Posts by Sandra Parker3

electrictiger70 said:Just read what I wrote again before you quote me, okay?☕ I never once suggested that there should be apologies issued for his crimes, nor did I claim he shouldn't be held accountable. Nor did I suggest that what he did wasn't monstrous. Furthermore, I have never once stated that he is a victim.

I only meant to point out that things aren't always black and white. Directing all this public fury toward him—when the public itself actually failed in its duty—is just a way of trivializing the entire situation. There are far too many complex factors at play here to simply sweep them under the rug with the simplistic logic of "he’s just a twisted pervert" or "someone should kill him." Sure, you could take that route, but eventually, the truth will resurface in the form of yet another case involving someone keeping a victim locked in a basement. 🤷 This is precisely why I refuse to participate in such trivialization. It sounds counterintuitive, I know, but evil rarely manifests as some singular, deranged psychopath—at least, not in the way the public desperately wants us to believe. In reality, tragedy almost always emerges from a complex web of circumstances. My interest lies in dissecting that specific chain of events, rather than indulging in this collective social urge to crucify a victim just so everyone else can feel a little less guilty about what happened.

What do you all think? Why is everyone in such a frantic rush to throw accusations around? I suspect it’s because someone might actually be forced to confront a terrifying question about the society we live in—a reality where a person could be kept captive in a basement for eighteen years without a single neighbor or any other social institution ever noticing. 🤷 ?
What about all those other factors being served up to the public? They get glossed over entirely. First off, what kind of mother fails to realize what is actually happening for eighteen years? It’s incomprehensible. Then there is the daughter. What kind of daughter never once attempts to fight back? And even after everything finally blows up and the whole story hits the news, she still allows her children to visit that very same mother—the woman who supposedly didn't notice anything was going on right under her nose for all those years. It just doesn't add up.

It’s a mistake to suggest he isn't responsible for his own actions—he absolutely is. But, and this is a massive "but," the narrative that one single person in a family is mentally ill while everyone else remains perfectly sane is nothing more than an illusion, especially in cases like this. When you have a mother who spent eighteen years accepting a father's vague, one-sentence excuse about their daughter being snatched up by some cult, and then she simply never asks another question? To me, that points to much deeper, systemic dysfunction within the entire family unit, far beyond the pathology of just one disturbed individual.
Or perhaps the real question is one that no one ever had the guts to ask: "What the hell was actually down in that basement?"

If someone is genuinely unwell, using a caliber becomes a perfectly acceptable solution when they simply can't wrap their head around what they've done.
Stripping someone of their freedom—even if only for a little while—is quite simply the most heinous crime one can commit.
Taking a life is merely one small fragment of the whole story.

Perhaps a person simply lacks the mental capacity to grasp the sheer magnitude of what they’ve inflicted on others. This was actually confirmed when they were committed to a psychiatric facility, which ultimately led to their sentencing. We are dealing with a clinical disorder here. That doesn't mean he isn't a danger to himself or society, nor does it mean he shouldn't be behind bars. But please, take that into account before you rush to pass such rapid-fire judgments and condemnations.

If we actually judged people by the standards you’re proposing, we’d still be living in the Middle Ages. Fortunately, we aren't. I believe our humanity is reflected in how we, as a society, respond to those who have committed atrocities. I prefer to believe we've made progress since the days of public guillotines, which someone else here mentioned. What about you? 😉

Look, I’m not going to get bogged down in debating specific cases of sexual assault 🤷. My point is simply this: evil does not emerge from a non-causal vacuum, despite the common belief. Every phenomenon has causes and specific ways in which it manifests. This idea favored by public opinion—that monsters simply pop into existence out of thin air—is more fairy tale than reality.
And even if you kill that monster, imprison him, or lock him away, a new one will inevitably take his place, just as human history consistently demonstrates. That is why it is absolutely necessary to understand what is truly happening here.

Great.
Why don't you try reading my previous posts first, and then decide if you want to quote me and insinuate that I'm obsessing over rapes. Take a look at the context I was actually using.
And where exactly did I rule out society's role in creating these monsters? Or where did I claim that punishment—in any form—is the only way to prevent them? Thanks.

hiddenhound3 said:Now, I ask you to please quote me directly—where did I ever claim his behavior was noble or aesthetic? When I wrote about that subject, I was referencing Edgar Allan Poe, though I did mention others who exist on the "fringes." I see no need to explain further, given that you seem intent on drawing your own arbitrary conclusions regardless. At no point did I link the name Josef Fritzl with the concept of nobility. If you intend to continue drawing such baseless conclusions in the future, I shall view it as nothing more than a tactic of suggestion.🙂

Then again, perhaps there is some nobility to be found. It strikes me that he is merely protecting his wife, who, by my standards, is a far greater monster than he is. Has he ever once placed her where she truly belongs—as a full participant in the crime and as someone who explicitly sanctioned his actions?

Nobility wears many masks, and certainly, not all of them are acceptable.

We've already gone over Poe, touched on a few others, and even dove into the whole Josef Fritzl situation. I was really just asking about one specific person.

No, you didn't actually combine them into a single sentence. Thoughts aren't always expressed in just one go; usually, it’s more likely to be the latter. For example:

hiddenhound3 said:Humanity has always been confronted by such behaviors that exist entirely outside the realm of conventional reason. Jeffrey Dahmer is not an isolated case, nor are Poe or Hannibal. In much the same way, we see the perverse darkness of figures like Elizabeth Báthory, the way Celin glorified an obsession with youth, or how Genet embraced criminality; there are many others who live perpetually on the edge. Jeffrey Dahmer did not simply roam the streets snatching girls to hide them in a basement; he wasn't your typical serial killer archetype. He was quite clearly a deeply unfortunate man built upon fundamentally broken foundations. Unhappy people are simply incapable of sowing seeds of happiness.

