Started by Drew Morgan · · 👁 15 views · 246 replies
…
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.
I honestly don't know why I bother engaging with this stuff sometimes. It’s just one thing after another. [Username] says:
Construction sites, guillotines, and death row... what a mess.
I don't know what to tell you about Florine. It’s just one of those things. kaže:
...
Look, my position on this is pretty straightforward. No one actually sets out to be a villain.Evil is just what happens when things get out of whack, but everyone focuses on the tip of the iceberg because it’s easy. It's much harder to actually dive into the deep, cold, dark water to find where the real problem is hiding.
Sandra Parker3 said:I honestly don't know why I bother engaging with this stuff sometimes. It’s just one thing after another. [Username] says:
Construction sites, guillotines, and death row... what a mess.
I cut the rest of the post because it was way too long, but this is really about the whole thing.
Nah, that’s just not how I see it, but hey, that's just my take.
Monsters are born, plain and simple, but telling someone "I'm sorry, but there's nothing we can do about it" isn't a real answer.
Yeah, for a birth, let's just say that isn't an option here.
But that doesn't apply to actually committing a crime, because that's where things can really go sideways.
An unfulfilled monster. 😁
Do you really think that's actually doable?
Yeah, me too.
Not every mental struggle is some unstoppable disease you just have to surrender to.
Either someone steps in to stop it, or some outside force shuts it down.
Or just scale it back.
Revenge and retaliation? Just different flavors of the same bitter pill.
Oh please, I don't care about that. I only said "bullet to the forehead" regarding him specifically—not everyone else—so you really shouldn't go thinking there's some kind of mass murderer hiding inside me.
It was just a figure of speech.
As far as I'm concerned, I couldn't care less how he—or they—ends up paying for their work.
I'm curious how everyone will react to these kinds of discoveries—will there actually be any real accountability? I wonder if they’ll call it punishment, or just try to spin it as "treatment" or some kind of "preventative measure."
Because if you stop even one part of these kinds of actions, or things like them, you might actually be able to prevent the rest from happening.
Make sure you aren't sending out the wrong message.
In that sense, a crime is just a crime... evil is evil.
My bad, I was typing in a rush.I don't know what to tell you about Florine. It’s just one of those things. kaže:
...
Look, my position on this is pretty straightforward. No one actually sets out to be a villain.Evil is just what happens when things get out of whack, but everyone focuses on the tip of the iceberg because it’s easy. It's much harder to actually dive into the deep, cold, dark water to find where the real problem is hiding.
I really can't get behind this at all.
A complete and total lack of accountability for one's own actions.
It’s not like the people around you don't have a role to play—they definitely aren't doing their part and they carry their own share of the blame—but at the end of the day, you can still commit an evil act regardless of your intentions or how much you actually realize what you're doing.
No amount of illness will ever justify the intention.
Bringing up an illness as some kind of excuse or explanation is all the same thing now; it just feels like someone trying to manufacture an alibi.
I'm not even talking about the truly deranged ones right now—the types who could actually be written off by a psychiatric evaluation or whatever.
dustyskipper3 said: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?😍
hiddenhound3 said:This is nothing more than the most pedestrian, conformist way of washing one's hands of responsibility. It will yield nothing of value for anyone; it will only result in a river of blood served up to satisfy the hunger of the bloodthirsty.
Sean Cruz said:I'm inclined to agree—it's nothing more than a raw struggle for power..... no nation actually rules....not a single one......instead, we are governed by insidious swindlers...liars, and frauds....we are ruled by the Jeffrey Dahmers of every race and creed...... cold-blooded, egocentric sadists.... those who despise everything around them...including themselves.....those who will offer public repentance without ever truly feeling a shred of remorse.....those who see even an apology as a way to extract profit.....
....they are perpetual deceivers......deceiving even themselves, because that is their fundamental flaw..... they have no sense of self....and never have....
Jeffrey Dahmer spat on his mother, his wife, his children, and himself....... while constantly lying to himself, pretending he was the master of all....
his gaze is that of a man who only feels alive when he is controlling and attacking, because that is his entire essence...he exists only through aggression and dominance...like a predator
..if you strip away his ability to control and attack.......he collapses into a pathetic, terrified wreck....a beast trapped in a tiny cage...
