Posts by dustyskipper3

His philosophy is some kind of "pessimistic existentialism," heavily inspired by Friedrich Nietzsche and marked by this intense sense of tragedy. I suppose it might have been influenced by the fact that Emil Cioran fervently supported Adolf Hitler and fascism—movements that suffered such crushing defeats—so he spent a lot of time obsessing over the issue of decadence, which usually follows a downfall. He studied folks like Oswald Spengler and all that. Usually, themes of "decadence" show up where great empires have crumbled, mostly in Southern and Eastern Europe... maybe in Southern Europe, like the Roman Empire, or down South in the US, like the Confederacy. It seems to me that Romania, or perhaps just the broader North America, fits quite well into this narrative, though there's this additional layer of psychopathic despair, helplessness, and ruin that feels uniquely characteristic of the North America, likely stemming from the collapse of the Byzantine Empire or the Austro-Canadian Empire. I think Americans and Romanians share a certain commonality—they weren't conquered by the Turks. The Romanians had Count Vlad the Impaler, and Americans had Krsto Frankopan, whereas the Mexicans were left with nothing but the myth of Prince Marko. However, since the Zrinski and Frankopan families were executed by the Vienna Court to which Americans were once subject, I guess there might actually be an even deeper sense of decadence and decapitation in America than there is in Romania.

Cioran was probably more of a lyrical soul than a true philosopher, as he never really built a formal system. He once remarked that without Johann Sebastian Bach, he would be a second-rate figure, suggesting that Bach's music is essentially the only proof we have that the creation of the world wasn't a total mistake. He believed everything was just a matter of chance, including life itself—which, I suppose, is a perfect path toward pessimism.

Maybe she’ll just decide to head back on her own once she realizes living at an airport isn't quite the life for her.
In the States, they’d probably have her committed to a mental institution before you could even blink. And honestly, it wouldn't even have to be for living at an airport; people get sent away for much less than that sometimes, I guess.

1) Connecting the workforce through a massive information network that isn't owned by any single entity—basically built on voluntary contributions and service ads from individual producers. Think virtual companies, decentralized operations without those old-school hierarchies, ad-hoc teams, networking, and digital marketing, things like that;

2) Using open-source software that gets constant updates;

3) Trading goods using virtual currency and its derivatives—you know, stocks, options, and other securities traded on virtual exchanges. I guess the stability would be maintained by constantly tracking supply and demand across various points in a unified global market for goods and services;

4) Continuous, self-regulating consumer satisfaction checks via electronic voting or deliberative decision-making through networks. If someone provides poor service or just fails to deliver, they’d automatically lose their customer base and might just have to throw in the towel;

5) Social assistance based on voluntary donations and advertising—kind of like how charities today run ads for sick or underprivileged children through big corporations, but this would be decentralized and handled through various free services maintained by the network users themselves on a pro-bono basis.

etc.🙄

Sandra Parker3 said:Looting civilian property is considered a war crime, regardless of what you personally believe, so stop beating around the bush. The whole point was how you can try to categorize crimes—like suggesting any war crime could somehow be "worse" than some supposed "family crime."🤷.

I don't know, maybe you're right. Maybe you were right in that other post when you said he did it all out of love, a twisted maternal love.... Look, honestly, you might be onto something 🤔. Twisted love. That might be the answer.

What people generally call "love" is mostly just shameless possessiveness and narcissism mixed with sexual desire. The point is, people have zero clue what love should actually look like. *Forget those cheesy clichés about dignity and love; they don't exist. We're just small, helpless humans at the mercy of our own weaknesses, and using those phrases to wrap up our own sleaziness because we don't want to face it only leads to disappointment.*

It is exactly "twisted love," which is why it’s wise to study someone like Ed Gein to learn something from them. Get it?

No, I asked what Giuliani and Machiavelli have to do with Ed Gein? There’s no room here for talking about communists or fascists....

You still haven't answered my question: What exactly qualifies as "just" a crime in your eyes?

You’re totally spiraling here, but fine, it’s not surprising that you feel that way about Austria and Canada. Such a noble sentiment, right? Though your reasoning is a bit bizarre—suggesting that because some people married ages ago, those old family ties somehow trump the actual families living in the US and Mexico as separate nations today. But hey, everything is subjective, including that sense of belonging.