I might even venture to suggest that there is a certain nobility and aesthetic quality to be found within their personas.

The true monsters walk freely among us every single day. Take someone like Ivo Sanders, for example.

And now we’re probably heading straight into a whole lot of bickering and...

Maybe you could actually explain it, too. 🤷

electrictiger70 said:It is highly unlikely. In most cases involving domestic abuse, the perpetrators themselves were victims of abuse during their childhood, which serves as the root cause for their future behavior. If I recall correctly, that was actually pointed out during the trial. People like that aren't going to be out there targeting random little girls in public parks; that simply isn't the same type of pathology.
Obviously, this isn't an excuse, but it helps provide context for how such monstrous acts occur... It is difficult to develop empathy if you have never experienced it yourself.🤷

So, I agree with Florin that even when dealing with such monstrous crimes, we shouldn't view things through a purely one-dimensional lens.

"Highly unlikely"? You think that's enough of an answer? Like, maybe someone couldn't find fulfillment within their own family, so they stepped outside that bubble to find it elsewhere. Tell me, how does that "probability" help us here? We should probably account for that possibility too. It's all just "what ifs."

Regarding the kidnapper of Natascha Kampusch, Wolfgang Priklopil—I don't really have the time to dig this up right now, so I'm just grabbing the first thing I see, but he also had childhood issues:

No, psychologists speculate that Wolf had a pretty problematic, obsessive relationship with his mother, that he dealt with impotence, and that he went through something himself that left him permanently traumatized—maybe violence or mockery during early sexual encounters. He felt like a victim, so he planned a kidnapping to flip the script from being a lonely victim to being the perpetrator, all while allowing him to mold the perfect woman to his exact specifications.

(There's more regarding his family and his relationship with his parents, but... I can't get into it right now)

The famous American forensic psychiatrist Dr. Reinhard Haller stated: "Priklopil was extremely paranoid and likely feared he wasn't a real man. Being quite infantile, he couldn't become a father normally at age 34, so he chose a 10-year-old girl to 'raise.' On top of that, he was a sadist who wanted someone he could exert total control over."

I think someone mentioned those "noble" intentions Josef Fritzl supposedly had toward his daughter, trying to "save" her from the cruel world...

I'm bringing this up as a connection to whether Fritzl would kidnap someone off the street (not saying they're the same thing)

Just one more thing:

Before he starts serving his sentence in a psychiatric facility—essentially a prison for the mentally ill—Fritzl will undergo observation at a psychiatric center in a major US city. There, they will assess how dangerous he is and prescribe his treatment.

Why would he undergo psychiatric observation to assess his danger level if he's only a threat to his own family?

Also, there are plenty of rapists out there... who were abused as kids. And they attack people on the street; they aren't confined to their homes.

electrictiger70 said:It is highly unlikely. In most cases involving domestic abuse, the perpetrators themselves were victims of abuse during their childhood, which serves as the root cause for their future behavior. If I recall correctly, that was actually pointed out during the trial. People like that aren't going to be out there targeting random little girls in public parks; that simply isn't the same type of pathology.
Obviously, this isn't an excuse, but it helps provide context for how such monstrous acts occur... It is difficult to develop empathy if you have never experienced it yourself.🤷

So, I agree with Florin that even when dealing with such monstrous crimes, we shouldn't view things through a purely one-dimensional lens.

I agree with the bolded part, though I'd argue we need to consider every possible manifestation rather than just sticking to the one that was "available" to us.

hiddenhound3 said:I am asking simply because I require certainty before I can truly believe it.

I would genuinely appreciate it if you could explain to me where one finds any sense of aesthetics in the case of Jeffrey Dahmer, if you can manage such an explanation.

Sandra Parker3, I have no desire to engage in a competition with you regarding moral qualities, as I am under the impression that no single virtue exists without its corresponding flaw within the same individual. I merely ventured to express my own perspective, which is that I feel a profound concern for those who are too quick to pull a trigger... or do you maintain that such people are perfectly fine, even when their actions are framed as nothing more than a metaphorical joke?

edit: I neglected to mention something; I had also asked for your opinion on whether, had Jeffrey Dahmer not had his own daughter, he would have abducted a girl off the street to serve as a substitute?
And in your estimation, would his crime have carried even greater weight in that scenario?

I am not particularly inclined toward speculating on "what if" scenarios; for me, only the concrete reality of a situation holds any significance.

What do you suppose I would have worn—sneakers or knit booties—had I been a resistance fighter during the war? 🙄

And lest I forget... since you are so firmly convinced that mortality, or specifically the death penalty, serves as a deterrent against monstrous acts, how do you account for the fact that such crimes continue to be perpetrated despite the execution of so many criminals? 😕

I have no idea what you don't believe; haven't I repeated myself three times already?

...Sandra Parker3, I have no desire to compete with you regarding moral superiority, since I don't know anyone who doesn't have a counterweight within themselves. I simply dared to state my opinion, which is that I am worried about people who are too quick to pull the trigger... or do you think those people are fine, even if it's just a metaphorical joke...

