Ed Gein sentenced

electrictiger70 said:It is highly unlikely. In most cases involving domestic abuse, the perpetrators themselves were victims of abuse during their childhood, which serves as the root cause for their future behavior. If I recall correctly, that was actually pointed out during the trial. People like that aren't going to be out there targeting random little girls in public parks; that simply isn't the same type of pathology.
Obviously, this isn't an excuse, but it helps provide context for how such monstrous acts occur... It is difficult to develop empathy if you have never experienced it yourself.🤷

So, I agree with Florin that even when dealing with such monstrous crimes, we shouldn't view things through a purely one-dimensional lens.

Drew Morgan said:Look, when you're talking about a twenty-four-year span, this whole situation takes on a whole new level of demonic intensity. Claiming he was abused by his mother doesn't even begin to cover why this dragged on for a quarter of a century!
Now he’s out here acting terrified that some cannibalistic rapist-hater is going to devour him in prison. Give me a break. He's nothing but a pure victim, no question about it.

bluemaker52 said:I have to apologize once again, but I simply can't let this pass without adding my two cents:

I’ve never been one to dwell on "what ifs." Why waste energy spinning webs of hypothetical scenarios? For me, there is only the reality right in front of my face—the concrete, tangible situation at hand.

What do you think I’d be wearing if I were a partisan fighter? Would I have opted for rugged sneakers or some kind of heavy knit boots? 🙄

And I shouldn't forget... since you’re so absolutely convinced that capital punishment can act as a deterrent against monstrous acts, how exactly do you account for the fact that these crimes just keep happening? If we've already executed so many criminals, why does the cycle of evil continue unabated? 😕

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? 😕

...Sandra Parker3, I have no desire to compete with you regarding moral superiority, since I don't know anyone who doesn't have a counterweight within themselves. I simply dared to state my opinion, which is that I am worried about people who are too quick to pull the trigger... or do you think those people are fine, even if it's just a metaphorical joke...

...I'm not one to dwell on "what ifs." For me, there is only the concrete situation.

What do you think—would I be wearing sneakers or braids if I were a resistance fighter? 🙄

...and lest I forget... since you are so convinced that death, or capital punishment, can prevent monstrous acts, how do you explain the fact that they keep happening even after so many criminals have been executed? 😕

electrictiger70 said:It is highly unlikely. In most cases involving domestic abuse, the perpetrators themselves were victims of abuse during their childhood, which serves as the root cause for their future behavior. If I recall correctly, that was actually pointed out during the trial. People like that aren't going to be out there targeting random little girls in public parks; that simply isn't the same type of pathology.
Obviously, this isn't an excuse, but it helps provide context for how such monstrous acts occur... It is difficult to develop empathy if you have never experienced it yourself.🤷

So, I agree with Florin that even when dealing with such monstrous crimes, we shouldn't view things through a purely one-dimensional lens.

No, psychologists speculate that Wolf had a pretty problematic, obsessive relationship with his mother, that he dealt with impotence, and that he went through something himself that left him permanently traumatized—maybe violence or mockery during early sexual encounters. He felt like a victim, so he planned a kidnapping to flip the script from being a lonely victim to being the perpetrator, all while allowing him to mold the perfect woman to his exact specifications.

The famous American forensic psychiatrist Dr. Reinhard Haller stated: "Priklopil was extremely paranoid and likely feared he wasn't a real man. Being quite infantile, he couldn't become a father normally at age 34, so he chose a 10-year-old girl to 'raise.' On top of that, he was a sadist who wanted someone he could exert total control over."

Before he starts serving his sentence in a psychiatric facility—essentially a prison for the mentally ill—Fritzl will undergo observation at a psychiatric center in a major US city. There, they will assess how dangerous he is and prescribe his treatment.

electrictiger70 said:It is highly unlikely. In most cases involving domestic abuse, the perpetrators themselves were victims of abuse during their childhood, which serves as the root cause for their future behavior. If I recall correctly, that was actually pointed out during the trial. People like that aren't going to be out there targeting random little girls in public parks; that simply isn't the same type of pathology.
Obviously, this isn't an excuse, but it helps provide context for how such monstrous acts occur... It is difficult to develop empathy if you have never experienced it yourself.🤷

So, I agree with Florin that even when dealing with such monstrous crimes, we shouldn't view things through a purely one-dimensional lens.

Sandra Parker3 said:I have no idea what you don't believe; haven't I repeated myself three times already?

...Sandra Parker3, I have no desire to compete with you regarding moral superiority, since I don't know anyone who doesn't have a counterweight within themselves. I simply dared to state my opinion, which is that I am worried about people who are too quick to pull the trigger... or do you think those people are fine, even if it's just a metaphorical joke...

I'm not competing. I'm just politely asking you—for the umpteenth time—to explain where exactly you see aesthetics in this case, and while we're at it, I'd like to expand the question to include the nobility you claim to see. You didn't answer. Tell me, I'm interested in different perspectives. Where is the nobility and the aesthetic here? It isn't enough to just say you believe there's a counterweight. I am asking you, in this specific instance, where is it?
And if you actually answer, I'm also curious how that counterweight supposedly works.

I'm not "quick on the trigger," if you're referring to me. As for my take on the death penalty... I don't have a final stance, we can discuss it on another thread, though thinking about it would honestly exhaust me. And since you're being so flippant, I'll assume that based on the fact that you keep pushing this "bullet" metaphor, even though it should be obvious that the average American who might support capital punishment wouldn't actually go out and execute "participants." That's just total bullshit.

...I'm not one to dwell on "what ifs." For me, there is only the concrete situation.

What do you think—would I be wearing sneakers or braids if I were a resistance fighter? 🙄

But no, no, no! There is no such thing as just a "concrete situation!" There is the courtroom.
However, among those who study these cases seriously on a scientific level, the answer is no. It's about what goes on inside people's heads—what drives them to do what they do and what they are willing to endure.
You aren't interesting; your sneakers don't matter. If someone were actually going to analyze you as a resistance fighter, I bet they'd look elsewhere. Given your mindset, would you have committed atrocities like massacres during the war, or would you have stayed on the sidelines? Now *that* is an actual question.

...and lest I forget... since you are so convinced that death, or capital punishment, can prevent monstrous acts, how do you explain the fact that they keep happening even after so many criminals have been executed? 😕

But... I am not convinced.
Are you sitting on your ears? Or your sneakers?

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

bluemaker52 said:Hello? Can we get back to reality for a second? What kind of "evidence" are we talking about when the facts are practically screaming at us?
A one-dimensional perspective is just lazy thinking—it’s missing the entire point.
Is everything perfectly fine as long as it isn't happening to you?
I wonder how many victims are out there that you don't even know about, simply because they chose to carry their trauma quietly and stay "good"?
There is absolutely no excuse for a crime.
If someone claims they were just "mentally ill," that’s a very convenient way to dodge accountability when they can't face what they've done.
Stripping away someone else's freedom, even if only temporarily, is one of the most heinous crimes a person can commit.
Taking a life is really just an extension of that theft of autonomy.

If someone is genuinely unwell, using a caliber becomes a perfectly acceptable solution when they simply can't wrap their head around what they've done.
Stripping someone of their freedom—even if only for a little while—is quite simply the most heinous crime one can commit.
Taking a life is merely one small fragment of the whole story.

Sandra Parker3 said:"Highly unlikely"? You think that's enough of an answer? Like, maybe someone couldn't find fulfillment within their own family, so they stepped outside that bubble to find it elsewhere. Tell me, how does that "probability" help us here? We should probably account for that possibility too. It's all just "what ifs."