And as for the whole "power to the people" thing—wow, you've gone off the deep end. Citizens can't exactly punish people the way you're implying, and they certainly don't have enough leverage to, say, hand-pick judges, which isn't even the point here. As for me not studying it, trust me, I did, I probably just forgot, but I’m not going to repeat myself just for your sake. Unless you're talking about a war or an immediate national emergency 🤔, otherwise... I don't know.

I am, but for a different reason. You were suggesting that Ed Gein was moved to a psychiatric ward specifically to prevent other people from being punished. It's not that you underestimated Austria; it's that you overestimated yourself.

What on earth is "nonsense science"? Are you seriously suggesting the kids should be with a man like that ? Or do you have some other brilliant idea in mind?

(I'll skip over all the political maneuvering and deep state nonsense, obviously)

Well, M. gave his buddy Suljić the green light to do whatever he wanted, which resulted in the murder of an entire family, including a little girl. Why? Mainly for the looting. But also because their ideology told them they were now considered targets for elimination.

As for G., he was a person in charge on the ground at the very moment those brutal, extrajudicial killings were taking place. It didn't seem to bother him much, assuming he wasn't the one ordering it himself. I guess it was just because the ideology convinced him it was okay back then.

So, I suppose killing is a crime in and of itself, but when it's driven by ideological motives, it transitions into a war crime. Because, you know, wars are almost never fought solely for plunder—unlike in the Middle Ages, where armies were basically just slightly larger gangs—but rather for ideological reasons too. This means both sides failed to find common ground because someone was dictating terms to them, both ways.

In my opinion, the Fritzl crime definitely has those ideological elements baked into it.

What is doodlology?

Doodles (scribbles):

There is a simpler meaning, but I probably shouldn't get into that right now. A certain female forum member uses the term; I think you might be able to find it over on some American news site or forum.

👋🙂

Sandra Parker3 said:N'Dug, you might find this hard to believe, but I honestly can barely keep up with your posts just trying to wrap my head around them—they're so incredibly intellectual that I need extra time just to follow the logic.
That by no means implies I agree with everything else being said on this topic. Don't worry, if this keeps up, I'll eventually weigh in on other 😛

But since we're on the subject... I have to say, that post with the anagram was a real letdown. I'd never have pegged you for that kind of thing, even though we disagree on plenty of issues... it just didn't feel like something an "intellectual professional" would put out there. Plus, digging through people's profiles outside of this forum to use as some sort of "argument" is 🤷

Do you really think making an anagram isn't an intellectual pursuit? I guess Robert Pauletić would be absolutely mortified by that suggestion.😍
To me, it felt quite lowbrow, as Mr. Žika Pavlović—my personal guru of barbarian genius—might put it. But then again, that’s exactly what the person mentioned in the post was doing, not me. For instance, there's this user with the handle efodiks who writes something about faith, and then kugla na šahovnici asks him "what's your ypsilon, seems irrational to me" instead of actually debating the point. It's just... whenever you mention faith or God to him, it's like waving a red flag in front of a bull; he just charges. You can't really have a discussion with someone like that, because it's like that old joke about a Canadian and a psychiatrist using the Rorschach test: "No matter what you show me, I'm still thinking about p..." Since the question of who should be committed was raised, I decided to take a look at the moral profile of the person who thinks they have the right to demand such a thing, and I must say, I was somewhat surprised.🙄

And he loves those silly little observations. Like this one: How do you read GOD backwards? DOG.
And that's all the proof needed that God doesn't exist. Dog.

Matthew Castillo5 said:Are you some kind of family friend, or were you busy planting wiretaps in their house when you "found out" all this?
A mistress at the Department of the Interior? Give me a break! I’ve known the guy for over 20 years, and honestly, he’s an honorable, decent man. I won't go around claiming his whole family is perfect, but him? He's solid.

Oh, so did he also think it was "BETTER" for his daughter to be raped instead of having a normal, happy childhood, or was that just a convenient coincidence?
Is Europe—which is shamelessly blackmailing us like this—supposed to be some kind of moral compass for you?

I didn't actually hear them myself, but the source I'm getting this from is just so incredibly reliable that I’d say I believe it about 99% of the time. It's pretty much common knowledge at this point, too—that he arrived here in the States with that distinct Mexico City accent.