I'm not competing. I'm just politely asking you—for the umpteenth time—to explain where exactly you see aesthetics in this case, and while we're at it, I'd like to expand the question to include the nobility you claim to see. You didn't answer. Tell me, I'm interested in different perspectives. Where is the nobility and the aesthetic here? It isn't enough to just say you believe there's a counterweight. I am asking you, in this specific instance, where is it?
And if you actually answer, I'm also curious how that counterweight supposedly works.

I'm not "quick on the trigger," if you're referring to me. As for my take on the death penalty... I don't have a final stance, we can discuss it on another thread, though thinking about it would honestly exhaust me. And since you're being so flippant, I'll assume that based on the fact that you keep pushing this "bullet" metaphor, even though it should be obvious that the average American who might support capital punishment wouldn't actually go out and execute "participants." That's just total bullshit.

...I'm not one to dwell on "what ifs." For me, there is only the concrete situation.

What do you think—would I be wearing sneakers or braids if I were a resistance fighter? 🙄

But no, no, no! There is no such thing as just a "concrete situation!" There is the courtroom.
However, among those who study these cases seriously on a scientific level, the answer is no. It's about what goes on inside people's heads—what drives them to do what they do and what they are willing to endure.
You aren't interesting; your sneakers don't matter. If someone were actually going to analyze you as a resistance fighter, I bet they'd look elsewhere. Given your mindset, would you have committed atrocities like massacres during the war, or would you have stayed on the sidelines? Now *that* is an actual question.

...and lest I forget... since you are so convinced that death, or capital punishment, can prevent monstrous acts, how do you explain the fact that they keep happening even after so many criminals have been executed? 😕

But... I am not convinced.
Are you sitting on your ears? Or your sneakers?

hiddenhound3 said:To summarize our discussion, since we clearly seem to be talking past one another.

Do you truly believe that killing this man and his associates is justifiable, or are you speaking purely in metaphors? I must admit, I am genuinely perplexed by your stance.

Please, enlighten me as to what your actual intention was behind those comments.

It seems you aren't concerned with his ultimate fate, yet you feel he—along with several others—deserves a bullet to the head, even though you claim to have no interest in the concept of vengeance.

Is that indeed the point you are trying to make?

I already explained myself.
I said it was a metaphor, then you insisted it wasn't—honestly, it’s like you’re living inside my head or something, which is pretty weird, and now you're circling back to ask if it was maybe a metaphor after all. 🤷

**This whole thing is such a weirdly phrased setup—I honestly can't tell if they're talking about an actual bullet or just using it as some heavy-handed metaphor.**

By the way, if you check my first post on the other page, you'll find exactly where and why I brought up that bullet—there's a full explanation waiting for you there.

Look, let's just move on from me for a second.

I'll give you some credit—you actually have some pretty interesting takes on things. I asked you about this before but never really got an answer, so I figured I’d just take the opportunity to ask again.
odnosi se na misli iz ovog posta:

hiddenhound3 said:Humanity has always been confronted by such behaviors that exist entirely outside the realm of conventional reason. Jeffrey Dahmer is not an isolated case, nor are Poe or Hannibal. In much the same way, we see the perverse darkness of figures like Elizabeth Báthory, the way Celin glorified an obsession with youth, or how Genet embraced criminality; there are many others who live perpetually on the edge. Jeffrey Dahmer did not simply roam the streets snatching girls to hide them in a basement; he wasn't your typical serial killer archetype. He was quite clearly a deeply unfortunate man built upon fundamentally broken foundations. Unhappy people are simply incapable of sowing seeds of happiness.

I might even venture to suggest that there is a certain nobility and aesthetic quality to be found within their personas.

The true monsters walk freely among us every single day. Take someone like Ivo Sanders, for example.

I'd actually love it if you could explain to me where exactly the "aesthetic" lies in the case of Jeffrey Dahmer, if you ever get around to it.

I still can't help but feel that Bill Clinton, no matter how much we try to dismiss him, just isn't in the same league... I mean, there's at least a shred of transparency to his moves, and he’s actually replaceable—not that I want to get all political on you by pointing out he was actually elected or whatever.

I forgot to mention one thing—also, I asked you this before, but what do you think: if Jeffrey Dahmer hadn't had his own daughter, would he have just snatched some girl off the street to find a replacement?
Do you think his crime would have carried more weight back then?

hiddenhound3 said:I am quoting specifically what strikes me as problematic, and what happened to strike me was your attempt to justify a bullet to the head for the sake of more than one person.

My apologies, but: 🤮 👎 🙈 😱 🙂

It truly concerns and unsettles me that people are so quick and eager to pull the trigger.

There is no room for metaphors when you are discussing pressing a gun against someone's temple.

There is no such thing as righteous indignation; those are merely stories for teenagers—nothing justifies murder.

hiddenhound3, if you find yourself getting stung by the whole picture every single time, it's just for the sake of the truth.
Like this example here:

Sandra Parker3 said:

I honestly don't know why I bother engaging with this stuff sometimes. It’s just one thing after another. [Username] says:
Construction sites, guillotines, and death row... what a mess.

I cut the rest of the post because it was way too long, but this is really about the whole thing.

Nah, that’s just not how I see it, but hey, that's just my take.
Monsters are born, plain and simple, but telling someone "I'm sorry, but there's nothing we can do about it" isn't a real answer.
Yeah, for a birth, let's just say that isn't an option here.
But that doesn't apply to actually committing a crime, because that's where things can really go sideways.
An unfulfilled monster. 😁
Do you really think that's actually doable?
Yeah, me too.

