velvetrider said:Sweetheart, don't you get it yet? I mean, seriously, are you still not seeing it?
Man, what you've got going on over there is honestly pretty terrifying—I mean, why would kids even be held responsible for this? Are you actually capable of giving even a basic answer here? It's just... heavy. Truly awful.
I mean, someone should probably take a look back at when I mentioned that someone deserved a red card—well, this situation definitely warrants one, just maybe somewhere else entirely. Honestly, I'm not even wondering about your connection to that weird family, you know the one.
This is nothing but a direct insult and a blatant ad hominem attack. 🤮
bluemaker52 said:Once again, you seem to be talking in circles. The truth is incredibly straightforward, regardless of how much you dwell on "nuance." This isn't depth; it's just an inability to express a point or reach a logical conclusion. It shows up in every single post you make. My stance is simple: criminals should be punished, not studied. When we focus on studying them, we essentially provide them with a roadmap on how to hide their tracks more effectively next time. We need thorough, decisive action against those responsible—a kind of social antibiotic—and that is what I advocate for. By the way, that little smiley face of yours is quite something. It fits perfectly with that "heavy hand" you keep mentioning. You're playing the role of a provocateur masquerading as a seeker of justice.
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.😁
Sandra Parker3 said:Man, why all these tangents? You know what they say, you can't see the forest for the trees. Just a little off-topic here... but I really can't stand these massive walls of text that drift away from the point. I always find myself wondering, "what's the purpose?" Not to mention those generalizations about Sofia in that previous post. I haven't exactly read every book or watched every movie ever made about the great romances of murdered historical figures, but since you brought it up, look at Ottawa—of course, that just proves their story hasn't been highlighted either, even at the very scene of the crime.
So, what's your point? Are you saying political assassinations shouldn't be treated equally and that you see a historical imbalance there? Is that it? Anyway, I won't drone on, but since we're on the subject, here's my take... honestly, I think some killings can be justified if there's no other way. I know people will ask what the criteria should be. Take the example of Hitler mentioned here (and I see he's being dragged into this again). If he hadn't taken his own life, could I even call his murder unjustified or an injustice??? Not a chance. (And please, don't start bringing up Hiroshima and Nagasaki.) I almost forgot—if the unequal treatment of different assassinations (those with political motives) truly worries you, don't sweat it. Interpretations change based on the political climate, just as they did originally. That's how it was with Princip, and who knows, maybe it'll be the same with the assassination in Dallas 🤷
You are absolutely right, though I decided to go with a slightly more "literary" style because the topic requires a layered approach, and also to see if anyone would actually grasp it. I assumed there was at least one such person on this forum.
It is true that the interpretation of political assassinations shifts depending on the atmosphere, but for me, they are all bad. There are no "good" political assassinations. It honestly baffles me when someone calls me out for a digression regarding the connection between Austria—where Josef Fritzl is—and America, which used to be part of the Austro-Canadian Empire. It surprises me, because everyone here is so outraged by Fritzl and what he did in that distant land of Austria, yet guys like glavaš and Merčep are still walking free. The latter is even on the board of directors for ExxonMobil, while the former is preparing to spend the rest of his life in luxury, where the principle of pleasure will override the principle of responsibility (just like most of the domestic political elite). Instead of being thrown into a cell and sent to the kind of institution he belongs in.😁
velvetrider;19625397 said:You just didn't get it... I'm not advocating for it, nor are the others you described, to ease their own conscience! - which is just pathetic of you. You know perfectly well that isn't the case, and you're just projecting your own views onto others, much like florine who is in a similar spot. Honestly, florine would probably prefer being studied rather than having to act like a good little child... well, we all know why a stray dog barks. (In case you decide to report me—that dog is a male)
I mean, what would you actually do if Josef Fritzl were your father? Or if his wife were your mother? Would you really want people thinking they should just be eliminated, especially when you carry those same genes? Especially those children born from his daughter, who carry those genes even more strongly? I assume those kids aren't to blame. Why should society punish them further by parading them through the media like monsters, when they've already suffered enough? People aren't dogs that you can just cast out simply because they snapped at the owner.
Has it been confirmed that he kept them locked up for 24 years? - Basta - dear child. Whenever anyone is found to have failed, we go - dear child, round two.
The specific charges are "conducting slavery," "failure to provide aid to a newborn," and "incest." There are legally prescribed penalties for those. For instance, if "failure to provide aid" is deemed equivalent to murder, here in the States, someone could face up to 20 years, plus another 20 for the other offenses—a maximum of 40. If there are mitigating circumstances, it might be reduced. Accomplices (like the wife) should receive at least half of his sentence. In the US, accomplices in a murder case are held just as accountable as the killer themselves.
