Kim Jong Il has Died

[AceWarhead]

Still, our modern understanding of ethics prohibits torture irrespective of that person's actions. He might have been a vicious tyrant and by no means innocent, but he was still a human.

No, a person like that can only be considered a monster and therefore has no rights.

Oh by the way, they should kill his son after making him watch everyone he loves scream and die.

...and his son is guilty of what and how?

Exactly, his son has done nothing wrong (yet).

 

[Veho]

What will torturing the tyrant solve?

It will solve the problem of him being alive and getting away with what he did scot free.

They both want their enemies to suffer hopelessly.

"Enemies"? You're equating a tyrant with his victims. Removing the humanity (or lack thereof) from both and clumping both under an overgeneralized label. You see no difference between those who would torture a tyrant and those that would torture innocent people (going that far to call the people "enemies" and justifying the tyrant's motivation in the process). You see no difference between the tyrant and his victims.

they aren't very different from the tyrant [...] The tyrant just had the power, and therefore the opportunity, to do so on a large scale.

So you're saying that given the opportunity, these tempers would go on a murder/torture spree for shits and giggles?

 

[Foxi4]

What will torturing the tyrant solve?

It will solve the problem of him being alive and getting away with what he did scot free.

They both want their enemies to suffer hopelessly.

"Enemies"? You're equating a tyrant with his victims. Removing the humanity (or lack thereof) from both and clumping both under an overgeneralized label. You see no difference between those who would torture a tyrant and those that would torture innocent people (going that far to call the people "enemies" and justifying the tyrant's motivation in the process). You see no difference between the tyrant and his victims.

they aren't very different from the tyrant [...] The tyrant just had the power, and therefore the opportunity, to do so on a large scale.

So you're saying that given the opportunity, these tempers would go on a murder/torture spree for shits and giggles?

I'll add a few things... It doesn't necessarily have to solve anything - it simply quenches people's natural thirst for revenge. That is really the only purpose, and the process needs no higher one, nor does it need any explaination.

There is a huge difference between the tyrant and the victim and a generalisations like "we are all human" are simply not sufficient. I could say that lions and maincoons are both cats and I would be right. I can stroke a maincoon no problem, however I wouldn't risk it with a lion because common sense dictates that anything with a mouth that large can potentially, or even is likely to cause me harm. Same with people - there are evil ones and good ones. It's not entirely their fault - the circumstances in which they were brought up play a huge role in who they eventually become, but we cannot forget about the ever so present factor of free will that is fundamental here.

Given the opportunity, many people would turn foul and sour - that much is correct. HOWEVER! Only a small percentage would become homocidal maniacs, and there is actually quite a big chance that some might actually be better leaders then Kim ever was. Well, minus the P.R.

 

[Uncle FEFL]

It will solve the problem of him being alive and getting away with what he did scot free.

So will a normal death and prison time. No need for anyone to suffer miserably. It's doesn't solve anything.

"Enemies"? You're equating a tyrant with his victims. Removing the humanity (or lack thereof) from both and clumping both under an overgeneralized label. You see no difference between those who would torture a tyrant and those that would torture innocent people (going that far to call the people "enemies" and justifying the tyrant's motivation in the process). You see no difference between the tyrant and his victims.

It takes a special kind of person to be able to torture someone. I bet neither of us could do it. A lot of people here said they wish that he was tortured before being murdered, but I'm certain none of them would do it themselves. This is why, in my first post in this topic, I said that those who hold this opinion but don't mean it should check their emotions. No one deserves torture or death. No one has the authority to dictate that.

But anyway, the reason why most won't torture another human is because humans don't like seeing each other suffer. We help when aid is truly needed and completely necessary. People like me merely ask that we don't drive ourselves to the point where help is absolutely needed, rather we should have been compassionate and understanding (et cetera) from the start to avoid bloodshed. Just imagine the Earth in an alternate universe that understood the Incas were people, not tools to be used; that blacks weren't slaves given to us by god, but people from a different continent and had a very different culture, but ultimately they are still people.

When I equate a tyrant with people that want to make a tyrant suffer, I am being facetious, but in reality there are similarities between them than you're not acknowledging.

