Posts by velvetrider

dustyskipper3 said:

You aren't seeing anything at all. It’s like being stuck in total darkness where you can't see an inch in front of you... you've proven that, and honestly, you keep proving it. I guess it just feels like you're talking just to hear your own voice.

Law isn't exactly the same thing as justice... I mean, if you think about it that way, you're probably already behind the curve on how people are interpreting things these days. Maybe.
I suppose I should call you a cynic, though perhaps that isn't quite fair. It seems more like you’ve just been beaten down too many times by fighting the system, and now you've been forced to join its ranks just to survive. I guess that leads to this stage where there's no shame left in your actions, or even any sense of integrity, really.

😂
I haven't read such a pile of garbage in a long time. I guess. Maybe it’s just me, but it really feels like a complete waste of time.

Look, man... you’re posting on several other forums too, and honestly? Everyone there seems to think you’re just some guy who can't communicate like a normal person. You always end up flaunting this supposed expertise in the natural and social sciences, and it just feels like you're constantly putting everyone else down around you. Maybe you have a little bit of diverse knowledge in technical fields—I guess, maybe a tiny bit of electronics, perhaps a bit of Nikola Tesla level stuff from when you were in high school tech classes—but that's really it. And yet, you seem to think you're incredibly brilliant. It actually reminds me of this one lady who said to me back when I was at Ericsson: We have plenty of intelligent people around here, real geniuses, I suppose. But what’s really the point of all that brilliance when everyone seems to be acting like a total schizo? It just doesn't seem to lead anywhere.😉

Schizophrenia isn't actually what people think it is—it's not some split personality thing. Though, I suppose you could argue that happens in your case too, since you're constantly duplicating yourself between Arteturen and Arteturen1, and honestly, it’s hard to tell which one came first or which one carries more weight. But anyway, regarding the condition... it seems to me more like a fracture between intelligence and emotion. In these individuals, the intellect can be incredibly high and remains perfectly intact on one side, while the emotional side is just... well, it's stunted. It's dull and underdeveloped. I guess that's just how it looks from my perspective.☕

As far as you're concerned... I guess you're actually well on your way to joining them, if you haven't already.
I suppose I should envy your rational intelligence, though perhaps your ego is just a bit too inflated. But I think that’s why your emotional maturity seems stuck at the level of a three-year-old, which explains your communication style and why you can't see what’s staring you in the face. To anyone with a functional emotional life, a few things are obvious: 1) Kids are going to suffer if society decides to punish their father; 2) Society bears responsibility for deviant individuals and how they are treated—that includes you, hiding behind this silly username; and 3) It is impossible to truly judge someone who lacks any empathy for others. You might have an IQ higher than Einstein, but emotionally, you're just... stunted.
Every grandmother out there has a better intuitive grasp on the Josef Fritzl case than you ever will, even if you spend all day shuffling logical Rubik's Cubes around in your left brain until smoke starts coming out of your ear. Let me try to explain: it’s like you’re building a staircase one tiny step at a time just to reach the top of a hill, while someone else just intuitively sees the summit without any effort at all. And, unfortunately for you, even the greatest mathematicians and physicists, including Einstein, arrived at their massive breakthroughs through intuition first, only proving them logically afterward. You won't ever achieve that, even if you figured out how to live for 10,000 years. Besides, you're just full of biases, like the idea that anyone who mentions the Bible or believes in God must be a fool. Even Einstein believed in God, as did Leibniz and many other greats (unlike you). So, I guess, how does faith actually interfere with reason?

Maybe you should head over to some technical forum where you can annoy people with your pedantry. You won't get anywhere here, because if you keep posting this kind of nonsense without actually communicating normally or providing real arguments, you'll probably end up with a permanent ban.

velvetrider said:It’s pretty obvious you aren't actually reading what you write in your own posts, 🙂

I’ve already mentioned that to you a few times now. Just... try reading your own stuff.

You'll eventually realize you're the undisputed king of the hill, no matter how hard I try to argue otherwise. Honestly, I'm begging you to find someone to help fix whatever is going on with you—I'm guessing it isn't anything too huge, but there might be hope...
And then there's this whole concept of reality; you basically just live in your own truth and assume you know everything perfectly.

Hey, everyone is entitled to their opinion. If I'm an idiot, then I guess I'm just an idiot all the time, rather than just occasionally being one like those people who claim Fritzl's kids will suffer if he gets caught. 🤣
I gotta admit though, you really are one of a kind, whatever that means to you.
The rest of it is just wrong, again showing a total lack of substance (not talking about sex, but given how obsessed you are with me, who knows).
We're drifting further away from the topic, though honestly, you were never really on topic anyway—you just scavenge Wikipedia for bits of history and draw totally wrong conclusions, just like you're doing here.
Is this just a copy-paste from another forum, or is it just a glitch in your memory?
If it wasn't for the hundred bucks... but yeah, I'm just sitting here. So, basically, you're lying to yourself and everyone else.


You’re basically proving all over again that you don't actually get the cause or the consequences—you’re just leaning hard on your own biases. It’s kind of like how you said Fritzl was guilty just because the law says so.
How many times do you really need to say that? I mean, seriously...
Look, if you're saying he needs to be held accountable under the law, that’s one thing—that's just how the system works—but man, it’s pretty obvious your cognitive faculties have totally checked out. Maybe it's just me, but I think you've lost the plot a bit.
Do you even see the difference?

Thanks for the kind words, really, but I’ll leave your path to you—you clearly don't have any kids to worry about, so I won't get into the underlying causes, even if they seem pretty obvious... it's probably better that way, I guess. But man, I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but we're talking about Ida here, and honestly? What you've got going on is just total darkness. It's a shame, really—it feels like you missed a step in growing up, because while I did say you've got solid logic, your grasp on reality is just... well, it's completely off.
Man, if you really need to sublimate that feeling... just go grab an ice cream cone and smack it right against your forehead or something. Seriously. I guess not everyone gets to enjoy ice cream quite the way you do.

Why does it feel like everything you write is just one big autobiography? I mean, seriously—what’s the math on that? Is it like IQ + EQ + SQ = just... you? I guess I'm just wondering where the line is.

Look, I don't really feel the need to prove anything... especially regarding you. You've already made your stance pretty clear a long time ago and just keep looping back to it. If you want, I can restate my recommendation or even write it all out again, if that helps.
If you've got religious questions, there’s a specific section for that—just start a thread there and I'll be happy to give you an answer.
It's just this lack of focus you've had from the get-go, I guess.

Don't get all worked up now; you were the one who started this. I'm not even mad, but if you're going to claim everyone who wants to see Fritzl face justice should be treated like a criminal, then you're basically saying

or

Hello? Is there a pilot in this plane?

dustyskipper3 said:

You aren't seeing anything at all. It’s like being stuck in total darkness where you can't see an inch in front of you... you've proven that, and honestly, you keep proving it. I guess it just feels like you're talking just to hear your own voice.

Law isn't exactly the same thing as justice... I mean, if you think about it that way, you're probably already behind the curve on how people are interpreting things these days. Maybe.
I suppose I should call you a cynic, though perhaps that isn't quite fair. It seems more like you’ve just been beaten down too many times by fighting the system, and now you've been forced to join its ranks just to survive. I guess that leads to this stage where there's no shame left in your actions, or even any sense of integrity, really.

😂
I haven't read such a pile of garbage in a long time. I guess. Maybe it’s just me, but it really feels like a complete waste of time.

Look, man... you’re posting on several other forums too, and honestly? Everyone there seems to think you’re just some guy who can't communicate like a normal person. You always end up flaunting this supposed expertise in the natural and social sciences, and it just feels like you're constantly putting everyone else down around you. Maybe you have a little bit of diverse knowledge in technical fields—I guess, maybe a tiny bit of electronics, perhaps a bit of Nikola Tesla level stuff from when you were in high school tech classes—but that's really it. And yet, you seem to think you're incredibly brilliant. It actually reminds me of this one lady who said to me back when I was at Ericsson: We have plenty of intelligent people around here, real geniuses, I suppose. But what’s really the point of all that brilliance when everyone seems to be acting like a total schizo? It just doesn't seem to lead anywhere.😉

Schizophrenia isn't actually what people think it is—it's not some split personality thing. Though, I suppose you could argue that happens in your case too, since you're constantly duplicating yourself between Arteturen and Arteturen1, and honestly, it’s hard to tell which one came first or which one carries more weight. But anyway, regarding the condition... it seems to me more like a fracture between intelligence and emotion. In these individuals, the intellect can be incredibly high and remains perfectly intact on one side, while the emotional side is just... well, it's stunted. It's dull and underdeveloped. I guess that's just how it looks from my perspective.☕

As far as you're concerned... I guess you're actually well on your way to joining them, if you haven't already.
I suppose I should envy your rational intelligence, though perhaps your ego is just a bit too inflated. But I think that’s why your emotional maturity seems stuck at the level of a three-year-old, which explains your communication style and why you can't see what’s staring you in the face. To anyone with a functional emotional life, a few things are obvious: 1) Kids are going to suffer if society decides to punish their father; 2) Society bears responsibility for deviant individuals and how they are treated—that includes you, hiding behind this silly username; and 3) It is impossible to truly judge someone who lacks any empathy for others. You might have an IQ higher than Einstein, but emotionally, you're just... stunted.
Every grandmother out there has a better intuitive grasp on the Josef Fritzl case than you ever will, even if you spend all day shuffling logical Rubik's Cubes around in your left brain until smoke starts coming out of your ear. Let me try to explain: it’s like you’re building a staircase one tiny step at a time just to reach the top of a hill, while someone else just intuitively sees the summit without any effort at all. And, unfortunately for you, even the greatest mathematicians and physicists, including Einstein, arrived at their massive breakthroughs through intuition first, only proving them logically afterward. You won't ever achieve that, even if you figured out how to live for 10,000 years. Besides, you're just full of biases, like the idea that anyone who mentions the Bible or believes in God must be a fool. Even Einstein believed in God, as did Leibniz and many other greats (unlike you). So, I guess, how does faith actually interfere with reason?

Maybe you should head over to some technical forum where you can annoy people with your pedantry. You won't get anywhere here, because if you keep posting this kind of nonsense without actually communicating normally or providing real arguments, you'll probably end up with a permanent ban.

velvetrider said: N'Dug, you really know how to get yourself into a jam, don't you?🤣,

I always tell people, let the patient prove they're crazy—and I don't mean you—
you shouldn't just jump in and tell them.
Looks like you might be that little piglet here. Look, I've got nothing against you personally, it's just that kind of "my way or the highway" attitude that gets to me.



You're gonna laugh at this, but what's wild is that Fritzl's basement is actually mentioned right there.😂

Something I'd definitely recommend to everyone,
which was actually requested by my good colleague parsifal
but you should've mentioned how old the post is, because back then, people were calling me to come over.
I'm loyal to this group,
but since you didn't quite grasp anything over there either, I'll happily explain it to you—just start your own thread about your various misunderstandings with reality, and you'll get all your answers, maybe even whether God exists or not.😉

dustyskipper3 said:So, here is how things stand. That user Arthur over on the New Forum is using the exact same avatar as the one right here. I think there is actual proof... if you look at this avatar from the New Forum:



I suppose that particular avatar isn't publicly accessible; at least, I haven't been able to find it out in the open myself. Which would mean that either...

I guess... if you look closely at how Arthur and Arthur seem to be communicating behind the scenes, it almost feels like they're secretly swapping avatars or something. It’s strange, I suppose. Maybe there's more going on there than meets the eye.
I guess this person is being untruthful, because they're actually posting under that exact same username over on the New Forum at the same time.

Well, now, let’s see if I was actually being truthful. I suppose I should just quote myself:

I suppose I should probably weigh in here, though I might be missing the point entirely. It seems like we’re circling back to the same fundamental questions, isn't it? I was reading some old essays by E. A. Poe the other night—just wandering through his thoughts on the macabre—and it struck me how much our current debate over institutional ethics mirrors those older anxieties about the human psyche. Maybe that's a stretch. Perhaps it's just my own tendency to overthink things. Regarding what dustyskipper3 mentioned earlier... I guess there's some merit to that perspective, even if it feels a bit disjointed. There is a certain gravity to the situation that I think we are all feeling, whether we admit it or not. It's hard to stay objective when the stakes feel this high, I suppose. Everything feels a bit fragmented right now. I mean, if you look at how major corporations like ExxonMobil handle public perception versus how smaller local firms in a place like Columbus might approach it, the disparity is quite jarring. It makes one wonder about the underlying structures of accountability in America. Or maybe I'm just rambling. I tend to do that when I'm trying to find the right way to say something. Anyway, I'll leave it at that for now.

How on earth does someone actually manage to build a hermetically sealed bunker inside their own basement without anyone noticing? I mean, I guess you'd probably need some kind of help to pull off something like that. Even if you aren't looking at standard building permits or zoning laws, there has to be some sort of paper trail somewhere. If my memory serves me right—and it might be fuzzy—it would have to be registered as a private fallout shelter or something similar. Because, well, if it were just a regular basement setup, those people trapped inside would surely find a way to escape or call for help, wouldn't they? Even if that turns out to be true, I suppose we still have to consider Fritzlov’s wife. She really had to have known what was going on. It's hard to wrap my head around how she could stay in the dark. Maybe she even encouraged him, though I guess that's just speculation. Who can really say? As for those kids who were left outside... I wonder, did they actually live carefree lives, or were they constantly living under this looming threat that they’d be locked away too if they didn't follow their parents' every command? There are just so many unanswered questions here. But, I guess, there's enough evidence to suggest that the whole family was deeply disturbed, rather than it just being an issue with Josef Fritzl alone.
So, back then, Josef Fritzl and his wife would just go about their business, picking up groceries or chatting with neighbors, and honestly, nobody ever thought they were, well, "off." Maybe they seemed a bit old-fashioned, I guess, but nothing strange. People in America tend to respect privacy quite a bit, so you know, everyone just kept to themselves.

Here is today's article from the New York Times (pages 14-15) regarding the interview given by Josef Fritzl:

http://www.nytimes.com/world/article...,27,,157532.html

Fritzlov’s account of meeting his daughter Elisabeth in court:

When I caught sight of her in the courtroom and finally turned to look at her, I was suddenly overcome by an intense sense of shame. I had this strange sensation, one I can barely put into words, but seeing her there, being in such close proximity... it felt different. I could hardly even hear what she was saying. It was then that I realized I wanted the worst punishment possible—the harshest sentence, all the way through. Because I want to make amends—said the monster.

The man who eventually confessed to every single charge, including the rape of his daughter 3,000 times and the murder of a newborn whose body he later cremated, attempted once again to justify his perverse "love" for the secret family he kept hidden in the basement of his home behind eight locked doors.

I tried to provide my other family with a somewhat more comfortable life in the basement and, over the years, I tried to improve my partnership with my daughter. But I didn't deserve anything better. I don't deserve any leniency. I knew I had to confess everything; I couldn't hide the truth from everyone anymore. I finally understood the kind of suffering I inflicted upon my family — stated Fritzl.

I would like to try and explain why I acted so terribly. More than anything, I just want my victims to somehow forget and repress what I did to them — said Fritzl.

He added that he wants psychiatrists to dive deep into his "sick soul" so that perhaps it might assist in the rehabilitation of his children along with Elisabeth.

Also on those same pages of the New York Times is this article:
Indictment filed against Fritzlov’s wife, Rosemarie.
The attorney has filed charges against Rosemarie as an "accomplice to Josef Fritzl." Groth, who also serves as a forensic medical expert, claims that Rosemarie had to have known what her husband was doing in their basement for nearly three decades.

His wife and likely his oldest son had to have known that someone else was living in the house. To build a space like that, it would take an average of two years for one person. Something like that is impossible to hide from family members and neighbors alike.

So, I guess the neighbors probably knew too. How far is it from concluding that the whole town knew, if we assume people gossip? And is society not responsible here?

In conclusion: Fritzl has repeatedly expressed his desire to make amends, acknowledging his guilt. He wants psychiatrists to analyze him, not so other psychopaths can follow his model, but to help with the rehabilitation of his children (which I’ve mentioned before in this thread). Shouldn't society help with that?

No, according to the highly emotional Arthur, he needs his "darling child," which is justice, and the children should just fend for themselves however they can. I wonder what will happen when Arthur realizes that this story is largely about him, too. Will his "darling child" turn on him then?

?

dustyskipper3 said:So, here is how things stand. That user Arthur over on the New Forum is using the exact same avatar as the one right here. I think there is actual proof... if you look at this avatar from the New Forum:



I suppose that particular avatar isn't publicly accessible; at least, I haven't been able to find it out in the open myself. Which would mean that either...

I guess... if you look closely at how Arthur and Arthur seem to be communicating behind the scenes, it almost feels like they're secretly swapping avatars or something. It’s strange, I suppose. Maybe there's more going on there than meets the eye.
I guess this person is being untruthful, because they're actually posting under that exact same username over on the New Forum at the same time.

Well, now, let’s see if I was actually being truthful. I suppose I should just quote myself:

I suppose I should probably weigh in here, though I might be missing the point entirely. It seems like we’re circling back to the same fundamental questions, isn't it? I was reading some old essays by E. A. Poe the other night—just wandering through his thoughts on the macabre—and it struck me how much our current debate over institutional ethics mirrors those older anxieties about the human psyche. Maybe that's a stretch. Perhaps it's just my own tendency to overthink things. Regarding what dustyskipper3 mentioned earlier... I guess there's some merit to that perspective, even if it feels a bit disjointed. There is a certain gravity to the situation that I think we are all feeling, whether we admit it or not. It's hard to stay objective when the stakes feel this high, I suppose. Everything feels a bit fragmented right now. I mean, if you look at how major corporations like ExxonMobil handle public perception versus how smaller local firms in a place like Columbus might approach it, the disparity is quite jarring. It makes one wonder about the underlying structures of accountability in America. Or maybe I'm just rambling. I tend to do that when I'm trying to find the right way to say something. Anyway, I'll leave it at that for now.

