Edward Flores4 said:Still... in order for someone to "raise" you, well, you have to actually be born first. So, at the end of the day, birth is the common denominator here. And let's face it, being born is its own kind of trauma—even for those we consider to have had a "smooth" start. It's basically the perfect breeding ground for every psychiatric diagnosis out there... it all traces back to childhood trauma if you look hard enough.🙄
The fact that some people went through absolute hell as kids and didn't end up with a mental health disorder... honestly, that doesn't really prove anything. Because, let’s be real: an idiot is still going to be an idiot—trauma or no trauma. They’ll still go through life using their childhood struggles as a sort of shield or excuse.
And why do they do it? Simple: because they need to keep their jobs. If they just admitted that someone was a complete jerk, then there would be no reason to see a therapist once a week, and all those expensive prescriptions wouldn't be doing anyone any good.🤷
Quentin Tarantino:| yeah, it just reminded me of that little reporter who got three years in prison just because he took his shoes off and put them back in the wrong spot. |
Talk about irony. You have a journalist getting three years, while some international terrorist, criminal, and total imbecile walks free despite having wiped out millions of innocent lives.
And you know what's even worse? Not a single psychiatrist bothered to provide a diagnosis—not for the journalist, and certainly not for that global murderer and criminal. It's incredibly easy to point fingers at the obvious culprits... but hardly anyone is willing to work *pro bono* to defend the innocent. But hey, I guess that’s probably just more childhood trauma at work.😁
Quentin Tarantino:| but he DID have support, that's the whole point. |
Support from a wife and some neighbors... sure. But nothing political or military. And nowadays, that kind of "help" doesn't carry much weight in a courtroom.🙄
Sure, but you have to actually be made before you can even think about being born.
So, the absolute bottom line is just making kids, though obviously not every single instance of procreation is a total disaster. Still, I can see someone—or maybe they already have—coming up with an even more "fascinating" theory that every single problem in existence stems directly from the act of having children.
Edward Flores4 said:Still... in order for someone to "raise" you, well, you have to actually be born first. So, at the end of the day, birth is the common denominator here. And let's face it, being born is its own kind of trauma—even for those we consider to have had a "smooth" start. It's basically the perfect breeding ground for every psychiatric diagnosis out there... it all traces back to childhood trauma if you look hard enough.🙄
The fact that some people went through absolute hell as kids and didn't end up with a mental health disorder... honestly, that doesn't really prove anything. Because, let’s be real: an idiot is still going to be an idiot—trauma or no trauma. They’ll still go through life using their childhood struggles as a sort of shield or excuse.
And why do they do it? Simple: because they need to keep their jobs. If they just admitted that someone was a complete jerk, then there would be no reason to see a therapist once a week, and all those expensive prescriptions wouldn't be doing anyone any good.🤷
Quentin Tarantino:| yeah, it just reminded me of that little reporter who got three years in prison just because he took his shoes off and put them back in the wrong spot. |
Talk about irony. You have a journalist getting three years, while some international terrorist, criminal, and total imbecile walks free despite having wiped out millions of innocent lives.
And you know what's even worse? Not a single psychiatrist bothered to provide a diagnosis—not for the journalist, and certainly not for that global murderer and criminal. It's incredibly easy to point fingers at the obvious culprits... but hardly anyone is willing to work *pro bono* to defend the innocent. But hey, I guess that’s probably just more childhood trauma at work.😁
Quentin Tarantino:| but he DID have support, that's the whole point. |
Support from a wife and some neighbors... sure. But nothing political or military. And nowadays, that kind of "help" doesn't carry much weight in a courtroom.🙄
What difference does a journalist's diagnosis make? It’s not like it’s obvious, so why bother? And as for that other guy, just publish his diagnosis too—it won't hurt anyone, and honestly, I'm pretty sure people have done that before anyway.
dustyskipper3 said:I believe he did it out of LOVE. 😍 And primarily maternal love—certainly a twisted kind, very much in the vein of Edgar Allan Poe and Hannibal Lecter, I suppose—but any other explanation would just be trivial and, ultimately, incorrect.
The lawyer for Jeffrey Dahmer is right, though I imagine everyone will spit on him because he actually dared to speak the truth. It probably would have been easier if he had just defended Jeffrey Dahmer as a complete psychopath with zero feelings. But, perhaps, he realized that deep within that monstrous soul, there is actually profound suffering.
He felt he had to isolate his daughter from society because, being so caring, he feared they would corrupt her and turn her into just another freak tailored to fit that "Talmudic-Zionist" society—a woman who works, takes on male roles, and possesses her own will. Meanwhile, Jeffrey Dahmer was a sincere and convicted proponent of the macho ideal, or rather, the ideals they had already adopted from Otto Weininger and other ideologues of masculinity. He made sure his daughter embraced those values too, ensuring she wouldn't break away from his parental care; he even provided a substitute for the husband she wouldn't have had anyway (since people like that aren't really born anymore, just some feminized Zionist monstrosities). In his world, we and the society we've built are the freaks, and his monstrous actions were justified by the pursuit of higher ideals for an Aryan family—children, kitchen, church, and all that. It’s been noted that this is almost commonplace in the Arab world, so I guess why wouldn't someone here arrive at a similar idea? 🙂
Besides, he is actually a victim himself—he destroyed both himself and his family, much like how someone else destroyed him through overly successful, extreme upbringing. There is a psychological mechanism that turns a victim into an executioner, which is visible on an international scale (for example, Palestinians and Jews, and then again with us in Canada, etc.).
The problem is just how many more of those Jeffrey Dahmers are living around us, people who subjugate their families and loved ones through purely economic methods of pressure without even needing to go as far as making the basement door rattle. 😱
That might be an explanation, but it’s hardly an excuse for those murderers.
I don't know what I was thinking, but I guess I just felt like typing that out. Honestly, sometimes my brain just glitches. kaže:
Fritzl wasn't some predator prowling the streets snatching up girls to stash in a basement; he wasn't exactly built like your typical serial killer. Honestly, he just seems like one deeply unfortunate man whose entire foundation was broken from the start. And let's be real—unhappy people aren't exactly in a position to spread any kind of joy.
I honestly wonder if he wouldn't be such a disaster if he didn't have his daughter to blame for all his mess.
He’d just find some replacement daughter out on the street and drag her right back down into that same basement.
Is his misfortune still the center of attention?
(anyway, he wasn't trying to spread happiness, just trying not to stumble into disaster—someone else's disaster, obviously)
hiddenhound3 said:Humanity has always been confronted by such behaviors that exist entirely outside the realm of conventional reason. Jeffrey Dahmer is not an isolated case, nor are Poe or Hannibal. In much the same way, we see the perverse darkness of figures like Elizabeth Báthory, the way Celin glorified an obsession with youth, or how Genet embraced criminality; there are many others who live perpetually on the edge. Jeffrey Dahmer did not simply roam the streets snatching girls to hide them in a basement; he wasn't your typical serial killer archetype. He was quite clearly a deeply unfortunate man built upon fundamentally broken foundations. Unhappy people are simply incapable of sowing seeds of happiness.
I might even venture to suggest that there is a certain nobility and aesthetic quality to be found within their personas.
The true monsters walk freely among us every single day. Take someone like Ivo Sanders, for example.
I'm having a hard time seeing where you find any nobility here, and I'm especially lost on what you mean by "aesthetic"
maybe you're talking about posters and the polished glow of a Christmas tree?
As for Sanders and those other little monsters, you can't even make that comparison because it just cheapens the weight of this specific crime.
Every single crime is... a crime, in its own way.
But these two don't share enough common ground to even attempt a comparison.
