i'm not necessarily disagreeing, but i'd also like to point out that psychopaths and sociopaths are more common than you think. by definition they're people who don't know how to empathize, and over the years i'm getting the sense that most people actually don't know how to empathize--they just pretend to get it when they don't. (see this tongue-in-cheek article on empathy deficit disorder.) i wouldn't know if we do have more psychopaths and sociopaths today because we're becoming more self-centered and narcissistic or it's just the wistful old folks making out the good ol' days to be better than they actually were, but that doesn't negate the fact that they're everywhere. anyway, much in the same way i wouldn't expect someone without a uterus to comment on women-related issues, i wouldn't expect someone who hasn't had their loved ones taken away so brutally from them to comment on how unfair/useless death penalty is even or how to deal with this sort of situation. i'd be okay arguing about abortion or prostitution with a fellow woman who disagrees with everything i say, but every time a man decides to chime in, for some reason i always feel this weird need to punch him in the face. i put so much more values on the lives of people who have never harmed anyone else than on people who have harmed other people. a person may be a bigot and a completely irritating pest who's stealing from people already in poverty, but as long as he hasn't directly caused the death of another person ("directly" being a rather subjective word) i'd respect his right to live. i may secretly wish his mother had aborted him, but i probably wouldn't want him dead that badly to rejoice over his actual death. the minute he decides to harm another human being, though, he loses the right to be treated as a human being. this caveat works because most of us were raised in a society where killing/torturing/raping has been established as wrong. the point of society is to protect people and keep them from exercising their "primal urges," and as long as people stay in that society they implicitly agree to adhere to its rules or suffer the consequences. if someone hurts another person unknowingly or only accidentally then fine--he gets a second chance. if someone hurts another person knowingly or intentionally, though, does he really? if someone knows he'll get in trouble for doing something and does it anyway, what does that mean? does he just have poor self-control? does he think he'll get away with it? or is he so confident of his people skills that he figures, "eh, i'll just pull at some heartstrings and escape worst-case scenario"? further, i'm puzzled by the insistence that some people on this thread have that we should be "human" and "moral"--especially since most of them are self-professed atheists. the idea that humans are superior to the rest animals is very biblical, as well as the idea that some behaviors are superior to others. i can understand when a christian feels the need to feel special and argues for "morality," but when an atheist does that it can usually be traced down to an ugly reason stemming from nothing but a superiority complex.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moral Morals are not exclusive to Christianity, or religion. It would be a miserable state of affairs if they were.
even hard science has had some changes since the the early 21st century. does the fact that it was a popular theorem so long ago say something to you?
part of the reason i was drawn to him was because he looks like me and because his background reminds me of my own. i did feel sorry for some of the things that happened in his past and i couldn't help thinking if x, y, or z happened or not happened things might've been a lot different for him. at the same time, while his past can be used to explain why he did the things he did, it doesn't excuse them. i also feel my sympathy should be reserved for the victims, and in the bigger scheme of things, although this may be akin to comparing apples to oranges, what he did was worse than what had happened to him and he deserved to be punished. i've thought about meeting him, but for the same reason i feel disgusted about touching anything he's touched, i don't know if i would even want to shake his hand. i remember reading about albert fish and how he feel "excited" just by looking at the thumb of one of his victims, and i imagine what i feel is the exact opposite of that. (and everyone else who hasn't gotten way off topic: thanks for your response!)
Dandroid... It's not often that two words will suffice to accurately summarise a few hundred, but this time it really does work!
So, only christians, in your view are moral? Presumably other religions aren't. How discriminatory, how niaive, how out of touch with reality, how insulting. Nothin more to add.
I don't even want to address the rest of your reply, because others have said all I'd like to say much more succintly, but I do feel the need to correct this. Even the most cursory search will point you to the Hare Psychopathy Checklist -Revised as the primary tool for diagnosing psychopathy, and Hare's own studies show that the population doesn't exceed 1% of the population. Sociopathy, which is more problematic to define, covering a range of disorders and conditions and not necessarily underpinned by hard biology and not necessarily resulting in criminal tendancies, has a rate no higher than 4% in the USA. So no, these people are not everywhere, nor are they more common than you'd expect.
I'm not sure how you read that. Especially when she said that she understands when Christians feel the need to "feel special," a statement which I took to be patronizing and sad.
To be honest, I don't think that it deserves or warrants further comment. Maybe reading it again, she'll realise exactly what she said. But I doubt it.