....he would tear his own throat out if he were denied his power and the ability to strike....
I can certainly agree with all of that, though I'd argue he didn't just delude himself into thinking he was in charge—the unfortunate reality is that he actually held total dominion over other people's lives. No punishment could ever be sufficient for someone like that.
Sandra Parker3 said:sweetheart, just read the whole thing first
from now on, quote the entire paragraph instead of cutting my thoughts in half—I really hate that.
otherwise, I'm going to assume this is just a cheap way of twisting my words.😉
later
hiddenhound3 said:I am quoting specifically what strikes me as problematic, and what happened to strike me was your attempt to justify a bullet to the head for the sake of more than one person.
My apologies, but: 🤮 👎 🙈 😱 🙂
It truly concerns and unsettles me that people are so quick and eager to pull the trigger.
There is no room for metaphors when you are discussing pressing a gun against someone's temple.
There is no such thing as righteous indignation; those are merely stories for teenagers—nothing justifies murder.
granitetiger69 said:I mean, sorry, but she was living under the SAME roof as her daughter and grandkids, whereas the neighbors weren't.
dustyskipper3 said: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?😍
hiddenhound3 said:I am quoting specifically what strikes me as problematic, and what happened to strike me was your attempt to justify a bullet to the head for the sake of more than one person.
My apologies, but: 🤮 👎 🙈 😱 🙂
It truly concerns and unsettles me that people are so quick and eager to pull the trigger.
There is no room for metaphors when you are discussing pressing a gun against someone's temple.
There is no such thing as righteous indignation; those are merely stories for teenagers—nothing justifies murder.
Sandra Parker3 said:I honestly don't know why I bother engaging with this stuff sometimes. It’s just one thing after another. [Username] says:
Construction sites, guillotines, and death row... what a mess.
I cut the rest of the post because it was way too long, but this is really about the whole thing.
Nah, that’s just not how I see it, but hey, that's just my take.
Monsters are born, plain and simple, but telling someone "I'm sorry, but there's nothing we can do about it" isn't a real answer.
Yeah, for a birth, let's just say that isn't an option here.
But that doesn't apply to actually committing a crime, because that's where things can really go sideways.
An unfulfilled monster. 😁
Do you really think that's actually doable?
Yeah, me too.
Not every mental struggle is some unstoppable disease you just have to surrender to.
Either someone steps in to stop it, or some outside force shuts it down.
Or just scale it back.
Revenge and retaliation? Just different flavors of the same bitter pill.
Oh please, I don't care about that. I only said "bullet to the forehead" regarding him specifically—not everyone else—so you really shouldn't go thinking there's some kind of mass murderer hiding inside me.
It was just a figure of speech.
As far as I'm concerned, I couldn't care less how he—or they—ends up paying for their work.
I'm curious how everyone will react to these kinds of discoveries—will there actually be any real accountability? I wonder if they’ll call it punishment, or just try to spin it as "treatment" or some kind of "preventative measure."
Because if you stop even one part of these kinds of actions, or things like them, you might actually be able to prevent the rest from happening.
Make sure you aren't sending out the wrong message.
In that sense, a crime is just a crime... evil is evil.
My bad, I was typing in a rush.I don't know what to tell you about Florine. It’s just one of those things. kaže:
...
Look, my position on this is pretty straightforward. No one actually sets out to be a villain.Evil is just what happens when things get out of whack, but everyone focuses on the tip of the iceberg because it’s easy. It's much harder to actually dive into the deep, cold, dark water to find where the real problem is hiding.
I really can't get behind this at all.
A complete and total lack of accountability for one's own actions.
It’s not like the people around you don't have a role to play—they definitely aren't doing their part and they carry their own share of the blame—but at the end of the day, you can still commit an evil act regardless of your intentions or how much you actually realize what you're doing.
No amount of illness will ever justify the intention.
Bringing up an illness as some kind of excuse or explanation is all the same thing now; it just feels like someone trying to manufacture an alibi.
I'm not even talking about the truly deranged ones right now—the types who could actually be written off by a psychiatric evaluation or whatever.
