both men have committed murder, but it would be wrong (in my mind at least) for both men to receive the same sentence for the crime.

one sentence in te article says his daughter was "in a relationship" with the older man, but that is all it says.

Rihanna was 'in a relationship' with Chris Brown but that doesn't change the fact that he beat the crap out of her and threw her out of his limo and i very much doubt she consented to that.

anything *could* have happened to lead to the father doing what he did, but we just don't know what drove him to commit the crime and until we do and it all comes out in court we should reserve judgement on him.

sensibleken wrote: »

EDIT: ok maybe i missunderstand you. In which case the last paragraph is disingenuos of me.

Is the arguement that there is sometimes a just cause for castration. but ONLY if convicted by a court of law. and not by the father, brother, partner of the supposed agrieved party?

yes, exactly what i was trying to say.

according to the law, in some countries (including Germany) it is right to castrate someone once convicted of a particular type of crime, therefore making castration itself right, not the act carried out by the father in this case.

vibe666 wrote: »

now we're getting somewhere at last!
my point is that we have no idea of the circumstances of the crime. i'm not saying no crime was committed as it clearly was. i'm also not saying that the father was justified in what he did as he we already know and agree that he wasnt..

We're getting somewhere because it seems to me very much like a back-tracking exercise on your part. If your point was solely that we don't have all the information then would have been no reason to question the social classes etc of people diasgreeing with you.

Jamiekelly wrote: »

A fooking 57 year old riding a 17 year old? :eek:
As for everyone saying its not justified, I disagree, if you caught your daughter with a 60 year old then it would be a completely different story.
Old perv deserved it

old perv? fuckin legend really

girls hit their beauty peak at 18 ish i reckon. Just cause I get older doesnt mean they get uglier. Saying that I wouldn't do it if i was 57. There is the thing that in order for a girl to be attracted to the 57 year old in the first place there needs to be some sort of naivety/stupidity on the girls part. Maybe this is putting an image into people's heads that she is more of a child than she actually is.

If she was goin out with a 27 year old would all the people be still saying it's ok to chop his balls off? step back and think about it

vibe666 wrote: »

how about you showing me exactly where i've back-tracked? i've never said he was justified in doing what he did, only that as a parent and someone who has been in a close relationship with someone on the receiving end of sexual violence where the law could not help, i can understand how the father could get himself in a situation that got out of hand and how easy it is for something to go from a good talking to, to getting totally out of control and ending in a serious crime being committed...

I think everyone could understand how someone may get into that frame of mind, but thats not what you have been spending pages on this thread arguing about. You have gone from declaring people to be on high-horses etc for declaring the man to be in the wrong, to now admitting he was in the wrong but claiming you were only discussing how his mind mental state may have deteriorated.

vibe666 wrote: »

from the experiences i have had in my life i can sympathise with how a situation that was not mean to go in the direction it did can go completely pear shaped in no time at all with only a few wrong moves and how once a course of action is stated it can be almost impossible for anyone to stop..

What witch hunt? All I have seen is people saying 'from what we know he was in the wrong'. Circumstances don't come into it. He was wrong to do what he did, and he'll have to pay for that.

We may as well all leave boards and never return if we're not allowed to discuss opinions etc.

prinz wrote: »

I think everyone could understand how someone may get into that frame of mind, but thats not what you have been spending pages on this thread arguing about. You have gone from declaring people to be on high-horses etc for declaring the man to be in the wrong, to now admitting he was in the wrong but claiming you were only discussing how his mind mental state may have deteriorated.

i've already explained my "high horses" comment and i stand by it. there's a lot of people here "weeping for humanity" as Pace2008 puts it and stating that they would never do anything like that under any circumstances without any kind of frame of reference for the reasoning behind the guy committing the crime in the first place.

all I have been doing is trying to show that almost anyone is capable of almost anything given the right circumstances and motivations and it is wrong to judge someone based solely on a couple of lines in an online article that is likely only a small portion of the whole story.

prinz wrote: »

What witch hunt? All I have seen is people saying 'from what we know he was in the wrong'. Circumstances don't come into it. He was wrong to do what he did, and he'll have to pay for that.

i've already shown that circumstances of a crime can change everything and that we have no idea what those circumstances were and until we do the discussion should be equally open to all opinions, but it seems like the only opinion that is welcome here is to lock up the guy for life and throw away the key even though we have very little idea of what actually happened other than the basic facts.

prinz wrote: »

We may as well all leave boards and never return if we're not allowed to discuss opinions etc.

it looks like everyone is welcome here as long as they don't disagree with the status quo, but anyone with an open mind might as well just fcuk off and stop bothering people whilst they sharpen their pitchforks.

vibe666 wrote: »

all I have been doing is trying to show that almost anyone is capable of almost anything given the right circumstances and motivations and it is wrong to judge someone based solely on a couple of lines in an online article that is likely only a small portion of the whole story..

Again we are not talking about hypothetical scenarios. I might be capable of stabbing someone in self defence, but that has no bearing on my saying that Joe down the road who stabbed his friend to death over the last can of Carlsberg was totally in the wrong.

But again, even assuming what you say above, why do you question people's socio-economic backgrounds? Are people from certain socio-economic backgrounds more or less capable of doing anything given the "right circumstances"?