Not every mental struggle is some unstoppable disease you just have to surrender to.
Either someone steps in to stop it, or some outside force shuts it down.
Or just scale it back.

Revenge and retaliation? Just different flavors of the same bitter pill.
Oh please, I don't care about that. I only said "bullet to the forehead" regarding him specifically—not everyone else—so you really shouldn't go thinking there's some kind of mass murderer hiding inside me.
It was just a figure of speech.
As far as I'm concerned, I couldn't care less how he—or they—ends up paying for their work.
I'm curious how everyone will react to these kinds of discoveries—will there actually be any real accountability? I wonder if they’ll call it punishment, or just try to spin it as "treatment" or some kind of "preventative measure."

Because if you stop even one part of these kinds of actions, or things like them, you might actually be able to prevent the rest from happening.
Make sure you aren't sending out the wrong message.
In that sense, a crime is just a crime... evil is evil.

My bad, I was typing in a rush.

I don't know what to tell you about Florine. It’s just one of those things. kaže:
...
Look, my position on this is pretty straightforward. No one actually sets out to be a villain.Evil is just what happens when things get out of whack, but everyone focuses on the tip of the iceberg because it’s easy. It's much harder to actually dive into the deep, cold, dark water to find where the real problem is hiding.

I really can't get behind this at all.
A complete and total lack of accountability for one's own actions.

It’s not like the people around you don't have a role to play—they definitely aren't doing their part and they carry their own share of the blame—but at the end of the day, you can still commit an evil act regardless of your intentions or how much you actually realize what you're doing.
No amount of illness will ever justify the intention.
Bringing up an illness as some kind of excuse or explanation is all the same thing now; it just feels like someone trying to manufacture an alibi.
I'm not even talking about the truly deranged ones right now—the types who could actually be written off by a psychiatric evaluation or whatever.

But all that stung you was this, and you say "by chance":

Sandra Parker3 said:

I honestly don't know why I bother engaging with this stuff sometimes. It’s just one thing after another. [Username] says:
Construction sites, guillotines, and death row... what a mess.

I cut the rest of the post because it was way too long, but this is really about the whole thing.

Nah, that’s just not how I see it, but hey, that's just my take.
Monsters are born, plain and simple, but telling someone "I'm sorry, but there's nothing we can do about it" isn't a real answer.
Yeah, for a birth, let's just say that isn't an option here.
But that doesn't apply to actually committing a crime, because that's where things can really go sideways.
An unfulfilled monster. 😁
Do you really think that's actually doable?
Yeah, me too.

Not every mental struggle is some unstoppable disease you just have to surrender to.
Either someone steps in to stop it, or some outside force shuts it down.
Or just scale it back.

Revenge and retaliation? Just different flavors of the same bitter pill.
Oh please, I don't care about that. I only said "bullet to the forehead" regarding him specifically—not everyone else—so you really shouldn't go thinking there's some kind of mass murderer hiding inside me.
It was just a figure of speech.
As far as I'm concerned, I couldn't care less how he—or they—ends up paying for their work.
I'm curious how everyone will react to these kinds of discoveries—will there actually be any real accountability? I wonder if they’ll call it punishment, or just try to spin it as "treatment" or some kind of "preventative measure."

Because if you stop even one part of these kinds of actions, or things like them, you might actually be able to prevent the rest from happening.
Make sure you aren't sending out the wrong message.
In that sense, a crime is just a crime... evil is evil.

My bad, I was typing in a rush.

I don't know what to tell you about Florine. It’s just one of those things. kaže:
...
Look, my position on this is pretty straightforward. No one actually sets out to be a villain.Evil is just what happens when things get out of whack, but everyone focuses on the tip of the iceberg because it’s easy. It's much harder to actually dive into the deep, cold, dark water to find where the real problem is hiding.

I really can't get behind this at all.
A complete and total lack of accountability for one's own actions.

It’s not like the people around you don't have a role to play—they definitely aren't doing their part and they carry their own share of the blame—but at the end of the day, you can still commit an evil act regardless of your intentions or how much you actually realize what you're doing.
No amount of illness will ever justify the intention.
Bringing up an illness as some kind of excuse or explanation is all the same thing now; it just feels like someone trying to manufacture an alibi.
I'm not even talking about the truly deranged ones right now—the types who could actually be written off by a psychiatric evaluation or whatever.

I don't usually quote myself, but...
Since you clearly know what it means to take things out of context and how it feels when only a fragment stings you...
You are a living example of how nothing is ever quite what it seems at first glance; sometimes it's much better, and sometimes it's... where's that smiley of yours? Ah, there it is: 🤮

hiddenhound3 said:This is nothing more than the most pedestrian, conformist way of washing one's hands of responsibility. It will yield nothing of value for anyone; it will only result in a river of blood served up to satisfy the hunger of the bloodthirsty.

sweetheart, just read the whole thing first

from now on, quote the entire paragraph instead of cutting my thoughts in half—I really hate that.

otherwise, I'm going to assume this is just a cheap way of twisting my words.😉

later

I honestly don't know why I bother engaging with this stuff sometimes. It’s just one thing after another. [Username] says:
Construction sites, guillotines, and death row... what a mess.

I cut the rest of the post because it was way too long, but this is really about the whole thing.

Nah, that’s just not how I see it, but hey, that's just my take.
Monsters are born, plain and simple, but telling someone "I'm sorry, but there's nothing we can do about it" isn't a real answer.
Yeah, for a birth, let's just say that isn't an option here.
But that doesn't apply to actually committing a crime, because that's where things can really go sideways.
An unfulfilled monster. 😁
Do you really think that's actually doable?
Yeah, me too.