Regarding the kidnapper of Natascha Kampusch, Wolfgang Priklopil—I don't really have the time to dig this up right now, so I'm just grabbing the first thing I see, but he also had childhood issues:

No, psychologists speculate that Wolf had a pretty problematic, obsessive relationship with his mother, that he dealt with impotence, and that he went through something himself that left him permanently traumatized—maybe violence or mockery during early sexual encounters. He felt like a victim, so he planned a kidnapping to flip the script from being a lonely victim to being the perpetrator, all while allowing him to mold the perfect woman to his exact specifications.

(There's more regarding his family and his relationship with his parents, but... I can't get into it right now)

The famous American forensic psychiatrist Dr. Reinhard Haller stated: "Priklopil was extremely paranoid and likely feared he wasn't a real man. Being quite infantile, he couldn't become a father normally at age 34, so he chose a 10-year-old girl to 'raise.' On top of that, he was a sadist who wanted someone he could exert total control over."

I think someone mentioned those "noble" intentions Josef Fritzl supposedly had toward his daughter, trying to "save" her from the cruel world...

I'm bringing this up as a connection to whether Fritzl would kidnap someone off the street (not saying they're the same thing)

Just one more thing:

Before he starts serving his sentence in a psychiatric facility—essentially a prison for the mentally ill—Fritzl will undergo observation at a psychiatric center in a major US city. There, they will assess how dangerous he is and prescribe his treatment.

Why would he undergo psychiatric observation to assess his danger level if he's only a threat to his own family?

Also, there are plenty of rapists out there... who were abused as kids. And they attack people on the street; they aren't confined to their homes.

I agree with the bolded part, though I'd argue we need to consider every possible manifestation rather than just sticking to the one that was "available" to us.

hiddenhound3 said:Precisely. However, this perspective is not entirely my own. I have dedicated a significant portion of my time to studying M. S. peckati, who attempts, albeit unsuccessfully, to decouple the concepts of evil and illness in his book People of Lies. Within those pages, I encountered numerous examples that are perfectly commonplace in our contemporary society—examples that our culture continues to endorse due to its inherent blindness and desire for conformity.
The Josef Fritzl case would fit quite seamlessly into that collection of examples.

hiddenhound3 said:Now, I ask you to please quote me directly—where did I ever claim his behavior was noble or aesthetic? When I wrote about that subject, I was referencing Edgar Allan Poe, though I did mention others who exist on the "fringes." I see no need to explain further, given that you seem intent on drawing your own arbitrary conclusions regardless. At no point did I link the name Josef Fritzl with the concept of nobility. If you intend to continue drawing such baseless conclusions in the future, I shall view it as nothing more than a tactic of suggestion.🙂

Then again, perhaps there is some nobility to be found. It strikes me that he is merely protecting his wife, who, by my standards, is a far greater monster than he is. Has he ever once placed her where she truly belongs—as a full participant in the crime and as someone who explicitly sanctioned his actions?

Nobility wears many masks, and certainly, not all of them are acceptable.

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.

electrictiger70 said:Just read what I wrote again before you quote me, okay?☕ I never once suggested that there should be apologies issued for his crimes, nor did I claim he shouldn't be held accountable. Nor did I suggest that what he did wasn't monstrous. Furthermore, I have never once stated that he is a victim.

I only meant to point out that things aren't always black and white. Directing all this public fury toward him—when the public itself actually failed in its duty—is just a way of trivializing the entire situation. There are far too many complex factors at play here to simply sweep them under the rug with the simplistic logic of "he’s just a twisted pervert" or "someone should kill him." Sure, you could take that route, but eventually, the truth will resurface in the form of yet another case involving someone keeping a victim locked in a basement. 🤷 This is precisely why I refuse to participate in such trivialization. It sounds counterintuitive, I know, but evil rarely manifests as some singular, deranged psychopath—at least, not in the way the public desperately wants us to believe. In reality, tragedy almost always emerges from a complex web of circumstances. My interest lies in dissecting that specific chain of events, rather than indulging in this collective social urge to crucify a victim just so everyone else can feel a little less guilty about what happened.

What do you all think? Why is everyone in such a frantic rush to throw accusations around? I suspect it’s because someone might actually be forced to confront a terrifying question about the society we live in—a reality where a person could be kept captive in a basement for eighteen years without a single neighbor or any other social institution ever noticing. 🤷 ?
What about all those other factors being served up to the public? They get glossed over entirely. First off, what kind of mother fails to realize what is actually happening for eighteen years? It’s incomprehensible. Then there is the daughter. What kind of daughter never once attempts to fight back? And even after everything finally blows up and the whole story hits the news, she still allows her children to visit that very same mother—the woman who supposedly didn't notice anything was going on right under her nose for all those years. It just doesn't add up.

It’s a mistake to suggest he isn't responsible for his own actions—he absolutely is. But, and this is a massive "but," the narrative that one single person in a family is mentally ill while everyone else remains perfectly sane is nothing more than an illusion, especially in cases like this. When you have a mother who spent eighteen years accepting a father's vague, one-sentence excuse about their daughter being snatched up by some cult, and then she simply never asks another question? To me, that points to much deeper, systemic dysfunction within the entire family unit, far beyond the pathology of just one disturbed individual.
Or perhaps the real question is one that no one ever had the guts to ask: "What the hell was actually down in that basement?"

If someone is genuinely unwell, using a caliber becomes a perfectly acceptable solution when they simply can't wrap their head around what they've done.
Stripping someone of their freedom—even if only for a little while—is quite simply the most heinous crime one can commit.
Taking a life is merely one small fragment of the whole story.

Perhaps a person simply lacks the mental capacity to grasp the sheer magnitude of what they’ve inflicted on others. This was actually confirmed when they were committed to a psychiatric facility, which ultimately led to their sentencing. We are dealing with a clinical disorder here. That doesn't mean he isn't a danger to himself or society, nor does it mean he shouldn't be behind bars. But please, take that into account before you rush to pass such rapid-fire judgments and condemnations.

If we actually judged people by the standards you’re proposing, we’d still be living in the Middle Ages. Fortunately, we aren't. I believe our humanity is reflected in how we, as a society, respond to those who have committed atrocities. I prefer to believe we've made progress since the days of public guillotines, which someone else here mentioned. What about you? 😉

Look, I’m not going to get bogged down in debating specific cases of sexual assault 🤷. My point is simply this: evil does not emerge from a non-causal vacuum, despite the common belief. Every phenomenon has causes and specific ways in which it manifests. This idea favored by public opinion—that monsters simply pop into existence out of thin air—is more fairy tale than reality.
And even if you kill that monster, imprison him, or lock him away, a new one will inevitably take his place, just as human history consistently demonstrates. That is why it is absolutely necessary to understand what is truly happening here.

hiddenhound3 said:He was judged by the very same society that allowed him to exist in the first place. This isn't merely a diagnosis for one individual, but rather a indictment of our entire social fabric.

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 guess I'm just thinking about florine... maybe it's nothing, but it's been on my mind lately—just sort of drifting in there—anyway, yeah. kaže:
I don't really feel like getting into a whole debate with you—mostly because I feel like we’d just end up clashing, and honestly, I don't think you're even following what I'm getting at. Just my two cents, I guess. Yeah, that's pretty much how I see things too.

I guess I’m just sitting here thinking about Florine... honestly, it’s kind of hard to wrap my head around everything. It’s one of those things where you start looking into it and then suddenly you're three hours deep into a rabbit hole—not that I have anything better to do, I suppose. Just one of those random, lingering thoughts that won't really quit. kaže:
It’s pretty obvious you're letting some biases get the better of you—which, I guess, shows up in this one thing too: Let them eat cake, I guess—if they can't even afford a loaf of bread.You probably didn't know this, but back in the day, Parisian bakers were actually legally required—because of bread shortages and all that—to sell pastries at the same price as bread. I mean, you probably don't know that, which is why your take on this feels a little narrow-minded, I guess.

hiddenhound3 said:Haven't you heard about those four missing girls from that same timeframe? One of them was actually found strangled and assaulted, her body just discarded in a nearby lake. Isn't it chilling how these things happen?
We tend to view our homes as sanctuaries—the one place where we should feel truly safe. When you see organized shelters being set up, it’s a clear sign of premeditated planning. It shows that someone hasn't just reacted to a crisis, but has actually "trained" for it. If you can't continue your daily life out on the streets, what does that say about the stability of our environment? Does it mean the systems we rely on have already begun to fail us?