Forgiveness is a powerful thing. It allows one to accept the past, and to move onto a better, progressive future to become a wiser nation. I don't care about the mumbo-jumbo with religion, but the ideas behind forgiveness are fairly important. Grudges and the thirst for vengeance don't solve a damn thing. Like I said, this system merely makes the problem perpetual. Acceptance, education, and empathy are what erases problems. It allows us to diminish the chances of a tyrant coming into power. If we were wiser in the 1930's, Hitler would not have been named Chancellor. If we were more compassionate towards Ho Chi Minh in the 1950's - 1960's, it is very possible that the Vietnamese conflicts would have never existed. If we were a more empathetic people in the US, gays would have the right to marriage.

So you're saying that given the opportunity, these tempers would go on a murder/torture spree for shits and giggles?

I wouldn't put it passed them...

I believe I answered this above, now haha.

I'll add a few things... It doesn't necessarily have to solve anything - it simply quenches people's natural thirst for revenge. That is really the only purpose, and the process needs no higher one, nor does it need any explaination.

Revenge is useless.

 

[Foxi4]

People live in a bubble of "logic", you think you're "smart" if everything you believe in has a "use" but you're actually building walls around yourself, a metaphorical box outside of which you can't think. The human psyche is anything but logical, it's more like quantum physics - it goes beyond what is conscidered logic. Humans are torn by emotions, not just cold fact. Some desires don't need to have a "use" to be beneficial - having a tyrant suffer relieves the pain of millions. It's not morally right, but in a democracy, it's the majority that wins the vote, and if the majority wants their opressor to suffer then so be it. Fortunatelly for himself, Kim was faster then the lot and went away in a relatively peaceful fashion.

 

[Veho]

So will a normal death and prison time.

Living the rest of his days in luxury is not much of a consequence for one's actions.

No one deserves death.

We'll just have to disagree on that one.

When I equate a tyrant with people that want to make a tyrant suffer, I am being facetious, but in reality there are similarities between them than you're not acknowledging.

And you're purposely omitting the differences. And on the other hand, like I pointed out and you refused to address, you're completely ignoring the difference between the tyrant and the people he had tortured, imprisoned and killed. Sure, everything is similar to everything else once you wilfully ignore all distinctions, no matter their importance.

Forgiveness is a powerful thing. It allows one to accept the past, and to move onto a better, progressive future to become a wiser nation.

So does catharsis. Forgiveness can be given posthumously.

 

[kthnxshwn]

You guys have gone on for pages solely because you differ in opinions. No one is clearly right nor is anyone wrong - you simply have different opinions.

 

[Uncle FEFL]

People live in a bubble of "logic", you think you're "smart" if everything you believe in has a "use" but you're actually building walls around yourself, a metaphorical box outside of which you can't think. The human psyche is anything but logical, it's more like quantum physics - it goes beyond what is conscidered logic. Humans are torn by emotions, not just cold fact. Some desires don't need to have a "use" to be beneficial - having a tyrant suffer relieves the pain of millions. It's not morally right, but in a democracy, it's the majority that wins the vote, and if the majority wants their opressor to suffer then so be it. Fortunatelly for himself, Kim was faster then the lot and went away in a relatively peaceful fashion.

You are misinterpreting my posts. I'm begging people to have emotions beyond vengeance and blind anger, two very useless--possibly self-damaging emotions.

What was your reaction to Gadaffi's photos/video when he was beaten to a bloody pulp?

Living the rest of his days in luxury is not much of a consequence for one's actions.

I was not aware that prison is actually similar to vacation in Hawaii.

We'll just have to disagree on that one.

Why? What makes you or anyone else the authority over another life?

And you're purposely omitting the differences. And on the other hand, like I pointed out and you refused to address, you're completely ignoring the difference between the tyrant and the people he had tortured, imprisoned and killed. Sure, everything is similar to everything else once you wilfully ignore all distinctions, no matter their importance.

I admitted I was when I said I was being facetious, and I also said I realize the differences.