Not every mental struggle is some unstoppable disease you just have to surrender to.
Either someone steps in to stop it, or some outside force shuts it down.
Or just scale it back.

Revenge and retaliation? Just different flavors of the same bitter pill.
Oh please, I don't care about that. I only said "bullet to the forehead" regarding him specifically—not everyone else—so you really shouldn't go thinking there's some kind of mass murderer hiding inside me.
It was just a figure of speech.
As far as I'm concerned, I couldn't care less how he—or they—ends up paying for their work.
I'm curious how everyone will react to these kinds of discoveries—will there actually be any real accountability? I wonder if they’ll call it punishment, or just try to spin it as "treatment" or some kind of "preventative measure."

Because if you stop even one part of these kinds of actions, or things like them, you might actually be able to prevent the rest from happening.
Make sure you aren't sending out the wrong message.
In that sense, a crime is just a crime... evil is evil.

My bad, I was typing in a rush.

I don't know what to tell you about Florine. It’s just one of those things. kaže:
...
Look, my position on this is pretty straightforward. No one actually sets out to be a villain.Evil is just what happens when things get out of whack, but everyone focuses on the tip of the iceberg because it’s easy. It's much harder to actually dive into the deep, cold, dark water to find where the real problem is hiding.

I really can't get behind this at all.
A complete and total lack of accountability for one's own actions.

It’s not like the people around you don't have a role to play—they definitely aren't doing their part and they carry their own share of the blame—but at the end of the day, you can still commit an evil act regardless of your intentions or how much you actually realize what you're doing.
No amount of illness will ever justify the intention.
Bringing up an illness as some kind of excuse or explanation is all the same thing now; it just feels like someone trying to manufacture an alibi.
I'm not even talking about the truly deranged ones right now—the types who could actually be written off by a psychiatric evaluation or whatever.

slypuma17 said:You’re Precipice-ing them; they don't have that kind of depth when it comes to reading the room. They couldn't care less about who's actually happy and who isn't—they just see "pretty and new" versus "old and worn," and that's where their thinking ends.

get the point?

Not really. If I'm happy regardless of my clothes, then after a brutal wave of judgment, I certainly won't be feeling quite so happy anymore. 😠

nothing surprising there, even slypuma17 dealt with that same "issue" 😁 which she's moved past now, right, sly...

No. ☕

🤣
nah, listen, you have to reach that specific level where happiness absolutely destroys you right at the exact moment things crash into that predictable bird-like pattern (not yours, obviously)

I'm kind of mocking him now, but honestly, it's just so 🙄

slypuma17 said:It depends... mostly on what I happen to be wearing. If it happens on some old, beat-up T-shirt that was headed for the rag bin anyway, then sure, I might even find it a little charming. But that doesn't happen often; they seem to know better.

However, if they decide to take aim at a brand-new, expensive jacket I've just pulled out of the closet for the first time, we aren't talking about happiness anymore. It isn't just uncomfortable; it's predictable. (I mean, those little pests certainly have their timing down perfectly when it comes to aiming. 😁)

So maybe they're just banking on you being predictable.
You know, once they see you're happy regardless of what you're wearing, their whole little strategy falls apart.
get my point?

Thomas Howard93 said:Honestly, I’ve been totally blindsided before, but I don't even follow what you're asking.

No wonder, since slypuma17 had the exact same "issue"😁 which she's moved past now, right, sly...

Look, you and I clearly aren't on the same wavelength, so let me try to clarify things—maybe we aren't actually total opposites after all...

slypuma17 said:Not me. Predictability and happiness just don't sit at the same table. They aren't even in the same zip code. 🤷
The kind of luck or joy we can map out in advance, anticipate, or try to engineer—it feels somewhat... hollow. It lacks that essential element of surprise that is vital to the experience of being truly happy.

Everything mentioned above might bring peace, tranquility, or a sense of security, but that is miles away from what we actually mean when we talk about happiness.

Happiness, in my view, is something that transcends us. It catches us off guard, blindsides us while we're unprepared, and leaves us in a state of pure euphoria. It lingers in the memory long after the moment passes. You can't negotiate with it, and you certainly can't strike a deal with it; it arrives whenever it pleases and departs just as abruptly.
That is true happiness. You can't bribe it, you can't buy it, and if you try to schedule a rendezvous with it, it will show up if it feels like it—or it won't, and it won't give you any heads-up.

There are no instruction manuals, no tactical maneuvers, and no drills to master it, despite how much some people delude themselves. People claim you should train mentally, physically, or spiritually just to be happy. Please. Give me a break. 🙄
If you want a life with fewer unnecessary headaches, there are plenty of recipes for that—that's just living rationally. But a comfortable life and financial security, no matter how unattainable it seems to some, still isn't happiness.
Happiness is something "above" us and beyond the reach of logic. We call it "irrational" because it serves no specific purpose and isn't triggered by our own actions. That’s where its beauty lies: in its unpredictability, its fleeting nature, and the simple fact that you cannot force it to happen, regardless of what you do.

Because if it weren't like that, it would all be far too easy. "Do this, then that, and you'll be happy." A vast number of people, much to their own misfortune, fall for those exact promises. You know the drill: "You'll be happy one day when... you graduate, land that job, get married, have kids..." all while practicing daily exercises to clear your head of "unnecessary" thoughts.

