Prosecutors are convinced that the victim, a computer analyst from Berlin, agreed to be killed and eaten. His dismembered and partially devoured remains were found at the residence of a 41-year-old suspect . . . . Despite the fact that the victim willingly agreed to be killed, prosecutors said the case could not be considered "assisted suicide". So they opted for a murder indictment.
Foul, liberty-robbing statists. This was fully consensual, in furtherance of gay devourer's unalienable right to eat, and the devouree's unalienable right to consent to be eaten. Where is the harm? Tell me, WHERE IS THE HARM?
A demented man was murdered & eaten by an equally demented gay ghoul, and kevin curry can't see the HARM? - How demented can you get, curry?
Well, tpaine, I suggest you send a snippet of this article to your Lord High Superlegislator masters of the SCOTUS. It seems it's time for Sandy and Ruthie to take the lead and show the Euroweenies what true liberty and private dignity are all about. [sarcasm]
No kevin, your FR stalking & bizarre behavior has gone far beyond [sarcasm]. You must have 'special' protection to get away with your flaunting of the posting guidelines.
How do you manage? Are you related to some FR big shot? The crazy uncle? How does CJ tie in, as a crazy ideologue?
Sure he was demented but some of us see his lifestyle to encompass a whole list of mental disorders.
He's been told by modern society to embrace his sexual deviance. Did he follow that lesson too far?
Stalking? Nonsense. I invited you over to defend the indefensible--a specialty of yours. You didn't have to show up. You used your libertarian freedom and chose to do so. I get pinged all the time. I show up maybe 20 percent of the time. I don't accuse the pingers of "stalking" me.
How is it "murder" in a libertarian sense if the dead man freely consented to it? A unborn child doesn't consent to be killed, yet you do not call its death "murder." Why the disparity? What is the logical distinction?
I'm just trying to make sense of some of the whacky libertarian positions that are alleged to be so perfectly and unimpeachably rational and logical. Help me out here.
Libertarians call these free, self-willed and fully consensual individuals 'demented'? Isn't that like a moral judgement on your part? And if so, why should it all be any of your business? Should fully consenting adults have to get your permission first before they can eat whatever they want to? Are you going to police their every forkfull and monitor their every bite? Or is your statement about the harm they cause just so much bluster since libertarians think people should be free to go out and harm and murder each other if that's what they really want to do?
I think they keep them around for the humor value. If they had real stroke with the mods, they would actually respond when CJ cries to them every other post.