There's huge, obvious differences that I don't need to address. And in reality, the people that I am drawing similarities to Jong-Il in particular are very few relative to everyone else (ones that ACT on their desire for power). My basic point is that no one is really different from Jong-Il, or Gadaffi, or Bin Laden, or Thatcher, or Bush (in terms of philosophy). When given power, people tend to desire more and act far more superior than they really are. A little bit of power fools them. Officers in the United States are notorious for this very way of thinking.

So does catharsis. Forgiveness can be given posthumously.

Can catharsis be an effective medium to help people start restoring society?

The example pertaining to the Western World, in particular the United States (terrorism!), says no. In fact, it's been a major factor in completely destroying our society in the US.

 

[Veho]

I was not aware that prison is actually similar to vacation in Hawaii.

Regular prison? Compared to the living conditions of the majority of North Koreans? Yes. Yes it is. And prisoners of his calibre aren't even kept in regular prisons. If they are ever placed in an actual prison, their accomodations are more alike to hotel suites, but most of the time they're kept in house arrest.

Why? What makes you or anyone else the authority over another life?

That's a question you should ask the murderer. On my part, I choose to believe the killer lives by the Golden Rule and am only too happy to oblige him. He might claim otherwise but he's pretty much waived his right to any say in the matter the moment he doused a few people in gasoline and set them on fire for the lulz. For example.

Can catharsis be an effective medium to help people start restoring society?

Yes.

The example pertaining to the Western World, in particular the United States (terrorism!), says no. In fact, it's been a major factor in completely destroying our society in the US.

I wasn't aware of the US undergoing any cathartic events recently.

 

[Foxi4]

You're not going to win him over Veho, you can just as well forfeit already.

FEFL believes that everyone can just hold hands and live peacefuly, but unfortunatelly or fortunatelly this is outside of human nature, in fact, it's againts it. Since the dawn of time we were war monging creatures and we always will be - that's how we were designed. We like to inflict harm upon eachother when given enough reason to do so and that's it. And before you answer, FEFL, I have thousands of years of history to back up my argument, so let it go.

 

[Uncle FEFL]

You're not going to win him over Veho, you can just as well forfeit already.

Eh.

FEFL believes that everyone can just hold hands and live peacefuly, but unfortunatelly or fortunatelly this is outside of human nature, in fact, it's againts it. Since the dawn of time we were war monging creatures and we always will be - that's how we were designed. We like to inflict harm upon eachother when given enough reason to do so and that's it. And before you answer, FEFL, I have thousands of years of history to back up my argument, so let it go.

You aren't the only one with evidence to back up your argument.

Feel free to use the examples of conflicts and other events that aren't as well known as others, but still entirely notable.

And again, I feel you are misinterpreting my points if you feel that I think we can achieve Utopia by acting kindly towards others.

Billions of years of evolution, and we still think that human behavior is directed by instinct alone. Intelligence is key, and has been for thousands of years of human civilizations. Grocery stores aren't a product of instinctive behavior--they're a product of reason and scientific advances, both outside of our instincts. Rockets are not a product of instincts, they are a product of science--using objective facts, mathematics, and senses (senses that are totally beyond our capabilities).

I think it's silly to think that we can advance technologically without instincts, but not socially and politically. Democracy itself is a product of intelligence, not instinct. War is a product of instinct that has yet to be overcome. Much of social advancement has been via intelligence, rational thinking, and compassion for one another.

That's a question you should ask the murderer. On my part, I choose to believe the killer lives by the Golden Rule and am only too happy to oblige him. He might claim otherwise but he's pretty much waived his right to any say in the matter the moment he doused a few people in gasoline and set them on fire for the lulz. For example.

And if you murder him, in vengeance? Does that not waive your rights? And the person that murders you?

The man, cruel as he is, should not lose his right to life or psychological health (if healthy, that is).

Yes.

When?

I wasn't aware of the US undergoing any cathartic events recently.

What did Bin Laden's, Gadaffi's, and Jong-Il's death solve, exactly?