Maybe. Or maybe not. 😁

Look at the bolded part and answer me directly: can you honestly feel lucky when a bird poops on your shoulder?

Do you get the question now? I'm not messing with you. 🙂

hiddenhound3 said:I tend to view this primarily as a psychological disorder or a sickness, which then manifests as a criminal act.

not me
because that just sidelines the actual act and the victim

and leaves you with this "oh, poor little broken person" vibe... but if you're acting like that, you're basically saying you're powerless,
that you aren't responsible for what you do, that you just act on impulse and we'll all just eventually
fix you up.
🙄

Edward Flores4 said:Still... in order for someone to "raise" you, well, you have to actually be born first. So, at the end of the day, birth is the common denominator here. And let's face it, being born is its own kind of trauma—even for those we consider to have had a "smooth" start. It's basically the perfect breeding ground for every psychiatric diagnosis out there... it all traces back to childhood trauma if you look hard enough.🙄

The fact that some people went through absolute hell as kids and didn't end up with a mental health disorder... honestly, that doesn't really prove anything. Because, let’s be real: an idiot is still going to be an idiot—trauma or no trauma. They’ll still go through life using their childhood struggles as a sort of shield or excuse.

And why do they do it? Simple: because they need to keep their jobs. If they just admitted that someone was a complete jerk, then there would be no reason to see a therapist once a week, and all those expensive prescriptions wouldn't be doing anyone any good.🤷

Quentin Tarantino:

yeah, it just reminded me of that little reporter who got three years in prison just because he took his shoes off and put them back in the wrong spot.

Talk about irony. You have a journalist getting three years, while some international terrorist, criminal, and total imbecile walks free despite having wiped out millions of innocent lives.

And you know what's even worse? Not a single psychiatrist bothered to provide a diagnosis—not for the journalist, and certainly not for that global murderer and criminal. It's incredibly easy to point fingers at the obvious culprits... but hardly anyone is willing to work *pro bono* to defend the innocent. But hey, I guess that’s probably just more childhood trauma at work.😁

Quentin Tarantino:

but he DID have support, that's the whole point.

Support from a wife and some neighbors... sure. But nothing political or military. And nowadays, that kind of "help" doesn't carry much weight in a courtroom.🙄

Sure, but you have to actually be made before you can even think about being born.
So, the absolute bottom line is just making kids, though obviously not every single instance of procreation is a total disaster. Still, I can see someone—or maybe they already have—coming up with an even more "fascinating" theory that every single problem in existence stems directly from the act of having children.

Edward Flores4 said:Still... in order for someone to "raise" you, well, you have to actually be born first. So, at the end of the day, birth is the common denominator here. And let's face it, being born is its own kind of trauma—even for those we consider to have had a "smooth" start. It's basically the perfect breeding ground for every psychiatric diagnosis out there... it all traces back to childhood trauma if you look hard enough.🙄

The fact that some people went through absolute hell as kids and didn't end up with a mental health disorder... honestly, that doesn't really prove anything. Because, let’s be real: an idiot is still going to be an idiot—trauma or no trauma. They’ll still go through life using their childhood struggles as a sort of shield or excuse.

And why do they do it? Simple: because they need to keep their jobs. If they just admitted that someone was a complete jerk, then there would be no reason to see a therapist once a week, and all those expensive prescriptions wouldn't be doing anyone any good.🤷

Quentin Tarantino:

yeah, it just reminded me of that little reporter who got three years in prison just because he took his shoes off and put them back in the wrong spot.

Talk about irony. You have a journalist getting three years, while some international terrorist, criminal, and total imbecile walks free despite having wiped out millions of innocent lives.

And you know what's even worse? Not a single psychiatrist bothered to provide a diagnosis—not for the journalist, and certainly not for that global murderer and criminal. It's incredibly easy to point fingers at the obvious culprits... but hardly anyone is willing to work *pro bono* to defend the innocent. But hey, I guess that’s probably just more childhood trauma at work.😁

Quentin Tarantino:

but he DID have support, that's the whole point.

Support from a wife and some neighbors... sure. But nothing political or military. And nowadays, that kind of "help" doesn't carry much weight in a courtroom.🙄

What difference does a journalist's diagnosis make? It’s not like it’s obvious, so why bother? And as for that other guy, just publish his diagnosis too—it won't hurt anyone, and honestly, I'm pretty sure people have done that before anyway.

dustyskipper3 said:I believe he did it out of LOVE. 😍 And primarily maternal love—certainly a twisted kind, very much in the vein of Edgar Allan Poe and Hannibal Lecter, I suppose—but any other explanation would just be trivial and, ultimately, incorrect.

The lawyer for Jeffrey Dahmer is right, though I imagine everyone will spit on him because he actually dared to speak the truth. It probably would have been easier if he had just defended Jeffrey Dahmer as a complete psychopath with zero feelings. But, perhaps, he realized that deep within that monstrous soul, there is actually profound suffering.

He felt he had to isolate his daughter from society because, being so caring, he feared they would corrupt her and turn her into just another freak tailored to fit that "Talmudic-Zionist" society—a woman who works, takes on male roles, and possesses her own will. Meanwhile, Jeffrey Dahmer was a sincere and convicted proponent of the macho ideal, or rather, the ideals they had already adopted from Otto Weininger and other ideologues of masculinity. He made sure his daughter embraced those values too, ensuring she wouldn't break away from his parental care; he even provided a substitute for the husband she wouldn't have had anyway (since people like that aren't really born anymore, just some feminized Zionist monstrosities). In his world, we and the society we've built are the freaks, and his monstrous actions were justified by the pursuit of higher ideals for an Aryan family—children, kitchen, church, and all that. It’s been noted that this is almost commonplace in the Arab world, so I guess why wouldn't someone here arrive at a similar idea? 🙂
Besides, he is actually a victim himself—he destroyed both himself and his family, much like how someone else destroyed him through overly successful, extreme upbringing. There is a psychological mechanism that turns a victim into an executioner, which is visible on an international scale (for example, Palestinians and Jews, and then again with us in Canada, etc.).