How on earth does someone actually manage to build a hermetically sealed bunker inside their own basement without anyone noticing? I mean, I guess you'd probably need some kind of help to pull off something like that. Even if you aren't looking at standard building permits or zoning laws, there has to be some sort of paper trail somewhere. If my memory serves me right—and it might be fuzzy—it would have to be registered as a private fallout shelter or something similar. Because, well, if it were just a regular basement setup, those people trapped inside would surely find a way to escape or call for help, wouldn't they? Even if that turns out to be true, I suppose we still have to consider Fritzlov’s wife. She really had to have known what was going on. It's hard to wrap my head around how she could stay in the dark. Maybe she even encouraged him, though I guess that's just speculation. Who can really say? As for those kids who were left outside... I wonder, did they actually live carefree lives, or were they constantly living under this looming threat that they’d be locked away too if they didn't follow their parents' every command? There are just so many unanswered questions here. But, I guess, there's enough evidence to suggest that the whole family was deeply disturbed, rather than it just being an issue with Josef Fritzl alone.
So, back then, Josef Fritzl and his wife would just go about their business, picking up groceries or chatting with neighbors, and honestly, nobody ever thought they were, well, "off." Maybe they seemed a bit old-fashioned, I guess, but nothing strange. People in America tend to respect privacy quite a bit, so you know, everyone just kept to themselves.

Here is today's article from the New York Times (pages 14-15) regarding the interview given by Josef Fritzl:

http://www.nytimes.com/world/article...,27,,157532.html

Fritzlov’s account of meeting his daughter Elisabeth in court:

When I caught sight of her in the courtroom and finally turned to look at her, I was suddenly overcome by an intense sense of shame. I had this strange sensation, one I can barely put into words, but seeing her there, being in such close proximity... it felt different. I could hardly even hear what she was saying. It was then that I realized I wanted the worst punishment possible—the harshest sentence, all the way through. Because I want to make amends—said the monster.

The man who eventually confessed to every single charge, including the rape of his daughter 3,000 times and the murder of a newborn whose body he later cremated, attempted once again to justify his perverse "love" for the secret family he kept hidden in the basement of his home behind eight locked doors.

I tried to provide my other family with a somewhat more comfortable life in the basement and, over the years, I tried to improve my partnership with my daughter. But I didn't deserve anything better. I don't deserve any leniency. I knew I had to confess everything; I couldn't hide the truth from everyone anymore. I finally understood the kind of suffering I inflicted upon my family — stated Fritzl.

I would like to try and explain why I acted so terribly. More than anything, I just want my victims to somehow forget and repress what I did to them — said Fritzl.

He added that he wants psychiatrists to dive deep into his "sick soul" so that perhaps it might assist in the rehabilitation of his children along with Elisabeth.

Also on those same pages of the New York Times is this article:
Indictment filed against Fritzlov’s wife, Rosemarie.
The attorney has filed charges against Rosemarie as an "accomplice to Josef Fritzl." Groth, who also serves as a forensic medical expert, claims that Rosemarie had to have known what her husband was doing in their basement for nearly three decades.

His wife and likely his oldest son had to have known that someone else was living in the house. To build a space like that, it would take an average of two years for one person. Something like that is impossible to hide from family members and neighbors alike.

So, I guess the neighbors probably knew too. How far is it from concluding that the whole town knew, if we assume people gossip? And is society not responsible here?

In conclusion: Fritzl has repeatedly expressed his desire to make amends, acknowledging his guilt. He wants psychiatrists to analyze him, not so other psychopaths can follow his model, but to help with the rehabilitation of his children (which I’ve mentioned before in this thread). Shouldn't society help with that?

No, according to the highly emotional Arthur, he needs his "darling child," which is justice, and the children should just fend for themselves however they can. I wonder what will happen when Arthur realizes that this story is largely about him, too. Will his "darling child" turn on him then?

dustyskipper3 said:Anyway, Color, I wonder why this kind of reasoning doesn't bother you from the perspective of respecting judicial authority:

the moment he steps onto the edge of my territory.... 🙂

I mean, shouldn't we wait for the justice system to function and react according to the laws of a democratic state in a rule-of-law nation?
One might almost say Fritzl was thinking in a psychopathic way before:

The STATE stepped onto the edge of Fritzl's territory; it dared to give his daughter the right to make her own decisions once she turned 18.

Dakle, Fritzl has the RIGHT to do whatever it takes to PROTECT the edge of his territory. 🙂

A person who wants to be just must first respect the impartiality, abstraction, and generality of legal norms, even when they work against them. Law isn't just what benefits me; law stands above any individual and their private interests because it protects the PUBLIC interest. That is what a rule-of-law state means, rather than everyone just protecting their own little borders, which is more like the Wild West.

dustyskipper3 said:Anyway, Color, I wonder why this kind of reasoning doesn't bother you from the perspective of respecting judicial authority:

the moment he steps onto the edge of my territory.... 🙂

I mean, shouldn't we wait for the justice system to function and react according to the laws of a democratic state in a rule-of-law nation?
One might almost say Fritzl was thinking in a psychopathic way before:

The STATE stepped onto the edge of Fritzl's territory; it dared to give his daughter the right to make her own decisions once she turned 18.

Dakle, Fritzl has the RIGHT to do whatever it takes to PROTECT the edge of his territory. 🙂

A person who wants to be just must first respect the impartiality, abstraction, and generality of legal norms, even when they work against them. Law isn't just what benefits me; law stands above any individual and their private interests because it protects the PUBLIC interest. That is what a rule-of-law state means, rather than everyone just protecting their own little borders, which is more like the Wild West.

velvetrider said:It’s pretty obvious you aren't actually reading what you write in your own posts, 🙂

I’ve already mentioned that to you a few times now. Just... try reading your own stuff.

You'll eventually realize you're the undisputed king of the hill, no matter how hard I try to argue otherwise. Honestly, I'm begging you to find someone to help fix whatever is going on with you—I'm guessing it isn't anything too huge, but there might be hope...
And then there's this whole concept of reality; you basically just live in your own truth and assume you know everything perfectly.

Hey, everyone is entitled to their opinion. If I'm an idiot, then I guess I'm just an idiot all the time, rather than just occasionally being one like those people who claim Fritzl's kids will suffer if he gets caught. 🤣
I gotta admit though, you really are one of a kind, whatever that means to you.
The rest of it is just wrong, again showing a total lack of substance (not talking about sex, but given how obsessed you are with me, who knows).
We're drifting further away from the topic, though honestly, you were never really on topic anyway—you just scavenge Wikipedia for bits of history and draw totally wrong conclusions, just like you're doing here.
Is this just a copy-paste from another forum, or is it just a glitch in your memory?
If it wasn't for the hundred bucks... but yeah, I'm just sitting here. So, basically, you're lying to yourself and everyone else.


You’re basically proving all over again that you don't actually get the cause or the consequences—you’re just leaning hard on your own biases. It’s kind of like how you said Fritzl was guilty just because the law says so.
How many times do you really need to say that? I mean, seriously...
Look, if you're saying he needs to be held accountable under the law, that’s one thing—that's just how the system works—but man, it’s pretty obvious your cognitive faculties have totally checked out. Maybe it's just me, but I think you've lost the plot a bit.
Do you even see the difference?

Thanks for the kind words, really, but I’ll leave your path to you—you clearly don't have any kids to worry about, so I won't get into the underlying causes, even if they seem pretty obvious... it's probably better that way, I guess. But man, I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but we're talking about Ida here, and honestly? What you've got going on is just total darkness. It's a shame, really—it feels like you missed a step in growing up, because while I did say you've got solid logic, your grasp on reality is just... well, it's completely off.
Man, if you really need to sublimate that feeling... just go grab an ice cream cone and smack it right against your forehead or something. Seriously. I guess not everyone gets to enjoy ice cream quite the way you do.

Why does it feel like everything you write is just one big autobiography? I mean, seriously—what’s the math on that? Is it like IQ + EQ + SQ = just... you? I guess I'm just wondering where the line is.

Look, I don't really feel the need to prove anything... especially regarding you. You've already made your stance pretty clear a long time ago and just keep looping back to it. If you want, I can restate my recommendation or even write it all out again, if that helps.
If you've got religious questions, there’s a specific section for that—just start a thread there and I'll be happy to give you an answer.
It's just this lack of focus you've had from the get-go, I guess.

Don't get all worked up now; you were the one who started this. I'm not even mad, but if you're going to claim everyone who wants to see Fritzl face justice should be treated like a criminal, then you're basically saying

or

Hello? Is there a pilot in this plane?

dustyskipper3 said:Gosh, you all certainly have a lot to say. I might have to start charging for my time if I'm expected to answer everyone.😉
I should probably apologize for that deleted post, and I guess I'll give myself 10 points for going off-topic—but I just couldn't help myself, the urge to be agreeable kind of took over. Anyway, greetings to our friend runteater--u

Athens, here is an example from the New Forum, specifically the thread titled "God, Darwin, or Intelligent Design." Unfortunately, you can't quote directly between different forums, but it’s easy enough to find, maybe even just by searching on Google.

Valentino15 says this about you:
Don't bother. If you read through this entire thread, you'll see the guy doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. It's just a waste of time. He's one of those atheistic fundamentalists who thinks we all just popped out of rocks, and he gets these total fits of rage if anyone dares to question his beliefs.

Seriously, don't waste your breath; it really isn't worth it. I don't even reply to him anymore. Talking to him is basically like doing this => :headbutt:

If anyone is interested, go ahead and read the whole debate. It's actually quite entertaining.🤣

hiddenhound3 said:🤣 really?! where on earth does it say that?
I owe you absolutely nothing.

you wrote yourself that your family is similar to the Fritzl situation and that you wouldn't punish him... you are aware of the sins involved, yet it seems as though it doesn't matter if you aren't a good person, as long as nothing happens to you.

is that truly what you concluded from this?

I am uncertain what is troubling you—whether it is difficulty with social interaction or a fundamental misunderstanding of the text 🤷

but I see nowhere where I claim my family is similar to the Fritzl case...
I have a different example—for one individual in my family, when they left home, there was no inquiry into their whereabouts or well-being for 19 years, which through that silence directly supported conformism and glossed over the act of a crime...

hiddenhound3 said:Haven't you realized yet that I simply have no desire to debate you? To me, this is nothing more than a waste of my precious time. I have already said everything I intended to say.

You have cast yourself in the role of some self-righteous moral crusader, and frankly, you are giving yourself far too much credit.

hiddenhound3 said:Haven't you realized yet that I simply have no desire to debate you? To me, this is nothing more than a waste of my precious time. I have already said everything I intended to say.

You have cast yourself in the role of some self-righteous moral crusader, and frankly, you are giving yourself far too much credit.

hiddenhound3 said:🙂

Well... it looks like the shooting has finally started.

🤣

bluemaker52 said:This bolded part... interesting, right?
But I would really appreciate it if you could answer this:

dustyskipper3 said:

You aren't seeing anything at all. It’s like being stuck in total darkness where you can't see an inch in front of you... you've proven that, and honestly, you keep proving it. I guess it just feels like you're talking just to hear your own voice.

Law isn't exactly the same thing as justice... I mean, if you think about it that way, you're probably already behind the curve on how people are interpreting things these days. Maybe.
I suppose I should call you a cynic, though perhaps that isn't quite fair. It seems more like you’ve just been beaten down too many times by fighting the system, and now you've been forced to join its ranks just to survive. I guess that leads to this stage where there's no shame left in your actions, or even any sense of integrity, really.

😂
I haven't read such a pile of garbage in a long time. I guess. Maybe it’s just me, but it really feels like a complete waste of time.

Look, man... you’re posting on several other forums too, and honestly? Everyone there seems to think you’re just some guy who can't communicate like a normal person. You always end up flaunting this supposed expertise in the natural and social sciences, and it just feels like you're constantly putting everyone else down around you. Maybe you have a little bit of diverse knowledge in technical fields—I guess, maybe a tiny bit of electronics, perhaps a bit of Nikola Tesla level stuff from when you were in high school tech classes—but that's really it. And yet, you seem to think you're incredibly brilliant. It actually reminds me of this one lady who said to me back when I was at Ericsson: We have plenty of intelligent people around here, real geniuses, I suppose. But what’s really the point of all that brilliance when everyone seems to be acting like a total schizo? It just doesn't seem to lead anywhere.😉

Schizophrenia isn't actually what people think it is—it's not some split personality thing. Though, I suppose you could argue that happens in your case too, since you're constantly duplicating yourself between Arteturen and Arteturen1, and honestly, it’s hard to tell which one came first or which one carries more weight. But anyway, regarding the condition... it seems to me more like a fracture between intelligence and emotion. In these individuals, the intellect can be incredibly high and remains perfectly intact on one side, while the emotional side is just... well, it's stunted. It's dull and underdeveloped. I guess that's just how it looks from my perspective.☕

As far as you're concerned... I guess you're actually well on your way to joining them, if you haven't already.
I suppose I should envy your rational intelligence, though perhaps your ego is just a bit too inflated. But I think that’s why your emotional maturity seems stuck at the level of a three-year-old, which explains your communication style and why you can't see what’s staring you in the face. To anyone with a functional emotional life, a few things are obvious: 1) Kids are going to suffer if society decides to punish their father; 2) Society bears responsibility for deviant individuals and how they are treated—that includes you, hiding behind this silly username; and 3) It is impossible to truly judge someone who lacks any empathy for others. You might have an IQ higher than Einstein, but emotionally, you're just... stunted.
Every grandmother out there has a better intuitive grasp on the Josef Fritzl case than you ever will, even if you spend all day shuffling logical Rubik's Cubes around in your left brain until smoke starts coming out of your ear. Let me try to explain: it’s like you’re building a staircase one tiny step at a time just to reach the top of a hill, while someone else just intuitively sees the summit without any effort at all. And, unfortunately for you, even the greatest mathematicians and physicists, including Einstein, arrived at their massive breakthroughs through intuition first, only proving them logically afterward. You won't ever achieve that, even if you figured out how to live for 10,000 years. Besides, you're just full of biases, like the idea that anyone who mentions the Bible or believes in God must be a fool. Even Einstein believed in God, as did Leibniz and many other greats (unlike you). So, I guess, how does faith actually interfere with reason?

Maybe you should head over to some technical forum where you can annoy people with your pedantry. You won't get anywhere here, because if you keep posting this kind of nonsense without actually communicating normally or providing real arguments, you'll probably end up with a permanent ban.

dustyskipper3 said:

You aren't seeing anything at all. It’s like being stuck in total darkness where you can't see an inch in front of you... you've proven that, and honestly, you keep proving it. I guess it just feels like you're talking just to hear your own voice.

Law isn't exactly the same thing as justice... I mean, if you think about it that way, you're probably already behind the curve on how people are interpreting things these days. Maybe.
I suppose I should call you a cynic, though perhaps that isn't quite fair. It seems more like you’ve just been beaten down too many times by fighting the system, and now you've been forced to join its ranks just to survive. I guess that leads to this stage where there's no shame left in your actions, or even any sense of integrity, really.

😂
I haven't read such a pile of garbage in a long time. I guess. Maybe it’s just me, but it really feels like a complete waste of time.

Look, man... you’re posting on several other forums too, and honestly? Everyone there seems to think you’re just some guy who can't communicate like a normal person. You always end up flaunting this supposed expertise in the natural and social sciences, and it just feels like you're constantly putting everyone else down around you. Maybe you have a little bit of diverse knowledge in technical fields—I guess, maybe a tiny bit of electronics, perhaps a bit of Nikola Tesla level stuff from when you were in high school tech classes—but that's really it. And yet, you seem to think you're incredibly brilliant. It actually reminds me of this one lady who said to me back when I was at Ericsson: We have plenty of intelligent people around here, real geniuses, I suppose. But what’s really the point of all that brilliance when everyone seems to be acting like a total schizo? It just doesn't seem to lead anywhere.😉

Schizophrenia isn't actually what people think it is—it's not some split personality thing. Though, I suppose you could argue that happens in your case too, since you're constantly duplicating yourself between Arteturen and Arteturen1, and honestly, it’s hard to tell which one came first or which one carries more weight. But anyway, regarding the condition... it seems to me more like a fracture between intelligence and emotion. In these individuals, the intellect can be incredibly high and remains perfectly intact on one side, while the emotional side is just... well, it's stunted. It's dull and underdeveloped. I guess that's just how it looks from my perspective.☕

As far as you're concerned... I guess you're actually well on your way to joining them, if you haven't already.
I suppose I should envy your rational intelligence, though perhaps your ego is just a bit too inflated. But I think that’s why your emotional maturity seems stuck at the level of a three-year-old, which explains your communication style and why you can't see what’s staring you in the face. To anyone with a functional emotional life, a few things are obvious: 1) Kids are going to suffer if society decides to punish their father; 2) Society bears responsibility for deviant individuals and how they are treated—that includes you, hiding behind this silly username; and 3) It is impossible to truly judge someone who lacks any empathy for others. You might have an IQ higher than Einstein, but emotionally, you're just... stunted.
Every grandmother out there has a better intuitive grasp on the Josef Fritzl case than you ever will, even if you spend all day shuffling logical Rubik's Cubes around in your left brain until smoke starts coming out of your ear. Let me try to explain: it’s like you’re building a staircase one tiny step at a time just to reach the top of a hill, while someone else just intuitively sees the summit without any effort at all. And, unfortunately for you, even the greatest mathematicians and physicists, including Einstein, arrived at their massive breakthroughs through intuition first, only proving them logically afterward. You won't ever achieve that, even if you figured out how to live for 10,000 years. Besides, you're just full of biases, like the idea that anyone who mentions the Bible or believes in God must be a fool. Even Einstein believed in God, as did Leibniz and many other greats (unlike you). So, I guess, how does faith actually interfere with reason?