----

The problem is is when people wish the same harm on him (or anyone) that he exacted on other people. One laments the pain inflicted on others and wishes it was prevented--then they somehow accept and embrace that same horror and violence if it is applied to someone else (in this case, the originator). Somehow you go from saying how bad it is what one does, to wishing the very same on someone else.

Celice outlined how hypocritical these thoughts are.

 

[Veho]

And if you murder him, in vengeance?

Don't ascribe me your own motives.

Does that not waive your rights?

Nope.

The man, cruel as he is, should not lose his right to life or psychological health.

Why not? So you could feel better about yourself?

When?

When it actually happens.

What did Bin Laden's, Gadaffi's, and Jong-Il's death solve, exactly?

What does Gadaffi's or Il' deaths have with the US? And the death of Bin Laden came ten years too late and was separated from his crime by an entirely unrelated, overlong, pointless war whose PR campaign did its best to obfuscate everything in an attempt to hide political agendas (and the fact it had nothing to do with 9/11). There was no clean line between the criminal, his actions, and their consequences. His death (that half of America doesn't even believe really happened) was too little, too late. Instead of being captured, paraded in stocks for all the world to see, and then tried, he was swept under the rug.

Celice outlined how hypocritical these thoughts are.

And I pointed out how hypocritical it is to equate the torturer and killer to innocent victims yet you insist on evading or ignoring that bit.

 

[Uncle FEFL]

Don't ascribe me your own motives.

:/

Nope.

Why not?

Why not? So you could feel better about yourself?

This response doesn't make sense because it's irrelevant.

As for the "why not," it is because no one has the authority to control that person's life (live or die) or psychological well-being. If he is a murderer, he serves time in prison.

When it actually happens.

Evidence would be better.

What does Gadaffi's or Il' deaths have with the US? And the death of Bin Laden came ten years too late and was separated from his crime by an entirely unrelated, overlong, pointless war whose PR campaign did its best to obfuscate everything in an attempt to hide political agendas (and the fact it had nothing to do with 9/11). There was no clean line between the criminal, his actions, and their consequences. His death (that half of America doesn't even believe really happened) was too little, too late. Instead of being captured, paraded in stocks for all the world to see, and then tried, he was swept under the rug.

Tyrants that most Americans knew of and wanted gone. When both of them died, it served no real purpose to us.

I don't want to get into the specifics of Bin Laden--but men, women, and children chanted 'USA' after the news at the White House. Truly for some of us, it was a cathartic moment.

Except it didn't solve anything.

And I pointed out how hypocritical it is to equate the torturer and killer to innocent victims yet you insist on evading or ignoring that bit.

You haven't really addressed it as being hypocritical, you merely said, "You are omitting the differences between them," to which I replied:

"I admitted I was when I said I was being facetious, and I also said I realize the differences.

There's huge, obvious differences that I don't need to address. And in reality, the people that I am drawing similarities to Jong-Il in particular are very few relative to everyone else (ones that ACT on their desire for power). My basic point is that no one is really different from Jong-Il, or Gadaffi, or Bin Laden, or Thatcher, or Bush (in terms of philosophy). When given power, people tend to desire more and act far more superior than they really are. A little bit of power fools them. Officers in the United States are notorious for this very way of thinking."

Which you promptly ignored in your next response.

 

[Veho]

Why not?

Because I never tortured, raped and murdered an innocent human being. Or two. Or seven. Slowly.

This response doesn't make sense because it's irrelevant.

I'll take that as a "yes."

no one has the authority to control that person's life (live or die).

Why not?

If he is a murderer, he serves time in prison.

Depends on the severity of the murder, mitigating and extenuating circumstances, but if the crime is heinous enough, he is executed. Or should be, anyway.

Evidence would be better.

The same goes for your happy claims of "not holding people responsible for their actions will bring us utopia."

Tyrants that most Americans knew of and wanted gone.

Most? Citation needed. Nobody knew, or cared about them enough to want them either gone or where they were.

When both of them died, it served no real purpose to us.

Because they had nothing to do with the US.

Except it didn't solve anything.

Too little, too late.

You haven't really addressed it as being hypocritical, you merely said, "You are omitting the differences between them,"

Oh, so you didn't get what I was saying. I'll rephrase it.