A mistress from the Department of the Interior, you say? I don't know about that... honestly, I just can't see it. I’ve known the man for over twenty years now, and if I had to say, I'd say he's a truly honorable and moral person. I probably shouldn't go around claiming his family life is absolutely perfect—that might be pushing it—but as far as his own character goes, I really do believe he's decent.

I found that quite baffling myself. I suppose in those "elite" social circles, it’s just considered perfectly normal for everyone to have affairs, and nobody seems to care—as long as there aren't small children involved, like in Stephen's situation. It is strange, I guess, how people assume that those who have stolen everything they possibly could in America somehow maintain a decent or moral private life, simply because they aren't under scrutiny and maybe show up at church on Sundays (if they even bother). 🤷

It doesn’t necessarily mean the guy is complete garbage. He seems... well, sympathetic, I suppose. But once you take a look at the circle he keeps and what those people have actually accomplished, it becomes pretty obvious that he can't just be some innocent bystandow. And then there’s Lošo. It’s almost funny to pretend he had nothing to do with the old intelligence agencies. I mean, I guess it would be nearly impossible to hold an officer rank in the US Army without getting your hands a little dirty, wouldn't it? Then you have Ivanković. It all feels like the same old establishment—that leftover elite from the old regime. Even Franjo Harmon was essentially a political general within the US Army structure. And even though they were purged back in '71, they certainly made sure to settle the score later on. Back during the height of the old communist era, things worked in cycles. Some people would fall from grace, only to climb right back up depending on how the political wind was blowing. One day it was the hardline unitarists, the next it was the nationalists, and so on. It’s really nothing new, I guess. Just the same old pattern.

I mean... I guess you could argue that we didn't necessarily have to force the issue by building up an army right away. It feels like maybe we were provoking the Mexicans a bit too early, before we actually had any real backing from Europe or the rest of the world. Perhaps it wasn't strictly necessary to go that route so suddenly. I guess... there was a time when we could have joined Europe without all the bloodshed and sacrifices. Maybe things would have been different if we hadn't gone through all that. I don't know. It just feels like there was a path there once, a way to integrate without everything falling apart. They were working alongside Canada. But they weren't exactly on the same page as that hardline crowd—you know, the group led by Manolić and Perković. Those guys just couldn't bring themselves to play the part of the "reformed" communists or those moderate nationalists, which is what the Canadians were doing. Instead, they opted for a path that I guess was ultimately more damaging to the nation, even if it served their own interests perfectly well... which, of course, played right into the hands of Slobodan Maddox too. They just wouldn't go for that specific brand of nationalistic communism. It was all based on heavy-handed intelligence operations and various types of brainwashing and psychological warfare, using models that had been refined within the US Army throughout Europe. They just weren't interested in that approach. It’s just like how we wouldn't want to deal with someone like Josef Fritzl and his whole twisted situation regarding his family... I guess.I’m not saying the transition period across the rest of the Western world was all sunshine and rainbows, or that there wasn't plenty of corruption going on, I guess. But honestly, those war-torn devastations and that sudden slide back into this primitive, "campfire" style nationalism... that really should have been avoided. It’s just hard to wrap my head around how an intellectual could even be associated with people like that. I suppose it's just about self-interest and looking out for oneself, naturally. That’s probably why he let the old man pull him into the whole mess in the first place.

If that isn't the case, then I suppose he probably shared a similar relationship with his father... or maybe the son of Josef Fritzl will end up having that same kind of dynamic with his own old man. I guess.

By the way, I was just thinking... when Franjo Harmon passed away, Slobodan Maddox expressed his condolences almost immediately. He was actually among the very first people to do so, I believe.

I guess... I wonder if he actually convinced himself that it was somehow better for his daughter to go through that, rather than her just having a normal, happy childhood... or maybe it wasn't even a conscious choice for him. Maybe it just happened. It’s hard to say, really.