As you mentioned yourself, you just don't truly grasp it until you've actually lived through it. It’s almost as if you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth—and I don't mean that as a personal jab. Rather, I'm talking about a certain detachment from the reality of those around you. It’s that mindset of "let them eat cake" when people are struggling to put bread on the table. Do you see what I mean?
It seems like you’re hitting on the exact same issue we see with the "prevention is better than cure" philosophy. Your observations really tie back to the broader picture I’ve been painting in my other posts—specifically that one regarding the death penalty. It all points to the same fundamental dilemma, doesn't it?
Some people are paralyzed by fear, too terrified to even attempt what needs to be done. But those who have already made up their minds? They’ll keep at it with the same relentless consistency as a sunny day, no matter how many times they have to repeat the process. Whether it’s driven by conscious intent or some deep-seated, "unconscious" impulse, it all stems from that same fundamental lack of empathy ingrained during their upbringing—which brings me right back to where I previously praised you.
It’s essentially a fundamental law of nature: if you catch an illness early enough, you can get the necessary treatment before it has the chance to spread. Isn't that the whole point? If we don't intervene at the onset, how can we ever hope to contain the damage?
Look, speaking from my own perspective as someone who lived through those wartime struggles, I’m certain she wouldn't have had the luxury of hair, let alone the ability to style it. Dealing with typhus back then was a brutal reality, so that's my direct answer to your "what if" scenario. How could anyone maintain an appearance like that under such conditions?
Could you give this some thought? I’d really love to hear what you think about it.

I guess I'm just thinking about Florine... maybe it's nothing, but there's just something about it—I don't know how to explain it without sounding weird. It’s one of those things that stays in the back of your mind, sort of like a song you can't quite shake. Anyway, just a random thought, I suppose. says:
Fritzl got handed a life sentence in a psychiatric facility. Do you even realize what that implies? — Personally, I think that’s way worse than the death penalty.

hiddenhound3 said:Haven't you heard about those four missing girls from that same timeframe? One of them was actually found strangled and assaulted, her body just discarded in a nearby lake. Isn't it chilling how these things happen?
We tend to view our homes as sanctuaries—the one place where we should feel truly safe. When you see organized shelters being set up, it’s a clear sign of premeditated planning. It shows that someone hasn't just reacted to a crisis, but has actually "trained" for it. If you can't continue your daily life out on the streets, what does that say about the stability of our environment? Does it mean the systems we rely on have already begun to fail us?

As you mentioned yourself, you just don't truly grasp it until you've actually lived through it. It’s almost as if you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth—and I don't mean that as a personal jab. Rather, I'm talking about a certain detachment from the reality of those around you. It’s that mindset of "let them eat cake" when people are struggling to put bread on the table. Do you see what I mean?
It seems like you’re hitting on the exact same issue we see with the "prevention is better than cure" philosophy. Your observations really tie back to the broader picture I’ve been painting in my other posts—specifically that one regarding the death penalty. It all points to the same fundamental dilemma, doesn't it?
Some people are paralyzed by fear, too terrified to even attempt what needs to be done. But those who have already made up their minds? They’ll keep at it with the same relentless consistency as a sunny day, no matter how many times they have to repeat the process. Whether it’s driven by conscious intent or some deep-seated, "unconscious" impulse, it all stems from that same fundamental lack of empathy ingrained during their upbringing—which brings me right back to where I previously praised you.
It’s essentially a fundamental law of nature: if you catch an illness early enough, you can get the necessary treatment before it has the chance to spread. Isn't that the whole point? If we don't intervene at the onset, how can we ever hope to contain the damage?
Look, speaking from my own perspective as someone who lived through those wartime struggles, I’m certain she wouldn't have had the luxury of hair, let alone the ability to style it. Dealing with typhus back then was a brutal reality, so that's my direct answer to your "what if" scenario. How could anyone maintain an appearance like that under such conditions?
Could you give this some thought? I’d really love to hear what you think about it.

hiddenhound3 said:Haven't you heard about those four missing girls from that same timeframe? One of them was actually found strangled and assaulted, her body just discarded in a nearby lake. Isn't it chilling how these things happen?
We tend to view our homes as sanctuaries—the one place where we should feel truly safe. When you see organized shelters being set up, it’s a clear sign of premeditated planning. It shows that someone hasn't just reacted to a crisis, but has actually "trained" for it. If you can't continue your daily life out on the streets, what does that say about the stability of our environment? Does it mean the systems we rely on have already begun to fail us?

As you mentioned yourself, you just don't truly grasp it until you've actually lived through it. It’s almost as if you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth—and I don't mean that as a personal jab. Rather, I'm talking about a certain detachment from the reality of those around you. It’s that mindset of "let them eat cake" when people are struggling to put bread on the table. Do you see what I mean?
It seems like you’re hitting on the exact same issue we see with the "prevention is better than cure" philosophy. Your observations really tie back to the broader picture I’ve been painting in my other posts—specifically that one regarding the death penalty. It all points to the same fundamental dilemma, doesn't it?
Some people are paralyzed by fear, too terrified to even attempt what needs to be done. But those who have already made up their minds? They’ll keep at it with the same relentless consistency as a sunny day, no matter how many times they have to repeat the process. Whether it’s driven by conscious intent or some deep-seated, "unconscious" impulse, it all stems from that same fundamental lack of empathy ingrained during their upbringing—which brings me right back to where I previously praised you.
It’s essentially a fundamental law of nature: if you catch an illness early enough, you can get the necessary treatment before it has the chance to spread. Isn't that the whole point? If we don't intervene at the onset, how can we ever hope to contain the damage?
Look, speaking from my own perspective as someone who lived through those wartime struggles, I’m certain she wouldn't have had the luxury of hair, let alone the ability to style it. Dealing with typhus back then was a brutal reality, so that's my direct answer to your "what if" scenario. How could anyone maintain an appearance like that under such conditions?
Could you give this some thought? I’d really love to hear what you think about it.

hiddenhound3 said:Haven't you heard about those four missing girls from that same timeframe? One of them was actually found strangled and assaulted, her body just discarded in a nearby lake. Isn't it chilling how these things happen?
We tend to view our homes as sanctuaries—the one place where we should feel truly safe. When you see organized shelters being set up, it’s a clear sign of premeditated planning. It shows that someone hasn't just reacted to a crisis, but has actually "trained" for it. If you can't continue your daily life out on the streets, what does that say about the stability of our environment? Does it mean the systems we rely on have already begun to fail us?

