Possible serial killer in Germany

Anderson said:

I'll pass, thanks.

Click to expand...

It's rarely a healthy goal, anyway

Well, since I think you're wrong, why would I follow your advice?

Click to expand...

You shouldn't. I wasn't advising you specifically, but simply giving my general idea of what I think is the best way of going about this kind of thing.

I think that's the crux of your objection to the words. You would like to find a language for this that does not have moral overtones. Trouble is, you're dealing with a subject that has a moral dimension. Even timid adjectives like "harmful" are also moral judgments.

Click to expand...

No, I don't think it has a moral dimension. At least, I don't think it should have - as long as we can't be assured that what they're doing is morally wrong (wrong, yes - but I prefer the word harmful to avoid moral implications). That's also because I don't like morals in general - as I think they're inevitably subjective and can never be applied to everyone, and as such should never be.

No, I don't think harmful has a moral judgment at all. It's harmful to society to kill, and it hurts people so very obviously.

There's an assumption that it's not beneficial to kill others, ever - if there's a way to avoid it. There's also an assumption that whatever your own desires, pleasure, or sexual preferences may be - it should never greenlight the killing or seriously hurting of others.

So, naturally, you can disagree with that assumption - but it has nothing to do with what is morally right. It's based on how a society can function - and how we can co-exist both long and short-term.

I'm willing to entertain the notion that serial killers are beneficial, but I don't think this is the place for such a debate - and let's say I have serious doubts about anyone having the least bit of success convincing me of that.

So let's pick anemic language that doesn't even come close?

Click to expand...

I'm using the english language, which are you referring to?

I'm using the word "harmful" precisely because it holds no moral judgment. I do that because I don't think moral judgments are helpful when trying to understand this kind of behaviour, and understanding is what I think is much more important than our own emotional need to judge that which we can't understand.

What makes you think "harmful" is not a judgment? When you post a mini-lecture about what words people ought to or should use (and how they are wrong for using the ones they chose), is that not a judgment? And when you say it "takes more strength" to "not succumb to judgment," are you not making a moral judgment?

Click to expand...

What makes you think it's a lecture anymore than your opinion?

I'm giving my opinion, not telling you what you should do.

If you want to use the word "judgment" as a replacement for speaking my mind, so be it. But I don't think it has anything to do with a moral judgment, which is what I'm having a problem with. So they're two different things.

I use the word "succumb" because I know how easy it is to judge, and how hard it is not to judge - especially as you get nearer the matter at hand. It was a serious challenge, in many ways, not to judge my sister for taking drugs and nearly obliterating our family upon her suicide, leaving 3 children - but I think I managed to understand her - and I will never blame her for that.

That brought me peace, and it has helped me bring peace to my parents. That's the kind of thing that has made me come to this stance of not judging others morally.

Again, I'm not telling you what you should do - I'm telling you what I think is right, based on my experience. It's nothing but an opinion, and if my way of supporting my opinion sounds like a moral judgment - then I can only regret that. I don't pass moral judgments at all - ever.

At least, not consciously.

Korplem said:

I went to Submarine School with the BTK's son. We all knew there was something not quite right with this guy and when the new came out that the BTK was his father we all kind of nodded and said, "That's what it was…"

Click to expand...

BTK?


*Edit* Ah...ok.

News : The caught man says he killed the female teenager because of "sexual motives", and the male teenager "to conceal the deed".

The male teenager was coming to the place where the 26-year old had dragged to and killed the female teenanger, felt disturbed, and dcided to kill the male teenager also, so that he wouldn't be able to tell anyone of it.

Now the police takes over.

Fair enough, Dartagnan. I still think you're mistaken, but I see no value in pursuing the matter. Have a good weekend.

Alrik Fassbauer said:

News : The caught man says he killed the female teenager because of "sexual motives".

Click to expand...

It's pretty disturbing how often sexual violence is involved in these cases, and the level it rises to. The motives are more accurately characterized as power, the desire to dominate, the desire to inflict pain on a helpless victim, the desire to humiliate someone and to get a narcissistic rush for oneself, etc., rather than sexuality per se, though the two become so intermingled in these guys' heads, they can't really be separated. (I say "guys" because it's usually guys…white guys.)