Maybe you should head over to some technical forum where you can annoy people with your pedantry. You won't get anywhere here, because if you keep posting this kind of nonsense without actually communicating normally or providing real arguments, you'll probably end up with a permanent ban.

dustyskipper3 said:

You aren't seeing anything at all. It’s like being stuck in total darkness where you can't see an inch in front of you... you've proven that, and honestly, you keep proving it. I guess it just feels like you're talking just to hear your own voice.

Law isn't exactly the same thing as justice... I mean, if you think about it that way, you're probably already behind the curve on how people are interpreting things these days. Maybe.
I suppose I should call you a cynic, though perhaps that isn't quite fair. It seems more like you’ve just been beaten down too many times by fighting the system, and now you've been forced to join its ranks just to survive. I guess that leads to this stage where there's no shame left in your actions, or even any sense of integrity, really.

😂
I haven't read such a pile of garbage in a long time. I guess. Maybe it’s just me, but it really feels like a complete waste of time.

Look, man... you’re posting on several other forums too, and honestly? Everyone there seems to think you’re just some guy who can't communicate like a normal person. You always end up flaunting this supposed expertise in the natural and social sciences, and it just feels like you're constantly putting everyone else down around you. Maybe you have a little bit of diverse knowledge in technical fields—I guess, maybe a tiny bit of electronics, perhaps a bit of Nikola Tesla level stuff from when you were in high school tech classes—but that's really it. And yet, you seem to think you're incredibly brilliant. It actually reminds me of this one lady who said to me back when I was at Ericsson: We have plenty of intelligent people around here, real geniuses, I suppose. But what’s really the point of all that brilliance when everyone seems to be acting like a total schizo? It just doesn't seem to lead anywhere.😉

Schizophrenia isn't actually what people think it is—it's not some split personality thing. Though, I suppose you could argue that happens in your case too, since you're constantly duplicating yourself between Arteturen and Arteturen1, and honestly, it’s hard to tell which one came first or which one carries more weight. But anyway, regarding the condition... it seems to me more like a fracture between intelligence and emotion. In these individuals, the intellect can be incredibly high and remains perfectly intact on one side, while the emotional side is just... well, it's stunted. It's dull and underdeveloped. I guess that's just how it looks from my perspective.☕

As far as you're concerned... I guess you're actually well on your way to joining them, if you haven't already.
I suppose I should envy your rational intelligence, though perhaps your ego is just a bit too inflated. But I think that’s why your emotional maturity seems stuck at the level of a three-year-old, which explains your communication style and why you can't see what’s staring you in the face. To anyone with a functional emotional life, a few things are obvious: 1) Kids are going to suffer if society decides to punish their father; 2) Society bears responsibility for deviant individuals and how they are treated—that includes you, hiding behind this silly username; and 3) It is impossible to truly judge someone who lacks any empathy for others. You might have an IQ higher than Einstein, but emotionally, you're just... stunted.
Every grandmother out there has a better intuitive grasp on the Josef Fritzl case than you ever will, even if you spend all day shuffling logical Rubik's Cubes around in your left brain until smoke starts coming out of your ear. Let me try to explain: it’s like you’re building a staircase one tiny step at a time just to reach the top of a hill, while someone else just intuitively sees the summit without any effort at all. And, unfortunately for you, even the greatest mathematicians and physicists, including Einstein, arrived at their massive breakthroughs through intuition first, only proving them logically afterward. You won't ever achieve that, even if you figured out how to live for 10,000 years. Besides, you're just full of biases, like the idea that anyone who mentions the Bible or believes in God must be a fool. Even Einstein believed in God, as did Leibniz and many other greats (unlike you). So, I guess, how does faith actually interfere with reason?

Maybe you should head over to some technical forum where you can annoy people with your pedantry. You won't get anywhere here, because if you keep posting this kind of nonsense without actually communicating normally or providing real arguments, you'll probably end up with a permanent ban.

dustyskipper3 said:

You aren't seeing anything at all. It’s like being stuck in total darkness where you can't see an inch in front of you... you've proven that, and honestly, you keep proving it. I guess it just feels like you're talking just to hear your own voice.

Law isn't exactly the same thing as justice... I mean, if you think about it that way, you're probably already behind the curve on how people are interpreting things these days. Maybe.
I suppose I should call you a cynic, though perhaps that isn't quite fair. It seems more like you’ve just been beaten down too many times by fighting the system, and now you've been forced to join its ranks just to survive. I guess that leads to this stage where there's no shame left in your actions, or even any sense of integrity, really.

😂
I haven't read such a pile of garbage in a long time. I guess. Maybe it’s just me, but it really feels like a complete waste of time.

Look, man... you’re posting on several other forums too, and honestly? Everyone there seems to think you’re just some guy who can't communicate like a normal person. You always end up flaunting this supposed expertise in the natural and social sciences, and it just feels like you're constantly putting everyone else down around you. Maybe you have a little bit of diverse knowledge in technical fields—I guess, maybe a tiny bit of electronics, perhaps a bit of Nikola Tesla level stuff from when you were in high school tech classes—but that's really it. And yet, you seem to think you're incredibly brilliant. It actually reminds me of this one lady who said to me back when I was at Ericsson: We have plenty of intelligent people around here, real geniuses, I suppose. But what’s really the point of all that brilliance when everyone seems to be acting like a total schizo? It just doesn't seem to lead anywhere.😉

Schizophrenia isn't actually what people think it is—it's not some split personality thing. Though, I suppose you could argue that happens in your case too, since you're constantly duplicating yourself between Arteturen and Arteturen1, and honestly, it’s hard to tell which one came first or which one carries more weight. But anyway, regarding the condition... it seems to me more like a fracture between intelligence and emotion. In these individuals, the intellect can be incredibly high and remains perfectly intact on one side, while the emotional side is just... well, it's stunted. It's dull and underdeveloped. I guess that's just how it looks from my perspective.☕

As far as you're concerned... I guess you're actually well on your way to joining them, if you haven't already.
I suppose I should envy your rational intelligence, though perhaps your ego is just a bit too inflated. But I think that’s why your emotional maturity seems stuck at the level of a three-year-old, which explains your communication style and why you can't see what’s staring you in the face. To anyone with a functional emotional life, a few things are obvious: 1) Kids are going to suffer if society decides to punish their father; 2) Society bears responsibility for deviant individuals and how they are treated—that includes you, hiding behind this silly username; and 3) It is impossible to truly judge someone who lacks any empathy for others. You might have an IQ higher than Einstein, but emotionally, you're just... stunted.
Every grandmother out there has a better intuitive grasp on the Josef Fritzl case than you ever will, even if you spend all day shuffling logical Rubik's Cubes around in your left brain until smoke starts coming out of your ear. Let me try to explain: it’s like you’re building a staircase one tiny step at a time just to reach the top of a hill, while someone else just intuitively sees the summit without any effort at all. And, unfortunately for you, even the greatest mathematicians and physicists, including Einstein, arrived at their massive breakthroughs through intuition first, only proving them logically afterward. You won't ever achieve that, even if you figured out how to live for 10,000 years. Besides, you're just full of biases, like the idea that anyone who mentions the Bible or believes in God must be a fool. Even Einstein believed in God, as did Leibniz and many other greats (unlike you). So, I guess, how does faith actually interfere with reason?

Maybe you should head over to some technical forum where you can annoy people with your pedantry. You won't get anywhere here, because if you keep posting this kind of nonsense without actually communicating normally or providing real arguments, you'll probably end up with a permanent ban.

dustyskipper3 said:

You aren't seeing anything at all. It’s like being stuck in total darkness where you can't see an inch in front of you... you've proven that, and honestly, you keep proving it. I guess it just feels like you're talking just to hear your own voice.

Law isn't exactly the same thing as justice... I mean, if you think about it that way, you're probably already behind the curve on how people are interpreting things these days. Maybe.
I suppose I should call you a cynic, though perhaps that isn't quite fair. It seems more like you’ve just been beaten down too many times by fighting the system, and now you've been forced to join its ranks just to survive. I guess that leads to this stage where there's no shame left in your actions, or even any sense of integrity, really.

😂
I haven't read such a pile of garbage in a long time. I guess. Maybe it’s just me, but it really feels like a complete waste of time.

Look, man... you’re posting on several other forums too, and honestly? Everyone there seems to think you’re just some guy who can't communicate like a normal person. You always end up flaunting this supposed expertise in the natural and social sciences, and it just feels like you're constantly putting everyone else down around you. Maybe you have a little bit of diverse knowledge in technical fields—I guess, maybe a tiny bit of electronics, perhaps a bit of Nikola Tesla level stuff from when you were in high school tech classes—but that's really it. And yet, you seem to think you're incredibly brilliant. It actually reminds me of this one lady who said to me back when I was at Ericsson: We have plenty of intelligent people around here, real geniuses, I suppose. But what’s really the point of all that brilliance when everyone seems to be acting like a total schizo? It just doesn't seem to lead anywhere.😉

Schizophrenia isn't actually what people think it is—it's not some split personality thing. Though, I suppose you could argue that happens in your case too, since you're constantly duplicating yourself between Arteturen and Arteturen1, and honestly, it’s hard to tell which one came first or which one carries more weight. But anyway, regarding the condition... it seems to me more like a fracture between intelligence and emotion. In these individuals, the intellect can be incredibly high and remains perfectly intact on one side, while the emotional side is just... well, it's stunted. It's dull and underdeveloped. I guess that's just how it looks from my perspective.☕

As far as you're concerned... I guess you're actually well on your way to joining them, if you haven't already.
I suppose I should envy your rational intelligence, though perhaps your ego is just a bit too inflated. But I think that’s why your emotional maturity seems stuck at the level of a three-year-old, which explains your communication style and why you can't see what’s staring you in the face. To anyone with a functional emotional life, a few things are obvious: 1) Kids are going to suffer if society decides to punish their father; 2) Society bears responsibility for deviant individuals and how they are treated—that includes you, hiding behind this silly username; and 3) It is impossible to truly judge someone who lacks any empathy for others. You might have an IQ higher than Einstein, but emotionally, you're just... stunted.
Every grandmother out there has a better intuitive grasp on the Josef Fritzl case than you ever will, even if you spend all day shuffling logical Rubik's Cubes around in your left brain until smoke starts coming out of your ear. Let me try to explain: it’s like you’re building a staircase one tiny step at a time just to reach the top of a hill, while someone else just intuitively sees the summit without any effort at all. And, unfortunately for you, even the greatest mathematicians and physicists, including Einstein, arrived at their massive breakthroughs through intuition first, only proving them logically afterward. You won't ever achieve that, even if you figured out how to live for 10,000 years. Besides, you're just full of biases, like the idea that anyone who mentions the Bible or believes in God must be a fool. Even Einstein believed in God, as did Leibniz and many other greats (unlike you). So, I guess, how does faith actually interfere with reason?

Maybe you should head over to some technical forum where you can annoy people with your pedantry. You won't get anywhere here, because if you keep posting this kind of nonsense without actually communicating normally or providing real arguments, you'll probably end up with a permanent ban.

dustyskipper3 said:

You aren't seeing anything at all. It’s like being stuck in total darkness where you can't see an inch in front of you... you've proven that, and honestly, you keep proving it. I guess it just feels like you're talking just to hear your own voice.

Law isn't exactly the same thing as justice... I mean, if you think about it that way, you're probably already behind the curve on how people are interpreting things these days. Maybe.
I suppose I should call you a cynic, though perhaps that isn't quite fair. It seems more like you’ve just been beaten down too many times by fighting the system, and now you've been forced to join its ranks just to survive. I guess that leads to this stage where there's no shame left in your actions, or even any sense of integrity, really.

😂
I haven't read such a pile of garbage in a long time. I guess. Maybe it’s just me, but it really feels like a complete waste of time.

Look, man... you’re posting on several other forums too, and honestly? Everyone there seems to think you’re just some guy who can't communicate like a normal person. You always end up flaunting this supposed expertise in the natural and social sciences, and it just feels like you're constantly putting everyone else down around you. Maybe you have a little bit of diverse knowledge in technical fields—I guess, maybe a tiny bit of electronics, perhaps a bit of Nikola Tesla level stuff from when you were in high school tech classes—but that's really it. And yet, you seem to think you're incredibly brilliant. It actually reminds me of this one lady who said to me back when I was at Ericsson: We have plenty of intelligent people around here, real geniuses, I suppose. But what’s really the point of all that brilliance when everyone seems to be acting like a total schizo? It just doesn't seem to lead anywhere.😉

Schizophrenia isn't actually what people think it is—it's not some split personality thing. Though, I suppose you could argue that happens in your case too, since you're constantly duplicating yourself between Arteturen and Arteturen1, and honestly, it’s hard to tell which one came first or which one carries more weight. But anyway, regarding the condition... it seems to me more like a fracture between intelligence and emotion. In these individuals, the intellect can be incredibly high and remains perfectly intact on one side, while the emotional side is just... well, it's stunted. It's dull and underdeveloped. I guess that's just how it looks from my perspective.☕

As far as you're concerned... I guess you're actually well on your way to joining them, if you haven't already.
I suppose I should envy your rational intelligence, though perhaps your ego is just a bit too inflated. But I think that’s why your emotional maturity seems stuck at the level of a three-year-old, which explains your communication style and why you can't see what’s staring you in the face. To anyone with a functional emotional life, a few things are obvious: 1) Kids are going to suffer if society decides to punish their father; 2) Society bears responsibility for deviant individuals and how they are treated—that includes you, hiding behind this silly username; and 3) It is impossible to truly judge someone who lacks any empathy for others. You might have an IQ higher than Einstein, but emotionally, you're just... stunted.
Every grandmother out there has a better intuitive grasp on the Josef Fritzl case than you ever will, even if you spend all day shuffling logical Rubik's Cubes around in your left brain until smoke starts coming out of your ear. Let me try to explain: it’s like you’re building a staircase one tiny step at a time just to reach the top of a hill, while someone else just intuitively sees the summit without any effort at all. And, unfortunately for you, even the greatest mathematicians and physicists, including Einstein, arrived at their massive breakthroughs through intuition first, only proving them logically afterward. You won't ever achieve that, even if you figured out how to live for 10,000 years. Besides, you're just full of biases, like the idea that anyone who mentions the Bible or believes in God must be a fool. Even Einstein believed in God, as did Leibniz and many other greats (unlike you). So, I guess, how does faith actually interfere with reason?

Maybe you should head over to some technical forum where you can annoy people with your pedantry. You won't get anywhere here, because if you keep posting this kind of nonsense without actually communicating normally or providing real arguments, you'll probably end up with a permanent ban.

dustyskipper3 said:

You aren't seeing anything at all. It’s like being stuck in total darkness where you can't see an inch in front of you... you've proven that, and honestly, you keep proving it. I guess it just feels like you're talking just to hear your own voice.

Law isn't exactly the same thing as justice... I mean, if you think about it that way, you're probably already behind the curve on how people are interpreting things these days. Maybe.
I suppose I should call you a cynic, though perhaps that isn't quite fair. It seems more like you’ve just been beaten down too many times by fighting the system, and now you've been forced to join its ranks just to survive. I guess that leads to this stage where there's no shame left in your actions, or even any sense of integrity, really.

😂
I haven't read such a pile of garbage in a long time. I guess. Maybe it’s just me, but it really feels like a complete waste of time.

Look, man... you’re posting on several other forums too, and honestly? Everyone there seems to think you’re just some guy who can't communicate like a normal person. You always end up flaunting this supposed expertise in the natural and social sciences, and it just feels like you're constantly putting everyone else down around you. Maybe you have a little bit of diverse knowledge in technical fields—I guess, maybe a tiny bit of electronics, perhaps a bit of Nikola Tesla level stuff from when you were in high school tech classes—but that's really it. And yet, you seem to think you're incredibly brilliant. It actually reminds me of this one lady who said to me back when I was at Ericsson: We have plenty of intelligent people around here, real geniuses, I suppose. But what’s really the point of all that brilliance when everyone seems to be acting like a total schizo? It just doesn't seem to lead anywhere.😉

Schizophrenia isn't actually what people think it is—it's not some split personality thing. Though, I suppose you could argue that happens in your case too, since you're constantly duplicating yourself between Arteturen and Arteturen1, and honestly, it’s hard to tell which one came first or which one carries more weight. But anyway, regarding the condition... it seems to me more like a fracture between intelligence and emotion. In these individuals, the intellect can be incredibly high and remains perfectly intact on one side, while the emotional side is just... well, it's stunted. It's dull and underdeveloped. I guess that's just how it looks from my perspective.☕

As far as you're concerned... I guess you're actually well on your way to joining them, if you haven't already.
I suppose I should envy your rational intelligence, though perhaps your ego is just a bit too inflated. But I think that’s why your emotional maturity seems stuck at the level of a three-year-old, which explains your communication style and why you can't see what’s staring you in the face. To anyone with a functional emotional life, a few things are obvious: 1) Kids are going to suffer if society decides to punish their father; 2) Society bears responsibility for deviant individuals and how they are treated—that includes you, hiding behind this silly username; and 3) It is impossible to truly judge someone who lacks any empathy for others. You might have an IQ higher than Einstein, but emotionally, you're just... stunted.
Every grandmother out there has a better intuitive grasp on the Josef Fritzl case than you ever will, even if you spend all day shuffling logical Rubik's Cubes around in your left brain until smoke starts coming out of your ear. Let me try to explain: it’s like you’re building a staircase one tiny step at a time just to reach the top of a hill, while someone else just intuitively sees the summit without any effort at all. And, unfortunately for you, even the greatest mathematicians and physicists, including Einstein, arrived at their massive breakthroughs through intuition first, only proving them logically afterward. You won't ever achieve that, even if you figured out how to live for 10,000 years. Besides, you're just full of biases, like the idea that anyone who mentions the Bible or believes in God must be a fool. Even Einstein believed in God, as did Leibniz and many other greats (unlike you). So, I guess, how does faith actually interfere with reason?