As you mentioned yourself, you just don't truly grasp it until you've actually lived through it. It’s almost as if you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth—and I don't mean that as a personal jab. Rather, I'm talking about a certain detachment from the reality of those around you. It’s that mindset of "let them eat cake" when people are struggling to put bread on the table. Do you see what I mean?
It seems like you’re hitting on the exact same issue we see with the "prevention is better than cure" philosophy. Your observations really tie back to the broader picture I’ve been painting in my other posts—specifically that one regarding the death penalty. It all points to the same fundamental dilemma, doesn't it?
Some people are paralyzed by fear, too terrified to even attempt what needs to be done. But those who have already made up their minds? They’ll keep at it with the same relentless consistency as a sunny day, no matter how many times they have to repeat the process. Whether it’s driven by conscious intent or some deep-seated, "unconscious" impulse, it all stems from that same fundamental lack of empathy ingrained during their upbringing—which brings me right back to where I previously praised you.
It’s essentially a fundamental law of nature: if you catch an illness early enough, you can get the necessary treatment before it has the chance to spread. Isn't that the whole point? If we don't intervene at the onset, how can we ever hope to contain the damage?
Look, speaking from my own perspective as someone who lived through those wartime struggles, I’m certain she wouldn't have had the luxury of hair, let alone the ability to style it. Dealing with typhus back then was a brutal reality, so that's my direct answer to your "what if" scenario. How could anyone maintain an appearance like that under such conditions?
Could you give this some thought? I’d really love to hear what you think about it.

hiddenhound3 said:Haven't you heard about those four missing girls from that same timeframe? One of them was actually found strangled and assaulted, her body just discarded in a nearby lake. Isn't it chilling how these things happen?
We tend to view our homes as sanctuaries—the one place where we should feel truly safe. When you see organized shelters being set up, it’s a clear sign of premeditated planning. It shows that someone hasn't just reacted to a crisis, but has actually "trained" for it. If you can't continue your daily life out on the streets, what does that say about the stability of our environment? Does it mean the systems we rely on have already begun to fail us?

As you mentioned yourself, you just don't truly grasp it until you've actually lived through it. It’s almost as if you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth—and I don't mean that as a personal jab. Rather, I'm talking about a certain detachment from the reality of those around you. It’s that mindset of "let them eat cake" when people are struggling to put bread on the table. Do you see what I mean?
It seems like you’re hitting on the exact same issue we see with the "prevention is better than cure" philosophy. Your observations really tie back to the broader picture I’ve been painting in my other posts—specifically that one regarding the death penalty. It all points to the same fundamental dilemma, doesn't it?
Some people are paralyzed by fear, too terrified to even attempt what needs to be done. But those who have already made up their minds? They’ll keep at it with the same relentless consistency as a sunny day, no matter how many times they have to repeat the process. Whether it’s driven by conscious intent or some deep-seated, "unconscious" impulse, it all stems from that same fundamental lack of empathy ingrained during their upbringing—which brings me right back to where I previously praised you.
It’s essentially a fundamental law of nature: if you catch an illness early enough, you can get the necessary treatment before it has the chance to spread. Isn't that the whole point? If we don't intervene at the onset, how can we ever hope to contain the damage?
Look, speaking from my own perspective as someone who lived through those wartime struggles, I’m certain she wouldn't have had the luxury of hair, let alone the ability to style it. Dealing with typhus back then was a brutal reality, so that's my direct answer to your "what if" scenario. How could anyone maintain an appearance like that under such conditions?
Could you give this some thought? I’d really love to hear what you think about it.

hiddenhound3 said:Haven't you heard about those four missing girls from that same timeframe? One of them was actually found strangled and assaulted, her body just discarded in a nearby lake. Isn't it chilling how these things happen?
We tend to view our homes as sanctuaries—the one place where we should feel truly safe. When you see organized shelters being set up, it’s a clear sign of premeditated planning. It shows that someone hasn't just reacted to a crisis, but has actually "trained" for it. If you can't continue your daily life out on the streets, what does that say about the stability of our environment? Does it mean the systems we rely on have already begun to fail us?

As you mentioned yourself, you just don't truly grasp it until you've actually lived through it. It’s almost as if you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth—and I don't mean that as a personal jab. Rather, I'm talking about a certain detachment from the reality of those around you. It’s that mindset of "let them eat cake" when people are struggling to put bread on the table. Do you see what I mean?
It seems like you’re hitting on the exact same issue we see with the "prevention is better than cure" philosophy. Your observations really tie back to the broader picture I’ve been painting in my other posts—specifically that one regarding the death penalty. It all points to the same fundamental dilemma, doesn't it?
Some people are paralyzed by fear, too terrified to even attempt what needs to be done. But those who have already made up their minds? They’ll keep at it with the same relentless consistency as a sunny day, no matter how many times they have to repeat the process. Whether it’s driven by conscious intent or some deep-seated, "unconscious" impulse, it all stems from that same fundamental lack of empathy ingrained during their upbringing—which brings me right back to where I previously praised you.
It’s essentially a fundamental law of nature: if you catch an illness early enough, you can get the necessary treatment before it has the chance to spread. Isn't that the whole point? If we don't intervene at the onset, how can we ever hope to contain the damage?
Look, speaking from my own perspective as someone who lived through those wartime struggles, I’m certain she wouldn't have had the luxury of hair, let alone the ability to style it. Dealing with typhus back then was a brutal reality, so that's my direct answer to your "what if" scenario. How could anyone maintain an appearance like that under such conditions?
Could you give this some thought? I’d really love to hear what you think about it.

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

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

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

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

electrictiger70 said:Just read what I wrote again before you quote me, okay?☕ I never once suggested that there should be apologies issued for his crimes, nor did I claim he shouldn't be held accountable. Nor did I suggest that what he did wasn't monstrous. Furthermore, I have never once stated that he is a victim.

I only meant to point out that things aren't always black and white. Directing all this public fury toward him—when the public itself actually failed in its duty—is just a way of trivializing the entire situation. There are far too many complex factors at play here to simply sweep them under the rug with the simplistic logic of "he’s just a twisted pervert" or "someone should kill him." Sure, you could take that route, but eventually, the truth will resurface in the form of yet another case involving someone keeping a victim locked in a basement. 🤷 This is precisely why I refuse to participate in such trivialization. It sounds counterintuitive, I know, but evil rarely manifests as some singular, deranged psychopath—at least, not in the way the public desperately wants us to believe. In reality, tragedy almost always emerges from a complex web of circumstances. My interest lies in dissecting that specific chain of events, rather than indulging in this collective social urge to crucify a victim just so everyone else can feel a little less guilty about what happened.

What do you all think? Why is everyone in such a frantic rush to throw accusations around? I suspect it’s because someone might actually be forced to confront a terrifying question about the society we live in—a reality where a person could be kept captive in a basement for eighteen years without a single neighbor or any other social institution ever noticing. 🤷 ?
What about all those other factors being served up to the public? They get glossed over entirely. First off, what kind of mother fails to realize what is actually happening for eighteen years? It’s incomprehensible. Then there is the daughter. What kind of daughter never once attempts to fight back? And even after everything finally blows up and the whole story hits the news, she still allows her children to visit that very same mother—the woman who supposedly didn't notice anything was going on right under her nose for all those years. It just doesn't add up.

It’s a mistake to suggest he isn't responsible for his own actions—he absolutely is. But, and this is a massive "but," the narrative that one single person in a family is mentally ill while everyone else remains perfectly sane is nothing more than an illusion, especially in cases like this. When you have a mother who spent eighteen years accepting a father's vague, one-sentence excuse about their daughter being snatched up by some cult, and then she simply never asks another question? To me, that points to much deeper, systemic dysfunction within the entire family unit, far beyond the pathology of just one disturbed individual.
Or perhaps the real question is one that no one ever had the guts to ask: "What the hell was actually down in that basement?"

If someone is genuinely unwell, using a caliber becomes a perfectly acceptable solution when they simply can't wrap their head around what they've done.
Stripping someone of their freedom—even if only for a little while—is quite simply the most heinous crime one can commit.
Taking a life is merely one small fragment of the whole story.

Perhaps a person simply lacks the mental capacity to grasp the sheer magnitude of what they’ve inflicted on others. This was actually confirmed when they were committed to a psychiatric facility, which ultimately led to their sentencing. We are dealing with a clinical disorder here. That doesn't mean he isn't a danger to himself or society, nor does it mean he shouldn't be behind bars. But please, take that into account before you rush to pass such rapid-fire judgments and condemnations.