Kim Jong Il had countless people tortured and killed. We will call those people "victims." In the interest of clarity, we will call him "sadistic murderous monster." And what I said is that you make no distinction between the victims and the sadistic murderous monster. To which you replied "no one is really different from Jong-Il, or Gadaffi, or Bin Laden." Nice.

 

[exangel]

You haven't really addressed it as being hypocritical, you merely said, "You are omitting the differences between them,"

Oh, so you didn't get what I was saying. I'll rephrase it.

Kim Jong Il had countless people tortured and killed. We will call those people "victims." In the interest of clarity, we will call him "sadistic murderous monster." And what I said is that you make no distinction between the victims and the sadistic murderous monster. To which you replied "no one is really different from Jong-Il, or Gadaffi, or Bin Laden." Nice.

I had stopped paying attention to this thread but after revisiting... this argument reminds me of something that came up in a debate I was a party to about 15 years ago in IRC.
All men are created equal.
How does this account for those born into poverty or war, being abused by those given great power by lineage or position?
All men are created equally human.
I'll grant that.

What a human being does with that power can be criminal or virtuous as a matter of choice, and the idea that the cruel and powerful should be afforded equal human rights when they have massively violated the basic rights of so many other human beings directly (through the abuse of their power) is just bullshit.

 

[Cartmanuk]

What a human being does with that power can be criminal or virtuous as a matter of choice, and the idea that the cruel and powerful should be afforded equal human rights when they have massively violated the basic rights of so many other human beings directly (through the abuse of their power) is just bullshit.

Nicely put..

 

[Uncle FEFL]

Because I never tortured, raped and murdered an innocent human being. Or two. Or seven. Slowly.

Indeed.

Since you refuse to allow a hypothetical to involve you, let's say someone close to me is murdered, and I murder the assassin out of revenge. Have I given up my right to life?

I'll take that as a "yes."

I don't take a certain stance because it makes me feel good.

The response you made was irrelevant, so I did not answer it. There's no need to. My feelings have no bearings on what I think is correct. Evidence and reason do. The reason I support the stance that I do is because I feel the evidence supports my side thoroughly, where as I feel the opposing is lacking in persuasive evidence. For example, your idea of society advancing due to a cathartic event, like a tyrant being murdered.

Why not?

Where is the line drawn, then? How much control can a person claim they have over another?

Legally, my answer is simple (for the United States): the State should have absolutely no authority to take the lives of their citizens. I'd argue that it's cruel and unusual punishment.

Depends on the severity of the murder, mitigating and extenuating circumstances, but if the crime is heinous enough, he is executed. Or should be, anyway.

What makes you the authority?

The same goes for your happy claims of "not holding people responsible for their actions will bring us utopia."

I feel you are misinterpreting my points if you feel that I think we can achieve Utopia by acting kindly towards others.

And I have no idea how you got the idea of me thinking that not holding people accountable is the safe way to go about things. It clearly shows you don't understand what I'm saying at all, so let me speak a little more concisely:

--Murder/Execution and torture are not fair forms of punishment. They are cruel in nature and merely cause the problem to be perpetual.
--Social progress is present in moments of compassion for fellow humans, not in acts of rage.

Evidence, please.

--I don't think I need to provide why torture is cruel, but execution: http://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/case-against-death-penalty

--Cold War; came about through our hatred of Communists. Men like Senator Joseph McCarthy stunted social growth and advancement.
The Civil Rights Movement was successful because people became sympathetic for blacks, and only when that happened did social progress come about.

Most? Citation needed. Nobody knew, or cared about them enough to want them either gone or where they were.

You're trying to argue that most people don't know about Gadaffi and Jong-Il? Gadaffi is in our news often, and like I said, most people know about him.

Jong-Il a little less so, but practically everyone I've ever met knows exactly who they are.

Do you have sources that say they don't?

Because they had nothing to do with the US.

The death of tyrants is pretty big around here.

And Gadaffi had much to do with the US, as did Jong-Il (indirectly with his Anti-America propaganda).

Too little, too late.