Sandra Parker3 said:I honestly don't know why I bother engaging with this stuff sometimes. It’s just one thing after another. [Username] says:
Construction sites, guillotines, and death row... what a mess.
I cut the rest of the post because it was way too long, but this is really about the whole thing.
Nah, that’s just not how I see it, but hey, that's just my take.
Monsters are born, plain and simple, but telling someone "I'm sorry, but there's nothing we can do about it" isn't a real answer.
Yeah, for a birth, let's just say that isn't an option here.
But that doesn't apply to actually committing a crime, because that's where things can really go sideways.
An unfulfilled monster. 😁
Do you really think that's actually doable?
Yeah, me too.
Not every mental struggle is some unstoppable disease you just have to surrender to.
Either someone steps in to stop it, or some outside force shuts it down.
Or just scale it back.
Revenge and retaliation? Just different flavors of the same bitter pill.
Oh please, I don't care about that. I only said "bullet to the forehead" regarding him specifically—not everyone else—so you really shouldn't go thinking there's some kind of mass murderer hiding inside me.
It was just a figure of speech.
As far as I'm concerned, I couldn't care less how he—or they—ends up paying for their work.
I'm curious how everyone will react to these kinds of discoveries—will there actually be any real accountability? I wonder if they’ll call it punishment, or just try to spin it as "treatment" or some kind of "preventative measure."
Because if you stop even one part of these kinds of actions, or things like them, you might actually be able to prevent the rest from happening.
Make sure you aren't sending out the wrong message.
In that sense, a crime is just a crime... evil is evil.
My bad, I was typing in a rush.I don't know what to tell you about Florine. It’s just one of those things. kaže:
...
Look, my position on this is pretty straightforward. No one actually sets out to be a villain.Evil is just what happens when things get out of whack, but everyone focuses on the tip of the iceberg because it’s easy. It's much harder to actually dive into the deep, cold, dark water to find where the real problem is hiding.
I really can't get behind this at all.
A complete and total lack of accountability for one's own actions.
It’s not like the people around you don't have a role to play—they definitely aren't doing their part and they carry their own share of the blame—but at the end of the day, you can still commit an evil act regardless of your intentions or how much you actually realize what you're doing.
No amount of illness will ever justify the intention.
Bringing up an illness as some kind of excuse or explanation is all the same thing now; it just feels like someone trying to manufacture an alibi.
I'm not even talking about the truly deranged ones right now—the types who could actually be written off by a psychiatric evaluation or whatever.
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.
hiddenhound3 said:I am quoting specifically what strikes me as problematic, and what happened to strike me was your attempt to justify a bullet to the head for the sake of more than one person.
My apologies, but: 🤮 👎 🙈 😱 🙂
It truly concerns and unsettles me that people are so quick and eager to pull the trigger.
There is no room for metaphors when you are discussing pressing a gun against someone's temple.
There is no such thing as righteous indignation; those are merely stories for teenagers—nothing justifies murder.
Sandra Parker3 said:hiddenhound3, if you find yourself getting stung by the whole picture every single time, it's just for the sake of the truth.
Like this example here:
But all that stung you was this, and you say "by chance":
I don't usually quote myself, but...
Since you clearly know what it means to take things out of context and how it feels when only a fragment stings you...
You are a living example of how nothing is ever quite what it seems at first glance; sometimes it's much better, and sometimes it's... where's that smiley of yours? Ah, there it is: 🤮
hiddenhound3 said:To summarize our discussion, since we clearly seem to be talking past one another.
Do you truly believe that killing this man and his associates is justifiable, or are you speaking purely in metaphors? I must admit, I am genuinely perplexed by your stance.
Please, enlighten me as to what your actual intention was behind those comments.
It seems you aren't concerned with his ultimate fate, yet you feel he—along with several others—deserves a bullet to the head, even though you claim to have no interest in the concept of vengeance.
Is that indeed the point you are trying to make?
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.
Sandra Parker3 said:I already explained myself.