Sam, you said earlier that you don't think serial killers are more prevalent in the US; it's just that ours get "splashed all over the papers" more often. Actually, most serial killers in the US do not get much media attention. It's only the really extreme and disturbing ones, like BTK, who get a lot of press (much to their delight, I assume). I was shocked when I heard how many actual serial killers there are in the US. It's much more common than you'd think (or at least much more common than I thought).

p.s. I looked for the stat on the 'net. I can't get reliable data because no one really knows for sure (since the bulk go undetected), and also because it's the internet — but estimates seem to range from 20 to 50 active serial killers in the US at any given time.

Here's a list of (known) serial killers by country:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_by_country

Seriously this has been happening as long as man has been around and will continue to happen in the future.Some are born without morals to guide them and in the past were praised as the as the best warriors and leaders.Times change and we think we arent capable of committing theses crimes but anyone can.The key is most people can control themselves and the ones who cant we see in the news that make them monsters of our times.Its called being human.

Anderson said:

Fair enough, Dartagnan. I still think you're mistaken, but I see no value in pursuing the matter. Have a good weekend.

Click to expand...

Then you shouldn't

Thanks, and enjoy your weekend as well!

I often have the impression that men are more willing to kill others than women - but the numbers of household violence, so to say, are not only evenly split, but weven with women a tiny bit higher.

At least I read so.

The newest developments are girls who are not afraif of really beating people. They are still a minority, though.

Couchpotato said:

Seriously this has been happening as long as man has been around and will continue to happen in the future.Some are born without morals to guide them and in the past were praised as the as the best warriors and leaders.Times change and we think we arent capable of committing theses crimes but anyone can.The key is most people can control themselves and the ones who cant we see in the news that make them monsters of our times.Its called being human.

Click to expand...

While I agree that psychopaths have probably always been around, the rates of serial murder have risen dramatically in the last 50 years, at least in the US.

I may be misunderstanding, but you seem to be saying that we are no different than serial killers except that we exercise self-control. Study the interior lives of these guys for a few minutes and you'll change your mind (and if you don't, don't invite me over for dinner).

Alrik Fassbauer said:

I often have the impression that men are more willing to kill others than women - but the numbers of household violence, so to say, are not only evenly split, but weven with women a tiny bit higher.

Click to expand...

Men are something like 8 times more likely to murder someone else than women are. They're also more likely to engage in a whole range of aggressive behavior, like abuse, incest, rape, robbery, and playing CoD.

I think you're right about the rates of domestic violence. They seem to be close to even. I would think that a man hitting a woman would produce more physical damage than a woman hitting a man, but otherwise, it's interesting that the rates seem to be about even.

You wouldn't like my cooking.All im saying is every person is capable of committing murder or any other act you can think of.Every person has a dark side we just learn to suppress it and be civilized.Look at human history and you will will see how much we as a species act.We just like to think were not capable.Laws and morals taught to us shape how we interact.

Couchpotato said:

You wouldn't like my cooking.All im saying is every person is capable of committing murder or any other act you can think of.Every person has a dark side we just learn to suppress it and be civilized.Look at human history and you will will see how much we as a species act.We just like to think were not capable. Laws and morals taught to us shape how we interact.

Click to expand...

I agree with you in part. We certainly do all have a dark side. We are all at least hypothetically capable of these acts, especially if exposed to the same circumstances that some of these people were. I don't think it's all about social conditioning, but that's a part of it.

I think there's a big difference, though, between a normal person's "dark side" and the dark side of these guys. I don't know about you, but my dark side does not include fantasies of raping, torturing, and disembowling women, having sex with their corpses, keeping genitals in my refrigerator, strangling them face-to-face so I can relish the terror in their eyes, letting them regain consciousness so I can strangle them over and over, etc. -- and having no remorse afterwards.

We're dealing with a whole 'nother level of "dark side" here. I'm not saying it hasn't existed throughout history -- you're right about that -- but I think there's a qualitative difference between the interior life of these guys and the interior life of you or me (or let's hope so, at any rate).

This "dark side" thing even gets worse if you look at such "oddities" like the Stanford Prison Experiment, and the Milgram Experiment.