Er...the mastermind behind the terrorist attacks is too little for us? It was a HUGE thing for A LOT of us, but it didn't solve any of our problems. It wouldn't have solved any of our problems even if he died ten minutes after the attack. I don't understand how you can oppose this argument I'm making. Your stance makes absolutely no sense and you've provided no evidence to prove me otherwise. The death of an enemy does absolutely nothing to help us as people.

Oh, so you didn't get what I was saying. I'll rephrase it.

Kim Jong Il had countless people tortured and killed. We will call those people "victims." In the interest of clarity, we will call him "sadistic murderous monster." And what I said is that you make no distinction between the victims and the sadistic murderous monster. To which you replied "no one is really different from Jong-Il, or Gadaffi, or Bin Laden." Nice.

And in reality, the people that I am drawing similarities to Jong-Il in particular are very few relative to everyone else (ones that ACT on their desire for power). My basic point is that no one is really different from Jong-Il, or Gadaffi, or Bin Laden, or Thatcher, or Bush (in terms of philosophy). When given power, people tend to desire more and act far more superior than they really are. A little bit of power fools them. Officers in the United States are notorious for this very way of thinking.

 

[kthnxshwn]

This thread is still going on. It's funny since I'm positive that only you two are the only ones you care this deeply about the subject.

 

[Veho]

Since you refuse to allow a hypothetical to involve you

I do? But I answered to your hypothetical situation.

let's say someone close to me is murdered, and I murder the assassin out of revenge. Have I given up my right to life?

No. Mitigating circumstances, remember? Let's say someone close to you had been kept in a box for weeks, taken out occasionally to be raped, beaten, cut with broken glass, then put back into the box, and finally, after weeks of torture, sanded to death with a belt sander. Now let's say you kill the person who did it. Now I am going to say something unorthodox and quite impossible to fit into an absolutistic extremist worldview, and that's this: the two should be examined on a case by case basis. Anyone not able to differentiate between the two cases and act accordingly is a person whose grasp of reality is shaky at best.

I don't take a certain stance because it makes me feel good.

Or so you keep telling yourself.

evidence

I would like to see some of that evidence.

Where is the line drawn, then? How much control can a person claim they have over another?

Well, the kind of murderers we're talking about have absolute control over their victims. And according to you the society shouldn't have any kind of control over the murderer. It should go both ways. You can't violate someone's rights, freedom, life, and then demand your own freedom be preserved. The line is wide, and if you cross it that far, you can't expect not to be shoved back.

I'd argue that it's cruel and unusual punishment.

I'd argue it's swift and merciful.

What makes you the authority?

Me? Or the law? Or society as a whole? What makes any of them authority over anything?

And I have no idea how you got the idea of me thinking that not holding people accountable is the safe way to go about things.

The fact you think putting someone away for a few years is a proportionate consequence for their actions. The fact you claim anything other than giving an antisocial monster that's a danger to humanity food, shelter, a standard of living higher than what half the world's population lives in, book deals, visiting rights, fan clubs and the possibility of being out in a few years, is "cruel."

Murder/Execution and torture are not fair forms of punishment.

Agreed. In most cases they are severely disproportionate to the crime committed, but since you can only torture someone so long before they succumb to it one way or the other, and you can only kill a person once, proportionate punishment is currently impossible.

The Civil Rights Movement was successful because people became sympathetic for blacks, and only when that happened did social progress come about.

Are you equating blacks to murderers? Civil rights should be granted and inalienable to those and only to those who deserved them by way of, given the opportunity, behaving in a civil manner, or more to the point, behaving like human beings and not horrible monsters.

You're trying to argue that most people don't know about Gadaffi and Jong-Il? Gadaffi is in our news often, and like I said, most people know about him.

At the height of the Iraqi war, the majority of US citizens couldn't find Iraq on a map. And you're saying they know anything about Libya? Or give a flying fuck about their political situation?

Jong-Il a little less so, but practically everyone I've ever met knows exactly who they are.

And that's what's commonly referred to as a circle-jerk.