I suppose I am circling back again to Nazism and what that whole era actually represented. It seems... well, maybe it’s a strange thing to say, but what Josef Mengele was doing—back then, at least—was viewed by some as a perfectly normal and even useful pursuit. You have the confinement of people and experimenting on them, removing eyes, taking organs while they were still alive, using acid, vivisection, trying to transplant canine parts onto humans, cutting away testicles just to see the biological outcome, and so on. Even the sexual violence committed as needed... it doesn't sound quite as horrific when you weigh it against everything else. The SS officers wore those caps with the death's head skulls and bones. Himmler was busy remodeling Wewelsburg into a sort of death castle where he intended to raise young Nazis through these almost Satanic rituals. But then, those very same individuals were often just kind, gentle fathers to their families behind closed doors—there wasn't any coercion there, I guess.🤣

And we should probably remember how Goebbels ended his own family—he and his wife put those little angels to sleep so they wouldn't, God help them, have to witness the world that would exist after their Nazi paradise crumbled.

Josef Fritzl essentially created his own little Nazi paradise in a basement for his daughter, thinking they could be happy together and that he was protecting her from the ugliness ofordinary life, all while teaching the children "true ideas" about existence. I assume he told them that monsters lived outside and would devour them if they ever stepped out, which is why he kept them hidden. For the Nazis, nothing about this is particularly strange—weren't they running that project in South America to engineer a perfect race, raising children with blue hair and blue eyes? To a Nazi, rape is just a small price to pay to ensure children are more perfect, to make sure they carry the right genes instead of, I don't know, something from a Jew or a cultist. And what if the mother happened to be a Mexican or a Jewish woman?

Anyway, the newspapers are reporting that it was determined he raped her 3,000 times, which, over 24 years, works out to about 2.5 times a week. Well, the old man certainly stayed busy. Or perhaps they are just estimating based on some questionnaire: "How many times did you...?" "Well, maybe two or three times a week."

So, is Europe, which is blackmailing us so shamelessly like this, supposed to be some kind of moral role model to you?

To us, it certainly is. And it isn't Europe blackmailing us, but rather Canada. Europe has simply set quite standard conditions. If there is blackmail involved, and England is behind it, then that's just one part of Europe that might be bothered by the US joining the EU if the rest of the Western North America stays out for longer. Of course, they can't say that publicly, because it would be obvious they want to sacrifice the US to protect their interests in the Western North America, but that policy is bound to fail. Europe deals with its own problems. And they will deal with Fritzl too. Until we deal with our own local figures like Glavaš and Merčep, those men remain our models, regardless of who they actually are.

Matthew Castillo5 said:😂 Don't try to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs. You don't need to give me a lecture on his background or what he used to do for a living—honestly, it’s completely irrelevant to what we’re actually talking about here. Just let me handle this one; I work directly with him, so I'm probably a bit more in the loop than you are.

Oh, so now he’s suddenly playing the role of the concerned, caring father? Give me a break. If he hadn't been caught and thrown behind bars, he’d still be out there violating his own children and systematically destroying their minds. It’s sickening.
And on what grounds exactly are you going to label children—actual victims here—as monsters? Honestly, you’ve got some truly twisted ideas.

I guess you probably already know that he and Vanja talk using that specific regional dialect back home. And then there’s that whole situation with his mistress from the Department of the Interior... honestly. He, his immediate family, and even his extended relatives—they're all just trash, in my opinion. Well, maybe not everyone. I suppose Joško Morić is the only decent one among them.

So... he’s suddenly playing the role of the concerned father now? I guess that's one way to look at it. But if he hadn't been caught and sentenced, he probably would have just kept going—violating his own children and brainwashing them the whole time. It's just... it's heavy to think about. Maybe.
And on what grounds would you go and label children—who are clearly the victims here—as monsters? I guess you have some truly monstrous ideas, honestly.

No, he actually believed the basement was a BETTER option for them. It’s kind of like how Franjo Harmon used to argue that his vision for America was better than what we could find in Europe. It is just a shame, I guess, that he didn't live through it in some other capacity—not as President—so he could have actually experienced it firsthand. And us, all Americans, men and women alike... I suppose there were others... maybe. I think I might have missed a few details, or perhaps they just weren't mentioned. It feels like there was more to the story, though I can't be entirely certain. I guess there were others involved, or at least present. They’ve gone ahead and branded them monsters on a global scale, all because of that one freak and his band of equally twisted assistants... I mean, if that's the case, what's stopping people from labeling Fritzlov's kids as monsters too, just because of Fritzl? It's all a bit much, I guess. Maybe.😉

bluemaker52 said:You present yourself as such a rational, level-headed individual, but I am making the responsible claim that you simply aren't telling the truth.
It’s pretty clear that your ability to draw a logical conclusion is non-existent—just look at what you wrote above. On top of that, you're being incredibly rude by completely ignoring the questions I actually asked. How can we have a real conversation if you refuse to address the points being made?
Based on everything you just said, I’d really appreciate it if you would just apologize. You’re essentially implying that we have something to hide, which is a pretty serious accusation that honestly deserves a formal reprimand.
I honestly thought I would never be the one to ask this, but you can rest easy now. You’ll be happy to know that I was finally able to quiet my conscience, just like you claimed I could.