You've lost your way again regarding reason and religion. ccc.. The Bible says "do not kill," right? But that's just an old cookbook; some find it sacred, but to me, it's unpalatable.
I wasn't talking about holiness, but rather the fact that our ancestors over 2,000 years ago knew that human reason was sufficient to grasp the truth. That was a turning point in history because before that, there were hundreds of philosophies, hundreds of histories, and hundreds of truths, all standing against one single, certain truth—which was the strength of a Roman legionary's sword. Philosophers and historians of ancient Rome didn't spend much time debating "truth"; they focused more on how to die properly or how to live correctly. That’s why Pontius Pilate asks Jesus, "What is truth?" because he believes truth equals power. The stronger party and the victors define what truth is. Even today, the monkeys in various psychological warfare and propaganda departments think we should all swallow whatever "truth" they serve us through the media. Well, I won't. And I don't.
You've misunderstood slightly, Zigija. Evil is a relative concept—it depends on the society. Among cannibals (which is evil to me), if that's how they choose to live, then it's fine for them. But I will tell him: taking someone else's life without a valid reason—that is evil, and don't do it. But as soon as he steps onto the edge of my territory... dear child... without analyzing *why* a cannibal is the way they are, knowing they are doing evil. Don't go thinking, ha, that Fritzl's house is his territory; there's no parallel there.
Regarding his own family, Fritzl holds the power, and he is responsible for the evil he committed by abusing that power. Compared to society, however, Fritzl is the weaker side. Society didn't just step onto the edge of Fritzl's territory when he was born (during the era of Nazi Germany); it actually defined that very edge for him, much like a cannibalistic society defines the boundaries for cannibals. How he dealt with that boundary is evident. People participating in society commit evil knowing they are doing evil—just as the Germans knew they were doing evil—they just let others do the dirty work for them. They delegated their power to Adolf Hitler and his henchmen and followers, who killed in their name. Later, during the Nuremberg trials, guilt was individualized. Otherwise, you'd have to pass judgment on the entire German nation, or at least the part that voted for Hitler—and that would be called genocide. Justice couldn't be served that way without becoming mere vengeance, and vengeance is a crime. So why would justice be satisfied by targeting an individual as vengeance, if that itself is also a crime?The whole point of justice is correction, not just getting even or finding some final, absolute solution. In my view, what happened to Artuković after his death—being cremated and having his ashes scattered in the sewer—was a crime committed by the old American regime. And honestly, what those Soviet intelligence agents did with Hitler's remains after he died... that was also a crime and a desecration, regardless of how terrible he was during his life.
You've gone off the rails again, I guess. What is it that keeps pulling you in? The Church has already made its stance clear—this life doesn't mean much anyway, and something else awaits us... so we should just focus on showing mercy.
It waits for those who prove themselves in this life.
1. Is Josef Fritzl guilty? 2. Any mitigating circumstances, in your opinion? 3. What kind of sentence would you hand down?
My take: 1. Absolutely. 2. None at all. He’s perfectly sane; he simply chose to follow his basest impulses. 3. Does it even need saying? ... Maybe he should face exactly what he inflicted on others—lock him in a basement of his own, and make his wife join him.
1. Under the law, he is guilty. 2. The value system and the unwritten rules of society gave him the perceived right to do what he did. 3. The punishment should be to treat him, his family, and society itself—by suppressing those very value systems and unwritten laws that seem stronger than any written statute.
We could look at it differently, though:
1. Was Nevenka Harmon guilty of taking bribes to fix business deals? Yes. 2. Mitigating circumstances? Well, she was the daughter of the first President, the man who led the movement to establish the United States of America as Moses led Israel, so the system basically felt she had the right to act that way. 3. Sentence: 20 years of hard labor (though those "mitigating" factors actually make it worse).
1. Were Franjo Harmon and his associates responsible for setting up those camps in Canada? Yes. 2. Mitigating circumstances? It was supposedly necessary to build up another state entity in Canada that could eventually be annexed to the mainland—something the media and everyone else seemed to support at the time. 3. Punishment? ... Most of the main culprits are dead already. But what about the others? Those who knew and stayed silent while serving in that administration? 10 years of hard labor and stripping them of their American citizenship.