Er...the mastermind behind the terrorist attacks is too little for us? It wouldn't have solved any of our problems even if he died ten minutes after the attack.

Since you started answering questions by simply repeating yourself in larger font, I'll do the same. The death of Bin Laden came ten years too late and was separated from his crime by an entirely unrelated, overlong, pointless war whose PR campaign did its best to obfuscate everything in an attempt to hide political agendas (and the fact it had nothing to do with 9/11). There was no clean line between the criminal, his actions, and their consequences. His death (that half of America doesn't even believe really happened) was too little, too late. Instead of being captured, paraded in stocks for all the world to see, and then tried, he was swept under the rug.


And since you patently refuse to address a point I've been trying to raise since the beginning of this discussion, I will stop posing it as a question and state it as fact. You claim there is no difference between a murderer and the people he murdered. And there is no way of looking at things where that is anything other than bullshit. And any "philosophy" that abstracts things to the point where a sadistic murderer and an innocent victim are equal and no different is completely detached from reality and is as applicable to the real world as giant pink unicorns.

 

[exangel]

I care deeply about the subject actually. But I find it aggravating what lengths these two are going to, to continue to both disagree and be right.

I watched every single documentary about North Korea I could find on Netflix a while back, began maybe a year ago. If you see the lives of North Koreans wasting away in prison camps, or risking the lives & the most basic human rights of their entire families, just to escape (if you escaped, your families would be punished severely); then, in contrast, you look at those privileged enough to live in North Korea's version of freedom, living in their city; everyone in that country was living in a very horrifying personality cult. And that is only from the evidence that made it outside of their borders.

Those people who live in the "Civilized" part of North Korea, such as those seen participating in elaborate parades and massive, choreographed gymnastic performances, they must truly worship the State and its Leader or face horrible consequences. Dissent is not frowned upon, it is punishable by imprisonment. Dissent in every possible conceivable situation.

In one of the documentaries I saw, a young male pianist whose talent placed him in a special situation, was given specially approved lessons so that he could more perfectly entertain the Great Leader. I think the instructor was foreign, but the pianist was exposed to Non-Korean music and compositions for the first time in his life, and it was traumatizing to him (because it was the most wonderful thing that he could never enjoy in his home country!).
He tried to keep his passion for foreign music (classical music! without any lyrics to question!) a secret. Of course he did not have a piano of his own, so all of his practice was in some way supervised. One day, when he thought he had privacy, he played a known composition by a french composer, and when he was caught, he was informed that it was extremely offensive of him to play non-Korean music, and that he should never do such a thing ever again.. he knew his career was in jeaopardy, and his dream of pursuing his passion was going to torture him for the rest of his life.

He was interviewed in the documentary because he successfully escaped, and after getting asylum, was no longer afraid to speak out against Kim Jong Il's totalitarian personality cult.

Others who were interviewed still had family living in N. Korea and had to be far more discreet about speaking out. For a family to raise someone, who succeeds in escaping *and* speaks out against the state, the whole family is going to suffer even more for it.

It really burns my guts to see an extended philosophical or moral debate where both parties are aware, at least on the surface, that North Korea is multiple flavors of hell, with a lavishly pampered figurehead controlling its powerful military.. yet, no discussion of how absolutely horrid N. Korea's state is for its citizens (aside from providing external links).

Regardless of whether you reach any (mutual) understanding- Kim Jong Il, all comparisons and hypotheses aside, was a man who invoked awe (in its most literal definition) and obedience from his entire country through excessive discipline, torture, and brain-washing via isolation and propaganda.

His death is good news because he is no longer alive to contribute to and profit from the abuse of his subjects; but realistically speaking, his country will now deify him as they did his father, and perpetuate that little slice of hell the only way they know how. And that, is to replace the figurehead with the succession of his son.

http://www.syracuse....ong_ils_su.html

...People continued lining up Monday in central Kim Il Sung Square, where a massive portrait that usually features Kim Il Sung has been replaced by one of Kim Jong Il, to bow before his smiling image and to lay funereal flowers. Heated buses stood by to give mourners a respite from the cold, and hot tea and water were distributed from beverage kiosks.