If we actually judged people by the standards you’re proposing, we’d still be living in the Middle Ages. Fortunately, we aren't. I believe our humanity is reflected in how we, as a society, respond to those who have committed atrocities. I prefer to believe we've made progress since the days of public guillotines, which someone else here mentioned. What about you? 😉

Look, I’m not going to get bogged down in debating specific cases of sexual assault 🤷. My point is simply this: evil does not emerge from a non-causal vacuum, despite the common belief. Every phenomenon has causes and specific ways in which it manifests. This idea favored by public opinion—that monsters simply pop into existence out of thin air—is more fairy tale than reality.
And even if you kill that monster, imprison him, or lock him away, a new one will inevitably take his place, just as human history consistently demonstrates. That is why it is absolutely necessary to understand what is truly happening here.

electrictiger70 said:Just read what I wrote again before you quote me, okay?☕ I never once suggested that there should be apologies issued for his crimes, nor did I claim he shouldn't be held accountable. Nor did I suggest that what he did wasn't monstrous. Furthermore, I have never once stated that he is a victim.

I only meant to point out that things aren't always black and white. Directing all this public fury toward him—when the public itself actually failed in its duty—is just a way of trivializing the entire situation. There are far too many complex factors at play here to simply sweep them under the rug with the simplistic logic of "he’s just a twisted pervert" or "someone should kill him." Sure, you could take that route, but eventually, the truth will resurface in the form of yet another case involving someone keeping a victim locked in a basement. 🤷 This is precisely why I refuse to participate in such trivialization. It sounds counterintuitive, I know, but evil rarely manifests as some singular, deranged psychopath—at least, not in the way the public desperately wants us to believe. In reality, tragedy almost always emerges from a complex web of circumstances. My interest lies in dissecting that specific chain of events, rather than indulging in this collective social urge to crucify a victim just so everyone else can feel a little less guilty about what happened.

What do you all think? Why is everyone in such a frantic rush to throw accusations around? I suspect it’s because someone might actually be forced to confront a terrifying question about the society we live in—a reality where a person could be kept captive in a basement for eighteen years without a single neighbor or any other social institution ever noticing. 🤷 ?
What about all those other factors being served up to the public? They get glossed over entirely. First off, what kind of mother fails to realize what is actually happening for eighteen years? It’s incomprehensible. Then there is the daughter. What kind of daughter never once attempts to fight back? And even after everything finally blows up and the whole story hits the news, she still allows her children to visit that very same mother—the woman who supposedly didn't notice anything was going on right under her nose for all those years. It just doesn't add up.

It’s a mistake to suggest he isn't responsible for his own actions—he absolutely is. But, and this is a massive "but," the narrative that one single person in a family is mentally ill while everyone else remains perfectly sane is nothing more than an illusion, especially in cases like this. When you have a mother who spent eighteen years accepting a father's vague, one-sentence excuse about their daughter being snatched up by some cult, and then she simply never asks another question? To me, that points to much deeper, systemic dysfunction within the entire family unit, far beyond the pathology of just one disturbed individual.
Or perhaps the real question is one that no one ever had the guts to ask: "What the hell was actually down in that basement?"

If someone is genuinely unwell, using a caliber becomes a perfectly acceptable solution when they simply can't wrap their head around what they've done.
Stripping someone of their freedom—even if only for a little while—is quite simply the most heinous crime one can commit.
Taking a life is merely one small fragment of the whole story.

Perhaps a person simply lacks the mental capacity to grasp the sheer magnitude of what they’ve inflicted on others. This was actually confirmed when they were committed to a psychiatric facility, which ultimately led to their sentencing. We are dealing with a clinical disorder here. That doesn't mean he isn't a danger to himself or society, nor does it mean he shouldn't be behind bars. But please, take that into account before you rush to pass such rapid-fire judgments and condemnations.

If we actually judged people by the standards you’re proposing, we’d still be living in the Middle Ages. Fortunately, we aren't. I believe our humanity is reflected in how we, as a society, respond to those who have committed atrocities. I prefer to believe we've made progress since the days of public guillotines, which someone else here mentioned. What about you? 😉

Look, I’m not going to get bogged down in debating specific cases of sexual assault 🤷. My point is simply this: evil does not emerge from a non-causal vacuum, despite the common belief. Every phenomenon has causes and specific ways in which it manifests. This idea favored by public opinion—that monsters simply pop into existence out of thin air—is more fairy tale than reality.
And even if you kill that monster, imprison him, or lock him away, a new one will inevitably take his place, just as human history consistently demonstrates. That is why it is absolutely necessary to understand what is truly happening here.

electrictiger70 said:Just read what I wrote again before you quote me, okay?☕ I never once suggested that there should be apologies issued for his crimes, nor did I claim he shouldn't be held accountable. Nor did I suggest that what he did wasn't monstrous. Furthermore, I have never once stated that he is a victim.

I only meant to point out that things aren't always black and white. Directing all this public fury toward him—when the public itself actually failed in its duty—is just a way of trivializing the entire situation. There are far too many complex factors at play here to simply sweep them under the rug with the simplistic logic of "he’s just a twisted pervert" or "someone should kill him." Sure, you could take that route, but eventually, the truth will resurface in the form of yet another case involving someone keeping a victim locked in a basement. 🤷 This is precisely why I refuse to participate in such trivialization. It sounds counterintuitive, I know, but evil rarely manifests as some singular, deranged psychopath—at least, not in the way the public desperately wants us to believe. In reality, tragedy almost always emerges from a complex web of circumstances. My interest lies in dissecting that specific chain of events, rather than indulging in this collective social urge to crucify a victim just so everyone else can feel a little less guilty about what happened.

What do you all think? Why is everyone in such a frantic rush to throw accusations around? I suspect it’s because someone might actually be forced to confront a terrifying question about the society we live in—a reality where a person could be kept captive in a basement for eighteen years without a single neighbor or any other social institution ever noticing. 🤷 ?
What about all those other factors being served up to the public? They get glossed over entirely. First off, what kind of mother fails to realize what is actually happening for eighteen years? It’s incomprehensible. Then there is the daughter. What kind of daughter never once attempts to fight back? And even after everything finally blows up and the whole story hits the news, she still allows her children to visit that very same mother—the woman who supposedly didn't notice anything was going on right under her nose for all those years. It just doesn't add up.

It’s a mistake to suggest he isn't responsible for his own actions—he absolutely is. But, and this is a massive "but," the narrative that one single person in a family is mentally ill while everyone else remains perfectly sane is nothing more than an illusion, especially in cases like this. When you have a mother who spent eighteen years accepting a father's vague, one-sentence excuse about their daughter being snatched up by some cult, and then she simply never asks another question? To me, that points to much deeper, systemic dysfunction within the entire family unit, far beyond the pathology of just one disturbed individual.
Or perhaps the real question is one that no one ever had the guts to ask: "What the hell was actually down in that basement?"

If someone is genuinely unwell, using a caliber becomes a perfectly acceptable solution when they simply can't wrap their head around what they've done.
Stripping someone of their freedom—even if only for a little while—is quite simply the most heinous crime one can commit.
Taking a life is merely one small fragment of the whole story.

Perhaps a person simply lacks the mental capacity to grasp the sheer magnitude of what they’ve inflicted on others. This was actually confirmed when they were committed to a psychiatric facility, which ultimately led to their sentencing. We are dealing with a clinical disorder here. That doesn't mean he isn't a danger to himself or society, nor does it mean he shouldn't be behind bars. But please, take that into account before you rush to pass such rapid-fire judgments and condemnations.