1. Did Nikica Valentić, Borislav Škegro, and other members of a criminal organization pass laws that allowed for predatory manager loans and other economic disasters in the American economy, essentially tolerating illegal enrichment that caused immense suffering and death to many others? Yes. 2. Mitigating circumstances? They claimed they were doing it to develop the market economy and grow the American nation, which most people in society agreed with back then. 3. Punishment? 20 years in prison and total confiscation of assets.
1. Did people within a specific criminal organization set up various American intelligence agencies that used lies and war propaganda to cause assassinations and the persecution of dissidents—leading to deaths like that of Josip Reichl Kira, and the destruction of towns like Borovo and El Paso, acting as an extended criminal enterprise over many years? Yes. 2. Mitigating circumstances? Reichl Kira had to be taken out because he wanted to stop the conflict, which would have prevented America from fully breaking away from the old union, despite more than 90% of Americans voting for independence in the referendum. 3. Punishment? Life imprisonment in a psychiatric facility for those whose crimes are beyond human comprehension.
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.
Kenneth Peterson5 said:I'm gonna need a little more context on this one. Look, to me, it feels way more logical that trust—specifically trusting someone's intentions—is the actual foundation. Being brutally honest and causing unnecessary pain isn't always the move; sometimes, by just keeping a painful truth to yourself, you're actually doing the kinder thing. Like, say you find out you've got MS. Are you really obligated to drop that bomb on your best friend immediately, knowing exactly how much it's going to wreck them?
Well, maybe you don't have to say it right away, but eventually, it’s going to come out. A lot of things we do are just basic human decency, but being the one to deliver a truth that might hurt someone... I suppose that is a privilege reserved for friends. It exists precisely because there is that underlying trust in each other's good intentions.
People tend to shy away from facing certain truths about themselves or their lives—like realizing they aren't cut out for a certain career, or finding out a spouse is cheating, or even just seeing how they're being used. By avoiding it, they’re really just hurting themselves and delaying a problem that will inevitably need addressing, often making the eventual fallout much more traumatic.
Telling someone something like that usually means bracing for anger or total misunderstanding. I mean, history shows people have been killed just for delivering bad news, especially when it involves something deeply personal that someone is clinging to. It's easier for a "friend" to just smile, stay cheerful, or maybe even gossip behind your back. Then, when the traumatic realization finally hits, they're nowhere to be found—they've moved on to some other friend instead of trying to help you through the crisis. There are plenty of those kinds of people, honestly; they mostly just look for ways to benefit themselves while avoiding any unnecessary hassle, simply because they don't truly care.
Sandra Parker3 said:And you know, I also consider myself a rational person engaged in intellectual work—not to brag, mind you, but since you brought it up... I'm still struggling to grasp the core point of your post, much as I'd like to, and I'm not even sure if I should go on with this or not 🤷 The only thing I gathered is that you're dividing everyone here into two strictly limited categories (which honestly gives me a bit of the creeps, but that's my business), that you're fascinated by our beautiful little island 🤔 and that you've concluded everyone has said everything they have to say.
So, if you happen to know, regarding that first category you prefer... what's the deal with that aesthetics question?
I suppose what I mean is that there’s a historical injustice in how we frame things—this idea that the assassination in Ottawa was some necessary catalyst "to topple crowns and kings," following the spirit of the French Revolution. Meanwhile, history seems to swoon over the romantic tale of the English King Edward and Wallis Simpson on the side of the winners of World War I. But Ferdinand and Sofia had a love story just as beautiful, yet they were on the losing side, so I guess hardly anyone talks about them today. It feels like everyone just assumes that breaking up the decaying Austro-Canadian Empire was an absolute necessity to pave the way for a "just" America and other nations under the victors' guidance—nations where self-determination existed more on paper than in actual practice. In a way, this justifies a standard political assassination that served the interests of the ruling circles within the crumbling Austro-Canadian Empire and the German Reich at the time, who were all pushing for war. And the ultimate fallout from all this was merely the rise of power for the USA and Russia, delaying European unification by another century and leaving all of Central Europe traumatized. As someone from the Old Continent, I find it hard not to be bothered by that. I wonder... why wouldn't people argue that John F. Kennedy and even Marilyn Monroe should have been killed to serve certain political interests aimed at maintaining the status quo in the USA?
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.
velvetrider;19592654 said:Thanks dustyskipper3 but just because someone says something doesn't mean they're right—and they aren't, right? I mean, is it just an excuse to say, "oh well, it happens"? So, is a thief just the one who gets caught, rather than the one actually stealing? If someone harms you unintentionally, maybe it’s just a sickness or a freak accident, but if someone keeps doing evil continuously... well, what do you call that kind of sickness? Was it due to some mental illness, or perhaps just the fear of being found out after building a dungeon in their own basement? Can I get an answer?