The problem is just how many more of those Jeffrey Dahmers are living around us, people who subjugate their families and loved ones through purely economic methods of pressure without even needing to go as far as making the basement door rattle. 😱

That might be an explanation, but it’s hardly an excuse for those murderers.

I don't know what I was thinking, but I guess I just felt like typing that out. Honestly, sometimes my brain just glitches. kaže:
Fritzl wasn't some predator prowling the streets snatching up girls to stash in a basement; he wasn't exactly built like your typical serial killer. Honestly, he just seems like one deeply unfortunate man whose entire foundation was broken from the start. And let's be real—unhappy people aren't exactly in a position to spread any kind of joy.

I honestly wonder if he wouldn't be such a disaster if he didn't have his daughter to blame for all his mess.
He’d just find some replacement daughter out on the street and drag her right back down into that same basement.
Is his misfortune still the center of attention?

(anyway, he wasn't trying to spread happiness, just trying not to stumble into disaster—someone else's disaster, obviously)

hiddenhound3 said:Humanity has always been confronted by such behaviors that exist entirely outside the realm of conventional reason. Jeffrey Dahmer is not an isolated case, nor are Poe or Hannibal. In much the same way, we see the perverse darkness of figures like Elizabeth Báthory, the way Celin glorified an obsession with youth, or how Genet embraced criminality; there are many others who live perpetually on the edge. Jeffrey Dahmer did not simply roam the streets snatching girls to hide them in a basement; he wasn't your typical serial killer archetype. He was quite clearly a deeply unfortunate man built upon fundamentally broken foundations. Unhappy people are simply incapable of sowing seeds of happiness.

I might even venture to suggest that there is a certain nobility and aesthetic quality to be found within their personas.

The true monsters walk freely among us every single day. Take someone like Ivo Sanders, for example.

I'm having a hard time seeing where you find any nobility here, and I'm especially lost on what you mean by "aesthetic"
maybe you're talking about posters and the polished glow of a Christmas tree?

As for Sanders and those other little monsters, you can't even make that comparison because it just cheapens the weight of this specific crime.

Every single crime is... a crime, in its own way.

But these two don't share enough common ground to even attempt a comparison.

slypuma17 said:Predictable? I suppose. We all know they have a soft spot for anything stylish and brand new. 😁

Yeah, but can you actually feel happy in that moment of predictability?

I think that's what really matters, but what do you think?

Sean Chavez3 said:Lately, I’ve been breaking out into these random fits of laughter. I stepped outside today and just couldn't stop grinning at everything. I see a bird and I start laughing. The sun hits my face and there I am, giggling. A breeze picks up and I'm laughing again. Even seeing a redhead walking by triggers a smile. It’s just this genuine, deep-seated amusement at every little thing. Sometimes it even turns into full-on hysterical laughter over something as simple as checking my watch. 🤷
Honestly, I don't care what anyone thinks. I'm happy. 😍

😛

slypuma17 said:That’s what true luck feels like. It’s fleeting, unpredictable, and carries no logic... much like a bird unexpectedly landing on your shoulder. 😍

sorry, you know how I am, birds can be pretty predictable and... 😁

Edward Flores4 said:Because they don't know any better. It’s become this universal diagnosis—this trendy way of looking at things based on the fascinating idea that every single problem starts right at birth.

The real key to cases like this is the society that actually "produces" them. Slavery systems still exist in various forms across the globe today, but Jeffrey Dahmer isn't running an empire or acting as some military dictator... so he ended up behind bars.

Developed democracies go ahead and commit crimes that are a hundred times larger and infinitely more brutal... and nobody bats an eye. His logic—as twisted and dark as it may be—is actually sound. That kind of behavior is perfectly acceptable in our world today, just not when it's being carried out by small-time individuals who lack political clout or military backing.

He was just not quite brilliant enough to realize that his little scheme was never going to be sustainable in the long run.

but it isn't about being born, it's about how you're raised—or "raised"—which doesn't make the idea any less fascinating 🙄

Edward Flores4 said:Because they don't know any better. It’s become this universal diagnosis—this trendy way of looking at things based on the fascinating idea that every single problem starts right at birth.

The real key to cases like this is the society that actually "produces" them. Slavery systems still exist in various forms across the globe today, but Jeffrey Dahmer isn't running an empire or acting as some military dictator... so he ended up behind bars.

Developed democracies go ahead and commit crimes that are a hundred times larger and infinitely more brutal... and nobody bats an eye. His logic—as twisted and dark as it may be—is actually sound. That kind of behavior is perfectly acceptable in our world today, just not when it's being carried out by small-time individuals who lack political clout or military backing.

He was just not quite brilliant enough to realize that his little scheme was never going to be sustainable in the long run.

yeah, it reminds me of that little reporter who got three years just because he tied his shoes and put them in the wrong spot

Edward Flores4 said:Because they don't know any better. It’s become this universal diagnosis—this trendy way of looking at things based on the fascinating idea that every single problem starts right at birth.