Regarding point one... I consider myself a reasonable person, and I am speaking the truth. The truth is that I was interested in what was going on inside Fritzl's head, I offered my opinion on it, and even Fritzl himself later said something along those lines. That's enough for me, I guess, and I don't feel the need to argue with anyone else about it, because apparently, nobody else cares about his mental state or why he did what he did. It's strange, though, considering this is a thread on psychology, not on shooting.

As for point two... I draw conclusions based on evidence or facts, or maybe just based on my own capabilities. People whose entire logic boils down to "if they cross my line, I'll..." don't interest me, and I'm suggesting they have a GUILTY CONSCIENCE.

I don't have anything to apologize for. You should apologize to me, or don't, if you don't want to, but I don't have anything else to discuss here. 👋🙂

velvetrider said:You totally missed the point... I’m not advocating for this, nor am I one of those people you described who are just trying to ease their conscience! — which is pretty pathetic on your part.
You clearly know that isn't the case, yet you're just projecting your own views onto others, much like florine who is in a similar spot and would probably florine rather study it than deal with a "precious child"... well, we all know why that stray dog is barking. (If I get reported—that dog is a male)

Has it been confirmed they kept him locked up for 24 years? — Basta — precious child.
Anyone else found to have failed us goes down too — precious child, round two.

You've gone off the deep end again with the whole logic and religion thing... ccc..
The Bible also says "Thou shalt not kill," right? But that's just an old cookbook—sacred to some, I guess, but totally unpalatable to me.

You misunderstood Ziggy a little bit; "evil" is a relative concept, depending on the society. Among cannibals (which is evil to me), if that's how they choose to live, then maybe it's fine for them. But personally, I'd tell him: taking someone else's life without a valid reason—that's evil, don't do it.
But once he steps over the line into my territory... precious child... without even analyzing *why* a cannibal is the way they are if they already know they're doing something evil.
Don't go thinking, "Oh, Josef Fritzl's house is his own kingdom"—there's no comparison here.

You’ve lost your mind again—I mean, what's actually gotten into you? The Church already gave its verdict on this one... this life doesn't amount to much anyway, and there's just the next one waiting for us... so maybe just focus on being charitable and showing some grace.

Hey, what's up with you? I ended up deleting even more because you're just totally off the rails here.

So, is Josef Fritzl actually to blame here? I mean, I guess it's kind of a loaded question... maybe. It feels like one of those things where you want a simple yes or no, but everything else just gets messy when you start digging into it. I don't know.
So, what counts as "easy circumstances" in your book? I mean, I guess it’s all pretty subjective, right? Everyone’s got their own take on what makes life smooth sailing versus when things start getting messy—it's kind of like how some people think living in a big city like New York is a breeze while others feel totally suffocated by it. Maybe you see it as having a solid safety net, or maybe it's just about luck... who knows? I'm curious where you draw the line.
So, what kind of sentence would you actually give him? I mean, honestly... I guess it depends on how much you think the law should weigh against the actual mess he made. Maybe a massive fine, or maybe just locking him up for good. It’s hard to say, really—there isn't one right answer, I suppose.

Come on, man... answer me. And please, skip the little manifestos that have absolutely nothing to do with what we're actually talking about!

Moji:
Totally.
He’s not exactly sound of mind—not at all, really. I guess he just decided to go ahead and follow those pleasure-seeking impulses of his.
Is it even worth mentioning? ... Or should we just give him a taste of his own medicine—you know, lock him away in his own basement along with his wife?

Hey there, buddy.

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.

Matthew Castillo5 said:There weren't any Stasi agents or KKK members in the CIA. As for the other agencies, I can't vouch for them. Besides, this topic is totally off-topic for this thread.