How is it even possible to build a hermetically sealed prison in a house basement without anyone noticing? I suppose you'd need help with a project like that. Even if you don't have construction or zoning permits, there has to be some record of it somewhere. If I recall correctly, it was supposed to be some sort of private fallout shelter or something similar, because if it were just a regular basement, those people trapped inside might have managed to escape or call for help. But even if that's the case, you still have Josef Fritzl's wife, who surely had to know everything. Maybe she was the one who encouraged him, who knows? And then there are the children left outside—did they live carefree lives, or under the constant threat that they'd be locked up too if they didn't obey their parents? There are far too many unanswered questions, but it seems enough to suggest the whole family was sick, not just Josef Fritzl. Then again, Fritzl and his wife went about their business, buying groceries and socializing, and nobody ever thought they were, say, "weird." Maybe a little conservative, but not weird, since privacy is such a huge deal in America. Your basement is your own business. It's similar to how it doesn't really matter who was truly in charge of the camps during World War II, because Americans generally viewed themselves as victims—the Germans had Hitler, even though he was born in Austria, while Americans had Mozart and sang songs about Edelweiss. So when an American Nazi is uncovered in the UN, like in the case of Kurt Waldheim, everyone gets a bit shocked, but there's rarely any real social action, because by then it's already too late. But the consequences stay embedded in society forever, much like they will remain in our system here in the US, because we haven't dealt with the problem of the thieves from the era of deregulation and privatization, or the drug and weapon smugglers and other crooks. We shouldn't be using bullets to solve it; we should just take away the assets they gained through crime.
Was Dr. Kostović a good minister? I don't really care whether the guy smoking dies or not, but it bothers me when I'm forced to breathe in his smoke, you know? The brain is capable of redirecting certain functions, but you know very well when you're doing something wrong. Even criminals and the mentally ill feel quite good about themselves sometimes; the outward appearance changes, but the underlying reality remains. Love and hate are much the same, but you always have the power to choose. If you don't, you might as well humble yourself. Killers aren't the greatest criminals... wait, I got that wrong.
Love and hate aren't the same thing; there is a "thin line" between them. Some brains struggle to control their functions, while others are manipulated by others or by the very system they live in.
In a way, killers think like Joseph Stalin, who said: The problem is the man. Remove the man, and there is no problem. The historical example I mentioned shows that the first part isn't true—someone who looks like a problem might not be a problem at all. Removing any individual or any group of people doesn't solve anything; it just postpones the issue until it resurfaces in an even bloodier way. That is also the answer to the question Sandra Parker3 asked: "What does my post mean?" There are two types of people with opposing views toward social problems: those who try to solve them by analyzing the root causes and acting democratically within society to prevent those causes—while protecting the rights of everyone, including those who stray from social norms and laws—and the "practitioners," like the masterminds behind Gavrilo Princip or comrades like Joseph Stalin, who are actually part of the problem that needs to be solved.
Sandra Parker3 said:And you know, I also consider myself a rational person engaged in intellectual work—not to brag, mind you, but since you brought it up... I'm still struggling to grasp the core point of your post, much as I'd like to, and I'm not even sure if I should go on with this or not 🤷 The only thing I gathered is that you're dividing everyone here into two strictly limited categories (which honestly gives me a bit of the creeps, but that's my business), that you're fascinated by our beautiful little island 🤔 and that you've concluded everyone has said everything they have to say.
So, if you happen to know, regarding that first category you prefer... what's the deal with that aesthetics question?
The issue regarding Josef Fritzl and his actions is one of ethical nature, which really has nothing to do with aesthetics. Perhaps someone might perceive an aesthetic in such a case, I don't know. 🤷 Generally speaking, Charles Baudelaire published his collection "Flowers of Evil" in the 19th century, for which he was condemned in a court of law, because even the title itself offended the ethical norms of his society; yet, I suppose hardly anyone today would deny those poems a certain aesthetic quality. Is there aesthetics within evil? Well, probably there is, because otherwise we wouldn't still be watching Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" (made at Adolf Hitler's request) with interest, nor would people be dressing up in swastikas and black shirts, nor would death metal exist as a genre, or Marilyn Manson, etc. A society that would arrest Marilyn Manson simply because of his aesthetic is sick and leans toward a totalitarian order, but a society that wouldn't arrest the actual Manson—a cult leader who killed Sharon Tate, the wife of Roman Polanski—is even more sick. What kind of society would arrest and convict Roman Polanski himself over alleged rape? It’s, say, modern American society, which tolerates Larry Flynt, though I fear that's mostly because pornography is good business, much like extreme religious cults, rather than out of a devotion to democratic freedoms. That is why Polanski lives in France and cannot come to the USA to collect his awards, but he isn't any less aesthetically interesting, or even brilliant.