I said it was a metaphor, then you insisted it wasn't—honestly, it’s like you’re living inside my head or something, which is pretty weird, and now you're circling back to ask if it was maybe a metaphor after all. 🤷
**This whole thing is such a weirdly phrased setup—I honestly can't tell if they're talking about an actual bullet or just using it as some heavy-handed metaphor.**
By the way, if you check my first post on the other page, you'll find exactly where and why I brought up that bullet—there's a full explanation waiting for you there.
Look, let's just move on from me for a second.
I'll give you some credit—you actually have some pretty interesting takes on things. I asked you about this before but never really got an answer, so I figured I’d just take the opportunity to ask again.
odnosi se na misli iz ovog posta:
I'd actually love it if you could explain to me where exactly the "aesthetic" lies in the case of Jeffrey Dahmer, if you ever get around to it.
I still can't help but feel that Bill Clinton, no matter how much we try to dismiss him, just isn't in the same league... I mean, there's at least a shred of transparency to his moves, and he’s actually replaceable—not that I want to get all political on you by pointing out he was actually elected or whatever.
I forgot to mention one thing—also, I asked you this before, but what do you think: if Jeffrey Dahmer hadn't had his own daughter, would he have just snatched some girl off the street to find a replacement?
Do you think his crime would have carried more weight back then?
I would genuinely appreciate it if you could explain to me where one finds any sense of aesthetics in the case of Jeffrey Dahmer, if you can manage such an explanation.
edit: I neglected to mention something; I had also asked for your opinion on whether, had Jeffrey Dahmer not had his own daughter, he would have abducted a girl off the street to serve as a substitute?
And in your estimation, would his crime have carried even greater weight in that scenario?
Sandra Parker3 said:I already explained myself.
I said it was a metaphor, then you insisted it wasn't—honestly, it’s like you’re living inside my head or something, which is pretty weird, and now you're circling back to ask if it was maybe a metaphor after all. 🤷
**This whole thing is such a weirdly phrased setup—I honestly can't tell if they're talking about an actual bullet or just using it as some heavy-handed metaphor.**
By the way, if you check my first post on the other page, you'll find exactly where and why I brought up that bullet—there's a full explanation waiting for you there.
Look, let's just move on from me for a second.
I'll give you some credit—you actually have some pretty interesting takes on things. I asked you about this before but never really got an answer, so I figured I’d just take the opportunity to ask again.
odnosi se na misli iz ovog posta:
I'd actually love it if you could explain to me where exactly the "aesthetic" lies in the case of Jeffrey Dahmer, if you ever get around to it.
I still can't help but feel that Bill Clinton, no matter how much we try to dismiss him, just isn't in the same league... I mean, there's at least a shred of transparency to his moves, and he’s actually replaceable—not that I want to get all political on you by pointing out he was actually elected or whatever.
I forgot to mention one thing—also, I asked you this before, but what do you think: if Jeffrey Dahmer hadn't had his own daughter, would he have just snatched some girl off the street to find a replacement?
Do you think his crime would have carried more weight back then?
hiddenhound3 said:I am asking simply because I require certainty before I can truly believe it.I would genuinely appreciate it if you could explain to me where one finds any sense of aesthetics in the case of Jeffrey Dahmer, if you can manage such an explanation.
Sandra Parker3, I have no desire to engage in a competition with you regarding moral qualities, as I am under the impression that no single virtue exists without its corresponding flaw within the same individual. I merely ventured to express my own perspective, which is that I feel a profound concern for those who are too quick to pull a trigger... or do you maintain that such people are perfectly fine, even when their actions are framed as nothing more than a metaphorical joke?edit: I neglected to mention something; I had also asked for your opinion on whether, had Jeffrey Dahmer not had his own daughter, he would have abducted a girl off the street to serve as a substitute?
And in your estimation, would his crime have carried even greater weight in that scenario?
I am not particularly inclined toward speculating on "what if" scenarios; for me, only the concrete reality of a situation holds any significance.
What do you suppose I would have worn—sneakers or knit booties—had I been a resistance fighter during the war? 🙄
And lest I forget... since you are so firmly convinced that mortality, or specifically the death penalty, serves as a deterrent against monstrous acts, how do you account for the fact that such crimes continue to be perpetrated despite the execution of so many criminals? 😕