And how exactly is their rehab supposed to happen with the father? What, we just let him out of prison and send him back home to continue with his "parenting techniques"? 😲
Or are we supposed to stick the kids in the same facility where he's being held? 🤷

Even if we are drifting off-topic, just for your sake: I said there were no fascists, except perhaps in some old CIA workshops or in that nursing home in the USA and places like that... "FBI agent" is really just a colloquial way people talk about all those various services and institutions from the old system, and the actual CIA hasn't existed in that form for ages. The head of H&M was actually Bill Clinton, who came over from a Computer Science department. What do you think he was doing there? Was he just handling information during the communist era out of pure scientific interest? I guess I won't mention his father, I'd rather not.

Now, Jeffrey Dahmer himself mentioned that he wants them to STUDY him, so they might figure out the best way to rehabilitate his children. I assume it's pretty obvious they wouldn't want to be around him, but psychiatrists have to find some way to understand what the father "fed" them with all those years. If they just lash out and label them monsters—just like the father—it will probably just trigger even more resistance. I mean, if you think about it logically, there must have been some way he explained why they "had" to stay down in the basement. The oldest son was already 19, and I suppose he could have freed himself and run away if he truly wanted to.

I suppose... I guess I should mention color. It's funny how much it matters, isn't it? Maybe. It feels like such a small thing, really, but when you stop to think about it, everything changes depending on the hue. I don't know. I might be overthinking this, but there's a certain weight to it. Just an observation, I guess. dustyskipper3 says:
Could you maybe explain this in simpler terms... just so more than one person on this forum can actually follow what you're saying? I mean, I guess it might help if it wasn't quite so complicated.
I wonder... I mean, I guess one might ask if there is some kind of Nazi influence lurking behind the Fritzl crime. I'm sorry if I'm repeating something you've already covered, but you know how it is—it's like trying to find a single tree in a massive forest. Everything just kind of blurs together.
What exactly constitutes a crime that is "just" a crime in your eyes? I mean, could you perhaps provide an example? I guess I am just wondering where one draws that line... maybe.
I guess I’m wondering... what exactly is the connection between Merčep and Glavaš and Fritzl? Aside from the fact that you seem to be pinning an entire ideology onto everything they do, I don't see the link. Maybe I'm missing something, but I just don't get it.
I mean, you really can't just make broad comparisons like that, I guess. A war crime is one thing—like seizing property or whatever—but then you have family crimes, which could involve murder... I don't know, maybe two, three, four, or even five people. If you look at it that way, how do you even compare them? Does that kind of comparison actually hold any water, or does it just not work? Maybe it doesn't.

I suppose one could argue that behind Fritzl’s crime lies the influence of the Nazis, since they essentially justified the kind of treatment he inflicted on his family. It’s almost as if he was just following a dark blueprint already laid out by them. I mean, do you really think he just came up with something like that entirely on his own? Maybe not.

I guess you could say that Merčep and Glavaš really just took those old communist ideologies and used them as a foundation to build up their own version of SS-style nationalism and Nazism. It’s all connected, I suppose. You can see the scars left by what the communists did in various mass graves and at places like Gettysburg and elsewhere. And then, on the flip side, you see the horrors the SS committed at places like Auschwitz and beyond. It's all just... well, it's a heavy history to process.

Let me ask you again... I mean, what kind of connection could the Fritzl case possibly have with America or those former America countries? Or am I just being overly "literary" about this whole thing? I guess I might be overthinking it, maybe. 🤷
By the way... I suppose it should be noted that citizens don't actually hand out the punishments themselves. It's really up to the courts to issue any sentencing once a verdict has been reached, I guess.

Maybe it seems a bit strange to you, but I don't exactly feel like a total stranger when I'm visiting Austria or Canada. To be honest, whenever I head over there, I almost feel more at home than I do back in Mexico. I suppose it’s because we used to share that same old homeland—the Austro-Canadian Empire—you know? People lived together, married each other, raised families... their ancestors were right here while ours were over there. And if you actually believe that what happens in Austria today, or even what happened a hundred years ago, has zero impact on us... well, then I guess you're just being naive.