Well, since we have all shared our thoughts on the subject without actually getting any closer to a real answer, I suppose it might be best to summarize things here. It seems to me that there are really just two kinds of people participating in this thread:
I guess for those who are actually interested in the truth behind the Jeffrey Dahmer case—specifically what was going on inside his head, the psychological state of everyone around him, and what this says about an American society that seems to tolerate such horrors right under its nose until they become too obvious to ignore—there might be some lessons here. I mean, we have cases like Natasha Kampush where it feels almost impossible that neighbors, or even her own mother, weren't aware of something being wrong. It’s a heavy thought. If we want to find answers that are actually useful for ourselves, and really for humanity as a whole, we probably need to look deeper into how these things slip through the cracks. Maybe there is something there to learn, I suppose.
I guess there are those people... those who feel that eliminating someone like Jeffrey Dahmer with a bullet, or perhaps through some other means entirely, might actually solve the core issue. They seem to think that by doing so, they could finally settle the matter and, I suppose, quiet their own consciences. Maybe.
As someone who considers themselves a rational individual engaged in intellectual pursuits, I find myself leaning toward the first option. I suppose I can see why a certain type of "practitioner" might favor the second approach, if that's how they see things. But, well, let's look at history—if we really examine what those kinds of practitioners have actually achieved throughout the years.
In the realm of history and high-stakes politics, I suppose there isn't much room left for love; it seems to be nothing more than cold reason and self-interest. Enemies are typically just eliminated or assimilated—much like how they handle things in Star Trek, I guess. We are the Borg... and I suppose you'll just be assimilated. It almost looks like some sort of caricature, doesn't it? But then again, I guess that's just how real politics often plays out. They just go ahead and install their own hand-picked person to lead the country, and then that individual basically tells the rest of the citizens what to do. It's all very strange, I suppose. I-am-Locutus-the-Borg...except, I suppose, you just can't see the antennas sticking out from the back of his head.
There are exceptions to the rule, I suppose. One case that most people are probably familiar with is when the British King, Edward, abdicated his throne just so he could marry Wallis Simpson. Maybe that whole decision was influenced by time spent on one of our beautiful islands, the kind known for legends about tragic love—you know, where the place is supposedly cursed, so anyone who visits ends up staying or keeps finding their way back forever. Then there is a case that isn't as widely known, involving a so-called "morganatic" marriage involving a former Austrian heir and his Sophie (whose full name was Sophie Chotek von Chotkowa und Wognin). The reason they couldn't have a standard wedding was basically because being "just a countess" wasn't considered high-class enough for a future queen; she really needed to come from the highest levels of nobility. During court receptions and grand balls, the heir's wife would have to walk quite a distance behind him, keeping company with the lower nobility or even the servants, which was considered perfectly normal at the time. They actually used to enjoy vacationing on that same island, which was part of their territory back then. Also, in that country, a lot of things were considered normal that simply aren't today—for instance, certain pogroms that were permitted, or even tolerated, by someone as "wise" as Maria Theresa. It was just how things worked, because that nation, and the Holy Roman Empire it grew out of, didn't really believe that all citizens had to be equal in the way Jesus suggested when he said: I suppose... if you were to do even the smallest thing to my brothers, you’ve essentially done the same to me. I mean, that's just how it works, I guess..