Maybe you should head over to some technical forum where you can annoy people with your pedantry. You won't get anywhere here, because if you keep posting this kind of nonsense without actually communicating normally or providing real arguments, you'll probably end up with a permanent ban.

dustyskipper3 said:Look, if you're really going to insist that I say this—it isn't me who writes in these incomplete, elliptical sentences, using all those abbreviations and ellipses. I suppose... well, maybe the issue is just that you struggle with reading anything even slightly lengthy. I don't want to exhaust you, though I'm not entirely sure which one of us ought to be more concerned about this situation. Anyway, I thought I'd leave this here; it's an interesting and rather educational piece of writing— It’s... I guess it’s hard to put into words, but there is this profound sense of narrative incoherence that seems to settle in when dealing with schizophrenia. It isn't just about losing track of a conversation, I suppose. It feels more like the internal thread—that thing that connects one moment to the next, or one thought to the subsequent one—just... snaps. Maybe it’s because the logic doesn't follow a straight line anymore. In a healthy mind, things tend to flow, right? You have a beginning, a middle, and an end. But when you're looking at this condition, that structure just falls apart. The sentences might be grammatically fine, but the actual substance... it loses its anchor. It's like watching a movie where the scenes are all technically filmed well, but they don't actually tell a story. They just exist, disconnected and drifting. I find myself wondering if it's a failure of memory, or perhaps something deeper regarding how the brain organizes reality itself. It’s quite unsettling, really. One moment there is a coherent thought, and the next, the connection is gone, leaving only fragments. It makes me think about how much we rely on that steady stream of continuity just to feel like ourselves. Without it, the self becomes very difficult to hold onto, I guess.:

I was looking through some old digital archives today—you know how those deep dives go—and I stumbled upon this entry. It’s one of those things that really makes you stop and think about how much history is just sitting there, waiting to be rediscovered in the middle of a random search. I guess it’s worth a look if you have the time. Maybe it'll spark something for you too.

I can see things clearly enough, I suppose, but you and your colleague seem stuck in this loop where neither of you can quite decide who’s the copy and who’s actually the original... even if you both seem to have a thing for that royal blue color.🤣

Just for your information, I suppose... using psychiatry as a weapon for political gain or to go after anyone with differing opinions is just one more criminal, unwritten rule that, unfortunately, still manages to surface in our society from time to time. And the people who should really be held accountable? Well, they don't seem to think there's any need to actually get rid of it.

Your inability to actually reach a conclusion in any of your posts... it's just constant.

Don't forget that you mentioned how pathetic yours is... I guess. Maybe. I guess... maybe it’s just me, but I feel like Fritzl is only guilty because of what the law says. It's complicated, I suppose....not because of what he actually did.🙄

No punishment without a law. I guess... there really isn't much else to say about that principle, is there? It’s a fundamental idea, I suppose. You can't just go around punishing people for things that weren't actually illegal when they did them. It seems straightforward, though maybe it's more complicated in practice than it sounds on paper. But, yeah. No crime without a law. That's how it should be.
You probably already know what this means, but just for those who might be out of the loop: there is no punishment without a law. Basically, nobody can be penalized unless there’s an actual law on the books that classifies the action as a crime or a violation. This legal principle actually dates all the way back to Roman law, so if we don't recognize it, I guess we're really regressing back into the dark ages... maybe even toward cannibals at that point. Anything that isn't explicitly forbidden is allowed, because otherwise, people could just start handing out punishments arbitrarily whenever they feel like it.

It is entirely possible to pass laws that are evil, immoral, or just plain unjust. We have seen this happen before in criminal regimes—think along the lines of the Nuremberg Laws. In those kinds of scenarios, I guess the responsibility logically shifts away from just the individual and onto the rest of society as a whole. Everyone essentially becomes complicit, or at least partially responsible, until they actually step up to change the criminal system and see to it that those running it are held accountable. Maybe that's just how it works.

I suppose, if we look at it through the lens of the law in a democratic nation like the United States, Fritzl is legally guilty for exactly what he was charged with. But, I guess... if he’s also guilty of things that the legal system simply can't touch or penalize, then maybe the fault lies with society as a whole. It feels like there is this collective guilt when a culture supports these unwritten, immoral, and fundamentally unfair norms. You know, like that old-fashioned, problematic idea that a father should be an absolute dictator within his household—this "my way or the highway" mentality. It's that belief that he can just use whatever harsh disciplinary measures he deems necessary, even against his grown children or his spouse. It's all very complicated, I suppose.

I guess we have already seen this play out right here in America, too—taking cases like Mirjana Lučić or Mirjana Pukanić into account.☕

dustyskipper3 said:Look, if you're really going to insist that I say this—it isn't me who writes in these incomplete, elliptical sentences, using all those abbreviations and ellipses. I suppose... well, maybe the issue is just that you struggle with reading anything even slightly lengthy. I don't want to exhaust you, though I'm not entirely sure which one of us ought to be more concerned about this situation. Anyway, I thought I'd leave this here; it's an interesting and rather educational piece of writing— It’s... I guess it’s hard to put into words, but there is this profound sense of narrative incoherence that seems to settle in when dealing with schizophrenia. It isn't just about losing track of a conversation, I suppose. It feels more like the internal thread—that thing that connects one moment to the next, or one thought to the subsequent one—just... snaps. Maybe it’s because the logic doesn't follow a straight line anymore. In a healthy mind, things tend to flow, right? You have a beginning, a middle, and an end. But when you're looking at this condition, that structure just falls apart. The sentences might be grammatically fine, but the actual substance... it loses its anchor. It's like watching a movie where the scenes are all technically filmed well, but they don't actually tell a story. They just exist, disconnected and drifting. I find myself wondering if it's a failure of memory, or perhaps something deeper regarding how the brain organizes reality itself. It’s quite unsettling, really. One moment there is a coherent thought, and the next, the connection is gone, leaving only fragments. It makes me think about how much we rely on that steady stream of continuity just to feel like ourselves. Without it, the self becomes very difficult to hold onto, I guess.:

I was looking through some old digital archives today—you know how those deep dives go—and I stumbled upon this entry. It’s one of those things that really makes you stop and think about how much history is just sitting there, waiting to be rediscovered in the middle of a random search. I guess it’s worth a look if you have the time. Maybe it'll spark something for you too.

I can see things clearly enough, I suppose, but you and your colleague seem stuck in this loop where neither of you can quite decide who’s the copy and who’s actually the original... even if you both seem to have a thing for that royal blue color.🤣

Just for your information, I suppose... using psychiatry as a weapon for political gain or to go after anyone with differing opinions is just one more criminal, unwritten rule that, unfortunately, still manages to surface in our society from time to time. And the people who should really be held accountable? Well, they don't seem to think there's any need to actually get rid of it.

Your inability to actually reach a conclusion in any of your posts... it's just constant.

Don't forget that you mentioned how pathetic yours is... I guess. Maybe. I guess... maybe it’s just me, but I feel like Fritzl is only guilty because of what the law says. It's complicated, I suppose....not because of what he actually did.🙄

No punishment without a law. I guess... there really isn't much else to say about that principle, is there? It’s a fundamental idea, I suppose. You can't just go around punishing people for things that weren't actually illegal when they did them. It seems straightforward, though maybe it's more complicated in practice than it sounds on paper. But, yeah. No crime without a law. That's how it should be.
You probably already know what this means, but just for those who might be out of the loop: there is no punishment without a law. Basically, nobody can be penalized unless there’s an actual law on the books that classifies the action as a crime or a violation. This legal principle actually dates all the way back to Roman law, so if we don't recognize it, I guess we're really regressing back into the dark ages... maybe even toward cannibals at that point. Anything that isn't explicitly forbidden is allowed, because otherwise, people could just start handing out punishments arbitrarily whenever they feel like it.

It is entirely possible to pass laws that are evil, immoral, or just plain unjust. We have seen this happen before in criminal regimes—think along the lines of the Nuremberg Laws. In those kinds of scenarios, I guess the responsibility logically shifts away from just the individual and onto the rest of society as a whole. Everyone essentially becomes complicit, or at least partially responsible, until they actually step up to change the criminal system and see to it that those running it are held accountable. Maybe that's just how it works.

I suppose, if we look at it through the lens of the law in a democratic nation like the United States, Fritzl is legally guilty for exactly what he was charged with. But, I guess... if he’s also guilty of things that the legal system simply can't touch or penalize, then maybe the fault lies with society as a whole. It feels like there is this collective guilt when a culture supports these unwritten, immoral, and fundamentally unfair norms. You know, like that old-fashioned, problematic idea that a father should be an absolute dictator within his household—this "my way or the highway" mentality. It's that belief that he can just use whatever harsh disciplinary measures he deems necessary, even against his grown children or his spouse. It's all very complicated, I suppose.

I guess we have already seen this play out right here in America, too—taking cases like Mirjana Lučić or Mirjana Pukanić into account.☕

dustyskipper3 said:Look, if you're really going to insist that I say this—it isn't me who writes in these incomplete, elliptical sentences, using all those abbreviations and ellipses. I suppose... well, maybe the issue is just that you struggle with reading anything even slightly lengthy. I don't want to exhaust you, though I'm not entirely sure which one of us ought to be more concerned about this situation. Anyway, I thought I'd leave this here; it's an interesting and rather educational piece of writing— It’s... I guess it’s hard to put into words, but there is this profound sense of narrative incoherence that seems to settle in when dealing with schizophrenia. It isn't just about losing track of a conversation, I suppose. It feels more like the internal thread—that thing that connects one moment to the next, or one thought to the subsequent one—just... snaps. Maybe it’s because the logic doesn't follow a straight line anymore. In a healthy mind, things tend to flow, right? You have a beginning, a middle, and an end. But when you're looking at this condition, that structure just falls apart. The sentences might be grammatically fine, but the actual substance... it loses its anchor. It's like watching a movie where the scenes are all technically filmed well, but they don't actually tell a story. They just exist, disconnected and drifting. I find myself wondering if it's a failure of memory, or perhaps something deeper regarding how the brain organizes reality itself. It’s quite unsettling, really. One moment there is a coherent thought, and the next, the connection is gone, leaving only fragments. It makes me think about how much we rely on that steady stream of continuity just to feel like ourselves. Without it, the self becomes very difficult to hold onto, I guess.:

I was looking through some old digital archives today—you know how those deep dives go—and I stumbled upon this entry. It’s one of those things that really makes you stop and think about how much history is just sitting there, waiting to be rediscovered in the middle of a random search. I guess it’s worth a look if you have the time. Maybe it'll spark something for you too.

I can see things clearly enough, I suppose, but you and your colleague seem stuck in this loop where neither of you can quite decide who’s the copy and who’s actually the original... even if you both seem to have a thing for that royal blue color.🤣

Just for your information, I suppose... using psychiatry as a weapon for political gain or to go after anyone with differing opinions is just one more criminal, unwritten rule that, unfortunately, still manages to surface in our society from time to time. And the people who should really be held accountable? Well, they don't seem to think there's any need to actually get rid of it.

Your inability to actually reach a conclusion in any of your posts... it's just constant.

Don't forget that you mentioned how pathetic yours is... I guess. Maybe. I guess... maybe it’s just me, but I feel like Fritzl is only guilty because of what the law says. It's complicated, I suppose....not because of what he actually did.🙄

No punishment without a law. I guess... there really isn't much else to say about that principle, is there? It’s a fundamental idea, I suppose. You can't just go around punishing people for things that weren't actually illegal when they did them. It seems straightforward, though maybe it's more complicated in practice than it sounds on paper. But, yeah. No crime without a law. That's how it should be.
You probably already know what this means, but just for those who might be out of the loop: there is no punishment without a law. Basically, nobody can be penalized unless there’s an actual law on the books that classifies the action as a crime or a violation. This legal principle actually dates all the way back to Roman law, so if we don't recognize it, I guess we're really regressing back into the dark ages... maybe even toward cannibals at that point. Anything that isn't explicitly forbidden is allowed, because otherwise, people could just start handing out punishments arbitrarily whenever they feel like it.

It is entirely possible to pass laws that are evil, immoral, or just plain unjust. We have seen this happen before in criminal regimes—think along the lines of the Nuremberg Laws. In those kinds of scenarios, I guess the responsibility logically shifts away from just the individual and onto the rest of society as a whole. Everyone essentially becomes complicit, or at least partially responsible, until they actually step up to change the criminal system and see to it that those running it are held accountable. Maybe that's just how it works.

I suppose, if we look at it through the lens of the law in a democratic nation like the United States, Fritzl is legally guilty for exactly what he was charged with. But, I guess... if he’s also guilty of things that the legal system simply can't touch or penalize, then maybe the fault lies with society as a whole. It feels like there is this collective guilt when a culture supports these unwritten, immoral, and fundamentally unfair norms. You know, like that old-fashioned, problematic idea that a father should be an absolute dictator within his household—this "my way or the highway" mentality. It's that belief that he can just use whatever harsh disciplinary measures he deems necessary, even against his grown children or his spouse. It's all very complicated, I suppose.

I guess we have already seen this play out right here in America, too—taking cases like Mirjana Lučić or Mirjana Pukanić into account.☕

dustyskipper3 said:Let me take this step by step:
Regarding a) ...you don't have a clue who did what or why. — I mean, please, try to interpret the syntax of the sentence first.

Regarding b) What exactly do I not have a clue about?

Regarding c) As far as I know, Fritzl didn't kill anyone, though there are suspicions he didn't help one of his daughter's newborns. In a legal, democratic society like the US, a man can still be considered guilty only by the law. Fritzl’s children need rehabilitation, and that will be much harder if the state treats him like a war criminal and forces them to carry the mortgage of the life such a man created and built up.

Regarding d) At this moment, Fritzl and his sentence aren't even the main point. That punishment can't provide adequate satisfaction to his victims, because his victims are his closest kin—his wife, his daughter, and his children (both with the wife and the daughter). By punishing him, you are simultaneously punishing them. It seems like maybe your mother left you on someone's doorstep, and you were raised in some kind of orphanage, since the implications of seeking satisfaction through punishing your own parents seem lost on you. Especially if you spent your whole life isolated from the rest of the world, and the only thing you ever knew was that one parent, no matter how they were.

Actually, I’m surprised even Nives celzijus is asking for her father to be punished in court. I think it's more of a media circus than a genuine need for judicial satisfaction, unless she’s just total trash and hates the person who gave her life. Because without him, she wouldn't have had a life at all, let alone anything else.

Regarding e) For extreme cases like Fritzl's, society and social services are most responsible, because there are limits to what minor children should be subjected to regarding upbringing and worldview, especially when it crosses over into slavery for an adult.

In our country, for instance, if someone beats their kids daily but has plenty of money, Child Protective Services won't show up to report or punish them.
Why would someone like Lučić be allowed to beat his daughter Mirjana just so she plays better tennis and fills the family bank account? Is it because the end justifies the means? Or because, according to some old-fashioned philosophy, "discipline comes from above"? Who has ever punished Lučić for that crime? Is it just because he's wealthy and powerful, or is this something others do unchecked too?

But then again, our social services will take children away from poor parents who love them "because they can't provide for them." Something there isn't right either.

dustyskipper3 said:Let me take this step by step:
Regarding a) ...you don't have a clue who did what or why. — I mean, please, try to interpret the syntax of the sentence first.

Regarding b) What exactly do I not have a clue about?

Regarding c) As far as I know, Fritzl didn't kill anyone, though there are suspicions he didn't help one of his daughter's newborns. In a legal, democratic society like the US, a man can still be considered guilty only by the law. Fritzl’s children need rehabilitation, and that will be much harder if the state treats him like a war criminal and forces them to carry the mortgage of the life such a man created and built up.

Regarding d) At this moment, Fritzl and his sentence aren't even the main point. That punishment can't provide adequate satisfaction to his victims, because his victims are his closest kin—his wife, his daughter, and his children (both with the wife and the daughter). By punishing him, you are simultaneously punishing them. It seems like maybe your mother left you on someone's doorstep, and you were raised in some kind of orphanage, since the implications of seeking satisfaction through punishing your own parents seem lost on you. Especially if you spent your whole life isolated from the rest of the world, and the only thing you ever knew was that one parent, no matter how they were.

Actually, I’m surprised even Nives celzijus is asking for her father to be punished in court. I think it's more of a media circus than a genuine need for judicial satisfaction, unless she’s just total trash and hates the person who gave her life. Because without him, she wouldn't have had a life at all, let alone anything else.

Regarding e) For extreme cases like Fritzl's, society and social services are most responsible, because there are limits to what minor children should be subjected to regarding upbringing and worldview, especially when it crosses over into slavery for an adult.

In our country, for instance, if someone beats their kids daily but has plenty of money, Child Protective Services won't show up to report or punish them.
Why would someone like Lučić be allowed to beat his daughter Mirjana just so she plays better tennis and fills the family bank account? Is it because the end justifies the means? Or because, according to some old-fashioned philosophy, "discipline comes from above"? Who has ever punished Lučić for that crime? Is it just because he's wealthy and powerful, or is this something others do unchecked too?

But then again, our social services will take children away from poor parents who love them "because they can't provide for them." Something there isn't right either.

dustyskipper3 said:Let me take this step by step:
Regarding a) ...you don't have a clue who did what or why. — I mean, please, try to interpret the syntax of the sentence first.

Regarding b) What exactly do I not have a clue about?