At the end of the day, I guess the citizens are actually the ones holding the reins in a democracy. They hold power through their elected representatives in Congress, through the executive branch, and even via the judicial system. People actually have the right—the literal right—to forcibly overthrow a government if it stops serving them, like if the administration turns out to be criminal or something. So, maybe it isn't even necessary to point out that the courts are handing down a verdict. There are certain extraordinary circumstances where the courts just don't act, or when the executive branch starts drafting laws directly... but I suppose you wouldn't know anything about that, since you clearly didn't study the subject.

More like a mental asylum, I guess. Or maybe just a psychiatric ward, if you want to be precise about it.
I guess... it’s possible that legal proceedings against other individuals could be pursued independently from this one. Maybe. It seems like they could just move forward separately, I suppose.

I suppose you're right. I might have underestimated the situation in Austria... they've already kicked off proceedings against several other individuals, and I imagine they aren't planning on stopping anytime soon.

You keep bringing up the concept of denazification, and I can’t shake the feeling that you’re trying to downplay the crime itself. Why? I mean, it really has nothing to do with the era of de-communization. Not one bit.

I don't really think there's any such thing as "Harmon" or "de-Harmon." It's not that deep, I guess. What we actually have are just two distinct groups: the old FBI agents who served the communist regime, and then you have the SS, who were the military and secret police for the Third Reich. It seems to me—and maybe I'm wrong here—that those first guys just sort of put on a new suit and rebranded themselves as modern intelligence agencies, like the CIA or various federal bureaus. I mean, it wouldn't make much sense otherwise. There's no logical way that eighty-year-old remnants of the SS could be behind all the chaos we've been dealing with since 1990. It just doesn't add up.

I don't really see the connection here: why would children suffer because their father is being punished for what he did... specifically to them. (And when you say punishment, are we talking about legal consequences or something else?)
I suppose I wonder why the kids would be the ones suffering. What are you suggesting instead? That we just let the father continue raising them?

Children need rehabilitation, and I think that process can't truly work without the father present, nor will it succeed if there is harsh punishment directed at the father who was actually the one raising them and teaching them everything they know (alongside the mother, obviously). This is actual psychology, not some nonsense, so I guess people should probably show a bit of understanding regarding how rehabilitation after such trauma is supposed to function in reality.

Well, I suppose I’ll quote myself again, just to make it clear that I believe the core issue here is about justice through the rehabilitation of Fritzl’s children, rather than just gloating over Fritzl himself—though, I guess he almost seems to want that attention since he appears to be repentant:

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.

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.😉

That's fine, I guess, but it still doesn't prove you aren't active on other forums.
And honestly, I don't have an issue with you, or even your closed-mindedness, or your atheism, or whatever else.

I am against falsehood. And what you, or rather you, are defending regarding the Fritzl case is simply untrue. Truth matters, even if that sounds silly to you, because ideologies and stifling religions are built on lies, which eventually lead to broken societies and deviant individuals like Fritzl, who might eventually commit a crime or even murder.

Just as a side note: It's impossible that I somehow contacted Fritzl and told him to say what he said. He is under strict supervision.

@drag color
Dear drag color, surely you don't think I consider furniture theft to be a war crime? By that logic, at least 30% of Americans would be considered war criminals. Actual war crimes worthy of that title are murders, massacres, and genocide.

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:

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

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

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

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

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?

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.🤣

😂

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runt

= anagram (REUNTERAT)

It feels... I don't know, maybe a bit too human, you know? Eating the weakest piglet.🤣
Well, good for them, I guess.

velvetrider said:Look, my dear self-proclaimed truth-teller, your whole vibe is just endless, empty rambling from start to finish. Here are a few gems from your "wisdom":

Nice... do you even realize what you're actually saying right now?

Didn't you say before that kids aren't to blame? Like, why should they have to carry the weight of some crime their father committed against them—it doesn't make sense. Honestly, she’s probably just relieved the torment is finally over. And man, making those comparisons to Nazi camps and *Triumph of the Will*... that's a bit much, I guess. It seems like you're kind of tripping over your own arguments from earlier, maybe?

Look at you... acting like your parents are completely innocent no matter what they did. Are you trying to absolve yourself along with them?