The real key to cases like this is the society that actually "produces" them. Slavery systems still exist in various forms across the globe today, but Jeffrey Dahmer isn't running an empire or acting as some military dictator... so he ended up behind bars.

Developed democracies go ahead and commit crimes that are a hundred times larger and infinitely more brutal... and nobody bats an eye. His logic—as twisted and dark as it may be—is actually sound. That kind of behavior is perfectly acceptable in our world today, just not when it's being carried out by small-time individuals who lack political clout or military backing.

He was just not quite brilliant enough to realize that his little scheme was never going to be sustainable in the long run.

but he DID have support, that's the whole point

man, if only I had been that lucky

Jesse Sullivan2 said:So, I was just standing there this morning, lathering up with some shaving cream, when out of nowhere, I just felt... happy. Like, genuinely content. No reason, just a random wave of good vibes hitting me mid-shave.
I’m curious, though—have any of you guys ever had one of those days? Just woke up feeling totally carefree, happy, and like everything in the world is actually going to be okay?

Why the "like"?

slypuma17 said:Not at all—forget the bullet. Fritzl should be tucked away in a comfortable facility, complete with perks. Every few days, a specialist should sit down with him for casual, friendly chats. Somewhere he can unwind, light up a cigar, and just talk about... anything. The weather, his favorite colors, what he likes to eat, his first experience with intimacy, things like that.
The idea is to actually learn something, if such a thing is even possible—to pinpoint exactly where and how that fatal "glitch" formed in his brain. 🤷

The real nightmare would be if he becomes a "celebrity," if you catch my drift.

and of course, I shouldn't forget: one bullet for every person who had the chance to stop this and didn't.

Now those people? They’re fascinating. Perhaps even more so than Fritzl himself.

Ha, this reminds me of "Lambs."
I get what you mean, but why does everyone insist they have the answers and swear that a traumatic childhood is always the key?🤷

slypuma17 said:Not at all—forget the bullet. Fritzl should be tucked away in a comfortable facility, complete with perks. Every few days, a specialist should sit down with him for casual, friendly chats. Somewhere he can unwind, light up a cigar, and just talk about... anything. The weather, his favorite colors, what he likes to eat, his first experience with intimacy, things like that.
The idea is to actually learn something, if such a thing is even possible—to pinpoint exactly where and how that fatal "glitch" formed in his brain. 🤷

The real nightmare would be if he becomes a "celebrity," if you catch my drift.

and of course, I shouldn't forget: one bullet for every person who had the chance to stop this and didn't.

Now those people? They’re fascinating. Perhaps even more so than Fritzl himself.

Yeah, if only you and I could actually agree on something for once.😁
We really need to study the specific mechanisms that lead to those kinds of malfunctions.

crimsonheron80 said:Let's assume we're talking about psychological monsters. Are you actually using "monster" to mean "evil person"?!
Are you suggesting Ed Gein is an evil man (because he seems perfectly normal!?) while others aren't considered evil just because they aren't "normal"—even if they could kill or rape, which they probably have?🤷

Intellectual disabilities and various disorders are mental illnesses. I doubt any of them truly grasp what they are doing.☕

I don't think so—it has to be something deeper than that, though I'm not buying into some collective unconsciousness of evil in a case like this.
You're really latching onto one single word, call it whatever you want,
but if you truly want my take, a "monster" in this context is someone whose actions deserve nothing less than a bullet to the head and that's that.

And let's not forget, one bullet for everyone else who had the chance to stop them but didn't.
And why do you think the trial was handled so fast and efficiently, huh?

crimsonheron80 said:Let's assume we're talking about psychological monsters. Are you actually using "monster" to mean "evil person"?!
Are you suggesting Ed Gein is an evil man (because he seems perfectly normal!?) while others aren't considered evil just because they aren't "normal"—even if they could kill or rape, which they probably have?🤷

Intellectual disabilities and various disorders are mental illnesses. I doubt any of them truly grasp what they are doing.☕

I have no idea what goes on in his head, and like I said before, I'm more interested in the lawyer's mind and the brains of everyone else involved who walked away without being tried.
God forbid we even dig into that (though I don't know all the details since I haven't followed it closely—just hearing about that Christmas tree thing made me sick).

Who's saying he's normal? I said he's intellectually capable, but that's hardly a guarantee that someone won't commit atrocities, right?

And I wasn't talking about "abnormality" in terms of intellectual disabilities.
Honestly, I wouldn't bet on anyone's "normality" either way.

crimsonheron80 said:Let's assume we're talking about psychological monsters. Are you actually using "monster" to mean "evil person"?!
Are you suggesting Ed Gein is an evil man (because he seems perfectly normal!?) while others aren't considered evil just because they aren't "normal"—even if they could kill or rape, which they probably have?🤷

Intellectual disabilities and various disorders are mental illnesses. I doubt any of them truly grasp what they are doing.☕

Who exactly are you talking about?
Where do you even draw the line on being conscious of your own actions?
Even psychiatrists can't give you a straight answer on that.

Come on, name them... how many people in this whole mess were actually "unaware"?

crimsonheron80 said:likely a profound impairment

so why call him a monster? if that's the case, then how does one even apply the medical definition?🤷

Give me that definition—the actual medical one, not some hearsay version. I need the officially recognized one.

Look, you really need to distinguish between being a monster physically and being one psychologically.

A three-headed monster isn't going to cause any trouble, but you can never really trust a one-headed freak.

I don't know what you're even talking about at this hour.