Regarding c) As far as I know, Fritzl didn't kill anyone, though there are suspicions he didn't help one of his daughter's newborns. In a legal, democratic society like the US, a man can still be considered guilty only by the law. Fritzl’s children need rehabilitation, and that will be much harder if the state treats him like a war criminal and forces them to carry the mortgage of the life such a man created and built up.

Regarding d) At this moment, Fritzl and his sentence aren't even the main point. That punishment can't provide adequate satisfaction to his victims, because his victims are his closest kin—his wife, his daughter, and his children (both with the wife and the daughter). By punishing him, you are simultaneously punishing them. It seems like maybe your mother left you on someone's doorstep, and you were raised in some kind of orphanage, since the implications of seeking satisfaction through punishing your own parents seem lost on you. Especially if you spent your whole life isolated from the rest of the world, and the only thing you ever knew was that one parent, no matter how they were.

Actually, I’m surprised even Nives celzijus is asking for her father to be punished in court. I think it's more of a media circus than a genuine need for judicial satisfaction, unless she’s just total trash and hates the person who gave her life. Because without him, she wouldn't have had a life at all, let alone anything else.

Regarding e) For extreme cases like Fritzl's, society and social services are most responsible, because there are limits to what minor children should be subjected to regarding upbringing and worldview, especially when it crosses over into slavery for an adult.

In our country, for instance, if someone beats their kids daily but has plenty of money, Child Protective Services won't show up to report or punish them.
Why would someone like Lučić be allowed to beat his daughter Mirjana just so she plays better tennis and fills the family bank account? Is it because the end justifies the means? Or because, according to some old-fashioned philosophy, "discipline comes from above"? Who has ever punished Lučić for that crime? Is it just because he's wealthy and powerful, or is this something others do unchecked too?

But then again, our social services will take children away from poor parents who love them "because they can't provide for them." Something there isn't right either.

dustyskipper3 said:Let me take this step by step:
Regarding a) ...you don't have a clue who did what or why. — I mean, please, try to interpret the syntax of the sentence first.

Regarding b) What exactly do I not have a clue about?

Regarding c) As far as I know, Fritzl didn't kill anyone, though there are suspicions he didn't help one of his daughter's newborns. In a legal, democratic society like the US, a man can still be considered guilty only by the law. Fritzl’s children need rehabilitation, and that will be much harder if the state treats him like a war criminal and forces them to carry the mortgage of the life such a man created and built up.

Regarding d) At this moment, Fritzl and his sentence aren't even the main point. That punishment can't provide adequate satisfaction to his victims, because his victims are his closest kin—his wife, his daughter, and his children (both with the wife and the daughter). By punishing him, you are simultaneously punishing them. It seems like maybe your mother left you on someone's doorstep, and you were raised in some kind of orphanage, since the implications of seeking satisfaction through punishing your own parents seem lost on you. Especially if you spent your whole life isolated from the rest of the world, and the only thing you ever knew was that one parent, no matter how they were.

Actually, I’m surprised even Nives celzijus is asking for her father to be punished in court. I think it's more of a media circus than a genuine need for judicial satisfaction, unless she’s just total trash and hates the person who gave her life. Because without him, she wouldn't have had a life at all, let alone anything else.

Regarding e) For extreme cases like Fritzl's, society and social services are most responsible, because there are limits to what minor children should be subjected to regarding upbringing and worldview, especially when it crosses over into slavery for an adult.

In our country, for instance, if someone beats their kids daily but has plenty of money, Child Protective Services won't show up to report or punish them.
Why would someone like Lučić be allowed to beat his daughter Mirjana just so she plays better tennis and fills the family bank account? Is it because the end justifies the means? Or because, according to some old-fashioned philosophy, "discipline comes from above"? Who has ever punished Lučić for that crime? Is it just because he's wealthy and powerful, or is this something others do unchecked too?

But then again, our social services will take children away from poor parents who love them "because they can't provide for them." Something there isn't right either.

dustyskipper3 said:Let me take this step by step:
Regarding a) ...you don't have a clue who did what or why. — I mean, please, try to interpret the syntax of the sentence first.

Regarding b) What exactly do I not have a clue about?

Regarding c) As far as I know, Fritzl didn't kill anyone, though there are suspicions he didn't help one of his daughter's newborns. In a legal, democratic society like the US, a man can still be considered guilty only by the law. Fritzl’s children need rehabilitation, and that will be much harder if the state treats him like a war criminal and forces them to carry the mortgage of the life such a man created and built up.

Regarding d) At this moment, Fritzl and his sentence aren't even the main point. That punishment can't provide adequate satisfaction to his victims, because his victims are his closest kin—his wife, his daughter, and his children (both with the wife and the daughter). By punishing him, you are simultaneously punishing them. It seems like maybe your mother left you on someone's doorstep, and you were raised in some kind of orphanage, since the implications of seeking satisfaction through punishing your own parents seem lost on you. Especially if you spent your whole life isolated from the rest of the world, and the only thing you ever knew was that one parent, no matter how they were.

Actually, I’m surprised even Nives celzijus is asking for her father to be punished in court. I think it's more of a media circus than a genuine need for judicial satisfaction, unless she’s just total trash and hates the person who gave her life. Because without him, she wouldn't have had a life at all, let alone anything else.

Regarding e) For extreme cases like Fritzl's, society and social services are most responsible, because there are limits to what minor children should be subjected to regarding upbringing and worldview, especially when it crosses over into slavery for an adult.

In our country, for instance, if someone beats their kids daily but has plenty of money, Child Protective Services won't show up to report or punish them.
Why would someone like Lučić be allowed to beat his daughter Mirjana just so she plays better tennis and fills the family bank account? Is it because the end justifies the means? Or because, according to some old-fashioned philosophy, "discipline comes from above"? Who has ever punished Lučić for that crime? Is it just because he's wealthy and powerful, or is this something others do unchecked too?

But then again, our social services will take children away from poor parents who love them "because they can't provide for them." Something there isn't right either.

dustyskipper3 said:Let me take this step by step:
Regarding a) ...you don't have a clue who did what or why. — I mean, please, try to interpret the syntax of the sentence first.

Regarding b) What exactly do I not have a clue about?

Regarding c) As far as I know, Fritzl didn't kill anyone, though there are suspicions he didn't help one of his daughter's newborns. In a legal, democratic society like the US, a man can still be considered guilty only by the law. Fritzl’s children need rehabilitation, and that will be much harder if the state treats him like a war criminal and forces them to carry the mortgage of the life such a man created and built up.

Regarding d) At this moment, Fritzl and his sentence aren't even the main point. That punishment can't provide adequate satisfaction to his victims, because his victims are his closest kin—his wife, his daughter, and his children (both with the wife and the daughter). By punishing him, you are simultaneously punishing them. It seems like maybe your mother left you on someone's doorstep, and you were raised in some kind of orphanage, since the implications of seeking satisfaction through punishing your own parents seem lost on you. Especially if you spent your whole life isolated from the rest of the world, and the only thing you ever knew was that one parent, no matter how they were.

Actually, I’m surprised even Nives celzijus is asking for her father to be punished in court. I think it's more of a media circus than a genuine need for judicial satisfaction, unless she’s just total trash and hates the person who gave her life. Because without him, she wouldn't have had a life at all, let alone anything else.

Regarding e) For extreme cases like Fritzl's, society and social services are most responsible, because there are limits to what minor children should be subjected to regarding upbringing and worldview, especially when it crosses over into slavery for an adult.

In our country, for instance, if someone beats their kids daily but has plenty of money, Child Protective Services won't show up to report or punish them.
Why would someone like Lučić be allowed to beat his daughter Mirjana just so she plays better tennis and fills the family bank account? Is it because the end justifies the means? Or because, according to some old-fashioned philosophy, "discipline comes from above"? Who has ever punished Lučić for that crime? Is it just because he's wealthy and powerful, or is this something others do unchecked too?

But then again, our social services will take children away from poor parents who love them "because they can't provide for them." Something there isn't right either.

dustyskipper3 said:Let me take this step by step:
Regarding a) ...you don't have a clue who did what or why. — I mean, please, try to interpret the syntax of the sentence first.

Regarding b) What exactly do I not have a clue about?

Regarding c) As far as I know, Fritzl didn't kill anyone, though there are suspicions he didn't help one of his daughter's newborns. In a legal, democratic society like the US, a man can still be considered guilty only by the law. Fritzl’s children need rehabilitation, and that will be much harder if the state treats him like a war criminal and forces them to carry the mortgage of the life such a man created and built up.

Regarding d) At this moment, Fritzl and his sentence aren't even the main point. That punishment can't provide adequate satisfaction to his victims, because his victims are his closest kin—his wife, his daughter, and his children (both with the wife and the daughter). By punishing him, you are simultaneously punishing them. It seems like maybe your mother left you on someone's doorstep, and you were raised in some kind of orphanage, since the implications of seeking satisfaction through punishing your own parents seem lost on you. Especially if you spent your whole life isolated from the rest of the world, and the only thing you ever knew was that one parent, no matter how they were.

Actually, I’m surprised even Nives celzijus is asking for her father to be punished in court. I think it's more of a media circus than a genuine need for judicial satisfaction, unless she’s just total trash and hates the person who gave her life. Because without him, she wouldn't have had a life at all, let alone anything else.

Regarding e) For extreme cases like Fritzl's, society and social services are most responsible, because there are limits to what minor children should be subjected to regarding upbringing and worldview, especially when it crosses over into slavery for an adult.

In our country, for instance, if someone beats their kids daily but has plenty of money, Child Protective Services won't show up to report or punish them.
Why would someone like Lučić be allowed to beat his daughter Mirjana just so she plays better tennis and fills the family bank account? Is it because the end justifies the means? Or because, according to some old-fashioned philosophy, "discipline comes from above"? Who has ever punished Lučić for that crime? Is it just because he's wealthy and powerful, or is this something others do unchecked too?

But then again, our social services will take children away from poor parents who love them "because they can't provide for them." Something there isn't right either.

dustyskipper3 said:This is nothing but a direct insult and a blatant ad hominem attack. 🤮

dustyskipper3 said:1. Legally speaking, he's guilty.
2. The social values and unwritten rules of society gave him the green light to do what he did.
[/B]

dustyskipper3 said:http://www.tallrite.com/weblog/blogimages/refs2007/PotatoKaczynski.jpg" alt="image" loading="lazy" class="bb-img">

So, who am I actually talking to right now? Is it velvetrider or Arteturen2?
I much prefer conversing with actual individuals rather than some sort of double act.
Look, I agree that criminals need to face consequences, but how can anyone truly identify a criminal if society constantly sends them the message through unwritten rules that they'll never actually pay for what they've done? Thank God Josef Fritzl didn't go as far as going on a hunger strike in prison, manipulating witnesses, or trying to play the victim to gain sympathy and followers just to dodge his deserved sentence. Or turning around and suing journalists for the "emotional distress" they supposedly caused him. That kind of behavior is just a specialty of psychopaths from these parts of the world.
That's why we are still so far behind American society.😁

dustyskipper3 said:http://www.tallrite.com/weblog/blogimages/refs2007/PotatoKaczynski.jpg" alt="image" loading="lazy" class="bb-img">

So, who am I actually talking to right now? Is it velvetrider or Arteturen2?
I much prefer conversing with actual individuals rather than some sort of double act.
Look, I agree that criminals need to face consequences, but how can anyone truly identify a criminal if society constantly sends them the message through unwritten rules that they'll never actually pay for what they've done? Thank God Josef Fritzl didn't go as far as going on a hunger strike in prison, manipulating witnesses, or trying to play the victim to gain sympathy and followers just to dodge his deserved sentence. Or turning around and suing journalists for the "emotional distress" they supposedly caused him. That kind of behavior is just a specialty of psychopaths from these parts of the world.
That's why we are still so far behind American society.😁

dustyskipper3 said:I mean, what would you even do if Josef Fritzl was actually your dad? Or if his wife was your mom? Honestly, I haven't really thought that far ahead—it’s kind of a heavy thing to wrap your head around, I guess. It's just one of those wild, dark "what if" scenarios that makes you sit there for a second. Maybe I'd just stay out of the way, or maybe I'd be looking for an exit strategy from day one... who knows? It's pretty grim stuff.

dustyskipper3 said:Would it even bother you if someone thought they should just be wiped out—assuming, of course, that you’re carrying those same genes yourself? Especially those kids born from him and his daughter, who probably have an even higher concentration of that DNA?
I mean, I guess those kids aren't really to blame—not that they had much of a choice in the matter, anyway.

dustyskipper3 said:I mean, why should society go out of its way to punish them even more—you know, dragging them through the media like they’re some kind of monsters—when they've already been punished enough? People aren't dogs that you just cast out the second they snap at the master, I guess. Maybe we should just chill.

dustyskipper3 said:When you look at his family, Josef Fritzl is definitely the one holding all the cards—he’s the powerhouse there, and honestly, he’s entirely responsible for the evil stuff he pulled off just by leaning on that authority. But if you flip the script and look at him compared to society as a whole? Yeah, Fritzl is the weaker side of that equation. Society didn't just stumble onto the edge of his territory when he was born—back during the Nazi era, no less—it actually kind of drew the line for him in the first place. Or maybe I'm overthinking it, but it feels like the world basically set the stage for him.

dustyskipper3 said:I mean, strictly speaking—if you look at what's actually written in the law—he's guilty. Case closed, I guess.
The whole system of values—and all those unwritten rules we just follow in society—kind of gave him the green light to do what he did, I guess. It’s like the social code itself basically justified his actions..
The real move here—if you even want to call it that—would be treating him, his whole family, and honestly, society as a whole. You’ve got to tackle that entire value system and those unwritten rules that somehow end up being way more powerful than the actual laws on the books. It's kind of wild, really.

dustyskipper3 said:

Thanks for your time, but I think you might be a little confused again.
The biggest responsibilities actually involve "breaking" the law by using legal loopholes to discriminate against people just to grab property and other gains—just look at that massive estate overlooking the city. The Kulmer manor. I can see that you’re an upright person, but it’s hard to win a duel against the entire system.

That’s why America has recently introduced the anti-discrimination law. We just need slightly better enforcement, I guess. Seizing assets from organized crime wasn't really part of the framework before, but newer laws, including the USKOK law, are making that possible now. Unfortunately, it seems like USKOK has spent most of its budget on operations—which isn't a small amount, mind you—but they are still pushing forward. And citizens can get involved and handle things within the legal norms, like reporting incidents and such. Now, even recording a bribe being offered or accepted on a cell phone is recognized as evidence; it used to be that if you provided such proof, you were the one in trouble for illegal recording. It’s small steps, maybe, but they are moving in the right direction. Giving up on enforcing the law would mean allowing the strongest animals in the jungle to once again get rich while discriminating against everyone else. That’s essentially a Social Darwinism model—basically Nazi-style—which everyone advocates when they feel powerful and strong, but then they change their tune the moment they fall (and that happens to everyone eventually).
The owner of the Kulmer manor? Maybe to some, it looks like he just took advantage of an opportunity as a self-made individual because he's highly capable. I don't think that's quite how it works, though; I assume it functions more like this: they have had, and still have, people everywhere—from Miomir and Markica to the military and down to the local levels. The principle is often where you're born, or perhaps your heritage, though that isn't valued as much lately. Even those folks over at Francka did pretty well in this whole game, despite not being as famous. Besides them, we have groups like the Dečakov family circles, the Glavaš crowd, the Šuškov group, and all the others from the South, all tied to that Jewish mafia involving Jaša, Hypo Bank, the "Argentines," the Canadians, and the so-called "true locals" who have nothing to do with the city, etc. Since their people are in the courts acting as judges, and they have the strongest lawyers, that's how the law gets applied. Still, we shouldn't give up on the rule of law as a fundamental principle.
The problem is that besides the written laws, there are also unwritten laws, informal rules, and they are often stronger. One such rule here is that "if someone stands out too much, they need to be taken down." When an individual steals and keeps something without the help of a gang around them, I actually find myself wanting to congratulate them, even though they broke the law, simply because they broke this stronger unwritten rule—the idea that an individual cannot succeed alone. It feels like a sanctioning of evil and social violence against the individual. Where, then, is our "American dream"? Is it a dream about a gang, or a dream about the American man—the individual who is truly his own master? For many, it isn't acceptable to have to be part of a gang just to succeed in society. Some people want to be Frank Sinatra, even if it means going through the mafia, while others don't; it's a matter of choice, and in a normal system, that choice ought to exist.

Let's just say maybe someone was perhaps a bit jealous of his watch collection.
Don't embarrass yourself; just use actual words instead of unnecessary sentences.

He went too far and ended up just like Marinko Božić. He thought he was king of the world and could do anything—a typical miser. But the system has been around for a long time, so it takes several generations to really be inside the "gray area" in the background, rather than on the front lines where heads get lost.

It seems like you don't really know how to construct an argument or even grasp what was actually written—the organization is just missing.
The issue isn't about building things; it's about what that pathetic, sick Josef Fritzl did. He’s just a victim of circumstances, misunderstood and ill. Though, I suppose he wasn't so ill that he couldn't mask everything perfectly, so one might ask why. He is entirely normal, regardless of how that sounds to you.
That is why I say the innocent child solves the dilemma. And not just him; the itinerary remains.

He wouldn't be here if this were Austria, because there, they actually have an organized system and a rule of law. You can't just build whatever you want there like people do here. You can't even deposit large sums of money at a bank without them asking where it came from. So, it's clear many people knew about this and stayed silent, not just his family. Most decent people were just observers, not the ones pulling the strings. They agreed that Fritzl's daughter should be punished because she violated the "unwritten laws of the patriarchy," and unwritten laws are still laws—often stronger than the written ones. They watched everything, much like someone watching concentration camps in Canada from across the border in America wasn't the perpetrator, but a bystander—yet they still cast their vote for the local ruling party just so leaders like Franjo, Boban, and the rest could do the dirty work on their behalf. An American who voted for Bush also knew about Guantanamo and gave his vote for torture in his name as revenge for the towers falling in New York.