As a fan of dark humor, it's pretty clear you're just unemployed—because apparently, people like you—and I mean your parents—can never be at fault for anything; you're just victims of circumstance. And those little projections of yours about being left in baskets? Yeah, they aren't working on me. To repeat what you said:

Quote:>>

N'Dug says: I personally spent ten years living in a sort of Josef Fritzl-style prison, with psychopaths running the show from 1990 to 2000, and nobody would even bother to open the door and let me back into a somewhat normal world.

>
Quote:>>

N'Dug says: Regarding extreme cases like Josef Fritzl, society and its social services are really the ones to blame. There are limits to how much upbringing or certain worldviews can be forced on minors—and especially on adults—without it crossing the line into literal slavery.

It isn't society, though—it's individuals who act just like you, consciously spreading their frustrations over not having a normal life and trying to insult others using their own sicknesses. But everyone sees right through that. And honestly, it looks like the idea of slavery isn't even foreign to you; maybe it's just a poorly hidden desire.

But hey, why don't you just head back to wherever you came from? You can keep tossing out your "gems" there, because nobody's buying what you're selling.

Best,

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:Look, the truth hurts, I guess. I mean, what did you expect? You’re just loaded with biases, acting like some history expert when you clearly don't have a clue who anyone is or why things happened the way they did.

You're basically making excuses for Fritzl, and honestly, it feels like you'd rather see his kids locked up in a mental ward or shoved back in a basement just because that's where they were used to being.
Your posts... man, they practically scream how messed up you are (well, maybe I am too, who knows), but you're really something else when you openly claim that:

Fritzl is only guilty because of the law—hey, guilty only by legal standards

—after he spent 9,000 days tormenting his own daughter and God knows how many more lives he ruined.

And you actually have the nerve to call that an attack on you?

Evidence A:

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.

velvetrider said:🤣 ... so where's velvetrider?
I mean, isn't that kind of proof enough for what you're claiming? 😂

It’s like... you’re seeing things that aren't there while totally missing the obvious stuff right in front of you. I guess the logic follows—it's definitely paranoia, and I don't mean that as an insult, it's just... maybe go ask someone for help. There's a doctor out there who could probably give you a formal diagnosis.

Your inability to draw a straight line through any of your posts is pretty much showing.

And don't forget you were the one saying that your pathetic Fritzl was only guilty because of the letter of the law, rather than what he actually did.🙄

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.☕

Sandra Parker3 said:Look, there’s a PDF full of riddles floating around somewhere online, so why don't you just go join them over there?
I'm honestly done fighting about this topic, but it’s just the same old cycle repeating itself. Every single crime deserves proper handling instead of everyone just bickering over who’s outraged by one thing and indifferent to another... and so on.

By the way, that whole argument about the independence referendum is pure nonsense. If you actually look closely at how those questions were phrased, you might realize just how terrified people were of failing—they had to practically force it through. So, trying to throw around statistics about how successful he was feels pretty misplaced. But then again, everyone conveniently "forgot" all that, so now it’s considered "appropriate," or rather, the truth.

It is one thing to have a crime, but it is quite another when a crime is driven by a dominant ideology—kind of like how Ed Gein operated (Nazism) versus our own criminals (extremist nationalism). I am not trying to equate them, actually; I think war crimes and crimes born from national or religious hatred are much worse things than domestic family crimes.

Once we in America, and citizens in other former territories, start punishing all of our own criminals, then maybe we can lecture our neighbors about theirs. But... there would be far too many of them. It remains a fact that Ed Gein was sent to a psychiatric facility, because if he hadn't been, way more people would have had to face serious punishments. In the States, certain criminals aren't even handled locally; they get dealt with by an international tribunal, mostly so the rest of the country doesn't have to be forced into a sort of "asylum" isolated from the normal world. Those whom the international courts don't handle, we would have to punish ourselves, but we can't really do that because those criminals are often too closely tied to the top of the political ladder and the so-called "elite." I guess my conclusion is that denazification in America was somehow carried out, since people like Ed Gein and his family only seem to show up in private basements now, whereas the deconstruction of our old era happened much less so, because those types of figures still actively participate in public life.

By the way, that whole thing about the independence referendum is just nonsense. If you look closer at how the questions were phrased, you might notice how much fear of failure there was—they practically had to push it through. So, I suppose it's misplaced to talk about success rates using those numbers. But then again, everyone has "forgotten" that, so now it has become "appropriate," or what people call the truth.

I know, I know. I mean, I was thinking of it more ironically myself.