If we actually judged people by the standards you’re proposing, we’d still be living in the Middle Ages. Fortunately, we aren't. I believe our humanity is reflected in how we, as a society, respond to those who have committed atrocities. I prefer to believe we've made progress since the days of public guillotines, which someone else here mentioned. What about you? 😉

Look, I’m not going to get bogged down in debating specific cases of sexual assault 🤷. My point is simply this: evil does not emerge from a non-causal vacuum, despite the common belief. Every phenomenon has causes and specific ways in which it manifests. This idea favored by public opinion—that monsters simply pop into existence out of thin air—is more fairy tale than reality.
And even if you kill that monster, imprison him, or lock him away, a new one will inevitably take his place, just as human history consistently demonstrates. That is why it is absolutely necessary to understand what is truly happening here.

electrictiger70 said:Just read what I wrote again before you quote me, okay?☕ I never once suggested that there should be apologies issued for his crimes, nor did I claim he shouldn't be held accountable. Nor did I suggest that what he did wasn't monstrous. Furthermore, I have never once stated that he is a victim.

I only meant to point out that things aren't always black and white. Directing all this public fury toward him—when the public itself actually failed in its duty—is just a way of trivializing the entire situation. There are far too many complex factors at play here to simply sweep them under the rug with the simplistic logic of "he’s just a twisted pervert" or "someone should kill him." Sure, you could take that route, but eventually, the truth will resurface in the form of yet another case involving someone keeping a victim locked in a basement. 🤷 This is precisely why I refuse to participate in such trivialization. It sounds counterintuitive, I know, but evil rarely manifests as some singular, deranged psychopath—at least, not in the way the public desperately wants us to believe. In reality, tragedy almost always emerges from a complex web of circumstances. My interest lies in dissecting that specific chain of events, rather than indulging in this collective social urge to crucify a victim just so everyone else can feel a little less guilty about what happened.

What do you all think? Why is everyone in such a frantic rush to throw accusations around? I suspect it’s because someone might actually be forced to confront a terrifying question about the society we live in—a reality where a person could be kept captive in a basement for eighteen years without a single neighbor or any other social institution ever noticing. 🤷 ?
What about all those other factors being served up to the public? They get glossed over entirely. First off, what kind of mother fails to realize what is actually happening for eighteen years? It’s incomprehensible. Then there is the daughter. What kind of daughter never once attempts to fight back? And even after everything finally blows up and the whole story hits the news, she still allows her children to visit that very same mother—the woman who supposedly didn't notice anything was going on right under her nose for all those years. It just doesn't add up.

It’s a mistake to suggest he isn't responsible for his own actions—he absolutely is. But, and this is a massive "but," the narrative that one single person in a family is mentally ill while everyone else remains perfectly sane is nothing more than an illusion, especially in cases like this. When you have a mother who spent eighteen years accepting a father's vague, one-sentence excuse about their daughter being snatched up by some cult, and then she simply never asks another question? To me, that points to much deeper, systemic dysfunction within the entire family unit, far beyond the pathology of just one disturbed individual.
Or perhaps the real question is one that no one ever had the guts to ask: "What the hell was actually down in that basement?"

If someone is genuinely unwell, using a caliber becomes a perfectly acceptable solution when they simply can't wrap their head around what they've done.
Stripping someone of their freedom—even if only for a little while—is quite simply the most heinous crime one can commit.
Taking a life is merely one small fragment of the whole story.

Perhaps a person simply lacks the mental capacity to grasp the sheer magnitude of what they’ve inflicted on others. This was actually confirmed when they were committed to a psychiatric facility, which ultimately led to their sentencing. We are dealing with a clinical disorder here. That doesn't mean he isn't a danger to himself or society, nor does it mean he shouldn't be behind bars. But please, take that into account before you rush to pass such rapid-fire judgments and condemnations.

If we actually judged people by the standards you’re proposing, we’d still be living in the Middle Ages. Fortunately, we aren't. I believe our humanity is reflected in how we, as a society, respond to those who have committed atrocities. I prefer to believe we've made progress since the days of public guillotines, which someone else here mentioned. What about you? 😉

Look, I’m not going to get bogged down in debating specific cases of sexual assault 🤷. My point is simply this: evil does not emerge from a non-causal vacuum, despite the common belief. Every phenomenon has causes and specific ways in which it manifests. This idea favored by public opinion—that monsters simply pop into existence out of thin air—is more fairy tale than reality.
And even if you kill that monster, imprison him, or lock him away, a new one will inevitably take his place, just as human history consistently demonstrates. That is why it is absolutely necessary to understand what is truly happening here.

electrictiger70 said:Just read what I wrote again before you quote me, okay?☕ I never once suggested that there should be apologies issued for his crimes, nor did I claim he shouldn't be held accountable. Nor did I suggest that what he did wasn't monstrous. Furthermore, I have never once stated that he is a victim.

I only meant to point out that things aren't always black and white. Directing all this public fury toward him—when the public itself actually failed in its duty—is just a way of trivializing the entire situation. There are far too many complex factors at play here to simply sweep them under the rug with the simplistic logic of "he’s just a twisted pervert" or "someone should kill him." Sure, you could take that route, but eventually, the truth will resurface in the form of yet another case involving someone keeping a victim locked in a basement. 🤷 This is precisely why I refuse to participate in such trivialization. It sounds counterintuitive, I know, but evil rarely manifests as some singular, deranged psychopath—at least, not in the way the public desperately wants us to believe. In reality, tragedy almost always emerges from a complex web of circumstances. My interest lies in dissecting that specific chain of events, rather than indulging in this collective social urge to crucify a victim just so everyone else can feel a little less guilty about what happened.

What do you all think? Why is everyone in such a frantic rush to throw accusations around? I suspect it’s because someone might actually be forced to confront a terrifying question about the society we live in—a reality where a person could be kept captive in a basement for eighteen years without a single neighbor or any other social institution ever noticing. 🤷 ?
What about all those other factors being served up to the public? They get glossed over entirely. First off, what kind of mother fails to realize what is actually happening for eighteen years? It’s incomprehensible. Then there is the daughter. What kind of daughter never once attempts to fight back? And even after everything finally blows up and the whole story hits the news, she still allows her children to visit that very same mother—the woman who supposedly didn't notice anything was going on right under her nose for all those years. It just doesn't add up.

It’s a mistake to suggest he isn't responsible for his own actions—he absolutely is. But, and this is a massive "but," the narrative that one single person in a family is mentally ill while everyone else remains perfectly sane is nothing more than an illusion, especially in cases like this. When you have a mother who spent eighteen years accepting a father's vague, one-sentence excuse about their daughter being snatched up by some cult, and then she simply never asks another question? To me, that points to much deeper, systemic dysfunction within the entire family unit, far beyond the pathology of just one disturbed individual.
Or perhaps the real question is one that no one ever had the guts to ask: "What the hell was actually down in that basement?"

If someone is genuinely unwell, using a caliber becomes a perfectly acceptable solution when they simply can't wrap their head around what they've done.
Stripping someone of their freedom—even if only for a little while—is quite simply the most heinous crime one can commit.
Taking a life is merely one small fragment of the whole story.

Perhaps a person simply lacks the mental capacity to grasp the sheer magnitude of what they’ve inflicted on others. This was actually confirmed when they were committed to a psychiatric facility, which ultimately led to their sentencing. We are dealing with a clinical disorder here. That doesn't mean he isn't a danger to himself or society, nor does it mean he shouldn't be behind bars. But please, take that into account before you rush to pass such rapid-fire judgments and condemnations.