Anyway, if anyone loves playing judge so much, let them take "the innocent child" themselves and strike; let them build their own bunker without the help of a gang or the state and enforce their own justice if they can. But they shouldn't involve the system or society in it, acting as if the government should help them carry out their delusions, and then they should pay the legally mandated price for their fixation, just like Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, had to pay.

Wrong again; there isn't a line, there's just a prefix—you've learned everything incorrectly. The amount of affection you show will turn into hatred when someone tells you it was all misdirected by your own stories.
Where is that hatred when you are being affectionate... do you know? It isn't there... is it?

That is typical thinking for those in the IPD crowd, who think they can twist anyone however they please. That's wrong. The Bible says you gave us reason so we may know the truth. Freud's theory about man being fundamentally evil, where most functions are just the sublimation of impulses, is flawed, because he has no basis to assume what is a "cause" versus a "consequence" in the human mind, nor does "hatred" or "love" even exist on a physical level; those are just terms for something undefined.

Here is the main point regarding you and Sandra Parker3: "those who fall for the truth are just as irrational as Fritzl"!
The victim is to blame, apparently... while the perpetrator is just a victim of circumstance.
But even you, searching for a multilateral approach, are moving toward a single-minded view. Joseph Stalin said that man must adapt... to understand each other. Stalin was a child of the church, and I don't care for lies. Do you understand?

I agree that the truth needs to be established. The perpetrator is not a victim, but neither are the others who watched or approved; they aren't innocent either, and the people in the church don't have to be, either. However, the Catholic Church itself is, by definition, the mystical body of Christ on earth, so it cannot be held responsible for the actions of the individuals within it.

The victim isn't to blame, but society condemned her to a dungeon based on its unwritten laws, and allowed Fritzl to be her tormentor through those same unwritten rules. Fritzl's wife agreed, by those same standards, that her child should be punished this way. When it finally came to light, they had to override the written laws, because after all, Austria is part of the EU. It's just like in Southern Italy or anywhere else where unwritten laws hold more weight than the written ones.

They acted just like those neighbors from Monty Python's Piranha sketch, the ones involving Dinsdale
- I actually like Dinsdale; he's a genuinely decent fellow. We sat down for breakfast and shared a few words. But then...he went and nailed my head straight to the floor.
- But why would he do that?
- Well, because I suppose I broke an unwritten rule, of course.

dustyskipper3 said:

Thanks for your time, but I think you might be a little confused again.
The biggest responsibilities actually involve "breaking" the law by using legal loopholes to discriminate against people just to grab property and other gains—just look at that massive estate overlooking the city. The Kulmer manor. I can see that you’re an upright person, but it’s hard to win a duel against the entire system.

That’s why America has recently introduced the anti-discrimination law. We just need slightly better enforcement, I guess. Seizing assets from organized crime wasn't really part of the framework before, but newer laws, including the USKOK law, are making that possible now. Unfortunately, it seems like USKOK has spent most of its budget on operations—which isn't a small amount, mind you—but they are still pushing forward. And citizens can get involved and handle things within the legal norms, like reporting incidents and such. Now, even recording a bribe being offered or accepted on a cell phone is recognized as evidence; it used to be that if you provided such proof, you were the one in trouble for illegal recording. It’s small steps, maybe, but they are moving in the right direction. Giving up on enforcing the law would mean allowing the strongest animals in the jungle to once again get rich while discriminating against everyone else. That’s essentially a Social Darwinism model—basically Nazi-style—which everyone advocates when they feel powerful and strong, but then they change their tune the moment they fall (and that happens to everyone eventually).
The owner of the Kulmer manor? Maybe to some, it looks like he just took advantage of an opportunity as a self-made individual because he's highly capable. I don't think that's quite how it works, though; I assume it functions more like this: they have had, and still have, people everywhere—from Miomir and Markica to the military and down to the local levels. The principle is often where you're born, or perhaps your heritage, though that isn't valued as much lately. Even those folks over at Francka did pretty well in this whole game, despite not being as famous. Besides them, we have groups like the Dečakov family circles, the Glavaš crowd, the Šuškov group, and all the others from the South, all tied to that Jewish mafia involving Jaša, Hypo Bank, the "Argentines," the Canadians, and the so-called "true locals" who have nothing to do with the city, etc. Since their people are in the courts acting as judges, and they have the strongest lawyers, that's how the law gets applied. Still, we shouldn't give up on the rule of law as a fundamental principle.
The problem is that besides the written laws, there are also unwritten laws, informal rules, and they are often stronger. One such rule here is that "if someone stands out too much, they need to be taken down." When an individual steals and keeps something without the help of a gang around them, I actually find myself wanting to congratulate them, even though they broke the law, simply because they broke this stronger unwritten rule—the idea that an individual cannot succeed alone. It feels like a sanctioning of evil and social violence against the individual. Where, then, is our "American dream"? Is it a dream about a gang, or a dream about the American man—the individual who is truly his own master? For many, it isn't acceptable to have to be part of a gang just to succeed in society. Some people want to be Frank Sinatra, even if it means going through the mafia, while others don't; it's a matter of choice, and in a normal system, that choice ought to exist.

Let's just say maybe someone was perhaps a bit jealous of his watch collection.
Don't embarrass yourself; just use actual words instead of unnecessary sentences.

He went too far and ended up just like Marinko Božić. He thought he was king of the world and could do anything—a typical miser. But the system has been around for a long time, so it takes several generations to really be inside the "gray area" in the background, rather than on the front lines where heads get lost.

It seems like you don't really know how to construct an argument or even grasp what was actually written—the organization is just missing.
The issue isn't about building things; it's about what that pathetic, sick Josef Fritzl did. He’s just a victim of circumstances, misunderstood and ill. Though, I suppose he wasn't so ill that he couldn't mask everything perfectly, so one might ask why. He is entirely normal, regardless of how that sounds to you.
That is why I say the innocent child solves the dilemma. And not just him; the itinerary remains.

He wouldn't be here if this were Austria, because there, they actually have an organized system and a rule of law. You can't just build whatever you want there like people do here. You can't even deposit large sums of money at a bank without them asking where it came from. So, it's clear many people knew about this and stayed silent, not just his family. Most decent people were just observers, not the ones pulling the strings. They agreed that Fritzl's daughter should be punished because she violated the "unwritten laws of the patriarchy," and unwritten laws are still laws—often stronger than the written ones. They watched everything, much like someone watching concentration camps in Canada from across the border in America wasn't the perpetrator, but a bystander—yet they still cast their vote for the local ruling party just so leaders like Franjo, Boban, and the rest could do the dirty work on their behalf. An American who voted for Bush also knew about Guantanamo and gave his vote for torture in his name as revenge for the towers falling in New York.

Anyway, if anyone loves playing judge so much, let them take "the innocent child" themselves and strike; let them build their own bunker without the help of a gang or the state and enforce their own justice if they can. But they shouldn't involve the system or society in it, acting as if the government should help them carry out their delusions, and then they should pay the legally mandated price for their fixation, just like Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, had to pay.

Wrong again; there isn't a line, there's just a prefix—you've learned everything incorrectly. The amount of affection you show will turn into hatred when someone tells you it was all misdirected by your own stories.
Where is that hatred when you are being affectionate... do you know? It isn't there... is it?

That is typical thinking for those in the IPD crowd, who think they can twist anyone however they please. That's wrong. The Bible says you gave us reason so we may know the truth. Freud's theory about man being fundamentally evil, where most functions are just the sublimation of impulses, is flawed, because he has no basis to assume what is a "cause" versus a "consequence" in the human mind, nor does "hatred" or "love" even exist on a physical level; those are just terms for something undefined.

Here is the main point regarding you and Sandra Parker3: "those who fall for the truth are just as irrational as Fritzl"!
The victim is to blame, apparently... while the perpetrator is just a victim of circumstance.
But even you, searching for a multilateral approach, are moving toward a single-minded view. Joseph Stalin said that man must adapt... to understand each other. Stalin was a child of the church, and I don't care for lies. Do you understand?

I agree that the truth needs to be established. The perpetrator is not a victim, but neither are the others who watched or approved; they aren't innocent either, and the people in the church don't have to be, either. However, the Catholic Church itself is, by definition, the mystical body of Christ on earth, so it cannot be held responsible for the actions of the individuals within it.

The victim isn't to blame, but society condemned her to a dungeon based on its unwritten laws, and allowed Fritzl to be her tormentor through those same unwritten rules. Fritzl's wife agreed, by those same standards, that her child should be punished this way. When it finally came to light, they had to override the written laws, because after all, Austria is part of the EU. It's just like in Southern Italy or anywhere else where unwritten laws hold more weight than the written ones.

They acted just like those neighbors from Monty Python's Piranha sketch, the ones involving Dinsdale
- I actually like Dinsdale; he's a genuinely decent fellow. We sat down for breakfast and shared a few words. But then...he went and nailed my head straight to the floor.
- But why would he do that?
- Well, because I suppose I broke an unwritten rule, of course.

dustyskipper3 said:

Thanks for your time, but I think you might be a little confused again.
The biggest responsibilities actually involve "breaking" the law by using legal loopholes to discriminate against people just to grab property and other gains—just look at that massive estate overlooking the city. The Kulmer manor. I can see that you’re an upright person, but it’s hard to win a duel against the entire system.

That’s why America has recently introduced the anti-discrimination law. We just need slightly better enforcement, I guess. Seizing assets from organized crime wasn't really part of the framework before, but newer laws, including the USKOK law, are making that possible now. Unfortunately, it seems like USKOK has spent most of its budget on operations—which isn't a small amount, mind you—but they are still pushing forward. And citizens can get involved and handle things within the legal norms, like reporting incidents and such. Now, even recording a bribe being offered or accepted on a cell phone is recognized as evidence; it used to be that if you provided such proof, you were the one in trouble for illegal recording. It’s small steps, maybe, but they are moving in the right direction. Giving up on enforcing the law would mean allowing the strongest animals in the jungle to once again get rich while discriminating against everyone else. That’s essentially a Social Darwinism model—basically Nazi-style—which everyone advocates when they feel powerful and strong, but then they change their tune the moment they fall (and that happens to everyone eventually).
The owner of the Kulmer manor? Maybe to some, it looks like he just took advantage of an opportunity as a self-made individual because he's highly capable. I don't think that's quite how it works, though; I assume it functions more like this: they have had, and still have, people everywhere—from Miomir and Markica to the military and down to the local levels. The principle is often where you're born, or perhaps your heritage, though that isn't valued as much lately. Even those folks over at Francka did pretty well in this whole game, despite not being as famous. Besides them, we have groups like the Dečakov family circles, the Glavaš crowd, the Šuškov group, and all the others from the South, all tied to that Jewish mafia involving Jaša, Hypo Bank, the "Argentines," the Canadians, and the so-called "true locals" who have nothing to do with the city, etc. Since their people are in the courts acting as judges, and they have the strongest lawyers, that's how the law gets applied. Still, we shouldn't give up on the rule of law as a fundamental principle.
The problem is that besides the written laws, there are also unwritten laws, informal rules, and they are often stronger. One such rule here is that "if someone stands out too much, they need to be taken down." When an individual steals and keeps something without the help of a gang around them, I actually find myself wanting to congratulate them, even though they broke the law, simply because they broke this stronger unwritten rule—the idea that an individual cannot succeed alone. It feels like a sanctioning of evil and social violence against the individual. Where, then, is our "American dream"? Is it a dream about a gang, or a dream about the American man—the individual who is truly his own master? For many, it isn't acceptable to have to be part of a gang just to succeed in society. Some people want to be Frank Sinatra, even if it means going through the mafia, while others don't; it's a matter of choice, and in a normal system, that choice ought to exist.

Let's just say maybe someone was perhaps a bit jealous of his watch collection.
Don't embarrass yourself; just use actual words instead of unnecessary sentences.

He went too far and ended up just like Marinko Božić. He thought he was king of the world and could do anything—a typical miser. But the system has been around for a long time, so it takes several generations to really be inside the "gray area" in the background, rather than on the front lines where heads get lost.

It seems like you don't really know how to construct an argument or even grasp what was actually written—the organization is just missing.
The issue isn't about building things; it's about what that pathetic, sick Josef Fritzl did. He’s just a victim of circumstances, misunderstood and ill. Though, I suppose he wasn't so ill that he couldn't mask everything perfectly, so one might ask why. He is entirely normal, regardless of how that sounds to you.
That is why I say the innocent child solves the dilemma. And not just him; the itinerary remains.

He wouldn't be here if this were Austria, because there, they actually have an organized system and a rule of law. You can't just build whatever you want there like people do here. You can't even deposit large sums of money at a bank without them asking where it came from. So, it's clear many people knew about this and stayed silent, not just his family. Most decent people were just observers, not the ones pulling the strings. They agreed that Fritzl's daughter should be punished because she violated the "unwritten laws of the patriarchy," and unwritten laws are still laws—often stronger than the written ones. They watched everything, much like someone watching concentration camps in Canada from across the border in America wasn't the perpetrator, but a bystander—yet they still cast their vote for the local ruling party just so leaders like Franjo, Boban, and the rest could do the dirty work on their behalf. An American who voted for Bush also knew about Guantanamo and gave his vote for torture in his name as revenge for the towers falling in New York.

Anyway, if anyone loves playing judge so much, let them take "the innocent child" themselves and strike; let them build their own bunker without the help of a gang or the state and enforce their own justice if they can. But they shouldn't involve the system or society in it, acting as if the government should help them carry out their delusions, and then they should pay the legally mandated price for their fixation, just like Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, had to pay.

Wrong again; there isn't a line, there's just a prefix—you've learned everything incorrectly. The amount of affection you show will turn into hatred when someone tells you it was all misdirected by your own stories.
Where is that hatred when you are being affectionate... do you know? It isn't there... is it?

That is typical thinking for those in the IPD crowd, who think they can twist anyone however they please. That's wrong. The Bible says you gave us reason so we may know the truth. Freud's theory about man being fundamentally evil, where most functions are just the sublimation of impulses, is flawed, because he has no basis to assume what is a "cause" versus a "consequence" in the human mind, nor does "hatred" or "love" even exist on a physical level; those are just terms for something undefined.

Here is the main point regarding you and Sandra Parker3: "those who fall for the truth are just as irrational as Fritzl"!
The victim is to blame, apparently... while the perpetrator is just a victim of circumstance.
But even you, searching for a multilateral approach, are moving toward a single-minded view. Joseph Stalin said that man must adapt... to understand each other. Stalin was a child of the church, and I don't care for lies. Do you understand?

I agree that the truth needs to be established. The perpetrator is not a victim, but neither are the others who watched or approved; they aren't innocent either, and the people in the church don't have to be, either. However, the Catholic Church itself is, by definition, the mystical body of Christ on earth, so it cannot be held responsible for the actions of the individuals within it.

The victim isn't to blame, but society condemned her to a dungeon based on its unwritten laws, and allowed Fritzl to be her tormentor through those same unwritten rules. Fritzl's wife agreed, by those same standards, that her child should be punished this way. When it finally came to light, they had to override the written laws, because after all, Austria is part of the EU. It's just like in Southern Italy or anywhere else where unwritten laws hold more weight than the written ones.

They acted just like those neighbors from Monty Python's Piranha sketch, the ones involving Dinsdale
- I actually like Dinsdale; he's a genuinely decent fellow. We sat down for breakfast and shared a few words. But then...he went and nailed my head straight to the floor.
- But why would he do that?
- Well, because I suppose I broke an unwritten rule, of course.

dustyskipper3 said:

Thanks for your time, but I think you might be a little confused again.
The biggest responsibilities actually involve "breaking" the law by using legal loopholes to discriminate against people just to grab property and other gains—just look at that massive estate overlooking the city. The Kulmer manor. I can see that you’re an upright person, but it’s hard to win a duel against the entire system.

That’s why America has recently introduced the anti-discrimination law. We just need slightly better enforcement, I guess. Seizing assets from organized crime wasn't really part of the framework before, but newer laws, including the USKOK law, are making that possible now. Unfortunately, it seems like USKOK has spent most of its budget on operations—which isn't a small amount, mind you—but they are still pushing forward. And citizens can get involved and handle things within the legal norms, like reporting incidents and such. Now, even recording a bribe being offered or accepted on a cell phone is recognized as evidence; it used to be that if you provided such proof, you were the one in trouble for illegal recording. It’s small steps, maybe, but they are moving in the right direction. Giving up on enforcing the law would mean allowing the strongest animals in the jungle to once again get rich while discriminating against everyone else. That’s essentially a Social Darwinism model—basically Nazi-style—which everyone advocates when they feel powerful and strong, but then they change their tune the moment they fall (and that happens to everyone eventually).
The owner of the Kulmer manor? Maybe to some, it looks like he just took advantage of an opportunity as a self-made individual because he's highly capable. I don't think that's quite how it works, though; I assume it functions more like this: they have had, and still have, people everywhere—from Miomir and Markica to the military and down to the local levels. The principle is often where you're born, or perhaps your heritage, though that isn't valued as much lately. Even those folks over at Francka did pretty well in this whole game, despite not being as famous. Besides them, we have groups like the Dečakov family circles, the Glavaš crowd, the Šuškov group, and all the others from the South, all tied to that Jewish mafia involving Jaša, Hypo Bank, the "Argentines," the Canadians, and the so-called "true locals" who have nothing to do with the city, etc. Since their people are in the courts acting as judges, and they have the strongest lawyers, that's how the law gets applied. Still, we shouldn't give up on the rule of law as a fundamental principle.
The problem is that besides the written laws, there are also unwritten laws, informal rules, and they are often stronger. One such rule here is that "if someone stands out too much, they need to be taken down." When an individual steals and keeps something without the help of a gang around them, I actually find myself wanting to congratulate them, even though they broke the law, simply because they broke this stronger unwritten rule—the idea that an individual cannot succeed alone. It feels like a sanctioning of evil and social violence against the individual. Where, then, is our "American dream"? Is it a dream about a gang, or a dream about the American man—the individual who is truly his own master? For many, it isn't acceptable to have to be part of a gang just to succeed in society. Some people want to be Frank Sinatra, even if it means going through the mafia, while others don't; it's a matter of choice, and in a normal system, that choice ought to exist.