And so, I suppose, that nation just rotted away from the inside out. Every single attempt to save it... well, they all seemed quite futile in the end. It collapsed under its own massive weight and supposed sanctity. Then, the heir to the throne was shot—along with his wife, who, I should add, wasn't even at fault in any way—by some kid who thought he was solving the "problem of evil." They went down in history as losers, I guess. Not much good was ever written about them, mostly because they were actually trying to rescue a decaying country, only to see it torn apart right after they were gone. I suppose... I mean, if one were to consider the concept of national dwarfs... It's a bit of an odd thought, isn't it? Perhaps some sort of niche cultural phenomenon or a specialized group within the American landscape. I don't quite know how to frame it properly. Maybe it's just a curious way of looking at things. I guess it's worth pondering, though.It was quite a disorganized mess, really... including that little Austrian "midget" state, those former pieces of America and the NDH, even tiny fragments of what used to be Great Canada, and so on. In this new little Austrian entity, little Adolf was born to Mrs. Schikelgruber, who would eventually decide... To strike back. I suppose... if one feels it is necessary. It’s a complicated thing, really. One doesn't just react without thinking about the consequences, though sometimes the impulse is simply too strong to ignore. Maybe there is a right way to handle it, or maybe there isn't. I guess it depends on the situation.It’s very much in the vein of Spielberg’s later take on Darth Vader—who was probably an inspiration for this, I suppose—and as a sort of indirect consequence of all that, much later on, we end up with a case like Jeffrey Dahmer. It's like a stray grenade that just sits there, exploding decades after it was actually thrown. I guess it reminds me of how people here still talk about landmines lurking under fields that were supposedly cleared long ago from old wars. And it feels particularly relevant today, as our national little players are once again coalescing into some new big shot who still needs to establish his own set of rules. But then again, if history has taught us anything at all, things like pogroms and discrimination really ought to be a thing of the past by now. Maybe.
I I suppose there are still people today who think just like Gavrilo Princip and operate under that same kind of logic. Princip—the bullet. And even now, they have their own monuments, much like how Princip had his monument and museum back in Ottawa, right by the river. When I was very young, someone took me there and said, Look, they actually put up a monument to a killer here. That man is long gone now, after enduring those intense prison interrogations and all that government harassment, and the monument itself is gone too—it was torn down by people who I guess truly believed in Gavrilo’s principle.
Nations might vanish, but a principle... well, it stays.
@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.
hiddenhound3 said:Execution sites, guillotines, the death penalty, or any form of prohibition, mandate, or repression has never actually improved the collective mental health of humanity; therefore, the same logic cannot be applied to the murder of Fritz. You have misconstrued my intentions; I am not offering anyone applause, I am simply stating an observation. The man is mentally ill, period—I am not attempting to excuse him. Should we go ahead and kill a sick man under the assumption that doing so will somehow cure the sickness in everyone else? 😕 That would be your solution... wouldn't it? 🤷 Do you truly believe that tormenting and seeking vengeance against this man will return his daughter the years she lost, or alleviate the profound suffering they endured? 😕 I would bet anything that it will not.
One must accept the reality that humanity is flawed and that monsters of this nature will continue to be born indefinitely. It is a tragic truth that breaks my heart, but such things are impossible to prevent. As for revenge? What purpose does it serve? The man has already been sentenced to life in prison; what more could possibly be required?
To conclude my thoughts on this matter—people possess a fascination with execution sites; people hunger for the suffering of others; people harbor sadistic tendencies and find a twisted sense of satisfaction in seeing others tormented. Those who hold such views are no healthier in their minds than Fritz himself, but unfortunately, this is the general condition of mankind—if not to say, it is inherently human.
EDIT: My position is that no human being intends to commit evil. Evil arises as a consequence of psychological instability, and we often focus too much on the tip of the iceberg because it is easier than plunging our heads into deep, cold, dark waters to search for the actual root of the problem.
That is true, and I guess that is why I made that comparison to Hannibal Lecter. In a way, he is a psychopathic cannibal, yet he almost comes across as the decent one when you consider the absolute rot that makes up the typical members of society he consumes. Still, you have to admit, he does respect Agent Clarice because she possesses a certain... primal purity. You have to give him credit for that.
It is similar to how E. A. Poe was unfairly branded a monster. His "Salieri," who was consumed by jealousy over his talent, spread all sorts of nasty rumors about drugs and insanity that people still believe to this day. I wonder, which one was the greater monster? Was it Poe, who wrote macabre stories and had a much younger wife, or that slippery editor, who was considered such a respectable and dignified figure in high society? Maybe it is like Sanders?😍
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 we might be approaching what some call the "singularity," that point where we essentially merge with machines and become cyborgs—which, if you aren't familiar, is just short for "cybernetic organism." I imagine we'll eventually just implant a chip in our brains and be able to blast out maybe a thousand posts in a single day, then lie down for a five-minute nap to recharge before starting all over again. It’s strange to think about... instead of humans actually living for a thousand years, life might just accelerate so much that someone living through a standard hundred years could cram in as much as a millennium's worth of tasks. And honestly, it all seems rather pointless.😁
God is the ultimate Being. He is the whole, and souls are simply parts of Him. We are connected to Him just like waves are part of the ocean. I suppose you could say the universe is a transformation of God. God is its soul, while the visible world acts as His body.