If we actually judged people by the standards you’re proposing, we’d still be living in the Middle Ages. Fortunately, we aren't. I believe our humanity is reflected in how we, as a society, respond to those who have committed atrocities. I prefer to believe we've made progress since the days of public guillotines, which someone else here mentioned. What about you? 😉

Look, I’m not going to get bogged down in debating specific cases of sexual assault 🤷. My point is simply this: evil does not emerge from a non-causal vacuum, despite the common belief. Every phenomenon has causes and specific ways in which it manifests. This idea favored by public opinion—that monsters simply pop into existence out of thin air—is more fairy tale than reality.
And even if you kill that monster, imprison him, or lock him away, a new one will inevitably take his place, just as human history consistently demonstrates. That is why it is absolutely necessary to understand what is truly happening here.

electrictiger70 said:Just read what I wrote again before you quote me, okay?☕ I never once suggested that there should be apologies issued for his crimes, nor did I claim he shouldn't be held accountable. Nor did I suggest that what he did wasn't monstrous. Furthermore, I have never once stated that he is a victim.

I only meant to point out that things aren't always black and white. Directing all this public fury toward him—when the public itself actually failed in its duty—is just a way of trivializing the entire situation. There are far too many complex factors at play here to simply sweep them under the rug with the simplistic logic of "he’s just a twisted pervert" or "someone should kill him." Sure, you could take that route, but eventually, the truth will resurface in the form of yet another case involving someone keeping a victim locked in a basement. 🤷 This is precisely why I refuse to participate in such trivialization. It sounds counterintuitive, I know, but evil rarely manifests as some singular, deranged psychopath—at least, not in the way the public desperately wants us to believe. In reality, tragedy almost always emerges from a complex web of circumstances. My interest lies in dissecting that specific chain of events, rather than indulging in this collective social urge to crucify a victim just so everyone else can feel a little less guilty about what happened.

What do you all think? Why is everyone in such a frantic rush to throw accusations around? I suspect it’s because someone might actually be forced to confront a terrifying question about the society we live in—a reality where a person could be kept captive in a basement for eighteen years without a single neighbor or any other social institution ever noticing. 🤷 ?
What about all those other factors being served up to the public? They get glossed over entirely. First off, what kind of mother fails to realize what is actually happening for eighteen years? It’s incomprehensible. Then there is the daughter. What kind of daughter never once attempts to fight back? And even after everything finally blows up and the whole story hits the news, she still allows her children to visit that very same mother—the woman who supposedly didn't notice anything was going on right under her nose for all those years. It just doesn't add up.

It’s a mistake to suggest he isn't responsible for his own actions—he absolutely is. But, and this is a massive "but," the narrative that one single person in a family is mentally ill while everyone else remains perfectly sane is nothing more than an illusion, especially in cases like this. When you have a mother who spent eighteen years accepting a father's vague, one-sentence excuse about their daughter being snatched up by some cult, and then she simply never asks another question? To me, that points to much deeper, systemic dysfunction within the entire family unit, far beyond the pathology of just one disturbed individual.
Or perhaps the real question is one that no one ever had the guts to ask: "What the hell was actually down in that basement?"

If someone is genuinely unwell, using a caliber becomes a perfectly acceptable solution when they simply can't wrap their head around what they've done.
Stripping someone of their freedom—even if only for a little while—is quite simply the most heinous crime one can commit.
Taking a life is merely one small fragment of the whole story.

Perhaps a person simply lacks the mental capacity to grasp the sheer magnitude of what they’ve inflicted on others. This was actually confirmed when they were committed to a psychiatric facility, which ultimately led to their sentencing. We are dealing with a clinical disorder here. That doesn't mean he isn't a danger to himself or society, nor does it mean he shouldn't be behind bars. But please, take that into account before you rush to pass such rapid-fire judgments and condemnations.

If we actually judged people by the standards you’re proposing, we’d still be living in the Middle Ages. Fortunately, we aren't. I believe our humanity is reflected in how we, as a society, respond to those who have committed atrocities. I prefer to believe we've made progress since the days of public guillotines, which someone else here mentioned. What about you? 😉

Look, I’m not going to get bogged down in debating specific cases of sexual assault 🤷. My point is simply this: evil does not emerge from a non-causal vacuum, despite the common belief. Every phenomenon has causes and specific ways in which it manifests. This idea favored by public opinion—that monsters simply pop into existence out of thin air—is more fairy tale than reality.
And even if you kill that monster, imprison him, or lock him away, a new one will inevitably take his place, just as human history consistently demonstrates. That is why it is absolutely necessary to understand what is truly happening here.

electrictiger70 said:Just read what I wrote again before you quote me, okay?☕ I never once suggested that there should be apologies issued for his crimes, nor did I claim he shouldn't be held accountable. Nor did I suggest that what he did wasn't monstrous. Furthermore, I have never once stated that he is a victim.

I only meant to point out that things aren't always black and white. Directing all this public fury toward him—when the public itself actually failed in its duty—is just a way of trivializing the entire situation. There are far too many complex factors at play here to simply sweep them under the rug with the simplistic logic of "he’s just a twisted pervert" or "someone should kill him." Sure, you could take that route, but eventually, the truth will resurface in the form of yet another case involving someone keeping a victim locked in a basement. 🤷 This is precisely why I refuse to participate in such trivialization. It sounds counterintuitive, I know, but evil rarely manifests as some singular, deranged psychopath—at least, not in the way the public desperately wants us to believe. In reality, tragedy almost always emerges from a complex web of circumstances. My interest lies in dissecting that specific chain of events, rather than indulging in this collective social urge to crucify a victim just so everyone else can feel a little less guilty about what happened.

What do you all think? Why is everyone in such a frantic rush to throw accusations around? I suspect it’s because someone might actually be forced to confront a terrifying question about the society we live in—a reality where a person could be kept captive in a basement for eighteen years without a single neighbor or any other social institution ever noticing. 🤷 ?
What about all those other factors being served up to the public? They get glossed over entirely. First off, what kind of mother fails to realize what is actually happening for eighteen years? It’s incomprehensible. Then there is the daughter. What kind of daughter never once attempts to fight back? And even after everything finally blows up and the whole story hits the news, she still allows her children to visit that very same mother—the woman who supposedly didn't notice anything was going on right under her nose for all those years. It just doesn't add up.

It’s a mistake to suggest he isn't responsible for his own actions—he absolutely is. But, and this is a massive "but," the narrative that one single person in a family is mentally ill while everyone else remains perfectly sane is nothing more than an illusion, especially in cases like this. When you have a mother who spent eighteen years accepting a father's vague, one-sentence excuse about their daughter being snatched up by some cult, and then she simply never asks another question? To me, that points to much deeper, systemic dysfunction within the entire family unit, far beyond the pathology of just one disturbed individual.
Or perhaps the real question is one that no one ever had the guts to ask: "What the hell was actually down in that basement?"

If someone is genuinely unwell, using a caliber becomes a perfectly acceptable solution when they simply can't wrap their head around what they've done.
Stripping someone of their freedom—even if only for a little while—is quite simply the most heinous crime one can commit.
Taking a life is merely one small fragment of the whole story.

Perhaps a person simply lacks the mental capacity to grasp the sheer magnitude of what they’ve inflicted on others. This was actually confirmed when they were committed to a psychiatric facility, which ultimately led to their sentencing. We are dealing with a clinical disorder here. That doesn't mean he isn't a danger to himself or society, nor does it mean he shouldn't be behind bars. But please, take that into account before you rush to pass such rapid-fire judgments and condemnations.

If we actually judged people by the standards you’re proposing, we’d still be living in the Middle Ages. Fortunately, we aren't. I believe our humanity is reflected in how we, as a society, respond to those who have committed atrocities. I prefer to believe we've made progress since the days of public guillotines, which someone else here mentioned. What about you? 😉

Look, I’m not going to get bogged down in debating specific cases of sexual assault 🤷. My point is simply this: evil does not emerge from a non-causal vacuum, despite the common belief. Every phenomenon has causes and specific ways in which it manifests. This idea favored by public opinion—that monsters simply pop into existence out of thin air—is more fairy tale than reality.
And even if you kill that monster, imprison him, or lock him away, a new one will inevitably take his place, just as human history consistently demonstrates. That is why it is absolutely necessary to understand what is truly happening here.

electrictiger70 said:Just read what I wrote again before you quote me, okay?☕ I never once suggested that there should be apologies issued for his crimes, nor did I claim he shouldn't be held accountable. Nor did I suggest that what he did wasn't monstrous. Furthermore, I have never once stated that he is a victim.