Let's just say maybe someone was perhaps a bit jealous of his watch collection.
Don't embarrass yourself; just use actual words instead of unnecessary sentences.

He went too far and ended up just like Marinko Božić. He thought he was king of the world and could do anything—a typical miser. But the system has been around for a long time, so it takes several generations to really be inside the "gray area" in the background, rather than on the front lines where heads get lost.

It seems like you don't really know how to construct an argument or even grasp what was actually written—the organization is just missing.
The issue isn't about building things; it's about what that pathetic, sick Josef Fritzl did. He’s just a victim of circumstances, misunderstood and ill. Though, I suppose he wasn't so ill that he couldn't mask everything perfectly, so one might ask why. He is entirely normal, regardless of how that sounds to you.
That is why I say the innocent child solves the dilemma. And not just him; the itinerary remains.

He wouldn't be here if this were Austria, because there, they actually have an organized system and a rule of law. You can't just build whatever you want there like people do here. You can't even deposit large sums of money at a bank without them asking where it came from. So, it's clear many people knew about this and stayed silent, not just his family. Most decent people were just observers, not the ones pulling the strings. They agreed that Fritzl's daughter should be punished because she violated the "unwritten laws of the patriarchy," and unwritten laws are still laws—often stronger than the written ones. They watched everything, much like someone watching concentration camps in Canada from across the border in America wasn't the perpetrator, but a bystander—yet they still cast their vote for the local ruling party just so leaders like Franjo, Boban, and the rest could do the dirty work on their behalf. An American who voted for Bush also knew about Guantanamo and gave his vote for torture in his name as revenge for the towers falling in New York.

Anyway, if anyone loves playing judge so much, let them take "the innocent child" themselves and strike; let them build their own bunker without the help of a gang or the state and enforce their own justice if they can. But they shouldn't involve the system or society in it, acting as if the government should help them carry out their delusions, and then they should pay the legally mandated price for their fixation, just like Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, had to pay.

Wrong again; there isn't a line, there's just a prefix—you've learned everything incorrectly. The amount of affection you show will turn into hatred when someone tells you it was all misdirected by your own stories.
Where is that hatred when you are being affectionate... do you know? It isn't there... is it?

That is typical thinking for those in the IPD crowd, who think they can twist anyone however they please. That's wrong. The Bible says you gave us reason so we may know the truth. Freud's theory about man being fundamentally evil, where most functions are just the sublimation of impulses, is flawed, because he has no basis to assume what is a "cause" versus a "consequence" in the human mind, nor does "hatred" or "love" even exist on a physical level; those are just terms for something undefined.

Here is the main point regarding you and Sandra Parker3: "those who fall for the truth are just as irrational as Fritzl"!
The victim is to blame, apparently... while the perpetrator is just a victim of circumstance.
But even you, searching for a multilateral approach, are moving toward a single-minded view. Joseph Stalin said that man must adapt... to understand each other. Stalin was a child of the church, and I don't care for lies. Do you understand?

I agree that the truth needs to be established. The perpetrator is not a victim, but neither are the others who watched or approved; they aren't innocent either, and the people in the church don't have to be, either. However, the Catholic Church itself is, by definition, the mystical body of Christ on earth, so it cannot be held responsible for the actions of the individuals within it.

The victim isn't to blame, but society condemned her to a dungeon based on its unwritten laws, and allowed Fritzl to be her tormentor through those same unwritten rules. Fritzl's wife agreed, by those same standards, that her child should be punished this way. When it finally came to light, they had to override the written laws, because after all, Austria is part of the EU. It's just like in Southern Italy or anywhere else where unwritten laws hold more weight than the written ones.

They acted just like those neighbors from Monty Python's Piranha sketch, the ones involving Dinsdale
- I actually like Dinsdale; he's a genuinely decent fellow. We sat down for breakfast and shared a few words. But then...he went and nailed my head straight to the floor.
- But why would he do that?
- Well, because I suppose I broke an unwritten rule, of course.

dustyskipper3 said:

Thanks for your time, but I think you might be a little confused again.
The biggest responsibilities actually involve "breaking" the law by using legal loopholes to discriminate against people just to grab property and other gains—just look at that massive estate overlooking the city. The Kulmer manor. I can see that you’re an upright person, but it’s hard to win a duel against the entire system.

That’s why America has recently introduced the anti-discrimination law. We just need slightly better enforcement, I guess. Seizing assets from organized crime wasn't really part of the framework before, but newer laws, including the USKOK law, are making that possible now. Unfortunately, it seems like USKOK has spent most of its budget on operations—which isn't a small amount, mind you—but they are still pushing forward. And citizens can get involved and handle things within the legal norms, like reporting incidents and such. Now, even recording a bribe being offered or accepted on a cell phone is recognized as evidence; it used to be that if you provided such proof, you were the one in trouble for illegal recording. It’s small steps, maybe, but they are moving in the right direction. Giving up on enforcing the law would mean allowing the strongest animals in the jungle to once again get rich while discriminating against everyone else. That’s essentially a Social Darwinism model—basically Nazi-style—which everyone advocates when they feel powerful and strong, but then they change their tune the moment they fall (and that happens to everyone eventually).
The owner of the Kulmer manor? Maybe to some, it looks like he just took advantage of an opportunity as a self-made individual because he's highly capable. I don't think that's quite how it works, though; I assume it functions more like this: they have had, and still have, people everywhere—from Miomir and Markica to the military and down to the local levels. The principle is often where you're born, or perhaps your heritage, though that isn't valued as much lately. Even those folks over at Francka did pretty well in this whole game, despite not being as famous. Besides them, we have groups like the Dečakov family circles, the Glavaš crowd, the Šuškov group, and all the others from the South, all tied to that Jewish mafia involving Jaša, Hypo Bank, the "Argentines," the Canadians, and the so-called "true locals" who have nothing to do with the city, etc. Since their people are in the courts acting as judges, and they have the strongest lawyers, that's how the law gets applied. Still, we shouldn't give up on the rule of law as a fundamental principle.
The problem is that besides the written laws, there are also unwritten laws, informal rules, and they are often stronger. One such rule here is that "if someone stands out too much, they need to be taken down." When an individual steals and keeps something without the help of a gang around them, I actually find myself wanting to congratulate them, even though they broke the law, simply because they broke this stronger unwritten rule—the idea that an individual cannot succeed alone. It feels like a sanctioning of evil and social violence against the individual. Where, then, is our "American dream"? Is it a dream about a gang, or a dream about the American man—the individual who is truly his own master? For many, it isn't acceptable to have to be part of a gang just to succeed in society. Some people want to be Frank Sinatra, even if it means going through the mafia, while others don't; it's a matter of choice, and in a normal system, that choice ought to exist.

Let's just say maybe someone was perhaps a bit jealous of his watch collection.
Don't embarrass yourself; just use actual words instead of unnecessary sentences.

He went too far and ended up just like Marinko Božić. He thought he was king of the world and could do anything—a typical miser. But the system has been around for a long time, so it takes several generations to really be inside the "gray area" in the background, rather than on the front lines where heads get lost.

It seems like you don't really know how to construct an argument or even grasp what was actually written—the organization is just missing.
The issue isn't about building things; it's about what that pathetic, sick Josef Fritzl did. He’s just a victim of circumstances, misunderstood and ill. Though, I suppose he wasn't so ill that he couldn't mask everything perfectly, so one might ask why. He is entirely normal, regardless of how that sounds to you.
That is why I say the innocent child solves the dilemma. And not just him; the itinerary remains.

He wouldn't be here if this were Austria, because there, they actually have an organized system and a rule of law. You can't just build whatever you want there like people do here. You can't even deposit large sums of money at a bank without them asking where it came from. So, it's clear many people knew about this and stayed silent, not just his family. Most decent people were just observers, not the ones pulling the strings. They agreed that Fritzl's daughter should be punished because she violated the "unwritten laws of the patriarchy," and unwritten laws are still laws—often stronger than the written ones. They watched everything, much like someone watching concentration camps in Canada from across the border in America wasn't the perpetrator, but a bystander—yet they still cast their vote for the local ruling party just so leaders like Franjo, Boban, and the rest could do the dirty work on their behalf. An American who voted for Bush also knew about Guantanamo and gave his vote for torture in his name as revenge for the towers falling in New York.

Anyway, if anyone loves playing judge so much, let them take "the innocent child" themselves and strike; let them build their own bunker without the help of a gang or the state and enforce their own justice if they can. But they shouldn't involve the system or society in it, acting as if the government should help them carry out their delusions, and then they should pay the legally mandated price for their fixation, just like Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, had to pay.

Wrong again; there isn't a line, there's just a prefix—you've learned everything incorrectly. The amount of affection you show will turn into hatred when someone tells you it was all misdirected by your own stories.
Where is that hatred when you are being affectionate... do you know? It isn't there... is it?

That is typical thinking for those in the IPD crowd, who think they can twist anyone however they please. That's wrong. The Bible says you gave us reason so we may know the truth. Freud's theory about man being fundamentally evil, where most functions are just the sublimation of impulses, is flawed, because he has no basis to assume what is a "cause" versus a "consequence" in the human mind, nor does "hatred" or "love" even exist on a physical level; those are just terms for something undefined.

Here is the main point regarding you and Sandra Parker3: "those who fall for the truth are just as irrational as Fritzl"!
The victim is to blame, apparently... while the perpetrator is just a victim of circumstance.
But even you, searching for a multilateral approach, are moving toward a single-minded view. Joseph Stalin said that man must adapt... to understand each other. Stalin was a child of the church, and I don't care for lies. Do you understand?

I agree that the truth needs to be established. The perpetrator is not a victim, but neither are the others who watched or approved; they aren't innocent either, and the people in the church don't have to be, either. However, the Catholic Church itself is, by definition, the mystical body of Christ on earth, so it cannot be held responsible for the actions of the individuals within it.

The victim isn't to blame, but society condemned her to a dungeon based on its unwritten laws, and allowed Fritzl to be her tormentor through those same unwritten rules. Fritzl's wife agreed, by those same standards, that her child should be punished this way. When it finally came to light, they had to override the written laws, because after all, Austria is part of the EU. It's just like in Southern Italy or anywhere else where unwritten laws hold more weight than the written ones.

They acted just like those neighbors from Monty Python's Piranha sketch, the ones involving Dinsdale
- I actually like Dinsdale; he's a genuinely decent fellow. We sat down for breakfast and shared a few words. But then...he went and nailed my head straight to the floor.
- But why would he do that?
- Well, because I suppose I broke an unwritten rule, of course.

dustyskipper3 said:

Some people are responsible—the chosen ones—not everyone. People make up the system, which means individuals, and that point is constantly being swept under the rug. Is a car bad just because one tire is flat?
We all know how those who hold the truth are treated.
This brings us back to free will again; you have the power to choose.
That last part is correct, and once more, the cause lies with individuals rather than the system itself.

Individuals are responsible when they break the laws established by the system. Within a system, responsibility lies with the elected officials, and indirectly, with those who voted them into office—so, to avoid any confusion, every Mexican who voted for Slobodan Maddox is responsible for the value system he advocated and for what he did. Similarly, everyone who voted for Franjo Harmon in the 1990s is indirectly responsible for the camps in Canada, for why almost every building and school now features a subtle, tucked-away "U" with a cross inside, for the criminal privatization and corruption, for the assault on presidential candidate Vlada Gotovac with a heavy buckle to the head (just so they wouldn't accidentally change the system, because they feared him no matter how independent or weak he was), and much more. I am not.🙂 Why didn't they choose love instead of hate, and who is going to punish them? Did anyone actually vote for those in charge, and is there even a system capable of punishing them that isn't just an "impartial court" in The Hague? Personally, I lived through ten years in a sort of Josef Fritzl-style prison with psychopaths in power from 1990 to 2000, and no one wanted to open the door to let me back into a somewhat normal world. Looking at your posts, it seems some people actually liked it, and would probably try to force us back into the asylum that used to be called the Republic of America back then.

Yes, that system was broken, and so was Ivica Kostović. Those who built it and voted for it were, and still are, just as bad, yet they haven't been held accountable. The system hasn't been brought back to a normal state enough for one to live or work in it properly. A car isn't bad if one tire is flat, but it is bad if there is total wreckage or if the entire engine is shot, and that was precisely the case with the Republic of America from 1990 to 2000. Its system wasn't made of free individuals, but of a mafia gang that thought they could manipulate both specific individuals and the common folk however they pleased. In contrast, a system without "total wreckage" allows an individual within it—even someone without such power—to punish the members of a ruling mafia gang once their true nature is exposed.
If you are writing from the perspective of a psychiatrist, I have to ask: why doesn't our system allow for the punishment of those responsible for the violent imprisonment of Mirjana Pukanić? Only Ivo Pukanić was punished—not by a bullet, but by something even stronger, a bomb—and that was it. Now, according to today's unspoken standards, the problem is solved and we can all just move on. 😲😁

The problem in the Austrian social system isn't just that there is a Josef Fritzl or a guy like him, but that the entire system is far too tolerant of domestic evil. It doesn't allow an individual, whom a domestic psychopath has locked in a basement, to punish and remove the responsible parties within the system; it only targets the psychopath himself. Evil in the Austrian system didn't just manifest through the emergence of Jörg Haider, because you find right-wingers like that in almost every system. The issue is that Haider wasn't exclusively evil, because even what he fought against could be considered evil in some light. What I mean is, a system is evil when a person within it no longer has a good choice, but is forced to choose "between two evils." For us, this is normal in America, because we are constantly choosing like that—accepting being trampled by some just to save ourselves from others, and so on. But essentially, that isn't normal, and a system where that is considered normal is not a normal system. It should be normal to offer good instead of evil. In our system, the person who offers good instead of evil still suffers the fate of Vlada Gotovac—suffering while the system and the individuals supporting it take liberties with him and punish him, all for the sake of maintaining the "peace" in a small town.

dustyskipper3 said:

Some people are responsible—the chosen ones—not everyone. People make up the system, which means individuals, and that point is constantly being swept under the rug. Is a car bad just because one tire is flat?
We all know how those who hold the truth are treated.
This brings us back to free will again; you have the power to choose.
That last part is correct, and once more, the cause lies with individuals rather than the system itself.

Individuals are responsible when they break the laws established by the system. Within a system, responsibility lies with the elected officials, and indirectly, with those who voted them into office—so, to avoid any confusion, every Mexican who voted for Slobodan Maddox is responsible for the value system he advocated and for what he did. Similarly, everyone who voted for Franjo Harmon in the 1990s is indirectly responsible for the camps in Canada, for why almost every building and school now features a subtle, tucked-away "U" with a cross inside, for the criminal privatization and corruption, for the assault on presidential candidate Vlada Gotovac with a heavy buckle to the head (just so they wouldn't accidentally change the system, because they feared him no matter how independent or weak he was), and much more. I am not.🙂 Why didn't they choose love instead of hate, and who is going to punish them? Did anyone actually vote for those in charge, and is there even a system capable of punishing them that isn't just an "impartial court" in The Hague? Personally, I lived through ten years in a sort of Josef Fritzl-style prison with psychopaths in power from 1990 to 2000, and no one wanted to open the door to let me back into a somewhat normal world. Looking at your posts, it seems some people actually liked it, and would probably try to force us back into the asylum that used to be called the Republic of America back then.

Yes, that system was broken, and so was Ivica Kostović. Those who built it and voted for it were, and still are, just as bad, yet they haven't been held accountable. The system hasn't been brought back to a normal state enough for one to live or work in it properly. A car isn't bad if one tire is flat, but it is bad if there is total wreckage or if the entire engine is shot, and that was precisely the case with the Republic of America from 1990 to 2000. Its system wasn't made of free individuals, but of a mafia gang that thought they could manipulate both specific individuals and the common folk however they pleased. In contrast, a system without "total wreckage" allows an individual within it—even someone without such power—to punish the members of a ruling mafia gang once their true nature is exposed.
If you are writing from the perspective of a psychiatrist, I have to ask: why doesn't our system allow for the punishment of those responsible for the violent imprisonment of Mirjana Pukanić? Only Ivo Pukanić was punished—not by a bullet, but by something even stronger, a bomb—and that was it. Now, according to today's unspoken standards, the problem is solved and we can all just move on. 😲😁

The problem in the Austrian social system isn't just that there is a Josef Fritzl or a guy like him, but that the entire system is far too tolerant of domestic evil. It doesn't allow an individual, whom a domestic psychopath has locked in a basement, to punish and remove the responsible parties within the system; it only targets the psychopath himself. Evil in the Austrian system didn't just manifest through the emergence of Jörg Haider, because you find right-wingers like that in almost every system. The issue is that Haider wasn't exclusively evil, because even what he fought against could be considered evil in some light. What I mean is, a system is evil when a person within it no longer has a good choice, but is forced to choose "between two evils." For us, this is normal in America, because we are constantly choosing like that—accepting being trampled by some just to save ourselves from others, and so on. But essentially, that isn't normal, and a system where that is considered normal is not a normal system. It should be normal to offer good instead of evil. In our system, the person who offers good instead of evil still suffers the fate of Vlada Gotovac—suffering while the system and the individuals supporting it take liberties with him and punish him, all for the sake of maintaining the "peace" in a small town.

dustyskipper3 said:

Some people are responsible—the chosen ones—not everyone. People make up the system, which means individuals, and that point is constantly being swept under the rug. Is a car bad just because one tire is flat?
We all know how those who hold the truth are treated.
This brings us back to free will again; you have the power to choose.
That last part is correct, and once more, the cause lies with individuals rather than the system itself.