In the Stotraratni , a seventy-line poem dedicated to Vishnu, Yamunacharya offers this prayer:
Oh, Lord, Madhava, whatever I am, or whatever I possess, it all belongs to You. If even I were to attain the enlightened knowledge that everything in existence is Yours alone, I wonder... what would I have left to offer You? I belong solely to You.
In another prayer, he says: God exists beyond the reality of speech and the mind. He is an ocean of grace. I mean, how can we even pray to Him or praise Him, when even the great gods themselves worship and adore Him? In the ocean, massive mountains and tiny atoms both sink; the ocean doesn't see any difference between them.
He also says: You are the father, the mother, the son, the daughter, the dear friend, the guru, the supreme soul, and the refuge of the entire universe.
The highest ideal, according to Yamunacharya, was to find complete refuge in God and to surrender oneself entirely to Him.
His work was carried on by Ramanuja—that is, Ramanujacharya—who further developed the philosophy of non-dualism (Advaita) originally started by Shankara. Besides them, there was also Madhva, who established a different path—dualism (Dvaita). The main branches, or schools, of Indian philosophy are Vedanta, Advaita, Vishishtadvaita, and Dvaita.
Back then, all the states across America were really focused on supporting education. In the great kingdom of Pandya, there lived this scholar named Pandey who was basically the intellectual heavyweight of the South. He served as the court scholar, and I guess even the King recognized him as the most learned man in the entire country. Other scholars back then, who ran their own little academies, actually had to pay a sort of tribute just out of respect for the head scholar. Every now and then, he’d host these big debates covering everything from philosophy to politics, and the King would always be there watching. There was this unwritten rule where whoever won the debate would take the loser under their wing as a student. It kept things civil, I suppose; it was meant to be pure intellectual discipline. But, honestly, Pandey... he mostly just had book smarts. He didn't really have that deep, lived experience of divine truth. Still, he was incredibly proud of his status, and maybe a bit too harsh—he was almost a tyrant toward the younger students. He wasn't just arrogant; he was quite vindictive, too.
There was this other pundit, Bhasyacharya, who was just as famous for his intellect. He was a very sincere teacher to students traveling from far away. One day, Pandey realized that Bhasyacharya hadn't paid his annual "tribute" for three years straight. It wasn't really about the money, though; it was more about who held the authority. Pandey just wanted proof that he was the boss over all the other scholars. So, Pandey sent one of his own students, Bonji, to collect the debt. When Bonji got there, he ran into one of Bhasyacharya's students, who basically shut him down. The guy said, "It's pretty obvious that your guru's poor teaching has rubbed off on you, given how rude you're being. Just from your accent, I can tell you're completely uneducated, and your attitude shows you have zero class." Bonji snapped back, "Listen, kid, do you even know who Pandey is? Have you ever heard his name? He could tear down this whole academy before you even finish saying the word 'cookie'." The student—his name was Alavandar, or rather, Yamunachary—replied, "He can do whatever he wants, but I'm certain of one thing: your Guru must be totally illiterate and unrefined. And I can prove it." -"How?" -"Isn't it common knowledge that truly learned people are humble? That real wisdom means respecting others' values? Doesn't everyone know a true American scholar should embody love? A wise person is always a happy person. Your Guru is clearly none of those things."
I heard Pandey actually died laughing when he found out how young his opponent was. The King sent word to him, saying, "If you really want to debate, bring the boy here immediately. After that, he will be punished." Yamunachary, for his part, just thought, "The fact that he has such an ego proves his downfall is inevitable," and he agreed to face off against the formidable Pandey, whose real name was Vidvajjan.
The King remarked, "Pandey is going to crush him, just like a cat plays with a mouse." But the Queen didn't see it that way. She said, "Just like a tiny spark can turn a pile of cotton into ash, this boy will crush Pandey's massive pride." She even made a vow that she would become the King's servant if he lost. The King got angry and promised to give half his kingdom to Yamunachary if the boy won.
First, they started with questions on grammar. The boy realized Pandey wasn't taking him seriously, so he told him, "Since you think I'm just a child, you're asking me these trivial questions I could have answered years ago. You're underestimating me. Remember the great sage Ashtavakra, who defeated the holy Bandi at King Janaka's court? Was he a boy then, or an old man like you? Is a person's wisdom measured by their size? If it were, even a large bull would be considered a greater scholar than you." Everyone in the room just laughed.