I only meant to point out that things aren't always black and white. Directing all this public fury toward him—when the public itself actually failed in its duty—is just a way of trivializing the entire situation. There are far too many complex factors at play here to simply sweep them under the rug with the simplistic logic of "he’s just a twisted pervert" or "someone should kill him." Sure, you could take that route, but eventually, the truth will resurface in the form of yet another case involving someone keeping a victim locked in a basement. 🤷 This is precisely why I refuse to participate in such trivialization. It sounds counterintuitive, I know, but evil rarely manifests as some singular, deranged psychopath—at least, not in the way the public desperately wants us to believe. In reality, tragedy almost always emerges from a complex web of circumstances. My interest lies in dissecting that specific chain of events, rather than indulging in this collective social urge to crucify a victim just so everyone else can feel a little less guilty about what happened.

What do you all think? Why is everyone in such a frantic rush to throw accusations around? I suspect it’s because someone might actually be forced to confront a terrifying question about the society we live in—a reality where a person could be kept captive in a basement for eighteen years without a single neighbor or any other social institution ever noticing. 🤷 ?
What about all those other factors being served up to the public? They get glossed over entirely. First off, what kind of mother fails to realize what is actually happening for eighteen years? It’s incomprehensible. Then there is the daughter. What kind of daughter never once attempts to fight back? And even after everything finally blows up and the whole story hits the news, she still allows her children to visit that very same mother—the woman who supposedly didn't notice anything was going on right under her nose for all those years. It just doesn't add up.

It’s a mistake to suggest he isn't responsible for his own actions—he absolutely is. But, and this is a massive "but," the narrative that one single person in a family is mentally ill while everyone else remains perfectly sane is nothing more than an illusion, especially in cases like this. When you have a mother who spent eighteen years accepting a father's vague, one-sentence excuse about their daughter being snatched up by some cult, and then she simply never asks another question? To me, that points to much deeper, systemic dysfunction within the entire family unit, far beyond the pathology of just one disturbed individual.
Or perhaps the real question is one that no one ever had the guts to ask: "What the hell was actually down in that basement?"

If someone is genuinely unwell, using a caliber becomes a perfectly acceptable solution when they simply can't wrap their head around what they've done.
Stripping someone of their freedom—even if only for a little while—is quite simply the most heinous crime one can commit.
Taking a life is merely one small fragment of the whole story.

Perhaps a person simply lacks the mental capacity to grasp the sheer magnitude of what they’ve inflicted on others. This was actually confirmed when they were committed to a psychiatric facility, which ultimately led to their sentencing. We are dealing with a clinical disorder here. That doesn't mean he isn't a danger to himself or society, nor does it mean he shouldn't be behind bars. But please, take that into account before you rush to pass such rapid-fire judgments and condemnations.

If we actually judged people by the standards you’re proposing, we’d still be living in the Middle Ages. Fortunately, we aren't. I believe our humanity is reflected in how we, as a society, respond to those who have committed atrocities. I prefer to believe we've made progress since the days of public guillotines, which someone else here mentioned. What about you? 😉

Look, I’m not going to get bogged down in debating specific cases of sexual assault 🤷. My point is simply this: evil does not emerge from a non-causal vacuum, despite the common belief. Every phenomenon has causes and specific ways in which it manifests. This idea favored by public opinion—that monsters simply pop into existence out of thin air—is more fairy tale than reality.
And even if you kill that monster, imprison him, or lock him away, a new one will inevitably take his place, just as human history consistently demonstrates. That is why it is absolutely necessary to understand what is truly happening here.

electrictiger70 said:Just read what I wrote again before you quote me, okay?☕ I never once suggested that there should be apologies issued for his crimes, nor did I claim he shouldn't be held accountable. Nor did I suggest that what he did wasn't monstrous. Furthermore, I have never once stated that he is a victim.

I only meant to point out that things aren't always black and white. Directing all this public fury toward him—when the public itself actually failed in its duty—is just a way of trivializing the entire situation. There are far too many complex factors at play here to simply sweep them under the rug with the simplistic logic of "he’s just a twisted pervert" or "someone should kill him." Sure, you could take that route, but eventually, the truth will resurface in the form of yet another case involving someone keeping a victim locked in a basement. 🤷 This is precisely why I refuse to participate in such trivialization. It sounds counterintuitive, I know, but evil rarely manifests as some singular, deranged psychopath—at least, not in the way the public desperately wants us to believe. In reality, tragedy almost always emerges from a complex web of circumstances. My interest lies in dissecting that specific chain of events, rather than indulging in this collective social urge to crucify a victim just so everyone else can feel a little less guilty about what happened.

What do you all think? Why is everyone in such a frantic rush to throw accusations around? I suspect it’s because someone might actually be forced to confront a terrifying question about the society we live in—a reality where a person could be kept captive in a basement for eighteen years without a single neighbor or any other social institution ever noticing. 🤷 ?
What about all those other factors being served up to the public? They get glossed over entirely. First off, what kind of mother fails to realize what is actually happening for eighteen years? It’s incomprehensible. Then there is the daughter. What kind of daughter never once attempts to fight back? And even after everything finally blows up and the whole story hits the news, she still allows her children to visit that very same mother—the woman who supposedly didn't notice anything was going on right under her nose for all those years. It just doesn't add up.

It’s a mistake to suggest he isn't responsible for his own actions—he absolutely is. But, and this is a massive "but," the narrative that one single person in a family is mentally ill while everyone else remains perfectly sane is nothing more than an illusion, especially in cases like this. When you have a mother who spent eighteen years accepting a father's vague, one-sentence excuse about their daughter being snatched up by some cult, and then she simply never asks another question? To me, that points to much deeper, systemic dysfunction within the entire family unit, far beyond the pathology of just one disturbed individual.
Or perhaps the real question is one that no one ever had the guts to ask: "What the hell was actually down in that basement?"

If someone is genuinely unwell, using a caliber becomes a perfectly acceptable solution when they simply can't wrap their head around what they've done.
Stripping someone of their freedom—even if only for a little while—is quite simply the most heinous crime one can commit.
Taking a life is merely one small fragment of the whole story.

Perhaps a person simply lacks the mental capacity to grasp the sheer magnitude of what they’ve inflicted on others. This was actually confirmed when they were committed to a psychiatric facility, which ultimately led to their sentencing. We are dealing with a clinical disorder here. That doesn't mean he isn't a danger to himself or society, nor does it mean he shouldn't be behind bars. But please, take that into account before you rush to pass such rapid-fire judgments and condemnations.

If we actually judged people by the standards you’re proposing, we’d still be living in the Middle Ages. Fortunately, we aren't. I believe our humanity is reflected in how we, as a society, respond to those who have committed atrocities. I prefer to believe we've made progress since the days of public guillotines, which someone else here mentioned. What about you? 😉

Look, I’m not going to get bogged down in debating specific cases of sexual assault 🤷. My point is simply this: evil does not emerge from a non-causal vacuum, despite the common belief. Every phenomenon has causes and specific ways in which it manifests. This idea favored by public opinion—that monsters simply pop into existence out of thin air—is more fairy tale than reality.
And even if you kill that monster, imprison him, or lock him away, a new one will inevitably take his place, just as human history consistently demonstrates. That is why it is absolutely necessary to understand what is truly happening here.