Individuals are responsible when they break the laws established by the system. Within a system, responsibility lies with the elected officials, and indirectly, with those who voted them into office—so, to avoid any confusion, every Mexican who voted for Slobodan Maddox is responsible for the value system he advocated and for what he did. Similarly, everyone who voted for Franjo Harmon in the 1990s is indirectly responsible for the camps in Canada, for why almost every building and school now features a subtle, tucked-away "U" with a cross inside, for the criminal privatization and corruption, for the assault on presidential candidate Vlada Gotovac with a heavy buckle to the head (just so they wouldn't accidentally change the system, because they feared him no matter how independent or weak he was), and much more. I am not.🙂 Why didn't they choose love instead of hate, and who is going to punish them? Did anyone actually vote for those in charge, and is there even a system capable of punishing them that isn't just an "impartial court" in The Hague? Personally, I lived through ten years in a sort of Josef Fritzl-style prison with psychopaths in power from 1990 to 2000, and no one wanted to open the door to let me back into a somewhat normal world. Looking at your posts, it seems some people actually liked it, and would probably try to force us back into the asylum that used to be called the Republic of America back then.

Yes, that system was broken, and so was Ivica Kostović. Those who built it and voted for it were, and still are, just as bad, yet they haven't been held accountable. The system hasn't been brought back to a normal state enough for one to live or work in it properly. A car isn't bad if one tire is flat, but it is bad if there is total wreckage or if the entire engine is shot, and that was precisely the case with the Republic of America from 1990 to 2000. Its system wasn't made of free individuals, but of a mafia gang that thought they could manipulate both specific individuals and the common folk however they pleased. In contrast, a system without "total wreckage" allows an individual within it—even someone without such power—to punish the members of a ruling mafia gang once their true nature is exposed.
If you are writing from the perspective of a psychiatrist, I have to ask: why doesn't our system allow for the punishment of those responsible for the violent imprisonment of Mirjana Pukanić? Only Ivo Pukanić was punished—not by a bullet, but by something even stronger, a bomb—and that was it. Now, according to today's unspoken standards, the problem is solved and we can all just move on. 😲😁

The problem in the Austrian social system isn't just that there is a Josef Fritzl or a guy like him, but that the entire system is far too tolerant of domestic evil. It doesn't allow an individual, whom a domestic psychopath has locked in a basement, to punish and remove the responsible parties within the system; it only targets the psychopath himself. Evil in the Austrian system didn't just manifest through the emergence of Jörg Haider, because you find right-wingers like that in almost every system. The issue is that Haider wasn't exclusively evil, because even what he fought against could be considered evil in some light. What I mean is, a system is evil when a person within it no longer has a good choice, but is forced to choose "between two evils." For us, this is normal in America, because we are constantly choosing like that—accepting being trampled by some just to save ourselves from others, and so on. But essentially, that isn't normal, and a system where that is considered normal is not a normal system. It should be normal to offer good instead of evil. In our system, the person who offers good instead of evil still suffers the fate of Vlada Gotovac—suffering while the system and the individuals supporting it take liberties with him and punish him, all for the sake of maintaining the "peace" in a small town.

dustyskipper3 said:

Some people are responsible—the chosen ones—not everyone. People make up the system, which means individuals, and that point is constantly being swept under the rug. Is a car bad just because one tire is flat?
We all know how those who hold the truth are treated.
This brings us back to free will again; you have the power to choose.
That last part is correct, and once more, the cause lies with individuals rather than the system itself.

Individuals are responsible when they break the laws established by the system. Within a system, responsibility lies with the elected officials, and indirectly, with those who voted them into office—so, to avoid any confusion, every Mexican who voted for Slobodan Maddox is responsible for the value system he advocated and for what he did. Similarly, everyone who voted for Franjo Harmon in the 1990s is indirectly responsible for the camps in Canada, for why almost every building and school now features a subtle, tucked-away "U" with a cross inside, for the criminal privatization and corruption, for the assault on presidential candidate Vlada Gotovac with a heavy buckle to the head (just so they wouldn't accidentally change the system, because they feared him no matter how independent or weak he was), and much more. I am not.🙂 Why didn't they choose love instead of hate, and who is going to punish them? Did anyone actually vote for those in charge, and is there even a system capable of punishing them that isn't just an "impartial court" in The Hague? Personally, I lived through ten years in a sort of Josef Fritzl-style prison with psychopaths in power from 1990 to 2000, and no one wanted to open the door to let me back into a somewhat normal world. Looking at your posts, it seems some people actually liked it, and would probably try to force us back into the asylum that used to be called the Republic of America back then.

Yes, that system was broken, and so was Ivica Kostović. Those who built it and voted for it were, and still are, just as bad, yet they haven't been held accountable. The system hasn't been brought back to a normal state enough for one to live or work in it properly. A car isn't bad if one tire is flat, but it is bad if there is total wreckage or if the entire engine is shot, and that was precisely the case with the Republic of America from 1990 to 2000. Its system wasn't made of free individuals, but of a mafia gang that thought they could manipulate both specific individuals and the common folk however they pleased. In contrast, a system without "total wreckage" allows an individual within it—even someone without such power—to punish the members of a ruling mafia gang once their true nature is exposed.
If you are writing from the perspective of a psychiatrist, I have to ask: why doesn't our system allow for the punishment of those responsible for the violent imprisonment of Mirjana Pukanić? Only Ivo Pukanić was punished—not by a bullet, but by something even stronger, a bomb—and that was it. Now, according to today's unspoken standards, the problem is solved and we can all just move on. 😲😁

The problem in the Austrian social system isn't just that there is a Josef Fritzl or a guy like him, but that the entire system is far too tolerant of domestic evil. It doesn't allow an individual, whom a domestic psychopath has locked in a basement, to punish and remove the responsible parties within the system; it only targets the psychopath himself. Evil in the Austrian system didn't just manifest through the emergence of Jörg Haider, because you find right-wingers like that in almost every system. The issue is that Haider wasn't exclusively evil, because even what he fought against could be considered evil in some light. What I mean is, a system is evil when a person within it no longer has a good choice, but is forced to choose "between two evils." For us, this is normal in America, because we are constantly choosing like that—accepting being trampled by some just to save ourselves from others, and so on. But essentially, that isn't normal, and a system where that is considered normal is not a normal system. It should be normal to offer good instead of evil. In our system, the person who offers good instead of evil still suffers the fate of Vlada Gotovac—suffering while the system and the individuals supporting it take liberties with him and punish him, all for the sake of maintaining the "peace" in a small town.

dustyskipper3 said:

Some people are responsible—the chosen ones—not everyone. People make up the system, which means individuals, and that point is constantly being swept under the rug. Is a car bad just because one tire is flat?
We all know how those who hold the truth are treated.
This brings us back to free will again; you have the power to choose.
That last part is correct, and once more, the cause lies with individuals rather than the system itself.

Individuals are responsible when they break the laws established by the system. Within a system, responsibility lies with the elected officials, and indirectly, with those who voted them into office—so, to avoid any confusion, every Mexican who voted for Slobodan Maddox is responsible for the value system he advocated and for what he did. Similarly, everyone who voted for Franjo Harmon in the 1990s is indirectly responsible for the camps in Canada, for why almost every building and school now features a subtle, tucked-away "U" with a cross inside, for the criminal privatization and corruption, for the assault on presidential candidate Vlada Gotovac with a heavy buckle to the head (just so they wouldn't accidentally change the system, because they feared him no matter how independent or weak he was), and much more. I am not.🙂 Why didn't they choose love instead of hate, and who is going to punish them? Did anyone actually vote for those in charge, and is there even a system capable of punishing them that isn't just an "impartial court" in The Hague? Personally, I lived through ten years in a sort of Josef Fritzl-style prison with psychopaths in power from 1990 to 2000, and no one wanted to open the door to let me back into a somewhat normal world. Looking at your posts, it seems some people actually liked it, and would probably try to force us back into the asylum that used to be called the Republic of America back then.

Yes, that system was broken, and so was Ivica Kostović. Those who built it and voted for it were, and still are, just as bad, yet they haven't been held accountable. The system hasn't been brought back to a normal state enough for one to live or work in it properly. A car isn't bad if one tire is flat, but it is bad if there is total wreckage or if the entire engine is shot, and that was precisely the case with the Republic of America from 1990 to 2000. Its system wasn't made of free individuals, but of a mafia gang that thought they could manipulate both specific individuals and the common folk however they pleased. In contrast, a system without "total wreckage" allows an individual within it—even someone without such power—to punish the members of a ruling mafia gang once their true nature is exposed.
If you are writing from the perspective of a psychiatrist, I have to ask: why doesn't our system allow for the punishment of those responsible for the violent imprisonment of Mirjana Pukanić? Only Ivo Pukanić was punished—not by a bullet, but by something even stronger, a bomb—and that was it. Now, according to today's unspoken standards, the problem is solved and we can all just move on. 😲😁

The problem in the Austrian social system isn't just that there is a Josef Fritzl or a guy like him, but that the entire system is far too tolerant of domestic evil. It doesn't allow an individual, whom a domestic psychopath has locked in a basement, to punish and remove the responsible parties within the system; it only targets the psychopath himself. Evil in the Austrian system didn't just manifest through the emergence of Jörg Haider, because you find right-wingers like that in almost every system. The issue is that Haider wasn't exclusively evil, because even what he fought against could be considered evil in some light. What I mean is, a system is evil when a person within it no longer has a good choice, but is forced to choose "between two evils." For us, this is normal in America, because we are constantly choosing like that—accepting being trampled by some just to save ourselves from others, and so on. But essentially, that isn't normal, and a system where that is considered normal is not a normal system. It should be normal to offer good instead of evil. In our system, the person who offers good instead of evil still suffers the fate of Vlada Gotovac—suffering while the system and the individuals supporting it take liberties with him and punish him, all for the sake of maintaining the "peace" in a small town.

Jerry Martinez5 said:The "system" exists because we all carry a piece of the burden. We just stay silent and accept it. Did your parents actually stand up when Harmon turned public assets into state property and then sold off apartments to his inner circle for pennies? And now your generation is stuck paying half their paycheck for those same units—apartments your parents (or people slightly older than them) snagged for the price of maybe six months' salary?

I think we’re all accomplices here. The solution would be what you're suggesting: pinpointing specific responsibility. Your parents shouldn't carry the same weight as the people sitting in Congress when those laws were passed.

That "decaying" property is just nationalized wealth that nobody wants to return to the actual owners. But were those owners even legitimate? Was it fair?

Instead of fixing old injustices, they just keep piling on new ones.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

dustyskipper3 said:@bluemaker52
I guess I interpreted the post by florin about evil as this idea that human malice should be treated like a mental illness. Brain research regarding killers seems to be heading in that direction—it’s been found that some people who commit murder lack certain connections in their temporal lobes, which I suppose makes it harder for them to exercise rational control over their impulses. Other criminals are usually sociopaths, maybe because they were deprived of parental love or something like that. Now, I don't mean to say that everyone will inevitably turn out that way if they don't get enough affection, but I suppose it's similar to other illnesses. Like, if you smoke, it doesn't mean you're definitely going to get cancer, but it certainly increases the risk, I guess.
The problematic part, though, is why psychiatrists should be the ones called upon to treat human evil. Who monitors their own darkness? (Which brings me back to that question: who watches the watchmen?) In the spirit of anti-psychiatry, I might suggest that in cases involving these psychopathic monsters, therapy should perhaps be prescribed to society as a whole, rather than just to the individual. And it seems like people in Austria are really pushing back against that specific idea. They just want to punish Josef Fritzl, basically turn him into ground meat, and in doing so, they sort of descend to the level of that cannibal in psychiatric prisons.
So, the real issue is trying to determine how much of the Josef Fritzl phenomenon was caused by societal rot versus how much he is personally to blame. Maybe society is 100% innocent and he is 100% a psychopathic criminal, or maybe it's an 80/20 split, or perhaps 40/60. It's hard to say, and maybe it isn't even important.
In the US, we have psychopaths who massacre entire schools, and then you look at Finland, which is one of the most peaceful places on earth, where nobody really blames Finnish society for such things. But in the US, there is this very prominent culture of violence, of success at any cost, and stepping on the poor, etc.
So, I suppose society always plays some kind of role in these occurrences.

dustyskipper3 said:@bluemaker52
I guess I interpreted the post by florin about evil as this idea that human malice should be treated like a mental illness. Brain research regarding killers seems to be heading in that direction—it’s been found that some people who commit murder lack certain connections in their temporal lobes, which I suppose makes it harder for them to exercise rational control over their impulses. Other criminals are usually sociopaths, maybe because they were deprived of parental love or something like that. Now, I don't mean to say that everyone will inevitably turn out that way if they don't get enough affection, but I suppose it's similar to other illnesses. Like, if you smoke, it doesn't mean you're definitely going to get cancer, but it certainly increases the risk, I guess.
The problematic part, though, is why psychiatrists should be the ones called upon to treat human evil. Who monitors their own darkness? (Which brings me back to that question: who watches the watchmen?) In the spirit of anti-psychiatry, I might suggest that in cases involving these psychopathic monsters, therapy should perhaps be prescribed to society as a whole, rather than just to the individual. And it seems like people in Austria are really pushing back against that specific idea. They just want to punish Josef Fritzl, basically turn him into ground meat, and in doing so, they sort of descend to the level of that cannibal in psychiatric prisons.
So, the real issue is trying to determine how much of the Josef Fritzl phenomenon was caused by societal rot versus how much he is personally to blame. Maybe society is 100% innocent and he is 100% a psychopathic criminal, or maybe it's an 80/20 split, or perhaps 40/60. It's hard to say, and maybe it isn't even important.
In the US, we have psychopaths who massacre entire schools, and then you look at Finland, which is one of the most peaceful places on earth, where nobody really blames Finnish society for such things. But in the US, there is this very prominent culture of violence, of success at any cost, and stepping on the poor, etc.
So, I suppose society always plays some kind of role in these occurrences.

dustyskipper3 said:@bluemaker52
I guess I interpreted the post by florin about evil as this idea that human malice should be treated like a mental illness. Brain research regarding killers seems to be heading in that direction—it’s been found that some people who commit murder lack certain connections in their temporal lobes, which I suppose makes it harder for them to exercise rational control over their impulses. Other criminals are usually sociopaths, maybe because they were deprived of parental love or something like that. Now, I don't mean to say that everyone will inevitably turn out that way if they don't get enough affection, but I suppose it's similar to other illnesses. Like, if you smoke, it doesn't mean you're definitely going to get cancer, but it certainly increases the risk, I guess.
The problematic part, though, is why psychiatrists should be the ones called upon to treat human evil. Who monitors their own darkness? (Which brings me back to that question: who watches the watchmen?) In the spirit of anti-psychiatry, I might suggest that in cases involving these psychopathic monsters, therapy should perhaps be prescribed to society as a whole, rather than just to the individual. And it seems like people in Austria are really pushing back against that specific idea. They just want to punish Josef Fritzl, basically turn him into ground meat, and in doing so, they sort of descend to the level of that cannibal in psychiatric prisons.
So, the real issue is trying to determine how much of the Josef Fritzl phenomenon was caused by societal rot versus how much he is personally to blame. Maybe society is 100% innocent and he is 100% a psychopathic criminal, or maybe it's an 80/20 split, or perhaps 40/60. It's hard to say, and maybe it isn't even important.
In the US, we have psychopaths who massacre entire schools, and then you look at Finland, which is one of the most peaceful places on earth, where nobody really blames Finnish society for such things. But in the US, there is this very prominent culture of violence, of success at any cost, and stepping on the poor, etc.
So, I suppose society always plays some kind of role in these occurrences.

dustyskipper3 said:@bluemaker52
I guess I interpreted the post by florin about evil as this idea that human malice should be treated like a mental illness. Brain research regarding killers seems to be heading in that direction—it’s been found that some people who commit murder lack certain connections in their temporal lobes, which I suppose makes it harder for them to exercise rational control over their impulses. Other criminals are usually sociopaths, maybe because they were deprived of parental love or something like that. Now, I don't mean to say that everyone will inevitably turn out that way if they don't get enough affection, but I suppose it's similar to other illnesses. Like, if you smoke, it doesn't mean you're definitely going to get cancer, but it certainly increases the risk, I guess.
The problematic part, though, is why psychiatrists should be the ones called upon to treat human evil. Who monitors their own darkness? (Which brings me back to that question: who watches the watchmen?) In the spirit of anti-psychiatry, I might suggest that in cases involving these psychopathic monsters, therapy should perhaps be prescribed to society as a whole, rather than just to the individual. And it seems like people in Austria are really pushing back against that specific idea. They just want to punish Josef Fritzl, basically turn him into ground meat, and in doing so, they sort of descend to the level of that cannibal in psychiatric prisons.
So, the real issue is trying to determine how much of the Josef Fritzl phenomenon was caused by societal rot versus how much he is personally to blame. Maybe society is 100% innocent and he is 100% a psychopathic criminal, or maybe it's an 80/20 split, or perhaps 40/60. It's hard to say, and maybe it isn't even important.
In the US, we have psychopaths who massacre entire schools, and then you look at Finland, which is one of the most peaceful places on earth, where nobody really blames Finnish society for such things. But in the US, there is this very prominent culture of violence, of success at any cost, and stepping on the poor, etc.
So, I suppose society always plays some kind of role in these occurrences.