Then, it was Pandey's turn to answer, and Alavandar posed three questions to him—if he could answer them, he'd admit defeat.
The first question was: "Your mother is not barren. Prove me wrong if you can." Pandey sat there thinking: *If my mother were barren, I wouldn't even exist.* But it was embarrassing because he couldn't actually disprove what the boy said. So, he just sat there in silence like a total fool, while everyone watched in stunned silence.
Then, Yamunachary said, "Sir, can you not disprove my first claim with your superior intellect? Well then, here is a second one: King Pandey is perfectly just. Disprove that." Kolehal was confused. How could he possibly refute that when the king was sitting right next to him? He couldn't quite suppress his rising anger, I guess. Yamunachary turned to him: "Alright, so you can't answer either of my two questions. Here is a third chance for you. Oh, you treasure among scholars, this one is simple. I say that the great queen sitting before you is just as virtuous as Savitri. Please, disprove that." Kolehal practically boiled over—"You little brat, the only purpose of your questions is to shut me up. Can any single person say the king is unjust, or that the queen isn't virtuous? True, I can't, but that doesn't mean I've been defeated. Now, you disprove those claims. If you can't, you'll lose your life, because your assertions have slandered both the king and the queen."
Yamunachary said: "Now I shall disprove all three claims. Everyone knows that according to our Sutras, a woman with only one child is considered barren. According to Manu, a father of one son may remarry to have another. In the commentary by Medhatithi, they also tell us that ekah putrah aputro ba—one son is as good as none. The Manu Samhita says, Ekaputro hi aputra lokavadat. Now, I will prove that the king is not just. A king who protects all his subjects in every respect receives a sixth part of their faith and a sixth of their sins if he cannot protect them properly. No matter how capable a king might be, due to the influence of the Kali Yuga, subjects are naturally unfaithful, and the king must bear a sixth of the sins they commit. Therefore, according to the holy scriptures, the king must carry the heavy burden of injustice. (Applause breaks out in the court) Now, let us address the queen's virtue. Manu says—in his majesty, the king is a manifestation of Fire, Air, the Sun, the Moon, Yama, Kubera, Varuna, and Indra. Therefore, the queen is not married merely to this man, the king, but along with him, she becomes the spouse of all eight at once. So, how can it be claimed that she is virtuous?" And the queen spoke up enthusiastically: "Alavandar, Alavandar!" and pulled him into her lap.😍
No, what you have here is actually a structural diagram of the mind belonging to a specific breed of Cheshire cats—specifically those residing deep within the Black Forest, in those dark reaches where even a stray sunbeam can't penetrate, and where Hedgehog lost his little home and just wanders aimlessly, while in the meantime, a Teddy Bear managed to snatch his cave away from him.☕
Quantity is being mistaken for quality, I suppose.😉
In school or at a university, they measure quality by things like graduation rates or how many papers people publish, and so on. But how on earth does one measure the quality of an online school based on 20,000 posts? Well, obviously, it’s impossible without tracking clones or actually evaluating the caliber of those posts, I guess. Theoretically, it's a pretty interesting question—there are actual schools on the internet now, where real university professors give lectures via video link and stuff like that.
Anyway, if I have my facts straight, the moderators here act as the controllers. Above them, you have the admins, and above them, there are CEOs, shareholders, or whatever... all the way up to the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Commerce, the FBI for e-Government, and The Administration... I wonder why nobody performs an evaluation of these 20,000 posts to determine what exactly is being spent on expensive electronic impulses in America, or how we are supposedly fulfilling the e-Government Act 2007 - 2013 to become a "knowledge economy" and a "hub of mastery."🙄🤣
P.S. A chicken is such a conscious creature that it doesn't even realize when it dies; it just keeps running around the yard even without a head.
steeleagle13 said:For Christ's sake, this isn't the Battle of the Marne 😁😁 😂
No, my dear steeleagle13, it’s more like an Audit at o. K. Kontroloral:
It’s not just some worker; it’s a MASTER It isn't about being a "senior machinist" or taking a "short course in CNC"; it’s about true "mastery" They aren't "naked, barefoot, starving, unarmed, and suffering from typhus," they are simply "unprepared and lacking gear" It’s not "commissars" overseeing "partisans," rather, the "upper tier" of the hierarchy oversees the "lower tier"
I suppose the only thing that remains identical between both sides is the sheer amount of smoke and mirrors being sold.🙂