It would appear then that I didn't misinterpret you. I take back my apology and stand by what I said originally. I don't know if you're aware of how ignorant it is to think the way you do about sexuality? I thought since you are at college/university, you would understand the value of empirical evidence and maybe recognise that such evidence may qualify as a persuasive counterargument to your entirely subjective opinions about things. You are incredibly convinced of your righteousness in an almost evangelical way, which I find rather odd considering at university people debate differing positions with the use of studies and research. My tutors and professors questioned every opinion of a student with "what evidence is supporting your opinion?" If I heard it once, I heard it a thousand times. A measured, academic, opinion of crime and punishment would be: "I am persuaded by position B because I have weighed up the evidence and there appears to be no solid evidence that X reduces reoffending" You say "Well that's a lot of crap because I say so" There can obviously be problems in methodology that can call into question the integrity of a study. However, in 'academic circles' there can be broad consensus based on these studies if they stand up to scrutiny, which is what I meant by my previous post and inclusion of the study. I don't have access to the original articles I read at university that refute the implication that revenge is psychologically 'rewarding' for people. I thought the one I found online was at least persuasive enough to query those here that think revenge is certainly a good thing for victims. You dismiss things out of hand because they don't match up with your world view. To learn effectively, especially in humanities, you need to at least be open to new ideas. University really opened my eyes and ultimately reading about these issues in depth transformed my views which were, I hate to say it, slightly populist and not based on anything other than my uninformed opinion. As for contacting the serial killer, I think lay people doing so is ghoulish and probably motivated by macabre curiosity. If I was a clinical psychologist involved in treating people who may be affected by similar mental illnesses, I might consider it but only then.
Yeah, it proves that it has basis in reality and it's not afraid to correct itself. What have you read that has even suggested that is the common view? Please remember I enjoy reading scientific texts, so you now have to back up what you are saying with actual evidence. No they don’t. Christian morals is based off the morals of the Hebrews; if you don’t know this, you don’t know anything. And religious morality has always been questionable to me. I was being sarcastic. You are absolutely right, some things just don't need any farther comment.
I'm just gonna go ahead and respond to the original post. I read the first few pages, but of course keep in mind that I've not read all 120-something posts. Besides, judging from the last two pages, things have gotten way off topic anyway. Some people might enjoy arguing until their point gets across (which is unlikely to happen on the interweb...) --and to be fair, I know some people like to debate just for the sake of it. But omg, I sure don't. Would I write to a serial killer in prison? ...No. Why waste your time? At best you find out that the dude behind bars has repented and reformed, and congratulations! You are rewarded by having the opportunity to mourn your new pen pal's imminent death. At worst the guy is a wackjob and his response plants images in your mind that you can never wash away. And the likely result is probably neither bad nor good --you probably wouldn't get a response. Your time has been wasted, and you're really only allowing yourself up for drama to unfold. Don't talk to strangers. Because, frankly, why would a serial killer want to waste his time talking to a stranger anyway? Some people in prisons may have committed violent crimes, but they're not all that different from us in many other ways. Would you respond to a letter from a stranger who wants to know about your psyche? Reading this question you might say, "Yes!" but in reality... you probably wouldn't. (It's kinda like romance novels. So many chicks fall for it and wish a guy in real life would do such sweet things for them. But if it did happen to you in real life, you'd probably be creeped out if someone threw rocks at your window in the middle of the night.) I think people often romanticize the idea that violent criminals are locked up and horribly bored for the majority of the day, and wait for good Samaritans to give them a chance to express their newly reformed outlook on life. When in reality it's absolutely nothing like that... Very few people are in solitary confinement --and the ones who are, aren't going to get your letter anyway. People behind bars have plenty of opportunities to socialize. With their cell-mates and neighbors, with the guards... a lot of prisoners get jobs to buy things like cigarettes and privileges. Some get involved in academia and others will get involved in programs that give back to the community. The ones who don't are the ones who don't want to hear from you anyway. Not only that, but, while everyone has the capability to change, the majority wont. If you are interested in learning about a violent criminal's psychological profile, your best bet would be to major in criminal justice or psychology and do research on the subject. If you think by interacting with some people you might have a positive effect on their lives, then volunteer there. There are a lot of programs that bring people from the outside in. The only time I would ever spend with a violent criminal (especially someone on death row) would be if it were for some greater purpose, like academic research. And I don't have the stomach for it, and I've spent more than enough time with people like that as it is. No thank you!
Only if he did something really horrible and awesome. If he just killed people with guns and didn't even torture them or eat them or anything he's not worth my time.
Good old Forkfoot...still pushing the boundaries of taste, and raising a few smiles at the same time.
Well, it would certainly have proved less expensive over the years, given that I have four kids (who I love very much, of course) bleeding me dry! But, alas, for my sins, I find myself attracted to women.
The best part about it would be that whenever we have a fight with our significant other, instead of staying up late and talking about our emotions and bringing up petty **** from the past and all that feminine nonsense, we could just go out back and duke it out. Sounds better and better the more I think about it.
